Did you ever stop to seriously consider why the oldest civilizations known to mankind all resided at extremely high altitudes? Did you ever wonder whatever became of important port cities like Pithom and Ramses in Egypt or Ostia, the harbor city of ancient Rome? [Did it ever strike you as odd that Ur of the Chaldees is now 200 miles from the Sea today yet in ancient times when Abraham lived there it was a busy seaport?] Did it ever strike you as odd that the legendary Sinbad the Sailor sailed from Baghdad harbor which was on the Persian Gulf? Today, Baghdad is some 350 miles from the sea and on hundred and twenty five feet above sea level. Author Richard Guy is a structural engineer. His work has taken him all over the world. And Richard Guy has a theory. Guy believes that the earth is constantly expanding as a result of seismic activity and volcanic eruptions. Furthermore, the consequences of our expanding earth are a slow but steady decline in sea levels worldwide.

Link (http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/5070)

Yet another pseudoscientific crackpot "theory."

This should be in the Pseudoscience subforum at best. The cesspool, ideally.

Yet another pseudoscientific crackpot "theory."

This should be in the Pseudoscience subforum at best. The cesspool, ideally.
That's the typical reaction and language of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned.

That's the typical reaction and language of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned.

I have no religion. You're a crackpot.

I have no religion.
Agnosticism and atheism are religions. So is your fanatic and fundamentalist devotion to constant size Earth inspite of all disconfirming scientific evidence.

You're a crackpot.
That is not a rational or scientific argument but I realize why you have none.

If you make extraordinary claims that are contrary to actual scientific evidence, using only that data which are pseudoscientific or incomplete, you are a crackpot.
You've made extraordinary claims that are contrary to actual scientific evidence, using only that data which are pseudoscientific or incomplete.
Therefore, you are a crackpot.


There. logic.

The interesting thing about the evidence of sedimentary sequences throughout geologic time is that sea levels vary. This variation has multiple sources. Sometimes the land sinks, locally. Sometimes the volume of the oceans increases or decreases - for example as ice melts or forms in quantity.
In Houston the International Airport is about forty miles from the sea, yet is still less than 100' above sea level. Sea level has varied by more than 100' over the last 100,000 years. It doesn't take much to move somewhere many miles closer to or further from the sea.
The quoted author has singled out instances where places are now further from the sea. He has neglected to talk about the locations that are now underwater. In short, as Skin has suggested, the research is rather inadequate. (That's British understatement for total crap.)

If you make extraordinary claims that are contrary to actual scientific evidence, using only that data which are pseudoscientific or incomplete, you are a crackpot.
You've made extraordinary claims that are contrary to actual scientific evidence, using only that data which are pseudoscientific or incomplete.
Therefore, you are a crackpot.

There. logic.
There is nothing logical or scientific about ad hominem fallacies. It's ok though, I understand that you have no data to support your theology.

I have no "theology" that you've demonstrated and, while it may be perceived as pejorative or ad hominem, it still doesn't change the fact that you're a crackpot.

Indeed, even if it were a logical fallacy it is still a part of logic and the premises and conclusion are cogent and sound.

You're a crackpot. For this I'm sorry to announce and embarass you publicly, but there are other, impressionable minds that visit Sciforums looking for homework help, etc. and we wouldn't want them to see your bullshit unchallenged and think that it was acceptable or <gasp> "scientific."

To those minds, let me be clear: the OP is a crackpot and a pseudoscience proponent. Take anything he says with two grains of salt.

To those minds, let me be clear: the OP is a crackpot and a pseudoscience proponent. Take anything he says with two grains of salt.

I'd suggest two pounds instead - that would dissolve a slug like him. (But he probably wouldn't believe that - since it's purely logical and he has no use for logical thinking.)

Is this a logical or scientific argument? You're a crackpot. You're a crackpot. You're a crackpot. If you say it one more time will it make you feel better about the expanding earth?

Your cracked-pottery does not imply that the earth is actually "expanding."

BTW, is your real name Neil Adams?

