reply to post by quackers
Disclaimer: As elsewhere!
Explanation: I certainly am mocking the lack of rigorous effort put into assessing the expanded earth theory by both Dr. James Maxlow and the OP! Here
1] Dr Maxlow relies heavily on the late Professor Sam Warren Carey's work which and I quote from his own
"Figure 2: Bedrock geological map of the world (Commission for the Geological Map of the World and UNESCO, 1991).
At this stage there are a number of very important considerations about the crustal mapping shown in the above figures that must be fully appreciated.
•Firstly, the striping shown in Figure 2 shows that each of the oceans contain a mid-ocean-ridge (currently centred below the pink stripes) and each
ocean is increasing its surface area with time. This increase in surface area is shown to be symmetrical within each ocean and the maximum age of
exposed sea floor crust is early Jurassic – about 165 million years old (pale blue areas).
[Note I have no problems at all with the evidence being presented here as its backed by the theory of plate tectonics and is science based]
•Secondly, if it were possible to move back in time, each of the stripes shown in both Figures 1 and 2 must be successively removed and the
corresponding edges of each coloured stripe must be moved closer together as we move back in time – that is, the volcanic rocks (and similarly the
ocean waters) within each stripe must be returned to the mantle where they originally came from.
[Unless of course there is subduction occcuring in which case we would have to run that backwards as well and amazingly in such a case the land being
unsubducted would replace the land disappearing down the volcanic ridges and that means the earth doesn't require to under go a 40% increase in size
in just 1/20th the time of the earths total history.]
•Thirdly, as we move back in time, each of the continents must move closer together in strict accordance with the striping evidence recorded on the
map in Figure 2 regardless of which tectonic theory is adhered to.
[WRONG...plate tectonics requires subduction zones to work! See my answer to No#2 above!]
•Fourthly, subduction of crusts beneath continents is an artifact of the basic Plate Tectonic requirement for a constant Earth radius. The
symmetrical striping evidence shown does not support subduction and subduction is not required if the Earth were increasing its radius.
[Unless of course there is actual evidence for subduction zones!]
It should also be appreciated that none, or very little of this magnetic striping and age dating evidence was available when Plate Tectonic theory was
first proposed. The global distribution of the magnetic striping and age dating was, in fact, completed later in order to quantify the plate motion
history and, therefore, the Plate Tectonic history of each ocean.
[It should also be appreciated that none of the magnetic striping and age data for the subducted was collected because of course that part of the
earths crust was shoved deep under another continental plate and melted!
NOTE: All bracketed comments are my EDITS to answer each so called important consideration as they were brought up!
So it all comes down to evidence of subduction zones existing which would support the plate tectonic theory over the expanding earth theory!
Here is my evidence that subduction zones exist!
Sea Floor geology [NZ gov website!]
[do a word search on subduction]
Cascadia subduction zone [wiki]
Mantle thickness [mantleplumes.org]
Detailed plate boundary map [wiki]
Nazca plate [wiki]
The best answer to your question is here! 3.7cm /yr subducted!
And finally ...
Expanded Earth [wiki]
Personal Disclosure: Now to look at your actions on this thread...1st you have a go at paranoiaFTW and were just as condescending as I was and yet you
provided no education where as I did by showing them why they were wrong!
Then you scold me and again provide no evidence as to why my evidence is wrong!
Then you scold me again for not refuting the claims of the website! Seems to me you've totally overlooked the links I provided in my posts above!
Now as for attacking the OP as the messenger. Well if they hadn't taken a biased position that was wrong on the matter they wouldn't of come in for
scrutiny but as they clearly are pushing this POV and the evidence is AGAINST them, then their ability to assess accurately comes directly into
question! Care to refute "oh pot who calls the kettle black!"?