Hydroplate Theory

[tedrick79]

Where in the Bible does it mention anything resembling a Hydroplate?

 

Genesis 7:11

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

 

 

This is where the hydroplate theory gathers most of its Genesis backing.

 

Places water under the continents and then spews it out when they break up. Sending water out all over the solar system. Burying the mammoths is cold freezing mud. Buckling the mantle at the mid atlantic ridge (and other places too) and causing the continents to slide to where they are now. Rather quickly too.

 

Since the major crack was in the atlantic the major continents slid to the opposite side of the globe. The Pacific trenches. As the continents slid that way the crust buckled inward on the mantle in the Pacific. Eventually the water that was under the continents gave out and they stopped - and the mountains were formed.

 

That is the bulk of the theory to my understanding.

 

It is more eloquent at the cite of the Doctor that founded it. (iirc he founded it)

 

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - HydroplateOverview.html

 

 

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood -

[tedrick79]

ID has no respect because it deserves none, there is no water under the continents and as long as you allow bronze age fairy tales to dictate your reality you will get the same invalid results...

 

So the perfectly balanced systems that support life here are accidental?

 

That seems more the fairy tale.

[Moontanman]

So much venom.

 

So much BS, again I ask you to read this entire thread before you decide you are gods gift to this forum....

[tedrick79]

So much BS, again I ask you to read this entire thread before you decide you are gods gift to this forum....

 

 

I have read the thread. Which is mainly comprised of a few people who have not actually read fully about the hydroplate theory.

 

"The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under the earth’s crust. Standard “textbook” explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined. Later chapters are devoted to topics highlighted below in blue.

 

•The Grand Canyon (pages 185–216)

•Mid-Oceanic Ridge

•Continental Shelves and Slopes

•Ocean Trenches and Ring of Fire (pages 144–167)

•Earthquakes

•Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor

•Submarine Canyons

•Coal and Oil

•Methane Hydrates

•Ice Age

•Frozen Mammoths (pages 232–262)

•Major Mountain Ranges

•Overthrusts

•Volcanoes and Lava

•Geothermal Heat

•Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 170–180)

•Limestone (pages 224–229)

•Metamorphic Rock

•Plateaus

•The Moho

•Salt Domes

•Jigsaw Fit of the Continents

•Changing Axis Tilt

•Comets (pages 266–297)

•Asteroids and Meteoroids (pages 300–318)

Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of 300 trillion hydrogen bombs.1 The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.

 

But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, considerable water was under the earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain to a great extent why the earth looks as it does. "

 

 

Taken from:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

[tedrick79]

First of all i have to ask did you bother to read this entire thread before you decided to show us we all are idiots? Erosion is not a linear thing. the east coast erodes as fast as the west coast so your idea that erosion is responsible for the apparent movement is invalid.

 

 

 

 

See what I wrote above

 

 

 

 

To be taken seriously you are going to have to show some proof of these figures and how they relate to movements of the continents.

 

 

 

 

Glaciers are the equivalent of iceburgs on land and they do indeed move faster than they melt. What is your point?

 

 

 

I know this might be difficult for you to understand but at the temperatures and pressures of the crust mantle interface the rocks act like a very thick liquid, not the solid rocks we know at the surface.

 

 

 

Uplift more than compensates for this. land is created by uplift as fast or in some cases faster than erosion.

 

 

 

This makes no sense to me, what are you trying to say?

 

 

 

The Earths oceans have existed in one form or another for close to 4 billion years, in that time the continents we see have COME AND GONE MANY TIMES! No one says the present continents of the earth are 4 billion years old. I suggest you do some honest to God research on the earth's geological processes.

 

 

 

The continent we have are 7th run continents and they'll be eroded away soon too?

 

This gets better and better.

 

Exacltly what mountain ranges are uplifting noticeably? Since we have been able to measure them for 40-50 years accurately (navsats).

 

Erosion is not linear - that is why I said average. Average of one yard per year coastally.

 

Only 1 inch per year movement

 

87000 yards out to the shelf

 

The current CONTINENTS HAVE ONLY BEEN ERODING FOR 87000 YEARS ON AVERAGE

 

 

where was the water before?

 

where were the continents before?

 

how can they be older than 87,000 years unless the worlds oceans were frozen solid?

 

 

simple questions

[Moontanman]

I have read the thread. Which is mainly comprised of a few people who have not actually read fully about the hydroplate theory.

 

"The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under the earth’s crust. Standard “textbook” explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined. Later chapters are devoted to topics highlighted below in blue.

 

•The Grand Canyon (pages 185–216)

•Mid-Oceanic Ridge

•Continental Shelves and Slopes

•Ocean Trenches and Ring of Fire (pages 144–167)

•Earthquakes

•Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor

•Submarine Canyons

•Coal and Oil

•Methane Hydrates

•Ice Age

•Frozen Mammoths (pages 232–262)

•Major Mountain Ranges

•Overthrusts

•Volcanoes and Lava

•Geothermal Heat

•Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 170–180)

•Limestone (pages 224–229)

•Metamorphic Rock

•Plateaus

•The Moho

•Salt Domes

•Jigsaw Fit of the Continents

•Changing Axis Tilt

•Comets (pages 266–297)

•Asteroids and Meteoroids (pages 300–318)

Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of 300 trillion hydrogen bombs.1 The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.

