Comments on: Subduction Denialism, Part 1: The Backstory http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/ A blog about sedimentary geology. Fri, 25 May 2012 13:01:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Anonymous http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/#comment-7123 Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:26:56 +0000 http://clasticdetritus.wordpress.com/?p=1391#comment-7123 [...] Asi que si te interesa de verdad el tema, y no solo rebuznar, leete esto, y me cuentas. Subduction Denialism, Part 1: The Backstory Clastic Detritus Subduction Denialism, Part 2: Subduction zones, trenches, and accretionary complexes Clastic [...]

]]> By: Just for kicks pt. 2, or the Expanding Earth Hypothesis « Glacial Till http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/#comment-7062 Sun, 19 Sep 2010 03:05:07 +0000 http://clasticdetritus.wordpress.com/?p=1391#comment-7062 [...] http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/ [...]

]]> By: Radman http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/#comment-6538 Mon, 03 May 2010 07:01:01 +0000 http://clasticdetritus.wordpress.com/?p=1391#comment-6538 Brian – some of these people you argued with probably also believe the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it… :)

I did my thesis over the Nazca and Cocos plate boundaries along the Middle America Trench. You can SEE the downgoing plate on seismic profiles. I now work in Jakarta and the quake that hit here a year ago is a reminder that convergent plate boundaries are indeed a reality: big time.

]]> By: The Fatal Law of Gravity (repost) « In Terra Veritas http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/#comment-6362 Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:55:48 +0000 http://clasticdetritus.wordpress.com/?p=1391#comment-6362 [...] I don’t think I will re-cover the same grounds they have. Especially since they have done a far better job than I think I would be capable of. Instead I am going to cover the problems that [...]

]]> By: BrianR http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/#comment-6011 Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:07:51 +0000 http://clasticdetritus.wordpress.com/?p=1391#comment-6011 Elcectamaniac … there are millions of blogs out there … hopefully you’ll find one to satisfy your desired scope. If not, do the work and write your own.

]]> By: Eclectamaniac http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/#comment-6010 Tue, 06 Oct 2009 04:57:14 +0000 http://clasticdetritus.wordpress.com/?p=1391#comment-6010 I was so disappointed to read this blog. At first it started out promising, but then it disolved… as nearly everything interesting was deemed “beyond the scope of this post”.

]]> By: OilIsMastery http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/#comment-4582 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:02:21 +0000 http://clasticdetritus.wordpress.com/?p=1391#comment-4582 Hi Neal,

Excellent work.

If you have a chance, please take a look at my blog and tell what you think: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/

Take care,

Regards,

]]> By: BrianR http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/#comment-4573 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:33:11 +0000 http://clasticdetritus.wordpress.com/?p=1391#comment-4573 OIM says: “It’s subduction that I deny, not convergence.”

Okay … you did state convergence was a myth, now it’s not … thanks for the update.

]]> By: BrianR http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/#comment-4568 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:57:16 +0000 http://clasticdetritus.wordpress.com/?p=1391#comment-4568 Anaconda says: “If I didn’t conclude the evidence was stronger for Expanding Earth theory would I even be, here, making comments?”

I see … actually, this could make things a bit clearer for everybody. Since you have already concluded that subduction doesn’t occur (from the evidence laid out by OIM in this post), my readers look forward to how a non-subduction model of the Earth explains the data I present in these posts.

Conventional plate tectonic theory, or whatever you wish to call it, does not spend time actively debunking the expanding Earth hypothesis. It doesn’t even need to bring it up. Your model of how plate tectonics works on the Earth need not even mention subduction if it doesn’t occur.

Any model of the Earth should be able to generally and consistently account data/observations such as margin physiography, earthquake distribution/depth (Fig. 10 in Part 2), seismic-reflection/-tomographic images (Figs. 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16), distribution of volcanism, and so on and so forth.

]]> By: Anaconda http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/#comment-4567 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:57:58 +0000 http://clasticdetritus.wordpress.com/?p=1391#comment-4567 BrianR:

I wasn’t going to comment on this thread again because I addressed the minimum points I wanted to cover as a response to your “backgrounder”, and I tried to honor your request to stay focussed on your material. I didn’t want to get distracted in a tit for tat, which seems to happen when we debate an issue.

But your 3:53 PM comment can’t go without a response.

BrianR states:

“Anaconda says: “But after studying the evidence, I reluctantly concluded the evidence was stronger for Expanding Earth theory.”

So, you’re already done … you’ve made up your mind!”

Please, Brian: If I didn’t conclude the evidence was stronger for Expanding Earth theory would I even be, here, making comments?

To make the above comment before I address the merits of the material you presented seems like a pre-emptive strike designed to invalidate whatever I might say, and prejudice your readers before they even read my comments.

BrianR, that’s poor form in a scientific forum.

Let me make my comments and then you can respond anyway you like.

]]>