Radioactive dating is absolutely invalid. The decay rates used as the basis for this testing uses the same logic of extrapolation as you use to validate your continental movement for three billion years. It seems faulty extrapolation is the key to your continental drift theory.
And your arguments to say it is invalid are... what, exactly? That you do not like it?
Your argument is, in essence, that scientists are idiots that extrapolate anything they have in front of them and declare that the extrapolation is science. Your arrogance only demeans yourself, because it shows that you do not even read the articles that you criticize. I have news for you, Adolf: you are less intelligent than the people you are considering beneath you, and all those Doctors and Professors in Geology have actually understood the scientific method, something you still have not shown to have bothered to do.
Every research paper that you are criticizing refers to or describes a model of the Earth and its internal dynamics, makes predictions based on that model and compares the predictions with actual results. That comparison is the basis for the conclusions.
If you want to declare invalid a research paper you have to show that the data is invalid or that the conclusions are not supported by the data. Saying "it is absolutely invalid" is not part of the scientific method.
Which of the papers about the drilling of strata near the hotspots are you declaring invalid? Have you even read a single paper about the research on continental drift? Or have you just said "it smells like extrapolation" and never read a word?
Trig, you seem to be the fairest of the RE'rs in this forum. Thank you for your professionalism. I offer you the following:
An invalid argument is one that lacks evidence. I accept many theories that I do not personally favor because the evidence supports them.
My argument regarding the extrapolation of data exists only when the known data is less than 1/100,000,000,000,000 of the frame to which it is applied. I do not believe this is science. You think I am arrogant because of the fallacies in your logic? I have stated the fallacies yet you continue to accept them blindly as truth and use them to support your theory. I do know that calling me ?stupid? because I disagree with the conclusion of your data is not scientific.
I am very familiar with the regurgitation of articles and the same data being parsed in different ways. It has been the same for the last twenty five to thirty years. I know these theories and the data well.
I would like to address your points individually:
Hypothesis ?
Dinosaur fossils exist world-wide because the Earth was once a ?Pangea?
Observation ?
1) there are similar fossils located around the world.
2) South America and Africa seem to fit together.
3) Geological stratum in these ?matching? areas are similar.
4) the polarity of the stratum indicates a precise match.
5) We can measure the movement of the continents.
6) Isotope decay proves the continental drift theory.
Conclusion ? the Earth was once a ?Pangea?
Consider the following:
1) I agree with this.
2) I disagree that they ?fit together?. A close review of the perceived connection demonstrates that this ?fit? is not possible. The northern portion of the continent does not fit in a manner consistent with the remainder of the continent. When you ?zoom out? to a higher level the tessellation seems more acceptable but then you must account for the twisting and tilting that has to occur for the ?fit? to take place. It is not acceptable, in my mind, to play with the continents like a jigsaw puzzle.
3) I agree that geological stratum are consistent in some of these ?matched? areas of the world. How do you explain the consistency of geological stratum in places that do not ?match?? Also, how do you explain the lack of consistency in places where the stratum should ?match?? All areas that should ?match? must be consistent for your theory to be correct. This is not the case.
4) This observation is true in many instances but false in others. The same issues discussed in 3) apply here as well.
5) No, you extrapolated less than one hundred years of movement to a period in excess of three billion years.
6) The decay tables used as a basis for the aging process use similar extrapolation methods where one short time period of decay is applied to a substantially longer time period.
In actuality your only evidence is that the same dinosaur fossils are located around the world. This can be used to prove that their migration occurred in a different manner. I think this is fair.