After much deliberation I hereby withdraw from any further participation in this thread.

All pretense of rational discourse is lost, and the net return is negative. If I continue to post here I will earn moderator sanction as my tolerance has died.

Thank you for your time.

RS

theropod wrote:After much deliberation I hereby withdraw from any further participation in this thread.

All pretense of rational discourse is lost, and the net return is negative. If I continue to post here I will earn moderator sanction as my tolerance has died.

Thank you for your time.

Good decision. Frankly, I'm amazed you lasted this long. This thread has been hardly more than a long protracted argument over what's mostly been so much bullshit. It wasn't a very keen topic to begin with. It should have been dealt with in six or eight posts. Its been painful to watch.

I’m giving Roger evidence from two additional mass extinctions which also illustrate the coincidence of:

1. Mass extinction.
2. Massive flood basalt volcanism, the main flows lagging the extinction.
3. Massive sea level regression, again unexplained by all except the GTME.
4. Spike in negative C-isotopes indicating the disassociation of methane from the sea bottom due to warm water/lower water pressure due to lower sea level and lower surface gravity.

The two mass extinctions are the Triassic-Jurassic (~200mya) and the Pliensbachian-Toarcian (~182mya).

See Fig.11 in the following link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12034/pdf

I’ve now provided evidence from 4 mass extinctions which support the Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction (GTME). If there is doubt in anyone’s mind about the validity of the theory, please provide an explanation why the above 4 conditions occurred in the four mass extinctions referenced.

Hmmm ...

All you have is coincidence, combined with a poor understanding of physics and geology.
Your submitted citations do not support your claims.
And you still haven't answered the simple question of whether you are the author of the PDF you posted on the Gravity Theory Weak Hypothesis of Mass Extension (GTWHME.

As to why the extensions pre-dated the mass lava flows - likely due to massive ash eruptions and volcanic gasses, together affecting sunlight transmission, atmospheric chemistry and oceanic chemistry - particularly with susceptible species like plankton.

What's the proposed explanation for lower surface gravity in the past?

mindhack,

View:
http://dinoextinct.com/page13.pdf

Weaver,

The theory posits that the massive flood basalt volcanism occurs AFTER the main extinction pulse, therefore volcanic effects could not have caused the extinctions.

Staten-John wrote:mindhack,

View:
http://dinoextinct.com/page13.pdf

Thanks, I skimmed your reference, up to the point I got stuck. What does the following mean:

The GTME posits a novel mechanism responsible for surface gravitation changes. Displacement of the Earth’s
core elements, including the inner core, outer core and the densest part of the lower mantle away from their
current Earth-centric position is that mechanism

Would you be willing to explain to me, in the simplest of terms if you may, how displacement of elements inside earth would result in surface gravity changes, and, how that would result in [local?] creature gigantism?

Staten-John wrote:
Weaver,

The theory posits that the massive flood basalt volcanism occurs AFTER the main extinction pulse, therefore volcanic effects could not have caused the extinctions.

No, it posits that the major lava flows occurred after the main extinction pulse. Which is exactly what I said - there could have been major outgassing and ash spread to the upper atmosphere before the main lava flows which triggered the extinctions.

Weaver,

Please reread the previous few comments.

Staten-John wrote:Weaver,

Please reread the previous few comments.

When you get back, you can address this, if you care to.

I did re-read the previous few comments. I see nothing in them to suggest that you are correct, or that I misunderstood you in any way.

Wow. 7 guests viewing right now. This must be a very interesting topic.

On another forum I'm on, our tech guru said he saw a report that bots now account for 61% of website traffic.

Weaver wrote:On another forum I'm on, our tech guru said he saw a report that bots now account for 61% of website traffic.

Yes, I think I saw the report mentioned on Slashdot the other day.

I never did get that citation from Staten John, in fact he seemed to be ignoring my asking for it by the end. Hopefully when he gets back he can take the time and actually give it to me, it shouldn't be too hard at all.