This is the third part of a point-counterpoint debate between Neal Adams and the author.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Neal Adams responds:<\/p>\n
Regarding Einstein:<\/p>\n Thank you, You’ve made my point perfectly. This is exactly what I’m doing, <\/span>point for point. Steve wrote: \u201c<\/em><\/span>Also, As are my painstakingly detailed maps.<\/p>\n I don’t have one, I have all the same things that are known by many people, like For example when you see an area of flat land, then it drops straight down to a low area then the land flattens out for some area ……Will you look ,….with me for a similar ridge and upper flat land? The other side of a rift and spread? Steve wrote: \u201cHowever, your argument is that the oceans would have shifted toward <\/p>\n You presume “facts” not in evidence. We are discussing the difference, not the total. Regarding the origins of moons:<\/p>\n This is the most unscientific complicated heap of gobble-de-gook science Fiction and Fantasy I have ever heard.<\/p>\n Moons is moons, Steven. The method of making moons is not a multiple choice question. All moons come from the same place, just like planets. If you believe the 150 year old theory, They all accreted from debris (from, as the museum of natural history says…Exploded Planets. As some say, exploded stars! Both silly, in my opinion). The Idea is, Steven, You can theorize all you want, but for one to take any theory seriously you have to provide proof. You know, EVIDENCE!<\/p>\n There is NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF of the “COLLISION THEORY”! Oh, you have a link. And I have a straw man.<\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201cYou simply dismiss without justification copious evidence and established “COPIOUS EVIDENCE? Established Geology DOES NOT even attempt to explain this ,…..excuse me……NON-uniforminity??…..NON-UNIFORMINITY?? THREE QUARTERS OF THE EARTH’S BLOODY CRUST IS MISSING,THREE MILES DEEP!<\/p>\n THINK OF IT ! Volcanos? Are you kidding ? Pimples! REMEMBER CROSSING THE OCEAN AND LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW FOR HOURS!??? OCEAN FOR THOUSANDS OF MILES. NO, NO , and NO again. An area of my expertise is a vision to see size and proportion. I assume, at times that others see it too. They mostly don’t. There is no explanation for the missing outer crust what-so-ever. Ask someone. The sky is blue.<\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201cOnce plate tectonics was underway (and I am not sure if it is well understood how it began)\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n It couldn’t BEGIN, Steven , GRANITIC ROCK …..CAN NOT subduct! That’s the rules! Steve wrote: \u201csome plates (continental plates) floated consistently above other plates (oceanic plates)\u2026 So when they collide oceanic plates always subduct under continental plates.\u201d<\/em> Regarding flying creatures:<\/p>\n UH…….STEVEN? UMMMMMM…Golly, you are taking this too personally. The albatross has the widest wingspan, cause it floats on the air currents better than any bird. But is not the biggest bird. It’s one of the biggest birds. NOT the biggest.<\/p>\n Pterosaurs …reptiles …You said that last time. Fine GOT IT. What’s your point? Regarding T-Rex running:<\/p>\n An elephant’s stride on the attack is about 8 feet and the Elephant attack’s WALKING at 18 to 22 miles per hour<\/p>\n A T-rex’s stride is 12 to 15 feet at a walk. At the If you assume the acceleration of a modern predator you get 70 to 80 MPH, which is scientific but almost unbelievable.<\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201cI gave you a link to a published study that calculated (not just eye-balling) from tendon attachments that dinosaurs were walking around in 1g (that\u2019<\/span>s today\u2019<\/span>s But Steven, it was 1\/4 the gravity. And No they didn’t CALCULATE, they estimated. I don’t eyeball, I estimated. What I don’t do is lie about it. Tendons and muscles don’t exist.<\/p>\n They are hard to estimate. There are many clues and comparisons, but nail it, no .<\/p>\n Stride? Better!<\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201cThe point of scientific methodology is to make careful observations and to use objective measures whenever possible. If we rely upon our own subjective judgments then there is a tendency to be overwhelmed with confirmation bias.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Unless “we” are an expert.