Posted: Jan 27, 2013 12:13 pm
Florian wrote:To refute this inference, you must demonstrate that the premise (large surface expansion of Earth) is false.
You mean, the premise of EE is that earth has expanded? And the conclusion of EE is that the earth has expanded? Thanks for explaining, Florian. That means the premise of EE is its conclusion. Circular argument is circular.
All that is missing is any observation that the earth has actually expanded on the scale that EE demands. PT, on the other hand, does not have a premise that the earth has not expanded. Only the EE fanatics need a premise that the earth has expanded. PT employs basic principles like mass and energy conservation to rule out exogenous or endogenous mystery-expansion unless it can be observed, as with a self-inflating inflating balloon, or other sort of windbag.
If EE theory simply consists of the premise that the earth has expanded, and the conclusion that the earth has expanded, EE theory is a classic woo belief system, all of which depend on similar kinds of question-begging.
PT theory does not need to worry about earth expansion, because physical theory adequately accounts for the recycling of oceanic lithosphere that your flimsy and scattershot arguments simply attempt to wave away with large motions of very small hands.
If the result of your tenure here at RatSkep is the blatant question-begging I quoted, then we see a strong case that you are simply trolling an internet forum for fun. Don't use the word 'premise' to talk about an 'inference' from whatever premise you have failed to present.