D H Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 bombus, you have presented one purported "problem" with plate tectonics and it has been dealt with. Your only direct response was It's not a straw man as far as I am concerned. You have given a good answer there that I had not considered. It is a straw man argument. The argument depends upon the implicit assumption that plates are of a fixed size. Plate tectonics does not say this at all. Saying (or implying) that it does and then attempting to tear down plate tectonics based on this is a straw man. What other "problems" with plate tectonics theory do you see? That is not scientific! I suggest you look further into PTT. It's not as solid as many will have you believe. Now you are employing another logical fallacy, argument from ignorance. Just because we do not have a complete theory does not invalidate the theory. Good thing that; there is no such thing as a complete theory in any branch of science.
bombus Posted June 22, 2009 Author Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) bombus, you are misinterpreting what he is saying. he is saying that the reasons why plate tectonics tend to be completely ignored by proponents of expanding earth, they only focus on the problems without even attempting to account for the things that plate tectonics works for, often leaving these things out entirely. the only incredulity is in regard to the behaviour of these people. any theory that is going to replace tectonics must be capable of describing everything plate tectonics does right and then some more. I am not interested in the bits that support PTT - I have no problem with these. It's the bits that don't fit that are the problem. However, EET would have pretty much the same evidence as PTT - even a degree of subduction according to some - which makes the holes in PTT (if they exist) more problematic. However, I can't stand closed mindedness on either side. However, I suspect many of the opponents to PTT do not believe in EET either Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged bombus, you have presented one purported "problem" with plate tectonics and it has been dealt with. Your only direct response was It is a straw man argument. The argument depends upon the implicit assumption that plates are of a fixed size. Plate tectonics does not say this at all. Saying (or implying) that it does and then attempting to tear down plate tectonics based on this is a straw man. I couldn't give two hoots if it is a strawman. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of the claims. Chill out for god's sake! What other "problems" with plate tectonics theory do you see? Lack of scraped off sediment at subduction zones. Where is it? It was predicted - and should occur, but doesn't. Now you are employing another logical fallacy, argument from ignorance. Just because we do not have a complete theory does not invalidate the theory. Good thing that; there is no such thing as a complete theory in any branch of science. Some theories - such as evolution by natural selection - are pretty damn watertight. So is relativity. PTT does not have anywhere near the same logical authority or evidence. Edited June 22, 2009 by bombus Consecutive posts merged.
D H Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 I am not interested in the bits that support PTT - I have no problem with these. It's the bits that don't fit that are the problem. Name some, please. However, EET would have pretty much the same evidence as PTT It would be best to keep EET out of this thread. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I couldn't give two hoots if it is a strawman. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of the claims. You should give many hoots. Using logical fallacies is not a valid form of discourse. Lack of scraped off sediment at subduction zones. Where is it? It was predicted - and should occur, but doesn't. It took me but a few seconds to find this. http://www.cyberwest.com/geology/cascadia-subduction-zone-earthquake.shtml The Cascadia subduction zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and northern California contains forearc basins in several areas, according to Fuller. As it moves to the east at 2 inches a year, the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate slides beneath the North American plate that contains the landmass of the Pacific Northwest. In the process, sediment as deep as 1.5 miles is scraped off the top of the Juan de Fuca plate and is deformed into surface depressions on the North American plate, forming the basins where sediment from coastal rivers is deposited. The probability of large earthquakes is greatest in these areas. Rather than taking the claims made in some woo-woo web site as truth, I suggest you use your brains and see if those claims have any validity.
