|
MrKappaBeta (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"are there peer reviewed journals on this?"There have been a whole bunch of peered reviewed papers which consider a growing or expanding earth, some published. This exact hypothesis is not published in any journal. I don't really think this theory in general is anything new. It's been around since the thirties.I admit though... this video certainly makes it seem like it is a real conspiracy which nobody has considered before. But... it calls it a conspiracy of silence. Not science.
Simonttg (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
ok, i'd like to state that this isn't a theory. a 'theory' has to be proven time and time again in scientific tests, this is hypothesis. i hate when people tag 'conspiracy' onto stuff to make it seem cool. Listen, this is not coming from a scientific journal, no one who comes on here knows all the facts that have been gathered. hopefully you'll realize everything you hear on the internet ISN'T NECESSARILY TRUE! check your library. are there peer reviewed journals on this?
nealadamsdotcom (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
shawnonium On a ten minute video that seeks to present a book's worth of, well, abstract. one get's down to brass tacks. It would be necessary to listen to it three times over to gain a basic understanding of the Theory. I have come to these theories after 40 years of study. I have also concluded that science went down the wrong track 150 years ago, Respect here for the standard theory is a tattered rag of a thing. Shit happens.
shawnsonium (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The amount of arrogant certitude in this presentation is unjustified. It's counterproductive to leave no room for error when error is, even in principle, possible. Your definition of "fact" is often subjective. Have a shred of humility when presenting your views, and maybe they'll earn more respect.I respect your theory, but its delivery and your caricaturization of science as being self-verifying (in your comments) is disrespectful to logic and ethic.
zayadnay (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
well let me know when you find out, it would be interesting to learn more about the subject because nothing is 100% true
zayadnay (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
so it is possible then lol i guess you just never know, you can only assume that it's highly unlikely
nealadamsdotcom (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
chickieleighc- And yet, you are terrified to do a simple experiment. Don't talk the talk unless you can walk the walk, kid. Wegener and Darwin never expressed any opinions about this theory. You young sir, are a hypocrite and a liar of the worst stripe. By the way, those ophiolites are from shallow seas on the land. Perhaps you didn't get to "shallow seas" in your textbook yet.
nealadamsdotcom (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
MorituriMax- When facts say, there were no mountains, one theory says accept our theory that there were mountains, because we're geologists. When facts tell us that according to the square/cube rule, animals with a given bone density, can achieve a given size, in a given gravity. One group, agrees, but says larger animals are due to a higher percentage of oxygen. As if oxygen had anything to do with gravity. One theory, accepts facts. The other corrupts them.
nealadamsdotcom (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
MorituriMax- Really these clues rarely disagree with either theory. Neither denies the facts, but when it is shown that all the continents clearly fit together, perfectly, one theory says it's unimportant, yet, never deny that they in fact, fit together. When 25 years of oceanic age-taking reveals that there is is no oceanic plate older than 180MYO, one theory says forget the evidence, and believe us, when we say the earth ate the older crust. (more)
chickieleighc (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Nothing I can do with tracing paper at home is going to disprove for me the factuality of the existence of subduction. I live on a Wadati-Benioff zone -- I can see Mount St. Helens from my house. We can see physical representations of subduction all over the surface of our continents in ophiolites, accretionary wedges, and the requisite volcanic activity that occurs along the margins involved with subduction.Darwin and Wagner both dismissed this 'theory' long before I was born. I will too. |
