It didn't win over Jesus.It's always struck me as odd that people would set up their religious beliefs to be dependent on science being wrong.
Especially since in the history of science vs religion, I can't think of a single time when religion won.
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.
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.
Oh wow. You Googled the phrase and then copy and pasted a bunch of ads from the results. Wow.View attachment 257403
Really tidal laminates, If the facts don't match the math. Your math is missing a square root perhaps.
Religion did not win over Jesus. That hits the point on the head.This response misses the point. :/
Religion did not win over Jesus. That hits the point on the head.
The hydroplate theory was great and hit a lot of points that had a lot of truth. Like how the continents separated fast, how the fountains of the deep may have shot debris out with the erupting water, and etc. I used that book in developing a lot of ideas. The weakness in that theory was trying to use our present laws and nature and explain it all within that framework.
I still don't understand the nature of the claim that strata should just go up into the atmosphere.
A. We have seismic mapping showing us subduction.
View attachment 257907
https://www.visionlearning.com/img/library/large_images/image_5579.png
And
B. Where else would strata be going if not into the earth?
Thanks for posting , What county is this map from?
I was going to ask you why not, then I realised the answer. You have practically zero education in or knowledge of seismology. The "one with the dots" provides evidence of subduction of the oceanic crust. Your one doesn't. It captures nicely the structure of the lithosphere, but it does not demonstrate the dynamics of plate tectonics.View attachment 258376
Do you have any seismic charts like this. The one with the dots is something I would not want to bet my 401k on.
Yeah the theory brings up some interesting facts like the smooth layers in the canyon with little sign of erosion. I find the funnel an interesting feature where it looks like the canyon begins where a massive amount of water seems to have been released suddenly washing away the layers exposing the Vermilion and Echo cliffs. From memory I think the theory mentions there were a couple of big lakes which gave way causing the funnel. There is a big crack with offshoots called Marbel canyon which has some strange narrow canyons too deep and narrow to be caused by erosion. There is evidence of swirls showing water was released under very high pressure which left impressions on the walls and floor of the canyons. The way the canyon then takes a hard right turn after Marbel canyon up and over the Kaibab Plateau which is hard to explain if it was created by a slow carving river which could not flow uphill. The pot holes at the top of the canyon walls where it looks like fast flowing water was creating plug holes and the butts where the great lakes use to be all seem to point to some sort of big event causing a sudden release of water.IMO....the most plausible of all flood theories that I have encountered.
Bryan Nickel
Yeah the theory brings up some interesting facts like the smooth layers in the canyon with little sign of erosion. I find the funnel an interesting feature where it looks like the canyon begins where a massive amount of water seems to have been released suddenly washing away the layers exposing the Vermilion and Echo cliffs. From memory I think the theory mentions there were a couple of big lakes which gave way causing the funnel. There is a big crack with offshoots called Marbel canyon which has some strange narrow canyons too deep and narrow to be caused by erosion. There is evidence of swirls showing water was released under very high pressure which left impressions on the walls and floor of the canyons. The way the canyon then takes a hard right turn after Marbel canyon up and over the Kaibab Plateau which is hard to explain if it was created by a slow carving river which could not flow uphill. The pot holes at the top of the canyon walls where it looks like fast flowing water was creating plug holes and the butts where the great lakes use to be all seem to point to some sort of big event causing a sudden release of water.
First off I am not relying on any ideas but rather asking or posing questions I think are relevant ones considering what we see. I don't necessarily support the hydroplate theory but rather find some of the things it brings up very interesting. I'm not disputing the evidence for the slow erosion of the canyon as I don't believe in a young earth or a global flood in the first place.The claims by creationists about "no erosion" at uncomformities is simply false. Yes, locally one can find areas where it looks as if there was little to no erosion to the untrained eye since there is a relatively flat transition from one stratum to another. But one can find all sorts of places where the land is very flat today. Erosion is occurring there but very very slowly. Go to the Fargo North Dakota area. Altitudes there often change by only one foot every mile, or even less. If the area was resubmerged and deposition began again a very flat unconformity would be formed.
And how many times does the strawman of a river flowing uphill have to be refuted? I am sure that you have heard the refutation. If one repeats that claim after being corrected one is simply lying at that point. That whole plateau has undergone massive uplift. Ironically uplift even exists in the misnamed "hydroplate theory". There is some massive cognitive dissonance going on among those that accept the "hydroplate theory" and ignore that fact when it comes to a sane explanation of what occured.
Lastly the landforms of the Grand Canyon tell us that they are not due to a flood. One can see massive embedded meanders. Those do not exist in a gorge cut by a sudden flood. Those canyons are relatively straight. The only explanation that does not repeatedly refute itself is the standard explanation. Which explains all of the evidence. You are relying on a Wild Donkeyed Guess. Also called a WAG. It is merely a massive self-contradicting ad hoc explanation with no scientific evidence for it at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?