bombus Posted June 22, 2009 Author Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) Name some, please. See the link above. This is an extract from another paper. I have not checked out the references yet: Maxwell (1974) stated that many earth-science papers were concerned with demonstrating that some particular feature or process may be explained by plate tectonics, but that such papers were of limited value in any unbiased assessment of the scientific validity of the hypothesis. Van Andel (1984) conceded that plate tectonics had serious flaws, and that the need for a growing number of ad hoc modifications cast doubt on its claim to be the ultimate unifying global theory. Lowman (1992a) argued that geology has largely become "a bland mixture of descriptive research and interpretive papers in which the interpretation is a facile cookbook application of plate-tectonics concepts ... used as confidently as trigonometric functions" (p. 3). Lyttleton and Bondi (1992) held that the difficulties facing plate tectonics and the lack of study of alternative explanations for seemingly supportive evidence reduced the plausibility of the theory. It would be best to keep EET out of this thread. Agreed. I was only pointing out that evidence of PTT does not generally disprove EET. But that will do on the subject. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You should give many hoots. Using logical fallacies is not a valid form of discourse. I don't deliberately post strawmen. So long as I get nearer to the truth I'm fine with that. It took me but a few seconds to find this.http://www.cyberwest.com/geology/cascadia-subduction-zone-earthquake.shtml The Cascadia subduction zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and northern California contains forearc basins in several areas, according to Fuller. As it moves to the east at 2 inches a year, the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate slides beneath the North American plate that contains the landmass of the Pacific Northwest. In the process, sediment as deep as 1.5 miles is scraped off the top of the Juan de Fuca plate and is deformed into surface depressions on the North American plate, forming the basins where sediment from coastal rivers is deposited. The probability of large earthquakes is greatest in these areas. And I found this: Ocean trenches were initially expected to contain thick, deformed sediment accumulated during millions of years of convergence. Instead, 44% of trenches are empty of sediments. The rest do contain "accretionary wedges" along the landward slope, but smaller than expected. Accretionary wedges were expected to grow and uplift with time, but it is now known that some have subsided several kilometres. Moreover, the sediment in them is usually horizontally layered and undisturbed, and is mainly derived from the land rather than being offscraped oceanic sediment. Rather than taking the claims made in some woo-woo web site as truth, I suggest you use your brains and see if those claims have any validity. Jesus! What is wrong with you? I am not taking anything as truth. I am investigating the claims to see if they stand up to scrutiny. I'd suggest you read the information my link above leads to before making any more posts. Try this: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm and I don't want to hear 'he's a crank'. I don't care if he's a chocolate sponge, it's whether what he is saying is correct/incorrect or an accurate acount/misrepresentation of data that's the issue. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOr to put it another way, the only requirement with regards to area is that the combined area of all plates remains constant. There's no reason individual plates should have a constant area. OK. Thanks. Edited June 22, 2009 by bombus Consecutive posts merged.
D H Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Jesus! What is wrong with you? My main problem is a distinct inability to suffer fools gladly. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSee the link above. This is an extract from another paper. I have not checked out the references yet: That is not an extract from another paper. It is an extract from the same paper you cited earlier. You even said so yourself ("See the link above"). The cited passage looks like a mix of mischaracterizations of credible sources (note the lack of quote marks) and one exact quote from a disreputable source. I don't deliberately post strawmen. So long as I get nearer to the truth I'm fine with that. You will not get closer to the truth by posting straw men. And I found this: Ocean trenches were initially expected to contain thick, deformed sediment accumulated during millions of years of convergence. Instead, 44% of trenches are empty of sediments. The rest do contain "accretionary wedges" along the landward slope, but smaller than expected. So why then do you persist in posting straw men? Have you seen movies of deep sea dives? There is a constant rain of sediments from above. Of course ocean trenches were initially expected to contain a huge accumulation of sediment. That they weren't was a key indicator that something was wrong with the science of geology at the time the trenches were discovered. The discovery of the deep ocean trenches and the mid-oceanic ridges was one of the driving forces behind the development of plate tectonics. Do you have even the foggiest idea of how real science works? Try