The Adam and Eve Story - Global Cataclysms

a reply to: ClovenSky
This book 1963 version over 200 pages ? or did it have 1965 3rd edition 55 pages ? is any actual clarification available ?

a reply to: ClovenSky
This book 1963 version over 200 pages ? or did it have 1965 3rd edition 55 pages ? is any actual clarification available ?

a reply to: ClovenSky
This book 1963 version over 200 pages ? or did it have 1965 3rd edition 55 pages ? is any actual clarification available ?

a reply to: ClovenSky
This book 1963 version over 200 pages ? or did it have 1965 3rd edition 55 pages ? is any actual clarification available ?

a reply to: Fingle

not sure why 5/6 reply's to you

a reply to: Byrd

What are you saying Proven wrong or the contradictory data found that put the theory into dispute also while I do also ascribe to continental drift theory I am open to it despite being the currently standard accepted theory being just that a THEORY, a Scientific Model - a Theorem used to predict - with ample success as it so happens but since our current model of the earth's core is still far from complete lacking sufficient date to construct an absolutely accurate theory or to predict with absolute certainly earthquakes and volcanic eruptions'.
We are getting better at it all the time as we compile more and more date and computer model's are also getting better at predictive analysis based on an increasing data base of geological data.
BUT it remains' a THEORY.

As does ECD.
To prove that the THEORY of ECD is wrong would require PROOF that such an event has NEVER occurred and guess what proof that it has NEVER occurred does not exist and so despite losing adherent's over time and indeed going out of fashion it still remains' a valid concept and it is mechanically sound.

Just to remind you it all has to do with the concept of centrifugal force and imbalance were the planet's outer crust is seen as floating on a semi liquid internal layer and being potentially able to slip in it's entirety over those semi liquid layers when extreme imbalance is created such as by the build up of solid ice asymmetrically at least at one of the pole's, if this build up of mass is sufficient it would then provide a centrifugal mechanical force sufficient to create a THRUST upon the outer crust as the asymmetric mass tried to move toward the equator of the planet.

However it misses another point, pressure equalization can also occur and while I personally do not believe that any recent (geologically speaking at least in the last half a billion years or so) ECD has occurred and that pressure equalization would then mean the semi liquid layers of the earth's interior would shift to counterbalance the asymmetry which at least would compensate for the rotation of the planet around it's own axis though it would perhaps not cancel out the potential mechanical force that could have caused such a planet wide crust displacement.

I mean come on man do YOU really think you are in the same league as the guy that created this theory or indeed Einstein whom thought it was at least highly plausible.

That said I do not Ascribe to the theory but I stand well and truly by my statement that it has NEVER been disproved only been superseded by the now far more accepted theory of continental drift.

But what if I was to point out to you even with continental drift ECD remains' plausible.

Think about it like this, when we are making some oatmeal and get a skin on the top that can be broken into part's with hot bubbling oatmeal coming up through the cracks in the skin that is a bit like one over simplified model of the earth's crust were those crack's are rift's and fault lines and volcano's but under certain circumstance the entire skin can move now can it not, for example imagine your big spoon dipping into the oatmeal at an angle so as to move the skin in one piece as a really huge whopping comet or asteroid striking the earth at an angle comet or even though far less cataclysmic a massive build up of ice at the poles off axis and providing an impetus for such a slippage.

Now as it stand's as I pointed out I do not accept that any recent ECD has occurred and indeed it is possible that non has occurred at all for several billion years though perhaps the most likely time in that duration for one to have potentially occurred would be during the Snow Ball earth which as you know is also gaining support and also remains' simply a theory though a much younger theory.

AND as I pointed out to contradict ECD I personally would point out the geological features such as the chain of island's and former island's that show a gradual and not a rapid or huge shift in the earth's crust OR AT LEAST the Hawaiian plate over the THERMAL plume that is the source of the volcanic energy that created the island's and those now extinct former island's that have slowly slipped back beneath the waves over time.

Now what you may ask is a Thermal plume, looked at they have the usual hexagonal form of a heat plume but rise up from somewhere deep beneath the Crust, these power Super volcano's and other volcanic features such as the Hawaiian Islands were there is no obvious Crustal subduction taking place.

This is as opposed to Friction powered volcano's such as those that can be created were plates are in collision sliding one over another and there the source of the magma is actually were the plates slide is creating heat and this heat is melting the rock which then under extreme pressure of course seeks a way out which if it find's one to the surface then pushes up the mother of all mole hill's a volcano before erupting out of it.

Of course the source of the heat for super volcano's and of course Hawaii and other such active volcanic features that seem to be very far from active plate interaction zone's is still only theory and it may and could be that for instance Hawaii could simply be a still semi solid proto plate sliding under the still very ancient but perhaps much younger Hawaiian plate but if so then were are the old crumple zone mountain's, are there any in the region?.


(oh damn it well fair enough I am the one that argued the true tenet's of science going back, any theory can be supported but NEVER proven absolutely but ANY theory can be disproven if any contradictory evidence can be presented, still has true contradictory evidence for the theory in general or only for the theory in recent geological history been provided and if so has the theory been disproved or not?).

