Hydroplate Theory

[Moontanman]

So both ideals - evolution and creation - are awash with frauds?

 

Piltdown man was embraced as fact when it was made up. Some textbooks still teach it as a early man. Does this invalidate the whole of evolution? We now KNOW that Sir Arthur Kieth concocted the whole of Piltdown man to help fill in the missing link.

 

Piltdown Man

 

So we know of at least one very large fraud in evolutionism. But it was supported and embraced no matter how fake it appeared to be.

 

I am going to stick with Dr Ruse (previously quoted) that evolution is a secular religion. It has all of the same facets. Just because a religion is not calling itself one does not make it so.

 

In this case science did indeed see the fraud, revealed it and made sure everyone knew it. Science is self correcting, bad science is weeded out, new results falsify old results. Science moves on toward a true description of reality. Religion embraces fraud as long as that fraud furthers the religious dogma. Religion is not self correcting it embraces the lies, embraces anything that agrees with it's Dogma. If you cannot see the real difference I see no reason to discuss anything with you.

 

None of this is science by the way - this is all philosophy. One side argues what it cannot prove, verse and other side that argues what it cannot prove. When you have dueling philosopy - science flees.

 

You are totally wrong, evolution is indeed science as well as geology, and astronomy. all the sciences you dismiss so out of hand are driven by evidence. if at some point the evidence points in a different direction science will indeed change. All you have is DOGMA, a central idea that you must support no matter how far outside th bounds of evidence it gets. Hydroplate theory is not science is it disinformation shored up by lies and deceit to support a central DOGMA.

 

We must get back to some semblance of what the OP was about.

 

If you want to argue about data and claims - If we can get back to the Hyrdroplate.

 

All of your claims have been debunked, you do not have a leg to stand on.

 

Where is the material that was in the Grand Canyon? It is not in the delta. The colorado river delta only contains 1% of the 1800 cubic miles of sediment that filled the Grand Canyon.

 

How did it get way out into the Gulf of California without a Flood causing it? A slow carve would have caused a large delta.

 

All this question shows is that you have no clue about geology. Your ideas about geology are rooted in your ideas of a young Earth, you cannot wrap your mind around a Earth that is too old to support your idea of God. I see no reason to continue to provide you with knowledge that you reject out of hand while you embrace the DOGMA of creationism which has absolutely no evidence what so ever to back up it's ignorant rants against reality.

[Southtown]

Tedrick79: Please respect all contributors to this topic. I specifically started this thread to solicit scientific rebuttal.

 

Everyone else: If you feel as Turtle does ("I have no intention of giving a basic course in geology, which is the refutation",) then you might be more productive elsewhere.

 

Turtle: When you say "not even wrong," I assume you are asserting that Hydroplate puts forth no predictions. I wrote them all in long form on this forum so long ago that the post was "archived" away somewhere so here is another link with a detrimental url.

 

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Predictions of the Hydroplate Theory Have Been Confirmed?

[Moontanman]

Southtown, do you really think these predictions are realistic in any degree what so ever? Comets come from water squirted into space? Most of these so called predictions are the worst cases of strawman I have ever seen. Not only are the HP explanations wrong, the PT explanations are simply either not accurate or are long outdated. The dishonesty of creation science knows no bounds.....

[Turtle]

 

Everyone else: If you feel as Turtle does ("I have no intention of giving a basic course in geology, which is the refutation",) then you might be more productive elsewhere.

 

i have reported this post and suggested the thread be closed. hydroplate theory is bs and we all know it. you are trolling your fundamentalist religious crap and i'm calling you on it now & each & every time you try & foist it on Hypography as science. :)

[freeztar]

i have reported this post and suggested the thread be closed. hydroplate theory is bs and we all know it. you are trolling your fundamentalist religious crap and i'm calling you on it now & each & every time you try & foist it on Hypography as science. :)

 

It's in the Strange Claims forum for a reason. ;)

 

Of course, this forum still has to abide by site rules.

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[maikeru]

So both ideals - evolution and creation - are awash with frauds?

 

Piltdown man was embraced as fact when it was made up. Some textbooks still teach it as a early man. Does this invalidate the whole of evolution? We now KNOW that Sir Arthur Kieth concocted the whole of Piltdown man to help fill in the missing link.

 

Piltdown Man

 

What textbooks teach about Piltdown man as early man or use it as support for evolution? Since you brought it up, name names. Prove your point.

 

I have two textbooks on evolution of recent printing. Piltdown man is not mentioned in either of them as support for evolution or as an early man; its mention is a nod to its fact as a historical *fraud.*

[Moontanman]

I was born in 1955, I went through a poor rural school system full of outdated books but I never saw a text book that described Piltdown man as anything but a hoax. I would truly like to know of any place Piltdown man is being taught as real.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by tedrick79: I understand ice does not reflect 100% of light. It does reflect a great deal of it. There is no mechanism in place to reverse an Ice Age - not one known. In fact if you look at the Sea Charts from the Hanse dating back to the 1500s Global warming is not new and there is no reason to think we are causing it.

