Biogeographical Falsification of Subduction

[OilIsMastery]

http://www.4threvolt.com/sitebuilder/images/SAAust2-366x266.jpg

Topic: If the Pacific Ocean/Ring of Fire is subducting and the Pacific Ocean is shrinking as required by subduction, how is it possible that Australia was once connected to South America?

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/06-07/images/kangaroo.jpg

Most of the marsupials alive today are confined to South America and Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial

There are about 334 species of marsupial, and over 200 are native to Australia and neighboring northern islands. There are also 100 extant American species; these are centered mostly in South America

Harrison, L., The Migration Route of the Australian Marsupial Fauna (http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/biogeog/HARR1924.htm), Australian Zoologist, Volume 3, Pages 247-263, 1924

Briggs, J.C., The Ultimate Expanding Earth Hypothesis (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118776845/abstract), Journal of Biogeography, Volume 31, Issue 5, Pages 855 - 857, 2004

McCarthy, Biogeographical and Geological Evidence for a Smaller, Completely-Enclosed Pacific Basin in the Late Cretaceous (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118737507/abstract), Journal of Biogeography, Volume 32, Issue 12, Pages 2161 - 2177, 2005

"Biogeographic arguments for a closed Pacific (just like biogeographic arguments for a closed Atlantic and closed Indian) are based on evolutionary theory. Specifically, according to the theory of evolution, you can't have a host of closely-related, poor dispersing taxa suddenly appearing on opposite sides of an ocean -- when it is highly improbable for any of the ancestral taxa to cross oceans. So according to the referenced paper above, unless plate tectonic theorists want to rely on divine intervention, a slew of creation stories or a myriad of impossible trans-oceanic crossings of terrestrial taxa, their paleomaps are wrong. Panthalassa could not have existed between all of the hundred plus referenced taxa, which is to say, it didn't exist." -- Dennis McCarthy, biogeographer, 2003

Ali, J.R., Biogeographical and Geological Evidence or a Smaller, Completely-Enclosed Pacific Basin in the Late Cretaceous: a Comment (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118728971/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0), Journal of Biogeography, Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 1670-1674, 2006

Briggs, J.C., Another Expanding Earth Paper (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118728975/abstract), Journal of Biogeography, Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 1674 - 1676, 2006

Ebach, M.C., and Tangney, R.S., Biogeography In A Changing World (http://books.google.com/books?id=ldl5EJI9W8UC&printsec=frontcover), 2007

"The present-day cordilleran system of eastern Australia was formed in still earlier times; it arose at the same time as the earlier folds in South and North America, which formed the basis of the Andes (pre- cordilleras), at the leading edge of the continental blocks, then drifting as a whole before dividing." -- Wegener, A., The Origin of Continents and Oceans (http://books.google.com/books?id=7k_U2qKMBpYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=wegener), 1915

"All marine fossils from 200 million years ago or earlier are found exclusively on continental locations -- just as expanding Earth theory predicts. That's because all large marine environments pre-Jurassic were epicontinental seas -- not oceans. Incredibly, if we deny expanding Earth theory, all the pre-Jurassic oceanic marine fossils must have vanished, along with all pre-Jurassic oceanic crust, as well as all of the fossils of all the trans-Pacific taxa that simply "walked" from one location to the other. Hmmm. Even your mainstream fixist geologist counterparts of the first half of the twentieth century didn't have to accept that many miracles." -- Dennis McCarthy, biogeographer, 2003

[BenTheMan]

Do you ever post any original thoughts, or do you just rip things off of other people?

[James R]

...and the Pacific Ocean is shrinking as required by subduction...

Huh?

[BenTheMan]

Science: assume a conclusion and fit observations.

[OilIsMastery]

Do you ever post any original thoughts, or do you just rip things off of other people?
Afraid of scientific references?

No I don't post my "original thoughts" since I'm not a genius like you.

Interesting that you consider scientific citations and references which you almost always fail to provide as "ripping people off."

[OilIsMastery]

Huh?
Do you think the Pacific Ocean is expanding?

Also, why was my thread moved without a redirect notice? I hear there is an internal policy on that.

[Stryder]

Oil. You know there is the continent of Zealandia between Australia and South America don't you?

[OilIsMastery]

Oil. You know there is the continent of Zealandia between Australia and South America don't you?
No. Is that like the lost continent of Mu?

[Stryder]

No but it lays beneath New Zealand. Incidentally Australia's current Tectonic movement is 35 Degree's east of North according to the Wikipedia and moving at a whopping 67mm's a year. (That's about 1 metre every 15 years.)

