Posted: Oct 09, 2019 12:05 am
by Hermit
ginckgo wrote:You are correct that new hypotheses should have prior plausibility, and not a single mechanism proposed for EE has any prior plausibility. This is why most people dismiss it out of hand; and they are not wrong for doing so.

However, in this loooong discussion, I have found demand for a mechanism to be both unproductive, and personally boring. I am a geologist and palaeontologist. I know a shit ton about these topics, and therefore want to see EE proponents show me the evidence they use to support their hypothesis in the first place.

And that's my fundamental point: there is literally no point in discussing a mechanism for a process, if the evidence that that process is even happening does not exist. At this point, EE proponents have yet to proffer a single scrap of geological or palaeontological evidence that cannot be explained better by Plate Tectonic theory.

Hermit wrote:In the absence of showing any interest in explaining the mechanics of how such an event can come about - in fact seeing no need to come up with one - Gincko's support for the expanding earth proposal is fundamentally unscientific.


See above.

Also, see my history on here, and you would know I do not support EE

Well, not having read much of this thread, I have misread your recent posts I replied to in spectacular fashion. I took you for a proponent of the expanding earth theory. For that I apologise.