Birth of Earth

[Trippy]

Once again you fail to understand the cause but I'm not surprised since you fail to understand numbers higher than 1 and you aren't capable of recognizing ad hominem fallacies.

Stating two facts does not constitute an adhominem fallacy.

Fact 1: Neal Adams is a recognized and acclaimed comic book artist.
Fact 2: Neal Adams has no verifiable qualifications in Geology - he trained as a comic book artist.

I should also take teh time (as I already have elsewhere) to point out that his video on the expanding earth theory contains factual inaccuracies (land where there is none - where he claims not to have invoked continental uplift, or do anything more then make a few minor allowances for erosion).

 

[Trippy]

Once again you fail to understand the cause but I'm not surprised since you fail to understand numbers higher than 1 and you aren't capable of recognizing ad hominem fallacies.

Riiiiight...

So I suggest you're wrong, and present evidence that you're wrong, and you compare to Al qaeda.

No, there's no relationship there whatsoever.

 

[Trippy]

William's hubris and fundamentalism are debunked here: http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/MazumderESR2004.pdf

BillyT.

The above paper that OIM has presented would be the very paper that I mentioned in my post to you.

OIM claims that somehow it debunks Williams' work, even though Mazumder cites five seperate papers authored by williams in support of his arguments, and even explicitly states that although there are some ambiguities in interperating the data (the comment that OIM has deluded himself into believeing debunks Williams' work) that the work done by Williams, and other authors is fundamentally correct, but offers a possible alternative interpratation of it, based on some controversial work done in the study of the behaviour of G in the past, and Keith Runcorns work (which I already mentioned).

Of course, OIM also completely ignores the fact that Mazumder has this to say in his introduction:

"Tidal rhythmites can preserve a record of astronomically induced tidal periods, and are the only unambiguous tool available for tracing the evolutionary history of the Earth–Moon system."

 

[OilIsMastery]

Billy T,

"It is important to note that all the periods [Earth's orbit and year] were likely of different duration in the geological past." -- Mazmunder and Arima, 2004

"This implies that slow Earth expansion might have occured if G varies (Runcorn 1964, pg. 825)." -- Mazmunder and Arima, 2004

 

[Trippy]

Billy T,

"It is important to note that all the periods [Earth's orbit and year] were likely of different duration in the geological past." -- Mazmunder and Arima, 2004

Of course, OIM is lying here (lying in that he's misrepresenting what's actually said).

First off, in no way is it stated or implied in this section that Mazumder considers the earths orbit to have changed - which is what OIM has explicitly stated that he considers Mazumder to be saying.

What OIM is apparently incapable of doing is considering the scenario of tidal braking, where the Earths rotation slows by a few miliseconds every day (because the NAgular momentum is transfered to the moon).

Therefore, regarding only tidal braking, and the fact that 620 million years ago, the days would have been minutes shorter, one can accurately say that the period of the earth about the sun has changed, as well say that the period of the moon about the earth has changed.

The othe rthing that OIM is apparently ignorant of is that, as I have stated, Tidal rythimites can preserve Daily, monthly, and annual signals, thus giving us a direct measure of how many days are in the year.

This is different from considering that the orbit of the earth has (or hasn't) changed, and using that to calculate how many seconds long each day is.

"This implies that slow Earth expansion might have occured if G varies (Runcorn 1964, pg. 825)." -- Mazmunder and Arima, 2004

Here OIM is simply reiterating what i've already aknowledged was suggested by Keith Runcorn.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Here OIM is simply reiterating what i've already aknowledged was suggested by Keith Runcorn.

And reality sets in.

 

[Trippy]

And reality sets in.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would kindly stop mis-representing my posts.

Thankyou.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Stating two facts does not constitute an adhominem fallacy.

Fact 1: Neal Adams is a recognized and acclaimed comic book artist.
Fact 2: Neal Adams has no verifiable qualifications in Geology - he trained as a comic book artist.

Fact 1: Trippy has no verifiable qualifications in Geology. Presumably he's a chemist unless he's lying about that too.
Fact 2: Samuel Warren Carey is a recognized and acclaimed geologist.
Fact 3: If a comic book artist says 2+2=4 that does not mean it is not true as claimed by Trippy.

 

[MetaKron]

Please stop playing with Trippy. You both make good points and have interesting things to say. Please try to get along.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Please stop playing with Trippy. You both make good points and have interesting things to say. Please try to get along.

"Does any real and substantive discussion between the two alternative tectonic theories really exist? After all discussion is a driving mechanism for progress in all science. Discussion is a duty of all scientific workers. It should be done with with respect to any opponents and serve as a means of looking for the scientific truth. However, is such discussion with the advocates of plate tectonics really possible? My own experience leads me to a pessimistic conclusion. There is now a lack of reference or any factual basis in plate tectonic discussions." -- Dr. Stefan Cwojdzinski, Polish Geological Institute

 

[Trippy]

Fact 1: Trippy has no verifiable qualifications in Geology. Presumably he's a chemist unless he's lying about that too.

Lie - and irrelevant to this discussion (therefore a strawman) this isn't a discussion of my qualifications, nor am I relying on my own personal credits.

Fact 2: Samuel Warren Carey is a recognized and acclaimed geologist.

I wasn't discussing Carey's qualifications, nor do they some how magically cancel out the inadequicies of his ideas. Technically, this represents an appeal to authority fallacy, you're claiming that because he's a qualified Geologist, he must automatically be correct in anything he says in Geology.

