When he has a model showing I am wrong, let me know. As I pointed out, experts are not always right. the Special publication 2 of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is a rare book. It was the results of a conference on Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift where all the geologists in this prestigious body–all the experts on geology in the US at the time, absolutely skewered Wegener’s theory. Below is an partial account–the full account it too long The point is, that in their professional opinions, Wegener was on par with cow patties.
“Despite their general rejection of the theory of continental drift, scientists somehow could not quite lay it to rest. In November of 1928, Wegener was invited to New York to attend an international symposium sponsored by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. He eagerly accepted the chance to explain his views, only to find that the few supporterd raised at the meeting were quickly drowned out by a chorus of hostile dissenters, who criticized not only his hypothesis but his scientific credentials as well. One after another, delegates to the symposium stood up to express, with crushing sarcasm, grave doubts about the possibility of continental drift. Some barely troubled to justify their rejection of the hypothesis; others demonstrated errors of detail and used them to discredit the whole theory; a few seemed unable to restrain their anger that the idea was being seriously considered at all." *
"Professor Rollin T. Chamberlin of the University of Chicago attacked Wegener’s geological evidence on 18 separate counts, claiming it ranged from unlikely to ludicrous. "Wegener’s hypothesis in general,’ he said, 'is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty with our globe and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward , ugly facts than most of its rival theories.”
Russell Miller, Continents in Collision, (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1983),p.49-52
One guy was convinced that Wegener was ignoring the demonstrably proved shrinking earth theory–which was a theory back then. Group think and bias can cause one to ignore data and be on the wrong side of history… Again, My posts are full of actual data that people can look at. Where is your data ? You have basically said your son is He-who-can’t-be-doubted. Give me data showing I am wrong, like I am giving you data saying I am correct, and we can have a real scientific debate. . Until then it is nice to know your son has an opinion.
By the way, you have ignored the turbulence issue I raised last time we debated and in my penultimate reply to you. You have also ignored my response to you ‘headwater’ issue you felt was so important last time we debated. Do you never acknowledge points the other guy makes? I spent some time thinking about 2 of your criticism already --the headwaters and the arrangement of Eden down in the basin. At least I pay attention to what you say. Do you give me the same courtesy?
lol, in response to you last point. I was trained as a physicist. Of course that doesn’t mean I know all areas of physics, but I do study very hard the areas I post on–and again, I show the data I base my conclusions on–you don’t. Your son doesn’t. It doesn’t take a genius to understand the adiabatic lapse rate, and the fact that the spray alone from these 200 mph streams of water would quickly humidify the air at the bottom of this desert. I will stand pat on my view-- As I said, you are welcome to defend the idea that the adiabatic lapse rate didn’t apply in that basin. It is what you are defending you know.
Here is a picture of the adiabatic process Note that as the air, humidified by the ocean, travels upward, rain falls. What a concept…
