Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion

From: George (george_at_wtfiswrongwithyou.com)
Date: 12/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:07:51 GMT

"David Ford" <Nospam@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:41d37ac2@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> George wrote:
>> "David Ford" <Nospam@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>> news:41d296f5@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>
>>>George wrote:
>>>
>>>>"David Ford" <Nospam@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:41d21ab4@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"David Ford" <Nospam@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:41d208f1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"David Ford" <Nospam@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:41d18181$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Bigdakine" <bigdakine@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:20041227221416.12272.00002782@mb-m28.aol.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>From: David Ford Nospam@internode.on.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>Date: 12/27/04 4:39 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>>>>>>>>>>Message-id: <41d0c771@duster.adelaide.on.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>don findlay wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>EARTH EXPANSION - Axioms on which to lay down Parameters for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>discussion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>1. Did the Earth once form a granitic ('continental') crust as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>result of differentiation (core mantle and crust) - Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>2. Did it cover the entire Earth? - Yes (Or:- how might it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>conceived that differentiation could occur and 'whole-Earth Crust'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>form?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>3. Was that Whole-Earth Crust what is Today called "Pangaea"? -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, because the movement picture that breaks up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>continental crust in the Atlantic _ Indian - Southern Oceans and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>exposes the mantle as the ocean floors, also applies to the Pacific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>exposes the mantle there too. Same continental crust, same break
>>>>>>>>>>>>>up,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>same movement picture - just bigger than already accepted by plate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>tectonics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>4. Are 'obducted ophiolites' 'evidence' of an earlier ocean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>floor?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, ..because these emplacements of mantle on continental crust are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>easily accounted for within the same movement picture as in 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>...and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>are anyway of orders of magnitude insignificance to be related in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>way to the process known as 'plate tectonics'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Anyone got anything else to add?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>5. Are there currently observed and identified far greater lengths
>>>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>>>rifting new-crust generation zones, than merely presumed crustal
>>>>>>>>>>>>removal
>>>>>>>>>>>>zones?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>YES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The collective length of all trench zones is ~30,000 km, about a
>>>>>>>>>>>>quarter
>>>>>>>>>>>>of the length of all spreading ridges (2 x ~60,000 km). The
>>>>>>>>>>>>proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>Plate tectonic 'balance' of construction and destruction of oceanic
>>>>>>>>>>>>crust is thus geometrically impossible on a sphere with these
>>>>>>>>>>>>observed
>>>>>>>>>>>>features. In order for a crustal construction-destruction balance
>>>>>>>>>>>>to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>in effect, ocean basins require co-equal lengths of assumed
>>>>>>>>>>>>consumptive
>>>>>>>>>>>>trench .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Ford doesn't realize the convergence at subduction zones tends to be
>>>>>>>>>>>faster
>>>>>>>>>>>than the divergence at rifts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>and it just isn't there, even if those trench area really did
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>represent zones of crustal resumption back into the mantle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>.but why let basic physical facts interfere with a 'good' consensual
>>>>>>>>>>>>fiction huh? ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Ford still hasn't learned what Gauss's theorem is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Incredible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stuart
>>>>>>>>>>>Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
>>>>>>>>>>>Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
>>>>>>>>>>>"To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a
>>>>>>>>>>>creationist"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What I find even more amazing is his assumption that the earth's crust
>>>>>>>>>>is in some kind of balance or equilibrium, or that it even requires
>>>>>>>>>>equilibrium or balanced conditions in order for subduction to occur.
>>>>>>>>>>The fact of the matter is that the crust is not in eequilibrium. That
>>>>>>>>>>the crust is not in equilibrium conditions was amply demonstrated the
>>>>>>>>>>other day with the 9.0 earthquake that apparently has killed somewhere
>>>>>>>>>>in the neighborhood of 40,000 people. But why let the physical facts
>>>>>>>>>>interfere with a bad non-consensual fiction?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You are such a goat George, for Earth's radius to be unchanging over a
