Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

[Job 33:6]

And I guess I'll go one step further.

I think most people understand that a flood can't account for what we see.

So, what some young earthers do, is...much like the idea with diversification of life after the flood, and the speed of light, and radioactive decay, among other things,

Young earthers propose that everything, for a brief period of time, moved in fast forward.

Light from stars that are millions of light years away, sped up super fast (light had to speed up, otherwise it wouldn't have had enough time to reach earth from stars that are millions of light years away, and we wouldn't be able to see any stars), but then slowed back down as soon as we decided to study it.

Biological diversification sped up super fast (tigers and cats diversified and are in records of ancient China and Egypt dating back several thousand years, even though only one cat "kind" was on the ark) but then slowed down as soon as we began studying it. Drats, not again.

Radioactive decay, it sped up super fast, so everything just happens to look old. Then it slowed down as soon as we decided to study it. Dang, missed the super speed again.

And now we move on to geology. The next field of science that young Earthers need to attack to satisfy their preconceived notions. And what do we see?

Same old story. Plate tectonics moved super fast, blasting mountains into the atmosphere through hydro hyper plate tectonics! Continents ripping apart as waters blast out from the Earth's mantle!!!

But the moment we turn and look to see this grand chaotic blasting open of the mid oceanic ridge...what do we see!?

Oh, they're just moving at a couple cm per year....rather than feet (or more, they don't clarify) per year suggested by hydro hyper plate tectonics people.

And if we measure the distance between the mid oceanic ridge and the coast of North America, we get perhaps 300,000,000 cms. And if we divide by the rate at which continental plates move per year (in this case 2-3cm per year) , we end up with roughly the same amount of years that radioactive dating suggests as the age for the breakup of pangea, 150 some odd million years ago.

Our excitement for the probability of hyper plate tectonics, diminished.

Just like with everything else, the moment we begin actually examining the claim, the world slows down and the evidence of the claim, hidden.

Or perhaps it never existed at all.

 

[Markstrimaran]

The upper Grand Canyon area. Notice the top left dry creek bed. The main Colorado River never carved this initial groove.
The big old S bends were formed after the waters drained. Probably several hundred years later as the Ice age melted.

Thanks for posting, I will reply as time allows. I have drove the Hwy 89 route. I lived mostly in the west, but have traveled all the lower 48 states.

Walt Brown's idea. Describes post flood lakes.

 

[Markstrimaran]

That's fine, thanks for the background.

When you're ready, feel free to elaborate though.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say with respect to subduction. Do you think that it doesn't occur or? Or are you suggesting that less dense continental lithosphere subducts?

Subduction does not function as the mechanism to separate the continents.

I take Walt Brown theory on this one. subterranean supercritical water catastrophically converting into steam.

My drawing nondogmatic. Food for thought.
I do included a slight variation of a Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean weakest crust blowout.

 

[Markstrimaran]

Granite/ Quartzite in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.

 

[GingerBeer]

I have studied both. I personally prefer HPT. Mostly because it requires the faith of a young earth creationist. It quickly separates the YEC vs OEC.
It also explains and debunks alot of the Big Bang cosmological theory.

It is not a salvation issue. It tends to increase ones ability to defeat atheists as the CPT uses similar dynamics as secular geologist model. Which they can leverage.

HPT has some wieght as they can not defend their comet theory.

I have some free thinking time. To ponder the subject. Wondering if anybody else has interest in the Megamechanics of the fountains of the deep.

But both theories are fairy tales with no genuine supporting evidence.

 

[Markstrimaran]

But both theories are fairy tales with no genuine supporting evidence.

So much for edifying. Is Noah Flood a fairy tale?
Is the book of Genisis even to be considered?

 

[Markstrimaran]

And I guess I'll go one step further.

I think most people understand that a flood can't account for what we see.

So, what some young earthers do, is...much like the idea with diversification of life after the flood, and the speed of light, and radioactive decay, among other things,

Young earthers propose that everything, for a brief period of time, moved in fast forward.

Light from stars that are millions of light years away, sped up super fast (light had to speed up, otherwise it wouldn't have had enough time to reach earth from stars that are millions of light years away, and we wouldn't be able to see any stars), but then slowed back down as soon as we decided to study it.