Sumer was on a flood plain. The Nile is a flood plain.

The confluence of the Tigris/Euphrates was in a different location just a few thousand years ago and is an ever-changing geographic location. The Nile river delta of lower Egypt, likewise, changed drastically in just a few thousand years.

We can see these changes by examining bathymetry and sediment cores of the regions, tracing the former channels in both shape and location. Ports and settlements in these regions become inundated with silt and, the primary building material being mudbrick, little is left in the way of arhcaeological evidence, though some good work has been done to reveal ceramic and lithic remains.

Also, there's no reason to accept the anecdotal information of historical and semi-historical figures like "Sinbad" or even Herodotus since, as was a literary habit, these authors frequently 'borrowed' the words of others. Like a "Chinese whisper," the contexts become distorted and misapplied.

This is a common enough occurrance to render ancient "historical works" as questionable and in need of verification and coroboration to gauge their truth values. Indeed, an ancient historical text might contain an easily verified "fact" in one paragraph and a complete fabrication in another if only because the author is relying on 2nd, 3rd and sometimes beyond, information.

This Richard Guy dude sounds like a bit of nut.

This Richard Guy dude sounds like a bit of nut.
If I had no logical or scientific argument to support my fundamentalist pseudoscientific religion I would resort to childish ad hominem fallacies as well.

Just curious: where is the line in the coo-coo sand that makes it okay to call a nut a "nut" without it being "childish ad hominem?"

I mean, we can pretty much agree (most rational people, anyway) that Hitler and Charles Manson were nuts, right? But, okay, they actually killed people, etc.

How about the nuts of most recent history that aren't as famous and believe shiny-suited aliens from Venus visit them on Tuesdays? What of the guy who launched weather balloons and claimed to be "Prophet Yahweh" who could "summon UFO's?" How about the guy that pretends to bend spoons with "the power of his mind", even after being exposed as a fraud? Or the guy that thinks its okay to sell the liver or kidneys of albinos because they're "lucky?"

Can't we variously call these people kooks, cranks and "a bit of a nut" without seeming "childish[ly] ad hominem?"

I'd say, yes. And it also follows that we should be able to say that nutty ideas such as that which you are claiming are "nutty." If so, then their claimants, likewise, sound "like a bit of a nut."

I mean, we can pretty much agree (most rational people, anyway) that Hitler and Charles Manson were nuts, right? But, okay, they actually killed people, etc.

How about the nuts of most recent history that aren't as famous and believe shiny-suited aliens from Venus visit them on Tuesdays? What of the guy who launched weather balloons and claimed to be "Prophet Yahweh" who could "summon UFO's?" How about the guy that pretends to bend spoons with "the power of his mind", even after being exposed as a fraud? Or the guy that thinks its okay to sell the liver or kidneys of albinos because they're "lucky?"

Can't we variously call these people kooks, cranks and "a bit of a nut" without seeming "childish[ly] ad hominem?"

I'd say, yes. And it also follows that we should be able to say that nutty ideas such as that which you are claiming are "nutty." If so, then their claimants, likewise, sound "like a bit of a nut."
That's your scientific argument for subduction and plate tectonics? You've got to be kidding.

No. This is the Pseudoscience forum where we talk about pseudoscience, pseudoscience proponents, kooks and cranks. Sometimes to expose pseudoscience, sometimes to deconstruct the psychology of nuts, sometimes to ridicule nutty beliefs.

The scientific efficacy of geologic processes such as subduction and plate tectonics are only in question to the degree you suggest by nuts, kooks and crackpots. There's little point in having that discussion with you, so I'd rather discuss something more interesting like the psychology of the pseudocientific woo-woo and nutbar.

Furthermore, the questions above weren't really directed to you but to anyone that visits the thread. But I'm curious what you might think at any rate.

If I had no logical or scientific argument to support my fundamentalist pseudoscientific religion I would resort to childish ad hominem fallacies as well.

If I had no logical or scientific argument to support my fundamentalist pseudoscientific religion I would resort to posting dubious quotes from unknown people over and over again in multiple threads.

