The “Consensus” On Continental Drift

Posted by Chris Parker
Jul 16 2006

 

Do Continents Really Drift?

For geologists, Continental Drift (or “Plate Tectonics”) is as vital to their scientific outlook as the Big Bang is to astronomers, or Evolution to biologists. Indeed, Continental Drift is taught as an unassailable hypothesis—in essence, a “fact.” It is, therefore, a tempting target for anomalists.

Fortunately, there are some maverick geologists who are willing and able to draw up a list of arguments against the “fact” of Continental Drift. Australian P. James is one such brave soul. Here follows the abstract from one of his papers.

“Anomalies in the three basic concepts of mobile plate tectonics—sea-floor spreading, transform faults, subduction—are analysed. The process is then extended to subsidiary aspects; sediments on a moving basement, continental evidence, mechanisms and measurements. In summation, the criticisms present a formidable and damaging document against the total framework of mobilism, both in its general concepts and it its detailed interpretations.”

From James’ lengthy paper, we select just two anomalies that he has identified in the Atlantic where North America and Europe are supposedly drifting apart.

First, repeated direct measurements of the drifting seem to be a wash; that is, there is no drift to speak of. The expansion of the Atlantic basin seems to be only 5-13 mm/year (just 20% of the predicted rate), and this is partially offset by apparent contractions within the North American land mass!

Second, St. Peter & Paul Rocks, on the Equator just west of the Atlantic Ridge, are supposed to be riding west on the spreading sea floor. Being close to the ridge, they should be 15-30 million years old. (The closer islands are to the Ridge, the younger they should be, if they are truly riding on a sea-floor conveyor belt.) But radiometric dating of the rocks making up these islets insists that they are 100800 million years old.

(James, Peter; “A Synthesis of Major Objections to Mobile Plate Tectonics,” New Concepts in Global Tectonics, no. 2, p. 6, March 1997.)

From Science Frontiers #127, JAN-FEB 2000. © 1997 William R. Corliss

 

 

Dr. Thomas Gold on Continental Drift “Consensus”

“What does the refereeing procedure really look like? How does it really go on? If, for example, an application was made in the early 60’s or late 50’s suggesting that the person wanted to investigate the possibility that continents are moving around a little, it would have been ruled out absolutely instantly without questions.

That was crack- pot stuff, and had long been thought dead. Wegener, of course, was an absolute crack-pot, and everybody knew that and you wouldn’t have any chance.

Six years later you could not get a paper published that doubted continental drift. The herd had swung around – but it was still a firm and arrogant herd.”

From:  What’s Wrong with Science 2

 

 

Dr. Michael Crichton on Continental Drift and Consensus

“Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

From: Aliens Cause Global Warming

One Response

  1. Ron says:

    Good Work guys! If the feinds can’t beat us with fact and logic, they’ll spam us!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback URL for this entry