Southtown Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 If the world were actually created from nothing 6000 years ago, then the C-14 would begin building in our atmosphere at that point. An organism that dies in the first few years then would have barely a trace of C-14.Biased link removed. Please retort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southtown Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 I believe that the graphic you linked to is simplistic and ultimately false and misleading. I have a few points of contention.I linked to that image to illustrate the building up of C14 from day zero. There is much more to the Hydroplate Theory that you are probably not aware of, yet. First, forests are not the only contributors and moderators of the carbon cycle. The graphic explicitly mentions that "pre-flood forests" diluted the amount of C-14, presumably by removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing carbon in their biomass and preventing larger amounts of carbon from being altered to C-14 in the upper atmosphere.Hint: The graphic explicitly mentions that "[vast] pre-flood forests" diluted the buildup of C-14. Second, the forests (and animals), if covered by primordial waters would suffer retarded decomposition by cutting off the supply of oxygen for aerobic decomposition.The answer lies in the source of the flood water. Creation science is anything but science, and so I would recommend that you examine their "evidence" with extreme scrutiny and skepticism.What science should not be examined with extreme scrutiny and skepticism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maikeru Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 I linked to that image to illustrate the building up of C14 from day zero. There is much more to the Hydroplate Theory that you are probably not aware of, yet. Aware of now, and can see some significant problems with. Even if I was to pretend that I thought a mile of water had been stored down in the crust and provided lubrication and support for the rock above it, that doesn't make any sense no matter how many ways you try to square it with what we know right now in geology. First, plates generally move at a rate that's been measured at 2-3 cm per year. It's a severe stretch to believe that things so huge as the world's major landmasses (plates) would've moved several meters per hour initially after the eruption of water and then slowed down significantly. I would imagine also if so much water is on the surface now as oceans, plate movement should slow down more and more as there is little to no lubrication present under the plates (depending on these supposed "caverns"). However, the rate of continental drift continues, year after year, century after century, in line with computer models and plate tectonic theory. I don't hear the plates bumping, scraping, and creating a racket underneath my feet as they come to a precipitous halt...do you? Second, the rock of the earth's crust doesn't float in water. Got me? Basalt and granite don't float in water. The densities of basalt and granite are 2.5-3 g/cm^3. Water is about 1 g/cm^3. Water would've been displaced to the top of the crust. This tells me that the author doesn't know a thing about physics or chemistry, which I already mentioned before. Third, we'd need to assume that no meteorites, no volcanoes, no earthquakes, and nothing else disturbed the crust before the water broke free, because it was under high pressure. Basically, the crust was waterproof. That's a nice thought... Fourth, the earth gets extremely hot a few miles down. 2 miles down, it's boiling hot. 5 miles down, it's 270 C. At 10 miles down, the water would've been superheated and put under high pressure. This would've caused microfractures and gradually larger fractures in the basalt and granite above it. Then when the eruption of water happened, it would've turned to steam and would've rained down fiery and cooked everything on Earth. Noah and all the animals in the ark would be steam-fried. I'm sure God would've been considerate enough to steam-fry him instead of deep-frying him. One option is just about as horrible as another and just as untenable. Hint: The graphic explicitly mentions that "[vast] pre-flood forests" diluted the buildup of C-14. Already disputed and examined. The answer lies in the source of the flood water. It's much easier than that: the source doesn't exist. What science should not be examined with extreme scrutiny and skepticism? Ah, clever, but you're still avoiding my point: creation science is not science. It doesn't work by the scientific method, doesn't create falsifiable theories, doesn't create theories with predictive power, and doesn't encourage repeatable, verifiable experimentation to test whether theories are valid or not. It's hocus-pocus. It's pseudoscience. And it's garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southtown Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 Your points are invalid because you clearly do not understand the theory. The last three of your points are directly answered on the link I already provided. The answer to the first is the subject of the entire book. The theory's assumption is that the continental crust encircled the entire globe including half the earth's water. After the rupture, multiple continental plates and oceans were the result. So to answer your points:The plates contracted, buckled, and sank into the oceanic basalt as the lubricating water layer escaped to the surface. Volcanoes are the obvious result of the friction as the water was depleted. And today, earthquakes are the result of mass shift as inertia tries to bring the surface to a perfect sphere.If the continents never formed a continuous whole, then of course you are correct. The continents would sink, contract, and buckle as the ocean floor deformed to cradle them. And only about 10 percent of the continental crust