<\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201cYou stated that \u2018all dinosaurs were long-legged.\u2019 You mean, like ankylosaurus, triceratops, and stegosaurus?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n <\/span>Yes I do . Surprisingly so. Check the bones!<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Regarding ice sheets:<\/p>\n Steven, you are forcing me to repeat myself . THERE WERE NO ICE SHEETS ANYWHERE ON EARTH DURING THE AGES OF THE DINOSAURS….CATEGORICALLY!!! Moreover for ALL this time Regarding fish fossils on mountains:<\/p>\n Naturally I can. Those fossils on mountains never were DEEP oceans and are not argued to be so. Do you understand this? They were only shallow seas!! NO DEEP OCEANS BECAME MOUNTAINS. That doesn’t bother you???<\/p>\n And there is……look ,…look at how you said “subduction turns over the sea floor over time.” You say it without thinking. There is not ,…in all the oceans of the world, ONE SQUARE YARD of ancient DEEP OCEAN BOTTOM left. THAT ….is IMPOSSIBLE. It’s a cosmic joke. Theres not a clue to ancient deep oceans, anywhere. Yet we must believe they were there. NO INDICATION anywhere…..hello, when does the brain turn on?<\/p>\n Duh, no …uh…tiny …piece….???? NO! Just how naive and stupid are we supposed to be? Regarding Pangaea:<\/p>\n <\/span>Of course it doesn’t, they are trying to deal with the obvious contradictions of the Pangea Theory. I am a precision artist with an excellent reputation for engineering, and I have managed as much as a dozen excellent artists and I know how these mongrel projects are done.<\/p>\n Listening to you I don’t believe you have much of a graphic sense. Still I will try to explain, AGAIN.<\/p>\n When Your “Map” Is as bogus as a 4 dollar bill, and this will show it for the two islands to provide their task the godwana bottom island must travel to the south pole. On your globe mark the space NO? SURPRISE SURPRISE.<\/p>\n Here, let’s keep it simple. Take a basketball. Now a piece of paper and tear the paper into an irregular circle covering about 1\/4 of the ball. Now just tear the paper in half and slide the two halves to the poles. When you do this you will see exactly what bullshit that map is. You can listen to your jaw hit the floor.<\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201cRegarding continents moving and the asthenosphere: Your dismissal of this PRETTY HARD TO think this line of reasoning isn’t kinda loopy Kiddo.!!!<\/p>\n FIRST…..Heat Rises! Ever hear that. It’s usually hidden away in arcane books of mystery science. Heat…….RISES……um ……..you can’t change this. It’s what we call a principle.<\/p>\n Heat….rises.<\/p>\n After it “rises” through the Earth the outer crust may cool further trapping the heat, but the hottest area on Earth…..IN Earth is at the top of the Asthenosphere!<\/p>\n We, being little dinky ants at the top of this cooled SLAG may think that, because when we dig down that it gets hotter ,…THAT this getting hotter thing CONTINUES,……….But it DOESEN’T cause……<\/p>\n ……say it with me …..HEAT RISES!<\/p>\n BELIEVE IN SCIENCE,……IT WILL NEVER FAIL YOU! Steve wrote: \u201cLava is a solid, but it can flow because it is soft. When it is very hot it is almost a liquid, <\/span>and it cools it gets more and more viscous, until it completely solidifies.\u201d<\/em> So the answer must be no. Think of the continents as a WART. ‘Ja ever see a wart. An old one, all cracked up. Each section is hard with cracks between and the “roots” of each section go down and the roots are solid but not as hard as the surface which is rocky.<\/p>\n You can spread the cracks and really irritate them and blood will flow between the chunks, but the chunks will act like a solid piece and not really move around. Earth – best analogy I can draw, but like all analogies do, it breaks down when the cracks spread and new ocean floor is made.<\/p>\n There’s EVIDENCE to use and a disciplined, precisioned way to do this work and only my maps …..in the world, do it. No others come even near. Compare them to each other, they are sad jokes. Arrogance?<\/p>\n No. Its just true. Look at them, the movements follow the tectonic lines under the sea, perfectly, in direction and age.<\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201chere is one Like that? Steve wrote: \u201c(http:\/\/ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov\/reports\/slrreport.html<\/a>>http:\/\/ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov\/reports\/slrreport.html)<\/a>, and these methods have not detected the phenomenal growth rate you claim and your theories demand. So direct observation, once again, disproves your theories.