Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Walt Brown and the Hydroplate theory.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Subduction Zone" data-source="post: 74918059" data-attributes="member: 321072"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 74918059, member: 321072"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Walt Brown and the Hydroplate theory.
Top
Bottom