I heard Neil Adams on the Skeptics Guide To The Universe podcast. He knows more than all the scientists put together know, he thinks. He's full of himself and a fruitcake.
6/10/2009 12:17:35 PM
So if subduction is not happening, then why, prey tell is the Pacific shrinking but the Atlantic growing?
6/10/2009 1:13:06 PM
Neal, please stick to drawing comics. You're much better at it than you are at scientific explanations. I read through your entire screed and all that came through was "I can't imagine this happening, so it must be wrong."
6/10/2009 1:37:46 PM
Ooo, this word salad contains a healthy serving of personal incredulity with a slight hint of projection! I'll just help my self if you don't mind...
6/10/2009 3:12:04 PM
"IF SUBDUCTION DOESN’T EXIST, SCIENCE MUST DEFINE THE EARTH AS GROWING. IF IT’S GROWING, EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE MUST CHANGE."
That is very true.
Too bad for your theory that subduction _IS_ happening.
Ugh. I tried to read through it, I really tried. My only response is: Have you ever taken a single geology course, sir?
6/10/2009 3:55:57 PM
"At least 3/4’s of the surface coating is gone."
First, fractions do not require "'s" additions. This says "At least three-quarters's..."
Are you referring to the 3/4 of the crust that's UNDERWATER?
"5 billion years ago this granitic mostly melted coating covered the Earth, correct?"
It's roughly 4.6 billion years, and yes, the surface of the planet was molten.
Then it cooled and became the crust, 3/4 of which is now underwater.
6/10/2009 4:10:48 PM
So there are normal faults and rifts, but no thrusts or subduction zones? Explain, then, what happens at island arcs. We know there are trenches on the ocean floor, and they're seismically active. Earthquakes there tend to be very deep because the ocean floor is pushing under the continent, melting in the mantle, and fueling volcanoes. This is happening in Indonesia, Japan, the Aleutians, the Andes in South America, and the Cascades in the Pacific Northwest.
I enjoy a challenge. Give me a real one next time.
6/10/2009 5:05:28 PM
What are you talking about?
6/10/2009 5:35:59 PM
Cite some papers for me that show the earth's dimensions have increased -significantly-.
6/10/2009 7:27:41 PM
A case displaying why a little knowledge is more dangerous than none at all.
6/10/2009 7:30:26 PM
Good thing scientists have something to laugh at.
6/10/2009 7:49:13 PM
The crust that subducts beneath another plate does melt, but it doesn't magically vanish. It becomes part of the mantle. New crust is formed in other areas.
Like the mid Atlantic ridge for example.
6/10/2009 7:52:01 PM
You shame my last name...
6/10/2009 8:23:45 PM
I don't think anyone can beat this challange. No, not because it's a difficult challange, but because ol' Neal here has a very strange theory.
I mean, debating him would probably be like debating Kent Hovind. Even if you have solid evidence against his theory such as the rate of gravity has not changed since it's first observance, he would not accept it and still claim your wrong.
6/10/2009 10:45:16 PM
Guys he is right! can't you see that a growing planet is the only way to account for India crashing into the rest of Asia and throwing up the largest mountains in the world.
oh wait no it doesn't does it we already have a model that does and it works very well.
Also what is the difference between growing and expanding and might i have to change how i think about my beer belly?
6/10/2009 11:38:39 PM
Have you read the rest of this nutters site? The earth is covered in a 10 mile thick layer of granite.....
Except the area where it's not granite of course but hey, don't let facts spoil a good anti-science rant.
6/11/2009 12:56:47 AM
I have no idea what this guy is talking about, and yet it's obvious that this is crap. Not once to say anything along the lines of "I know this because..." He just says things like "Suppose it's you who have been fed wrong thinking and swallowed it hook, line and stinker," as if saying "maybe you're wrong" is the same as saying you're wrong and providing adequate proof that the currently used model isn't accurate. The one time he draws near giving proof is when he says that nearly 3/4 of the Earth's surface coating is gone, but even then he only ever says, "Doesn't that, on the face of it, seem odd?" He never once explicitly states proof.
tl;dr What Churchy LaFemme said.
6/11/2009 5:14:34 AM
Someone didn't pay attention in high school geography class.
6/11/2009 5:45:52 AM
6/11/2009 7:38:32 AM
Of course, this guy would answer something totally irrelevant if the said geologists ask for his qualifications.
6/11/2009 9:16:08 AM
Yes, science is wrong but, if it make the computer where you're writing this stupidity works, let's leave it as it is.
6/11/2009 9:16:59 AM
Ok, we have to asume that every scientist in Earth is wrong and you, who we don't know who you are and in which you base your theories, are right. That's how ALWAYS the universe has worked.
6/11/2009 9:18:35 AM
I'm betting that this person doesn't have a single degree in any type of geology.
6/11/2009 11:37:48 AM
There's no plates? But there's places in the world where you can see where the plates meet. I've seen a few, I think they're fascinating.
Now if I can see this, why can't you? Oh, and who says the earth eats its own crust? One plate slides under the other, volcano's erupt (creating more crust) the earth does what the earth does, and it will continue to do so long after we're gone.
6/11/2009 12:36:06 PM
Growing? Is there a dimensional portal at the Earth's core adding new material to it?!
6/11/2009 3:14:41 PM