\u201d<\/p>\n THAT’S A LIE AND I CAN PROVE IT IN A SNAP.<\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201cProduction of matter: There is no avoiding the fact that we are getting into the difficult and strange area of quantum mechanics here. But what is clear is that no net mass, charge, momentum, or anything is coming from anywhere.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n OH, really,…….hmmmmm, then …….where, exactly did the matter universe come from? Hmmmm?<\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201cNumerous and ongoing experiments in this area are all consistent on the fact that the net result of such paired particle creation is nothing. They have opposite everything and they simply cancel each other out. They do not and cannot join to form a matter particle. To claim this is to discount all of modern physics. Again – with what justification?\u201d<\/em> If they proved it, it would be known, and EVERYONE would know it, then why would I be doing this? Are you okay, man?<\/p>\n When you do something new, by definition ,…..No one knows it yet. That’s why they call it NEW! Worse, EVERYTHING that is now known ,….automatically disagrees with it. THE SUN GOES AROUND THE EARTH. I CAN EASILY PROVE IT. CAN’T I?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201cAlso, look at it this way (and this is also clearly experimentally established). Energy can be converted to matter and matter to energy. The electron-positron creation is a result of energy (gamma rays colliding)\u201d<\/em> Steve wrote: \u201cand then when they come back together they \u201c<\/span>annihilate\u201d each other (that is the technical term)”<\/em><\/p>\n That is NOT a technical term. It is an idiotic term presented by people who did not come near completing their work. Is what it is. In every business there is what we call technically “dumb shit”. This is one of those.<\/span><\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201cand they produce large amounts of energy – the same amount that went into their creation\u201d <\/em> Steve wrote: \u201c(http:\/\/particleadventure.org\/particleadventure\/frameless\/eedd.html<\/a>). So BUT DOES NOT LOSE ITS CHARGE,………BECAUSE IT IS NOT ANNIHILATED……IT SIMPLY DISAPPEARS<\/p>\n FROM YOUR PERCEPTION<\/p>\n UNTIL STRUCK AGAIN!<\/span><\/p>\n Regarding the formation of heavier elements:<\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201cThe Earth cannot simply \u201c<\/span>copy\u201d the process of the sun.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n <\/span>Duh, yes it can. Steve write: \u201c<\/em><\/span>The interior of the sun has tremendous heat and pressure, which is necessary to force hydrogen nuclei to fuse together to form hydrogen.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n <\/span>The process doesn’t happen the way we think it does, but just as a tease we’ll ask and answer: <\/span>Why is the hydrogen atom the only atom that doesn’t have a neutron?<\/p>\n (Oh ,…. rrrrrr….that question .)<\/p>\n Because a hydrogen atom IS a Neutron. Why don’t you review what new shit you’ve learned and really explore with me. I gotta tell ya’, I’ve done my homework. This thing proves out. I’ve probably got details wrong but basic stuff ,…nailed.<\/p>\n Steve wrote: \u201cThose temperatures and pressures are not present in the Earth. And, this process generates tremendous energy (it is literally a hydrogen bomb exploding). So how come the Earth is not constantly exploding with hydrogen bombs like the sun?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Because it does it slowly,. now. Size of Jupiter, gets pretty exciting, size of the sun…..well…. Steve wrote: \u201cI await a more cogent\u2026\u201d<\/em> Neal Adams<\/p>\n Neal,<\/p>\n I\u2019m not sure what your point was with flying mechanical donkeys, but let\u2019s just agree that scientific claims requires logic, evidence, and careful methodology.<\/p>\n Regarding land spread: I don\u2019t think you can assume that land formations go \u201cun-thought-about.\u201d Generations of geologists have spent their careers thinking about land formations. Land spread has not been observed, and there is no geological evidence to support this claim. Movement of adjacent plates at fault lines, however, has been observed and measured.