It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It says there are some problems with the theory, that can't be explained.
It does say the earth is expanding, not in those exact words, though.
You are acting like plate tectonics is so well understood that there is nothing else to be figured out about the process, and like no other theory makes any sense.
At least you are now using the word "ridiculous" instead of "stupid" and other derogatory language that you were using before.
I just had to laugh at this one above.
Oh, and by the way, even though I'm a woman, I do have one, and that's why I won't be responding to any more of your posts.
This image is excepted by Pangaea theory believers. I except it too. This also happened in the Pacific.
What makes your theory any more of a fact than our theory (which no one has said they believe in as a *fact* yet, anyway, except you stating that YOUR THEORY is a fact.)
Have you done any reading about plate tectonics, because it doesn't seem like you have, based on your responses. /quote]
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Not surprised.
Everything I have read on the subject (published papers etc., you know, from scientific journals) makes it seems like NOTHING about the (should I use *ridiculous*, or *moronic* here, which would be more *scientifical*?) ******* plate tectonic/subduction zone/seismic can be agreed upon.
Name me any theory in science in which everyone is in lockstep. There are always questions and that is good.
I guess quite soon they will find enough information is wrong to be able to call the old PT theory an "old, ridiculous, failed* theory, huh?
It would never reach the lower levels of such asinine concepts as the expanding earth.
Seems like there are as many different subsets of the theory that, well, I'm suprised that they can even agree upon what to CALL the theory.
There are a very few people with other ideas and other names. These are not mainstream and many of their ideas have long since been demonstrated to be incorrect.
The EPT could definitely be a subset of the PT/SZ theory; it fits right in, actually.
How cute. You bring up episodic plate tectonics. Or are you referring to the European Poker Tournament?
In an answer to another recent post, we do know the difference between theory and fact and this is clearly a discussion of theory that begets a need to find corroborating facts one way or the other. Every fact we have learned began with theory and I am comfortable with the scientific methods we have developed to discern the truth and I'm not afraid to be wrong, it's a fascinating and worthwhile debate and a pleasure to be part of it. /quote]
You can't understand what you are talking about since you have the process backwards.
You get facts.
You propose a theory to explain the facts.
Then you test the theory to see if it fits the facts and any new information that comes along.
In the case of the laughable expanding Earth how does the Earth gain the mass needed to expand? So far 3 bad guesses that are all failures.
Great work guys. You see I am not a firm believer in anything, I have tested Pangaea and it is partially correct but it never sat right with me ever since I heard about it as a child. Now that I have seen the expanding earth theory it begins to explain alot more. Theories for ya. Good debate. Saying something isnt so without proof is just plain stupid.