Hydroplate Theory

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Creationist mumbo jumbo.

Sure, but that being said, its kinda fun to do a point-by-point refutation of the "theory." Consider it an exercise in critical thinking!

You've said it Turtle, but let them play. As long as everyone plays nicely and does not resort to non-scientific data for support, this should be an interesting activity!

Have fun!

Even claptrap needs an occasional public flogging,
Buffy

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by PedroH

I wanted to join the discussion,but unhappyly I can't post links(I have less than 10 post). So I will skip this conversation till I can post some links I found about the subject.Sry
But,I'll be back

I look forward to it.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Southtown, can you give some description to the pictures that you posted? I am curious what they are supposed to represent.

Bill

Yessir, left to right. 1) The starting layout of the earth's surface as posited by Brown, 2&3) layering and deposition of sediments by liquifaction (strata) that do not appear likely to have been laid seperately over eons of time, but all at once while they were still wet, 4) a quartzite block (suspiciously rectangular) sanwiched between layered strata in the Grand Canyon said by scientists to have been deposited over millions of years, and 5) the Kashmir Basin, known to have been a lake at one time, being situated in the middle of the tallest mountain range on earth, is not likely to have existed through the duration of the supposed tectonic pushing up of the Himalayas.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Pictures smictures. Did you visit the first link? In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: Key Assumption
Creationist mumbo jumbo. If you don't like Strange Claims, then maybe Theology.

Then it should not be hard to refute. We are at 10 replies and counting...

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Then it should not be hard to refute. We are at 10 replies and counting...

I have no intention of giving a basic course in geology, which is the refutation.

[Bystander]

If the point of the OP is to examine malarkey for fallacies, gibberish, mystic hand-waving, and other logical flaws that people should watch for when "buying" hypotheses from suspect sources, there's no harm in leaving it in "Earth science." If the point is to peddle malarkey, it really needs to go to "Strange claims."

'Nough's been presented

Tensional fissures of hot basalt containing ionized sediment is a simpler explanation and is more consistent with the evidence.

Temperature increases with pressure, does it not?

to satisfy me that the second alternative is the case. Spending time pointing out the flaws to potential "buyers" of malarkey is one thing --- but I'm not wasting time debating with the malarkey peddler.

[Eclogite]

I really don't know where to begin Southtown. I indicated on another thread that I would be happy to debate the concept with you, so I feel morally obligated to attemtp to do so. However, as Turtle eloquently pointed out, the ideal refutation is any degree level geology course.

Perhaps you can explain to me how the hydroplate theory explains the complexity of sedimentary strata, with their clearly definable relationships in space and time, proven environment of deposition, demonstrable evolutionary pathways revealed by the fossil content, etc. This complexity is not explicable by hydroplate theory. It is explicable by the billions of years of erosion, deposition, daigenesis, and orogenesis, powered by plate tectonics. Your comments please.

[Southtown]

The basic mechanisms behind stratafication are laid out in the first post, paragraphs 7-9. Perhaps you can give me an example situation that contradicts hydroplate and supports tectonics. It wouldn't be feasible for me to explain everything, and as you can see from my exchange with Bystander, I'm no good at guessing what your objections may be.

There is a whole lot more coming regarding the hydroplate, easily around a dozen more essays. I have to build the foundation first though, before I start trying to explain odd geographic phenomena. Feel free everyone however to object to any of my points, and I will relate it to the theory if possible.

[InfiniteNow]

Be cautious of foundations laid in sand. I commend your attempts Southtown, but would be annoyed if layers were added when the first was proven inaccurate. I personally lack the training to do this, so look forward to the refutations given by others.


Cheers.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Perhaps you can give me an example situation that contradicts hydroplate and supports tectonics.

I referenced this in my post above, but only in a very general way. Let me expand upon it.
We can and have examined the character of sediments being deposited today. We have studied these in a vast range of environments: river valleys, deltas, beaches, deserts, lakes, continental slopes, etc.
In each case these environments have a combination of rock characteristics that is peculiar to that environment. This includes features such as grain size, grain shape, sorting, cementation, bedding form, etc.
When we examine rocks in the field we find these sames suites of rock characteristics. Moreover we find them in the expected associations.
I can conceive of no way in which this rich tapestry of environmental types clearly recorded in the rock record could be produced by the mechanism of the hydroplate theory. I await to hear your explanation for this - in my view this alone renders the theory untenable.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Be cautious of foundations laid in sand. I commend your attempts Southtown, but would be annoyed if layers were added when the first was proven inaccurate. I personally lack the training to do this, so look forward to the refutations given by others.

Ditto, my friend.

Originally Posted by Eclogite

We can and have examined the character of sediments being deposited today. We have studied these in a vast range of environments: river valleys, deltas, beaches, deserts, lakes, continental slopes, etc.
In each case these environments have a combination of rock characteristics that is peculiar to that environment. This includes features such as grain size, grain shape, sorting, cementation, bedding form, etc.
When we examine rocks in the field we find these sames suites of rock characteristics. Moreover we find them in the expected associations.

I don't understand your objection. How is it that these observations conflict with the hydroplate?

Originally Posted by Eclogite

I can conceive of no way in which this rich tapestry of environmental types clearly recorded in the rock record could be produced by the mechanism of the hydroplate theory. I await to hear your explanation for this - in my view this alone renders the theory untenable.

I will be touching on those general subjects in the essay after next because there are certain dynamics to be considered first. Many gigantic forces are obviously at play in this theory, and none can be adequately described without also considering others.

Next, I have to describe the general effect of such mass redistribution on (and within) the planet, relevant to observed magmatic systems. I will address fossilization and sedimentation after that simply because that is the order in which the theory says these things occurred.

[HydrogenBond]

For the sake of discussion let us assume the theory is true. How does the theory explain the original single supercontinent? What it would require is the opposite side of the earth generating all the waves so they crash in one place. I suppose a giant asteriod might fit the bill.

Another consideration is connected to hydrothermal. The temperatures and pressure within and below the crust change the properties of water into a hydrothermal state, where crust material begins to dissolve at ever increasing rates, i.e, beginning at the critical point of water. Hydrothermal waves under the crust would be a very corrosive medium that would thin the crust. This could be benficial in that when critical thinness occurs there is upheaval due to wave pressure.