So, I was searching a quote that I really liked:
Science says the first word on everything, and the last word on nothing.
I found this website
in the search results that is trying to disprove plat tectonics.
Despite what's said about the objectivity of science the reality is quite otherwise. This is never more clearly illustrated than when a new idea comes along. For usually the difficult thing is not taking it on board (its logic is often compelling) but giving up the old beliefs that have become entrenched. What's more, the balance usually revolves around something extremely self-evident and simple. So self-evident and simple in fact that in retrospect once the change is made it is almost inconceivable how things could have been seen otherwise. For example in their day concepts such as Flat Earth, Geocentric System and an Earth encapsuled in an inverted bowl-like firmament of stars were the products of the keenest minds, the cutting edge of contemporary thought. Today these ideas are seen as childishly naive and ludicrous, not just by scientists cognitive of facts but also by an uninformed general public. There is a quality of proportion ('ratio'), ...rationality, which demands to be considered, and whose analysis is even within the grasp of a child, given the accepted mores and beliefs of the time.
And so it is with Plate Tectonics in which it is posited that the surface deformation of the planet is driven by what is tantamount to its internal indigestion - convection cells.
The unwarranted presumptions on which Plate Tectonics is based and the many conundrums and contradictions which derive from these render the whole concept of Plate Tectonics ever less tenable, particularly when nowhere in the consensus position is there taken into account the most marked structural configuration of the planet - its spin symmetry: the Earth's spin has no place in the grand design of Plate Tectonics.
Yup. The earth's spin disproves plat tectonics. A theory that it never occurred to me to look at critically. Is there many people that actually take aim against tectonics? What is it with Australian's these days?
Definition:- Plate Tectonics is a theory that purports to explain the geological features of the Earth's crust in the context of a number of segments ('plates') that move continuously through geological time, driven by, ..or driving (Plate Tectonics is not very clear on the point: see "Formation processes") cycling convection in the mantle, and which is based on the assumption that the Earth cannot increase in size.
This folder debunks Plate Tectonics on the basis that even within its own frame of reference it is unsupportable, and that it does not take into account the geological elements that reflect the Earth's rotation.
I haven't had time to read through it, and I assume it's mostly nonsense. So I don't think I'm interested, anyway.