CompuServe Messages

– Reply to message #139019 (already scrolled) Jim The concept of a flat earth was also widespread and supported. There are some problems with the current plate theory. What was the original cause of the first plate to ride up over its adjacent partner? Why are there only a trace of sedimentary deposits on the ocean basins? Only one third of the earth has primordial crust. How could this one third been so succesfull in eradicating the balance of all the other crust? It seams like the amount of energy necessary to force one part of cust up over anouther defies the balance of energy. It looks to me like the earth had its crust ripped away by a passing star. The crust did not make it away from the earth and became the moon. The crust folded in onitself leving the heavy metals that came away with it on the earth side creating the large mares and the lopsided mass that surprised the early orbits calculators. If we just return to the moon and drill a core sample we could prove this theory. And we could also teach pigs to fly if they had hands to hold onto hang gliders. Anyway the plate theory doesn't satisfy all the current problems but the "Birth of the Moon" theory proposed by Lewis Manson does. It also satisfies the petroleum problem, explains sands and gravels, petrified wood and alot of other enigmas. Keep an open mind current science does not have it all wrapped up.