Posted: Feb 02, 2018 10:19 am
ginckgo wrote:Light Storm wrote:
OTT CHRISTOPH HILGENBERG
using identical metal plates created globes to show how the boundaries come together on a smaller globe
I can already see massive continent-wide faults, for which there is literally zero evidence, intruduced just to make this reconstruction work. Totally dishonest.
how is it dishonest to create multiple plates, all of equal size, then put them together on smaller and smaller globes. It's showing that they do comes together like peaces of a smashed vase. If the world randomly created a super island that broke up and drifted apart, then the plates shouldn't line up as well as they do. they should have a mish mash of overlaps, and they don't.
ginckgo wrote:
And he seems to used coastlines, rather than continental outlines. Totally ignorant
You have mentioned coast lines before. Couple of things about coastlines. 1) there changes aren't subtle over time, they are in many places huge. The only theory that takes changing coastlines into consideration is Maxlow, one of the reasons I keep referencing back to his globes and thesis explaining each significant difference.
ginckgo wrote:Light Storm wrote:JAMES MAXLOW
using the data of the sea floor and geological re-formations of the earth to re-create the earth as it dials back in time. He has one of the most comprehensive break downs of the wind back your going to find.
Maxlow is probably the closest you'll ever get to a knowledgeable and data-driven EE proponent.
Sadly, even he fudges the data in the detail to get the result he wants.
You know more about geology than me. Can you please give specific examples of what it is he fudges in the data?
ginckgo wrote:Light Storm wrote:NEAL ADAMS
Created a computer animation to show the landmasses coming back together on a smaller planet.
Neal Adams is probably the most vile EE proponent in existence. He is willfully ignorant, bans anyone who disagrees, insists he has read everything but then throws it out and can never give a proper citation, etc
Never ever link to him again. Seriously
I mention him because he creates awareness of for GE/EE better than any scientist before him. His video's have millions of views and I've seen them mentioned in several publications that discuss alternative views for the development of the planet. Granted, nothing he ever say's sounds liked it's based in anything to do with science, probably comes from the fact he is not a scientist. I wish he advocated the work of James Maxlow or S Carrey instead of trying to make it his own. Take for example his clear comments like "Note there is no subduction". That comes strait from Carrey, who at the time of writing his views had every reason to contradict subduction as a thing to allow a static earth radius. In his time, there was no evidence of it like there is today.
ginckgo wrote:
What. The. Hell. Is. That?!?
Reverse Google search gives me no source. That is literally the worst drawing ever.
Why don't yo pose a scientific reconstruction:
Nothing alike. We need to talk about the same thing to make any progress. Not strawmen.Light Storm wrote:... shall we discuss it or look to what the actual scientist behind this re-creation have to say about it?
I googled 'Pangea' and started searching through images. I purposely stopped at the absolute worst one I could find to make a point. It wasn't about discussing 'Pangea.' It was to point out that attacking the artwork that is used to demonstrate a hypothesis is a useless waste of time. That person was trying to say that EE/GE was wrong because the bad animation was flawed. So I used an example of Pangea that is obviously flawed to an extreme to represent why attacking the visual on the idea is counter productive. Sometimes I feel like these points get completely lost on this community. It's like I could go outside and say "The Sky is Blue" and it would create a 20 page back and forth about how and why I would make this crazy observation.
By the Way : Ref - https://drawception.com/panel/drawing/Pybn6336/pangea/
ginckgo wrote:There is no reconstruction of the Pacific Basin "wound back" onto a smaller globe that actually works - literally none.
Every one I've seen distorts the continents; ignores the actual outline of the continental crust back in time; ignores the actually seafloor age data; ignores subduction and orogeny; ignores stratigraphic and paleontological data.
The Pacific Basin literally cannot be closed.
Considering the vast majority of the pacific ocean floor is only 60 million years old, it's very easy to close. You start adding material as you wind the earth backwards in time, it's still easy to visualize it closing only more slowly to something like 200 - 400 million years. I still find it interesting that you have to go down thousands of feet in gold or diamond mines to get into layers of earth that where once ocean floors.