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

[Omega892R09]

I was brought up with the theory of plate tectonics, like everyone else.
It wasn't until I started looking
deeper into it, that I saw that it is just a theory.

It is a theory in the scientific sense where there is a high degree of confidence in the correctness of plate tectonics as provided by the current state of knowledge in many scientific fields. Paleontology, bio-paleontology, stratigraphy, geology, mineralogy, oceanography, seismology (including seismological tomography, radiometric dating and paleomagnatism.

Warren S Carey's theory of expanding earth did not survive the assaults from the last three of those namely seismology, radiometric dating and paleomagnatism, except in his own continuing boistrous presentations up until he died.

Thus multi-dimensional scientific analysis supports plate tectonics.

Expanding earth is simply so far out that it isn't even wrong, it fails on so many points not least of which in explaining the existence of large oceans such as the Panthalassa evidence of the existence of which is widely spread because of the break up of Pangea whereby sub-continents of Australia/New Guinea/New Zealand, India, Africa, Laurasia and Baltica, South America and Antarctica moved asunder in varied different ways involving moving across and up the globe with varied rotations as they went.

The known age of the Pacific sea floor is also against an expanding earth and the fact that there was water there is proven by the under sea mounts, and guyots that exist in the wake of the hot spot currently in the region of Hawaii.

I could go into lengthy explanations of theory behind the above statements but feel this is the wrong thread, and maybe even the wrong forum for such detailed discourse.

There for I will use the shorthand method of a few web pointers:

That Neal Adams has used sleight of hand, aka artistic license, is provided in these clips:

Re: Neal Adams Conspiracy of Science: Pangea

RE: Neal Adams Science Project

The following forums provide interesting and enlightening exchanges:

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

In this next one read the replies by SkinWalker
SciForums.com

In that above the banned Oil is Master is responsible for a web site promoting Expanding Earth and Abiogenic oil. Hum!:

oilismastery.blogspot.com

I could go on in similar vein but that would be to over-egg the pudding at this stage.

It should be noted that in the later part of the 19th and early 20th centuries that some proposed a shrinking earth hypothesis.

Historically, many land creatures were massively bigger than land creatures can be today, today, the reason for this is that there must be more gravity today then there was before.

False assumption.

There are other reasons for the development of large creatures such as metabolic rate, temperature (large creatures have a more favorable volume to surface area ratio in cold climes and vice versa) and availability of suitable nutrients amongst them.

The only way that this could happen is if the Earth is more massive today. In fact, if you take away the oceans the world would be 1.7 times smaller ((edit) I mean the Earth today is 1.7 times as big as it was, without the oceans), if you put all the continents back together, without them, on a smaller globe.

So when were there no oceans?

The continents of today, will fit together perfectly on a much smaller globe.

No they don't actually, besides see my notes about the age of the Pacific sea floor above and the movements of the Pangea fragments post break up.

The fossil records show that the same dinosaurs were on every continent, world wide.

That only proves that the continents were once joined but you are aware that during the age of the dinosaurs there was a growing gulf between many of the subcontinents.

Also the fossil record WRT small oceanic organisms and those pre-Pangea is damning of any expanding earth theory.

You are aware that there were oceans as far back in time as the Hadean.

EDIT:

BTW lunk. Do I have it right that you are in the Vancouver Island area?

If so there is much interesting geology near and under you which supports the existance of Benioff Zones.

Also I read a book, still have it around, that may interest you. It is "Passage to Juneau" by Jonathan Raban.

Passage to Juneau: A Sea and Its Meanings

I picked it up and read because I had done sailing like the author and was interested in that part of the world particularly because of its maritime history. It is an interesting account that provides much colour in the way of local history and geography.

[dMz]

The following forums provide interesting and enlightening exchanges:

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

In this next one read the replies by SkinWalker
SciForums.com

In that above the banned Oil is Master is responsible for a web site promoting Expanding Earth and Abiogenic oil. Hum!:

oilismastery.blogspot.com

I could go on in similar vein but that would be to over-egg the pudding at this stage.

Are you sure "lively and friendly" wouldn't be a more apt description O892? You do know that both of those are "debunker"-moderated forums that don't allow open, unbiased discussion of 9/11 don't you (perhaps the BAUT is more of a "sister site" to the Illusionist site- google for BAUT, 9/11, and that other forum together sometime). I noticed quite a few characters at SciF that posted disturbingly like members of the J-CULT too.

Let's look shall we?

9/11 [under Pseudoscience, thread locked]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92066

Sorry but the hammers dropped Scottx.

These threads have been done and done again and if anything it's chased legitimate members away from the forum because of how intolerable they've become. If you want 9/11 as a pet subject, I'd really suggest getting yourself a website to house a forum for your rantings and invite others to participate over there.

This basically means 9/11 threads are an Autolock now, you've had your fun, leave the floor open for someone else.

WTC Collapses [under Pseudoscience, thread locked]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87960

Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job? [under Formal Debates, thread locked]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90779

Proposal- Was 9/11 an inside job? [under Formal Debates, thread locked]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90335

Clarifying when mods are entitled to delete posts [under SF Open Government, re: this "Skinwalker" moderator]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92080

So now I get a post deleted and a warning from Skinwalker because he believes that I engaged in "Trolling / Meaningless Post Content". This post is not about Skinwalker per se, but about when moderators should delete posts and issue warnings.

