Re: A General Introduction to the Expanding Earth


"jonathan" <write@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1tmpf.1075$k76.1074@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Stuart" <bigdakine@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1134932916.340776.312490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> jonathan wrote:
>> > "George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:hmapf.411489$084.156864@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > >
>> > > "jonathan" <write@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > > news:rM7pf.788$k76.402@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/1.htm#Top
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Old news. Very old news. Very very old news.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > George, I don't for a minute think the EE theory is the better
>> > one. I fully understand plate tectonics has the upper hand
>> > by quite a bit. But that's not the point of my wandering in
>> > to this argument. It's about the psychology that intrudes
>> > into the scientific method.
>> >
>> > When I look at the reaction to the EE theory, I see little
>> > difference between yours and that of a bible thumper.
>>
>> Jonathan,
>>
>> You don't know the history here. EE was once part of the mainstream
>> of scientific thought, it was given a fair hearing over the curse of
>> some 20 years.
>
>
> Interesting you should say it was part of the mainstream once.
> I didn't know that, from watching the various threads here over
> time I would've thought that never was the case.
>
> This only serves to lessen my trust in the current consensus
> as you've indicated the mainstream in geology once held
> views that are now considered kookish.

They are considered kookish partially because of those who cling to it
despite the overwhelming evidence against it. People once thought the
world was flat, Johnny. At the time, it seemed like a perfectly reasonable
thing to believe. We know now that it was a foolish notion. Despite the
overwhelming evidence that the earth is not flat, the Flat Earth Society is
still thriving, though much diminished from it's previous ranks.

> And if I read
> correctly, the mainstream in geology during the first half
> of the century held that the cause was a shrinking earth.

It was one of several theories. There was no consensus.

> Up to the sixties even. Is the earth shrinking, expanding
> or static in size....I'm confused now <g>.

That much is obvious.

> Not to put to fine a point on it, but if the earth isn't shrinking
> and isn't expanding there's only one choice left. And to say the
> surface of the earth is on a constant recycling treadmill in the
> horizontal plane, yet unchanging overall in the vertical, would
> make even a child blush from the absurdity.

Do you have evidence to dispute it? Publish it.

> That implies the
> continents constantly rise to maintain an equilibrium with
> erosion. If so the continents would also be on a recycling
> treadmill and would be young too. They are not young though.

You are confusing the age of the continents (or any other earth structure)
with the rocks that occur within them. They are not necessarily one and
the same thing. Yes, isostatic rebound occurs. Almost no one questions
this fact. As the continents erode, ever older rocks are exposed at the
surface. The land surface in much of Canada is actually quite young, having
been scoured and leveled by glacial action occurring in the last 3 million
years. Yet the rocks exposed at the surface are billions of years old.
Canada, and much of the Great lakes region is experiencing isostatic
rebound today as a result of the melting of the pleistocene glaciers. The
same thing is happening in much of Scandenavia.

> The only conclusion that remains and is rational
> is that the continents rise and fall together in a cyclic
> way from some yet undiscovered mechanism.

If you have evidence to support this hypothesis, publish it.

> But that would contradict the current theory.

Of course it does, because there is no evidence for that there is a cyclic
phenomenon involved.

> When an outsider to geology sees this kind of massive swings
> in consensus going to such core ideas it gives little faith in
> the current 'state of the art'.

Science has nothing to do with faith. I have no faith that you'll ever
understand any of this. But that is not a scientific opinion. That is a
personal opinion.

> Combine that with the absolutely
> embarrassing performance by Nasa's rover geology team
> with the spheres. And you get a science that appears to border
> on dysfunctional, no, static would best describe this theory
> since the US grant making machine took it over.

When I read this preposterous rant, I just have to laugh, especially coming
from someone who admits to have hacked into JPL's web site. Rants like
that one explain exactly why you are unhirable in anything resembling a
scientific position anywhere except perhaps by the ID people. I'm sure you
can explain this no better than they do, which is why you would fit in
perfectly with those people. You should send them a resume. I'm sure
they'd be interested in hearing what you have to say. Who knows. They
might even print out a fake diploma for you, so you can claim to be an
"expert" on Martian sponges.

George


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Owens Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
    ... You're claiming earth expansion, ... > If you're saying that cratons were the initial continents, ... >> Unless, of course, the original ocean basins were formed from impact basins. ... >> evidence to support either slow or fast hypothesis. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Early Earth Wasnt So Hellish
    ... Earth was a hellish planet barren of continents. ... from outback Australia and found evidence that a fringe theory detailing the ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Creationist Claim: No evidence that plates are still moving
    ... >>1) increased thermal activity inside the earth. ... there is no evidence for that. ... plate tectonics by the late 30's early 40's. ... his grave the Fred Hoyle of Geology. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Its Gumby Damnit!
    ... Regarding my stadium like structure of earth, the evidence supports ... were errantly attributed to gradual ice age movements. ... continents they were a part of. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Its Gumby Damnit!
    ... Regarding my stadium like structure of earth, the evidence supports it. ... Which boulders from different continents? ... Geologists are agod with anticipation. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast