I watched the video again, and I totally believe the earth grew and is growing. The continents all fit perfectly together.

So the continents moving prove the earth is getting larger? Makes no sense.

Really? How does it make no sense?

How would you explain the fact that 1. The surface of the continents are older than the bottom of the ocean?

How would you explain the fact that the continents all fit perfectly together when you shrink the earth?

I think it makes perfect sense.


There is a barber here in town that has a chunk of rock with fossils that have been determined to be older than anything found in the bottom of the ocean, and it was found on dry continent. They were fossils that existed when the earth was covered with water. I don't remember how old they were, but scientists just say.... impossible. Then they won't say any more.

Scientists can't explain these fossils, so they just ignore them.

Maybe a little geology 101 would help.

If you know the answer then say it.

Or else don't bother.

Scientifically, this is probably the dumbest thread of all time. The Earth can grow from added matter but it cannot grow as an organism (which requires added matter also). It's density isn't changing and the concepts in the film are just stupid.

The plates are constantly moving due to convection forces of the Earth's mantel... and yes, they did all once fit together as is taught in Geology 101 but they were just in different places.

The last time the Earth significantly grew is when it was hit by a large space object.

When you post some crackpot topic like this, you should be prepared for the truth about it to be told.

Plate Tectonics 101.

If "Plate Tectonics 101" could be completely wrong.

The upper tectonic plates of the earth also join totally in the pacific and the Atlantic.

Core samples from the sea bed are not much older than 70 million years because most of the under sea was not there.

Ancient fish fossils come from the land, not the oceans. The simple truth is apparently too upsetting for too many apple carts.

A child can recognize the Atlantic spread. The Pacific spread is so large it is hard to see, but all of the upper tectonic plates come together perfectly when you shrink the earth.



Really? I don't believe that.

If they all fit together then where were the Oceans?

Are you saying that the land and continents shrank but yet maintained their shapes?

I don't believe that. It makes no sense.

Keep watering it, it may flower soon!

It will make sense when you read up on it.

Answer:

The tectonic plates move away from each other, that`s where the bottoms of the oceans `come up` to the surface. This supports your theory, JB.

On the other hand, where tectonic plates approach each other, the crust of the earth gets `pinched` and there are mountains that grow up, and they also grow downwards as well. This neither supports nor disproves the `growing eath` as well as the `non-growing earth` theories.

Where the tectonic plates move and there is no other tectonic plate near or next to it, in its direction of movement, then the ocean bottom falls down and slips under below.

This is observed in the west side of the United States. The tectonic plate under it is moving away from the European tectonic plate, and the North American plate is sailing, so to speak, toward the west. West of the USA is the Pacific Ocean, which is new, fresh, crust material. As the west coast of Cali and others move in that direction, there is a little `pinching`, hence the Rockies, but there is a lot of buckling under of the Pacific Ocean bottom to go under. This buckled-under dirt goes and sinks directly down, and probably heats up in the mantle. In the meantime, the American Rockies are not like the Himalayas. The Himalayas are pinched by two tectonic plate`s collision: Between the Deccan and the Asian plates. The H. mountains are therefore quicly rising, and narrow in width. The Rockies are quickly rising to us, but it`s not, and the reason they are tall, is because they`ve been gathering materal for their height in their entire travel away from Europe and Africa. This makes the Rockies tall, but also wide. The Himalayas and the Alps are not wide. The mountains around the Arab plate (under the Arabian Peninusula) and Africa are also high, and quickly rising. But the Andes, which is going west as well, form Africa, is less quickly rising, but has been constantly rising for a long time, and for three thousand miles. Watch the East side of South America: not much elevation, as it is a part that has been trailing the West side, just tagging along, without collecting anything from the process.

The process of new crust buckling under is a process that makes it possible to know or to believe, that the Earth is not growing.

I agree with your demand to say `what` and not where the answer can be found, BJ. If someone insists on something, they should not appeal to authority. They must tell the reason, not just say that a reason exists.

So much for tectonics, and for tectonic plate movements.

`Living things grow`, true, very true. But also non-living things grow as well.

If you insist that all things that grow are living things, so be it. You won`t be defeated. We can`t, nobody can, define what life is, what a living thing is. There is no true, exclusive, working definition of life or what constitutes something as living.

If you want to make your definition workable for others, and for them to accept it, you can`t, much like nobody can convince of anyone else what a `living thing` is.

It is our intuition that we must rely on. Some of us beleive that it is possible for a thing to grow which is not living.

For you the two are equivalent.

This only proves that your intuition is differnet from that of others.

This is fine. You just need to see that it`s not an argument that is useful here, because there is no concensus on that claim. You are alone with that opinion, and the opposite opinion counts many, many followers.

This makes you neither wrong nor right. It just makes your argument inadmissible for use in the debate.

If I were to compare the moon with the earth I would say that the moon is not alive, but the earth is.

The earth is alive and full of activity, heat, movement and life. I see very clearly that it is a living thing, not as you might think of a plant or an animal as a living thing, but more like the difference between the moon and the earth.

I've never been to the moon of course, and there may be some forms of living organisms on it, but the object itself seems quite inactive or dead.

If the earth is alive, I would not completely discount the possibility that it could be growing. You might, scientists might, but I wouldn't.

Scientists have been wrong before, and they don't know everything.

Has anyone an answer to the question of the ancient fish fossils found on the upper plates (land masses) that are older than anything ever found in the ocean bed?

It was just explained to you. The plates change elevation with movement and what is now land, used to be ocean. Due to seafloor spreading, the ocean beds are some of the newest surfaces (planet surface) on the planet. Australia has some of the oldest.

Yes we all know that the earth was once covered with water..

so if the sea floor is spreading... where is it spreading to if the earth is not growing?

Can you refer me to an accepted scientific animated illustration that is at least as equally convincing as the one in this video?

ummm.. remember who your talking to...

if you have the history channel on TV, watch "how the earth was made", it explains everything you are confused about to a t... the fossils you are talking about were once underwater, but plate tectonics made the land raise and pushed them out of the water... New Zealand and the Alps are a very good example of this. As the plates come together, parts of the land are raised and are some are lowered and most are moved around... the earth, is smaller than it was when formed if anything, because of the moon being formed from it. here is a website, which i already know you won't read it or if you do, won't understand it...

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/geologicalHistory.shtml

That still does not explain why the fossils on the upper plates are billions of years old and most of the fossils at the bottom of the ocean are only about 70 million years old.

It does not explain why the shapes of the continents (upper tectonics) all fit together perfectly. If the ocean is growing and spreading and the earth is not growing, then are you claiming that the continents are shrinking? If so, why do they all still remain basically the same shape and why do they all fit together neatly when you shrink the earth?

It does not explain why the oceans keep "spreading" and if they are spreading where are they spreading to?...if the earth is not growing? Spreading to where?

Also, I have watched the movie you mention and it is not as well explained (or convincing) as this youtube video. So "science" has either got it wrong or they are really lousy at explaining things.

Here is what makes sense... the video makes sense. I have read up on all that other mumbo jumbo and it does not make sense... not to me.

If it is so simple and makes so much sense, then it should be easy to explain to someone like me who wants the easy sensible explanation. I don't need you to tell me to "read up on it" or "go to four years of college" or any of that nonsense. I don't have that kind of spare time.

If it is "so simple" then one of you geniuses should be able to explain it simply.

Otherwise prove to me that the earth is not 'alive' and growing.

Show me some simple to understand evidence that this is "impossible."

If you can't do that, then don't bother to try.

I don't want rude insults about how stupid or uneducated you think I am. I get enough of that crap from people who think they know it all but can't explain a damn thing.