Re: Creationist Claim: No evidence that plates are still moving


Mark Isaak wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:00:58 -0400, Raymond Griffith
> <tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >in article dfghb9$vn4$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Al at
> >almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 9/5/05 12:32 AM:
> >
> >>
> >> "Stuart" <bigdakine@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:1125880601.819134.69020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>> Al wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The references that I have presented are a small sample of what is
> >>>> available.
> >>>
> >>> LOL.
> >>>
> >>> THis is classic kookdom.. I can come up with all sorts of "anomalies"
> >>> I'm sure your supply of bullshit is seemingly endless.
> >>
> >> But it's all scientific geological bullshit!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Al, either explain why my answer to Merservy's topological argument is
> >>> wrong and how India's collision with Asia is consistent with EE.
> >> If you go along EE lines then India cannot collide with anything. I don't
> >> remember saying this?
> >
> >May I ask a stupid question? Exactly *how* do you propose the earth expand
> >without one of the two following?
> >
> >1) increased thermal activity inside the earth.
> >
> >Or
> >
> >2) increased mass inside the earth.
>
> This was the first thing I looked for when I came across a Carey's
> book on the Expanding Earth. As I recall, the explanation he favored
> was that matter was somehow being created inside of planets. As you
> note, there is no evidence for that. But Carey's larger point is
> valid: The mechanism may well be something completely unknown. If
> there is evidence that the earth is explanding, then we should say as
> much, and not argue the phenomenon away for lack of a known mechanism.


I agree with that. For example, Dariwn didn't have a mechanism for
heredity and that was crucial part of his theory. And while Carey's
expanding Earth hypothesis explained some of the data with repect to
continental outlines and the sea floor, it failed to explain the ocean
deeps, it failed to explain the distribution of deep-focus earthquakes,
it failed to explain flat topped guyots deep in ocean trenches etc.

Once an alternative mechanism was found that explained the data, Plate
Tectonics, then unambiguous evidence for expansion becomes necessary.
Hence, unless EEers now come up with a mechanism, they have nothing to
offer.

> In retrospect, that argument was remarkably prescient,

Arthur Holmes had already figured out much of the nuts and bolts of
plate tectonics by the late 30's early 40's.

Carey was a great geologist, but backed the wrong horse, and went to
his grave the Fred Hoyle of Geology.

Stuart

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The pseudo miracles of Plate tectonics Zealots
    ... planets/moons (Encelade, Earth, Venus, Io...) and at the same time very ... But this approach ruins the other pretensions of the false geology & ... fraudulent time scale based on fosssils & radio-nucleides decay. ... I enjoy at all times reading your evidence on the Plate Tectonics ' ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Kook warning, Oriel36
    ... > Earth expansion - this all what you are describing hangs in the air. ... late of the Chair of Geology at the University of Tasmania ... But a consensus of one is not enough, ... why plate tectonics got off the ground in America, ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion
    ... >> expansion and accepted plate tectonics in the end. ... >> still believe in Earth Expansion are badly misguided. ... >> post any real evidence to counter PT evidence or to prove their hypothesis. ... > What a hopeless lying arse you are George, I spoke with Carey at great length ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: FAQS - Earth Expansion
    ... >matters plate tectonics, I don't see much evidence of 'meshing'. ... I knew some folks who work on tectonic modelling and earth ... There is expansion, and there is ...
    (sci.geo.geology)