Lemuria, Atlantis and plate tectonics theory

oh forgot to say that next pole shift in 2012 say, I'm thinking that most of east Europe and large parts of north and south America will be under the oceans...

expansion-tectonics.

expansion is not valid for there is no room to expand all the plates make a tight fit, sure there is activity but i doubt that north America used to be near south pole and drifted where it is today.

Another thing is Pangea that was supposed to be a unique or whole continent was just what was exposed to dry land back then.

Just the water in oceans shifts...

Nah we split atoms and fizz out with mushrooms on toast lol

I agree with you that plate tectonics is bunk.

I'm a bible believer, I think that Atlantis was lost in the redistribution of land/water in the years after the flood. The bible says the land was divided for some time after the great deluge.

I think the mega ice caps, initially caused by the global flood, eventually melted and swallowed Atlantis up.

I'm like you, that's just my theory, no proof.

i think the big flood was a result of the last pole shift-oceans shift ..again just water moving around

The Earth can be split into 5 basic regions according to the seismic data: core, mantle, oceanic crust, continental crust, and sediment. All these regions are solid except for the outer core. Even though the mantle is solid, it convects. The mantle convection is responsible for the terrestrial phenomena such as plate tectonics and earthquakes. The oceanic crust is renewed at mid-ocean ridges and recycled back into the mantle at subduction zones. So, the typical oceanic crust (~80 million years old) is much younger than the continental crust (~2 billion years old).

I'm not saying there are no tectonics plate there's lots of activity do to plate colliding together, i am more into thinking there never was any continental drift. the whole placement of the crust hasn't moved that much over time not as speculated with the continental drift theory.

The oceans on the others moved trough time exposing different parts of the crust explaining different continent placements.

for those who wake up late

the idea of continential drift, that the continents move at the rate a fingernail grows, and have done so for millions or billions of years is what I think is phooie.

I think pangea was blasted apart by a catastrophic event like the biblical flood.

hydro-plate theory makes more sense to me, even as a stand alone, but it also agrees with the bible.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

You say that there is no "continental drift", which means that the land masses stay the same.

Well, even if there were way for the water to magically be placed over the land, since it sticks up further than the place where the oceans used to be, the water would run right back down into the basins where the oceans were and there would be the oceans again -- in the same place.

Of course, if there were some way (which you don't explain) for the waters to suddenly move onto the land, as they rush back the the basins, there would be tremendous short-term erosional effects such as strip-mining on all sides of the mountains, moraines, deltas at the edge of the sea, and overall scouring of bedrock.

Where is that stuff? I've never seen any of it!

And how does your hypothesis explain better than Lothar Wegener's theory why there are geologically and paleontologically identical strata separated by four or five thousand miles, if not for plate tectonics?

Have you considered Ewing and Heezen's work in the mapping and analysis of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge? Remember, they were the ones who substantiated Wegener's theories? (Although not, of course, the mechanism, that was for the Plate Tectonics people.)