nealadamsdotcom (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

shawnonium On a ten minute video that seeks to present a book's worth of, well, abstract. one get's down to brass tacks. It would be necessary to listen to it three times over to gain a basic understanding of the Theory. I have come to these theories after 40 years of study. I have also concluded that science went down the wrong track 150 years ago, Respect here for the standard theory is a tattered rag of a thing. Shit happens.

shawnsonium (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

The amount of arrogant certitude in this presentation is unjustified. It's counterproductive to leave no room for error when error is, even in principle, possible. Your definition of "fact" is often subjective. Have a shred of humility when presenting your views, and maybe they'll earn more respect.I respect your theory, but its delivery and your caricaturization of science as being self-verifying (in your comments) is disrespectful to logic and ethic.

zayadnay (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

well let me know when you find out, it would be interesting to learn more about the subject because nothing is 100% true

zayadnay (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

so it is possible then lol i guess you just never know, you can only assume that it's highly unlikely

nealadamsdotcom (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

chickieleighc- And yet, you are terrified to do a simple experiment. Don't talk the talk unless you can walk the walk, kid. Wegener and Darwin never expressed any opinions about this theory. You young sir, are a hypocrite and a liar of the worst stripe. By the way, those ophiolites are from shallow seas on the land. Perhaps you didn't get to "shallow seas" in your textbook yet.

nealadamsdotcom (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

MorituriMax- When facts say, there were no mountains, one theory says accept our theory that there were mountains, because we're geologists. When facts tell us that according to the square/cube rule, animals with a given bone density, can achieve a given size, in a given gravity. One group, agrees, but says larger animals are due to a higher percentage of oxygen. As if oxygen had anything to do with gravity. One theory, accepts facts. The other corrupts them.

nealadamsdotcom (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

MorituriMax- Really these clues rarely disagree with either theory. Neither denies the facts, but when it is shown that all the continents clearly fit together, perfectly, one theory says it's unimportant, yet, never deny that they in fact, fit together. When 25 years of oceanic age-taking reveals that there is is no oceanic plate older than 180MYO, one theory says forget the evidence, and believe us, when we say the earth ate the older crust. (more)

chickieleighc (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

Nothing I can do with tracing paper at home is going to disprove for me the factuality of the existence of subduction. I live on a Wadati-Benioff zone -- I can see Mount St. Helens from my house. We can see physical representations of subduction all over the surface of our continents in ophiolites, accretionary wedges, and the requisite volcanic activity that occurs along the margins involved with subduction.Darwin and Wagner both dismissed this 'theory' long before I was born. I will too.

bizarronealadams (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

Gents, videos watch you and me pay you 20 bizarro bucks to get the fisics behind fascinathing teory . Wotta a deal!

MorituriMax (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

well neal, if you have the clues more power to you, I can only go by what you put here and how it compares to existing Theories which seem to disagree with your observations across the board.I'll await any major book you publish which proves your theories with anticipation.