[OilIsMastery]

No but it lays beneath New Zealand.
Due to the expansion of the Earth, it's possible that New Zealand will one day grow into a continent.

Incidentally Australia's current Tectonic movement is 35 Degree's east of North according to the Wikipedia and moving at a whopping 67mm's a year. (That's about 1 metre every 15 years.)
According to SLR (satellite laser ranging) data from the LAGEOS satellite, Australia is moving West away from Peru at a rate 65.3 mm/year.

http://www.expanding-earth.org/images/pacific2.jpg

Smith, D. E., et al, 1993. "SLR Results from LAGEOS."

[OilIsMastery]

Here are actual references to peer reviewed papers discussing the VLBI data, SLR data, GPS data, etc.

"The Pacific would have to contract fairly rapidly to maintain a constant Earth diameter since the Atlantic is widening and Antarctic plate is also growing in size....Instead, the SLR geodesic data in the South American frame of reference show Pacific Basin perimeter expansion, more pronounced in the South Pacific than the North Pacific, despite concurrent geodesic convergence at Pacific trenches. This is startling since convergence rates at the Tonga Trench are the world's fastest (Bevis et al., 1995)"

Shields, O., "Geodetic Proof of Earth Expansion?" New Concepts in Global Tectonics. Sept. 1997, pp 17-18., 1997

http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php?action=download&id=25&PHPSESSID=8832083435f6f6f5f6694499c5e4e171

Another example from "Monitoring the Earth":

http://books.google.com/books?id=FqNISQ1Zt_UC&printsec=frontcover

"On the whole, the notion of an expanding Earth is not in favour, but the topic may be revived by global geodesy, witness the recent claim that SLR to LAGEOS (Laser Geodynamics Satellite: see Frontispiece) and VLBI data for stable continental regions indicate an increase of 4.15 +/- .27 mm/yr in terrestrial radius since the techniques came into operation (Scalera 2000)."

And perhaps the most careful treatment is of course Maxlow's PhD thesis: http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20020117.145715/unrestricted/13Appendices.pdf

[pjdude1219]

Oil maybe if you understood the theory your try(very poorly I might add) to disprove you would realize your just making a fool out of your self.

[James R]

Do you think the Pacific Ocean is expanding?

I'm not sure. It depends on the net movement of the various plates.

According to SLR (satellite laser ranging) data from the LAGEOS satellite, Australia is moving West away from Peru at a rate 65.3 mm/year.

If this is true, then it looks to me like the Pacific Ocean is expanding.

Don't you read your own material?

[OilIsMastery]

I'm not sure. It depends on the net movement of the various plates.
Well if you're not sure then you've just converted to agnostism with respect to plate tectonics vs expansion tectonics.

If this is true, then it looks to me like the Pacific Ocean is expanding.

Don't you read your own material?
If the Pacific Ocean is expanding, then plate tectonics is a lie and the Earth is expanding.

See here: http://www.4threvolt.com/EEmovie2.html

[fedr808]

Okay you guys lets just let this thread go. It is going to end up being spekulation because by the time we all will know for sure we will all be long dead. By probably a few million years.

[OilIsMastery]

Okay you guys lets just let this thread go. It is going to end up being spekulation because by the time we all will know for sure we will all be long dead. By probably a few million years.
Wrong. Plate tectonics fundamentalists are omniscient demigods who cannot possibly speculate because they have perfect infallible wisdom, apodeictic epistemic certainty, and extra sensory geological powers.

[Trippy]

Due to the expansion of the Earth, it's possible that New Zealand will one day grow into a continent.


According to SLR (satellite laser ranging) data from the LAGEOS satellite, Australia is moving West away from Peru at a rate 65.3 mm/year.

http://www.expanding-earth.org/images/pacific2.jpg

Smith, D. E., et al, 1993. "SLR Results from LAGEOS."

Wrong answer.

New Zealand is already a continent (Zelandia).

Just most of it is submerged - the island chains that we see are the highest 'mountain ranges'.

Bonus points for anyone who can name why Zelandia is unusual (and unique) on the earth (Clue - it has nothing to do with being largely submerged).

[OilIsMastery]

Is Zealandia the Lost Continent of Mu?

[Vkothii]

C'mon OIM, even I know why the Zealandia island chain is unique, because of the way it used to be part of Antarctica/Australia, back when they were next to what is now the Indian subcontinent. Why that Benioff zone seismic chart is a bit more interesting than you realise.

