Silly Science: Expanding earth instead of Tectonics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQIAh some guy put this up on Youtube, its a relatively silly set of computer models about earth expansion that completely ignore tectonics. Its so silly that it doesn't even belong in a science forum (but the cg models are pretty well done). I must say his voice is relatively patronizing as well.And as much it seems like he points out evolutionary thinking, his freaking arguments are just plain stupid. More anti-science propaganda disguised like science (frankly i'd think its just undercover Christian propaganda but i'm to lazy to make the connection, but the speech patterns parallel the Christian fundamentalist rhetoric).

I proposed a similar theory once:The Science Forum

The key is in the last sentence.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The key is in the last sentenance where I infer fundamentalist responsibility based on the indirect attacks of science w/out any sets of data etc?Er...could you elaborate?

I see that you consider this 'sloppy science', but A LOT of people do sloppy science or come up with half-baked ideas that have no connection to Christian fundamentalists. Really, now, just because someone's science isn't good, doesn't mean that they are Christian fundamentalists trying to attack science.

tru, I guess i am mildly hasty, but intellectual laziness is rather characteristic and silly.

One question I would ask the individual who made the clip, what mechanism would account for an expanding earth. Everything he states is in regard to spreading which just what plate techtonics states. From his rhetoric it would be that the earth was smaller 65 million years ago, so where does the extra material come from?

In the last sentence he says that should the whole science be invalidated that then one should believe the earth was at the center of the universe, and a mere 6000 years old.It is the old fundamentalist logical fallacy that disproving science proves faith.The whole construct then is to make science improbably wrong, no matter the lengths of false logic and ignorance of evidence are co-opted and coerced into the semblance of scientific reality.This is for the ignorant gullibles that want to believe instead of understand, and are willing to be hoodwinked by falsehoods.As noted, (Message 7) there is an absolute dearth of material with which to make the earth expand, that he is not claiming that all of it expands (else the continents would do so at the same rate and bollix the argument) and an impossible means to make the earth expand without it, given that it is now solid (or molten) to the center of the core.The expansion could also be readily tested these days, with his rate of doubling in the last 65 million years and accelerating, for we have gps measurements from many places on the earth for mapping purposes, enough that anyone noticing a rise in all such measurements would surely be noticed.But mostly it is wrong because it cannot be true. The shape of the continents cannot be kept constant as you change the radius of the earth by a factor of two or more. You could plaster the surface of a half filled balloon with continental shapes and the fill the balloon only to find the "continents" do not fit the surface anymore. For them to lie flat their edges must be torn and torn again, and this is not what we see.The evidence says that this fairytale is false from start to finish, and is only fit for fools and those who want to delude themselves.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : sig

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Ah thank you for the clarification. I was a little lost as to what was being referred to earlier.Like I said bollocks to the whole lot with their intellectual laziness.

I think the way he framed it is that all the garbage that happens in the clip is indicative of basically expansion and such a thinning of material much like a balloon. Much like RAZD sorta talked about I think...Geology isn't much my thing...if they had said anything about chemistry I'd say more, mostly its just I was bringing attention to really silly garbage.

Another thing that bollixes the argument is gravity.If the material density of the earth is the same but the earth has 1/2 the diameter 65 million years ago, then it would have had 4x's the gravity on the surface due to the 1/2 diameter and 1/8th the gravity due to the smaller mass, or 1/2 total gravity. This would mean substantial loss of atmosphere. It would also affect the orbits of the moon and of the earth about the sun.If the density were higher so that the surface gravity were the same then it would still be different for the moon and the sun and the orbits would not work.If the density were higher so that the moon and the sun attraction were not affected then the surface gravity would have been 4x's the current force.You cannot make gravity work for both the moon's and earth's orbits AND the surface of the earth.Enjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

silly, indeed. visually, to me, there seemed to be a lot of fudging involved. i'm not concerned about the north and south poles -- that model of their alignment was actually no different than pangea. it's that "almost as obvious" pacific part i'm concerned about. no graphic there? i wonder why.and i'm not sure "ignoring tectonics" is the right phrase, exactly. how, exactly, can you have faults but not tectonics? even that model is tectonics, it's just HALF of it.and "no subduction" is even sillier. has this man never heard of california?

---

Oh man, I love this. I find it funny how he doesn't even realise that the continental shelf (the light areas fringing the continents at around 3:10 on the video) are part of the continents and not the oceans. It's rather telling that his animations manage to eliminate them even though in an expanding earth scenario they really should be retained.If that isn't enough to put people off, note how at 1:45, an island off New Zealand (which according to google maps doesn't even exist) magically grows to more than twice New Zealand's size to fill an awkward gap...

Yes, when you are already telling a pack of lies, what is one more?

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.