It's an assumption. A hypothesis is something you test.Steve5513 said:It's not a theory, it's an unsupported hypothesis.jeff02x2 said:So apparently this crackpot has some crazy idea's about how the earth has evolved the past 180 million years.
This guy is not in anyway a scientist/geologist (in fact he draws, buys and sells comic's which might explain why his theory is so "imaginative" lets say).
His argument is basically that the movement of tectonic plates etc is a lie by geologists who actually know that the earth is growing. Also, in his words, this "fact" would blow most science out of the water, if his theory had a leg to stand on.
Thought you guys might like a look if anything for a chuckle made me smile that someone would think the earth was growing without actually explaining how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ&feature=share
So the earth doubled in size in the last 65 million years? right....
- Thread starter jeff02x2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To be fair, his claim can be tested. It does make a measurable prediction: Earth was smaller 65 million years ago. This leaves various marks on the ground, paleontology should find certain characteristics from animals before that time of expansion etc.Trolldor said:It's an assumption. A hypothesis is something you test.Steve5513 said:It's not a theory, it's an unsupported hypothesis.jeff02x2 said:So apparently this crackpot has some crazy idea's about how the earth has evolved the past 180 million years.
This guy is not in anyway a scientist/geologist (in fact he draws, buys and sells comic's which might explain why his theory is so "imaginative" lets say).
His argument is basically that the movement of tectonic plates etc is a lie by geologists who actually know that the earth is growing. Also, in his words, this "fact" would blow most science out of the water, if his theory had a leg to stand on.
Thought you guys might like a look if anything for a chuckle made me smile that someone would think the earth was growing without actually explaining how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ&feature=share
It's just that his hypothesis is wrong. But technically it is a hypothesis.
Now, if he'd said that pixies did it and then hid the evidence, then it wouldn't have been a hypothesis. Because no evidence could possibly contradict that.
I'd say kill him with fire, but that'll be too obvious.
how about: kill him with fire, ice, lightning, water, wind, earth and a bit of arcane?
who's with me? MAGICKA RANGERS UNITE!!
how about: kill him with fire, ice, lightning, water, wind, earth and a bit of arcane?
who's with me? MAGICKA RANGERS UNITE!!
I think I just brained a few loss cells...
Really had to stop at the duck billed platypus because wasn't it common knowledge that we evolved from microscopic water based creatures? In fact I know the simpsons aren't scientists, but when you're broadcasting that, it has to be pretty well known...
And what with fossils backing this up...
Really had to stop at the duck billed platypus because wasn't it common knowledge that we evolved from microscopic water based creatures? In fact I know the simpsons aren't scientists, but when you're broadcasting that, it has to be pretty well known...
And what with fossils backing this up...
Well, that's great news! There's no obesity epidemic, it's just gravity getting stronger over time, pass the donuts!Bozilla said:
Well, I figure scientists and people with evidence to support otherwise would be the ones to say he's wrong. I'm not labeling him a 'crackpot', which is frankly kind of an outdated term, but I don't think he's correct either.Adam Galli said:
i thought that the reason that the oceanic plates were younger was because after they come up from divergent plate boundaries (e.g. mid-atlantic) they sink under the continental plates at subduction zones (e.g. chile). what's wrong with that theory, seems fine too me. (note, this may be all wrong, it would be my fault though)
but assuming something like spontaneous mass creation makes this idea pretty much stupid.
also, 'scientists know, but they don't want you to know'. seriously, can people stop saying that or the same thing about the government. it basically trashes the point they were making. not that they normally need any help with that.
but assuming something like spontaneous mass creation makes this idea pretty much stupid.
also, 'scientists know, but they don't want you to know'. seriously, can people stop saying that or the same thing about the government. it basically trashes the point they were making. not that they normally need any help with that.
He trolling ,or at least I HOPE he's trolling.
Seriously there are a lot of holes in his theory, Where does all the water/matter for expansion come from? If there's no subduction how come mountain ranges haven't been eroded into nothing? Why do mountain ranges even exist in the first place?
Seriously there are a lot of holes in his theory, Where does all the water/matter for expansion come from? If there's no subduction how come mountain ranges haven't been eroded into nothing? Why do mountain ranges even exist in the first place?
Actually nobody has every thought the world was anything other than a sphere, I can't remember where this myth came from but it's totally fake.Adam Galli said:Who's to say this guy is wrong? I think its wrong that you lable him a "crackpot" when most of the important thinkers in our time such as Copernicus (who came up with the idea of the heliocentric model) was considered a crackpot. Before that everyone who thought the earth was round was considered a nutjob. Science has still yet to figure out everything about the universe.jeff02x2 said:So apparently this crackpot has some crazy idea's about how the earth has evolved the past 180 million years.
This guy is not in anyway a scientist/geologist (in fact he draws, buys and sells comic's which might explain why his theory is so "imaginative" lets say).
His argument is basically that the movement of tectonic plates etc is a lie by geologists who actually know that the earth is growing. Also, in his words, this "fact" would blow most science out of the water, if his theory had a leg to stand on.
Thought you guys might like a look if anything for a chuckle made me smile that someone would think the earth was growing without actually explaining how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ&feature=share
I read this in "the general book of ignorance", which is a great book to read. Makes you think why they even bothered to send people to school.
Don't start banging on about Galileo versus the Catholic church - the church didn't have any evidence to back up their claims, and Galileo's theories did. They disagreed with him because of religious dogma, not science.Adam Galli said:I'm not saying the guy is right per se, but it's wrong to discredit him because YOU think it's wrong. That's the same thing the Catholic church did with everyone who had ideas about the universe that didn't agree with their own. Galileo was excommunicated from the church because he supported the heliocentric model of planetary motion. Was he wrong? No, he was in fact correct, but the fact that his views differed that everyone else's at the time he was thought of as a nut.hypercube said:There's tons of evidence for tectonic motion of plates - physical evidence that can be substantiated.Adam Galli said:Who's to say this guy is wrong? I think its wrong that you lable him a "crackpot" when most of the important thinkers in our time such as Copernicus (who came up with the idea of the heliocentric model) was considered a crackpot. Before that everyone who thought the earth was round was considered a nutjob. Science has still yet to figure out everything about the universe.jeff02x2 said:So apparently this crackpot has some crazy idea's about how the earth has evolved the past 180 million years.
This guy is not in anyway a scientist/geologist (in fact he draws, buys and sells comic's which might explain why his theory is so "imaginative" lets say).
His argument is basically that the movement of tectonic plates etc is a lie by geologists who actually know that the earth is growing. Also, in his words, this "fact" would blow most science out of the water, if his theory had a leg to stand on.
Thought you guys might like a look if anything for a chuckle made me smile that someone would think the earth was growing without actually explaining how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ&feature=share
I hate it when people say "science hasn't figured everything out yet" and then use that as "reasoning" for any easily discredited bizarro hypothesis.
Science has worked out a hell of a lot - see that internet you're using? Science. Satellites? Science. OK, there are still questions, but those are mainly about such highly specialised fields because so much of the everyday stuff is now well understood.
Please, go and have a look at the papers on plate tectonics before saying stuff like that.
I'm not telling you what I think - I'm telling you that there's an overwhelming body of evidence that the Earth hasn't grown in size as this guy states.
You're arguing that simply because he's in disagreement with well explained models, he's some sort of Galileo? Please, spare me. These days, it requires a little more than simply disagreeing with everyone to be taken seriously.
I've got an idea - bleach makes you live forever! Wow! If you disagree with that, despite the massive overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're the Catholic church and I'm Galileo!!!
Did you see what I did there?