 

But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, considerable water was under the earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain to a great extent why the earth looks as it does. "

 

 

Taken from:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

 

All of these things are explained by real science theories and there is no need for bronze age fairy tales to give us an explanation.

[Moontanman]

The continent we have are 7th run continents and they'll be eroded away soon too?

 

This gets better and better.

 

Exacltly what mountain ranges are uplifting noticeably? Since we have been able to measure them for 40-50 years accurately (navsats).

 

Erosion is not linear - that is why I said average. Average of one yard per year coastally.

 

Only 1 inch per year movement

 

87000 yards out to the shelf

 

The current CONTINENTS HAVE ONLY BEEN ERODING FOR 87000 YEARS ON AVERAGE

 

 

where was the water before?

 

where were the continents before?

 

how can they be older than 87,000 years unless the worlds oceans were frozen solid?

 

 

simple questions

 

all easily answered by real science, no need for fairy tales....

[Moontanman]

So the perfectly balanced systems that support life here are accidental?

 

That seems more the fairy tale.

 

No not accidental, inevitable, religion is a fairy tale with as much reality as Santa Claus or the tooth fairy

[Moontanman]

Genesis 7:11

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

 

 

This is where the hydroplate theory gathers most of its Genesis backing.

 

Places water under the continents and then spews it out when they break up. Sending water out all over the solar system. Burying the mammoths is cold freezing mud. Buckling the mantle at the mid atlantic ridge (and other places too) and causing the continents to slide to where they are now. Rather quickly too.

 

Since the major crack was in the atlantic the major continents slid to the opposite side of the globe. The Pacific trenches. As the continents slid that way the crust buckled inward on the mantle in the Pacific. Eventually the water that was under the continents gave out and they stopped - and the mountains were formed.

 

That is the bulk of the theory to my understanding.

 

It is more eloquent at the cite of the Doctor that founded it. (iirc he founded it)

 

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - HydroplateOverview.html

 

 

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - ***

 

Religious texts like the bible are not proof of or evidence of anything. They have no basis in reality and have no evidence to back them up. They are books of fiction written by bronze age people who wanted an excuse to control other people. Nothing more.

[stereologist]

I posted a picture to and if you all look at it - the continents are headed towards the Pacific.

And?

Why is coastal erosion overlooked?

 

Why is all erosion overlooked?

And?

 

It is shrinking and not moving very much at all in comparision with how fast it is being eroded.

I guess you have no idea how we measure distances on the earth. It is not beach to beach. That makes no sense. Take a course in oceanography to learn about the

changes in sedimentary deposits along coastlines. It's quite interesting. Distances can be measured quite accurately with laser range finders if the distance is short. Take Iceland. The spread can be measured as the island becomes wider. Other distances can be measured quite accurately with interferometry studies looking at distant stars.

 

These two things - just these two - are facts. Rate of movement of North America to the west. Rate of coastal erosion on north america.

Of course these are facts,but they have nothing to do with the measurements being discussed.

 

Pushed or pulled makes no matter.

Actually it does.

 

You are dragging rock across rock.

I think you are being misled on purpose by whomever who is confusing plate tectonics with continental drift. The latter theory was abandoned 80 or so years ago because it did not match up with the evidence of the day. Plate tectonics does not involve dragging rock across rock. If someone tells you that is what happens in plate tectonics then tell them they are very, very wrong.

 

To focus some - can we just stick to the rate of movement versus the rate of erosion on the continents.

These are not related issues. Whomever is telling you that they are related is purposely deceiving you.

 

To wit - 1 million yards is 914 kilometers. 568 Miles worth of coast erosion every million years.

Great. I am not being demeaning when I say you can do math, because this gives us a good starting point. I run into too many folks that can't even do arithmetic.

I believe it is possible to resolve this issue.

 

The problem falls back to the issue of rates. You have chosen a rate which I did not want to discuss since the rate was not related in any way to rates of continental movement.

 

The planetary average width of the continental shelf is 80 kilometers which is 87,489 yards. So with that right there the average wear on the average shelf is 87,489 years old.

Quite wrong. The size of the continental shelf is not a measure of rates of erosion, but of the actual size of the continents, parts of which are under water.

 

More importantly, erosion distance does not tell about the volume of transported material.

 

Finally, the measure you use does not apply to all places, only some places. Hawaii is getting bigger. Iceland is getting bigger. I suppose that isostatic rebound must be making Greenland rise out of the ocean. Some loss of land area is due to lack of the influx of sediments when rivers are dammed.

 

Here is a simple challenge. Name any place along the Pacific coastline of the US that has lost over 50 feet in the last 100 years.

[stereologist]

Space vaporizes water. Therefore water does not occur in space.

Wow. Quite wrong.

 

This theory is just as good as the - it magically occurred in space theory.

