The Irrefutable Expansion of Ganymede

[OilIsMastery]

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~afrank/A105/LectureIV/ganymede_vg.gif

Topic: Why do religious fundamentalists deny peer reviewed science?

"The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size". -- Prockter, L.M., Icing Ganymede (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6824/full/410025a0.html), Nature, Volume 410, Pages 25-27, 2001

Collins et al. (1999) agree that the formation of the grooved terrain on Ganymede was likely the result of post-formation "global expansion".

Collins, G.C., Pappalardo, R.T., & Head, J.W., Surface Stresses Resulting From Internal Differentiation: Application to Ganymede Tectonics (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LPSC99/pdf/1695.pdf), Lunar and Planetary Science XXX, 1695, 1999

"Researchers now believe that Ganymede's more youthful-looking half could be due to a crust that stretched--as has happened in the past few million years on Europa--rather than any sort of icy volcanism, as many had assumed." -- Richard. A. Kerr, 2001

Kerr, R.A., Jupiter's Two-Faced Moon, Ganymede, Falling Into Line (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/291/5501/22?ck=nck), Science, Volume 291, Number 5501, Pages 22-23, 2001

"Since planets and moons did not pop into existence at their current size, everyone agrees they must have expanded at some point in their history." -- Dennis McCarthy, biogeographer/geoscientist, 2005 (http://www.4threvolt.com/EEFAQ1.html)

"Ganymede's grooved terrain likely formed during an epoch of global expansion..." -- Michael T. Bland and Adam P. Showman, 2007

Bland, M.T., and Showman, A.P., The Formation of Ganymede's Grooved Terrain: Numerical Modeling of Extensional Necking Instabilities (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-4N3WYPM-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fa9f3973a457539644332792626775db), Icarus, Volume 189, Issue 2, Pages 439-456, Aug 2007

Adams, N., Ganymede Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fsg1XJTbKA), Youtube

[AlphaNumeric]

"Since planets and moons did not pop into existence at their current size, everyone agrees they must have expanded at some point in their history." -- Dennis McCarthy, biogeographer/geoscientist, 2005 (http://www.4threvolt.com/EEFAQ1.html)Taken out of context. No physicist denies that the Sun, the planets and their moons formed by accretion, by gravitationally capturing more and more material. But the vast majority of that happened right at the beginning of the solar system, 4.5 billion years ago. The planets and moons have not grown by anything more than a tiny amount in the last 4 billion years, which is what you claim.

The fact you have to fall back on warping quotes of people shows you know your 'evidence' is pathetic. Or that you're too stupid to realise your evidence is worthless.

[OilIsMastery]

Taken out of context.
Did you even read the context?

Here is the context: Expanding Earth Part II, The Geophysics FAQ (http://www.4threvolt.com/EEFAQ1.html)

No physicist denies that the Sun, the planets and their moons formed by accretion, by gravitationally capturing more and more material.
Exactly.

But the vast majority of that happened right at the beginning of the solar system, 4.5 billion years ago. The planets and moons have not grown by anything more than a tiny amount in the last 4 billion years, which is what you claim.
How do you know that?

The fact you have to fall back on warping quotes of people shows you know your 'evidence' is pathetic.
How did I warp the quote? What about the other quotes you ignored? Did I warp those too?

Or that you're too stupid to realise your evidence is worthless.
Calling someone "too stupid" is specifically against forum rules.

[AlphaNumeric]

How do you know that? This small area of science called 'geology'. The area which is all about the development of geological features. The area you refuse to read about or fail to understand. The area you completely ignore when making your claims.
How did I warp the quote? What about the other quotes you ignored? Did I warp those too?
Quotes from cranks, quotes out of context, quotes from nobodies, quotes from people as ignorant as you. Why should I need to retort those?

JamesR already beat your evidence to a pulp in the debate forum. Your 'irrefutable evidence' is laughable, just like the time you quoted a crank on subduction being 'irrefutably false'. James refuted it and everything else you had to offer. You just closed your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and tried to hum real loud to ignore him.
Calling someone "too stupid" is specifically against forum rules.
I was asking you a question. Are you deliberately ignoring geology or have you tried to learn/understand it but found your mental faculties are insufficient to grasp the information you read? Clearly there is some reason why you don't know or don't appear to know basic geology (as well as physics, maths, chemistry and biology) so I'm trying to find out that reason. Is it deliberate ignorance or are you unable to grasp these things because they are too complex for you?

[OilIsMastery]

This small area of science called 'geology'. The area which is all about the development of geological features. The area you refuse to read about or fail to understand. The area you completely ignore when making your claims.
You know what geology tells me? The oceans didn't exist 200 mya and the Earth has doubled in size.

However this isn't a geology thread, it's a thread about Ganymede.

Quotes from cranks, quotes out of context, quotes from nobodies, quotes from people as ignorant as you. Why should I need to retort those?
So you think Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6824/full/410025a0.html), Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/291/5501/22?ck=nck), and Science News (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/1374/title/Images_suggest_icy_eruptions_on_Ganymede) publish cranks and nobodies?

[Anti-Flag]

You know what geology tells me? The oceans didn't exist 200 mya and the Earth has doubled in size.

Suggest you look up words such as Triassic Period. Pangaea. Ichthyosaurs.

[OilIsMastery]

Suggest you look up words such as Triassic Period.
200 mya when the Earth was half it's current diameter. What about it?

This is a thread about Ganymede...:rolleyes:

Pangaea.
A myth like the lost continent of Mu. This is a thread about Ganymede..:rolleyes:

Ichthyosaurs.
What about it? Every fossil was found in a continental environment (Wales, England, Nevada, etc). This is a thread about Ganymede..:rolleyes:

[kaneda]

Quotes from cranks, quotes out of context, quotes from nobodies, quotes from people as ignorant as you. Why should I need to retort those?

Is it deliberate ignorance or are you unable to grasp these things because they are too complex for you?

A typically nasty post from a typically nasty person.

