Re: evidences against subduction theory

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:35:18 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <6hf293dhgqsukpd9ftfvnlr691imqqg863@xxxxxxx>,
J. Taylor <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 11:21:19 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <s18v83df99ke548nkcnnvu8r88fhup258j@xxxxxxx>,
J. Taylor <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 01:15:09 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <m16u835ve34am9ghgf5tmm3d2lod0rj2lf@xxxxxxx>,
J. Taylor <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:23:30 -0700, Offbreed
<offbreed_106@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

J. Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 04:19:19 -0700, Stuart <bigdakine@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Nope. No evidence for expansion.

Boatloads for PT

At least you sincerely believe this, however deluded.


You make an extraordinary claim, you need to offer extraordinary proof
of your claim.

All the ages of ocean crust, in all the oceans of the world, have a
pattern when all the ages are removed in sequence allows all the
continental margins to come together with a precision of 99% or
better, and while this is done the Earth remains a sphere and no
points need to be adjust in any manner other than pulling the age out.

Well, there are some problems with that, as I've explaine dto you many
times before.

While the geology on opposite sides of the Atlantic shows the expected
correlations across the gap, there is no way to match up the continents
on the edges of the Pacific.

You keep saying that but you have never presented any thing showing
correlation.

That's okay; plenty of geologists in this discussion have.

You do know there is a lot of evidence which is even in
conflict with there ever being a fit across the Atlantic, but why
don't you just take a geological map of the US, pick a spot, subject
it to rifting, then along the rim subject that to high mountains with
lots of erosion and volcanism, then do a correlation. Should be a
excellent control, then do it for other spots, then get back to me.

No. You claim that there is one pattern which allows the continents to
fit together on a smaller sphere. You need to come up with that pattern
and then present the evidence of similar geology across the continental
boundaries.

My claim is not dependent on showing that. It is your claim, which
needs to be supported, which says it is. It is you who thinks it is a
necessary requirement. So get busy.

Stop! When you make a claim that something is so, *you* need to come up
with evidence that it is so. There are a lot of things about EE that
imply consequences that you have to show exist. For instance, since you
claim that the continents all fit tidily on a R/2 sphere, you have to
supply the configuration and the evidence that all the joints in it were
once actually together. Your claim *is* dependent on that.

And that is done by showing the fit of the margins, and agree it would
even be further evidence if it was shown the pieces fit together like
a big road cut. However, that is not what is at issue, you are
claiming the lack of this evidence as support they never fit together.

You are in fact claiming the absents of evidence is evidence of
absents, and you need to support that.

You need to show that not only is there no evidence but there never
was.

Your claim takes priority over mine.




The magnetic anomalies in the oceanic rift valleys leave a record of
magnetic pole reversals. This same record of magnetic pole reversals
shows up in igneous rocks on continental crust, with the added benefit
that they record the orientation of the continent when the rock
solidified. Unfortunately for EE, the resulting tracks of continental
movements do not provide a neat and tidy seamless arrangement of the
continents at any time in the past.

You have never presented anything of this either. You do know this is
about time? In fact, would love to see anything you have that would
show large bands of igneous outpouring on the continent that you could
sequence together for 200 MY.

There are plenty of web sites made by credible geologists which show,
based on these measurements, where the continents were and in what
orientation, over hundreds of millions of years.

So does not make your claim.

Here it is in quotes
"Unfortunately for EE, the resulting tracks of continental
movements do not provide a neat and tidy seamless arrangement of the
continents at any time in the past."

Easy to say apparently difficult to back up.

If EE were true, which is *your* claim, then those magnetic field
samples would support that. *You* need to show that they do.

I am not saying EE is true, I am saying the pattern on the ocean floor
shows expansion. If you have magnetic evidence that contradicts what
is on the ocean floor then we have the problem of how the ocean
records one thing and the continents record another for that period of
time, but you need to support that claim.



The continents represent approximately 25% of the Earth's surface. If
the surface was only 1/4 as large, then the Earth's radius was 1/2 as
large and its volume was 1/8 as large. EE gives no tenable explanation
for how the Earth gained about an order of magnitude in volume (and
presumably mass).

I pointed this out to you, but just because you have a limited brain
capacity to reconcile complex problems does not mean the Universe was
limited by it.

Yes, you've applied as hominem arguments many times. But they don't fly
in a scientific discussion. You just need to present your extraordinary
evidence to support your extraordinary claim.

So you think the universe should be easy for you to understand? That
was the condition on which it was constructed?

Make it easy for Timberwolf, otherwise it could not have happen that
way!

Non sequitur and ad hominem. You still have no explanation of where the
mass came from.

Do you know where ANY mass comes from, non sequitur and ad hominem
with standing?



This is extremely extraordinary

Yet, Stuart persist in claiming no evidence

Some evidence, lots of fabrications, and lots of ignored data.

And almost all on your part.


And you, like so many before, may say so what, PT can equally account
for all the ages and movement on the ocean , and I, as I have said
before, show me.

You have been shown many times.

No, I have been told many times, but keep holding out hope you will
finally do a little work rather than just flap your lips and actually
show me.

You have been shown. But you ignore it when people do.

Then you could have just cut and past them above, since you did not is
just more proof you have not.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is your claim there is evidence, either support it, or shut up.


I have seen Scotese animation and others. And they all are nothing
more than the pattern of expansion draw on a constant radius Earth.

In Scotese's drawing he shows subduction zones placed to the western
edge of North America before the presumed break-up of the
supercontinent. This placement would require the subduction zone to
either move before the continent or a new one was constantly being
formed to pull first the old ocean floor into it and then the new from
the ridge in the Pacific, all the while North America is moving from
presumably the push from the ridge in the Atlantic. Even though it
has been shown there is not even energy in either spreading or
subduction to drive the movement of the so called plates, but only has
enough when the slab turns and is assisted by gravity. Making that
movement a really neat trick and just one of the many unique features
of PT as to how it can do anything it needs to do. This also gives it
the remarkable power of predicting anything, thus accounting for
everything we see.

Unlike EE, which has an awful lot of trouble predicting things and
requires violations of matter and energy conservation.

There is that circular reasoning again. You keep proving to yourself
what you already believe. I know of at least one way it does not
violate any conservation laws (you do know what conservation means)
enrgy/matter is being added.

Get back to me when you have the info.

You know "at least one way"? You mean you don't know how many different
ways you can explain away conservation of matter and energy? Maybe if
you presented just one way, we could analyze it.

Then you do not know what conservation means. The law only applies
when it is closed to outside input.

Okay, then. Explain where the extra mass came from.

Where does mass come from, period?

Look up Higgs-Boson field

JT



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Owens Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
    ... > It may well be that there has been some growth of continents through ... > ocean basins were there at the start, then you need to explain why. ... and it is abundantly clear from evidence worldwide ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Owens Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
    ... >> It may well be that there has been some growth of continents through ... >> ocean basins were there at the start, then you need to explain why. ... I'm not denying the fossil evidence. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • 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)
  • Re: Detailed ocenaic floor analysis. What does it really tell us?
    ... was water on the earth before 200 MA, but not in ocean bassins like we ... the earth began expanding 250 million years ago, and they use as evidence ... show all the continents in one solid continuous landmass that circles the ... ago that was one continuous continental crustal landmas (where the water ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Detailed ocenaic floor analysis. What does it really tell us?
    ... was water on the earth before 200 MA, but not in ocean bassins like we ... the earth began expanding 250 million years ago, and they use as evidence ... let alone enough to lift ocean floor. ... show all the continents in one solid continuous landmass that circles the ...
    (sci.geo.geology)