BTW, is your real name Neil Adams?I've corresponded with Adams. While he is misguided he is cogent, reasonable and objective in his exchanges. OIM is decidedly not Adams. I suspect Adams would be dismayed by the manner in which OIM goes about promoting an expanding Earth.

If I had no logical or scientific argument to support my fundamentalist pseudoscientific religion I would resort to posting dubious quotes from unknown people over and over again in multiple threads.
If something is dubious you should say why it is dubious and try to do so using observation, logic, and persuasion. That's called science. You should try it sometime.

....Did it ever strike you as odd that the legendary Sinbad the Sailor sailed from Baghdad harbor which was on the Persian Gulf? .....

Sinbad?? He was a real person? He sailed from Bagdad harbor to where?

Surely we can carry on discourse without the use of the word crackpot cant we?

If something is dubious you should say why it is dubious and try to do so using observation, logic, and persuasion. That's called science. You should try it sometime.

If you're posting some guy's conclusions about a topic in a quote, then your should also post the reasons why he reached those conclusions, so other people have a chance to examine the relevant evidence.

That is called science, too. You should try it some time.

Surely we can carry on discourse without the use of the word crackpot cant we?
No. Plate tectonics fundamentalists aren't serious or intelligent enough to debate science with observation and logic. Ad hominem fallacies are their only hope for persuasion.

If you're posting some guy's conclusions about a topic in a quote, then your should also post the reasons why he reached those conclusions, so other people have a chance to examine the relevant evidence.

That is called science, too. You should try it some time.
If you were really scientific (not a prejudiced fundamentalist) you would know what the reasons are and exactly why he reached his conclusions. Let's be honest, you hate his conclusions, therefore you never really considered his reasoning.

Warning: approching ad hominem

Dear OIM,
you brainless wonder. I started in geology when there was no plate tectonics theory. There were, however, a huge mishmash of unexplained observations in geophysics, geochemistry, palaontology, sedimentology, structural geology, historical geology, and a six pack of other ologies. I lived and worked through the period where these observations were understood and the ambiguities resolved through the clarity brought about by plate tectonic theory.

Therefore do not have the unmitigated gall and instrasigent stupidity to suggest I have been brainwashed by the establishment. There was no ****ing establishment view when I developed my positive take on plate tectonics. The debate has been held. You are as out of date as a stale pretzel with a picture of JFK on the package.

Now **** off.

Normal non ad hominem service will now be resumed.

Warning: approching ad hominem

Dear OIM,
you brainless wonder. I started in geology when there was no plate tectonics theory. There were, however, a huge mishmash of unexplained observations in geophysics, geochemistry, palaontology, sedimentology, structural geology, historical geology, and a six pack of other ologies. I lived and worked through the period where these observations were understood and the ambiguities resolved through the clarity brought about by plate tectonic theory.

Therefore do not have the unmitigated gall and instrasigent stupidity to suggest I have been brainwashed by the establishment. There was no ****ing establishment view when I developed my positive take on plate tectonics. The debate has been held. You are as out of date as a stale pretzel with a picture of JFK on the package.

Now **** off.

Normal non ad hominem service will now be resumed.

Yeah, but where were you when Dipstick Diloshi discovered( in 1873) that Oil was formed at the non-convergence of non-tectonic plates..you idiot!
answer me that!..And make it scientific, you know I'm a fond believer.

Yeah, but where were you when Dipstick Diloshi discovered( in 1873) that Oil was formed at the non-convergence of non-tectonic plates..you idiot!
answer me that!..And make it scientific, you know I'm a fond believer.
I don't get your drift - continental or otherwise. Oil is found in a variety of settings, many, but not all, related to specific plate tectonic settings. Things have moved on quite a lot since 1873.

Warning: approching ad hominem

Dear OIM,
you brainless wonder. I started in geology when there was no plate tectonics theory. There were, however, a huge mishmash of unexplained observations in geophysics, geochemistry, palaontology, sedimentology, structural geology, historical geology, and a six pack of other ologies. I lived and worked through the period where these observations were understood and the ambiguities resolved through the clarity brought about by plate tectonic theory.