this: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm and I don't want to hear 'he's a crank'. Crank, crank, crank. Seriously, crank. Let's see what else he has to say: There are really 12 sacred planets, just as there are 12 globes of a planetary chain. These include the seven commonly referred to, plus the Earth and four other invisible planetary chains. Each globe of our planetary chain is the child of, and in a sense built, controlled, and guided by, one in particular, but all in general, of the 12 sacred planets. Our own globe D, for example, was especially built by, and is especially guided by, Saturn, assisted by our Moon. The reference here is to the ensouling divinities of the sacred planets rather than their material bodies. Each round and each root-race are likewise under the particular governance of one of the sacred planets. Contrary to popular belief, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is not a global pandemic caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV); rather, it is one of the biggest and deadliest medical scandals of modern times. There is no convincing evidence that ‘HIV’ plays any role whatsoever in impairing the immune system, let alone that it is the sole cause of AIDS. There is compelling evidence that ‘HIV’ is not readily transmitted sexually, and that AIDS is not contagious. According to theosophy, instead of condensing out of molten physical matter our globe has crystallized out of a more ethereal state of matter, described as 'fiery, cool and radiant'. The Stanzas of Dzyan (6:4) describe in figurative language how 'fohat' -- electric, vital force, guided by the universal mind -- builds planets ('wheels') by generating vorticular motion ('whirlwinds') in the primordial matter or 'fire-mist': 'He collects the fiery dust. He makes balls of fire, runs through them, and round them, infusing life thereinto, then sets them into motion'. The 'germs of wheels' are described as 'centres of force, around which primordial Cosmic matter expands, and, passing through all the six stages of consolidation, becomes spheroidal and ends by being transformed into globes or spheres'. The earth thereby 'passed from a soft plastic body into a rock-bound globe'. The 'rocky crust' or 'body shell' is said to have reached its most material state at the midpoint of our planet's evolution, several million years ago, and has since begun to return slowly to a more ethereal state. At the centre of any globe there is said to be an 'inner kingdom' composed of the lowest of the three kingdoms of elementals (ethereal, submineral nature-forces). The earth's core is described as 'concreted electricity', and is said to be analogous to the nucleus of an atom. CRACKPOT!
JohnB Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 CRACKPOT! Everybody knows there are only 11 sacred planets.
bombus Posted June 23, 2009 Author Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) As i said [sigh] he may well be crank, but that's not the point! Is what he is saying about PT correct or not? Anyway. I have looked up where you got those extracts from, and it is from a text about the beliefs of ancient cultures, and the third extract plainly states 'according to theosophy...'. You are cynically misrepresenting his own beliefs there. However, his stance on AIDS plainly shows he's a crank... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged My main problem is a distinct inability to suffer fools gladly. You are just plain rude. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That is not an extract from another paper. It is an extract from the same paper you cited earlier. You even said so yourself ("See the link above"). The cited passage looks like a mix of mischaracterizations of credible sources (note the lack of quote marks) and one exact quote from a disreputable source. So what? I made a mistake. It's not relevant to the discussion. You will not get closer to the truth by posting straw men. That is not a strawman. So why then do you persist in posting straw men? why do you?: Have you seen movies of deep sea dives? There is a constant rain of sediments from above. Of course ocean trenches were initially expected to contain a huge accumulation of sediment. That they weren't was a key indicator that something was wrong with the science of geology at the time the trenches were discovered. The discovery of the deep ocean trenches and the mid-oceanic ridges was one of the driving forces behind the development of plate tectonics. Do you have even the foggiest idea of how real science works? Are you aspergic? Crank, crank, crank. Seriously, crank. Let's see what else he has to say: I would repeat what I said earlier, but you don't seem to understand the point. Look DH, just sod off if you can't be civil. I'm going to ignore you in this thread from now on. Edited June 23, 2009 by bombus Consecutive posts merged.
Klaynos Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Please remain civil to everyone. Personal attacks against other members will be dealt with. I think it's best if as mentioned above EET is not mentioned further in this thread. bombus. could you deal with the counter arguments as to why a subduction zone is not required around the whole of the Antarctic plate. It might also be worth mentioning that when someone's credibility is seriously damaged it is difficult to take anything they present seriously unless other good, independent, sources can be found.
