Re: how can I curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-theory?

In article <hi5613d3guctirqeu85oj61ko8c6et1hbp@xxxxxxx>,
J. Taylor <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 20:54:00 -0400, "George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"James" <james.maxlow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1175646554.870591.119710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 3, 1:29 am, "Pascal Boulerie" <Pascal.Boule...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello,

I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-
theory.

Grasshopper, you know nothing. May I suggest that before you go
expressing YOUR opinion that you do your homework and actually
quantify your statement by providing factual evidence to disprove EE.

Grasshopper eater, before you attempt to tell others what they should and
should not do, perhaps you should point out how the rules have changed such
that people who support the current established paradigm are required to
prove or disprove anyone else's theory. It is for EE supporters to provide
not only a theory that better explains the facts than does plate tectonics
and make testable and repeatable predictions from that theory, it is also
up to EErs to provide such an explanation in such a manner that it is
falsifiable, testable, and repeatable by others. Well? We are still
waiting, Mr. Maxlow, if that is truly who you are?

Ok, George, using the pattern on the ocean floor recreate the previous
position of the continents.

(You imply that George should use only that evidence. Why this
restriction? Oh, I forgot: other evidence such as magnetic fields in
igneous rocks supports plate tectonics.)

Be sure and show old crust you claim
existed and all subduction zones needed to achieve your results.

(The old crust got subducted away.)

You didn't answer the question. Why do you think that merely casting
doubt on plate tectonics supports Expanding Earth? When I pointed out
the problems with Expanding Earth in my other post, I did not try to
prove plate tectonics; merely to show problems in Expanding Earth. Even
if there was no other theory to explain Earth's geology, Expanding Earth
would still be wrong. EE can be falsified on its own terms,
independently of the existence of other hypotheses. Can you not support
EE independently?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: how can I curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-theory?
    ... I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo- ... doubt on plate tectonics supports Expanding Earth? ... Timberwoof http://www.timberwoof.com ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Question, what do things do when they freeze?
    ... collisions or passing comets rain down on the Earth. ... If there were significant amounts contributing ... Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com ... Level 2 Linux technical support: ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Will the Moon Crash Into Earth?
    ... into the earth. ... Well, barring a collision with an asteroid, the moon probably will ... earth are crisped to cinders by the expanding sun, ... Level 2 Linux technical support: ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Scientific proof for an old earth
    ... earth, and not when earth actually formed. ... and an old universe is just as good as an old earth for them. ... There are very few creationists who accept that the universe is much ... Level 2 Linux technical support: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why are Island Arcs arced?
    ... framed within the expanding Earth ... irrelevant: this is real science. ... A goalpost shift for Plate Tectonics, ... Its great advantage is that it has allowed a convenient consensus to ...
    (sci.geo.geology)