• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

Discussion in 'Creationism' started by Markstrimaran, May 21, 2019.

  1. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,486
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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.

    Slide56.JPG

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2019
  2. Markstrimaran

    Markstrimaran New Member

    95
    +12
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Screenshot_20190522-203440_Maps.jpg 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.
    20190522_205353.jpg
    Walt Brown's idea. Describes post flood lakes.
     
  3. Markstrimaran

    Markstrimaran New Member

    95
    +12
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    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. 20190419_063022.jpg My drawing nondogmatic. Food for thought.
    I do included a slight variation of a Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean weakest crust blowout.
     
  4. Markstrimaran

    Markstrimaran New Member

    95
    +12
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Screenshot_20190512-213339_Samsung Internet.jpg Granite/ Quartzite in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.
    Screenshot_20190514-051905_Samsung Internet.jpg Screenshot_20190514-163603_Samsung Internet.jpg
     
  5. GingerBeer

    GingerBeer Cool and refreshing with a kick!

    +1,028
    Australia
    Christian
    Private
    But both theories are fairy tales with no genuine supporting evidence.
     
  6. Markstrimaran

    Markstrimaran New Member

    95
    +12
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    So much for edifying. Is Noah Flood a fairy tale?
    Is the book of Genisis even to be considered?
     
  7. Markstrimaran

    Markstrimaran New Member

    95
    +12
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    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?
     
  8. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,486
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
  9. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,341
    Christian
    Private
    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.
     
  10. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,486
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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,
     
  11. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,341
    Christian
    Private
    Yikes....ad-hom response.

    Way to be "christian"
     
Loading...