Biological diversification sped up super fast (tigers and cats diversified and are in records of ancient China and Egypt dating back several thousand years, even though only one cat "kind" was on the ark) but then slowed down as soon as we began studying it. Drats, not again.

Radioactive decay, it sped up super fast, so everything just happens to look old. Then it slowed down as soon as we decided to study it. Dang, missed the super speed again.

And now we move on to geology. The next field of science that young Earthers need to attack to satisfy their preconceived notions. And what do we see?

Same old story. Plate tectonics moved super fast, blasting mountains into the atmosphere through hydro hyper plate tectonics! Continents ripping apart as waters blast out from the Earth's mantle!!!

But the moment we turn and look to see this grand chaotic blasting open of the mid oceanic ridge...what do we see!?

Oh, they're just moving at a couple cm per year....rather than feet (or more, they don't clarify) per year suggested by hydro hyper plate tectonics people.

And if we measure the distance between the mid oceanic ridge and the coast of North America, we get perhaps 300,000,000 cms. And if we divide by the rate at which continental plates move per year (in this case 2-3cm per year) , we end up with roughly the same amount of years that radioactive dating suggests as the age for the breakup of pangea, 150 some odd million years ago.

View attachment 257018

Our excitement for the probability of hyper plate tectonics, diminished.

Just like with everything else, the moment we begin actually examining the claim, the world slows down and the evidence of the claim, hidden.

Or perhaps it never existed at all.

So what do you think of the Book of Genesis?
As as it seems you don't believe in HPT or CPT. What does Genisis 7:11 mean?

 

[Job 33:6]

So what do you think of the Book of Genesis?
As as it seems you don't believe in HPT or CPT. What does Genisis 7:11 mean?

Yea so.

One of the greatest qualities that a scientist, or philosopher or really anyone can have, is that as people, we have to be able to accept what is physically before us.

If we take a rock for example, and we use it to smash a marshmallow, from that point on, we have to accept the conclusion that rocks are harder than marshmallows, else the rock would shatter upon contact with the marshmallow. It is as it is.

And the same holds true in geology. The earth displays countless logical tests which demonstrate it's old age. Such as the said tests involving evidence described in my prior posts.

And we can't let pre conceived ideas take precedence over that which is demonstrably true. Especially if said ideas exist purely in our minds, without corroboration with the physical world.

Without corroboration with the physical world, our ideas are faith based. Which is fine.

However, when our faith based ideas run contrary to physically corroborated information, what is essentially happening, is that our mind and perceived ideas are running contrary to God's creation, which is the earth in this case.

And so to understand the creation of earth, we start by studying the earth itself. By looking directly at the earth, we are free from the political battles, free from preconceived biases, free to understand creation as it stands on its own.

If two people have different beliefs, one believing that marshmallow is more dense than a rock and one believing the rock is more dense than a marshmallow, creation is as God made it to be, and through testing, nothing can change creation from what it is, just as our beliefs cannot make the marshmallow more dense than the rock. It simply is as it is.

Once we understand the earth and gain knowledge of it, then, and only then, can we draw on scripture to enhance our knowledge.

Regarding Genesis, some young earthers will suggest that a global flood deposited all of the Earth's strata, or more specifically, Paleozoic strata and beyond to the Holocene.

This idea contradicts what creation (the earth) is, just as the idea that a marshmallow is more dense than a rock, contradicts what creation (the marshmallow and rock) is. And so the idea that a flood deposited all the layers, has to be rejected, else we contradict God's work.

Some understand that a global flood can't make all the complex features of the earth, and they suggest alternatives such as the aforementioned hydroplate theory.

But even hydroplate theory contradicts God's creation in many ways. One example of this is that superpositionally, the rocks that were present at the time in which pangea existed, have since been covered by countless cenozoic layers, which also would require a global flood of some fashion to deposit features that are too complex for a flood to form. If we look at a geologic column, the split of pangea dates back to the middle of the mesozoic, and all strata thereafter would hypothetically need to be laid down by a global flood, which again contradicts creation.