[Trippy]

Is Zealandia the Lost Continent of Mu?

No.

[Trippy]

C'mon OIM, even I know why the Zealandia island chain is unique, because of the way it used to be part of Antarctica/Australia, back when they were next to what is now the Indian subcontinent. Why that Benioff zone seismic chart is a bit more interesting than you realise.

Actually, I was refering to it's shape - it covers something like 40 degrees of longitude, but only about 5 degrees of latitude.

[Vkothii]

It's shape is because of the way it has moved over the margin, and subduction along the western edge of Zealandia isn't it? The North Is. in the chain is largely volcanic because of where the fault is, and how it now divides the chain?

This is from an article by J Tuzo Wilson (1963 SciAm), "Convection currents in the earth's mantle may move blocks of material with different effects. Continental mountain chains and island arcs could form where [convection] currents sink and blocks meet; mid-ocean ridges [could form] where currents rise and blocks are [rifted] apart."
And : "Two convection currents perpendicular to each other suggest a mechanism for producing large horizontal faults such as the one that has offset western New Zealand 300 miles northward."

NZ is the only island chain directly over the margin of two plates, [that are moving transversely].

[OilIsMastery]

http://www.4threvolt.com/sitebuilder/images/SAAust2-366x266.jpg

[pjdude1219]

http://www.4threvolt.com/sitebuilder/images/SAAust2-366x266.jpg

Your point the other side of south america lines up with africa just as well.

[James R]

Well if you're not sure then you've just converted to agnostism with respect to plate tectonics vs expansion tectonics.

No. The earth is clearly not expanding, as a whole.

[Trippy]

It's shape is because of the way it has moved over the margin, and subduction along the western edge of Zealandia isn't it?
Yes and no. NZ is the shape it is because of the subduction zones, however, i's only in the South Island that the subduction occurs in the west, off the North Island, it occurs to the east. My understanding is that it all used to occur to the east, because the pacific plate is older, and less bouyant than the Indo-australian plate, however, the Fiordland Terrane 'rafted' into the subduction zone, and gummed the whole thing up, so the subduction shifted focus, and moved to the west coast - where the Alpine fault now is, and of course, needless to say, the top most part of the south Island, and the bottom most part of the North Island are emeshed in a suitably complex set of faults where the plates make their transition.

The Alpine fault is (I believe) largely transform, however, there is obviously substantial compression involved (cif the Southern Alps), my understanding is that south of Fiordland Subduction resumes, but it's Indoaustralia that subducts.

The North Is. in the chain is largely volcanic because of where the fault is, and how it now divides the chain?
Not quite, my recollection is that the North Island gets a lot of back ark vulcanism (which appears to have shifted focus over time) and that elements of the North Island Vulcanism are as a result of the fact that there's a back arc spreading zone.

This is from an article by J Tuzo Wilson (1963 SciAm), "Convection currents in the earth's mantle may move blocks of material with different effects. Continental mountain chains and island arcs could form where [convection] currents sink and blocks meet; mid-ocean ridges [could form] where currents rise and blocks are [rifted] apart."
And : "Two convection currents perpendicular to each other suggest a mechanism for producing large horizontal faults such as the one that has offset western New Zealand 300 miles northward."
Yeah, the Geology of the west coast is smeared in a northern direction, and the area that is now Nelson used to be part of Fiordland

NZ is the only island chain directly over the margin of two plates, [that are moving transversely].
Yeah, I think this is right.

[Trippy]

I should like to point out that technically, OIM is using Doctored (and therefore falsified evidence).

The map he is using fails to account for Zelandia.
The map he is using has removed nearly half of PNG to make for a more convincing fit.

[James R]

Do you have the original, Trippy?

[Trippy]

Do you have the original, Trippy?

The original of the specific map that OIM has used?
No.

This however is what Australasia actually looks like.

http://worldmapsonline.com/images/political/Australasia%20Political%20Wallmap%20-%20LJ304.jpg

Looking at OIM's age maps should, IIRC, show that Zelandia has (for the last few hundred MA at least) been between South America and Australia, in fact, IIRC in the Jurasic, Zelandia was in an Oceanic trench off the coast of the Australian continent.

As previously stated, the map he is currently using removes Zelandia and half of PNG, and is therefore falsified.

Also note that I'm not accusing OIM himself of having falsified the evidence, as I have precisely zero proof that he edited the map.

[OilIsMastery]

No. The earth is clearly not expanding, as a whole.
So you are sure but you're wrong.

"I cannot give any scientist of any age advice better than this: the intensity of a convicttion that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not." -- Sir Peter Medawar

[James R]

OIM:

I debunked your earth expansion theory in our Formal Debate. Remember?

[OilIsMastery]

OIM:

I debunked your earth expansion theory in our Formal Debate. Remember?
LOL. Keep telling yourself that. You have a very bizarre recollection of events.

[Vkothii]

BUT

Why is OIM so sure that "the earth is not expanding" is wrong? Is he ever going to come up with an idea, or just keep trawling the internet, looking for something, anything, that might say so for him?
Even when he doesn't understand the gist of a lot of it, to start with? Why so sure, McClure?

Was it like a revelation?
Was your mission made clear by the mysterious visitor?

[OilIsMastery]

Oh also, I just found out that Halley discovered this thing called the "secular acceleration of the moon." That means the moons orbit is expanding as the Earth's circumference expands.

"An increase in oceans and mass will increase both the gravitational force and tidal forces -- forcing the moon to speed up and expand its orbit. Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time -- the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963). This was a mystery for decades that surprised mainstream planetary scientists. It is now explained away by assuming that tidal forces were not as great during the Mesozoic as they are today." (McCarthy, 2003)

"Slichter, L. B. Secular Effects of Tidal friction upon the Earth's Rotation. Journal of Geophysical Research 68(14), July 15, 1963"

And also, as predicted and confirmed by Kant in 1754, perhaps the greatest discovery of all time, time is slowing down and the days and nights are getting longer (as the Earth expands).

[James R]

The Moon is moving away from the Earth due to tidal friction, which also accounts for the lengthening of the day over time.

These effects do not require expansion of the Earth.

[OilIsMastery]

The Moon is moving away from the Earth due to tidal friction, which also accounts for the lengthening of the day over time.

These effects do not require expansion of the Earth.
They do because it's "accelerating" meaning the Earth's mass must be growing.

[James R]

No.

[OilIsMastery]

No.
That's one of the most thorough, logical, and persuasive arguments I've seen from a radial-fixist.

"About twenty years ago, when I expressed my reservations about the plate tectonics theory to one of its supporters, I got the answer, 'You either believe in it or not.' Unfortunately the religious mentality of the supporters of plate tectonics did not change in the years to come." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist/geoscientist, National Observatory of Athens, 1997

Tassos, S.T., Earth Expansion Versus Plate Tectonics or Approaching Reality Versus Mental Artifacts (http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php?action=download&id=25&PHPSESSID=8832083435f6f6f5f6694499c5e4e171), New Concepts In Global Tectonics, Volume 4, Pages 13-17, 1997

[OilIsMastery]

With respect to Zealandia, it was formed by oceanic seafloor spreading aka expansion/growth just as all continental crust formed and just as basalt pillow lava and oceans form now.

85-55 Ma Tasman Sea spreading
Zealandia is young (that pesky old core sample and zircon dating thing). It didn't exist in the Jurassic and was formed in the Cretaceous, when, according to plate tectonics dogma, there were no land bridges.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/LateCretaceousGlobal.jpg/800px-LateCretaceousGlobal.jpg

Score another loss for plate tectonics.

Expanding Earth 1-Plate Teconics 0

Wegener, A.L., The Origin of Continents and Oceans (http://books.google.com/books?id=7k_U2qKMBpYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=wegener), 1915

Mortimer, N., Zealandia (http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ASEG2006ab119.htm), ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2006

[AlphaNumeric]

So you are sure but you're wrong.

"I cannot give any scientist of any age advice better than this: the intensity of a convicttion that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not." -- Sir Peter MedawarAs usual, you don't bother realising that quote can be applied to your argument too. No matter how much you wish the Earth is expanding, simply wishing and misconstruing what people tell you doesn't make it so. Over whelming evidence says otherwise.
Score another loss for plate tectonics.

Expanding Earth 1-Plate Teconics 0Except it isn't a point against plate tectonics and if we (or scientists) were keeping score it would be about 0-20 for Plate tectonics.

[Trippy]

With respect to Zealandia, it was formed by oceanic seafloor spreading aka expansion/growth just as all continental crust formed and just as basalt pillow lava and oceans form now.


Zealandia is young (that pesky old core sample and zircon dating thing). It didn't exist in the Jurassic and was formed in the Cretaceous, when, according to plate tectonics dogma, there were no land bridges.

Score another loss for plate tectonics.

Expanding Earth 1-Plate Teconics 0

Wegener, A.L., The Origin of Continents and Oceans (http://books.google.com/books?id=7k_U2qKMBpYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=wegener), 1915

Mortimer, N., Zealandia (2006http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ASEG2006ab119.htm), ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2006


And OIM Looses again.

I have a Jurassic fossilized fern sitting on my desktop that says you're wrong.

Not to mention the fact that I know for a fact that there are dinosaur fossils right here in New Zealand.

Not to mention all those pesky andesitic volcanoes - and the ruddy great hole in the middle of one of the islands (here's a clue, those sorts of holes don't tend to form with basaltic volcanoes, and basaltic volcanoes in the southern hemisphere don't tend to erupt with such violence they cover 10% of the southern hemisphere in half an inch of ash, and inject that much ash into the atmosphere that the effects of the eruptions are record by the chinese and romans.

[OilIsMastery]

As usual, you don't bother realising that quote can be applied to your argument too. No matter how much you wish the Earth is expanding, simply wishing and misconstruing what people tell you doesn't make it so. Over whelming evidence says otherwise.
Except it isn't a point against plate tectonics and if we (or scientists) were keeping score it would be about 0-20 for Plate tectonics.
As usual, an emotional religiously motivated response with no scientific content or reference.

[OilIsMastery]

I have a Jurassic fossilized fern sitting on my desktop that says you're wrong.
Any why is that?

Not to mention the fact that I know for a fact that there are dinosaur fossils right here in New Zealand.
Granted. So? And?

Not to mention all those pesky andesitic volcanoes - and the ruddy great hole in the middle of one of the islands (here's a clue, those sorts of holes don't tend to form with basaltic volcanoes, and basaltic volcanoes in the southern hemisphere don't tend to erupt with such violence they cover 10% of the southern hemisphere in half an inch of ash, and inject that much ash into the atmosphere that the effects of the eruptions are record by the chinese and romans.
So?

[Trippy]

What's more, your own source contradicts you (Mortimer) by discussing:

Additional geological events that have affected Zealandia?s regional mineral prospectivity include more widespread 125-85 Ma magmatism and extensional exhumation, superposition of Neogene volcanic arcs in the North Island, and localised Neogene exhumation in the South Island.

[OilIsMastery]

What's more, your own source contradicts you (Mortimer) by discussing:
The South Island of New Zealand is what is commonly refered to as "land" or continental and Zealandia is submerged. New Zealand is old; Zealandia is young.

Zealandia didn't exist in the Jurassic.

[Trippy]

Any why is that?

Two main reasons.

1) Because it occurs in Jurassic marine sequences, and is from the west coast of the North Island (Port Waikato to be precise). It demonstrates that during the Jurassic a sea existed between New Zealand and Australia. The Jurassic sediments that I found it in include (IIRC) Andesitic turbidites.


Granted. So? And?
So Zelanandia existed during the Jurassic.


So?
So Zelandia is not the result of basaltic pillow lavas.

[OilIsMastery]

Two main reasons.

1) Because it occurs in Jurassic marine sequences, and is from the west coast of the North Island (Port Waikato to be precise). It demonstrates that during the Jurassic a sea existed between New Zealand and Australia. The Jurassic sediments that I found it in include (IIRC) Andesitic turbidites.
The North Island is continental crust and is not part of the oceanic lithosphere.

So Zelanandia existed during the Jurassic.
No. Reference? Citation? Link? Didn't think so.

So Zelandia is not the result of basaltic pillow lavas.
Not according to the peer-reviewed science posted above. So far you have provided no scientific reference. Just emotional responses which is the typical reaction of someone whose sacred religious faith has been profaned.

[Trippy]

The South Island of New Zealand is what is commonly refered to as "land" or continental and Zealandia is submerged. New Zealand is old; Zealandia is young.

Zealandia didn't exist in the Jurassic.

Wong Again

http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/Geology/Fossils/3/mi

Most of the greywacke rocks dominant in the New Zealand mountains, including the Southern Alps and those in the central North Island, originally accumulated as sediment on the ancient Pacific Ocean floor during this time.

These rocks were uplifted and incorporated into the eastern margin of continental Gondwana.

[Trippy]

The North Island is continental crust and is not part of the oceanic lithosphere.
Bzzzzt.

No. Reference? Citation? Link? Didn't think so.
You want a reference for a fossil I have sitting on my desk?


