Oruatemanu Island is what is commonly referred to as "land."
Biogeographical Falsification of Subduction
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
So I'm emotional for repeating your own comments back at you? No, I'm showing you're the one who isn't scientific. Do you realise why you're being a hypocrite? My post wasn't an attempt at stating a peer reviewable journal fact, but to state that you don't even listen to your own quotes.
This is not an argument.
Once again, we come back to your blatant denial - it is currently land, but at the time the sediments were deposited, it wasn't.
Oh, and congratulations on picking up on one example out of how many?
It's precisely our argument. You believe dry continental land is currently submerged in ocean and a part of the oceanic lithosphere, e.g. California and New Zealand were your two specific examples of dry land you believe are submerged.
You are a total misogynist when it comes to filtering stuff through those distorted specs you insist on looking through, aren't you? You don't seem to be able to make an argument, so what's this "our argument" bs?OIM said:
What you say in your last post, implies that you have a serious bias of some kind towards the meanings of certain words. You have to transform what anyone says into your version, and cling to it like a bit of straw. It's like watching someone who's convinced they can breathe water or something.
You understand, water isn't for breathing, and land can be underwater? You know about how when it rains land gets wet, and if it rains a lot, it gets more wet, eventually it 'floods'.
Like the way your neurons flood with random, unintelligible and illogical patterns as you read this - especially as you read it.
You provided no scientific reference in your emotional religious response. This thread isn't about me. It's about the expansion of the Earth.
We don't need a scientific reference to make the statement of fact "You, OIM, are a liar". Given numerous people you talk to make such observations, it passes peer review, ie the review of your forum peers. There's nothing religious in saying "You distort what people say, both people on the forum and scientists". It's another statement of fact.
At every turn your claims are shot down, your sources either discredited or shown to not be saying what you paraphrase them to say. Again, those are statements of fact.
You cling to your view far tighter than scientists do to theirs, so saying "That's a religious outburst" is hypocritical. If you were honest about learning 'the truth', why aren't you actively learning physics so you can understand as much information as is available to you? Why do you instead avoid actual resource material at all costs?
Why do you cling to your 'religious' view so much so you have to lie?
actually according to the thread title it is about Biogeographical Falsification of Subduction.
Yet another emotional religious response with no scientific reference or content.
Yet another transparent attempt to avoid answering questions about your hypocrisy, lying and ignorance.
Why aren't you willing to explain why you avoid learning anything about any mainstream model or concept? Afraid to admit you cannot, it's too hard for you?
This is a strawman argument, and an outright lie.
What you're claiming is in fact the complete opposite of what i've said.
At no point have I claimed that California and New Zealand ARE submerged, only that they (or parts of them at least) have been in the past.
So once again, you're completely distroting what's being said to fit your own view.
The really stupid thing is that here we have OIM stating or implying that New zealand was at some point submerged (Pillow lavas only form underwater).
And here he is ridiculing that very same idea.
May I suggest buying a dictionary and looking up 'Consistency'.
While you're at it, may I also recommend looking up 'honesty' and 'integrety'.
And here he is ridiculing that very same idea.
May I suggest buying a dictionary and looking up 'Consistency'.
While you're at it, may I also recommend looking up 'honesty' and 'integrety'.
You're the one who is saying that about Zealandia.
Because the zircon dating you always ignore shows conclusively that Zealandia was created in the Cretaceous.
For what must be the thirtieth time now.
Because at some point in their history, they, or parts of them, have been part of the Oceanic crust, rather than the continetal crust - something that your dogma expressly forbids, because then you would have to aknowledge the existence of oceanic crust more than 200 million years old.
I could name hundreds of other examples, and have named several other in other threads (to be met with much the same dull repetative response 'but they're land').
No it doesn't, if you had bothered looking at the dam links i've been spoon feeding you, you would see that Zircon dating clearly shows that Zelandia existed as long ago as the pre-cambrian.
No. You are lying again.
Just as a note for the mods, and the general viewing audience.
Here, once again we see OIM misrepresenting what is being said.
Here, OIM is clearly trying to imply that I was referring to the idea of Zelandia and california as being submerged, as being ridiculous, when quitye clearly it was the contradiction in OIM's words that I was referring to as being ridiculous.
The only other reasonable interpretation requires him not to have made the post that I have quoted.
Here, once again we see OIM misrepresenting what is being said.
Here, OIM is clearly trying to imply that I was referring to the idea of Zelandia and california as being submerged, as being ridiculous, when quitye clearly it was the contradiction in OIM's words that I was referring to as being ridiculous.
The only other reasonable interpretation requires him not to have made the post that I have quoted.
No, actually, it's you who is lying, because it's quite clearly shown here:
:ROTFLMGDAO:
Oh, and for the record:
Therefore, Zelandia existed during the Jurassic.
That parts of Zelandia are of Paleozoic age (older than the Cretaceous), and it's quite clearly shown here (if you follow the link, and open the PDF):
That parts of Zelandia are of Precambrian age.
The map you have provided is of New Zealand not Zealandia. New Zealand is dry land and old. Zealandia is submerged and young. All you do is lie and repeat; lie and repeat. It's starting to bore me actually.