Once we accept these contradictions, and continue our investigation of numerous options, what we are left with, is a situation where only the idea of a local flood, is tennable. It is the only option which does not contradict God's physical creation.

And therein resides our answer to what is ultimately being referred to, in Genesis.

Next comes the challenge of determining how scripture could possibly be describing a local flood, if Noah was attempting to gather two of every animal, including birds, onto the boat. And it's a road that every Christian must walk, else God's work becomes nothing more than imaginary perceptions of our elementary Sunday school class. Ideas without justification and without corroboration with God's physical creation, which is earth.

 

[-57]

Ok, so there is a question of if
"
Even if an entire ocean sloshed out of its basin on one side of a continent, went across large sections of the continent, and then back into a different basin on the other side of the continent?"

I would say, that if we look at the image above and below with the meanders:

I think that this image doesn't depict water going from one area, directly and catastrophically to another. Rather the water goes maybe a thousand feet, then turns 180 degrees, then repeats over and over.

If water has enough energy to blast it's way across an entire continent, it wouldn't turn 180 degrees.

Like when a fireman opens a water hose to put out a fire, the water doesn't zig zag through the air. It goes in a straight line. Like this:

lot to talk about there. The meanders can be easily explained. Prior to the Grand canyon being formed a lake called the Hopi and Grand lake once existed. There was a debris dame which held the water in. The water in the lakes got there as a result of Noahs flood. That is it didn't recede.

The lakes had a leak and some of the water left the lakes. The water meandered down and cut out a template so to speak of a meandering river. later on the debri dam broke and the water from the lake followed the meandering template enlarging it.

 

[Job 33:6]

lot to talk about there. The meanders can be easily explained. Prior to the Grand canyon being formed a lake called the Hopi and Grand lake once existed. There was a debris dame which held the water in. The water in the lakes got there as a result of Noahs flood. That is it didn't recede.

The lakes had a leak and some of the water left the lakes. The water meandered down and cut out a template so to speak of a meandering river. later on the debri dam broke and the water from the lake followed the meandering template enlarging it.

In past discussions, you've demonstrated that you have little to no understanding of geology. With that, I can't be bothered to investigate any random, unsupported, unjustified or contradictory claim you make.

All the best,

 

[-57]

In past discussions, you've demonstrated that you have little to no understanding of geology. With that, I can't be bothered to investigate any random, unsupported, unjustified or contradictory claim you make.

All the best,

Yikes....ad-hom response.

Way to be "christian"

 

[Job 33:6]

I hold to limited high velocity impact subduction.

2. The total weight in Psi of the granite continent. Is higher than the thinner more dense basalt ocean crust.
The semi molten mantel would be pressurized from the 30 mile thick granite continent pushing down.
The 5 mile thick basalt oceanic crust is already floating on this mantle. In order for it to sink, or subduction. It has to displace the weight of the much heavier continental granite.
3. In your linebacker analogy. The path of least resistance for both masses is up, into a rubble pile. as they are both floating on the mantle. In plate tectonics the basalt is driven down into the mantle. To form magma.

I'm not sure that I ever really replied to this. But additionally, you would have to consider "slab pull".

Slab pull - Wikipedia

Plate motion is partly driven by the weight of cold, dense plates sinking into the mantle at oceanic trenches.[2][3] This force and slab suction account for almost all of the force driving plate tectonics. The ridge push at rifts contributes only 5 to 10%.[4]

As a slab subducts, it undergoes metamorphosis, thereby increasing density and further sinking to greater depths. This is called subduction metamorphosis.

So you have initial rifting and pushing on one side of a plate, and increasing density and "pull" on the subducting side.

To go back to the analogy...

Imagine if the line backer is initially pushed by another linebacker behind him (rifting). This is force number one.

Imagine if the linebacker runs into the choir boy, the choir boy is less dense and rises on top of the line backer. This is force number two that causes the linebacker to sink.

For force number three, imagine if the linebacker is running on wet mud. He is being pushed from behind by another linebacker, and pushed downward into the mud by the choir boy that is resting on his shoulders.

