JJUK

Wow. Arrogance coupled with ignorance - what a powerful combination. CraigD - look up Alfred Wegener, and how (as you put it) 'any sensible science came from' ....the ideas and research of people like him. For everybody else who reads this, CraigD is such a scientist, and is so knowledgeable that he openly criticises a new idea - The Impact And Exit Event - while ignoring/dismissing the amazing (yet equally critiscised at the time) contribution of one of the key 'earth changes believers'. Mr. Wegener - the originator of the Continental Drift theory which was, of course subsequently adopted and used as the foundation of Plate Tectonic science. CraigD's lack of knowledge is an example of EXACTLY why Mr. Wegener was ridiculed back in the early 1900's; Arrogance coupled with ignorance, and a lot of self righteousness thrown in. Ironically, without Wegener's proposals, CraigD would not have an argument!!!!! Oh, by the way, for those who would like to learn the truth, Wegener was eventually proven correct. CraigB ?????

In relation to plate tectonics there isn't really an issue, in my opinion. It is the ability to 'shelve' current belief so one can begin to honestly and objectively explore a new idea. Take the impact and exit event; the author constantly acknowledges that what he is proposing will be described by many as 'off the wall'. But, he also asks the reader for careful objectivity combined with a willingness to look at the issues he raises within the context of an impact and exit event. I did, and I can see the value in much of what has been suggested. Even to the extent of re-examining plate tectonics; the current scientific evidence and how this might just as easily be viewed as evidence supporting the impact and exit event. Imagine if the guy is correct and an impact and exit event did indeed occur. What would we expect to find? Plate tectonics! In other words plenty of movement of large sections of the earths crust over an indefinite period of time; collisions between sections of the crust and subsequent uplift etc, etc. That is why, in my view the impact and exit event has quite a lot going for it.

Hey Buffy - let us both go through your comments one by one... As someone who has researched geology worldwide for over 45 years I am STILL encouraged by the ability of individuals to question what ...becomes... accepted science. Challenging past findings is an absoloutely necessary process. It eventually leads to the truth (insofar as the technology of the day allows). I too purchased the book and frankly, I see things quite differently to you. I see some genuinely interesting points raised. I also see a lack of math or data - but that certainly does NOT negate the argument put forward by the author. "These canyons clearly show slow and progressive growth of the channels over well-documented time spans" Really? Slow? Progressive? There really is no absolute proof of slow, rapid formation of the channels. The channels could, in the absence of other solid scientific evidence have been created during a brief period, as suggested in the impact and exit event. "So, the theory is that the entire Andes mountain range consists of ejecta from this collision. You. Have. Got. To. Be. Joking." Buffy - to be taken seriously one needs to accept the ideas of others maturely, while avoiding temptation to become what could be perceived as 'condescending'. Your answer here diminishes your argument, and adds to what is simply a discussion of the impact and exit event. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the impact and exit event take a look at this link: http://www.theimpactandexitevent.com/takla_makan_screenshot.html . There is a link at the bottom of that page to information about the "Andes argument" Buffy has mentioned. "Any decent geological work on the Andes has ample evidence of uplift of sedimentary rock." The book/hypothesis actually accepts that there would be evidence of uplift, morphism AND sedimentary rock. Could I suggest that you try to read it with less 'blinkered' eyes :rolleyes: "Don't you want to ask the question why the book does not even address this?" I did - but further than this the author asks the readers to question his findings quite a lot throughout the book. Again, in an apparently 'blinkered' mindset you have chosen to ignore this. "Did you know that the Sierra Nevada mountain range which is west of the Rockies "flows" in the opposite direction, towards the west? They show similar "huge drainage channels"--some of which you've heard of like Yosemite" which go the opposite direction." Has it occurred to you that any corresponding disturbance to Earth's crust would occur during and after such an event? In fact, as the author suggests it is quite likely that unusual oceanic/sea/lake/river ...and for that matter land deformation WOULD occur. "Flowing in the opposite direction" would be extremely likely, and not such a big deal. "...I guess I have to point out that you claimed the similarity before I thought about it!" Maybe that was the case - but, being objective and open minded I do see a very strong similarity between the north/south Andes mountain range and the west coast of Africa. Do you not see the argument against plate tectonics here? I'll give you an example: Your argument relating to the whereabouts of oil and its relation to "subduction". Show me any evidence of subduction in the Gulf of Mexico. Show me where there is a voluminous concentration of oil extraction facilities anywhere around the entire ring of fire. In fact your argument suggests that all extracted oil deposits of any note SHOULD be located in these areas. They are not. "Unfortunately so many of these silly claims seem to come loaded with such a distaste for science, that they go out of their way to avoid any scientific grounding, data or other proof. " Yet, Buffy you seem intent on vilifying this particular hypothesis without spending some time (weeks, months?) actually studying the detail of the hypothesis. This, from a scientist's point of view is unsatisfactory. I have indeed spent the past 6 months exploring many of the ideas put forward. Some I disagree with, but most have left me in a confused state of mind. Since I first attended school I have simply not needed to question my edicators in this way. Now I am questioning myself :o :o "In reading through this book I have to say that I seriously got more scientific content from my last visit to the Tate Modern..." This comment adds nothing. :blink: "Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way," I am a Geologist and I believe I am qualified to call myself a Scientist. The opening passages in the impact and exit event make it cear that the author has spent at least five years researching his ideas - then writing the book. It is very sad to see a response such as "Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way," Buffy - have you ever focussed so much of your life into something that you believe in? Have you ever had the courage to lay bare your belief for others to discuss (and yes - criticise)? I am not suggesting for one minute that the impact and exit event is the next 'big thing' but at the very least the hypothesis deserves respect, if only to acknowledge that the author - like so many others in the past - has been prepared to share his ideas, regardless of the critics. I appluad that wholeheartedly.