Sometimes fringe sites have very interesting data, did you know for example Hapgood was not the first to propose ECD.
blog.world-mysteries.com...
And there is some potential evidence that during an extreme epoch rapid polar geological wandering in line with a possible ECD may indeed have occurred.
en.wikipedia.org...
Which of course would prove the THEORY but not Hapgood's 40.000 year hypothesis which I think we can safely put to bed.
Or can we.

But you know Byrd neither of us were there so it is all just hot smoke and word's and neither of us actually KNOW what has occurred that far back in the past we only have an idea about it built atop a stack of other people's ideas and guess what they too were not really that different to us when all is said and done.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Byrd
As does ECD.
To prove that the THEORY of ECD is wrong would require PROOF that such an event has NEVER occurred and guess what proof that it has NEVER occurred does not exist and so despite losing adherent's over time and indeed going out of fashion it still remains' a valid concept and it is mechanically sound.

You can't prove a negative. However, you can prove that an alternate explanation is right.

There's all sorts of evidence that does not support Earth Crust Displacement, including the record of the magnetic pole orientation that's found in volcanic rocks all over the world.

Just to remind you it all has to do with the concept of centrifugal force and imbalance were the planet's outer crust is seen as floating on a semi liquid internal layer and being potentially able to slip in it's entirety over those semi liquid layers ... such as by the build up of solid ice asymmetrically at least at one of the pole's, if this build up of mass is sufficient it would then provide a centrifugal mechanical force sufficient to create a THRUST upon the outer crust as the asymmetric mass tried to move toward the equator of the planet.

The weight of crustal material doesn't cause a change in the location of lands. If your model was true, then the thick ice caps of the Ice Age would have forced the continents to move toward the equator. If your model was true, the Siberian Traps (supervolcano field that poured out basalt for a 2 million year period (see link)) would have moved Siberia to the equator. Neither of these happened (nor did other events that changed the density of the crust.)

... ECD has occurred and that pressure equalization would then mean the semi liquid layers of the earth's interior would shift to counterbalance the asymmetry which at least would compensate for the rotation of the planet around it's own axis though it would perhaps not cancel out the potential mechanical force that could have caused such a planet wide crust displacement.

Except that whoever came up with this idea is basing it on the behavior of liquids under standard temperature and pressure in a very static container. None of this is true with the Earth.

I mean come on man do YOU really think you are in the same league as the guy that created this theory or indeed Einstein whom thought it was at least highly plausible.

Yes. Einstein was a great man and I couldn't ever do the math he did. But he knew very little about geology or biology or medicine or archaeology or paleontology or a thousand other subjects. He didn't know a syncline from an anticline. He couldn't tell Exogyra Ponderosa from Exogyra Arientina (I can, and those two fossils are important clues in geology.) He didn't know what a cranial nerve was and couldn't tell fossilized bone from rock (I can because I worked in a paleo lab.)

He's a great man but if you're going to invoke his expertise in anything but math or physics, you're going to run into real trouble.

But what if I was to point out to you even with continental drift ECD remains' plausible.

Nothing in the model you've presented is supported by geology or physics.

...when we are making some oatmeal and get a skin on the top that can be broken into part's with hot bubbling oatmeal coming up through the cracks ... for example imagine your big spoon dipping into the oatmeal at an angle so as to move the skin in one piece as a really huge whopping comet or asteroid striking the earth at an angle comet or even though far less cataclysmic a massive build up of ice at the poles off axis and providing an impetus for such a slippage.

My oatmeal behaves rather differently. The skin doesn't push aside. It sinks.

... though perhaps the most likely time in that duration for one to have potentially occurred would be during the Snow Ball earth ...

I don't think you have a clear picture of the landforms of that time.

Now what you may ask is a Thermal plume, looked at they have the usual hexagonal form of a heat plume but rise up from somewhere deep beneath the Crust, these power Super volcano's and other volcanic features such as the Hawaiian Islands were there is no obvious Crustal subduction taking place.

Supervolcanoes and hot spots are two different things.

But you know Byrd neither of us were there ...

But the rocks were there and they bear witness.

a reply to: Byrd

Byrd why are you flogging a dead horse IT IS NOT MY MODEL, I already said I adhere more toward continental drift in my own opinion but like I pointed out to you both you and I do not know, we only know a compilation of other people's ideas and observation's and God only know's how right or wrong they really are.

As to Rock's bearing witness let's look at that.

Oldest rock's on earth, how many time's were they buried again, how accurate is dating of those rock's when in most cases the dating is done with a microscope and comparison to other rock's of a similar structure and chemical make up which are ASSUMED to be of a certain geological age and not actually an isotopic dating*.



*which actually send's me off on another tangent of thought, if Brane theory is accurate we may actually not have absolute's in the universe as the very law's of our universe at a quantum level may be far more fluid than any Newtonian model would like to accept, if our universe law's as we call them are actually in some cases such as gravity and time subject to unpredictable interactions of membrane universe in peripheral contact or full collision/interaction in super space then time itself may not be so easy to measure over such long period's and indeed this also affects the rate of radioactive decay and for that matter perhaps all so called once thought to be set in stone laws of nature that were always regarded by science as governing the reality of the Newtonian view of the universe.