D H Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 First things first: You are just plain rude. Yes, I was just plain rude. I apologize. Anyway. I have looked up where you got those extracts from, and it is from a text about the beliefs of ancient cultures, and the third extract plainly states 'according to theosophy...'. You are cynically misrepresenting his own beliefs there. However, his stance on AIDS plainly shows he's a crank... "According to theosophy": Theosophy is *his* main thesis. See his home page: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5. He has tons of ramblings on theosophy, whatever that is (his writing style is rather incoherent). Whatever theosophy is, it conflicts not only with geology but also evolution, modern medicine, cosmology, the standard model of physics, relativity, ... Just look at his home page and follow the links therein. He pulls out the standard crackpot set of weapons in his futile attempts to demolish geology, evolution, modern medicine, cosmology, the standard model of physics, relativity, ...: quotes out of context, misquotes, mischaracterizations, and fallacies galore, formal and informal. His credibility is not just seriously damaged. It is nonexistent. As i said [sigh] he may well be crank, but that's not the point! Is what he is saying about PT correct or not? No, yes, and who knows, dealt with in reverse order: Who knows? A lot of his writing is incoherent rambling. It can be very hard to determine what he is saying. Yes. Every politician knows that one of the very best ways to lie is to tell the truth. Not the whole truth and nothing but the truth of course. The truth, carefully dealt out in small doses, can be used as a cover for some outragious lies. No. His central thesis, that the plate tectonics theory is utterly flawed, is wrong. And I found this: Ocean trenches were initially expected to contain thick' date=' deformed sediment accumulated during millions of years of convergence. Instead, [b']44%[/b] of trenches are empty of sediments. So why then do you persist in posting straw men?[/quote']That is not a strawman. That most definitely is a straw man. Let's take it one bit at a time: "Ocean trenches were initially expected to contain thick, deformed sediment accumulated during millions of years of convergence." The ocean trenches were discovered prior to the development of plate tectonics theory. The prevailing view among geologists at that time was that the Earth was more-or-less unchanging. When oceanographers began sending submergibles into the ocean depths, they noticed a steady rain of debris falling from above. These primitive submergibles could reach parts of the ocean floor. What they saw in these initial excursions was a lot of sediment. It only stood to reason that the trenches, if they had been around unchanged for millions of years, should be at least partially filled with this sediment. So, right off the bat Pratt is creating a straw man. Plate tectonics theory never espoused that the trenches should be filled with sediment. "Instead, 44% of trenches are empty of sediments." This is not a straw man. It is instead using the truth to be downright dishonest. Pratt put these two sentences together to give the impression that plate tectonic theory cannot explain a widespread phenomenon. The truth is exactly the opposite. The discovery of the trenches and mid-oceanic ridges was the first indicator that something was wrong with the geologists' model of a steady-state Earth. The discovery that the trenches were not filled with sediment indicated that something was very, very wrong with that model. There was a lot of active geology going on at the mid-oceanic ridges and in the deep trenches. These observations and an explanation for them were exactly what motivated the development of plate tectonics theory. The observation that the trenches are not full of sediment is not only consistent with plate tectonics theory, it is in part responsible for the birth of plate tectonics theory. 1
phantom Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Whatever theosophy is... Theosophy appears to be explanations from some sort of hallucinatory phenomenon applied to the “real world”… which doesn’t work too well.
bombus Posted September 6, 2009 Author Posted September 6, 2009 OK, well a number of issues seem to have been addressed - thank you. I don't think it's worth refering to that website any more as using a crank's website is not going to help. Instead, maybe you'd like to have a look at this website. http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/ It's Dr, James Maxlow's site. He is a professional geologist and a serious scientist. An extract to whet your appetite is shown below: The Plate Tectonic interpretation of global data, for instance, is based on the fundamental premise that the Earths radius has remained constant, or near constant, throughout history. As will be outlined in this paper, this contrasts with an Expansion Tectonic interpretation of the same global data which is based on the fundamental premise that the Earths radius has been steadily increasing throughout Earth history. It should be appreciated from this statement that all modern and historical global data used to substantiate both Plate Tectonic and Expansion Tectonic theories are, in fact, identical. The only reason why Plate Tectonic theory won acceptance 50 years ago was because debate on whether or not Earths radius does or does not change with time was largely hypothetical – since it couldn’t be convincingly verified or measured. Also: Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year.
