| Expanding Earth |
- The first question we need to answer is whether land masses move. Both theories answer affirmatively.
Whether we talk of continents drifting or the expansion of the Earth we have to concede that the ground
under our feet is shaking.
The fact that the land masses move makes it an easy case to defend for the continental drift side. All that
the lawyers on their team have to show is that the continents move sideways. As evidence they present fault
lines and circumstantial evidence such as that the east coast of South America fits neatly into the west
coast of Africa. The fact that similar archaic bones and plants were found on both sides of the Atlantic
adds more weight to their case.
| Continental drift vs. Expanding Earth |
- Did the creatures of the past which are now extinct live on an expanding Earth or did the continents separate
and drift apart?
.
| To comment on any of the pages in this website go to: Rational Scientific Method |
| The History of Life on Earth |
| The theory of continental drift has a good chance of explaining why we find fossils of the same plants and animals on both sides of the Atlantic. |
- Of course, the Expanding Earth Theory also answers these questions. So far the two theories are tied. The
problem with the Expanding Earth is the question of whether the Earth expanded in the past and is still growing.
Assuming it did, by what mechanism?
Don't get me wrong. I like the Expanding Earth Theory a lot. It's definitely an interesting insight. I get turned
off when the theorist starts pulling at straws and tells the crowd that some hocus pocus Quantum Mechanical
mechanism is creating mass from empty space.
A more viable theory is that gases might be creating volume from inside the Earth's guts.
However, I have two problems with this last proposal:
- 1. The Earth's diameter would have had to at least double in order to produce the
amount of area taken over by the oceans. Did the Earth expand that much
since the days of the dinos?
2. The seas would have been covered completely by land before the breakup. In
other words, silicon over H2O! This is in direct violation of the theory that the
Earth is a black dwarf: a cinder of a star. The Black Dwarf Theory requires
that lighter elements such as gases are above heavier ones such as iron and
silicon. The proponent would have to explain how silicon ended up on top of
water.
The Continental Drift Theory is not without its problems. One that I am uncomfortable with is that there was
proportionally very little land above the waters and it all was concentrated on one side of the globe. Maybe
this is exactly what happened, but it still looks weird to me. Until I have a better theory I'll keep my options
open on the issue of how the land masses broke up and whether the Earth is expanding.
a
Continental Drift Is this how we started out? All the land on one side of the globe? Maybe! But it still looks weird to me. |
Inflating Gaia |