Therefore do not have the unmitigated gall and instrasigent stupidity to suggest I have been brainwashed by the establishment. There was no ****ing establishment view when I developed my positive take on plate tectonics. The debate has been held. You are as out of date as a stale pretzel with a picture of JFK on the package.

Now **** off.

Normal non ad hominem service will now be resumed.
Prior to plate tectonics religious dogma was rejection of continental drift religious dogma.

Yeah, but where were you when Dipstick Diloshi discovered( in 1873) that Oil was formed at the non-convergence of non-tectonic plates..you idiot!
answer me that!..And make it scientific, you know I'm a fond believer.
False conclusion.

"All major oil and gas provinces in the world are apparently associated with transtensive tectonic conditions, supporting the abiogenic theory of petroleum." -- Karsten M. Storetvedt, geophysicist, August 2008

What peer-reviewed publication was this in?

Prior to plate tectonics religious dogma was rejection of continental drift religious dogma.Quite possibly true. However, in the scientific field of geology dogma was even shorter than the thecae on a graptolite. Continental drift was rigorously questioned and provisionally rejected by the majority of Earth scientists because of the absence of a mechanism and the limited amount of evidence. Nevertheless the possibilities were still actively considered - for example by Arthur Holmes at the University of Edinburgh, who introduced the concept of convection currents.

"All major oil and gas provinces in the world are apparently associated with transtensive tectonic conditions, supporting the abiogenic theory of petroleum." -- Karsten M. Storetvedt, geophysicist, August 2008Do you deny that transtensive conditions lead to extensive sedimentation?

Hi OIM - nice to see that you're back and not dead as rumoured.

I notice you have a new pet piece of fringe science conjecture you are touting in your inimitable style these days
- great stuff !- I've been working really hard recently and have been short on a few genuine gut laughs

Does this mean that you have finally gotten tired of continually re-posting the same 20 or so links that you mistakenly thought supported abiotic oil (but sadly didn't) and got sick of having every single one of your arguments throroughly eviscerated time after time by a successive stream of sci posters?

When the inevitable happens - and the same thing happens with your new little obession (and I predict that this will happen mainly due to your inability to be able to get to grips with simple comprehension of the english language, and the most basic terminology and concepts relating to the field of study (like the time you proved you didn't know what abiotic actually meant :D ??) - just like last time) - have you put any thought into what you will rant and obsess over next?

And (drum roll, trumpet fanfare) Ophiolite's "I Wish I'd Said that" Award for October 2008 goes to synthesizer-patel for the above post.
[Poking fun is so much more effective than poking with sharp spikes.]

Link (http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/5070)

That's not even the same mechanism you believe in :D

What peer-reviewed publication was this in?
It was a presentation to the International Geological Congress: http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284293.html

That's not even the same mechanism you believe in :D
What mechanism would that be?

....Did it ever strike you as odd that the legendary Sinbad the Sailor sailed from Baghdad harbor which was on the Persian Gulf? .....

Sinbad?? He was a real person? He sailed from Bagdad harbor to where?

Oil, can you help me out here with an answer please? pretty please?

You've never read Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton's translation of The Book of One Thousand and One Nights? The story of Sinbad is tale 133 in Volume 6. It tells of his seven voyages. He may or may not have been a real person, I have no idea because I wasn't alive at the time. However the question you should be asking is, "Is Basra a real city?" The answer to that of course is obviously yes. And he sailed from Basra which was directly on the Persian Gulf at that time. Now Basra is 34 miles inland and one must sail up the Shat al Arab in order to get there.

http://www.weather-forecast.com/locationmaps/Basra.jpg

Similiarly Ostia Antica (meaning mouth [of the Tiber River]) aka Portus Romanus which in ancient times was on the Mediterranean Sea but is now 3 miles inland on the Tiber.

http://www.ostia-antica.org/img/intro7.jpg

Oh my how the Earth has grown.

