Aaronp18 wrote:
I'm not saying that Scientific Consensus is fact, what I'm saying is that based on what the current evidence is the Plate Tectonic Theory seems more plausible. And it seems for the time being the scientific community agrees.
Those who give waaay too much credence to Scientific Consensus tend to add sentences such as:
"And it seems for the time being the scientific community agrees."
Aaronp18 wrote:
Hell the "scientific consensus" at one point was that the earth was flat!
Right and your average Earthling at the time would've said something like:
"Based on the current evidence the Flat Earth Theory seems more plausible."
Aaronp18 wrote:
There are holes in each argument of course, as any theoretical observation.
"theoretical observation" is an oxymoron.
And we're not talking holes... we're talking near-ridiculous assumptions.
Yes, in both cases.
Aaronp18 wrote:
This theory (Expanding Earth) was presented 40 years ago to the scientific community and it was debunked then due to the amount of holes in the theory.
It was never debunked and it appears you are in need a brief history of Geophysics! If I may...
The theory of Continental Drift was first put forth in 1596 (Continental Drift is an integral part of each of our 2 little theories here). This was about the time folks were beginning to realize N/S America seemed to fit together with Europe/Africa...
Well the "scientific community" thoroughly rejected the idea of Continental Drift for the next three CENTURIES.
Then in 1912, Alfred Wegener got the ball rolling again, based on matching geological formations on each side of the Atlantic.
For his troubles, Wegener was ridiculed by the "scientific community" for the rest of his life!
Continental Drift was accepted 50 years later... due to overwhelming evidence... long after Wegener's death.
At the very moment the "scientific community" accepted Continental Drift they had 2, and ONLY TWO options:
1). Expanding Earth
2). Plate Tectonics
Can you see why a "scientific community" which fought tooth & nail against the very unsettling (yet OBVIOUS) idea of Continental Drift for the better part of four centuries would chose (2) above? Plate Tectonics is more comforting psychologically to the "scientific community" (HEY, it was earth-shatteringly
<--WOT tough enough on them to FINALLY accept Continental Drift, let alone the mind-blowing, yet just-as-possible Expanding Earth).
Even more importantly, PT seemed to fit better in the overall scheme of things than EE with the developing Big Bang theory.
EE was never "debunked" Aaron, truth is they had two choices: the turn-everything-on-it's-ear ridiculous EE theory... or the don't-hafta-COMPLETELY-re-write-the-science-books-yet-equally-ridiculous PT.
And hey, either one would no doubt be... irrefutable... for the next few centuries, so 'say chaps let's not move any further out of our comfort zone than needs-be eh wot ole beans'?
Aaronp18 wrote:
It's very plausible that subduction zones exist and the earth is expanding
Well it's either one or the other.
And judging by the notorious stuffy pride of your "scientific community" from Flat-Earth to Anti-Continental-Drift to finally-Continental-Drift it's extremely unlikely they'll switch to... the other... until a few centuries
after it has become painfully obvious.
I'm saying don't believe ANY theories. Study them all, but don't believe em.
Just the facts please.