I expect better of you Cid.
From the antipodal theory website (which is in itself a sound hypothesis, like Hella's basin and Olympus Mons in Mars):
"A new geology theory featuring impact-powered rapid continental drift as an alternative to plate tectonics.
The key to creation geology."
"Expanding Earth - Offers only generalizations
Hollow Earth - Offers only generalizations
Hydroplate - Offers only generalizations
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Offers only generalizations. Requires contrived initial conditions. Ignores trench rollback.
Plate Tectonics - Globally random; each location has its own little story. Driving forces are hidden.
Shock Dynamics - Virtually all features developed from the same event; features such as the Andes, Europe, the Philippines, the East African Rift Zone, the Mariana Trench, the Lord Howe Rise, the Appalachians, the New Hebrides, the Himalayas, the Bering Sea, etc. etc. Simple experiments show how turbulence in the shocked crust formed ocean floor features (click on blue above)."
This guy thinks that plate tectonics doesn't provide enough energy to cause the plates to rise, compress, bend, etc., but instead a few meteorites can cause all of it because of ripple effects on the crust from the impacts. Ridiculous enough when you calculate the total energy of an asteroid/comet before impact and disregard all the geological evidence, but when you understand that we have a hypothesis formed in a reversed manner, trying to fit the evidence around the conclusion, it becomes clear that this guy is another whacked out quack.
Please, if you are going to post evidence to back your argument, do some basic reading on the source and save yourself the embarrassment and our wasted time.



