Re: Incoherence between paleaoclimatology data and pangea reconstruction.

On Nov 29, 8:39 pm, sir.jpturc...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On 29 nov, 00:32, first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian) wrote:





Nicolas Krebs <nicolas1.kre...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Florian écrivit dans l'article
news:1i8ba4s.u8i46tst4tsbN%first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nicolas Krebs <nicolas1.kre...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Florian écrivit dans l'article
news:1i89ft8.1xcroyi1jpfrdsN%first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

That kind of snipping does help your case.

It help to what?

It help to demonstrate your bigotry.

That does not help me to show as a credulous.

?What does mean the sentence above?

It is a translation of the sentence << Ça ne m'aide pas à passer pour un
crédule. >> (french).

You should avoid literal translations.

Try to calculate the sum of divergence and convergence rates along the
meridians 20E and 160W.

Looking athttp://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/images/global.jpg,
it seem to fit (on a fixed radius earth).

?Where is your calculation?

Where are the data?

How do you know that "it seem to fit" (sic!) if you don't know where
are the data?

Should I understand that you agree?

No.

Why not?

Because i told you that you should not understand that i agree (because i
do not agree).

Why not ? = Why do you disagree?
So why do you disagree?

Anyway, I don't even need it as
everything published on usenet is public.

RTFM. (Read the fucking manual)

No answer?

You just have to write "I grant this to the public domain."

Yes.

So do it.

I will not.

Why not? What are you afraid of?

[...]

People who believe in expanding Earth theory are believers.

What make you believe that?

My brain-washed mind.

That is not an argument. What make you believe that?

But you are free to think that believing in
something is not being a believer, and arguning that i'm making a
translation mistake.

What make you believe that a growing earth is a belief?

Only smart minds that understand
when epistemology is not respected.

Evidences?

No answer.

The answer to the epistemology question was just below? Why do reply "no
answer" when there is one the line below?

Despite there are no evidence for the two main assumptions of plate
tectonics (recycling of seafloor and convection),

You don't think anymore that constant radius earth is an assumption of
mainstream geology?

recycling of seafloor = constant radius

it is no more
considered or taught as assumptions.

Where?

Everywhere. I was discussing the issue with a fellow geologist. We were
discussing how we were taught that recycling occurs despite there is no
evidence supporting it.

[...]

We're working together on that project.

So i will wait theirs mail.

Why do you think they would write to you?

They want to see what you'll do next. So please go on.

I have nothing to say more than i wrote before. Tell them to read
archives.

Why do you say that you "have nothing to say more than i wrote before"
but at the same time you continue to reply to my posts, showing that you
have more to say?

--
Florian
"Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme
une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer

Who cares anyway, they will never learn !

Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*** off Le Turd.
.