Do you know Dr. Dawkins?

[HydrogenBond]

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.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Take this one point from above for instance. What does the theory you are mentioning have to say about this one point?

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/theolog...tml#post153683

If you want, I can PM you regarding Glenn Morton's retort that was posted by Joyce Arthur and linked to by Freddy.

[cwes99_03]

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.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

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.
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?

[Southtown]

Yes, I guess I derailed the thread by responding to Steve Paulson's criticism toward young-earth-creationists.

http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...tml#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.

[cwes99_03]

http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...tml#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-fe...rum-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?

Originally Posted by Southtown

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,

Originally Posted by me

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.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

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.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

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...

The thread to elaborate, explain, and examine Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory. Please participate.