Dear ChuckB, Lin, Barry, Kim, Eman and John,
Thanks for your comments and questions. I have research to do regarding the questions and I have pressing work obligations during our busy season now.
I will be back with responses (well researched and thought out, I hope) when I am able to find the time to research and handle them properly.
It might be two weeks. It might be a month.
Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Ben Fishler
From: Barry Schrader <barryschrader@pobox.com>
To: geology2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Geology2] Re: The Earth Moved Final Answer
On 5/29/2013 2:31 AM, Kim Noyes wrote:
Ben,Eman,Kimmer
Thanks for taking the time to compose that argument in refutation of Ben's hypothesis. It was not wasted as the rest of us read it and see stuff we already know redistilled into new ways of presenting it that we have perhaps (as is the case with me) not encountered before and I always find edification in seeing stuff I know restated in ways I have not encountered as often I can derive new layers of meaning or understanding from such.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, MEM <mstreman53@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is the short answer compromise I think Ben and the rest of us are needing:
Ben, I respect that you put a lot of work into your New Theory and organized it in an excellent manner. You went into great detail painting the picture of how you thought things worked. Real dedication to develop it so deeply!
It is unfortunate that it was written in a a partial void and without your better understanding of planetary geology regarding impacts and the body of Plate Tectonic Principle. It also is your disadvantage that you are not well versed by experience in how and when scientific theories in general are introduced and defended to experts who you must convince that your hypothesis has been proved by your collection of the knowledge of others and your personal research.
Hint: Your entire "work" is in reality an unresearched hypothesis which needs to be striped of errors and conflicts and rebuilt on a broad and deep foundation of geoscience. Any "New Theory" has to demonstrably show how it is a better fit of the basic research/knowledge and it has to be defensible to the body of science not just to your mind alone. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't doing so to be mean nor blindly sticking to existing consensus.
That is the best I can do with your work and follow up postings here. If you can live with that then don't read the rest it is frank detailed and addresses more of the errors in logic in your book and postings. I hate to drop out but I have another bucket list that needs attention. Unless snowballs start accumulating in Hades I am finished with this thread. I am taking shortcuts in not posting two separate post on this "long past any chance of resolution thread" ( aka dead horse flogging) so get a head start and flog away and this near death horse...lol
Eman
The two response show you why I keep watching these posts. These experts are in fact people that do have immense knowledge, but are still people. (Can be very nice.) Still I have to struggle with the proven "Fact" that The Deccan Traps in India consist of over 2,000,000 cubic kilometers of basaltic lava flows, in some areas reaching a thickness of over 2,400 meters. I also struggle with the "Fact" that the old estimates said that the Deccan Traps erupted over a 5 million year time period yet recent paleo-magnetic work on the Deccan Traps suggests that they were erupted over the space of only 500,000 years. With that great amount of error can we get to years or months? The last thing I struggle with is the Traps themselves. In our wonderful world of uniformitarianism in geology what on earth was that all about? Think about it. Live there when it happened! Now tell me that there is no question about what happened there. There are many questions and you Ben are asking. . . as we all should.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment