Walt Brown and the Hydroplate theory.

[Markstrimaran]

Hi Mark

I don't know if you're aware but there is a Christian only sub forum for this type of topic, where you might feel more comfortable....

Creation & Theistic Evolution

I should mention though, not all the Christians there accept Creationist views.

Thanks, I only joined to post to this thread. Which it seems the OP , made the same error. I missed the Beware of Dog sign.

 

[Markstrimaran]

Suppose plate subduction. At about 2.3 cm per year. Slow and gradual.

Now imagine two freight trains on the same tracks in a hard rock cut with open air on the top . Rock on three sides.

Moving at the same 2.3 cm speed.

One is loaded with basalt. The other Granite.

Which train is going to dive underground. into the Subduction zone?

How does a small rock, ocean crust, brittle slide under a bigger rock. When the path of least resistance is simply to pile up.

The basalt train would pile up. As its mass is not as strong.

So, you are looking for a discussion with people who agree with your worldview. That's rather disappointing. Note that one of the reasons I gave for being on the forum was "to expose my self to multiple perspectives and world views". If you avoid such alternative views, you ignore the greater part of humanity. I ask you to reflect on whether that is wise.

You could try engaging in a mature discussion with people who hold differing views in an effort to understand them and allow them to better understand you. Diversity is good when it enriches, not so much when it divides. Open discussion can reduce the risks.

Many Christians would view HPT as a rather silly fiction. It represents the attempt to satisfy the literal interpretations of a small subset of Christianity. So, this is not a disagreement between atheists and Christians. This is a debate between sound science and fanciful speculation. I find it disturbing that you wish to fill the minds of immature Christians with such nonsense. Perhaps we could have a productive discussion on why we are each disturbed.

Assumptions are often ill advised, as was the case here.

I am sorry you feel we are haggling. My observations have nothing to do with my belief or non-belief in God. They have to do with accurate observations and logical reasoning. Rather than viewing it as haggling you could reach out, as I am doing, and try to seek common ground and a better understanding of our differences.

I am here. I look forward to your reply.

 

[Ophiolite]

Suppose plate subduction. At about 2.3 cm per year. Slow and gradual.

Now imagine two freight trains on the same tracks in a hard rock cut with open air on the top . Rock on three sides.

Moving at the same 2.3 cm speed.

One is loaded with basalt. The other Granite.

Which train is going to dive underground. into the Subduction zone?

How does a small rock, ocean crust, brittle slide under a bigger rock. When the path of least resistance is simply to pile up.

The basalt train would pile up. As its mass is not as strong.

Thank you for choosing to proceed with the discussion. Before addressing these questions here I would like you to first respond to the points I raised in post#117, reproduced here for your convenience:

Why would you expect fractures in granite cratons (not cartons) to heal?
Why would you think such non-healing constitutes evidence for HPT?

Working through these systematically will help avoid confusion and derailment.

 

[Markstrimaran]

To

Thank you for choosing to proceed with the discussion. Before addressing these questions here I would like you to first respond to the points I raised in post#117, reproduced here for your convenience:

Why would you expect fractures in granite cratons (not cartons) to heal?
Why would you think such non-healing constitutes evidence for HPT?

Working through these systematically will help avoid confusion and derailment.

Well.
1.frozen Unfossilized mammoths which correlate to rock formed mammoth fossils .
2. No evidence of glacial scouring in Illinois Basin.
3. Thick solid pure, table salt in between oil bearing Permian vs cretaceous * layers in Louisiana.
4. Solid granite cartons still fractured after (billions of years and multiple collisions )

4. The Granite is only fractured. It all should be pulverized into quartzite, rhyolite, or remelted. If billions of years old

 

[Ophiolite]

4. The Granite is only fractured. It all should be pulverized into quartzite, rhyolite, or remelted. If billions of years old

A. Why do you think it should be pulverised. Cratons are, by definition, stable regions. They are subject to minimal tectonic activity in terms of magnitude and duration.
B. Granite is a rock typically consisting of quartz, feldspars and ferro-magnesian minerals. Quartzite is almost pure quartz. Granite is an igneous or metamorphic rock. Quartzite is sedimentary.
C. The only way you can convert a granite to quartzite is to uplift the granite, weather it, separate out the quartz grains, carry them to the ocean, deposit them, rework them multiple times to round off the grains, subside the bed, lithify it, then subject it to high temperature. Quartzites are found in many parts of the geological column.
D. Rhyolite has the same chemical composition as some granites, but is fine grained, having been erupted at the surface, or emplaced at shallow depth, so that it cools rapidly. Many rhyolites have been formed from the remelting of granite plutons.
E. Many granites through mupltiple periods of activation.

Thus the granites we find have undergone a wide variety of events. Some have been eroded, their most resistant minerals redeposited and converted to quartzite. Others have been remelted and reinjected into the surrounding rock, or erupted at the surface as rhyolite. Some have undergone other changes induced by heat and pressure changes, leading to modified chemistry, mineralogy and structure.

In short the changes you say we should see, we do see.

I'll let you respond to that before we move on to the next one.

 

[Markstrimaran]

A. Why do you think it should be pulverised. Cratons are, by definition, stable regions. They are subject to minimal tectonic activity in terms of magnitude and duration.
B. Granite is a rock typically consisting of quartz, feldspars and ferro-magnesian minerals. Quartzite is almost pure quartz. Granite is an igneous or metamorphic rock. Quartzite is sedimentary.
C. The only way you can convert a granite to quartzite is to uplift the granite, weather it, separate out the quartz grains, carry them to the ocean, deposit them, rework them multiple times to round off the grains, subside the bed, lithify it, then subject it to high temperature. Quartzites are found in many parts of the geological column.
D. Rhyolite has the same chemical composition as some granites, but is fine grained, having been erupted at the surface, or emplaced at shallow depth, so that it cools rapidly. Many rhyolites have been formed from the remelting of granite plutons.
E. Many granites through mupltiple periods of activation.

Thus the granites we find have undergone a wide variety of events. Some have been eroded, their most resistant minerals redeposited and converted to quartzite. Others have been remelted and reinjected into the surrounding rock, or erupted at the surface as rhyolite. Some have undergone other changes induced by heat and pressure changes, leading to modified chemistry, mineralogy and structure.

In short the changes you say we should see, we do see.

I'll let you respond to that before we move on to the next one.

3 billion years is a mighty long time. My perception of time is very different than yours in geological terms.

Assuming the premordial granite once covered the whole earth. Then part got blown off and became the moon.
Its really a matter of perspective.
Let me know when you figure the subduction train.

 

[Astrophile]

Assuming the primordial granite once covered the whole earth. Then part got blown off and became the moon.

This is definitely wrong. The Moon does not consist of granite.

 

[Markstrimaran]

This is definitely wrong. The Moon does not consist of granite.

I agree. In my theory it was created by GOD almighty. As a obvious calendar to tell me how many weeks have passed.

 

[Ophiolite]

View attachment 256994 3 billion years is a mighty long time. My perception of time is very different than yours in geological terms.

Assuming the premordial granite once covered the whole earth. Then part got blown off and became the moon.
Its really a matter of perspective.
Let me know when you figure the subduction train.

1. If our perceptions of 3 billion years are different then I fear that yours is wrong. Mine is based upon the work of tens of thousands of dedicated scientists.
2. The primordial granite never covered the whole Earth. The formation of the moon did not involve blowing off a superficial portion of the Earth.
3. If your thesis were correct the moon would have a granitic composition, not one akin to that of the Earth's mantle.
4. I agree it is a matter of perspective. My perspective is to go where the evidence and the science takes me, not to construct ill informed speculation from fanciful notions.

It is late in my time zone. I'll reply to your subduction questions tomorrow. Here's a heads up: your ideas there are as lacking in fact as your thoughts on granites.