Now imagine if as the linebacker sank into the mud, his shoes metamorphosed under pressure and heat of the mantle. His shoes would become more dense which would result in the linebacker sinking even more. Until his legs sank into the mud. Under pressure and heat of the mantle, his legs metamorphosed and became more dense, pulling him down into the mud even more. Next his chest metamorphosed and increases in density, thereby pulling him further into the mud until finally, the line backer sinks into the earth.

It's basically a runaway subduction until the oceanic lithosphere breaks and further melts away.

But ultimately, the point is that dense material sinks beneath less dense material.

 

[Job 33:6]

"2. The total weight in Psi of the granite continent. Is higher than the thinner more dense basalt ocean crust.
The semi molten mantel would be pressurized from the 30 mile thick granite continent pushing down."

And obviously weight is irrelevant to this discussion. All that matters is that mafic oceanic lithosphere is denser than continental lithosphere and therefore sinks below it.

A brick will always sink in the ocean, regardless of if the ocean weights (in totality) more than the brick. What matters is where the brick and ocean come in contact, in which case, the brick will always sink.

Weight should never even enter the conversation.

 

[Job 33:6]

For further reference:
Walt Brown and the Hydroplate theory.

 

[createdtoworship]

I am not attempting to debate if global flood
occurred. I am looking at the mechanics which erupted the fountains of the deep in Genesis 7:11.

I thought I would help. I love the thread BTW, keep it up.
Scientists say ancient Earth was completely covered in water

 

[createdtoworship]

View attachment 256969

Catastrophism cannot explain even the most simple structures, such as the one depicted above, of the Grand canyon.

Some point to erosion adjacent to Mt St Helens, but they wrongly assume that dense shales, sandstones, limestone's and even quartzite, would erode as readily as loose and unconsolidated volcanic ash around my St Helens.
Grand canyon:
View attachment 256974

View attachment 256972

Sometimes people point to locations like the channeled scablands of Washington. But anyone who spends two seconds looking at the scablands can see that it is vastly different in that it doesn't have abrupt meanders such as those depicted above.
Scablands:
View attachment 256970
Grand canyon:
View attachment 256971

It would simply take too long for the meanders of the Grand canyon to be eroded, for young earth ideas to even be considered.

explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!

if they were buried gradually would they be lying down?

"15% of these nautiloids were killed and then fossilized standing on their heads. "-(Steve Austin is also the world's leading expert on nautiloid fossils and has worked in the canyon and presented his findings to the park's rangers at the invitation of National Park Service officials.)

quote from
Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth - Age of the Earth - Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

we know from labratory flume experiments, that catastophy can cause erosions like the grand canyon, over night.

look at mt saint helens, I believe there is a gully formed by a mud flow (that was a melted snow cap mixed with dirt) that formed a canyon so deep that it looks just like the grand canyon. MUD! not LAVA!

so thats something to think about, in fact Steve Austin has a peer review article about it it's called "little Grand Canyon."

steve austin has self acclaimedly, seen more nautiloids than everyone in the US combined. He has found multiple sites, and has perfected a technique to locate the layers in which they exist.....

I dont think it is peer reviewed but a basic debate between two geologists on nautiloids...

Trivializing Creationist Scholarship

a creationist source:

Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth .com Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

 

[Job 33:6]

explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!

if they were buried gradually would they be lying down?

"15% of these nautiloids were killed and then fossilized standing on their heads. "-(Steve Austin is also the world's leading expert on nautiloid fossils and has worked in the canyon and presented his findings to the park's rangers at the invitation of National Park Service officials.)

quote from
Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth - Age of the Earth - Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

we know from labratory flume experiments, that catastophy can cause erosions like the grand canyon, over night.

look at mt saint helens, I believe there is a gully formed by a mud flow (that was a melted snow cap mixed with dirt) that formed a canyon so deep that it looks just like the grand canyon. MUD! not LAVA!

so thats something to think about, in fact Steve Austin has a peer review article about it it's called "little Grand Canyon."

steve austin has self acclaimedly, seen more nautiloids than everyone in the US combined. He has found multiple sites, and has perfected a technique to locate the layers in which they exist.....