Skinwalker states that the post in question is "clearly trolling". All I said was that, in response to someone speaking of the fine line between science and pseudoscience, I believed that the problem was that too few people, including some moderators, don't truly understand the scientific method. -That's- trolling? That's simply voicing a view of mine, in a civil manner no less.

deleted posts. [under SF Open Government]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=93439

i propose that anyone posting a recovered deleted post be warned once then permanently banned on the second occurrence.

deleted posts are not public domain.

site transparency can be handled through the formal debates forum where reports go to all mods.

edit:
bad idea. site transparency cannot be maintained like this.

More on "Skinwalker:"

Skinwalker banning Scifes unacceptable
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=93263

I am writing this post and opening this thread to bring to attention to the injustices of this moderator Skinwalker who is nothing more than an Atheist troll. His whole purpose for giving warnings and banning individuals is to cripple debate which is critical of Atheism. Furthermore, when the members try to debate this moderator for his views, they are given warnings and may be banned. Kadark was banned permanently while debating with Skinwalker.

Skinwalker should be removed as moderator. I have never had any problems in this thread with any other moderators, but I have been given 5 warnings by Skinwalker, one of which I forced him to reverse. My posts have constantly been deleted, and when this moderator sends me PMs, it is always insulting against my religion, i.e. in a PM to my 'Assalam Alaikum, here is a warning.'

Debate between Atheists and Religious people should be even and fair, and I believe by allowing Skinwalker jurisdiction in this forum, it severely curtails debate on the subject. I believe completely in freedom of speech, especially in regards to intellectually beneficial debates held on this forum as regards tot he nature of religion and atheism.

I don't believe any posters have problems with Scifes, as this person has always been polite and engaging in any debate on this forum.

This moderator needs to be removed. If any of the readers agree with my point, please add to this discussion so that the moderators can see that we want this moderator removed.

Thanks for your time.

Skinwalker's had his share of opponents for some time now (I'm one of them). I solve the problem by not posting in forums he moderates. I suggest that if you find someone saying something interesting in one of the forums he moderates, just PM them.

It is interesting that the non-pinned threads in that "Open Government" forum only go back one month- almost like they have been deleted or something. I also found considerable discussion of paedophilia at that "Sciforums" while searching for the locked 9/11 threads under "Pseudoscience." Hmmm...
-------------------------------------------
On to this "Bad Astronomy" forum:

New Change for Conspiracy Theory section: only space and astronomy [under Conspiracy Theories]

Phil and I have talked it over, and we feel that the Conspiracy Theory section of the forum is starting to get out of hand. If you take a look through the CT section, easily half of the stories on the homepage are about 9/11, and have nothing to do with space and astronomy.

So, effective immediately, we're instituting the same policy that we have for the Against the Mainstream Section...

... only post topics relating to space and astronomy.

We'll start closing up topics on Friday, and from this point on, any threads which aren't specifically about space-related conspiracy theories will be closed immediately.

Thanks!

--------------------------------------
It almost sounds a little like that Fascist book-burning to me, not even allowing discussion of 9/11 events. They seem to have inordinate numbers of ad hominem "debunkers" and appeal to ridicule- you won't need to look far to find any.

Here is another "debunker"-moderated forum where all things 9/11 are verboten:
"Scepticism & Debunking"
http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5

Are you going to quote "Debunking 9/11" next O892? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Omega892R09]

Are you sure "lively and friendly" wouldn't be a more apt description O892? You do know that both of those are "debunker"-moderated forums that don't allow open, unbiased discussion of 9/11 don't you

No I didn't know that, but then I have not engaged there.

Whatever 9/11 was not the topic here.

We all have different conceptual frameworks and just because a person who debunks 9/11 truth sites does not mean that they do not have valid knowledge and opinions on other topics.

None of us know all there is to know. We all have to filter a vast amount of information from diverse sources in order to form a working model of the universe we inhabit.

TBH I find OIM rather strange and the idea of an expanding earth, at least in the extent of the dimensions required by the ideas that lunk has aired, preposterous.

Abiotic oil is another no no.

To be sure as carbon deposits were laid down millions of years ago (at different geological periods which in the case of coal is why there are various types) then so they are being today. The point is we are extracting it and consuming it on a much reduced time scale to that of its deposition. And that is the problem.

[dMz]

TBH I find OIM rather strange and the idea of an expanding earth, at least in the extent of the dimensions required by the ideas that lunk has aired, preposterous.

Abiotic oil is another no no.

To be sure as carbon deposits were laid down millions of years ago (at different geological periods which in the case of coal is why there are various types) then so they are being today.

How can we be "sure-" were you there when the "carbon deposits were laid down millions of years ago?" Were you there when the continents drifted apart? Were you there when Lloyde's cab was "speared" with a lightpole? (The 9/11 relevance)

I see talk of "no-no's" and "preposterous." I listened to lectures about "electric charge q" for years without a proper definition ever provided- it was simply q₁ (or sometimes q₂). My older sister was told "that is a stupid question" when she inquired about charge in collegiate physics class (possibly because she is female), so I never asked that question in my classes (in the interests of "status quo" and "making the grade.") Keep in mind that my father was a collegiate professor of physics, and he never could define electrical charge either.

I prefer to stay true to my Aristotelian/Socratic heritage (avoiding the beatitudes of the Platonic in the middle- he kinda pissed me off with his arrogant "forms" and "divine right" thing). Socrates is roughly quoted as saying "I know that I know nothing- therein lies my wisdom." I mostly concur- I have no dogmas and beliefs (or religion) left anymore, mostly just cynicism/realism based upon my firsthand observations and research. That and a sh*t-load of books (plus a few oscilloscopes, sundry equipment, about 1.5 tons of tools, a full hard disk, and many archived CD's and DVD's). (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Sanders]

...Socrates is roughly quoted as saying "I know that I know nothing- therein lies my wisdom."

Wow, that's a great quote.