In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 23:04:08 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:14:13 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively
avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and
disappear.

The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it.

I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not
read _that_.
BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about
3.5 km deep
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf

And to know that, you would first have to believe the radius has been
constant.

What's the problem here? That's a perfectly reasonable assumption.

"according to this article the ocean basins have always been about 3.5
km deep"

Fine, lets correct the statement

According to this article the ocean basins have always been (assumed
to be) about 3.5 km deep
Maybe, you think an assumption is knowledge I do not.

You can claim anything you want when the evidence for it does not
exist.

Yeah, like the Earth gaining mass from some unknown source.

No, if the Earth gained mass in the last 200my, it is a fact it has to
be from an unknown source.

Quite. "If". And if the Earth didn't gain mass you don't need a source.
Occam's Razor goes back a long way :-)


No evidence for it, but plenty against, yet you go on making that
faulty assumption.

You do not have plenty of evidence against mass from an unknown source
because you do not know where mass comes from. All sources are
unknown, yet we have mass. Check out Higgs Field

Irrelevant. Even more irrelevant than your argument about dark matter.
Because we aren't talking about mass but about matter - protons,
neutrons and electrons in well-defined arrangements. Disregarding the
problem of producing those arrangements, the relationship between matter
and energy is well understood, and you can't have that amount of energy
in the Earth.



There is no evidence for deep ocean crust previous to what exist
today.

You're claiming that since there is no evidence for it, it never
existed.

Just more of you perverted thinking. No evidence means no evidence
nothing more


But there is good evidence. I've already mentioned eclogite, and a
search for "Archaean ocean crust" gives DE Jacob and SF Foley,
“Evidence for Archean Ocean Crust with Low High Field Strength Element
Signature from Diamondiferous Eclogite Xenoliths,” Lithos 48 over and
over again, but I was interested to read that "little Archean ocean
crust survives, nearly all subducted"
www.kean.edu/~csmart/Lectures/chapter20p.ppt
That naively suggests that some has _not_ been subducted.
According to
http://www.schweizerbart.de/pubs/books/bo/pipertheig-003003000-desc.html
you can find Mesozoic ocean crust in Northern Greece!
Ophiolites have been dated as Cambrian and are usually thought to
represent ocean crust - presumably you have an alternative explanation.