I dont think it is peer reviewed but a basic debate between two geologists on nautiloids...

Trivializing Creationist Scholarship

a creationist source:

Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth .com Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

The simple explanation is that nautiloids shells would be resting in the direction of shallow marine current in which they died.

Top 5 Creationist Claims About Grand Canyon: #3 How Fossils Show “Mass Kills” From Noah’s Flood | National Center for Science Education.

As far as I am aware, 15 percent of nautiloids do not stand vertically, but rather simply face a similar direction at best.

As I had mentioned before,

The strata around my St Helens is of volcanic ash. It is loose and unconsolidated, which means it erodes easily. Rock at the Grand canyon on the other hand, consists of dense sedimentary and sometimes metamorphic rock like quartzite.

The grand grand also hosts a number of features that Mt St Helens does not: fault gouge, perpendicular propagating faults, cataclastic deformation(structural features that suggest deep time), trace fossils such as tracks or nests with eggs suggesting that life was living throughout it's layers etc.

I would recommend checking out what my prior post says:

Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

The grand canyon, as per my prior post, of course has 180 degree meanders as well. Which suggests low energy flow of water, as opposed to the more linear fashion of erosion observed in cataclysmic events such as avalanches or dam breaks.

I'd also recommend reading my prior topics:

Old Earth Geology

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon)

Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)

 

[createdtoworship]

The simple explanation is that nautiloids shells would be resting in the direction of shallow marine current in which they died.

Top 5 Creationist Claims About Grand Canyon: #3 How Fossils Show “Mass Kills” From Noah’s Flood | National Center for Science Education.

But has this been observed? I mean does shallow marine current put similar organisms on their head? Sounds a little off.

I will address the rest later.

As far as I am aware, 15 percent of nautiloids do not stand vertically, but rather simply face a similar direction at best.

As I had mentioned before,

The strata around my St Helens is of volcanic ash. It is loose and unconsolidated, which means it erodes easily. Rock at the Grand canyon on the other hand, consists of dense sedimentary and sometimes metamorphic rock like quartzite.

The grand grand also hosts a number of features that Mt St Helens does not: fault gouge, perpendicular propagating faults, cataclastic deformation(structural features that suggest deep time), trace fossils such as tracks or nests with eggs suggesting that life was living throughout it's layers etc.

I would recommend checking out what my prior post says:

Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

The grand canyon, as per my prior post, of course has 180 degree meanders as well. Which suggests low energy flow of water, as opposed to the more linear fashion of erosion observed in cataclysmic events such as avalanches or dam breaks.

I'd also recommend reading my prior topics:

Old Earth Geology

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon)

Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)

 

[Job 33:6]

But has this been observed? I mean does shallow marine current put similar organisms on their head? Sounds a little off.

I will address the rest later.

I suspect, and this is just based on what I've seen of nautiloids here on the east coast, that nautiloids of the west coast do not stand vertically in any significant quantity (see my next couple posts).

You're free though to post any sort of data or numbers and/or localities to justify the statement.

To understand the earth, we have to look, not just at one small collection of fossils in a single locality. Or even stratigraphically. We have to look at the summation of the geologic column as a whole.

This means that, hypothetically, there could be small avalanches or small floods or hurricanes or local events that could cause features to form rapidly.

But when we "zoom out" and examine the grand collection of features, only then can we really get a firm grasp on what earth history, in it's totality, was.

And a perfect example of this is in my old earth geology part 3, where I post a picture of a dead school of fish that was rapidly buried, but then I "zoom out" to examine the formation at large which tells a much different story.

 

[Job 33:6]

I just took a look at Steve Austin's descriptions. In his discussion here:
Geologic catastrophe and the young earth - creation.com

He suggests that the bed with nautiloids is about 2 meters thick, or about 6 feet.

The grand canyon is some 5,000-6000 feet deep (not including strata beneath the exposed portion). So...I think that my most recent post is significant in this regard. He's actually examining what is literally about 1/1000th of the grand canyon, stratigraphically. Of course if we see things like foot tracks above this layer, we might not view this as a global catastrophic flood or a flood that killed all life, but rather perhaps something temporally and geospatially local.