Hydroplate Theory

Good luck with that.

You have provided no evidence for a same nature in the past and you cannot do so.

If you or 'other geologists' really think that it had to be the flood that was when the continents flew apart, fine.

You are welcome to your belief that all animal migrating across the earth was due to rafting or some ancient land bridges. You are welcome to think that the ark had millions of species of animals, rather than just the created kinds. You are welcome to think that all those animals and people getting off the ark had lots of fresh grown herbs to eat. You are welcome to claim for no apparent reason that almost all the flood water was from below rather than above. You are welcome to believe that almost all the fossil record and geologic column resulted from one year of the flood. You are welcome to think that the flood somehow caused man to live 1/10 of the years that he used to live. Etc etc.

Remember that it does not fit the bible or scientific evidences though.

 

Actually you are wrong, many flood geology folks do think the record was a result of the flood. Here is an example

"
Fossil Succession and "Liquefaction"
Although not clearly explained by Brown, fossils in each geologic period show a characteristic assemblage of organisms, which differ from those in preceding and succeeding periods, and conform to expected evolutionary patterns--a widely recognized phenomenon known as "fossil succession." For example, the previously discussed White Cliffs of Dover contain fossils typical of the Cretaceous period (certain corals, gastropods, ammonites, etc.), which differ from the fossils in periods above and below, and which change even within the period. Likewise, vascular plants first appear in the late Paleozoic, but many others do not arise until the early Mesozoic, and flowering plants not until the early Cretaceous. Many other examples could be cited.
Brown claims that "liquefaction" during the Flood explains "fossil layering". However, it is not even clear how liquefaction could be very applicable to his model, let alone explain fossil succession. In geologic usage, liquefaction normally refers to damp, sandy rock or soil becoming fluid-like during earthquakes. In contrast, a large portion of fossils occur in shales, limestone, dolomite, ash beds, clay, and other sediment types which were clearly not produced by liquefaction. Also, since Brown claims that most sediments were eroded at hydroplate edges, the sediments would already be under water and unconsolidated, and thus not involve liquefaction."
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water


Or..Henry Morris..

" Most fossils can be attributed to the worldwide catastrophe of Noah’s Flood, in which countless creatures were killed and then rapidly buried, or to its residual effects..."

Fossil Record | The Institute for Creation Research

AS for man living not a thousand years anymore, but more like a century, (70 years or whatever) that is exactly what happened, a sudden decrease. So do you really want to deny many creation science folks attribute this to the flood also?

As for species on the ark, you have only 2 choices, that they adapted/evolved after the flood into the millions of species we now have....or that they all were on the ark. (8.7 million according to this science article)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm

I think it is safe to say that science will not agree that the millions of species on earth (and those now extinct)

99 Percent Of The Earth's Species Are Extinct—But ...


--All could have adapted/evolved from basic animal kinds on the ark in 4500 years!

 

Well you better comment on it. Walt and Morris and others did. So when you defend the hydroplate theory, and claims the ice age was from the flood, and etc one assumes you have some inkling of the basic issues involved.

So are you claiming the millions of species alive now and the millions extinct all either were on the ark of evolved from the animals that were in the last 4500 years? Be clear.

I think you did claim the flood caused the separation of continents somehow, and the way animals got around the world was by rafting, so we do get your general position here.

 

The way animals appear in the world (fossilized) and living had to have some relation to how continents moved. After all, a continent has animals on it. The issue is not whether you commented or even are aware of the various implications of attributing things like the ice age and the fast move of land to a flood. The issue is what the evidence and bible say.

It seems to be a weak position to try and attribute the kangaroos in Australia to rafting. The question arises, if they got there that way, why are they not also found elsewhere? Again, you have the problem of biology in this present world.

You only have several thousand years to work with. It makes more sense to me that such changes in creatures, and movements of continents happened in a different nature. Likewise, for the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, it also makes sense that a different nature will be here. Lions cannot evolve stomachs and systems to eat grass in a very short time. Nature is God's way of controlling life on earth. When things are very different that they are or could be now in this nature, all a different nature means is that God changes things.

The only real question then is will God change life on earth, and did He do so in the past or not?

I do not view nature and forces and laws as something God has to send trillions of pixies and angels to overcome. I view God as controlling nature.

 

Not sure what you are saying then, because the flood geology position as I have shown, is pretty clear.

 

So where did all the fossils from all the previous layers come from?

 

So the flood caused the Cambrian fossils, as well as the ice age eh?

Then we have every fossil in the world destroyed by the flood also? Tell me, If I took 60 fossils, and dunked them underwater for 1 year would I have any fossils at the end of that time?

 

Any fountain is in one place. Several fountains are in several places. It seems hard to imagine hundreds of millions of fountains destroying every fossil on earth.

As for the water from below, that used to water the earth, rather than rain. It didn't seem to upheave Eden very much. I can see a lot of pressure being released suddenly in some areas. Perhaps the craters like in Yucatan may be remnants of such founts. But to claim all fossils on the planet were destroyed by this is beyond reason.

 

How would a water column shooting up thousands of miles away from a fossil, say, that was nowhere near that area destroy any fossil?

Well, I assume that reproduction rates of animals and man was even better than today. So a thousand years and 6 centuries is a long time. You have the additional problem of requiring all layers to be flood caused.

Now you have a problem of a recent event, the ice age, having to be flood caused also, and the problem of needing the recent event to be simultaneous with layers like the Cambrian.

I do believe in a lot of upheaval. I do not think that was during the flood year, nor that it destroyed all fossils.

Yes, I get that. Now the issue is when. And why. And in what nature.

Another problem for you if agriculture was so degraded right after the flood. We all needed fast growing abundant food still.

Yes, the great continent separated. Now as for your claim it was in the flood year, that is total speculation. It also leaves you with the migration problem. Animals rafting between continents is pretty weak.

 

No. Let's say the rift was where the mid ocean ridge is today. That would be in the middle of the huge continent, basically, and thousands of miles away from land out on the edges. So how does a shooting fountain thousands of miles away destroy fossils?

It was the windows of heaven that brought water from the other side of space (firmament) that brought water. Not rainfall.

Yes. Very likely.

? Water does not dissolve fossils does it?

Here is a timeline I go with.

montaintwentyone


I assume the ice age may have started after or during the flood.

There could be some truth to that, not sure. I tend to lean toward the assumption that other chemicals and stuff were also trapped under the earth. Now if we released with the water, some chemical that maybe was similar to liquid nitrogen, we could have a lot of freezing real fast in the area around the fountain of the deep where such stuff was near or with the water.

The continents did separate fast. Your problem is that you claim it was because of and in the flood year. There were mountains before the flood and the rapid separation. I have heard some say the Appalachians may be such a range. Again, you cannot claim the flood year did it for no reason.

Plants did return, yes. That was not Noah's job, just the animals. God took care of plants. He also planted the garden in Eden, so we know He does that.
The thing is, that in the former nature, trees grew in a few weeks. Plants grew fast. So all the animals and man would have had plenty to eat if trees and plants were there and growing fast. That means it had to be in the former nature. Otherwise, at today's rates, they would starve, waiting for things to grow. That is an indication the former nature still existed after the flood also.

No need for any of that if it was the former nature.

Once the animals left the ark, they needed to eat.

Bingo. If grass used to grow in a day, there would be plenty. If not, then he got what, maybe one crop in his planters?

Not sure how many fish were on the mountains of Ararat.

It is simpler and makes more sense to have the rapid separation of continents after the flood, not during.