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

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.

Not a word about eclogite or ophiolite, I see.

Eclogites exist as minor nodules and lenses in migmatitic gneissic
terrains or trapped in kimberlitic plugs. That you cite them shows you
don't now what you're talking about.

Ophiolites are small slices of mantle caught up at the base of the
collapsing edifice of the crustal pile as it slides out over the
foreland (e..g. Asia over India). That you cite this one shows you
have no sense of scale in the issue, and a misplaced sense of geology.
The ocean floor (and previous ocean floors according to Plate
Tectonics) takes up two thirds of the Earth's surface. You are arguing
for total closure with peripheral obduction and citing these silly
piddling little slices as evidence, when they are part of overthrust
collapse belts, and from the 'wrong' side. You might as well cite some
pyroxene/ garnet assemblage in your favourite thin section. The
physical existence is meaningless in terms of 'closing oceans'. I
suspect you read about it somewhere. You certainly have never thought
about it, have you?

You're shooting yourself in the foot and missing the issue by a mile.
Try for the head.


Rats! I thought "selective refutation" might be my own invention, but a
quick search shows that it isn't.

I'm quite happy to accept that the Earth gained mass during its
formation, 4500 million years ago. There is no evidence that it has
gained mass in the last 200 million years, except for a negligible
amount from meteoroids (it is Lawrence Myers who is either fooling
himself or trying to fool others).

Lawrence seems also to suffer from a sense of scale. Why don't you
tell him so?