[OilIsMastery]

A typically nasty post from a typically nasty person.
I didn't say it...;)

[AlphaNumeric]

A typically nasty post from a typically nasty person.People in glass houses Kaneda.
I didn't say it...Nice double standards. The hint of an insult in a question I ask you and you cry "Against the rules!". An insult aimed at me and you have no problem quoting it with a comment which clearly shows you agree with it. A case of 'Do as I say, not as I do'.
You know what geology tells me? The oceans didn't exist 200 mya and the Earth has doubled in size.Funny, it tells geologists something completely different. And as JamesR demonstrated, the evidence from geology doesn't support your views.
However this isn't a geology thread, it's a thread about Ganymede.It's a thread about the geology of Ganymede.
So you think Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6824/full/410025a0.html), Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/291/5501/22?ck=nck), and Science News (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/1374/title/Images_suggest_icy_eruptions_on_Ganymede) publish cranks and nobodies?I didn't say that. The links you provide do not support your claims. Hence you take certain parts of them out of context. The fact you make a personal interpretation of a comment by someone which is completely different to the meaning originally intended doesn't mean the person you misunderstand or misinterpret is a crank. But you also like to provide quotes of people who are unpublished and considered completely incorrect by the scientific community. Myers being such an example. You quoted him yet because his claims are unsupported by evidence, the quote is worthless.

It's not hard to cherry pick things people say to make it seem that they think the opposite of what they do. Given it's easier to do that than learn the science yourself, it's a common methodology of cranks like yourself when asked to support your nonsense.

[OilIsMastery]

Funny, it tells geologists something completely different. And as JamesR demonstrated, the evidence from geology doesn't support your views.
That's the same argument that was used by uniformitarians who rejected continental drift.

I didn't say that. The links you provide do not support your claims. Hence you take certain parts of them out of context. The fact you make a personal interpretation of a comment by someone which is completely different to the meaning originally intended doesn't mean the person you misunderstand or misinterpret is a crank. But you also like to provide quotes of people who are unpublished and considered completely incorrect by the scientific community. Myers being such an example. You quoted him yet because his claims are unsupported by evidence, the quote is worthless.

It's not hard to cherry pick things people say to make it seem that they think the opposite of what they do. Given it's easier to do that than learn the science yourself, it's a common methodology of cranks like yourself when asked to support your nonsense.
Exactly what part of this doesn't support my argument?

"The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size". -- Prockter, L.M., Icing Ganymede, Nature, Volume 410, Pages 25-27, 2001

[Trippy]

That's the same argument that was used by uniformitarians who rejected continental drift.


Exactly what part of this doesn't support my argument?

"The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size". -- Prockter, L.M., Icing Ganymede, Nature, Volume 410, Pages 25-27, 2001

You do understand that water expands as it freezes, is unusual in doing so, and constitutes a large part of the volume of Ganymede.

You do also realise that this in no way supports that the idea that the earth has some how doubled it size in 200ma without anyone noticing, and without leaving any evidence?

[ScyentsIzLief]

Hey OilIsMastery, have you checked the research by Neal Adams? I've been reading about the Earth Expansion Theory over the past 2 months and I can say it definitely makes more sense than the Pangea theory.

The Pangea theory requires "events" for it to make some sense, while the EE explains all the questions I had before. For example, if the gravity of earth was the same now as it was when the dinosaurs roamed, they would have never grown to be so big. And the T-Rex wouldn't have been alive because they wouldn't be able to move faster than 10 mph or their necks would brake when turning or stopping. Obviously they had to chase down prey, like lions. But if you accept that gravity was 1/4 of what it is now, because the earth was 1/4 of what it is now, then you can see how a R-rex CAN move like a tiger.

[pjdude1219]

Topic: Why do religious fundamentalists deny peer reviewed science?
I don't know. Why do you?

[Trippy]

Hey OilIsMastery, have you checked the research by Neal Adams? I've been reading about the Earth Expansion Theory over the past 2 months and I can say it definitely makes more sense than the Pangea theory.

The Pangea theory requires "events" for it to make some sense, while the EE explains all the questions I had before. For example, if the gravity of earth was the same now as it was when the dinosaurs roamed, they would have never grown to be so big. And the T-Rex would have been alive because they wouldn't be able to move faster than 10 mph or their necks would brake when turning or stopping. Obviously they had to chase down prey, like lions. But if you accept that gravity was 1/4 of what it is now, because the earth was 1/4 of what it is now, then you can see how a R-rex CAN move like a tiger.

No, the 'Pangea theory' does not require 'events' for it to make sense.

(whatever you mean by that).

[ScyentsIzLief]

The Pangea Theory requires India to break off of Africa and "drift" upwards to hit Asia, which created the Himalayas, which is still growing to this day. If that isn't an event, I don't what is. There is absolutely no basis for this. Just a small example upon mountains of examples.

[Anti-Flag]

200 mya when the Earth was half it's current diameter. What about it?
You made the claim that oceans didn't exist, I showed a good starting point for anyone wishing to counter this nonsense.
I'm entirely unconcerned for your ignorance, but I'd hate to think a gullible sap might come across this thread and actually take you seriously.
A myth like the lost continent of Mu.
Proof required.
What about it? Every fossil was found in a continental environment (Wales, England, Nevada, etc).
More evidence you don't understand geology, plate tectonics, environmental change (amongst other things) and despite the abundance of marine fossils from 200mya you think there wasn't an ocean.
I wonder if mathmatically it's possible to calculate the size of ecosystem required for the lifeforms alive 200mya to thrive.
You've already decided the earths surface area was only 2/3's that of Asia, and had little water. How about 400mya, was it half the size it was 200mya? At this constant rate why don't you tell us when the earth had a surface area the size of Texas? Cuba perhaps? Or are you claiming it's not constant (this'll be interesting to watch you prove too).


Perhaps you should tune in to sanity FM dingleberry breath.


Don't respond, I've read everyone elses rebuttals already and know full well you've been thoroughly debunked so this is for everyone elses benefit, I hate the thought of anyone believing you.

[Anti-Flag]

The Pangea theory requires "events" for it to make some sense, while the EE explains all the questions I had before. For example, if the gravity of earth was the same now as it was when the dinosaurs roamed, they would have never grown to be so big. And the T-Rex would have been alive because they wouldn't be able to move faster than 10 mph or their necks would brake when turning or stopping. Obviously they had to chase down prey, like lions. But if you accept that gravity was 1/4 of what it is now, because the earth was 1/4 of what it is now, then you can see how a R-rex CAN move like a tiger.
Never heard of scavenging then? I'm not even going to bother with anything else you said OIM.
SOCKPUPPET! SOCKPUPPET! SOCKPUPPET! :p

[Trippy]

The Pangea Theory requires India to break off of Africa and "drift" upwards to hit Asia, which created the Himalayas, which is still growing to this day. If that isn't an event, I don't what is. There is absolutely no basis for this. Just a small example upon mountains of examples.

El wrongo.

[OilIsMastery]

You do understand that water expands as it freezes, is unusual in doing so, and constitutes a large part of the volume of Ganymede.
I thought you believe that's impossible...:rolleyes:

You do also realise that this in no way supports that the idea that the earth has some how doubled it size in 200ma without anyone noticing, and without leaving any evidence?
This is a thread about Ganymede.

[OilIsMastery]

Hey OilIsMastery, have you checked the research by Neal Adams? I've been reading about the Earth Expansion Theory over the past 2 months and I can say it definitely makes more sense than the Pangea theory.

The Pangea theory requires "events" for it to make some sense, while the EE explains all the questions I had before. For example, if the gravity of earth was the same now as it was when the dinosaurs roamed, they would have never grown to be so big. And the T-Rex would have been alive because they wouldn't be able to move faster than 10 mph or their necks would brake when turning or stopping. Obviously they had to chase down prey, like lions. But if you accept that gravity was 1/4 of what it is now, because the earth was 1/4 of what it is now, then you can see how a R-rex CAN move like a tiger.
Welcome to SciFoums.com...:D

[Trippy]

I thought you believe that's impossible...:rolleyes:

Bzzzt.

Nowhere have I stated or implied that.

In fact, I have said quite the opposite on a number of occasions, and every time, I have made the point that this is not the same thing you're talking about.

It's a wholly different phenomenom.

I have, however, stated that Ganymede is not expanding in the way you would have everyone believe.

There's no mystical field causing it to (significant) mass and increase in size in the manner suggested by any of your theories.

[OilIsMastery]

Bzzzt.

Nowhere have I stated or implied that.

In fact, I have said quite the opposite on a number of occasions, and every time, I have made the point that this is not the same thing you're talking about.

It's a wholly different phenomenom.

I have, however, stated that Ganymede is not expanding in the way you would have everyone believe.

There's no mystical field causing it to (significant) mass and increase in size in the manner suggested by any of your theories.
Glad to know you now concede Ganymede is expanding. You've come a long way from denial.

[Trippy]

Glad to know you now concede Ganymede is expanding. You've come a long way from denial.

Glad to see you're still mis-quoting me.

I do not think that Ganymede is (still) expanding.

Again, what you're talking about is sunbstantially different from the idea that the water that made up ganymede expanded as it froze.

Actually...

On second thoughts, after checking something, it looks like I was remembering an old model turns out that Ganymede isn't completely frozen after all (I may have been confusing it with Callisto).

Oh well, no cookie for you.

[OilIsMastery]

You do understand that water expands as it freezes, is unusual in doing so, and constitutes a large part of the volume of Ganymede.

I do not think that Ganymede is (still) expanding.
How do you reconcile these 2 statements?

[OilIsMastery]

On second thoughts, after checking something, it looks like I was remembering an old model turns out that Ganymede isn't completely frozen after all (I may have been confusing it with Callisto).

Oh well, no cookie for you.
You don't even know what moon I'm talking about because you ignored the hard peer-reviewed science published in Nature, Science, etc., that claim Ganymede is expanding.

[ScyentsIzLief]

The only reason you're still arguing with them is because they ignore evidence, because it questions what they have believed all along. It threatens their value system. That's a side effect of childhood indoctrination.

[OilIsMastery]

The only reason you're still arguing with them is because they ignore evidence, because it questions what they have believed all along. It threatens their value system. That's a side effect of childhood indoctrination.
I agree 100%.

[pjdude1219]

The only reason you're still arguing with them is because they ignore evidence, because it questions what they have believed all along. It threatens their value system. That's a side effect of childhood indoctrination.

I call sock puppet.

[Anti-Flag]

I call sock puppet.
I called first. :p
Doesn't this make him slightly crazy if he's talking to himself on an internet forum?

[AlphaNumeric]

You don't even know what moon I'm talking about because you ignored the hard peer-reviewed science published in Nature, Science, etc., that claim Ganymede is expanding.And you ignoring the many thousands upon thousands of 'hard peer reviewed science' published in all the scientific journals of the world doesn't make you a hypocrite because.....? You being ignorant of high school science doesn't make you a hypocrite because....? You refusing to do any actual learning doesn't make you a hypocrite because.... ? You continuing to repeat the same lies, deliberately misconstrue Trippy's posts (and everyone elses) doesn't make you a pathetic liar because....? The fact James beat your argument to a pulp using evidence in the debate forum doesn't demonstrate your claims are foundless because....?

[ScyentsIzLief]

I called first. :p
Doesn't this make him slightly crazy if he's talking to himself on an internet forum?

There's technology that lets you talk on forums?:confused: Because I can still only type...

[OilIsMastery]

And you ignoring the many thousands upon thousands of 'hard peer reviewed science' published in all the scientific journals of the world doesn't make you a hypocrite because.....? You being ignorant of high school science doesn't make you a hypocrite because....? You refusing to do any actual learning doesn't make you a hypocrite because.... ? You continuing to repeat the same lies, deliberately misconstrue Trippy's posts (and everyone elses) doesn't make you a pathetic liar because....? The fact James beat your argument to a pulp using evidence in the debate forum doesn't demonstrate your claims are foundless because....?
What peer-reviewed science demonstrates Ganymede is a fixed size? So far you have failed to provide any. That's because there is none.

[MacGyver1968]

The Irrefutable Expansion of Ganymede

I thought this thread was going to be about the SF member, Ganymede, putting on a little weight or something. :)

[OilIsMastery]

I thought this thread was going to be about the SF member, Ganymede, putting on a little weight or something. :)
LOL...:D

[Stryder]

Oil, you should possibly look at Tidal Heating and the other Moons orbiting Jupiter. Perhaps if you actually look and trying to see something from a different angle you might actually realise you are looking at things wrong currently.

I sure for instance a Doctorate of Philosophy requires that a person looks not just from one angle with the intension of just seeing what they expect, but to try and explore many angles to try and see something that they never before considered. This often means arguing things from the angle you don't agree with so as to get a better understanding of why others disagree. Perhaps you should try this approach, Argue not that The earth expands but why it doesn't.

[OilIsMastery]

Oil, you should possibly look at Tidal Heating and the other Moons orbiting Jupiter. Perhaps if you actually look and trying to see something from a different angle you might actually realise you are looking at things wrong currently.

I sure for instance a Doctorate of Philosophy requires that a person looks not just from one angle with the intension of just seeing what they expect, but to try and explore many angles to try and see something that they never before considered. This often means arguing things from the angle you don't agree with so as to get a better understanding of why others disagree. Perhaps you should try this approach, Argue not that The earth expands but why it doesn't.
For your information, like everyone else here I grew up brainwashed to believe in plate tectonics. I'm quite familiar with the hypothesis and I'm pretty sure I've read more Wegener, Menard, and Oreskes than anyone here since I'm the only person who ever cites them.

Sadly, PT fundamentalists have not been equally literate:

"At a conference on the expanding Earth in Sydney in 1981 Peter Smith did a test survey of people attending: sixty people interviewed expressed disbelief in the hypothesis, but none of them had read Carey's book on the topic." -- Cliff Ollier, geologist, 2005

Still waiting for any peer-reviewed scientific reference claiming Ganymede is a fixed size.

Oh and by the way, Wegener and Oreskes weren't fundamentalists like PT dogmatists today. They would've happily abandoned the hypothesis in light of all the current disconfirming evidence.

"We have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter which science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions that we draw." -- Alfred L. Wegener, astrophysicist/geoscientist, 1928

"The history of science demonstrates, however, that the scientific truths of yesterday are often viewed as misconceptions, and, conversely, that ideas rejected in the past may now be considered true. History is littered with the discarded beliefs of yesteryear, and the present is populated by epistemic corrections. This realization leads us to the central problem of the history and philosophy of science: How are we to evaluate contemporary sciences's claims to truth given the perishability of past scientific knowledge? ... If the truths of today are the falsehoods of tomorrow, what does this say about the nature of scientific truth?" -- Naomi Oreskes, geologist, 1999

[synthesizer-patel]

Back in pseudoscience again huh Oily - who'da thunk it

[OilIsMastery]

Back in pseudoscience again huh Oily - who'da thunk it
The irony is that I'm the only person providing evidence in the form of peer-reviewed science.

[ScyentsIzLief]

Just amazing. Simply amazing.

Were you even given a reason? I'd like to hear a logical reason for this.

[OilIsMastery]

Just amazing. Simply amazing.

Were you even given a reason? I'd like to hear a logical reason for this.
Of course they gave no reason; they don't use logic because it's a religion for them.

[Trippy]

How do you reconcile these 2 statements?

Simple.

The second implies that the first assumes that Ganymede is already completely frozen solid - therefore not still expanding.

Then again, i'm not surprised that, once again, you'd fail to grasp the subtleties of the english language.

You never have answered whether or not English is your first language.

[Trippy]

You don't even know what moon I'm talking about because you ignored the hard peer-reviewed science published in Nature, Science, etc., that claim Ganymede is expanding.

Oh Bullocks you lying dishonest hack.

[OilIsMastery]

Simple.

The second implies that the first assumes that Ganymede is already completely frozen solid - therefore not still expanding.

Then again, i'm not surprised that, once again, you'd fail to grasp the subtleties of the english language.

You never have answered whether or not English is your first language.
Ah, so then you admit it has expanded and has grown throughout it's geological past.

You must be a "pseudoscientist" like I am. Welcome to the club.

So let me ask you this, what mechanism caused Ganymede to stop growing?

Oh Bullocks you lying dishonest hack.
:rolleyes:

Actually...

On second thoughts, after checking something, it looks like I was remembering an old model turns out that Ganymede isn't completely frozen after all (I may have been confusing it with Callisto).

Sorry Trippy, this is a thread about Ganymede not Callisto or anything else for that matter (as I have repeatedly pointed out).

[James R]

OIM:

You know what geology tells me? The oceans didn't exist 200 mya and the Earth has doubled in size.

This, as you know, was comprehensively debunked by me in our Formal Debate.

I would appreciate it if you did not continue to peddle this rubbish after it has been proved wrong.

Thankyou.

[OilIsMastery]

OIM:



This, as you know, was comprehensively debunked by me in our Formal Debate.

I would appreciate it if you did not continue to peddle this rubbish after it has been proved wrong.

Thankyou.
You failed to provide a single peer-reviewed reference debunking the zircon dating of the oceanic lithosphere that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that no part of the oceanic lithosphere is older than 200 my old.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg

And I am still waiting for any peer-reviewed paper showing Ganymede has maintained a fixed radius.

[OilIsMastery]

Matter of fact, in our debate you only cited 2 relevant articles, both of which you got from biased fundamentalist Wikipedia Scripture.

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316-321

and

Stewart, A. D. 1983. Quantitative limits to the palaeoradius of the Earth. pp. 305-319 in Carey, S. W. (ed). 1983. The expanding Earth (A Symposium, 1981, University of Sydney, Australia). University of Tasmania, Tasmania.

Both of which are refuted below:

Carey, S.W. (1961), "Palaeomagnetic evidence relevant to a change in the Earth's radius" (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v190/n4770/abs/190036a0.html), Nature 190: 36

Gillies, G.T., et al. (1997), The Newtonian gravitational constant: recent measurements and related studies (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/60/2/001), Reports on Progress in Physics, Volume 60, Pages 151-225

However, you won't find the above articles cited in fundamentalist Wikipedia Scripture because they don't enforce the alleged "neutral point of view" policy. Sound familiar?

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/Figure20.gif

[Trippy]

Ah, so then you admit it has expanded and has grown throughout it's geological past.

You must be a "pseudoscientist" like I am. Welcome to the club.

I admit no such thing, and for you to attempt to imply as much is dishonest, and a deliberate misrepresentation of my post.

So let me ask you this, what mechanism caused Ganymede to stop growing?
For some bizzare reason I feel compelled to entertain this question, inspite of your blatant lying and dishonesty.

The answer is simple.
Same reason an icecube stops expanding.
There's a finite amount of water, it creates a finite amount of ice, and undergoes a finite volume change in the process.

IE if there's no more water to freeze, then no more expansion can occur.

For you to try and imply that I have at any point meant anything other than the mechanism which causes ice cubes to expand, or pipes to burst is simply another example of your blatant dishonesty.

I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to misquote, and misrepresent what i'm saying.

Sorry Trippy, this is a thread about Ganymede not Callisto or anything else for that matter (as I have repeatedly pointed out).
I'm not going to respond to this, other then to say that it is yet another example of your blatant dishonesty.

[James R]

OIM:

You failed to provide a single peer-reviewed reference debunking the zircon dating of the oceanic lithosphere that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that no part of the oceanic lithosphere is older than 200 my old.

Please review what I wrote about this point in our Formal Debate, in the Formal Debates forum. I agree with your lithosphere dates. This is not a point of contention, so why you keep repeating it like it is a killer point somewhat mystifies me.

I think you lack originality and are probably only capable of parroting one or two debunked ideas.

[OilIsMastery]

I admit no such thing, and for you to attempt to imply as much is dishonest, and a deliberate misrepresentation of my post.
So what did you mean when you said "still" expanding?

I'm confused, do you or do you not think Ganymede has expanded in it's geological past, yes or no?

A simple yes or no answer is all that's required.

[OilIsMastery]

OIM:



Please review what I wrote about this point in our Formal Debate, in the Formal Debates forum. I agree with your lithosphere dates. This is not a point of contention, so why you keep repeating it like it is a killer point somewhat mystifies me.

I think you lack originality and are probably only capable of parroting one or two debunked ideas.
So if you agree with the dates, then you know the Pacific Ocean didn't exist 200 mya.

"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 D. McCarthy, geoscientist, 2003

[synthesizer-patel]

You failed to provide a single peer-reviewed reference debunking the zircon dating of the oceanic lithosphere that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that no part of the oceanic lithosphere is older than 200 my old.


why would anyone need to? this is consistent with plate tectonics

[Trippy]

So what did you mean when you said "still" expanding?
Exactly what I said.
Even if in the past, Ganymede has expanded because of the change in density that occurs when water changes state, I don't believe that the evidence supports the idea of this being a currently active mechanism (of any significance).

I'm confused, do you or do you not think Ganymede has expanded in it's geological past, yes or no?

A simple yes or no answer is all that's required.
No it isn't.

I think that IF Ganymede has expanded as its frozen, that the change of radius has been no more than about 2.2% (change of volume of 10%).

[Trippy]

So if you agree with the dates, then you know the Pacific Ocean didn't exist 200 mya.
No.
The first statement does not imply the second.
It only implies that no part of the pacific ocean basin is more than 200 mya.

Oh but that's right, you don't think subduction is valid, therefore your dogma requires you to believe that the Pacific Ocean didn't exist 200 mya.

[OilIsMastery]

why would anyone need to? this is consistent with plate tectonics
:roflmao:

Exactly.

[OilIsMastery]

Exactly what I said.
Even if in the past, Ganymede has expanded because of the change in density that occurs when water changes state, I don't believe that the evidence supports the idea of this being a currently active mechanism (of any significance).


No it isn't.

I think that IF Ganymede has expanded as its frozen, that the change of radius has been no more than about 2.2% (change of volume of 10%).
So you're not sure one way or the other now?

What do you believe, has Ganymede expanded or not?

And if Ganymede grew in the past, a possibility you now admit to, what mechansim caused it to stop growing?

[OilIsMastery]

No.
The first statement does not imply the second.
It only implies that no part of the pacific ocean basin is more than 200 mya.

Oh but that's right, you don't think subduction is valid, therefore your dogma requires you to believe that the Pacific Ocean didn't exist 200 mya.
I challenge you to show me one part of the Pacific Ocean older than 200 myo or one peer-reviewed scientific paper demonstrating the Pacific Ocean existed in the Triassic.

[Trippy]

So you're not sure one way or the other now?

What do you believe, has Ganymede expanded or not?

I've answered your question.

Get over it, and move on.

[Trippy]

I challenge you to show me one part of the Pacific Ocean older than 200 myo or one peer-reviewed scientific paper demonstrating the Pacific Ocean existed in the Triassic.

I thought you said you were from California?

There's proof right there, Sandiego Harbour has several examples.

[OilIsMastery]

I've answered your question.

Get over it, and move on.
No you haven't. I asked you a yes or no question and asked for a yes or no answer. You failed to do so by responding with "if" statements by which I take you to mean "maybe."

[OilIsMastery]

I thought you said you were from California?

There's proof right there, Sandiego Harbour has several examples.
Peer-reviewed citation please. A harbor is not an ocean.

[Trippy]

No you haven't. I asked you a yes or no question and asked for a yes or no answer. You failed to do so by responding with "if" statements by which I take you to mean "maybe."

I answered your question, and explained that it wasn't a simple yes/no thing.

I also explained in precise language, and provided numbers.

You don't like my answer? Tough bickies.

Accept it, or move on.

[OilIsMastery]

I answered your question, and explained that it wasn't a simple yes/no thing.

I also explained in precise language, and provided numbers.

You don't like my answer? Tough bickies.

Accept it, or move on.
LOL. Dishonest hack. Not honest enough with yourself to answer a basic yes or no question.

[synthesizer-patel]

I challenge you to show me one part of the Pacific Ocean older than 200 myo or one peer-reviewed scientific paper demonstrating the Pacific Ocean existed in the Triassic.

I challenge you to explain why this isn't a prediction of plate tectonics - - you can't win the belt unless you step in the ring with the champ.

Cue flippant answer to deflect from his ignorance........

[OilIsMastery]

I challenge you to explain why this isn't a prediction of plate tectonics - - you can't win the belt unless you step in the ring with the champ.

Cue flippant answer to deflect from his ignorance........
This is what plate tectonics predicts in the Triassic...:rolleyes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/LateTriassicGlobal.jpg/800px-LateTriassicGlobal.jpg

Wegener, A.L., (1915), The Origin Of Continents and Oceans.

[Trippy]

Peer-reviewed citation please. A harbor is not an ocean.

I didn't say it was. There are several examples of accreeted marine terranes in the Sandiego region, the most spectacular ones are in the harbour region.

I (generally speaking) simply can not be bothered trying to find peer reviewed literature to prove that there are paleozoic and early mesozoic marine sediments in california - where you claim to be from., so here's a geological map of california instead.
http://z.about.com/d/geology/1/0/8/G/calmap.jpg
Note the Paleozoic and mesozoic marine sediments.

[Trippy]

LOL. Dishonest hack. Not honest enough with yourself to answer a basic yes or no question.

That's because, as I clearly stated in my post, I don't believe the question to have a simple yes or no answer.

Get over it.

You're lying (again).

[OilIsMastery]

I didn't say it was. There are several examples of accreeted marine terranes in the Sandiego region, the most spectacular ones are in the harbour region.

I (generally speaking) simply can not be bothered trying to find peer reviewed literature to prove that there are paleozoic and early mesozoic marine sediments in california - where you claim to be from., so here's a geological map of california instead.
http://z.about.com/d/geology/1/0/8/G/calmap.jpg
Note the Paleozoic and mesozoic marine sediments.
California is dry "land" (continental crust) and is therefore not part of the oceanic lithospere. The reason why you can't show any peer-reviewed paper claiming otherwise is that no such paper exists.

[Trippy]

California is dry "land" (continental crust) and is therefore not part of the oceanic lithospere. The reason why you can't show any peer-reviewed paper claiming otherwise is that no such paper exists.

No.
The reason I can't pull them out, is because I can't be bothered looking for them to prove a point to a dogmatic zealot who's tactic will to be to simply deny any proofs that are presented in the paper.

Huge difference.

The point that you've missed is that parts of california were oceanic crust, this is (ostensibly) how continental crust grows. There's a series of formations in california that are, in essence, sea mounts that got scrapped off the farralon plate as it subduced beneath the North American plate.

If you bothered clicking on the link, you would ssee that the palezoic/mesozoic marine sediments are described as being continental shelf, and continental slope sediments, the direct implication being that there was adjacent oceanice crust (a continental shelf does not exist without an oceanic basin, which requires the existence of oceanic crust).

This really is basic logic, and your inability to follow it suggests one of a couple of things, none of which are particularly flattering of you.

[Captain Kremmen]

Ganymede [GAN-ee-meed] is the largest moon of Jupiter and is the largest in our solar system with a diameter of 5,262 km (3,280 miles). If Ganymede orbited the Sun instead of Jupiter it could be classified as a planet. Like Callisto, Ganymede is most likely composed of a rocky core with a water/ice mantle and a crust of rock and ice. Its low density of 1.94 gm/cm3, indicates that the core takes up about 50% of the satellite's diameter. Ganymede's mantle is most likely composed of ice and silicates, and its crust is probably a thick layer of water ice.

Ganymede has had a complex geological history. It has mountains, valleys, craters and lava flows. Ganymede is mottled by both light and dark regions. It is heavily cratered especially in the dark regions implying ancient origin. The bright regions show a different kind of terrain - one which is grooved with ridges and troughs. These features form complex patterns and have a vertical relief of a few hundred meters and run for thousands of kilometers. The grooved features were apparently formed more recently than the dark cratered area perhaps by tension from global tectonic processes. The real reason is unknown; however, local crust spreading does appear to have taken place causing the crust to shear and separate.

from http://www.solarviews.com/eng/ganymede.htm

So, the current theories on Ganymede are that it has a crust of ice, the ridges on which suggest that tectonic activity has caused the surface to expand. As the surface of the earth acts like a very dense fluid, if we saw similar ridges on the earth's surface, then I suppose this would suggest that the earth was expanding at those regions.

I can't see how that causes a problem.
There is certainly local growth where the magma rises into the space left when plates move apart. Rift volcanoes are not in question. But plates also slide under each other, and form mountains by rippling.

Is it your position that the earth is measurably increasing in circumference?

[Vkothii]

Here's what some scientist reckons about California:
Mantle Flow

Seismic data provide an image of Earth's mantle today. Geologic data from mountain belts or sedimentary records in basins record the overall effects of mantle flow, but may not reveal the actual flow patterns. Starting with these observations, plus estimates of mantle properties, Liu et al. (p. 934; see the Perspective by Steinberger) have developed a model of the evolution of western North America during the past 100 million years.

The model is consistent with flat subduction of the Farallon oceanic plate beneath the continent during much of this time, but shallow subduction extended over a larger area, which could explain a broad Cretaceous unconformity in sedimentary records.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/322/5903/934

[AlphaNumeric]

What peer-reviewed science demonstrates Ganymede is a fixed size? So far you have failed to provide any. That's because there is none.Firstly, you ignored all my questions. Why is that? Secondly, all astronomy books which describe the history of the solar system talk about how the various moons and planets rapidly accreted material, got to their present size and then stopped growing, since the vast majority of the dust material in the solar system had been gathered up by the Sun, planets or moons or was blown out of the solar system when the Sun ignited.

Do you really think noone noticed your dishonestly, the way you continually misconstrue what Trippy says to you, the way you ignore the simple alternative mainstream explaination for all ocean crust being young and how you have to misinterpret most of your sources to make them sound like they support you?

[synthesizer-patel]

This is what plate tectonics predicts in the Triassic...:rolleyes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/LateTriassicGlobal.jpg/800px-LateTriassicGlobal.jpg

Wegener, A.L., (1915), The Origin Of Continents and Oceans.

Round 1 goes to the Champ as the challenger fails to even throw a punch, and is floored by a tasty 1-2 combination.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w449k28003h477m7/

http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F1052-5173(2005)015%5B4:TSFHIO%5D2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1

The challenger is saved by the bell and just about staggers back to his corner

[OilIsMastery]

No.
The reason I can't pull them out, is because I can't be bothered looking for them to prove a point to a dogmatic zealot who's tactic will to be to simply deny any proofs that are presented in the paper.

Huge difference.

The point that you've missed is that parts of california were oceanic crust, this is (ostensibly) how continental crust grows. There's a series of formations in california that are, in essence, sea mounts that got scrapped off the farralon plate as it subduced beneath the North American plate.

If you bothered clicking on the link, you would ssee that the palezoic/mesozoic marine sediments are described as being continental shelf, and continental slope sediments, the direct implication being that there was adjacent oceanice crust (a continental shelf does not exist without an oceanic basin, which requires the existence of oceanic crust).

This really is basic logic, and your inability to follow it suggests one of a couple of things, none of which are particularly flattering of you.
Unfortunately for you, scientists make a conceptual difference between continents and oceans.

[OilIsMastery]

So, the current theories on Ganymede are that it has a crust of ice, the ridges on which suggest that tectonic activity has caused the surface to expand.
Ah another pseudoscientist. Nice to meet you.

As the surface of the earth acts like a very dense fluid, if we saw similar ridges on the earth's surface, then I suppose this would suggest that the earth was expanding at those regions.
Indeed. Mid-oceanic ridges.

I can't see how that causes a problem.
It causes a problem for plate tectonics fundamentalists who assume the Earth has a fixed radius because it contradicts their primitive 20th century religion. That is why they call peer-reviewed science from Nature and Science Magazine "pseudoscience."

There is certainly local growth where the magma rises into the space left when plates move apart. Rift volcanoes are not in question.
From the responses in this thread it would seem to be questioned.

But plates also slide under each other, and form mountains by rippling.
Yeah, unfortunately for plate tectonics no subduction has been observed on Ganymede or any planet in the solar system.

Martin, P., et al. (2008), Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth? (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/43/2/002), Physics Education, 43, Pages 144-150

Is it your position that the earth is measurably increasing in circumference?
Yes but this is a thread about Ganymede.

[OilIsMastery]

Here's what some scientist reckons about California:
Where in that paper does it say California is part of the oceanic lithosphere?

[OilIsMastery]

Firstly, you ignored all my questions.
Firstly you ignored the peer reviewed science in the OP.

Why is that?
Probably because you have shown no respect for anyone with opposing views.

What's the question?

Secondly, all astronomy books which describe the history of the solar system talk about how the various moons and planets rapidly accreted material, got to their present size and then stopped growing, since the vast majority of the dust material in the solar system had been gathered up by the Sun, planets or moons or was blown out of the solar system when the Sun ignited.
So according to you, Ganymede has expanded in it's geological history?

[Captain Kremmen]

Yes but this is a thread about Ganymede.

Fair enough. As our disagreement would occur only if the thread was about a different subject, I will leave you to it.

[OilIsMastery]

Round 1 goes to the Champ as the challenger fails to even throw a punch, and is floored by a tasty 1-2 combination.
I provided the reference you asked for. You lose.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w449k28003h477m7/
"It is not known when this mode of tectonic activity and heat loss began on Earth."

Try never.

http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F1052-5173(2005)015%5B4:TSFHIO%5D2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
Since you ignored the peer reviewed science in the OP you might as well ignore these too:

Scalera, G. (2005), Are Subduction Zones, Actually Mantle Wedges Upduction? (http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/07211/EGU05-J-07211.pdf), Geophysical Research Abstracts, Volume 7, 07211

Griffin, W.L., and O'Reilly, S.Y. (2006), Eclogites in the SLM: The Subduction Myth (http://www.es.mq.edu.au/GEMOC/Abstracts/Abs2006/GriffinIAVCEI6.pdf), IAVCEI, 6

Griffin, W.L., and O'Reilly, S.Y. (2007), Cratonic Lithospheric Mantle: Is Anything Subducted? (http://www.episodes.org/backissues/301/43-53%20Griffin.pdf), Episodes, Volume 7, Number 1, Pages 43-53

Martin, P., et al. (2008), Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth? (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/43/2/002), Physics Education, 43, Pages 144-150

[AlphaNumeric]

Firstly you ignored the peer reviewed science in the OP.Firstly, peer reviewed does not automatically make it right. You must be aware of this fact because you ignore 99.9999% of peer reviewed physics and tout the 0.0001% which you think agrees with your claims. So the fact I'm not sold on the tiny tiny amount of ambigiously interpreted evidence you've provided is no worse (a lot less worse in fact) than you ignoring pretty much all of modern science.
Probably because you have shown no respect for anyone with opposing views.When that person is a proven liar and, as clear as day, misconstrues what people say, despite repeated corrections, then I don't think I should have to give said person respect. If it wasn't so immediately obvious that you're a deranged lying idiot, I might give you a modicum of respect. But since you not only haven't earn't any you have demonstrated you don't deserve any, I don't show you any. Trippy I have a great deal of respect for. Not because he and I have similar scientific views but because he's able to present his argument in a coherent articulate way which doesn't require or result in him lying about what other people have said, as you do.
What's the question?Why is it okay for you to ignore most science or call people idiots when you then complain when other people ignore what tiny crumbs of science you try to provide or when someone insults you? Why are you employing the hypocritical 'Do as I say, not as I do!' methodology?
So according to you, Ganymede has expanded in it's geological history? Now this is a deliberate attempt to get me to say something which you will then quote out of context. It's a common method of yours and it's one which Trippy has repeatedly commented on. Ganymede is roughly the same age as the Earth, 4.5 billions years. Has it grown in size by an appreciable (ie more than say 5%) in the last 4 billion years? No. It grew to almost it's present size during the formative stage of the solar system, ie the first few hundred million years. After that the occasional meteor strike hasn't altered its size by any noteworthy amount. Astrophysics has the planets and moons growing from small clumps of dust and debris to pretty much their current size in a few hundred million years. So it's not a clear cut 'Yes or no' question, as Trippy as told you, and so we aren't going to give you a one word answer because if we said "Yes" then you would quote us saying "So you agree with me!" when anyone reading the thread can clearly see we don't agree with you. That is why I don't think you deserve any respect, you don't have a shred of integrity.

[OilIsMastery]

Firstly, peer reviewed does not automatically make it right.
You can say that again...:rolleyes:

Ganymede is roughly the same age as the Earth, 4.5 billions years. Has it grown in size by an appreciable (ie more than say 5%) in the last 4 billion years? No.
So Ganymede hasn't changed in 4 billion years?

What caused it to stop growing?

Scientists tell a different story. See OP you are ignoring.

Not sure how it would even be possible for Ganymede to maintain a fixed radius given there are no subduction zones on Ganymede.

Martin, P., et al. (2008), Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth? (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/43/2/002), Physics Education, 43, Pages 144-150

It grew to almost it's present size during the formative stage of the solar system, ie the first few hundred million years.
Evidence? Source? Link? Reference? Citation? Didn't think so.

[Trippy]

Unfortunately for you, scientists make a conceptual difference between continents and oceans.

And thus proving (again) that you know less about geology than you do chemistry.

[Trippy]

Where in that paper does it say California is part of the oceanic lithosphere?

Good greif man.

Once again, you're distorting what people are saying.

Nobody is saying that California is part of the Oceanic lithosphere.

What is being said however, is that parts of california contain oceanic lithospheric facies.

A subtle difference which you will fail to grasp.

[OilIsMastery]

And thus proving (again) that you know less about geology than you do chemistry.
Why do you think continents are oceans?

Nobody is saying that California is part of the Oceanic lithosphere.
If that's true, why do you keep bringing up California?

What is being said however, is that parts of california contain oceanic lithospheric facies.
Irrelevant.

A subtle difference which you will fail to grasp.
Dishonest hack. You are lying again.

[Trippy]

Why do you think continents are oceans?

If that's true, why do you keep bringing up California?

Irrelevant.

Dishonest hack. You are lying again.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

By making these comments, you adequitely demonstrate that you don't understand the difference.

Oh, and if you're going to try and insult me, at least be original about it.

[OilIsMastery]

Thanks for proving my point for me.

By making these comments, you adequitely demonstrate that you don't understand the difference.

Oh, and if you're going to try and insult me, at least be original about it.
You didn't answer either question.

(1) Why are you afraid of answering questions?

(2) Why do you think continents are oceans?

(3) Why did you bring up California?

[Vkothii]

You brought up the subjects of expansion and subduction, by denying that the latter exists, by claiming in a very iterative way, that all geologists, geochemists and geophysicists, apart from a chosen few, must be lying about it, constructing a vast conspiracy, etc.
Hence the explanations, and retorts, of what the model is supposed to be, how it works, from the other corner.

You can't even explain what the alternative model works like, what it predicts, what evidence there is for it, or what sort of evidence to look for.
Ganymede supports a tectonic model based on ice-sheet dynamics, not of liquid water like we got. You may have noticed, that frozen water is different to the wet stuff.

