Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth

From: J. Taylor (jota_at_gorge.NOSPAM.net)
Date: 12/25/04 

Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:21:56 -0800

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 05:12:25 GMT, "George"
<george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:

>
>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>news:p7mps0tmc47781dv7nn7ev7buldvrbufko@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:50:36 GMT, "George"
>> <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>news:m3cns05g7pa3e44n7939ks68s3v1rroj98@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:47:18 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
>>>> <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:n9cgs0tckslse5a9j8pcedr01atqmdicap@4ax.com...
>>>>>> Look at this way, for me there is evidence which appears inconsistent
>>>>>> with Earth expansion, then there is evidence which seems to be only
>>>>>> explained by an expanding Earth. Now the options, to remain
>>>>>> resolutely faithful to a beloved theory, or just deny the evidence, or
>>>>>> look for alternate explanations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I agree there is much evidence against EE. There has been some blather here
>>>>>re "Supporting EE" but nothing presented that withstands close scrutiny that
>>>>>will support EE.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have asked several that aparrently support EE to post the basis of their
>>>>>reasoning. As of this time the only response has been blather at best, but
>>>>>mostly natural fertilizer of several varieties IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My ISP has contracted with Supernews and it is possible its retention
>>>> rate is superior to the newsgroup you are using. It is also possible,
>>>> you have neglected to read what is in the archive for your newsgroup,
>>>> but prefer to select isolated post for your comments.
>>>>
>>>> In either case, it does limit you to what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>> If you are looking for fertile ground explore Antarctica, Africa and
>>>> the Lena River area.
>>>>
>>>> JT
>>>
>>>Ralph is right. Several have posted EE arguments for several years in this
>>>newsgroup. And they have been totally ineffectual in their presentation of
>>>the
>>>alleged "evidence" for EE, and have primarily presented withering comments
>>>against plate tectonics and those who are its proponents, rather than actually
>>>presenting valid scientific evidence. You are no exception to this rule.
>>>
>>
>> George, I and everyone on this newgroup know one thing about you and
>> your science, it is what ever is the prevailing view. Discoveries
>> will never come from you.
>
>I'm not going to sit here and wave college degrees in the air with you. Suffice
>it to say that I have published findings in peer-reviewed journals. The only
>thing you've discovered is the art of self-promotion of the web. You obviously
>haven't published anything about Earth Expansion in any peer-reviewed journal,
>and likely haven't published naythjing else in a peer-reviewed journal.

To bad none of this requires actually having to know something. You
can tell me all about your credentials, then you post, revealing how
you think and providing the only relevant evidence.

>By the
>way, my Paleontology professor studied for a time under Carey (your theory's
>messiah, if I'm not mistaken). My professor says that Carey was a "southern
>semisphere plate tectonic visionary" (J.E. Conkin, 2002). So my question to you
>is where all these EErs got the idea that he didn't subscribe to the theory of
>Plate Tectonics?

Oh I don't know, could be from one of his books? Of course, you would
know this if you had actually done the most minimal of exploring the
subject.

>
>> It is not to say you do not have value, it is to say you are not an
>> explorer.
>
>How presumptious of you to say so.
>
>> For myself, I accept looking can lead to an empty pursuit, but the
>> desire to see and test every detail is what compels me.
>>
>> Do not expect you to understand.
>
>I've looked at EE in quite a bit of detail, and have found nothing printed in
>peer-reviewed journals.

Dennis McCarthy posted a list with a number of them. But, alas, if
you don't subscribe to the publication it is not peer reviewed. Which
is nothing more than circular reasoning. By choosing to be ignorant
you then can make sweeping claims of it absence. Brilliant!

>In fact, nearly all of what I've read is posted on web
>sites that primarily are created by self-serving authors who have no affiliation
>with any reputable scientific organization. In the old days, people like that
>would be referred to as barn stormers. In the real old days, they were called
>snake oil salesmen. Today, they are Usenet kooks.
>
> Of the web sites I've perused, the most detailed is that of DF, much of which
>consists of endless rants and insults against "platies", and a whole lot of
>erroneous nonsense trying to disprove plate tectonics rather than trying prove
>that earth expansion has actually occurred. What little "evidence" he has
>presented (despite the colorful graphics) to try to prove that expansion has
>occurred is easily dismissed as nonsense by current plate tectonic theory, and
>shows a distinct lack of understanding of plate tectonic theory in general. For
>instance, he has repeatedly tried to engage people in conversations about
>transform faults, accusing "platies" of ignoring them, when the fact of the
>matter is that transform faults are the most heavily investigated of all the
>faults. Billions of dollars have been spent on their research.
>
>On his web site, he suggests that expansion is occurring along transform faults
>by diapir placement, and even goes so far as to present a graphic demonstrating
>how this is supposed to occur. In his graphic he shows that the transforms open
>up, and that either side of the transform is being pushed aside perpendicular to
>the trends of the faults and allowing diapirs to be intruded/extruded. He
>considers this significant in that he claims that significant expansion has
>occurred along these faults by allowing significant intrusion/extrusion of
>material to occur and thus expand the earth. The problem is that when you
>actually look at the transforms, there is very levidence of diapiric action,
>minimal separation of the fault surfaces, and what intrusions/extrusions there
>are is of a localized nature. There is not one reported case of a transform
>fault have the characteristics he ascribes to them (in fact, the characteristics
>he ascribes to transforms is more appropriate to spreading ridges, and even
>then, the geometry is all wrong. And then he uses transform/diapiric idea to
>say that it occurs at all of the transforms (which clearly would have to be the
>case in order to get the 30% of so of expansion that is alleged), which is not
>only not the case, but is ludicrous to even suggest, given that well-known
>characteristics of transforms.
>
>I've discussed EE at length with him on many ocassions, and have asked him why,
>if he is so convinced he is right, he doesn't publish his work. His answer was
>muttled in excuses and rants about a previous attempt to get something published
>being basically laughed at by the publisher. I suspect he is either too lazy to
>try, or he is so afraid of rejection that he simply doesn't want to deal with
>it. The main reason for this is that he refuses to accept the concept of
>peer-review, and considers it akin to censorship. However one views it,
>peer-review is a vital part of scientific research publication, and no one is
>going to get a moment's notice with out it. No one is immune to it. We all have
>to be peer reivewed. So, there you have it. One of the main proponents of EE
>is this really wierd guy from Australia who thinks that running a one man show
>on the internet is a valid way to conduct scientific research. The fact that he
>worships the ground that J.P. Turcaud (king of loonies) walks on is reason
>enough, in my book, to dismiss him altogether.

A full length ad hominem argument, well done! And to think it was to
prove someone is a loon and it did!

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth
    ... he taught plate tectonics in his classes. ... >>presented to try to prove that expansion has ... >>matter is that transform faults are the most heavily investigated of all the ... In his graphic he shows that the transforms ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth
    ... >> George, I and everyone on this newgroup know one thing about you ... Carey taught plate tectonics ... > matter is that transform faults are the most heavily investigated of ... > actually look at the transforms, there is very levidence of diapiric ...
    (sci.geo.geology)