Not according to the peer-reviewed science posted above. So far you have provided no scientific reference. Just emotional responses which is the typical reaction of someone whose sacred religious faith has been profaned.
Your butchered mis-representation that twists it completely out of context so that it says something that it doesn't actually say just so it fits into your paradigm?

[OilIsMastery]

Wong Again

http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/Geology/Fossils/3/mi
Nowhere does that say Zealandia existed in the Jurassic.

[OilIsMastery]

You want a reference for a fossil I have sitting on my desk?
You said you found the fossil on land...:rolleyes:

[Trippy]

Nowhere does that say Zealandia existed in the Jurassic.

:ROTFLMGDAO:

Jurassic (200–145 million years ago)
During the Jurassic period, brachiopods (lamp shells) declined globally while molluscs such as ammonites and belemnites (relatives of squid) flourished. On land, dinosaurs and birds rose to prominence and flowering plants first appeared. Jurassic marine fossils include plankton, corals, many other marine invertebrates and rare sharks and bony fish.

Jurassic land fossils include well-preserved tree stumps (Curio Bay, Southland). Fossil wood, leaves, seeds, spores and pollen have been documented from numerous layers. The oldest New Zealand fossil insect (an ancestor of the wētā) is Jurassic. A single Jurassic dinosaur fossil has been found near the Waikato River mouth.

Oh, and for the record:

http://www.unclosnz.org.nz/images/basement.jpg

Therefore, Zelandia existed during the Jurassic.

[OilIsMastery]

New Zealand is what is known as "land" aka continental crust. It is old. Zealandia is what is known as submerged. It is young. This is specifically predicted by expanding earth theory and is only explained by it.

[Trippy]

You said you found the fossil on land...:rolleyes:

Actually, I said I found it at a port.

I've also provided material that states that at the time the fossil was a living fern, New Zealand was part of the Oceanic crust.

You're wrong. Admit it, and move on.

[Trippy]

New Zealand is what is known as "land" aka continental crust. Zealandia is what is known as submerged. This is specifically predicted by expanding earth theory and is only explained by it.

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

New Zealand may currently be land, but there are (substantial) portions of it that were oceanic crust.

You're wrong, get over it and move on.

[OilIsMastery]

You're wrong.
"About twenty years ago, when I expressed my reservations about the plate tectonics theory to one of its supporters, I got the answer, 'You either believe in it or not.' Unfortunately the religious mentality of the supporters of plate tectonics did not change in the years to come." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist/geoscientist, National Observatory of Athens, 1997

[Trippy]

Oh look at that.

Here's a Geological map of New Zealand that clearly identifies parts of New Zealdns surface geiology as being Precambrian.

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/images/geology_era.pdf

(2 Mb PDF)

[OilIsMastery]

Oh look at that.

Here's a Geological map of New Zealand that clearly identifies parts of New Zealdns surface geiology as being Precambrian.

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/images/geology_era.pdf

(2 Mb PDF)
Exactly. New Zealand is what is commonly referred to as "land" aka continental crust. Specifically predicted by expanding earth theory and only explained by it.

[Trippy]

Oh, and here's a list of peer reviewed publications that discuss such things as the Permian-Triassic boundary in fossiliferous oceanic sedmimentary facies in New Zealand.

http://www.gns.cri.nz/store/publications/latestpubs.html

[Trippy]

Exactly. New Zealand is what is commonly referred to as "land" aka continental crust. Specifically predicted by expanding earth theory and only explained by it.

Again, you're bong obnoxious, obtuse, and one might go as far as stupid.

What is now 'Continental' crust was oceanic crust (at that time).

Just to prove my point - portions of Zelandia aren't continental crust, they're elevated oceanic crust.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Wrong again.

[OilIsMastery]

Oh, and here's a list of peer reviewed publications that discuss such things as the Permian-Triassic boundary in fossiliferous oceanic sedmimentary facies in New Zealand.

http://www.gns.cri.nz/store/publications/latestpubs.html
Oruatemanu Island is what is commonly referred to as "land."

[AlphaNumeric]

As usual, an emotional religiously motivated response with no scientific content or reference.So I'm emotional for repeating your own comments back at you? No, I'm showing you're the one who isn't scientific. Do you realise why you're being a hypocrite? My post wasn't an attempt at stating a peer reviewable journal fact, but to state that you don't even listen to your own quotes.

[Trippy]

Oruatemanu Island is what is commonly referred to as "land."

