On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> plate tectonics evidence where overwhelming much before they were >> accepted. >> there was explanation for the moving mechanisme decades before. >> >> >> > Maybe much before they were universally accepted. Support grew with the > evidence, as might be expected. Cold fusion has stagnated at essential > rejection for 24 years. > > Obviously the controversy isn't over. I meant it is comparable to the time when plate tectonics was considered fringe science. It took about 45 years from the time continental drift was first proposed in 1912 to its acceptance. However, the concept is really much older and was first proposed in 1596. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift According to Wikipedia it seems the concept of continental drift wasn't firmly rejected until the mid 19 th century due to certain findings and the influence of James Dana, a prominent geologist of the time. Harry Harry Harry
