Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: discostu
Nothing about the current theories has the contents floating willy nilly crashing like bumper cars

Ok, so he used a bit of snarky artistic license to describe the current theories. In essence, though, he's telling the truth. That's exactly the impression I've gotten from the opposing theory all my life.

The current theory holds that there once existed a massive mother continent (Pangea), which somehow broke up, and all of the various parts then (somehow) scattered over the face of the globe.

That same theory holds that India crashed (yes, they do say "crashed") into lower China, thereby lifting up the Himalayas.

I've never seen any reasonable explanation for how or why any of that occurred. How does something the size and mass of an entire continent 'drift' across the face of a planet? That's more an absurd theory than what Neal Adams is proposing, in my view.

What's more, the current theory doesn't have an intuitively simple model that explains itself, such as Neal Adams' does.

67 posted on 04/22/2012 8:02:48 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]


To: Windflier

It’s not snarky artistic license, it’s blatantly changing what the theory says, AKA LYING. He is NOT in essence telling the truth, he is outright fabricating. If that’s the impression you got then you should do a better job of reading the theory.

No the current theory holds that the most RECENT all in one supercontinent (Pangea) broke up for the exact same reason that all the previous supercontinents, tectonic shift.

No they don’t say crash, they say continental collision.

The reasonable explanation is continental drift. And if you don’t find it reasonable you’ve got problems with what Adams is pushing because even his theory has the continents moving around.

Actually the current model has a much more intuitively simple model than a planet somehow growing larger through some sort of pair production a process we know takes MASSIVE amounts of energy.

The fact of the matter is growing earth is an old theory that got supplanted by plate tectonic theory, didn’t actually explain things without exceptions, and he’s added some extra bunk to it, but it still doesn’t make sense, you can tell because he LIES about tectonic theory to sell his. He’s a liar. And anybody that listens to him is an idiot.


69 posted on 04/22/2012 8:26:04 PM PDT by discostu (I did it 35 minutes ago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson