Deny = make a statement of disagreement Refute = provide convincing contrary evidence in a logical, structured manner. Now, refute Benioff zones as evidence of subduction. Do this in your own words, without using irrelevant, out of context quotations.
So-called Benioff zones are evidence of oceanic seafloor spreading, the exact opposite of subduction. "As you understand my way is not paved with roses, because if what I claim is right, as, of course, I think it is, then mainstream scientists have to throw their claims into the garbage can." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist/geophysicist, September 2008 "In the oral session, except for one presentation that was clearly pro plate tectonics, and another one that did not address the issue of global and large scale geology specifically, there was general consensus that subduction, and therefore plate tectonics, is mechanically impossible." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist/geophysicist) and Karsten M. Storetvedt (geophysicist), November 2007 "Five propositions in Geology, namely Plate Tectonics, Constant Size Earth, Heat Engine Earth, Elastic Rebound, and the Organic Origin of Hydrocarbon Reserves are challenged as Myths because their potential truth is not confirmed by Observation, and/or Experiment, and/or Logic. In their place the Excess Mass Stress Tectonics - EMST, i.e., a Solid, Quantified, Growing and Radiating Earth and its implications, such as the Inorganic Origin of Hydrocarbons, claims to be a Comprehensive Proposition." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist/geophysicist, November 2007 "Now that the subduction concept has been developed for almost 30 years, it can be said that it has not been fruitful geologically." -- Yury V. Chudinov, geologist, 1998 "There is no doubt that the subduction model constitutes the weakest link in the construction of plate tectonics, as has been repeatedly pointed out." -- Yury V. Chudinov, geologist, 1998 "People don't want to see it. They believe in subduction like a religion." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981 "I had taught subduction for more years than any of the present generation of people had been with it. And when they have been in it as long as I have they'll abandon it too." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981 The real science is there for true scientists. Unforunately religious fundamentalists and dogmatic zealots don't benefit from scientific discovery. "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1988 "I have no doubt that our own orthodox dogma still has falsities within the self-evident axioms we believe we know to be true." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist 1988 "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
Failing grade. I told you to respond in your own words. This concatenation of random quotes offers zero evidence that you have any understanding of this topic. You get zero marks, Try again, leave, or admit that you are wrong. Failure to respond in a structured way in your own words will be an admittance on your part that you are mistaken.
You deliberately ignored "my own words" posted above. And all of the quotes posted above are relevant scientific quotes from PhDs. I am not making this up.
But that's because you're an idiot. You haven't refuted it, you haven't posted anything that supports your claims; you've gone into another trance, and started chanting again. Can you support your repeated statement that "seafloor spreading is the exact opposite of subduction"? How did we get from Hadean crustal formations, to tectonic theory, subduction and the mid-ocean ridge? Oh yeah...
No, you ignore it. For example, you completely ignored this map which clearly demonstrates an active Wadati-Benioff zone associated with an active subduction zone. Refute it. Explain the distribution of earthquakes greater thab 40km depth without resorting to a collection of random assorted out of context and unrelated quotes.
It doesn't prove subduction, you idiot, it supports a theory, called subduction theory. Why do you insist on behaving like a complete moron?
No I did not ignore them. You said this: "So-called Benioff zones are evidence of oceanic seafloor spreading, the exact oppposite of subduction." This is a statement of opinion. You offered no evidence to support this contention. This contention is completely at odds with accepted, demonstrated, validated plate tectonic theory. To challenge it in a scientific manner you need to offer specific evidence that refutes the plate tectonic theory. You did not do so. You stated an opinion. An ill founded opinion. I considered your statement and dismissed it as irrelevant, subjective and valuless. I did not ignore it. You also said: "The real science is there for true scientists. Unforunately religious fundamentalists and dogmatic zealots don't benefit from scientific discovery." This is a further statement of opinion, phrased in a highly emotional, almost hysterical style and containing absolutely nothing of substance or value from a scientific standpoint. I considered it, then rejected it as being irrelevant and somewhat nauseating. So 'your own words' totally failed to address the issue in any constructive way, were wholly subjective, contained nothing of scientific value, or relevance. Again, they were not ignored, but dismissed. Now lets look at the quotes you believe, for some obscure reason - perhaps related to cognition difficulties - to be relevant to your argument. No reference to the journal in which these words appeared. No context in which the statement was made. No indication of what the author was talking about. No discussion of what constraints the author feels apply to his views. Conclusion: wholly irrelevant. No reference for what conference this relates to. No background on the character and goal of the oral session. No indication of the role of the two authors. No explanation of the context within which the 'impossibility' of plate tectonics was declared. Most critically, not one single piece of evidence from the papers, or the oral presentations to support the alleged conclusion that subduction was impossible. Conclusion: hearsay alleged conclusions with zero evidence to support such alleged conclusions and hence all of minimal value I'm not wasting my time on any more, based upon the irrelevance of your first two selections. Withdraw them and I'll consider exploring the other ones.
One thing if the earth was growing wouldn't the laser being used to hit the mirror on the moon constantly have to be adjusted due to the change in angle? Also last time i checked that isn't happening.
In addition we have been able to measure the relative movements of plates using satellite positioning technology. These match the expectations from plate tectonics, yet cannot be explained by an expanding Earth.
Yes you did. Of the 10 quotes posted above you ignored 70% of them to focus on red herrings and straw man fallacies. Shock and awe. Religious fundamentalism isn't science. I refer you to my blog OilIsMastery.Blogspot.Com. That's because that particular quote was not made in a journal but in an email. See I actually know and correspond with real and intelligent contemporary 21st century scientists unlike some people on this board. The context isn't necessary if you familiarize yourself with contemporary 21st century science. If you had any clue who the author was it would be obvious. If you really want to know: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85905 You can google the author. Learning however would require effort. Just in case you want to learn something: http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/index.epl
It illustrates a Wadati-Benioff zone. It illustrates that Earthquake depth increases as a function of distance from a deep ocean trench. It illustrates that this pattern is followed in one direction only (that which the subducting plate travels in). It illustrates that this pattern follows an acceleration curve. All of these things can only be accounted for with subduction (we're still waiting for you to demonstrate otherwise, and we have noticed your relentless dodging and sidestepping). Or are you suggesting that the oceanic crust is 300 km thick?
Whatever that is. You probably also think it illustrates the existence of unicorns. So? No it doesn't. Link ?
You think you're qualified to talk about Subduction zones, and you don;t even know what a Wadati-Benioff zone is? So how do you explain that observation (which, incidentally is exactly what one would expect using subduction) with an expanding earth model? Yes it does. Pay attention to the purty colours. Notice how in the top half of the map, the further to the left you move, the deeper the corresponding colour? That's because the plate on teh right (the pacific plate) is subducting beneath the plate on the left (the indo-australian plate). Things are complicated in the middle, most of the motion is transform, because down the bottom, the direction of subduction reverses, as does the depth trend (it now moves in the opposite direction. Completely irrelevant - i'm not talking about North America. Look at the map key. The deepest quakes are from 300km depth. Subduction involves falling objects.
What a moron. Where does any of that quote mention an expanding earth? Nowhere? How does it back up your claim? What are you claiming? Or you're just constructing your own reality again? What does "seafloor spreading is the EXACT OPPOSITE of subduction" mean again? Oh sorry, you haven't actually explained this yet, have you?
I know what it is -- it's a myth. Do you know what a chimera is? I refer you to my answer posted above which you deliberately ignored: oceanic seafloor spreading.