>>>>>>>>>200 mya period, the generation of crust from the mantle has to equal
>>>>>>>>>the resumption of crust back into the mantle; this is a standard PT
>>>>>>>>>concept even a child can grasp.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Really? And why is that? It can't just pile up crust and create
>>>>>>>>mountains like in the himalayas, which get eroded down, creating
>>>>>>>>sediments in the rivers, lake and oceans, downwarping the crust, and so
>>>>>>>>forth and so on? If it was in equilibrium, there would be no
>>>>>>>>topographic relief. Since there is plenty of topographic relief to be
>>>>>>>>found, your equilibrium theory hasn't a leg to stand on. The fact is
>>>>>>>>that the earth is ever changing and dynamic. It is no more in
>>>>>>>>equilibrium than the universe is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It is a balance, or to use your word, and equilibrium of the generation
>>>>>>>>>and the resumption of crustal rock in PT.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Do you have a mental handicap I should know about?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Do you have a valid point you'd like to make?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh, so now I have an equilibrium theory!!! I have NEVER mentioned
>>>>>>>anything of the kind, but George somehow deludes himself I have
>>>>>>>somewhere; please, show me where I have ever claimed anything of the
>>>>>>>kind, and I’ll show you a thousand instances of precisely the opposite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who are you talking to, Dave, that you have to use the third person in
>>>>>>reference to me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As I said, do you have a mental handicap I should know about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you have no capacity to discuss any point, and are only interested in
>>>>>>>being a twat, could you just bugger-off so the adults can talk?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your words:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The proposed Plate tectonic ‘balance’ of construction and destruction of
>>>>>>oceanic crust is thus geometrically impossible on a sphere with these
>>>>>>observed features. In order for a crustal construction-destruction
>>>>>>balance to be in effect, ocean basins require co-equal lengths of assumed
>>>>>>consumptive trench … and it just isn’t there, even if those trench area
>>>>>>really did
>>>>>>represent zones of crustal resumption back into the mantle."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The term "balanced" implies "equilibrium". Equilibrium - a state of
>>>>>>balance between opposing forces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Plate Tectonics implies no "balance" or "equilibrium", because the plates
>>>>>>are always in a state of flux. Satellite data confirms this. The recent
>>>>>>events at the Sundra trench bear this out as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And just what don't you understand about;
>>>>>
>>>>>"The proposed Plate tectonic ‘balance’ of construction and destruction of
>>>>>oceanic crust is thus geometrically impossible ..."
>>>>>
>>>>>It is not me that has a theory of a 'balance' of construction and
>>>>>destruction of oceanic crust, it is PLATE TECTONICS.
>>>>>
>>>>>(geezus!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That you think that Plate tectonics implies any such "balance" only
>>>>indicates how badly you misunderstand it. The fact of the matter is that
>>>>the crust of the earth is always in flux. Movements of the plates are
>>>>occurring every single day. If you want to have 'mile for mile' the exact
>>>>same length of subduction zones as that of spreading centers, all I can
>>>>suggest to you is to stick around. I'm sure the earth could accomodate your
>>>>wishes, given enough geologic time. You seem to think in snapshots, as if
>>>>what you see is an end product, and not something that is 'in the process'.
>>>>To use a term that I know people like you don't like to hear, the earth's
>>>>crust is still evolving. Given enough geologic time, it's entirely possible
>>>>that at some point you might just see such a "balance". I personally don't
>>>>think it works exactly that way for several reasons. You also conveniently
>>>>forget that it was only in the last 10-20 years or so that the location and
>>>>extent of the Cascadia subduction zone was realized (it was inferred for
>>>>years due to the presence of the Cascade Volcanic range along the
>>>>California/Oregon/Washington coasts, but no one knew exactly where it was).
>>>>There is no reason to think that other subduction zones won't be found that
>>>>are not now known. My view is that if there are more known spreading
>>>>centers than subduction zones, then there are at least three possible
>>>>reasons for that:
>>>>
>>>>1) We haven't found them all yet - which is a real possibility; The
>>>>cascadia zone was difficult to find because of all of the recent sediments
>>>>laid down on the ocean floor in that region by the Columbia River. Advances
>>>>in technology made the discovery possible. Others may yet be found.
>>>>
>>>>2) That the earth's crust is in non-equilibrium, (i.e., the earth hasn't
>>>>yet fully adjusted to all the spreading centers by creating opposing
>>>>subduction zones in all the locations where they are possible or where we
>>>>think they should be).
>>>>
>>>>The Atlantic Ocean is younger than the Pacific, and smaller as well. Some
>>>>have suggested that it is entirely possibly that sometime in the future a
>>>>subduction zone(s) will form off the east coast of the passive margin of the
>>>>U.S., and possibly even off the West coast of Europe, though this is less
>>>>certain. Since the Atlantic is still spreading apart, I think it is likely
>>>>that eventually there will be a trench. The basement rock of the eastern
>>>>margin certainly isn't composed of horizontal beds, but is quite 'fubared',
>>>>and contains a host of complexes from granites to melange to gabbro and
>>>>basalt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There have been subduction zones along the eastern seaboard in the geologic
>>>>past, as any geologist who has walked (such as myself) and studied in the
>>>>Blue Ridge Mountains and associate melange/ophiolite complex of the Eastern
>>>>U.S. will tell you. And there are two known trenches - the South Sandwich
