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]

Actually, the reason I am covering this subject of the theory of plate tectonics vs the theory of Earth Growth is because of 9/11.

This is an example of an unproven theory that has been posed as indisputable fact, when it isn't.

I could have a theory that the world has been shrinking, but all the surface clues and geometric shapes of the continents proves that this cannot be so.

And if the Earth didn't grow then the continents would have had to drift around a static globe, to be in the shapes, and positions, that they are in today.

So we are left with two possible choices;
Either; the Earth has remained the same size and the continents are drifting around on the solid crust;
or the Earth grew or expanded, with the oceans floors rifting and widening between them, giving them the appearance that they have moved.

In both cases, the continents are assumed to have been connected in the past, because of their shape, geology and fossil records.

So my question is,
can we tell from the shape of the continents,
that we agree, at one time, were all together,
which of these two theories can be dismissed?

Yes!

Let's begin with my last picture.
This shows 2 layers of crust, an upper and a lower layer.
The upper layer, unlike the continents of the Earth, do not show any matching "shorelines" on any of the "islands".
There are no signs of drifting of the upper broken layer,
or widening of the lower layer. This is true in this case.
no drifting, no widening.
(IMG:http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp210/rongrite/stuconreleif.jpg)
This is stucco on the outside of a house.

Now, the next picture is more interesting.
There is an upper and lower layer,
but the upper crust, in both sides of the picture,
shows small short horizontal fractures, and the lower layer is smooth,
and shows longer vertical paths.
The shapes, in the upper layer, all look like they fit together, almost,
but not quite, as they have been torn apart from growth of the lower layer, between.
This is not the case for stucco on a house.

The same features can be seen in both sides of this picture:
(IMG:http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp210/rongrite/trench-tree-embossed.jpg)

Jaw drop, now:
(IMG:http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp210/rongrite/trench-tree-real.jpg)

I shall conclude from my presentation here,
that we must dismiss the theory of plate tectonics,
as the Earth grew.

Cheers, lunk

This post has been edited by lunk: Jun 3 2009, 10:15 AM