mooeypoo Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Do you know the concept of peer reviewed articles, bombus? Seeing as this was a repeated request of you for a few posts in a few threads already, perhaps you should revisit that definition and come back to us when you have more relevant data. To be more specific, when you gave forth *claims* from the theory, they were dealt with. The credentials (or lack thereof) of the person claiming are irrelevant, whether he is a doctor or a crank. The *ONLY* relevance to the credentials of the person speaking is to speak of their methodology; it is no proof, but if a person is a crank -- that is, he is using flawed methodology repeatedly, then his claims are already suspicious. On its own, the claim of crank'hood is not enough to disprove his claims, but that is NOT what was done here and on the other threads on this topic. In this - and other threads -- on the matter of plate tectonics, the issue was the claims of the theory. They were dealt with and you were shown why the claims were wrong, *AND* what evidence support plate tectonics. You were asked to supply better evidence if you still insist on claiming that the evidence on the contrary are superior. Giving another website that is not peer reviewed - REGARDLESS of the title of the owner of that website -- is insufficient under any means. The theory you propose was shown to be crap. Bringing forth the people who still believe in that theory only serves to showcase who believes in crap, not to give more credence to the theory. Now, do you have anything SUBSTANTIAL and SCIENTIFIC to add, or are we going to continue down this path where you refuse to go by the scientific method and we go 'round and 'round and 'round 'till there's nothing left to rant about? Your choice. I recommend that before you answer, you go over the rules of the forum, and remind you that this isn't your personal website or blog, it is a community science forum. We go by the scientific method and a scientific methodology, not by who has the most sites written by a bigger title. ~moo
D H Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Instead, maybe you'd like to have a look at this website. http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/ It's Dr, James Maxlow's site. He is a professional geologist and a serious scientist. No, he is not. He is a professional crackpot, and he is quite serious about it.
insane_alien Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 so... where does the extra 4600km^3 per year come from? and this is 2.53*10^16 kg we're talking about here. no insignificant amount of material. infact, this is ~4.23*10^-9 of the earths mass. PER YEAR. like it or not this would have a HUGE effect on sattelites. on the good side, it means space junk is not an issue. it also means that the earth had a size of zero ~240 million years ago. this is at odds with well, all known data. seriously, stop bringing up the kooks. we're tired of it. everytime we shoot it down you bring up another idiot claiming to be a professional(with no reputable published works) and they come at it from a slightly different angle. the earth is not expanding the way it is presented there. earth should be buried in debris stuff from 1000 years ago should be 18 meters underground. thats another point, all these earth expansion nutjobs seem to think the earth is expanding FROM THE INSIDE. how. how does the mass get through the crust without us knowing? sure, if the earth was impacted by a 10km diameter asteroid each year that penetrated the crust while causing negligble damage to the surface fine. but this is not a likely, nor real, scenario. face it. these guys are lying and almost universally trying to sell a book 'that reveals the hidden conspiracy in science' seriously. its a crock. its fiction peddled as fact.
bombus Posted September 6, 2009 Author Posted September 6, 2009 No, he is not. He is a professional crackpot, and he is quite serious about it. How do you know that? Or is this just your opinion?
JillSwift Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 It's Dr, James Maxlow's site. He is a professional geologist and a serious scientist. An extract to whet your appetite is shown below: This is an appeal to authority. His ideas are a very convoluted but never the less classic excluded middle fallacy. Essentially "if plate tectonics is wrong then the expanding earth must be right". Not being a geologist, I can not speak to the specifics. However, the argument itself is poorly constructed and even if I granted total veracity to his critique of plate tectonics I could in no way accept his conclusion because of the obvious fallacy.
bombus Posted September 6, 2009 Author Posted September 6, 2009 In this - and other threads -- on the matter of plate tectonics, the issue was the claims of the theory. They were dealt with and you were shown why the claims were wrong, *AND* what evidence support plate tectonics. Some 'strawmen' were revealed. Some issues (such as the Antartica situation) were left in the 'we just don't know category'. You were asked to supply better evidence if you still insist on claiming that the evidence on the contrary are superior. I have not insisted on anything? Giving another website that is not peer reviewed - REGARDLESS of the title of the owner of that website -- is insufficient under any means. How do you know it's not been peer reviewed. The majority of stuff referred to on this forum is giiven with no proof of being peer reviewed. If that is what you require I'll do my best. The theory you propose was shown to be crap. Bringing forth the people who still believe in that theory only serves to showcase who believes in crap, not to give more credence to the theory. No it wasn't actually. Now, do you have anything SUBSTANTIAL and SCIENTIFIC to add, or are we going to continue down this path where you refuse to go by the scientific method and we go 'round and 'round and 'round 'till there's nothing left to rant about? Who's ranting? Your choice. I recommend that before you answer, you go over the rules of the forum, and remind you that this isn't your personal website or blog, it is a community science forum. We go by the scientific method and a scientific methodology, not by who has the most sites written by a bigger title. I am quite sure Dr. Maxlow does too. He claims to have obtained a PhD in geology.