<\/p>\n Regarding Pangaea sinking \u2013 I am not presuming facts not in evidence for two reasons. The first is that geology and physics both support the standard model that the earth is denser as we go deeper. The second is a point of logic \u2013 you are saying the standard model is internally inconsistent, my counter is that it is not because the standard model includes an earth that is denser at the middle, which nullifies your calculations (your non-sequitur about the \u201ctotal not the different\u201d notwithstanding). It is not logical to argue that the model is internally inconsistent by introducing an external factor.<\/p>\n Regarding \u201cmoons is moons\u201d: There is no logical reason to demand that all moons have the same origin. If an asteroid is captured by the gravity of a planet, it becomes a moon of that planet. This is inferred primarily from the fact that some moons are very close to their parent planet in the plane of their orbit and the direction of their rotation, and therefore likely formed in place through accretion. Other moons, however, have eccentric orbits, out of the plane of their planet\u2019s rotation, and some even spin in the opposite direction or revolve around their planet in a direction opposite to the planet\u2019s rotation. The two proposals to explain this is that the moons were captured (and therefore there is no reason why their spin and orbit should match the planet\u2019s) or they experienced a collision that knocked them into an aberrant orbit.<\/p>\n Regarding the earth\u2019s moon, although far from proven, the leading hypothesis is that it formed from material ejected as a result of a massive collision of the early earth. You ask for evidence, then disparage my \u201clink.\u201d Perhaps you misunderstood \u2013 the link was to a webpage that summarized the evidence for the impact hypothesis. Here are two more:<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.lpl.arizona.edu\/outreach\/origin\/<\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/span>Steve wrote: \u201cIt sounds suspiciously like you are trying to shift the burden of proof <\/span>here. You are the one claiming to have overturned virtually all of modern science. It is not unreasonable to expect a tidbit of evidence.\u201d<\/em>
\n
\nAre you suggesting that I provide a new invention, or show you a discovery of some magic thing that no one else has ever made before, like a flying mechanical donkey?<\/p>\n
\n
\nAnd note that this is one of the most common geological forms on Earth. Usually these areas go un-thought-about, I Think about them. These same forms are the rifts that spread the ocean and spread the land.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nPangaea, following a shift in the center of gravity. It seems that a flaw in your calculations is that you neglect the fact that the earth is more dense toward the center,\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/p>\n
\ngeology that could explain the non-uniformity of the Earth\u2019s surface.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
\n
\nSteve wrote: \u201cThe early Earth had more volcanic activity, supervolcanoes that could produce enormous lava flows, <\/span>and build continents.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n
\nNot my rules. Sciences rules!<\/p>\n
\n
\nNo, never happened, ever. DIFFERENTIATION doesn’t work like that at all, EVER.
\nLOOK TO YOUR FIRST POINT – A SPHERE SMOOTHS OUT AND KEEPS HEIGHT ESPECIALLY IF ITS MOLTEN! You can’t change the rules at your whim.
\n
\nGEOLOGY NO LONGER SAYS THIS HAPPENS! WHAT THEY SAY HAPPENS IS “COMPRESSION” because continental plates are 70 miles thick. This would reinforce the discontinuity. There is no discontinuity creation event. It’s a fantasy. In fact it’s your theories that are flawed and indefensable!<\/p>\n
\n
\nWell, um …thank you for that little chat. It was common knowledge, but fine. NO FLYING CREATURE AT 4 TIMES BIGGER THAN A VULTURE OR EAGLE COULD FLY IN OUR AIR OR GRAVITY OF TODAY.. It’s not possible.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>gravity). If true, this nullifies your theory.\u201d<\/em>
\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nas only a \u2018theory\u2019 is reminiscent of other critics of accepted science with which we are very familiar. It\u2019s not just a guess, we know from multiple lines of evidence that the Earth gets hotter as you get deeper.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n
\nTHEN IT CRYSTALIZES, AND CAN’T TRANSMIT “P” WAVES NO MO!