[ScyentsIzLief]

Challenge to Vkothii's beloved Geologists
http://www.nealadams.com/challenge.html

Growing Ocean Floors
http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.html

Mars Expands? OMFG!!!
http://www.nealadams.com/mars.html

Pangea Impossible
http://www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.html

Dinosaur Extinction:
http://www.continuitystudios.net/dinosaur.html

Prime Matter: The Universe before matter, how matter was created.
http://www.continuitystudios.net/prime.html

[Trippy]

You didn't answer either question.

(1) Why are you afraid of answering questions?

(2) Why do you think continents are oceans?

(3) Why did you bring up California?

The first question is an outright lie (or at least based on one).

And I've already answered the second two questions.

Apparently however, you lack the reading comprehension skills to actually understand my answer.

The only person who's afraid of answering questions is you.

Or are you going to finally answer whether or not English is your second language, because there's only two reasonable explanations for some of the utter utter BS you come out with - and that's one of them.

It occurs to me that I should point out rather, with regards to the second question, it to represents a completely false misrepresentation of my comments.

You're being blatantly deceitful. YET AGAIN.

[James R]

OIM:

Please try to adhere to some standard of intellectual honesty in your responses to other posters.

[OilIsMastery]

OIM:

Please try to adhere to some standard of intellectual honesty in your responses to other posters.
What am I being dishonest about?

[ScyentsIzLief]

All I've seen Trippy do is make unsupported claims, deny others' backed claims, and make personal attacks.

[OilIsMastery]

All I've seen Trippy do is make unsupported claims, deny others' backed claims, and make personal attacks.
You are a very keen observer. That's absolutely correct.

[James R]

OIM:

You misrepresent people's arguments, mostly by creating straw men out of them.

[OilIsMastery]

OIM:

You misrepresent people's arguments, mostly by creating straw men out of them.
Specific example please.

[Trippy]

All I've seen Trippy do is make unsupported claims, deny others' backed claims, and make personal attacks.

Blatant lie.

The only comments that I have made (except possibly one) that could be interpreted as insulting are substantiated comments on the contents of OIM's posts.

Besides which, the ideas that I have been putting forward have been mainstream, and most science forums put the onus on the person proposing the new idea (or in this case, pseudo science) to provide literature or evidence to support that Idea.

More to the point, you obviously fail to grasp the simple fact the publishing of a geological map usually involves the publishing of a paper to discuss the findings, thus, citing a map, indirectly cites a peer reviewed paper.

[James R]

Can't be bothered wasting more time on you, OIM, especially to point out things you are already well aware of.

[ScyentsIzLief]

James you seem to be a bit bias, especially for an administrator.

[James R]

All I've seen Trippy do is make unsupported claims, deny others' backed claims, and make personal attacks.

Did OIM invite you here?

Are you a "follower" of his?

Is he your Messiah?

Just wondering.

[ScyentsIzLief]

Did OIM invite you here?

Are you a "follower" of his?

Is he your Messiah?

Just wondering.

Have you been to other forums? Do you know how real mods act like? Try to be a bit more profressional please.

All your debate points are based on opinions. You don't reference anything, and you assume the plate tectonics theory is "truth" and use that to "disprove" the EET.

[Trippy]

Have you been to other forums? Do you know how real mods act like? Try to be a bit more profressional please.

All your debate points are based on opinions. You don't reference anything, and you assume the plate tectonics theory is "truth" and use that to "disprove" the EET.

Have you been to other forums? Do you know how real mods act?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I want to know how OIM got 2 IP addys I'm thinking he's stealing some wireless from another source so he can keep his and up scy's ass.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

All I've seen Trippy do is make unsupported claims, deny others' backed claims, and make personal attacks.

All I've seen you do is parrot OIM. You two are either the same, or you know each other through church. Which one is it?

[Vkothii]

They obviously have shared an oil-stain, before today.

[OilIsMastery]

Have you been to other forums? Do you know how real mods act?
I have and Ophiolite was recently removed as moderator from the Earth Sciences Forum on TheScienceForum.Com (http://www.thescienceforum.com/) because of his bias, poor behavior, censorship, and ad hominem attacks towards me.

I want to know how OIM got 2 IP addys I'm thinking he's stealing some wireless from another source so he can keep his and up scy's ass.
Divine intervention.

[Trippy]

I have and Ophiolite was recently removed as moderator from the Earth Sciences Forum on TheScienceForum.Com (http://www.thescienceforum.com/) because of his bias, poor behavior, censorship, and ad hominem attacks towards me.

More's the pity - that someone that knowledgable would let, well, you get under their skin to that degree.

I imagine that your behaviour there was as... Flawless as your behaviour here.

Just a pity the comment wasn't directed at you in the first place eh?

[Captain Kremmen]

Ganymede seems a good candidate for earth's second moon.
How could we move it into place?

[Ophiolite]

I have and Ophiolite was recently removed as moderator from the Earth Sciences Forum on TheScienceForum.Com (http://www.thescienceforum.com/) because of his bias, poor behavior, censorship, and ad hominem attacks towards me..Incorrect. Once again. You are not very good at this, are you?
I was not removed for bias. I displayed none.
I was not removed for poor behaviour. I engaged in none.
I was most certainly not excluded for censorship, since I practiced none and one of the site owner's minor annoyances with me appears to be that I chose not to censor you.
I was specifically removed for insulting you in breach of the forum guidelines.
Do try to be more accurate in future.

[Read-Only]

Incorrect. Once again. You are not very good at this, are you?
I was not removed for bias. I displayed none.
I was not removed for poor behaviour. I engaged in none.
I was most certainly not excluded for censorship, since I practiced none and one of the site owner's minor annoyances with me appears to be that I chose not to censor you.
I was specifically removed for insulting you in breach of the forum guidelines.
Do try to be more accurate in future.

Sorry, Oph, but the concept of accuracy is totally foreign to him. He can survive only in a world of half-truths, distortions and outright lies. That's his whole makeup.

[OilIsMastery]

I was specifically removed for insulting you in breach of the forum guidelines.
Exactly...:rolleyes:

[pjdude1219]

Dude Oil the world would have been a much better place if your parents had just used a jimmy.

[Trippy]

Exactly...:rolleyes:

Oh dear, he's at it again.

What is it you've taken to saying?

This post (of yours) is an emotive statement with no scientific arguments, and presents no peer reviewed literature.

[Anti-Flag]

Dude Oil the world would have been a much better place if your parents had just used a jimmy.

It's highly likely his parents were brother and sister.

[OilIsMastery]

This thread isn't about me. It's about Ganymede. Thanks for the attention though. I'm flattered.