mooeypoo Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 for the last time: Stop debating the person arguing the theory and start debating the theory, bombus! When you post the actual claims, you were shown that they're ridiculous and utter bolony. You chose to bring forth lots of people (ahem, 2) that support utter bolony. It means nothing other than those people support utter bolony. If you want people to treat this bolony seriously, your only course of action is to give us evidence that has merit. Arguing about whether or not that specific Doctor is or isn't a crank is irrelevant. We will not accept the theory just because he says so, we will accept a theory if we see enough evidence. It's time you put up valid evidence for the theory, bombus. Stop running away from the responsibility YOU hold as the person claiming bolony to be true. Prove us wrong. Scientifically. ~moo
bombus Posted September 6, 2009 Author Posted September 6, 2009 This is an appeal to authority. His ideas are a very convoluted but never the less classic excluded middle fallacy. Essentially "if plate tectonics is wrong then the expanding earth must be right". Not being a geologist, I can not speak to the specifics. However, the argument itself is poorly constructed and even if I granted total veracity to his critique of plate tectonics I could in no way accept his conclusion because of the obvious fallacy. I don't think he says that. I think he's saying that his theory better fits the data. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedInsane Alien. OK. What if satellite geodesic data does show earth expansion (which according to Dr. Maxlow it does.) Our incredulity would not matter a jot! Nor would our lack of an idea about a mechanism. We'd have to come up with one sharpish!
mooeypoo Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 OK. What if satellite geodesic data does show earth expansion (which according to Dr. Maxlow it does.) Show the data. Where is it? Was it verified? Is he the only one claiming it? How do we know he's right? Can we corroborate his findings?? Let us deal with actual evidence, bombus, not just empty claims. To be honest, I don't think you have anything other than empty claims, that's why you resort to repetition. Prove me wrong, please. I beg you. ~moo
bombus Posted September 6, 2009 Author Posted September 6, 2009 for the last time: Stop debating the person arguing the theory and start debating the theory, bombus! When you post the actual claims, you were shown that they're ridiculous and utter bolony. You chose to bring forth lots of people (ahem, 2) that support utter bolony. It means nothing other than those people support utter bolony. If you want people to treat this bolony seriously, your only course of action is to give us evidence that has merit. Arguing about whether or not that specific Doctor is or isn't a crank is irrelevant. We will not accept the theory just because he says so, we will accept a theory if we see enough evidence. It's time you put up valid evidence for the theory, bombus. Stop running away from the responsibility YOU hold as the person claiming bolony to be true. Prove us wrong. Scientifically. ~moo Mooeypooey. I am not a geologist. How can I argue from my own research? Also - I seem to be failing to get through to you despite saying it over and over again I AM NOT PROPOSING THIS THEORY! I am not even saying I believe it. I just want to discuss its merits or otherwise! SHall I repeat that? I AM NOT PROPOSING THIS THEORY! I am not even saying I believe it. I just want to discuss its merits or otherwise!
JillSwift Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 I don't think he says that. I think he's saying that his theory better fits the data. He makes that claim, but you have to look at the construction of his overall argument. He spends little time presenting evidence and his hypothesis and a lot of time critiquing plate tectonics. His conclusion dismisses plate tectonics then carefully asserts that, to fill the vacuum left, expanding earth. In short, there is no evidence presented backing of the expanding earth hypothesis. Thus, the article does not back your point. His credentials are irrelevant. His claims are irrelevant. Evidence is everything.
D H Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 How do you know it's not been peer reviewed. Web sites aren't peer reviewed. The burden of proof is on you Bombus, to show that the material on this web site comes from a peer-reviewed source. Good luck with that. A google search for "James Maxlow CV" yields nothing. "James Maxlow Curriculum Vitae": Nothing. "James Maxlow publications": A self-published E-book.
Recommended Posts