This is not an argument.

Once again, we come back to your blatant denial - it is currently land, but at the time the sediments were deposited, it wasn't.

Oh, and congratulations on picking up on one example out of how many?

[OilIsMastery]

This is not an argument.
It's precisely our argument. You believe dry continental land is currently submerged in ocean and a part of the oceanic lithosphere, e.g. California and New Zealand were your two specific examples of dry land you believe are submerged.

[Vkothii]

It's precisely our argument.You are a total misogynist when it comes to filtering stuff through those distorted specs you insist on looking through, aren't you? You don't seem to be able to make an argument, so what's this "our argument" bs?

What you say in your last post, implies that you have a serious bias of some kind towards the meanings of certain words. You have to transform what anyone says into your version, and cling to it like a bit of straw. It's like watching someone who's convinced they can breathe water or something.

You understand, water isn't for breathing, and land can be underwater? You know about how when it rains land gets wet, and if it rains a lot, it gets more wet, eventually it 'floods'.
Like the way your neurons flood with random, unintelligible and illogical patterns as you read this - especially as you read it.

[OilIsMastery]

You are a total misogynist when it comes to filtering stuff through those distorted specs you insist on looking through, aren't you? You don't seem to be able to make an argument, so what's this "our argument" bs?

What you say in your last post, implies that you have a serious bias of some kind towards the meanings of certain words. You have to transform what anyone says into your version, and cling to it like a bit of straw. It's like watching someone who's convinced they can breathe water or something.

You understand, water isn't for breathing, and land can be underwater? You know about how when it rains land gets wet, and if it rains a lot, it gets more wet, eventually it 'floods'.
Like the way your neurons flood with random, unintelligible and illogical patterns as you read this - especially as you read it.
You provided no scientific reference in your emotional religious response. This thread isn't about me. It's about the expansion of the Earth.

[AlphaNumeric]

You provided no scientific reference in your emotional religious response. We don't need a scientific reference to make the statement of fact "You, OIM, are a liar". Given numerous people you talk to make such observations, it passes peer review, ie the review of your forum peers. There's nothing religious in saying "You distort what people say, both people on the forum and scientists". It's another statement of fact.

At every turn your claims are shot down, your sources either discredited or shown to not be saying what you paraphrase them to say. Again, those are statements of fact.

You cling to your view far tighter than scientists do to theirs, so saying "That's a religious outburst" is hypocritical. If you were honest about learning 'the truth', why aren't you actively learning physics so you can understand as much information as is available to you? Why do you instead avoid actual resource material at all costs?

Why do you cling to your 'religious' view so much so you have to lie?

[pjdude1219]

You provided no scientific reference in your emotional religious response. This thread isn't about me. It's about the expansion of the Earth.

actually according to the thread title it is about Biogeographical Falsification of Subduction.

[OilIsMastery]

We don't need a scientific reference to make the statement of fact "You, OIM, are a liar". Given numerous people you talk to make such observations, it passes peer review, ie the review of your forum peers. There's nothing religious in saying "You distort what people say, both people on the forum and scientists". It's another statement of fact.

At every turn your claims are shot down, your sources either discredited or shown to not be saying what you paraphrase them to say. Again, those are statements of fact.

You cling to your view far tighter than scientists do to theirs, so saying "That's a religious outburst" is hypocritical. If you were honest about learning 'the truth', why aren't you actively learning physics so you can understand as much information as is available to you? Why do you instead avoid actual resource material at all costs?

Why do you cling to your 'religious' view so much so you have to lie?
Yet another emotional religious response with no scientific reference or content.

[AlphaNumeric]

Yet another emotional religious response with no scientific reference or content.Yet another transparent attempt to avoid answering questions about your hypocrisy, lying and ignorance.

Why aren't you willing to explain why you avoid learning anything about any mainstream model or concept? Afraid to admit you cannot, it's too hard for you?

[Trippy]

It's precisely our argument. You believe dry continental land is currently submerged in ocean and a part of the oceanic lithosphere, e.g. California and New Zealand were your two specific examples of dry land you believe are submerged.

This is a strawman argument, and an outright lie.

What you're claiming is in fact the complete opposite of what i've said.

At no point have I claimed that California and New Zealand ARE submerged, only that they (or parts of them at least) have been in the past.

So once again, you're completely distroting what's being said to fit your own view.

[OilIsMastery]

At no point have I claimed that California and New Zealand ARE submerged
So why do you mention them then?

only that they (or parts of them at least) have been in the past.
Duh. How long did it take you to figure that out?

