J. Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:40:42 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

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 :-)


And I am sure Occam never intended to over look the obvious, the earth
EXIST! Either it is eternal, or it gained mass.

Right...which has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that earth has
doubled its radius in the past 200 million years. Earth has been its
present size for at least 4 billion years.



JT