>>>>trench in the South Atlantic, and the Puerto Rico trench, in or near the
>>>>Atlantic basin - and one suspected trench - the Caymen trough. These three
>>>>features are relatively young and growing, with the Caymen trough being the
>>>>youngest.
>>>>
>>>>3) Subduction zones are harder to form than spreading centers because in
>>>>order for them to form, zones of weakness within cold, rigid crust have to
>>>>be initiated. And that is hard to do within thick, rigid continental crust.
>>>>When they do form, they usually form along continental margins where the
>>>>continental crust is thinnest and weakest. In the case of the Eastern
>>>>seaboard of the U.S., there has been subduction and accretion before. The
>>>>accretionary sequence of rocks is now old, relatively cold, and rigid -
>>>>having been welded to the continent during older continent/Island arc
>>>>collisions, so it is entirely possible that a young subduction zone has yet
>>>>to form in response to continued spreading at the mid-Atlantic ridge. Stay
>>>>tuned.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I know you are one of the more particularly idiotic people hanging around
>>>>>this forum George, but you really do out-do yourself at times, and this is
>>>>>one of those instances where you have excelled in that area.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You excel in insults when confronted with facts that dispel your urban
>>>>legends. I guess that makes you feel just peachy knowing that you and
>>>>Turdhard have something in common.
>>>>
>>>>That subduction occurs is not in question by anyone but EEers, and you guys
>>>>are quite a rabid, though very small minority.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh right, so you admit the earth only exhibits ONE QUARTER of the length of
>>>‘subduction zones’ PLATE TECTONICS REQUIRES, in order for PT to have even a
>>>shred of veracity,
>>
>>
>> I admit nothing of the sort. Where you get the idea that there are only 25%
>> of divergent boundaries relative to convergent boundaries (there exists more
>> than one type of convergent boundary, in case you haven't noticed) is a
>> mystery (from your ass, no doubt)
>>
>> … but the evidence doesn’t exist … meanwhile
>>
>>>I’m saying that the Trench zones aren’t even regions of crustal resumption,
>>>that that is just an assumption implicit to Plate Tectonics, … and so Georgia
>>>says he has waltzed along the Blueridge mountains and seen multiple
>>>subduction zones (which have been eroded out, buried, metamorphosed and
>>>multiply deformed …) … right after saying how darn tricky it has been to
>>>‘find’ a currently active site of so-called ‘subduction’ in Cascadia …
>>>
>>>Fricken marvelous stuff!
>>
>>
>> Yes it is, isn't it? How many times have you walked amongst rocks of such
>> zones? 1, 2 times? None at all?
>>
>>
>>>So there is actually NO BALANCE, which PT requires in order to be valid,
>>
>>
>> PT requires no such thing, except in your own warped imagination.
>>
>>
>>>and ‘subduction zones’ are nothing more than a hypothesis conjured to explain
>>>Benioff zones and benthic magnetic isochron data … and humanity is told to
>>>sit tight and ‘stay tuned’ because one day in maybe 20, 30 40, 50 million
>>>years, the earth MIGHT actually manage to make some subduction zones one
>>>day …
>>>
>>>BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
>>>
>>>Whoopie!
>>>So that’s it humanity, forget about physical evidence and congruence, the
>>>Earth has been finding it a bit tricky to make any … but then again, it’s not
>>>unusual for Plate Tectonics zombies to say such outrageous balderdash,
>>>because it’s equivalent to saying that all the Pre 200 mya oceanic crust that
>>>THEORETICALY existed in PLATE TECTONICS ASSUMPTIONS, is all gone, because the
>>>naughty, “…Earth ate all our evidence”!
>>>
>>>BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
>>>
>>>A quaint variation on, “Sorry Sir, but the dog ate my homework”, excuse!
>>>
>>>So, the physical balance of construction and destruction of oceanic crust
>>>which Plate Tectonics requires is not here now, and humanity will most likely
>>>be long gone before any is theoretically manufactured, if that were even a
>>>real process.
>>>
>>>And what is this ‘stay turned’ poop Georgie? Is Earth going to suddenly make
>>>4 times the current length of so-called subduction zone by about 2040-50
>>>AD? … NOPE! … so DON’T bother to ‘stay turned’; go watch a sunset or
>>>something useful.
>>>
>>>What you are doing George old boy, is called SPECIAL PLEADING.
>>
>>
>> Once again, you've managed to prove my thesis about Earth Expanionists. All
>> bark and no beef. When confronted with opposing views, they resort to
>> insults, innuendo, and out right lies in order to divert attention away from
>> the fact that they have no valid evidence to back up their claims, and
>> rarely, if ever, post any real evidence to counter PT evidence or to prove
>> their hypothesis. All you ever read from EEers is regurgitation of the same
>> old unproven bull*** such as 'Plate Tectonics requires a balance amongst
>> subduction zones and spreading centers', which is not only not true, but
>> certainly ignores the fact that there exists more than one type of
>> convergence zone, and also doesn't consider (but rather dismisses right away
>> without forwarding any substantial evidence) the explanations given above.
>>
>> And the other "great lie" that Earth Expansionist put forward is that pre-200
>> million year old oceanic crust doesn't exist. I submit to you that that is
>> not only bull***, it is horse***, camel ***, donkey ***, and kangaroo
>> *** all wrapped up in one great big lie. Of course, you know this already,
>> right Davey?
>
>
> Dear Georgina (etal),
>
> Each individual person, each GEOLOGIST, which means STUDY OF EARTH, and NOT
> the study of Plate Tectonics, nor the study of Earth Expansion, just Earth,
> each of these geologists, here and elsewhere, have been force-feed Plate
> tectonics, and sat through several YEARS of lectures, tutorials, practicals,
> field trips, projects, EXAMINATIONS and professional employment.
>
> Yet, individual person, each individual geologist has come, via their various
> experiential and learning routes, to the inescapable conclusion that the
> consensual adoption of Plate Tectonics and its on-going proscriptive