 

Tedrick, no mechanism top recover from and ice age? Ever hear of volcanoes? Volcanoes eject lots of CO2, during ice ages CO2 builds up, eventually CO2 raises the Earths temps and guess what, the ice melts. The reason CO2 builds up is that ice sheet interfere with CO2 being sequestered in carbonate rocks. Ice sheets isolate the oceans and the land from the atmosphere. At some point before the Cambrian period, about 1 billion years ago, the earth is thought to have almost completely been covered by ice, the oceans were frozen all the way to the equator. Rocks dropped by these glaciers near what was then the equator, give us evidence of this. Build up of CO2 from volcanoes reversed this global ice age. This how ever has nothing to do with your problem with erosion and plate tectonics.

 

Snowball Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

SNOWBALL EARTH

[Southtown]

i have reported this post and suggested the thread be closed. hydroplate theory is bs and we all know it. you are trolling your fundamentalist religious crap and i'm calling you on it now & each & every time you try & foist it on Hypography as science. :)

I foist it on the greater minds for rebuttal, but alas there seems to be no interest in fresh meat.

 

Can you point out insistence on my part? I've tried to represent the theory, devil's advocate one might say, and I've tried to respect everyones' input. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

"

Tedrick79: Please respect all contributors to this topic. I specifically started this thread to solicit scientific rebuttal.

" — Yours Truly

Believe it or not, I am trying to gain knowledge here (hypography.) Consider it a donation to those creationists who can't afford a higher education. (Or simply tell me to **** off back to the religious forums.)

[Moontanman]

Southtown, I think Turtles problem was as is mine for the most part with tedrick. He swept in here ignoring all that had come before not to mention ignoring what every one else said in favor of his agenda. I thought the previous debate had gone quite well but tedrick dredged back up everything we had already discussed and refused to come up with anything but bible quotes and misinformation to back up his claims.

[Southtown]

Southtown, I think Turtles problem was as is mine for the most part with tedrick. He swept in here ignoring all that had come before not to mention ignoring what every one else said in favor of his agenda. I thought the previous debate had gone quite well but tedrick dredged back up everything we had already discussed and refused to come up with anything but bible quotes and misinformation to back up his claims.

I agree. I hope you do not consider the quality of my responses to the posts in this thread as equal with hers.

[Buffy]

Just to clarify the reason this thread exists and the boundaries for discussion:

• "Hydroplate Theory" is a theory in form, insofar as it provides an "explanation" for geological data, and some of its supporters have positied certain predictions that it makes that they believe are supported.
  
• The purpose of the thread, as described by its original author/member Southtown, is to discuss the evidence both for and *against* this theory, and with some deviations, the thread provides a considerable amount of discussion directly related to its validity, or lack thereof.
  
• A good proportion of the issues raised by the theory have been discussed within the thread to date, the majority of which point out not only facts that refute the theory, but more importantly point out weaknesses in the theory's exposition due to their vague or over-complicated nature (thus being susceptible to arguments that it falls on the wrong side of Occam's Razor).
  

Because it is transparently obvious that the primary reason for the existence of the theory is to eliminate perceived conflicts between settled scientific geological theories and Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, there are off topic posts in this thread that on the one hand dismiss the theory without explanation--that is, from a scientfic perspective it is "not even wrong"--and on the other hand, claim persecution and victimization of belief.

 

This of course is a great way for both sides to avoid, in the first case, taking the opportunity to lay waste to an extremely weak scientific theory as an exercise in, and demonstration of the Scientific Method in action, and in the latter case, seeing and understanding the large number of flaws in the theory.

 

Yelling at each other and claiming stupidity or bias does not serve either side well, although for proponents, it may be the only way to avoid accusations of being "not even wrong." But on the other side, saying "not even wrong" allows those that are even just "not sure" the ability to say, "well, no one is willing to say why it's wrong, so maybe it isn't...."

 

As with many threads at Hypography, we make use of our high Google rank to provide a public service for being a place that supports Scientific Literacy by providing a resource that intelligently quashes "Strange Claims" and even "Silly Claims."

 

So, in the interests of decorum, if you want to participate in this thread, please do so by laying waste to the many and egregious weaknesses in this theory, and please do not feed the trolls by simply dismissing them, and thus provide the ammunition for justifying silly retorts of bias or closed-mindedness. And similarly if you wish to support the theory, please do so with data that is more concrete and broadly referenced than the few sites that do support the theory which--as has already been discussed above--are often misleading or are completely irreproducible (e.g. the discussions earlier about layers and "sorting" in the geological strata), and if you are challenged to support implications of the points you post, you are required by our rules to do so.