Actually wrong. Try and figure out how much water is held by all of the comets and report back to me. Itis your claim that it originated on earth. You have shown you can do arithmetic.

 

Comets are recent.

This is conjecture on your part. Please post evidence of this.

 

Hydroplate is definitely by design. Water under the continents? How'd that get there?

Again conhjecture. Please post evidence.

 

So much venom.

The words of failure.

 

First, estimate the amount of water in the comets currently orbiting the sun.

Buffy has taken the challenge one step further which is the ejection of the water into space. You can do arithmetic. Do the volume and then the energy requirement to launch this into space.

[stereologist]

Your interpretation of the Biblical passage is sounding a bit like a Monty Python sketch.

 

It is more eloquent at the cite of the Doctor that founded it.

 

So you are saying that the deceptive person is the person making up a story that does not match the earth and in some implausible way matches some biblical passage?

 

"The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under the earth’s crust. Standard “textbook” explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined. Later chapters are devoted to topics highlighted below in blue.

 

This story has been hashed around for years by people trying to figure out why the bible does not match the world around them. It doesn't.

 

The current CONTINENTS HAVE ONLY BEEN ERODING FOR 87000 YEARS ON AVERAGE

This is wrong. You have the wrong units and a complete misunderstanding of the shelf. The shelf is bedrock, not clastics. There are sediments on the shelf.

 

where was the water before?

Before when? I'll pick a time. They were part of the early solar system.

 

A comment concerning the detection of complex molecules in space:

As such a cloud forms a dense core that begins to collapse, oxygen atoms stuck to the surfaces of dust grains combine with hydrogen to form water ice mantles. As the collapse proceeds and densities and temperatures rise, the ice sublimates, enriching the molecular gas. And more chemical reactions take place, including ones that lead to water.

 

Water is oxygen and hydrogen, 2 of the most common elements in the universe.

 

where were the continents before?

Before when? Continents have been in motion as long as there have been continents. Take an example. The motion of the continents has resulted in multiple collisions between Africa and Maine. During the mid 90s the contact zone between the continents was mapped across Maine showing that a part of Maine was originally a part of the African continent.

 

how can they be older than 87,000 years unless the worlds oceans were frozen solid?

This makes no sense. Continental rock 3.8 billion years old has been analyzed looking for the earliest indicators of life on earth.

[stereologist]

with as much reality as Santa Claus or the tooth fairy

Don't let my kids know

[stereologist]

I've been to several creationist lectures and when all else fails they seek to deceive the public.

 

Example 1:

The speaker claims that Darwin's work was not really of interest to the scientific community, but Aldous Huxley took up the book and made it popular to fnd a way to condone his "lewd and lascivious lifestyle of homosexuality." I am sure the speaker was highly intelligent and well read. So why did he purposely lie about which Huxley promoted Darwin. It was Thomas, not Aldous.

 

Example 2:

A young boy asks why the earth was not 'nuked' by microwave radiation. Shill in the crowd or not it was an interesting question. The speaker knew the issue at hand and tells the audience that Uniformitarianism (did I spell that right) as defined by Hutton tells us that the decreasing strength of the earth's magnetic field must have been stronger in the past and at the present rate of decrease as required by Uniformitarianism tells us that the world should have been destroyed by microwave radiation. Since the earth is still here it must be that Uniformitarianism and much of geology is wrong.

 

A clear misrepresentation of Uniformitarianism, and how science works. The speaker was smart. It is inconceivable that he made the statements without knowing he was a liar.

[Moontanman]

stereo, we know that in all they do and say are lies. the religionists have taken to lying like a rug to keep their followers from knowing the truth.

 

I'm betting the volume of comets is far greater than the volume of the Earths oceans not a tiny part of the earths oceans "squirted" into space by cracking continents.....

[REASON]

 

Genesis 7:11

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

 

This is where the hydroplate theory gathers most of its Genesis backing.

 

Well that sure clears everything up. Nothing like a vague reference from ancient scripture as evidence in support of an implausible "theory" here in the real world. :rolleyes:

 

I'll make a prediction. No matter how much evidence is presented to you that is contrary to your perception, you will stand firm in your beliefs. That is because you do not approach this discussion from a position of openess and objectivity. Your motivation is to protect the faith which is the foundation of your world view. The only information you will allow in is that which reinforces your faith, and you hold contempt for any that challenges it.

 

This is plain to see in the posts you have presented thus far.

[stereologist]

Science has to be falsifiable to be science. Religion is dogmatic. The outcome is known. Science does not work that way.

 

Moontanman and I want to see your calculations on the volume of comets.

 

Here is a calculation I did once: How much water does it take to cover all of the land? The answer is 14 Atlantic oceans of water. Where did the water come from and where did it go?

 

Your answer of course is that the world before the flood and after the flood are completely different. I've heard that in lectures from creationists. What is interesting is that the archaeological evidence shows civilizations living unbroken over the time period creationists assign to the flood. Just to be clear here that means that people live in a place and continued to live in that place well before, during, and after the flood. Again scientific evidence is against a global flood.

 

So let's here about the comet volume.