[TeleMad]

Quote

NAdams: You’re looking for subduction for your answer. Subduction is a theory existing for forty years that has no verifiable proof of being correct. Even Geologists have buried this theory by discovering most of the asthenosphere is solid and only .04 percent is molten.

Are you claiming that even geologists have abandoned subduction? Your support.

[TeleMad]

Quote

NAdams: Sauropods wieghing five times elephants which are our largest land mammal and they can cope, not run, and their shoulder blades protect their heads from snapping off. Paleantology and other sciences indicate the gravity has increased profoundly.

Today's gravity would have been too strong for dinosaurs? Isn't that a Young-Earth Creationist argument?

Quote

NAdams: In fact, the easy answer is that the Sun as you may be saying like the whole universe is growing by increasing matter at its coore.

Stars don't grow because they've dramatically increased how much matter is at their cores, they grow (become red giants) because their cores COLLAPSE. I explained how this causes an increase in stellar size a few posts back.

Quote

NAdams: Surely nothing but nothing is getting smaller.

Uhm, what about the Appalachian mountains. Oh, I get it, they haven't eroded away over the years, but instead, the Earth's gravity has grown so much that they've been sucked down into the Earth.

Quote

NAdams: This does mean no Big Bang

More anti-science.

[Chaos]

TeleMad said:

Today's gravity would have been too strong for dinosaurs? Isn't that a Young-Earth Creationist argument?

you seem to just want to attack this guy. i think he makes great points and i'm glad he posted the link to his videos. anyway, i'm as far from religious as you can get and i totally think it's possible earth once had less gravity.

[TeleMad]

Quote

Chaos: you seem to just want to attack this guy.

I didn't attack this guy, I attacked his statements. Please don't accuse me of things I didn't do.

Now, I did ask this guy to post his theory here, and he refused. Instead, he told me read pages 1 and 2 of this thread. I did. He doesn't explain his "theory" there. So what kind of game is this guy playing?

What I did find here posted by him were some scientifically ignorant statements, and others that were anti-science.

Quote

Chaos: i think he makes great points ...

So you don't know science either?

[Chaos]

here's some good related links:
http://www.sciencewa...sp?pg=30&NID=81
http://www.expanding-earth.org/
http://www.grisda.or...igins/15053.htm

[NAdams]

TeleMad said:

Are you claiming that even geologists have abandoned subduction? Your support.

No TeleMad,

The continents fit in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic. They fit in the Artic Ocean, the Antartic Ocean, the Indian Ocean. They fit in exactly the same time frame all around the world, perfectly. Gentlemen. Out of courtesy, would one of you simply describe to TeleMad that which I cannot show him, so that I may be relieved in some small way from his ire.

P.S. TeleMad, the sun spews out matter. Where is it? 100 M. tons per second for 5 billion years.

No, geologist's discoveries have made defending subduction harder and harder.

1. If most of the asthenophere is solid, that's bad.
2. If some of the oceanic plate is granite, and some not easily transmutable basalts, that's bad.
3. If subduction can't happen at continents edge, that's bad.
4. If the ocean floor grows exponentially, that's bad!

No I haven't said geologists have abandoned subduction, on that day sir, all hell will break loose because the only remaining explanation will be a growing planet. They simply, day by day make it increasingly impossible to defend. Check my map on
http://www.nealadams...omthedesky.html
Did they make YOU aware of this exponential growth of the oceans?

There is not one square yard of ancient ocean on this earth. Think of it. What are the odds that not one square yard is left. Impossible odds, sir.

They've combed the oceans. Nothing.

Well, there is ancient ocean bottoms..in Utah...Mississippi...Italy...China, etc.

[TeleMad]

NAdams said:

Out of courtesy, would one of you simply describe to TeleMad that which I cannot show him, so that I may be relieved in some small way from his ire.

It's not anyone else's job to support or explain your position; it's yours. You failed to do so, even when asked.

Don't be a jerk and blame other people for your failures.

[NAdams]

TeleMad said:

It's not anyone else's job to support or explain your position; it's yours. You failed to do so, even when asked.

Don't be a jerk and blame other people for your failures.

Dear TeleMad,

I didn't blame anyone for anything except I will say the junkyard dog in this group turns out to be the one without broadband. Since I say the discussion depends on you being able to download my videos, why don't you get the hell out of this discussion until you upgrade, or your mail order common courtesy course comes in the mail and you learn how to indulge in a reasonable conversation.

[TeleMad]

Quote

NAdams: TeleMad, the sun spews out matter. Where is it?

Most all of it? Not here on Earth.

Quote

NAdams: No, geologist's discoveries have made defending subduction harder and harder.

But those silly geologists still hold to subduction? I think I'm going to go with their professional, scientific consensus over your anti-science hypothesis.

And, if your evidence were really as strong as you claim, scientists would have no choice but to discard their concept of subduction and accept "your" position: they don't. That tells us something.

Quote

NAdams: Check my map on
http://www.nealadams...omthedesky.html
Did they make YOU aware of this exponential growth of the oceans?

And? Let's assume your doctored map is accurate. If one accepts subduction then the rate of subduction would just have increased too. So what?

