Plate Tectonics And Continental Drift., And I thought I knew all about it... Options

[lunk]

Plate tectonics and continental drift have been taught to me from a very early age.
I frequently found myself staring at geological formations, wondering how on earth, they were formed.
It sort of made sense, and what I didn't understand, I figured that it had all been studied, and some expert had already figured it all out, and there was no point in exploring the subject any further.
Now, I have recently discovered that there were other theories floating around:

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lau...98/EARTHEXP.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Warren_Carey

Now there are stories, of the Earth being only 6000 years old,
and a huge flood that covered the world, and predictions of a firery future...
However, I find little, outside a few human scribbles,
to support these stories.

But, I do see a grain of truth in the demonstration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJzic3kk4_g

Proof that the Earth has become larger.
...and that's about all.

imo, lunk

[lunk]

Here is the official government theory of plate tectonics:

(IMG:http://cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov/926/world_plate_color.gif)

Notice the direction of the arrows?

(Why am I thinking of flight paths...)

This makes no sense to me.

The continental plates end at their continental shelves.
They stay exactly in the same place on the globe,
while more land is being created at the mid ocean rifts,
that are found between nearly every continent on Earth.

Does the bark of a tree float around?
No. It stays exactly where it was
and new bark is formed underneath,
as the tree grows.

There is no subduction.

If there was subduction, then all the continents
would not fit perfectly together on a smaller Earth,
there would be chunks missing, if that were the case.

I know this is hard to grasp,
but the evidence is there.

(edit) what an as I am

This post has been edited by lunk: May 9 2008, 10:09 AM

[Omega892R09]

Does the bark of a tree float around?
No. It stays exactly where it was
and new bark is formed underneath,
as the tree grows.

Oh! Please! A moments thought demonstrates the fallacy of such statements.

The growth of a tree trunk and the processes of the earth have nothing in common.

A tree grows by using solar energy to process compounds extracted from its environment. The tree as such is not a closed system as far as input of matter is concerned whereas the earth too a large extent is.

There is no subduction.

Well somebody is being subduced if they believe that.

What do you suggest is raising the Andes and driving the fault-lines along the Calofornia coastline?

If there was subduction, then all the continents
would not fit perfectly together on a smaller Earth,
there would be chunks missing, if that were the case.

A much smaller earth is not much of a possiblity.

I know this is hard to grasp,
but the evidence is there.

Hard to grasp because such ideas have no substance.

You're barking up the wrong tree with this one Lunk.

[dMz]

The tree as such is not a closed system as far as input of matter is concerned whereas the earth too a large extent is.

Are there any closed systems in the universe? I'm not aware of a scientific consensus of what shape/size one of those is either. Didn't the cosmologists just need to stuff a bunch of "dark matter" everywhere to get their mouldy theory of gravity to work?

EDIT: He he hee! Guess what NASA's page says to me?

"There's a problem with your browser or settings.

Your browser or your browser's settings are not supported."

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/...a/pia10654.html

You don't think they've read my stuff here on James E. Hansen do you? Hmmm....

[Omega892R09]

Are there any closed systems in the universe? I'm not aware of a scientific consensus of what shape/size one of those is either. Didn't the cosmologists just need to stuff a bunch of "dark matter" everywhere to get their mouldy theory of gravity to work?

Oh dM! This is not like you.

Suggesting that there is something else in the universe to account for the perceived lack of mass to satisfy new theories is not to suddenly add something. It was 'possibly' already there just not noticed.

Different scenario entirely.

Besides you did notice my qualifier, 'too a large extent', didn't you? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)