would peak through the ocean. =PExactly, they are all post-rupture occurences. One big lubricated plate means no earthquakes. The loss of the lubricating layer created volcanoes by friction. And asteroids/comets are the debris that was launced into space.Read the rest of the link I gave. The answer to your point is that the subterranean water would have been an ionized supercritical fluid. The energy of the escaping water was first spent in the decompression and then as heat. By that time, the jetting particles were already above our thin atmosphere. The returning particles were then frozen by the near-absolute zero ambient temperature of space. http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/1987/pdf/5901x0025.pdfHint: The graphic explicitly mentions that "[vast] pre-flood forests" diluted the buildup of C-14.Already disputed and examined.Your response acknowledged neither the absence of half the world's water, nor the presence of globe-encompassing, continental vegetation. The answer lies in the source of the flood water.It's much easier than that: the source doesn't exist.That is not a very convincing argument. Sounds to me like you don't wish to partake in such a discussion. Ah, clever, but you're still avoiding my point: creation science is not science. It doesn't work by the scientific method, doesn't create falsifiable theories, doesn't create theories with predictive power, and doesn't encourage repeatable, verifiable experimentation to test whether theories are valid or not. It's hocus-pocus. It's pseudoscience. And it's garbage.I'm not defending creation science in general. Please do not stereotype the Hydroplate Theory with all of "creation science". The HT makes close to forty falsifiable predictions. I can't provide them with one link because they are peppered throughout Brown's online book, but I posted most of them on Hypography: http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/3513-how-old-earth-10.html?#post78872 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 Why is it when I Google Hydroplate Theory the only supporting links are religious creation science ones, while the links that oppose this theory are secular science links? Could it be because Walter Brown is a Creation Scientist and a Young Earth advocate as well? A Few Silly Flaws In Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southtown Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 Why is it when I Google Hydroplate Theory the only supporting links are religious creation science ones, while the links that oppose this theory are secular science links? Could it be because Walter Brown is a Creation Scientist and a Young Earth advocate as well? A Few Silly Flaws In Walter Brown's Hydroplate TheoryWhat is your opinion? Have you read the theory for yourself? I can answer Joyce, I mean Morton, but what's the point if nobody here knows what I'm talking about? I'll simply provide another link for the curious: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Triggered the Flood? To answer your question, absolutely everyone supporting this theory is by definition a young earth creationist. That the world was created 6000 years ago is directly implicated. And there is much evidence to debate, believe it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 I am not about to waste my time to debate "young earth", "the Flood", and "creation" science nonsense with you. Brown's book came out in 1995 almost a dozen years ago and nowhere can I find scientists in the field of plate tectonics who support it. Brown has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering (MIT) hardly in the geology field. Brown found Jesus and had to come up with a theory to support the above nonsense. Show me a geologist that supports Brown's "Hydroplate Theory". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 Ah, clever, but you're still avoiding my point: creation science is not science. It doesn't work by the scientific method, doesn't create falsifiable theories, doesn't create theories with predictive power, and doesn't encourage repeatable, verifiable experimentation to test whether theories are valid or not. It's hocus-pocus. It's pseudoscience. And it's garbage. Hey Maikeru, could you join the conversation here. Please read the beginning of the thread though, because it may confuse you just to read the last few posts.http://hypography.com/forums/user-feedback/9673-question-theology-forum-users.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 What is your opinion? Have you read the theory for yourself? I can answer Joyce, I mean Morton, but what's the point if nobody here knows what I'm talking about? I'll simply provide another link for the curious: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Triggered the Flood? To answer your question, absolutely everyone supporting this theory is by definition a young earth creationist. That the world was created 6000 years ago is directly implicated. And there is much evidence to debate, believe it or not. I think the point is Southy, that there are plenty on this site that don't feel that it is even worthwhile to discuss. They have made up their minds and will not be swayed nor will they bother themselves to look into the "evidence" that you put forth or say is out there. However, they will accuse you of such a thing as having made up your mind and being unchangeable despite the volumes of evidence against your beliefs (much of which you may or may not have considered.) These are the same tactics that people like Dawkins uses. I myself am not a young earth creationist, as I have stated before, but I think it important to understand their points and where their ideas may be wrong. Unfortuneately, I do not have as much time to devote to such things. Some of the points made here are valid though, and I don't like it when people say "Your point has been discussed in the book, why don't you read it?" The reason