Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
- From: "George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 14:24:50 -0400
"J. Taylor" <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:15m5g29muqlbnqt7rv4d7ecvmpprkmkjk9@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 02:37:28 -0400, "George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"J. Taylor" <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ipb4g25grhhnjf6fmh6ak8ojvgm8jt4cqa@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 19:39:47 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In an obscure thread in this ng that you Real Geologists wouldn't touchAt a most basic level a discussion cannot exist where there is
with a ten-foot pole, this Don Findlay person wrote that plate
tectonics
theory is "based on the assumption of a panthalassa." I wrote that that
is wrong. Plate tectonics theory is based on the assumption that
physics, geochemistry, geophysics, thermodynamics, fluid flow,
seismography, astronomic theories on planetary formation, and so forth
are correct. (Observations and interpretations follow, with the
conclusion that the curst consists of plates that move around ... and
that the continents were stuck together in various supercontinent
configurations in the past.)
Of course, since you Real Geologists know better than to waste your
time
arguing with that funny little man who won't talk to you at geodynamics
conferences down under, none of you read that, nobody answered me, and
now he's dancing with glee. Maybe he thinks I'm as lonely as he is. Not
that I actually care what Don "200 years of physics is wrong" Findlay
thinks >
dishonesty. Would you mind providing a link where Don said, "200
years of physics is wrong" since you placed it in quotes, to signify
it was his statement. The only person I remember making that
statement is you, claiming it is what Don is saying, not that he said
it.
It is not a small point, since you are the one making all sorts of
claims as to what is or is not EE, then claiming it is the position of
those giving evidence for it.
It is not only dishonest, but a sign of desperation. You have nothing
so you make things up.
JT
The dishonesty is in EEers making wild assed guesses at how all of the
continents around the Pacific are alleged to have been stuck together 200
million years ago with no coroborating physical evidence whatsoever to
support the wild assed guess.
And is just an out and out lie. Further proof of your dishonesty and
desperation.
How is it a lie? I've challenged you to present verifiable physical
evidence that the continents were all together in the Pacific 200 million
years ago, and also explained to you in detail how to go about doing it.
You have yet to reply with one shred of coroborating evidence, and can
apparently only make more wild assed personal accusations in response. How
dishonest of you to do so. But you knew that already.
I'm still waiting for your coroborating rock
samples and stratigraphic reconstructions across the north and south
Pacific Ocean, Mr. T.
And I know you will not accept any evidence presented in support of
EE, but will just deny its existence. Which means, it is just another
lie you are waiting.
JT
If it could be proven, based on the evidence requisite to do so, I would be
the first to lend credence to EE. Since your only response is to make more
wild assed personal accusations, I can only assume what I've assumed about
you all along.
George
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
- From: J . Taylor
- Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
- References:
- plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
- From: Timberwoof
- Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
- From: J . Taylor
- Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
- From: George
- Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
- From: J . Taylor
- plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
- Prev by Date: Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
- Next by Date: Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
- Previous by thread: Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
- Next by thread: Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