Fact 3: If a comic book artist says 2+2=4 that does not mean it is not true as claimed by Trippy.

This is an out right lie, that I will not address any further.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Lie - and irrelevant to this discussion (therefore a strawman)

You mean like how Neal Adams's qualifications are a straw man?

this isn't a discussion of my qualifications, nor am I relying on my own personal credits.

It is now that you made Neal Adams's qualifications relevant to the discussion.

I wasn't discussing Carey's qualifications, nor do they some how magically cancel out the inadequicies of his ideas.

No kidding. You're obssessed with Neal Adams, ad hominem fallacies and straw man arguments.

Technically, this represents an appeal to authority fallacy, you're claiming that because he's a qualified Geologist, he must automatically be correct in anything he says in Geology.

LOL. :roflmao:

You're the one attacking Neal Adams because he's not a geologist!

This is an out right lie, that I will not address any further.

LOL. :roflmao:

 

[Trippy]

You mean like how Neal Adams's qualifications are a straw man?

It is now that you made Neal Adams's qualifications relevant to the discussion.

No kidding. You're obssessed with Neal Adams, ad hominem fallacies and straw man arguments.

LOL. :roflmao:

You're the one attacking Neal Adams because he's not a geologist!

LOL. :roflmao:

Yet more lies and mis-representations.
Neal Adams' qualifications are relevant to the discussion, because you're citing him as an authority on the subject.
My qualifications are not relevant to the subject, because I am not citing myself as an authority.
Understand how it works yet?

Stating a fact is not a fallacy.
I am not obssessed with anyhing.
I have simply stated a fact, that is a matter of public record - Neal Adams has no qualifications, and his videos contain factual inaccuracies.

You're also the one who regularly appeals to the (often inaccurate) claim that all of the quotes in your litany are made by people with relevant qualifications.

If you don't like it, or consider this an attack, then maybe you need to step back and re-examine your attitude to this matter.

 

[OilIsMastery]

The reason why you focus all your energy on attacking Neal Adams is because you're afraid to talk about scientific observation on Europa and the expansion tectonics of Europa.

 

[Trippy]

The reason why you focus all your energy on attacking Neal Adams is because you're afraid to talk about scientific observation on Europa and the expansion tectonics of Europa.

Provably it's you that's afraid of the discussion not me.

Neal Adam's qualifications was one of a couple of points I raised, but the sole point you have been focusing on - so again, it's not me that's obsessing over anything.

 

[jsispat]

it is not necessary that a person should qualfied degree for making any discovery or invention. infact qualified people are better to securing marks in exams.
same problem is happening with me i am not qualified and getting lot of problem to convince the people but i am sure that i know lot of things reg. earth formation and that are more accurate and correct.i also sure that big bang theory is completely wrong and impractical . but i agreed with plate tectonic and subduction zone that are also part of my theory that earth has biological growth only.

 

[Xelios]

I would greatly appreciate it if you would kindly stop mis-representing my posts.

Thankyou.

Wasn't OIM just warned about that a little while ago?

 

[EndLightEnd]

Geology tells you that mountains are created by continents bumping and crashing into each other.

The fact is most, if not all, the mountains on Earth were created since 200 million years ago, and most of them are 60 million years old and younger.

The Rockies are under 60 million.
The Andes are under 60 million.
And the massive Himalayas are under 60 million years old. During all the ages of dinosaurs there were literally no mountains.

But if Pangea stayed whole for 300 million years and only then broke apart where is the bumping and crashing that made the mountains if it stayed whole??? Serious question here.

 

[geologyrocks]

Geology tells you that mountains are created by continents bumping and crashing into each other.

The fact is most, if not all, the mountains on Earth were created since 200 million years ago, and most of them are 60 million years old and younger.

The Rockies are under 60 million.
The Andes are under 60 million.
And the massive Himalayas are under 60 million years old. During all the ages of dinosaurs there were literally no mountains.

But if Pangea stayed whole for 300 million years and only then broke apart where is the bumping and crashing that made the mountains if it stayed whole??? Serious question here.

You are wrong that there all mountains were created <200 Ma. There are much older mountain belts around. The Scottish Higlands (and the Scandanavian mountains and the Appalachians in the US - they are the same mountain belt) were formed in the Ordovician/Silurian - they're older than 200 Ma. There's also lots of evidence for orogenies in the Precambrian in Scotland too - look up the Badcallian and Laxfordian events. We're talking billions of years here!

For Pangea, in the UK at least, we have the Variscan Orogeny. This is most visible in Devon causing some spectacular folds: http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/images/cheveron_folding_2

Clearly, the further back in time you go, the less evidence there is for past events, but there is evidence for past mountain building - even that when Pangea formed.

 

[geologyrocks]

it is not necessary that a person should qualfied degree for making any discovery or invention. infact qualified people are better to securing marks in exams.
same problem is happening with me i am not qualified and getting lot of problem to convince the people but i am sure that i know lot of things reg. earth formation and that are more accurate and correct.i also sure that big bang theory is completely wrong and impractical . but i agreed with plate tectonic and subduction zone that are also part of my theory that earth has biological growth only.

No it's not necessary - but it helps! When gaining qualifications you gain experience and knowledge (as well as pass exams). This helps form your world view and provides a framework to build on.

By the way, a Ph.D should be thought of as an apprenticeship of research, rather than a qualification. There is no exam (as such) - just 3-5 years (depending where you are) of learning how to do research properly. Doing undergrad and masters qualifications are the first step to getting and earning a Ph.D.