 

Think about it this way: when some poor school kid Googles "Hydroplate Theory" when some "friend" mentions it, would you rather she get 40 pages of sites that uncritically promote it or dismiss it without comment, or a high ranked site like Hypography being in the "I'm Feeling Lucky" spot that decimates it so completely that anyone promoting it is seen in the most unflattering scientific light?

 

Similarly, if you are supporting the theory, would you not want that kid to see an actual scientifically supported argument? Or do you think it's more effective to provide incoherent ramblings referencing every unsupported, religion-driven theory with claims that they're true simply because they're referenced in the bible and "should be obvious," and anything contradicting them is simply bias or inexplicable hatred?

 

Knowledge is power, but you have to be able to *get* the knowledge before you can get the power!

 

Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science, :rolleyes:

Buffy

[Moontanman]

I'm deviating from my planned sequence, but there have been new developments. I'm going to cover more of the rupture next instead of discussing the core. I will post more later, but for now I just wanted to time stamp a prediction. Note, this is my prediction not Brown's. If he has predicted the same thing, I'm not aware of it. If I'm right then I will pass the credit his way because his theory led me here, but if I'm wrong it's on me.

 

Mars is not volcanically active nor has it ever been. I think Olympus Mons is a captured asteroid which spiralled slowly inward like a moon. The asteroid could have hit first at the Valles Marineris at an extreme angle, carving the gigantic feature in minutes. There's an odd-shaped indentation mid-way through the valley, suggesting the asteroid bounced slightly off the surface.

 

Obviously, the asteroid would break up and the pieces would come back down in different places. And Olympus Mons I think would be by far the biggest fragment. The water that this and the other fragments contained melted/vaporized on impact and shortly afterward flowing out and leaving behind traces of flowing water, an oxidized landscape and a small atmosphere. Olympus Mons would then deflate after losing it's water, leaving the so-called calderas on top.

 

Food for thought.

 

 

Thanks for your time.

By the way this implies "earth-like" organisms and only "earth-like" organisms be discovered on mars, "earth-like" as in from earth, ranging from bacteria to dinosaur fossils.

 

 

Southtown, I took a few minutes to read this thread and I came across this little jewel from you. I must ask do you really think an asteroid would carve a valley, bounce and come down to form a mountain? Really? I mean REALLY? Do you really expect to find dinosaur fossils on Mars? Really? I mean REALLY? I was ready to take you seriously but I really can't get past this one at all. An asteroid impact would not carve valleys, bounce, or fall down in a pile and form a mountain. An impact of such magnitude would leave a crater of epic proportions, not a valley and bounce into a mountain. And yes some asteroids are thought to be rubble piles and even porous but they still would not roll, bounce, carve or fall down into a pile..... And yes it is very possible that Mars life might be indistinguishable from Earth life, one planet having possibly seeded the other through rocks knocked out into space by huge impacts but dinosaur fossils?

[Turtle]

Just to clarify the reason this thread exists and the boundaries for discussion:

...

Think about it this way: when some poor school kid Googles "Hydroplate Theory" when some "friend" mentions it, would you rather she get 40 pages of sites that uncritically promote it or dismiss it without comment, or a high ranked site like Hypography being in the "I'm Feeling Lucky" spot that decimates it so completely that anyone promoting it is seen in the most unflattering scientific light?Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science, :rolleyes:

Buffy

 

i would want the kid, or a person of any age to find the hydroplate thread closed with a comment as to why. keeping it going gives the impression there is something yet unsettled or something of scientific merit and there is no gain continuing to point out the errors over and over. it is not a science discussion. hydroplate theory is, and will remain, word salad, pseudoscience, bs, nonsense, bamboozle, or to sum those adjectives up, not even wrong. we can jolly well keep our google rating with worthwhile things, but if this kind of clap-trap draws readers than my kind of vehement condemnation of it must draw them too. i can keep this up as long as you all, believe that. :phones:

[Southtown]

Similarly, if you are supporting the theory, would you not want that kid to see an actual scientifically supported argument? Or do you think it's more effective to provide incoherent ramblings referencing every unsupported, religion-driven theory with claims that they're true simply because they're referenced in the bible and "should be obvious," and anything contradicting them is simply bias or inexplicable hatred?

The former, I swear.

 

Knowledge is power, but you have to be able to *get* the knowledge before you can get the power!

Quit, you're making me cry. :rolleyes: No seriously, I have never felt so unmisundastood.

[Southtown]

i would want the kid, or a person of any age to find the hydroplate thread closed with a comment as to why.

What comment would that be? :rolleyes:

[Buffy]

"Sorry, you're no longer allowed to ask questions about this topic, because the fact that it's silly is *obvious*, and to learn, no one need ask any questions."

 

If I'd written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people - including me - would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism, :rolleyes:

Buffy