[Trippy]

The really stupid thing is that here we have OIM stating or implying that New zealand was at some point submerged (Pillow lavas only form underwater).

With respect to Zealandia, it was formed by oceanic seafloor spreading aka expansion/growth just as all continental crust formed and just as basalt pillow lava and oceans form now.

And here he is ridiculing that very same idea.

It's precisely our argument. You believe dry continental land is currently submerged in ocean and a part of the oceanic lithosphere, e.g. California and New Zealand were your two specific examples of dry land you believe are submerged.

May I suggest buying a dictionary and looking up 'Consistency'.

While you're at it, may I also recommend looking up 'honesty' and 'integrety'.

[OilIsMastery]

The really stupid thing is that here we have OIM stating or implying that New zealand was at some point submerged (Pillow lavas only form underwater).
You're the one who is saying that about Zealandia.

And here he is ridiculing that very same idea.
Because the zircon dating you always ignore shows conclusively that Zealandia was created in the Cretaceous.

[Trippy]

So why do you mention them then?


Duh. How long did it take you to figure that out?

For what must be the thirtieth time now.

Because at some point in their history, they, or parts of them, have been part of the Oceanic crust, rather than the continetal crust - something that your dogma expressly forbids, because then you would have to aknowledge the existence of oceanic crust more than 200 million years old.

I could name hundreds of other examples, and have named several other in other threads (to be met with much the same dull repetative response 'but they're land').

[Trippy]

You're the one who is saying that about Zealandia.


Because zircon dating shows conclusively that Zealandia was created in the Cretaceous.

No it doesn't, if you had bothered looking at the dam links i've been spoon feeding you, you would see that Zircon dating clearly shows that Zelandia existed as long ago as the pre-cambrian.

[OilIsMastery]

No it doesn't, if you had bothered looking at the dam links i've been spoon feeding you, you would see that Zircon dating clearly shows that Zelandia existed as long ago as the pre-cambrian.
No. You are lying again.

[Trippy]

Just as a note for the mods, and the general viewing audience.

Here, once again we see OIM misrepresenting what is being said.

You're the one who is saying that about Zealandia.
The really stupid thing is that here we have OIM stating or implying that New zealand was at some point submerged (Pillow lavas only form underwater).

Here, OIM is clearly trying to imply that I was referring to the idea of Zelandia and california as being submerged, as being ridiculous, when quitye clearly it was the contradiction in OIM's words that I was referring to as being ridiculous.

The only other reasonable interpretation requires him not to have made the post that I have quoted.

[Trippy]

No. You are lying again.

No, actually, it's you who is lying, because it's quite clearly shown here:

:ROTFLMGDAO:



Oh, and for the record:

http://www.unclosnz.org.nz/images/basement.jpg

Therefore, Zelandia existed during the Jurassic.

That parts of Zelandia are of Paleozoic age (older than the Cretaceous), and it's quite clearly shown here (if you follow the link, and open the PDF):

Oh look at that.

Here's a Geological map of New Zealand that clearly identifies parts of New Zealdns surface geiology as being Precambrian.

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/images/geology_era.pdf

(2 Mb PDF)

That parts of Zelandia are of Precambrian age.

[OilIsMastery]

That parts of Zelandia are of Paleozoic age (older than the Cretaceous), and it's quite clearly shown here (if you follow the link, and open the PDF):



That parts of Zelandia are of Precambrian age.
The map you have provided is of New Zealand not Zealandia. New Zealand is dry land and old. Zealandia is submerged and young. All you do is lie and repeat; lie and repeat. It's starting to bore me actually.

[Vkothii]

All 'I' do is lie and repeat; lie and repeat. It's starting to bore me actually.Oh good, it was beginning to look like you were starting to think you had something meaningful or relevant to offer.

No change there, then.

[Trippy]

The map you have provided is of New Zealand not Zealandia. New Zealand is dry land and old. Zealandia is submerged and young. All you do is lie and repeat; lie and repeat. It's starting to bore me actually.

Good greif man.

You're lying again.

More to the point, you've completely overlooked the fact that at the very least, the image that I provided includes off shore Geology, and that most of that, especially off the coast of the south Island is of Paleozoic age.

Your 'argument' holds no water whatsoever, and your accusations of my lying are old, false, and quite frankly, boring.

[Ophiolite]

Your 'argument' holds no water whatsoever, ......So it's land then?;)