## 2 comments on “A comprehensive rebuttal to the Expanding Earth Theory: Part 1”

1. What it comes down to, is this … at the beginning, the earth was nothing. Then it accredited into the mass it is today … assuming that you adher to some scientific fact, that the Universe evolved into it’s current state. Then you must accept, that the earth also grew into it’s current state …

Anything else you say, is just a moot point … nonsense really. Because what you are trying to state, is one of two things.

A. The Universe has stopped evolving. And you and I, are evidence to the contrary of that.

B. All the cosmos, was born in it’s current state … which means you are a creationist, and therefore can be ignored.

This is basically what it boils down to … the rest are mere arguments of what mechanisms are at work in our time and space. In which case, you adher to the “subduction” of matter, of which there is no empirical proof. There is empirical proof of matter being erupted from the inner of the earth, there is NO empirical proof of it being subducted in equal time and space. This does not exclude subduction of some sort, it merely states that you are adhering to a non-empirical evidence, for the favor of your beliefs, rather than being open minded.

First, think of it this way. It doesn’t matter, which approach you prefer. That the earth originally accredited from meteorites from Big Bang or other event. Or that it spewed out from the sun, as a small ball of fire, and then grew into it’s current form and size. Whichever you prefer, the earth DID EXPAND, period. Saying anything else, is utter nonsense … now, this doesn’t suggest that the Expanding Earth theory is correct … but it does state, without a doubt, that plate tectonics is NOT correct.

It is therefore not a question of which theory you want to follow … be it “earth is still expanding”, or “earth has always been a constant size”. It is a question of your fundamental beliefs. Do you believe, that GOD created the heavens and the earth, and that it is all a constant size.

If that is it, ok … fine, but don’t come and try and argue Science, because you’re not talking anything logical. You are talking a belief system. Because you fail to prove, that the Universe has stopped evolving … which you must,if you are to show that the earth has remained constant for the last 4 billion years.

The only other alternative, is that the Earth grew to it’s current size, and the Universe is evolving or de-evolving, and that the earth and everything else, is still a part of this evolution.

The rest is just moot points ..

• I find it funny that you can say there is “no empirical proof of (the crust) being subducted” when I have given such proof in the article plus the citations. So if you want to ignore proper scientific findings, that’s your prerogative, but that empirical evidence exists, so you’ll have to reconcile that in your head somehow. When you say that there is proof of matter being erupted from the inner of the Earth, this is just false unless you’re counting the asthenosphere as the “inner” of the Earth, in which case I would really love for you to explain to me volcanoes that do not appear upon the plate boundaries as these should not exist in your expanding Earth model.

When you state:

“A. The Universe has stopped evolving. And you and I, are evidence to the contrary of that. “, this is just pure nonsense. The theory of plate tectonics does not imply that at all, and is in fact a proof of it. Things get born, get old, and then die. The planet is an example of that as the driving mechanism of plate movement (the thermal differential) will at one point cease, so the planet will die at some point. Materials get used many times over and we can see that there is material recycling through the scattering of elements by stars when they die. Plate tectonics has nothing to do with the universe evolving or not, it’s in fact merely a result of it.

Also:
“B. All the cosmos, was born in it’s current state … which means you are a creationist, and therefore can be ignored.” Again, this is just pure nonsense and drivel. The fact that you come to such conclusions leads to to understand how you can think the Earth is expanding. Until you can come up with a more based statement that says WHY this cosmos has to be created at one point for plate tectonics to occur, I’m not going to waste my time rebutting this.

“First, think of it this way. It doesn’t matter, which approach you prefer. That the earth originally accredited from meteorites from Big Bang or other event. Or that it spewed out from the sun, as a small ball of fire, and then grew into it’s current form and size.” This isn’t what happened in EITHER theory. We know that the Earth didn’t come from the sun because we know the chemical composition of both. That’s akin to saying ” I just cut this orange in half and one part of it turned to cheese.”.

Basically all I see here are the inane ramblings of a person that has done absolutely no research, doesn’t know even know the basics of either theory, and is unwilling or unable to grasp the concepts of either. If you had a basic understanding of either theory you would be able to come up with a more coherent comment than you have.

In part two I will go into the specifics of what happens when you have rigid plates with a certain arc angle (starting off on a smaller sphere) and how they HAVE to react when the diameter of that sphere becomes larger. This is something that, unless you would like to change the laws of physics, cannot be reconciled with the Expanding Earth Theory.