Quote

Nadam: There is not one square yard of ancient ocean on this earth. Think of it. What are the odds that not one square yard is left. Impossible odds, sir.

Impossible? Not if one accepts the scientific concept of subduction.

[TeleMad]

Quote

NAdams: I didn't blame anyone for anything except I will say the junkyard dog in this group turns out to be the one without broadband.

Which is completely irrelevant. If you are going to discuss a matter HERE, you need to present your case HERE. If you can't do that, then too bad for you.

Quote

NAdams: Since I say the discussion depends on you being able to download my videos, ...

So you can't present your case here. Fine, go away.

Quote

NAdams: ... why don't you get the hell out of this discussion until you upgrade ...

Dear NAdam, why the hell don't you present your case here?

Quote

NAdams: ... or your mail order common courtesy course comes in the mail and you learn how to indulge in a reasonable conversation.

Common courtesy? I asked you to present your case here and you refused. When does your common courtesy course come in?

[Tormod]

Chaos said:

here's some good related links:
http://www.sciencewa...sp?pg=30&NID=81
http://www.expanding-earth.org/
http://www.grisda.or...igins/15053.htm

Link #1 is a fun article but is merely an assumption and not backed up by proof.

Link #2 is a swashbuckling antiscientific website with absolutely no credibility. It assumes that there were no oceans on Earth at a timescale of merely a few hundred million years ago, which is in collision with just about every observation made by geologists. We have evidence of oceans going back almost 4 billion years. Just putting together the continents and assuming that there was no ocean is folly - there is too much water on the Earth to assume it can have all arrived here withing such a short timespan.

Link #3 is a discussion of problems with plate tectonics and also the expanding Earth theory and does not conclude with anything at all.

The size of the Earth may well be changing, but plate tectonics (and the related continental drift theory) explain what we observe very well.

As for whether planetary growth should have any impact on humanity - it is not likely. Our civilization is less than 10,000 years old, or species less than a few million and we are not likely to survive as a species for more than another few million at best. Planetary growth would not affect us.

I grant that it is interesting to look at different ideas but the "growing earth" theory is neither new nor well founded, scientifically - it is, as TeleMad points out, a well known Creationist argument and bears very little support from the scientific observations made in the labs and the field.

That a small Earth was good for the dinosaurs, but that they would be crushed today, is a humorous prospect at best.

That mountain ranges are formed by tectonics is well proven, and that mountains are eroded by wind and ice is also well-proven. I happen to live in a country where we have glorious fjords surrounded by fantastic mountains thanks to glacial activity during the past ice ages.

Someone mentioned sea shells on mountain tops. It is well known that continents rise and sink, so this should no longer be a surprise to anyone.

I would like to suggest the book "Earth: An intimate history http://www.amazon.co...4456365-8212857" which is a marvellous read on the history of our planet.

[NAdams]

TeleMad said:

Which is completely irrelevant. If you are going to discuss a matter HERE, you need to present your case HERE. If you can't do that, then too bad for you.



So you can't present your case here. Fine, go away.



Dear NAdam, why the hell don't you present your case here?



Common courtesy? I asked you to present your case here and you refused. When does your common courtesy course come in?

TeleMad,

Ah. Nay saying. Petulance. Ignoring of any point.

The example of history and the about-facing of long-held, even short-held principles have no place in your mind. I see. Reasoned discourse. Proofs, nothing will sway you, of course. Science will change, like you, if they see reason. Quite so, ah. As ever.

Sure, rate of subduction increased. No further thought in that regard? It's just doubled...And redoubled: and exactly what force redoubled it, sir? Just for discussion?

No, if one accepts subduction, there should be many areas of ancient undersea. What you say is preposterous. You should call them and tell them to give up their search. It's not necessary. You know they're right. That's enough. You are nay saying and have nothing to really say except the status quo is correct. What contribution do you make to any discussion to new thought at all, sir?

[Tormod]

NAdams, before you go off on a tangent with TeleMad, let me remind you that this is a science forum and that you have provided a theory which is well founded on Creationist ideas. That your ideas are opposed is neither surprising nor unwanted. TeleMad has asked you questions which you need to address by using something else than your movies.

NAdams said:

Did they make YOU aware of this exponential growth of the oceans?

Oh my. Who are "they", now? Are you suggesting there is some kind of conspiracy going on?

Quote

There is not one square yard of ancient ocean on this earth. Think of it. What are the odds that not one square yard is left. Impossible odds, sir.

Quote

Well, there is ancient ocean bottoms..in Utah...Mississippi...Italy...China, etc.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. The water we have today is the same we have had since the planet was formed and comets started bombarding it.

However, subduction explains very well what you try to explain away, and I have so far not seen any evidence from you that it does not happen. There is however plenty of evidence that it happens. It is *directly observable* which makes it easy to study.

http://www.platetect...ook/page_12.asp

[Tormod]

NAdams said:

No, if one accepts subduction, there should be many areas of ancient undersea.

Why? Subduction brings the ocean floor into the grind and rejoins it with the magma below.

Your missing ancient seabeds are today's continents.

[Jay-qu]

So where did all the water come from?