for this is, I'm not willing to go purchase a book (or take the time to find it) because my initial incline is not to waste money or time on something I don't find to be all the plausible. Thus you need to demonstrate the points and evidence here on this thread that replies to the point made. Take this one point from above for instance. What does the theory you are mentioning have to say about this one point? Second, the rock of the earth's crust doesn't float in water. Got me? Basalt and granite don't float in water. The densities of basalt and granite are 2.5-3 g/cm^3. Water is about 1 g/cm^3. Water would've been displaced to the top of the crust. This tells me that the author doesn't know a thing about physics or chemistry, which I already mentioned before. But my suggestion is that this is no longer about Dawkins. So perhaps it should be moved to another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 Dr Dawkins' belief that religion is insanity, with the God of the old testament the worse of the bunch, is due to taking humans out of context with history. One can not assume that humans of 3000-4000 years ago, were just like us, but wearing different clothes. They were probably more like chidren's minds in the bodies of adults. Picture a two year old throwing a temper tantrum. Now picture this same two year old weighing 200 lbs and weilding a sword. I don't know if a time-out is going to work. That threat might make him give you a permanent time out. One of the other things about religion that most forget, is that by including God in the picture, it offered a way to control the childish behavior of the child-adults, when nobody is looking. Most people will break the speed limit because their is no way to enforce the law. Picture in the government attached GPS chips into all the citizens and super computers could moniter movement and speed and compare this to spped limits and give out tickets. This would make you follow the law, even when the patrols are no where to be seen. God was sort of an intellectual GPS device, that kept the child-adults more accountable, when the long arm of human law was not around. If one looks at children becoming adolescents, the ability to control impulse and think through one's actions before acting goes a long way to becoming an adult. Maybe the GPS is not needed by rational adults, but at one time there were very few modern adults. Many of the old testament laws were quite silly by modern standards. But in the context of learning to control childish impulses in an adult body, it made one have to reflect in all that they did. Picuture a wild child learning to control their impulses and learning to act in proper ways around others. They would become a delight to their parents. This is what God had in mind, so they would be ready for part 2, via Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southtown Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 I am not about to waste my time to debate "young earth", "the Flood", and "creation" science nonsense with you. Brown's book came out in 1995 almost a dozen years ago and nowhere can I find scientists in the field of plate tectonics who support it. Brown has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering (MIT) hardly in the geology field. Brown found Jesus and had to come up with a theory to support the above nonsense. Show me a geologist that supports Brown's "Hydroplate Theory".Sorry to hear it, but I totally understand. Don't think I'm trying to shove anything down peoples' throats. I'm at the science forums because I want thoughtful feedback. I bring Brown up here because of the statements made in this thread by Dawkins et al. The hydroplate conflicts with plate tectonics so there won't be any proponents of both theories. And I will look for supporting peers in the field of geology. I was thinking of going to school for it, but the family's more important. I'll just make a thread for the hydroplate when I get some time. Take this one point from above for instance. What does the theory you are mentioning have to say about this one point?Second, the rock of the earth's crust doesn't float in water. Got me? Basalt and granite don't float in water. The densities of basalt and granite are 2.5-3 g/cm^3. Water is about 1 g/cm^3. Water would've been displaced to the top of the crust. This tells me that the author doesn't know a thing about physics or chemistry, which I already mentioned before.I responded to all four of M's points immediately following that particular post. I even explained the relevant details of Hydroplate that lead to my conclusions. http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/7050-do-you-know-dr-dawkins-6.html#post153683 If you want, I can PM you regarding Glenn Morton's retort that was posted by Joyce Arthur and linked to by Freddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 If the continents never formed a continuous whole, then of course you are correct. The continents would sink, contract, and buckle as the ocean floor deformed to cradle them. And only about 10 percent of the continental crust would peak through the ocean. This is largely incomplete, according to my understanding. Does the author say that the crust was formed over the waters and that it was perfectly sealed water tight? Was the author just suggesting that under the crust their was a cavern encircling the globe that was filled with a volume of water large enough to flood the entire earth? ... You gave a suggestive answer, but didn't follow through. Perhaps this is because it is a bit off topic from the original thread. But so is bringing it up in the first place as far as I can see. I'm seriously not trying to pick on you. I just think that when replying to a post like that you can't just frame the picture up and then say it is all there and if you don't believe me read the book. I don't think you did this intentionally, but if you would, I'd like you