> interpretive use and outrageous consensual enforcement, has been, and is still
> today, a major error in the field of the STUDY OF EARTH, and an insult to
> logic, reason and observation.
>
> Each person, each trained Geologist, who has come to this conclusion has
> discovered this by realising the multitude of inadequacies and continually
> repeated conceptual falsehoods propping up that rancid theoretical nonsense
> called Plate Tectonics. I myself hung off every word and explanation of my
> lecturers, and had private conversations with several of them, people who did
> not earn their degree via Plate Tectonics indoctrination, but who certainly
> watched decades of debate surrounding it, and knew well of its logic holes and
> dilemmas, and out-right failures to explain or fit observation. These people,
> these very knowledgable and experienced examiners of Earth were forthright and
> scrupulously honest about these many basic issues, and when you really discuss
> issues with them you find they also held grave doubts of the applicability of
> the Plate Tectonic mantra they were required to teach, as the consensual view
> of their times.
>
> So, it wasn’t just me, even these very accomplished Geologists, who had seen
> and done it all, on multiple continents, and had numerous geological books and
> papers to their names, some of them considered indispensable, had, and still
> have, serious reservations about the applicability of Plate Tectonic
> interpretations applied to Earth’ geological present, and history.
>
> Well, guess what George, I didn’t go to university just to get a degree and
> career in Geology, that was not the motive, the motive was very simple, I was
> completely fascinated by Earth, by what it is, and what it does. I wanted to
> understand EVERYTHING I could about Earth, so I enrolled at University for
> that purpose alone, and I naturally learned Plate tectonics theory inside-out,
> I studied it, I observed outcrops, and I realised it could not be correct. So
> I tried to understand what might be correct then—as you do.
>
> This is what inquirers into the nature of Earth have always done when they’ve
> each encountered a theoretical mainstream consensus, which did NOT match the
> Earth they studied, and for which alternative interpretations were possible.
>
> Each Geologist here, who has thus rejected Plate Tectonics, has come to this
> point in their own way, and in their own time.
>
> Then there are the people that lack the spine to do so, who instead, studied
> Geology for a degree (s) and a career, but who really don’t give a toss about
> trying to understand each and every aspect of Earth, they are only interested
> in maintaining their position and drip-feed of $$$.
>
> You are clearly such a person George, you don’t really give a damn about
> understanding Earth, you just fabricate a pretence of haughty authority and
> poop on those that do.
>
> This also is what the consensus has always don’t to concerted inquirers in the
> field of the study of Earth, or any other field. That’s just what happens,
> and I don’t give a darn about what you think George, for I and others, here
> and elsewhere, have been over the ground you trawl, and know it to be fallow
> ground.
>
> This is the nature of our intransigence, this is why you will never sway
> people like me and others here, because we have been there, and done all that,
> MANY years ago
>
> Samual Warren Carey even created YOUR ‘current’ consensual notion of
> subduction of plates at Benioff zones—which Plate Tectonics zombies TOOK from
> Carey, re-named it, and called it your own work!!—and then Carey rejected this
> subduction view, because he could unmistakably see and demonstrate it was
> undeniably geometrically impossible for such subduction to explain global
> geo-dynamics upon a spherical Earth, with the clearly observed major
> geological features it has.
>
> This all occurred before many of you current Plate Tectonics zombies were even
> born, or while you were still hopelessly pooping in your nappies!
>
> Professor S. Warren Carey’s original subduction notion 1956 :
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/SWCarey.htm
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/1953.gif
>
> http://www.codes.utas.edu.au/5_NewsAndMedia/newsletters/oresols12.pdf
>
> This same extraordinarily accomplished and distinguished geologist, then went
> on to not only entirely reject his own subduction mechanism, which he gave
> life to, he instead insisted Earth had to be expanding, through geological
> time, and then spent the rest of his life, from 1956 to 2002 (46 years of
> professional work in the face of the archetypal consensual ‘George’ degreed
> career idiots of his day…) detailing an initial understanding of the nature of
> this clearly undeniable expansion of our Earth.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/EARTHEXP.htm#Trenches
>
> This is why people like you George, have not the slightest hope of persuading
> people like myself and others here, and elsewhere, who have likewise sought to
> understand the Earth itself, rather than a mere theory’s dubious non-credible
> interpretations, and why the rejection of Plate Tectonics is unequivocal, and
> irreversible.
>
> This is why when a grossly ignorant archetypal ‘George’ pompously asserts that
> Earth Expansionists don’t understand Plate Tectonics—I for one don’t even
> bother to respond, as the accusation is too ludicrous—it can only be treated
> as smear and what it is.
>
> i.e. extraordinary chronic stupidness, of an endemic nature.
>
> Be very clear about this George types, you will NOT do away with, nor remove
> Earth Expansion or expansionists from the field of the STUDY OF EARTH, via
> smears, blatant lies, playing to your surrounding porridge of consensual
> ignorance, and your routine wilful disinformation and dishonesty, as observed
> here, and elsewhere.
>
> That isn’t going to dissuade anyone, nor will it get you what you desire; a
> stagnant unthinking consensus who are fed utter Mierda del Toro, from a
> self-appointed elite in control of the purse strings of funding, publication,
> and worst of all, ‘education’ of eager geologists.
>
> As long as people seek to genuinely STUDY EARTH, for its own sake in order to
> understand it, they will, of inescapable necessity, reject and dissent from
> Plate Tectonic’s extensive inadequacies. (pun not intended)