\n<\/span>
\nSteve wrote: \u201c<\/em><\/span>So the real question is can the asthenosphere flow at all\ufffd<\/span> and the answer must be yes given the temperature at that depth.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
\nSteve wrote: \u201cYou also claim that the continents do not move. However, we can actually see and measure the movement of the tectonic plates. A quick search found many links to evidence of this,\u201d<\/em>
\n
\nThis is not evidence. You can “DRAW” a map to do anything you wish. They’re making it up based on speculation. There was a time I did maps showing this crap. They told me what they wanted it to look like and I did it. This isn’t science. It’s bullshit, and a yard wide.<\/p>\n
\n(<http:\/\/pubs.usgs.gov\/gip\/dynamic\/understanding.html<\/a>>http:\/\/pubs.usgs.gov\/gip\/dynamic\/understanding.html)<\/a>. Here is an excerpt: \u201cCurrent plate movement can be tracked directly by means of ground-based or space-based geodetic measurements\u201d While we are talking about direct observation, undersea cameras have also filmed subduction zones. It\u2019s hard to dismiss something you can see directly.\u201d<\/em>
\n
\n
\nSteve wrote: \u201cTidal forces: You dismiss the well established theory that tidal forces are slowing the Earth and moving the moon farther away with a simple, \u201cNo, I don\u2019t think so.\u201d Justification? – none. I refer you to any credible textbook or website on the issue.\u201d<\/em>
\n
\n
\n
\nKnow how fast the moon goes over the face of the Earth? 1,000 miles per hour. I think the water compresses. Got some textbooks wanna be rewritten!
\n
\nSteve wrote: \u201cSize of the Earth: You are cherry picking evidence (apparently – you have yet to give me a reference so I don\u2019<\/span>t know where you are picking your evidence from). You have to look at all the evidence. First, Carey\u2019s measurements were based upon one technique, not the most accurate technique, and the potential errors in the measurements he was relying upon (all scientific data has error bars) includes zero growth for the Earth.
\n(http:\/\/www.grisda.org\/origins\/15053.htm<\/a>>http:\/\/www.grisda.org\/origins\/15053.htm)<\/a>.
\nAlso, there are now several very accurate methods to measure the earth, getting down to millimeter accuracy\u201d<\/em>
\n
\nYou know what – That’s another piece of bullshit. I tried to get the evidence and after 2 years work I have had to hire a geologist-researcher to do this and he’s been working on the problem for 6 months now. It isn’t what you think. I challenge anyone to provide accurate evidence that VERIFIABLY SHOWS Earth remained the same size for even 10 years.
\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>
\nSteven, knock, knock. Isn’t that the whole point of this exercise?<\/p>\n
\n
\nNO ITS NOT, Its a result of a photon colliding with NOTHING that we can percieve.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>
\nThey do not lose charge! ONLY THE PHOTON’S ENERGY. It’s just gamma radiation not the “THING THAT MAKES IT MATTER, STEVEN!<\/p>\n
\nconservation of energy\/matter is being obeyed. All those physicists did not simply miss the fact, as you astoundingly claim, that the standard model of particle physics violates the conservation laws. The matter\/anti-matter is being converted back into energy.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\nYOU ARE NOT READY FOR THIS, YET, STEVEN.
\n
\nLet me ask you a question. You know some of, a lot of the stuff that I’ve thrown at you has worked out to be true. Rather than be pleased, you get upset. It’s not a contest. It’s either finding something new or something bogus. If it’s new…….. you are acting outrageously. If I’m just a kook, why get upset.<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n
\nAm you accusing me of not being Cogent? I’ll have you know I was voted “most Cogent”
\nthree years running, in the twin towns of North Overshoe and East Haystack.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n