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


"J. Taylor" <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1b5f6885-31cc-48a1-9355-02771931d50f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 31, 7:37 am, "George" <Geo...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"J. Taylor" <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:04e0e1a2-31e1-4035-b67f-974baaa6424f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 30, 9:29 am, "George" <Geo...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





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

news:4230eb58-7766-4ab7-a77a-498d9412d0d0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 26, 2:23 am, mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Dec 24, 9:42
am,
"J. Taylor" <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Taylor - The only fantasy here is yours, pull out the age on the ocean
floor,
adjust the radius and all the continential marigins come back
together.
====================
Except when one looks at the continental margins in areas where there
are
huge discrepencies between the fit PT proponents make and those EEers
make
(for instance, the alleged reconnection of eastern Australia and western
South America made by EEers), there is no stratigraphic or petrologic
evidence to support such a fit. In the case of eastern Australia, and
western South America, if, however you substitute Antarctica with Southy
America, the fit is quite good. And that leaves EE in quite a quandry.

And can find the same number of discrepencies between the east part of
South America from the west. I suppose this proves they are not the
same continent.
======================

Perhapd you could elaborate on that statement. Naw. I doubt that you can.

The Andes make up the western edge of South America they do not have
the same stratigraphic or petrologic fit with the eastern part

=========================
Non-sequitur. Eastern South America is a stratigraphic fit with western
Africa, which supports theory that Africa and South America were connected.
You don't see this same fit between Western South America and Eastern
Australia.

====================
Taylor - You can argue all you want that expansion would produce
something
else
but you cannot deny it is the age pattern which shows expansion. It
has ben demostrated
====================
You're quite wrong again, Taylor, as has been shown every time you've
made
that claim.

Both Maxlow and Adams have demonstrated it, as has been sgown many
times. Which means you knowingly make statement that are not true.
=====================
For the umpteeth time, both Maxlow and Adams are idiots who have no
standing
in the geological community.

One more question. Where does the extra matter come from?

Oh wait, more questions. If Earth expansion does occur, and is caused by
extra mass mysteriously generated or else magically and suddenly
appearing
somewhere in the Earth's interior, which then rises to the surface and
displaces the continents horizontally, what replaces the material that
rises
from such depth? Does it just leave a void in the Earth's deep interior
(thus equating EE with the hollow Earth "theory", er nonsense), or does
something replace the mass that rises to the surface? If it is the
latter,
what is it, and where does it come from? And why doesn't this extra mass
adversely affect the moon's orbit about the Earth? Why is there no
evidence
of expansion in rhythmites? Why do sedimentary processes tens and even
hundreds of millions of years ago look exactly like sedimentary
processes
that occur today? Why is there no isotopic data to support EE, but
plenty
to support PT? If EE subscribes to the concept of a very old Earth (4.56
bya), and the continents have merely moved aside for an expanding Earth,
why
didn't nearly all of the most ancient crust survive to the present? Why
doesn't the petrology of subduction zones (and that of spreading
centers,
for that matter) support EE? Why does the petrology seen in these zones
fit
PT like a glove, if EE is the way to go?

George

What's the matter Taylor? Cat got your tongue? Can't answer? Won't
answer? Or simply too dumb to answer? Probably all three.
Congratulations.


Answer "IF" questions? IF you want to show something you need to
remove the IF

What you got? Nothing? Then stick to the evidence

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

And to give you a chance to demonstrate what an idiot you are, once
again.

Please answer how you know this
"Why is there no evidence of expansion in rhythmites?"

Because you are in fact claiming it is evidence of absence.

JT
=============
Translation. Taylor can't answer any of those questions. I'm still waiting
for that list.

George


.

Relevant Pages