Re: Really interesting paleogeographic map suggests ocean basins opening and closing repeatedly in the same place?

On Dec 24, 9:42 am, "J. Taylor" <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 24, 8:27 am, "George" <Geo...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"J. Taylor" <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:9fe26707-49c0-4148-9189-895c8cad9720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 24, 7:15 am, "George" <Geo...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"J. Taylor" <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:51e67133-f001-4b30-9f31-0cc2fe99c319@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What would you be charging for? You once again spent your time not
saying anything.
==========
Time wasted answering questions we've already answered.

:-)

Exactly way you are doing now does not count, multiple times of
nothing is still nothing.
============
Make it retroactive, then, if that makes you happy.

==========

Mike stated it has been debunked, with electronic text, cut and paste
would take less time than dancing around. Do you have anything else?
==========
No need for anything else. It's all been said many times before.
==========
Fact is, after being here for years and years I know you have nothing,
and you continue to prove that to be the case.

Thanks for making my point.

JT
==============
You have no point. All you have is regurgitated nonsense.

The point, you have provide nothing, have never provided anything but
empty, vacuous statements, just as you have done again.

Come on Ron, I mean George, show you have something, anything to back
up the statement.

Here, let me help you get started.

Earth expansion has been debunked because ............

JT
===============
I wasn't asked to provide anything. I did, however, ask for EEers to
provide a list of predictions that EE makes. I'm still waiting for the
list. Well?

George

What a weasel

Mike stated "Earth Growth theory has been DEBUNKED"


Exactly.

I said, "Great, then you should be able to provide the details of this
debunking."


Well if he doesn't want to, I'll provide some for you. See below.

You wrote, "I take it that you've been asleep for the past 35 years."

I took this to mean you agree with Mike, and when ask, you cannot
provide a single thing to back up it up.

Not a thing, just more unsupported claims

As for another prediction, if the Earth is getting bigger, there
should be a clear pattern of growth which conclusively shows it. In
fact there is, the age pattern on the ocean floor. It shows PT is
false and confirms expansion.


Aha, now we've got something to argue with. Turns out, the age
distribution you mention DOES NOT "confirm expansion". For one,
the Mid-Coruscic ridge (here is a rebuttal!) is NOT in the center of
the Coruscic! It's way off to the side, and based on the age
distribution
it would look as though some of the ridge must be underneath the
North American continent! See my map:

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/2926/earthgrowthdebunking01gn3.jpg

Well, that suggests it was once out there, but then... yep.. it got
_subducted_ underneath. Part of it became the San Andreas Fault --
notice how it's contiguous with the ridge. Answer that point.
Coincidence?
I think not. For another, you can clearly see on one side of a trench,
old
crust, and on the other, young crust. That in and of itself is
strongly
suggestive of subduction, and hence plate tectonics, and NOT Earth
Expansion. Look at, for example, where the Philippine plate overrides
the Coruscic plate at the Marianas Trench -- a jump of OVER 100 Ma!
Here's another map:

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/8876/debunkingearthgrowth02ov4.jpg

How else can you explain that -- other than that one plate is
overriding
the other, and the other is being subducted beneath it?

If those don't do it for you, here's one more map. This one I based
off
of watching Neal Adams' Earth Expansion animations (I will give him
credit for making a nice animation even if it has utterly no
scientific
content, by the way.), and it shows, approximately, what the age
distribution would look like if the Earth did expand as is claimed.
You
can compare it to the maps I gave before showing the age distribution.
Note that this map is quite simplified and approximate, and the
precise
age bands are guesstimates (so please don't take them TOO seriously)
but the overall *shape* is what would be expected given the video.

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/7552/predictedcoruscicfloorarq9.jpg

Note the total lack of subduction, of overriding plates and the
resulting
age gaps, etc. Notice also how it is nothing like what the real crust
age
looks like! How can you possibly explain this?

The reasoning for this map is the video, which shows Australia
snuggled
up against Alaska, Siberia, and North America. As that pulls apart,
we'd
expect there to be a ridge between these areas, just as how the
borders
of the Atlantic are pulling apart, with a ridge between them. This
gives,
roughly: ridge midway between Siberia or China and Australia (yields
segment running west-east or southwest-northeastish), between
North America and Australia (segment running northwest-southeastish)
and between South America and Australia (similar direction or
more north-southish.). Note that my maps are rough as to the course
but
give an overall outline of the extent and rough direction of the
ridge. There
is no denying it must take that type of course given the video. There
is
*no* way you can have a center far out in the east and NO ridge at all
between
Asia and Australia under Earth Growth theory. This means Earth Growth
theory does not conform to reality, and so is fantasy. You may want to
argue that maybe the spreading was somehow highly asymmetrical (how
does that happen, anyway, considering that the material oozes up and
out,
and by simple physics should not prefer one side overwhelmingly), but
that
would result in a highly asymmetrical band pattern, with broad bands
on the
west side and narrow ones on the east side (of the ridge -- i.e. tight
age bands
and 180+ Ma old crust just west of South America). That's not seen
either,
as the maps show. I could make a map of this other scenario but I
don't
know if it's really necessary given my explanation.

There you go, point debunked. Next?
.

Quantcast