Quote:
Originally Posted by manimsoblack
Notice he doesn't mention where the water is coming from? Or maybe it's just obvious and i'm a bit dense. lol. |
Bah it's all hogwash. There is a lot of sites on google that debunk this theory.
As for the water. I found this;
Quote:
"Q. Relative to your videos, I have one question... As the land goes back together, the ocean seems to disappear. What happened to the water? Weren't the oceans displaced over the land?
A. In making the video I had to ignore the water level completely. And I did. Because if I focused on that. nothing about the upper tectonic plates would make any sense."
|
So in order for his theory to work, water couldn't have existed on Earth until it grew. But this goes against the scientific findings that prove water existed on earth for a billion years.
Another thing, with his shrunk Earth, Earth would not have had enough gravity to hold on to much less create the atmosphere that it did when it did. In order for his theory to be partial correct, the Earth would have had to reach the size it is now hundreds of millions of years before Pangaea existed as there was an atmosphere and animals living on Pangaea. This would had 1 billion - 1.5 billion years to the age of the Earth. Since we know with fairly scientific certainty the age of the Earth and the length of time it takes for the processes to take place, there isn't enough time in the time frame for this theory to do what he claims it does. Considering Neal's main goal of creating this theory was to debunk what we currently believe about tectonics and about Pangaea, this little detail collides with this theory.