He's a nut. I could easily poke several holes in his - and your - idea, but I'll only mention one: land never rises, it's just sea levels that fall, eh? Then how do either of you nuts explain the marine fossils found on the tops on mountains in Tibet???? You can't, can you????:bugeye:
That's the typical reaction and language of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned. His language is somewhat confusing here because land does in fact rise. Lake fossils are not marine fossils.
Oh, really? Even if that's true, it doesn't make either of you less of a nut. There's nothing confusing about it. He clearly stated that land does NOT rise, it's only the seas that fall. He's a nut and so are you. Biologists can easily tell the difference.
Ha! Try this - how do you explain your beloved "lake fossils" appearing on mountain peaks over 14,500 feet tall? But they're still marine fossils - ones that cannot survive in fresh water. All marines biologists can easily tell the difference.
Certainly - but is that the best you can do? I'm talking about mountains that stand WAY above any surrounding land. I've already told you. If you mean types, in the Himalayas, the team found fossils of marine plankton called radiolarians. They cannot survive in fresh water.
What evidence? Do you know that water always flows from a higher level to the lowest level...sometimes called sea level? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Link please. If true, it doesn't make any difference to theory because there were shallow seas on the supercontinent. Planktonic as opposed to benthonic means that they were in shallow seas.
Earthquakes, their secondary elastic effects such as spreading/faulting, and bridge collapses. Shock and awe...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is the Engineering section. It requires more engineering details. If not I will move it to general science section for general statements. Thank you.
I figured bridges would qualify as architeture and bridge collapses are an engineering problem that need to be explained in a scientific way, i.e. based upon observation and logic. So be it.
For someone that cries and whines "you ad hom'd me" every odd post, you certainly don't mind doing it yourself on the even ones. Why should anyone bother attempting to use logic, reason and critical thought with someone who's only purpose is probably to spam his pseudoscience blog? By the way, you keep quoting this apparent nutbar and his book. Perhaps you could tell us how many peer-reviewed citations and primary sources he uses within it? I'm betting very, very few if any. Indeed, I predict a book written in a vernacular as though the "author" (inverted commas intentional) were speaking. He probably also uses run-on paragraphs repeating the same themes over and over. Such are the characteristics of crackpots who "publish" their "books" through vanity presses. IAC sent me one that exhibited nearly all these and other characteristics, and not a single genuine citation to peer-reviewed work.
How would you know? You haven't read anything of his because you're prejudiced against him. I would be to if I was a fundamentalist.
I'm just asking. If I knew, why would I ask? Again, since you have the book, how many peer-reviewed citations does Guy use? Is there a bibliography full of them? Chapter-by-chapter end notes? What does Guy use to source his work?