said by dolphins :

Had to open with IE. Firefox won't open it for me.

Back to the theory; when you apply Occam's Razor, it has to be true.

Edit: Occam's Razor simplified: "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

said by haamster :

How is this the simplest solution? Where is all this volume that the earth is gaining come from? And the oceans? And if all land is expanding, why are there mountains?

Plus, in order to support this claim, the proponents say the earth is not only gaining volume, but mass. And not only is it gaining mass, but it is creating it out of nothing. From the inside (since it's causing the plates to spread out). At the rate of 3,108 cubic miles a year.

This seems like it should be way down on the simplest solution scale.

said by cbabbman :

to say that the water was 'inside' the earth and expelled by volcanoes means that you must put physics aside and believe that water is compressible.

the theory is bullshit

said by cbabbman :

to say that the water was 'inside' the earth and expelled by volcanoes means that you must put physics aside and believe that water is compressible.

the theory is bullshit

said by haamster :

Snapshot away.

It was edited for math since it seems quite difficult to find a concensus on the surface area and average diameter of the earth.

Looking at my post again, I could edit it for a particularly blatant grammatical error, but I'll leave it since it would distress you so.

said by haamster :

Plus, in order to support this claim, the proponents say the earth is not only gaining volume, but mass.

said by Sly :

Do they? Where did you read that people believe the Earth is gaining mass? Volume? Possibly. Mass? No.

said by haamster :

How is this the simplest solution? Where is all this volume that the earth is gaining come from? And the oceans? And if all land is expanding, why are there mountains?

Plus, in order to support this claim, the proponents say the earth is not only gaining volume, but mass. And not only is it gaining mass, but it is creating it out of nothing. From the inside (since it's causing the plates to spread out). At the rate of 3,108 cubic miles a year.

said by Sly :

I personally don't think that is happening on any significant scale (accounting for small amounts of space dust that get caught in the atmosphere).

said by Sly :

I'm not too sure about that. Volcanic eruptions are not "mass being created". Instead they are mass being re-distributed. The mass was already there but instead of being within the Earth, it is on the outside of it. The system does not gain any more matter... it only redistributes what it already has.

said by user=Sly :

People gain mass but they consume food which reduces mass. Again, it's just a redistribution. Plants grow due to photosynthesis but the energy they get from the sun is just that... energy. It is the mineral content and water they absorb which make up the structure of the plant. The energy from the sun does not make any more matter... it just redistributes it from the ground to the plant. Once the plant dies, the matter goes back to the ground and so the net mass of the system does not change.

said by dolphins :

If that's true, then what fills the void where the magma has been displaced?

said by dolphins :

Ok, we already discussed where the water came from so lets move on to where the mass is coming from. The earth does create mass from nothing through photosynthesis. Plants, animals, people accumulate mass, yet come from nothing. Magma secretions, meteors, space dust all create mass. As for the rate and volume at which these things happen, I have no idea.

said by haamster :

No. But neither does it just appear. Plants and animals get their mass from the earth, then their mass goes back to the earth when they die. Nothing changes.

said by haamster :

No. But neither does it just appear. Plants and animals get their mass from the earth, then their mass goes back to the earth when they die. Nothing changes.

said by Nightwing :

Isn't that called something like the conservation of matter law?

said by Locutus65 :

Firefox opens it fine for me

said by Nightwing :

That was really interesting and quite believable, but could I wish I could ask that guy where the trillions and trillions of gallons of water came from to fill in the oceans.

said by Nightwing :

That was really interesting and quite believable, but could I wish I could ask that guy where the trillions and trillions of gallons of water came from to fill in the oceans.

said by benm3218 :

Okay, so please don't turn thi sinto a belief bashing... because i want this thread to stay open.

said by Tzale :

"It has been disproved..."

"...there isn't a conspiracy to make one theory more accepted than another."

said by Smatchimo :

You said that in the same paragraph btw...

said by Tzale :

People spend their entire lives studying how all this works, and a few of you guys think you are qualified to say that the traditional views on this subject are BS... For one, I am not a scientist, I'm just stating my views... The difference between myself and others in this thread is that I am actually thinking about it, rather than sitting here and accepting what is fed to me via a slanted video.

-Tzale

said by Sly :

I agree with what you are saying... but "qualifications" are purely speculative. I don't think you meant it this way... but there is no way in hell I am going to let someone think for me, including doctorate level mind lemmings. Just like I don't believe every cool video I see on the internet, I don't believe every article that comes out of Scientific American or National Geographic either. Thinking for yourself is becoming a lost art. It's easier to assimilate and indoctrinate than it is to truly educate.