* It's possible he's changed his mind by now, but, if so, I'd like to see a quote to that effect.March 2, 1997 issue of THOTH - A Catastrophics Newsletter -
CRATORS: IMPACT OR DISCHARGE............................Wal Thornhill
... I have absolutely nothing against impact cratering. I would expect that almost all non-circular craters, that are not comprised of near co-incident circular craters, are caused that way - and maybe even a few circular ones too. Something less than 1% of the craters on the Moon, I would guess. - Wal Thornhill
* Steve says:
* If you have a piece of paper and put a bunch of randomly placed geometric figures of various sizes on it and you then cut out a one or two inch swath from the middle and try to put the remaining pieces together to close the gap, it's highly unlikely that the figures remaining will then match. It's similar if you print a lot of text from an article on a page and cut out a swath. The remaining text is almost guaranteed to have a lot of incomplete words and sentences.If you get a piece of paper and tear a jagged strip out of it -- say about two inches wide -- the two edges of the torn sheet will fit back together as if they were once a smaller piece of paper.
* So, if you find two pieces of paper setting a few inches apart with text or figures on them, and you put them together and the figures or text match up perfectly, it's almost certain that the two pieces of paper were initially intact, but were then split and separated. If you find two pieces of paper a few inches apart and they don't match when placed together, it's likely that they were never adjoined. And you may be able to determine how big a swath was removed by analyzing the figures or text.
* I see no flaws in my reasoning here, so, please explain the flaws to me, if you see them.
* Now here are some links to images that strongly suggest that some of the continents were once adjoined.
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/27 ... 1_003i.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snide ... il_map.gif
Glaciation [or something resembling it]
http://blue.utb.edu/paullgj/physci1417/ ... ations.JPG
http://www.lee.edu/~cguldenzopf/Images/ ... almw32.jpg
Coal, fossils, glaciation
Rock types, fossils, mountains etc
* Since another one of our TB experts on Nov. 15, 2007, when asked about how well the rock and fossil types all the way up and down the opposite shores of the Atlantic match up, said "They match very well", I think it's reasonable to suppose that they do match, just as the above images also suggest, and, therefore, it's extremely likely that those continents were once adjoined.
* If the Atlantic basin was scooped out and the continents never moved, the rock and fossil types etc on opposite shores wouldn't match up well at all.
* Your gripe about some of us "unnecessarily" calling on other forces besides electrical forces to shape the Earth seems illogical, because I don't think any event on Earth can involve just one type of force.
* The rift and transverse faults in the mid-Atlantic ridge don't appear to me to have involved primarily electrical forces, because I haven't seen images of anything else that looks like that, that's known to have been formed electrically. The newgeology.us site, on the other hand, shows an illustration of an experiment involving paraffin, which apparently is able to produce such a rift with transverse "faults". See http://www.newgeology.us/Paraffin.jpg on this page: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation44.html.
* Thanks for your comments, but I hope you folks won't regard me as an enemy. You don't want me to be silent about things I don't understand in your theories, do you? And do you not want me to share what seems like breakthrough information?
* I first read Worlds in Collision, Earth in Upheaval and Ages in Chaos in 1969 and I subscribed to Pensee' and Kronos magazines after that and some of Aeon and Catastrophism and Ancient History later and then Thoth online and so on. So I've been reading and thinking about these things for a long time. And I've adjusted my ideas to fit the new findings that our experts kept uncovering. I'm not one to adhere to ideas that are unrealistic or have fatal flaws. Just explain the flaws to me, and I'll change my mind. But I won't change it without first hearing good explanations.