The idea that the earth has grown has been thoroughly debunked.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/9a0a2daa92.jpg


Map of the world in ancient time.

Lol

The idea that the earth has grown has been thoroughly debunked.

If you say so. How do you debunk that?

If you say so. How do you debunk that?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86898

So can you tell me exactly how it would be possible to know that the Earth, at any time in it's history, has not expanded?

So can you tell me exactly how it would be possible to know that the Earth, at any time in it's history, has not expanded?

So can you tell me exactly how it would be possible to know that people, at any time in it's history, were not purple skinned with yellow dots all over their body ?

What a nonsense question.

possible to know that people, at any time in it's history, were not purple skinned with yellow dots all over their body ?


No, it would not be possible to know this. That was exactly my point though.

No, it would not be possible to know this. That was exactly my point though.

Of course the Earth has expanded in the past. But not by the amount or the machanism OIM talks about.
Space dust. Meteor impacts.

No, it would not be possible to know this. That was exactly my point though.

No, it's a nonsense question in itself. Nothing to do with what the question is about.

So can you tell me exactly how it would be possible to know that the Earth, at any time in it's history, has not expanded?
They have a magic time machine and a crystal ball but they won't let me borrow either one.

No need for magic time machines. Just follow the evidence.

John99: Please review my Formal Debate with OilIsMastery, where I debunked his contention.

But in the last 200 years the shoreline has changed and much of the new land exposed by the receding sea has been developed without any consideration of the state's rights to the land.

Link (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEEDB1238F936A35755C0A9679482 60)

That's the best you can do? Didn't you ever study geography as a kid in school? Some coastal areas have huge variations, over the time scales of hundreds of years, in their topography due to powerful currents, frequent storms etc which can deposit or remove a lot of sand and rock, making the sea come further in or move further out. Hurricane Katrina destroyed huge amounts of fragile coastal areas, that doesn't mean that an article saying "The sea comes further in than it used to" would be evidence for a shrinking Earth.

Besides, why would that coastline have changed due to an expanding Earth and not anywhere else?

You really are pathetically desperate if you're using that as evidence! :roflmao:

You've never read Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton's translation of The Book of One Thousand and One Nights? The story of Sinbad is tale 133 in Volume 6. It tells of his seven voyages. He may or may not have been a real person, I have no idea because I wasn't alive at the time. However the question you should be asking is, "Is Basra a real city?" .....

Wow, I don't even want to ask about Jesus then, do I?

Wow, I don't even want to ask about Jesus then, do I?
Probably not: http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/11/25/jesus.box.ap/index.html

Did you ever wonder whatever became of important port cities like Pithom and Ramses in Egypt or Ostia, the harbor city of ancient Rome? [Did it ever strike you as odd that Ur of the Chaldees is now 200 miles from the Sea today yet in ancient times when Abraham lived there it was a busy seaport?] Did it ever strike you as odd that the legendary Sinbad the Sailor sailed from Baghdad harbor which was on the Persian Gulf? Today, Baghdad is some 350 miles from the sea and on hundred and twenty five feet above sea level.

What about Atlantis?

Probably not: http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/11/25/jesus.box.ap/index.html

Criminal case 482/04, the State of Israel v. Oded Golan and others, lays out the details of one of the biggest forgery scandals ever in the history of archaeology.

Check your facts, hoss.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974483.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary

What about the Chinese who 's main central point of commerce was on flat land? Or how about the Egyptians , again , were on flat land? Then there were the Sumatrans who were on flat land. Many ancient peoples lived on or near the coast of a river or ocean, not high up.

What about the Chinese who 's main central point of commerce was on flat land? Or how about the Egyptians , again , were on flat land? Then there were the Sumatrans who were on flat land. Many ancient peoples lived on or near the coast of a river or ocean, not high up.
What about them? China was once covered in water. We find marine fossils in China.

Was China under water in the last 10,000 years? No. So your "We've found marine fossils" doesn't negate his point.