Feb 082007
 

This thread has changed from the original title and the OP deleted due to the nature of the comments.

  19 Responses to “Hydroplate theory anybody?”

  1. Hey Sal!

    This is off topic, but have you seen this new article? “3-D model shows big body of water in Earth’s mantle” It is so cool. Hydroplate theory anybody?

    From the article:

    A seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping — diminishing — deep in the Earth’s mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean . It is the first evidence for water existing in the Earth’s deep mantle. ..

    …Seventy percent of the earth is covered by water, which is very important for the earth’s geology, serving as a lubricant that allows efficient convection and plate tectonics and the continental collisions that form mountains.

    “Water is like a lubricant, constantly oiling the machine of mantle convection which then drives plate tectonics and causes the continents to move about Earth’s surface,” Wysession said.

    http://www.physorg.com/news90171847.html

  2. Jehu!!!

    Whoa. As it said in Genesis, “And the Fountains of the Great Deep burst forth”. Remenants of Noah’s flood, perhaps.

    Thanks man.

    Sal

  3. This certainely seems consistent with Walter Brown’s hydroplate theory to me. I understand that recent dust samples from comets have been consistent with Walter Brown’s predictions as well.

  4. Thanks Jehu, it just shows that more we know about our environment, the more Biblical statements seem plausible, scientifically.

  5. I admire the fact that Walt Brown has a theory worked, and is prepared to present it in detail. I think this is one of the big differences between ID and creationism; at least creationism has some substance. Nevertheless, I do not find it that convincing (which may not surprise you). A couple of threads at ARN:
    The Hydro-Plate Theory
    Liquefaction and the Geological Column

  6. Pixie,

    I would say that Brown’s liquefaction theory is less convincing than the hydroplate theory, and I expect that the hydroplate theory is crude in the details. However, it is interesting that Brown has been able to successfully make predictions. I think Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics combined with the hydroplate theory is potentially a very compelling theory for the Great Flood. I think it is also interesting that the Bible describes things like the fountains of the deep during the beginning of the flood and then mountains rising and valleys sinking during the recession of the waters.

    I read your ARN thread. I always find it interesting that people challange the Biblical account of the flood based on things like “how would the ark survive a tidal wave.” Why do they never ask the question of how Noah would know to build such an ark in the first place? Or how the animals from all over the world came onto the ark in pairs or sevens all by themselves?

  7. Hi Jehu,

    Because atheists like The Pixie do not accept Bible as a credible historical record. There was no worldwide flood, nor ark. But anyway I can accept that, I know where they are coming from.

  8. inunison,

    I know, I just think it is funny the arguments they target against the ark. The whole ark project for Noah required divine intervention from the very beginning. How the ark would survive the floods hardly seems like an interesting argument. I am sure that if God was concerned enough to cause all the animals to voluntarily enter the ark, He was interested enough to protect the ark from rogue waves.

  9. Because atheists like The Pixie do not accept Bible as a credible historical record. There was no worldwide flood, nor ark. But anyway I can accept that, I know where they are coming from.

    It is proper to be sensitive to this issues. Many Christians privately hold the doubts atheists are so ready to proclaim from the housetops. The Lord said in John 10:38 if one cannot believe His words, one can believe his works. Therefore, the reason to argue with atheists is for the sake of the Christians who are doubting.

    One would have reason to doubt the Bible if it does not line up with history. Polkinghorne said of all the world’s religions, Christianity was unique in it’s daring claims about human history.

    Salvador

  10. Oh, by the way, what was the original topic? 🙂

  11. I am considering changing the OP. 😀

  12. Jehu

    I know, I just think it is funny the arguments they target against the ark. The whole ark project for Noah required divine intervention from the very beginning. How the ark would survive the floods hardly seems like an interesting argument. I am sure that if God was concerned enough to cause all the animals to voluntarily enter the ark, He was interested enough to protect the ark from rogue waves.

    What I do not get is why creationists are happy to invoke divine intervention for the ark surviving the waves, but reluctant to do so for the sudden appearance and disappearance of all that water. Why not say the water appeared by divine intervention? That makes just as much sense as saying God protected the ark. For an omnipotent being, its all the same, surely (especially to one who created the whole universe).

  13. Sal, I agree that there is value in debating athiests for the benefit of doubting believers. I think you do a lot of good work in those regards.

    I have only had time to put energy into the question of origins over the last year or so. My original superficial impression was that Darwinists had a strong argument. I no longer have that view. I can look at secualr science articles on almost daily basis that provide evidence of intelligent design.

    My view of the evidence is echoed by Alferd “I invented Darwinsim before Darwin” Wallace who came to hold a teleological view of the world before his death. As he wrote in 1910

    ‘Materialism is dead for all intelligent minds. There are laws of nature but they are purposeful. Everywhere we look we are confronted by power and intelligence…’

    To pretend otherwise is delusional.

  14. Pixie

    What I do not get is why creationists are happy to invoke divine intervention for the ark surviving the waves, but reluctant to do so for the sudden appearance and disappearance of all that water. Why not say the water appeared by divine intervention? That makes just as much sense as saying God protected the ark. For an omnipotent being, its all the same, surely (especially to one who created the whole universe).

    Touche’!

    I am still interested in seeing the development of Brown’s hydorplate theory combined with Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics, I think the potential is fascinating. Especially, given that we now have evidence of an ocean’s worth of water in the mantle.

  15. The Pixie:
    What I do not get is why creationists are happy to invoke divine intervention for the ark surviving the waves, but reluctant to do so for the sudden appearance and disappearance of all that water.

    I know Creationists who do not invoke “God” for either. It just isn’t necessary.

    The water? Look at our oceans, lakes and ice.

    Where did the water come from? It was always here. Now the landscape is different and most of the subterranean water is now above.

  16. I know Creationists who do not invoke “God” for either. It just isn’t necessary.

    I thought the Bible was quite clear that God initiated the flood (if you go for a literal reading).

  17. Yes, The Pixie, but some Christians believe flood was of local character and some believe story of Noah is not historical. I’m afraid you cannot put us in the same bag on that account.

  18. Sorry, I misunderstood. Of course there are various ways to interprete the account, as you say. I thought Joe was talking about an account of a global flood that did not invoke God. It he was saying the flood was local or allegorical, then his comment seems perfectly reasonable.

  19. Trolling through AIG’s references.. I found this interesting article from New Sceintist. Apparently, the idea of water under the crust, but deeper into the mantle is TEN times the water of the oceans we see above the crust.

    Deep waters
    30 August 1997
    Lou Bergeron
    Magazine issue 2097
    Santa Cruz, California

    DEEP inside the Earth, the pressure is excruciating. Squeezed into strange shapes and forms, the rocks are so hot that they crawl like super-thick treacle. It is an inferno worthy of Dante, but it also contains something surprising. What’s the last thing you would expect to find in this hellish environment? Water. Vast amounts of the stuff. In fact, more than 400 kilometres inside the Earth there may be enough water to replace the surface oceans more than ten times.

    But this water is not a series of immense seas. Rather, it is scattered in droplets, some as small as a single molecule, with most trapped inside crystal lattices of rare minerals that only form under intense pressures. How much there is down there is still fiercely debated. But these inner “oceans” could help to explain long-standing puzzles about Earth’s formation, the causes of deep earthquakes hundreds …

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.