Mark, I'm not seeking to be aggressive. My intention is to alert you to the factual errors in your thinking. Given those errors it is not surprising that you will reach the wrong conclusions. That is not a problem unless and until you decide to stay with those conclusions after the "facts" on which they were based are shown to wrong. Thank you.

 

[Markstrimaran]

GOD ALMIGHTY made the moon.

GOD ALMIGHTY made the moon. Your own scientist haven't a consensus. Too many theory to even debate.
GENISIS 1:14
Ask any GOD fearing Jesus freak, you'll get the same answer.

 

[Markstrimaran]

Why do you fear for me? If your right nothing exists that means anything. Less ever atom in my body gets compressed into a pinpoint to be blown across the cosmos in another 55 billion years.

Facts are very important.
Mostly the ones about 12 Jewish hillbilly fishermen. Who left their fishing hole. To follow Jesus Christ. Just read the bible and use your own God given intelligence to the interpretation.

 

[USincognito]

Can't be worse than growing corn, just to make ethanol. When it's almost free to pump fuel out of the ground.

If you can't understand that a fission reaction to convert lead into gold by stripping away a select number of protons would be orders of magnitude more expensive than making ethanol, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Markstrimaran]

If you can't understand that a fission reaction to convert lead into gold by stripping away a select number of protons would be orders of magnitude more expensive than making ethanol, I don't know what to tell you.

The scientists claim to be so smart, With the big bang and all the dark matter stuff. They should be able to figure out a universal 3D atom printer.
I could really use some neutronnium fishing sinkers, neutron star stuff.

 

[Ophiolite]

View attachment 256998
GOD ALMIGHTY made the moon.View attachment 256999 GOD ALMIGHTY made the moon. Your own scientist haven't a consensus. Too many theory to even debate.
GENISIS 1:14
Ask any GOD fearing Jesus freak, you'll get the same answer.

I must not have been clear in my earlier post:
1. I am not disputing the current consensus view that the Moon formed as a result of the impact of a Mars sized planet with the proto-Earth. The differences you speak of are largely debates over detail, but none of them support your claim.
2. Your argument is that a portion of the planet wide primeval granitic crust was removed in the collision and formed the moon.

• The Earth never had a planet wide granitic crust.
• The Earth never had a primeval granitic crust.
• The moon does not have granitic composition.

In summary, your assertion that the moon formed from a primeval granitic terrestrial crust is disproven by the evidence. Until we reach agreement on this point there is no point in continue dealing with your other points, such as your misleading assertions on subduction. I shall hold my partially completed response to that claim until this one is sorted out. Thank you again for engaging in this discussion.

 

[Markstrimaran]

I must not have been clear in my earlier post:
1. I am not disputing the current consensus view that the Moon formed as a result of the impact of a Mars sized planet with the proto-Earth. The differences you speak of are largely debates over detail, but none of them support your claim.
2. Your argument is that a portion of the planet wide primeval granitic crust was removed in the collision and formed the moon.

• The Earth never had a planet wide granitic crust.
• The Earth never had a primeval granitic crust.
• The moon does not have granitic composition.

In summary, your assertion that the moon formed from a primeval granitic terrestrial crust is disproven by the evidence. Until we reach agreement on this point there is no point in continue dealing with your other points, such as your misleading assertions on subduction. I shall hold my partially completed response to that claim until this one is sorted out. Thank you again for engaging in this discussion.

An atheist secular Geologist with a PhD
Thinks the moon formed from the earth Billions of years ago.

I know that GOD ALMIGHTY created the moon probably about 7 or 8 thousand years ago.
Why do you strawman the nice conversation about subduction.

 

[Ophiolite]

An atheist secular Geologist with a PhD
Thinks the moon formed from the earth Billions of years ago.

I know that GOD ALMIGHTY created the moon probably about 7 or 8 thousand years ago.
Why do you strawman the nice conversation about subduction.