to follow through on your answer a bit more. I don't want a PM, I want it posted in the forum for all to read and understand, but you'll have to decide if you want to start another thread about it or just drop it and leave off on the young earth stuff here as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 I don't want a PM, I want it posted in the forum for all to read and understand, but you'll have to decide if you want to start another thread about it or just drop it and leave off on the young earth stuff here as well.The entire thread appears to have gone seriously off topic. I agree with you cwes, I should be interested to hear SouthTown expound the hydroplate hypothesis in more detail......but not here. It has to be in a new thread. I would also recommend, SouthTown, that you place the thread in pseudoscience, since that will save the trouble of moving it there later.:D I think you are sincere in your belief in (or strong inclination to believe in) this hypothesis and I would certainly welcome the opprotunity for showing you what is illogical, unsubstantiated, and just plain wrong about it.In the meantime could we get back to the topic....Something to do with Dawkins losing God, wasn't it?:evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southtown Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Yes, I guess I derailed the thread by responding to Steve Paulson's criticism toward young-earth-creationists. http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/7050-do-you-know-dr-dawkins-5.html#post152490 And what specific criteria qualify a subject for pseudo-science? You guys might have to give me a few days to muster an opening post. P.S. Even if I made a Hydroplate Thread, there would be no substitute for reading Brown's site. I cannot (will not) retype a third of his book just so posters won't have to click a few links. I can offer brief answers, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/7050-do-you-know-dr-dawkins-3.html#post154287 In that post I suggested Maikeru check out my thread. I suggest you do the same here in the case of what makes a pseudoscience. I've become somewhat unwelcome in my own thread having had accusation of lieing and posting false accusations. Perhaps you can read it and let me know where I went wrong. http://hypography.com/forums/user-feedback/9673-question-theology-forum-users.html I'm not saying there isn't a substitute for reading Brown's site. However, you were not suggesting that, you suggested a book didn't you? Your points are invalid because you clearly do not understand the theory. The last three of your points are directly answered on the link I already provided. The answer to the first is the subject of the entire book. The theory's assumption is that the continental crust encircled the entire globe including half the earth's water. After the rupture, multiple continental plates and oceans were the result. I can't say I'm all that interested in reading the site either. All I was saying is that you have to give just a bit more than what you give. The reason is that if you aren't willing to, then why should I be willing to believe your side of the discussion/debate? You don't have to post 1/3 of the site, you just have to discuss the point in question as if you were an expert on the things you had read on the site. Thus when asked a question like I did above, Does the author say that the crust was formed over the waters and that it was perfectly sealed water tight? Was the author just suggesting that under the crust their was a cavern encircling the globe that was filled with a volume of water large enough to flood the entire earth? You need to answer them to the best of your ability, and if I'm not satisfied with your answers to the questions then I will have to make a decision to visit the website myself (or read the book) or just choose to not believe the hypothesis. This is the same process everyone undergoes when they get published, or get their degree. They have to stand before a panel and answer questions. In a court of law, a lawyer has to do that, he can't just stand up and tell the jury to read the book and draw their own conclusions. He has agreed to take one side of the issue. This is what Dawkins and others mentioned on this thread have done. They have stood up and taken one side. Their motives aside, it is then your duty to take the other side (as you have chosen it) and make a prosecution of their side based on the knowledge you have gathered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southtown Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 This is the same process everyone undergoes when they get published, or get their degree. They have to stand before a panel and answer questions. In a court of law, a lawyer has to do that, he can't just stand up and tell the jury to read the book and draw their own conclusions. He has agreed to take one side of the issue. This is what Dawkins and others mentioned on this thread have done. They have stood up and taken one side. Their motives aside, it is then your duty to take the other side (as you have chosen it) and make a prosecution of their side based on the knowledge you have gathered.Jeez, I said gimme a few days. :) Since, the mod said it can't go here, I need to make an appropriate opening post for a hydroplate thread... I will stick it in geology as I do not intend the discussion to wander outside that realm. Does the author say that the crust was formed over the waters and that it was perfectly sealed water tight? Was the author just suggesting that under the crust their was a cavern encircling the globe that was filled with a volume of water large enough to flood the entire earth?Yes, and yes. ;) ... EDIT: Ok, ok, it's up. Sheesh... :D The thread to elaborate, explain, and examine Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory. Please participate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.