Hydroplate Theory

VERY interesting!!! Gonna have to watch this one again & again & ----- !

 

Of course He did

Thanks CMG. Excellent.

HankD

 

I looked at the one that was posted by CMG... Excellent!... I'm going to check out the longer six part version later over 2hr and 40 min long... Which I am sure will be way, way, way more EXCELLENT... I'll return later and let you all know... Brother Glen

 

Just started the longer version, and am enthralled so far. Gotta listen "hard" though!

 

There are problems with the theory. I have heard some say that the heat generated by falling water would steam to death life on earth, and also that the friction of fast moving continents is a heat problem.

I started off years ago looking into creation issues reading that book. It does have a lot of valid and interesting points, such as that many comets originated from earth.

It was thinking about these things that led me to conclude that the nature in the past was probably different. So Walt made a good attempt to explain it all using physics. But I don't think anyone can explain all the differences using current laws. I also don't think Walt could win a debate with a seasoned scientific expert.

 

Well, apparently men of science disagree. For example..

"In his reviews of Brown's book at Amazon.com, physicist Gerard Jellison calculated that the mass of particles and water vapor expelled from earth in order to explain the comets, asteroids, and meteoroids in our solar system would be over 100 times greater than the earth's mass (Jellison, 2009a). He further calculated that if only 0.001% of the mass and energy of the eruptions wound up in the Earth's atmosphere, the atmosphere would have been raised by 3000 degrees F! Of course, Jellison was being very generous to Brown, since even leaving only 1% of the heat on earth would be thoroughly untenable. After all, Brown's theory holds that many cubic miles of super hot, sediment laden water gushed through miles more of solid rock, then entire oceans, then miles more atmosphere. Even if his proposed forces allowed that, could not occur without huge amounts of friction, turbulence, and steam release, and condensation on Earth--all involving massive amounts of energy and heat left on Earth. Indeed, according to Brown's own descriptions, diagrams, and videos, the eruptions or "jets" did not shoot up in tight vertical spouts or planes (even if they did, massive friction and steam release would occur), but spewed out violently both upward and outward as violent "fountains," with a lot of water and debris falling back to earth as "extreme rain." Meanwhile, also based on Brown's own descriptions, after the initial "rupture phase" the subsequent "undulating," "crashing", "sinking" and "sliding" of continent-sized hydroplates would have produced enormous amounts of heat and friction as continent sized plates sped across the entire planet within weeks, and entire mountains were pushed up in "hours." Still more heat, which Brown himself calls "massive" would have been produced from widespread volcanic activity and magma outpourings during these events. In view of all this, the energy and heat left on earth would be orders of magnitude more than 0.001%, which again, would be more than lethal to all life on earth."
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water


The problem is in using the physics and nature of today in trying to model any theory of the past. Everything becomes easy if we simply assume a different nature. No friction problems...no need for all the water almost to have come from under the earth rather than from above, no need for all comets in the solar system to have come from earth...etc etc.

 

No. There was a flood. The earth is young. The bible is God's word and Genesis is true as true could be. I am saying that although Walt made a valiant effort to find out why science was wrong, he failed. The reason I feel he failed is because there IS no explanation using physics of today and the nature of today.

 

Roughly 6000.

God. It seems like He opened the windows of heaven to bring water from the other side of the stars somehow. Perhaps a bit like what science calls a wormhole. Also the founts of the deep.

Yep, only life on the ark survived (except for sea life)

I've looked into the various explanations both of science and creationists. There are real evidences that need to be taken into account. Walt did that to some extent, for example, he dealt with a real separation of continents, that science knows happened. But he did not deal well with the plethora of implications a rapid move would have made using physics of today.

 

If we can stick a gap of millions of years between 2 verses, why pick Gen 1? That seems like a half baked attempt to explain Genesis by bending it to try and fit science to me.

 

The thing is that this was (in imaginary science years) some 10,000 years ago. It depends on where we thin the flood happened in the geologic column. My opinion is that it was somewhere around the KT layer. In their imaginary years that was some 70,000,000 years ago. So the recent ice age probably was not directly caused by the flood year. The ice age was long after the separation of continents. It makes sense that the animals off the ark who got around the world got there on the rapidly moved continent they were on, rather than swimming, hitching a ride on a canoe..etc etc. It has been a long time since I read the Hydroplate theory book, but I think it mentioned that the Mexico Chixibub crater may have been a remnant fountain of the deep? If so we should remember that that is also dated (in science imaginary years) to around the time of the KT.

It is true, though that God used the separated continents, and ice age and other geological features in directing man.