I have not "strawmanned the conversation on subduction". I proposed a few posts ago (and as note in my pm to you) that we work through the points you had raised, but do so systematically.

We are currently dealing with the discussion of the origin of the moon. You offered "evidence" that suggested the moon had formed from the granitic crust of the Earth. I have pointed out the errors in your assertion. Until we resolve any disagreement on that there is no point in moving on to other faulty assertions you have made.

You have now made an absolute statement you "know that GOD ALMIGHTY created the moon probably about 7 or 8 thousand years ago". I think your belief is mistaken, but I have no issue with you holding that belief and declaring it publicly and promoting it to whomever you wish. I think you are mistaken, but you are fully entitled to do so.

What you are not entitled to do is to make faulty assertions based on your misunderstanding and misrepresentations of science and on the evidence, scientifically gathered, assessed and validated, without being challenged. Hydroplate Theory fits that description, of science misinterpreted or misrepresented. It is nonsense. It is unsupported by evidence. The evidence you have presented to date to support it is incorrect and misguided. I have pointed this out for a couple of your assertions already.

I repeat, continue to believe the moon is 6k or 7k years old, but do not use spurious, allegedly scientific data to support that assertion. It is reasonable that you should do so in ignorance of the facts. I have now acquainted you with the facts. If you continue to repeat your assertions, claiming scientific evidence in support of them, you will be lying. As that is against your beliefs I trust you will not make that mistake.

Edit: It also seems as if you have not taken on board this: I am in agreement that the most likely explanation for the formation of the moon is that it formed following the collision of a Mars sized object with the proto-Earth. You refer to a "atheist secular Geologist with a PhD" expressing this view. Let me assure you that this view is held by more than one PhD holding geologist. Like all good geologists their religious persuasion is irrelevant to their respect for the evidence. I would be amazed if there are not Christian geologists, and Muslim geologists, and Hindu geologists and Bhuddist geologists who hold the same view.

 

[USincognito]

A fail safe is some thing that will prevent a process from catastrophically destroying its self.

I have listened to 10,000 of scientists, and 10,000 of biblical scholars. The scientists are very insistent that the world is billions of years old, and GOD is a spigette monster in the sky.
The scholars are split between agreeing with the secular science. The other half agree with Noah, Moses, and Jesus.
So here I sit outside the box, playing I 'll Fly away sweet Jesus. On piano.
As society fragments into the Red vs the Blue. The rights vs the left's. Boys vs the Trans. The courts vs the constitution.
I currently only know enouph astronomy to locate Polaris, Orions Belt, and navigate at night knowing the stars pivot clockwise when looking at the big dipper, about 4 fingers per hour at arms length.
Then a little about the new moon feast days.

 

[ruthiesea]

An atheist secular Geologist with a PhD
Thinks the moon formed from the earth Billions of years ago.

I know that GOD ALMIGHTY created the moon probably about 7 or 8 thousand years ago.
Why do you strawman the nice conversation about subduction.

1. Why is it assumed that the geologist is an atheist?

2. What empirical evidence has convinced you as to the age of the moon? Remember, Genesis is not empirical evidence.

 

[Markstrimaran]

1. Why is it assumed that the geologist is an atheist?

2. What empirical evidence has convinced you as to the age of the moon? Remember, Genesis is not empirical evidence.

NASA put reflectors on the moon which astronomers bounce laser light off to guage distance. At the current rate the moon is moving away from earth. It would have been inside earths gravity about 1 billion years ago.


I was related to him.

As far as the orgins of the cosmos. I observe an electrical magnetic phenomenon in the fabric of the vacuum of space. Meaning the math which describes dark energy, worm holes, quantum mechanics and the physics of time and light is wrong.

 

[Yttrium]

NASA put reflectors on the moon which astronomers bounce laser light off to guage distance. At the current rate the moon is moving away from earth. It would have been inside earths gravity about 1 billion years ago.

The Moon is in Earth's gravity now. Do you mean Earth's atmosphere?