Obviously you wasted your education grant money, because you didn't learn very
much. You should ask for a refund. I was wrong about you. You're not like Jean
Paul Turdhard. You are EXACTLY like him.

As to the above, you obviously sit in front of your computer screen with your
pecker in one hand and a handkerchief in the other yelling "yee-haw"! Careful
that your ego does expand so much and knock the monitor off your desk. What a
ride you must be having.

As for Carey, my Paleontology professor studied under him in Tasmania, and was a
personal friend, and he says that Carey dropped had the notion of earth
expansion and accepted plate tectonics in the end. Straight from my professors
recently publish memoirs, he refers to Carey as a "Plate Tectonics visionary".
And indeed he was. He also says that the few stragglers who still believe in
Earth Expansion are badly misguided. I couldn't agree more.

But thanks for proving my point:

Once again, you've managed to prove my thesis about Earth Expanionists. All
 bark and no beef. When confronted with opposing views, they resort to insults,
 innuendo, and out right lies in order to divert attention away from the fact
 that they have no valid evidence to back up their claims, and rarely, if ever,
 post any real evidence to counter PT evidence or to prove their hypothesis.
All
 you ever read from EEers is regurgitation of the same old unproven bull***
such
 as 'Plate Tectonics requires a balance amongst subduction zones and spreading
 centers', which is not only not true, but certainly ignores the fact that there
 exists more than one type of convergence zone, and also doesn't consider (but
 rather dismisses right away without forwarding any substantial evidence) the
 explanations given above.

 And the other "great lie" that Earth Expansionist put forward is that pre-200
 million year old oceanic crust doesn't exist. I submit to you that that is not
 only bull***, it is horse***, camel ***, donkey ***, and kangaroo *** all
 wrapped up in one great big lie. Of course, you know this already, right
Davey?

Quantcast