• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Global Biblical Flood Hydroplate Theory Analysis and Discussion

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Thanks to @Jefferson for providing a really helpful link which sets out "three initial conditions" for the theory.

1. The created Earth was encapsulated by a granite crust nearly 100 km thick.

2. This crust was supported by downwarps in the granite crust creating pillars on a solid basalt mantle.

3. The resulting void between the crust and solid mantle contained an interconnected shell of subterranean water averaging 1.6 km that sustained Earth’s pre-Flood hydrologic system.

 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
It's good to see these set out plainly.

Regarding point 1: 100 km ~62 miles if my math's right. It seems like too much granite. Like, we're missing a lot of granite, if that's how it all started. Maybe lost to space?

Regarding point 2: idk what I think about the pillars, idk that they're necessary. If it was just an uninterrupted shell of water beneath the Earth's surface I don't see how that would change the model very much. It still would take some sort of penetration to begin the release of water. Also I think a lack of pillars would allow the floor of the hydroplates (which I'm taking to just mean synonymous with the Earth's surface at the time), to freely grind down into the basalt right around where the initial fracture occurred, creating the friction needed to generate the heat which would push all the remaining water supercritical, forcing out more water in more areas, globally, creating a sort of chain reaction, accelerating the fountains or planetary plumes, creating still more heat through friction, along with a lot of lava.

Regarding point 3: It does make sense to me that if the hydroplates were impermeable to liquid water, but permeable to water vapor, that this could sustain "Earth's pre-Flood hydrologic system," which would mean it didn't have to rain (no rainbows without rain).
 

Right Divider

Body part
It's good to see these set out plainly.

Regarding point 1: 100 km ~62 miles if my math's right. It seems like too much granite.
Please give REASONS for your ideas. WHY "does it seem like" there is too much granite? How much granite is the right amount of granite and why?
Like, we're missing a lot of granite, if that's how it all started.
Again, why do you think that "we're missing a lot of granite"? What leads you to believe this?
Maybe lost to space?
A great deal of the earth was launched into space. Much of it might be granite.
Regarding point 2: idk what I think about the pillars, idk that they're necessary. If it was just an uninterrupted shell of water beneath the Earth's surface I don't see how that would change the model very much. It still would take some sort of penetration to begin the release of water. Also I think a lack of pillars would allow the floor of the hydroplates (which I'm taking to just mean synonymous with the Earth's surface at the time), to freely grind down into the basalt right around where the initial fracture occurred, creating the friction needed to generate the heat which would push all the remaining water supercritical, forcing out more water in more areas, globally, creating a sort of chain reaction, accelerating the fountains or planetary plumes, creating still more heat through friction, along with a lot of lava.
I cannot emphasize this enough.... you REALLY, REALLY need to learn at least SOMETHING about the HPT. You continue to speak about it out of your own ignorance. The crushing of the pillars is a key part of the theory. The existence of the pillars is based on the Biblical account. Gen 1:9-10
Regarding point 3: It does make sense to me that if the hydroplates were impermeable to liquid water, but permeable to water vapor, that this could sustain "Earth's pre-Flood hydrologic system," which would mean it didn't have to rain (no rainbows without rain).
There is no reason that the water that created the mist would need to be from the half of the water that was under the granite crust. Half of the water on earth was already above the crust pre-flood.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Please give REASONS for your ideas.
I do, I have.
WHY "does it seem like" there is too much granite? How much granite is the right amount of granite and why?
The right amoung of granite explains why there are continents with their shelves in the first place. The HPT satisfactorily explains mountain ranges to me, but it does not explain satisfactorily to me the existence of the continents. Why did these massive granite structures exist in the first place? They're like huge granite boats. They didn't just form from a once uniformly covered granite crust which just "bunched up" to form them. The granite is not formed like that because there is sedimentary rock on all the continents, which means the continents were all already extant during the Flood, according to the Bible.

So either they were already in their present shape before the Flood, or they weren't. Occam's razor says, if there isn't any reason to add complexity then don't, and I don't see the need for continents and their shelves to form by thinner granitic crust all bunching up from a previously completely covered-in-granite Earth.

The continents might just be all that's left from the whole rest of the granitic crust getting blown off into outer space, because of the broken fountains of the deep. Meaning they were here all along, and like the stone sculptor removing material to reveal a sculpture, after the Flood removed excess granitic crust now the Earth looks the way that it does, with just the seven continents, but before, granitic crust covered the whole Earth.

If the Earth did lose like 75% of its previous surface crust (going down maybe 24 miles, not all the way to the mantle) then that would only constitute like 0.60% of the Earth's mass at the time, and probably less, probably 0.5%, so five parts per thousand would have launched into space. Obviously it's an enormous amount of material, even though it's not very much compared with the Earth's mass.
Again, why do you think that "we're missing a lot of granite"? What leads you to believe this?

A great deal of the earth was launched into space. Much of it might be granite.

I cannot emphasize this enough.... you REALLY, REALLY need to learn at least SOMETHING about the HPT.
I do. I've interacted with you folks for years now. I spent multiple hours watching HPT documentary videos that you recommended. I saw a brief interview with Mr. Walt Brown one time. I even read the study posted in the OP, which shows that one key part of Mr. Brown's theory is obviously wrong. You can't find fossilized snail trails if what he says explains the stratified sedimentation which formed the sedimentary strata. They wouldn't survive. But they did survive, so therefore that part of Mr. Brown's theory is definitely wrong.
You continue to speak about it out of your own ignorance. The crushing of the pillars is a key part of the theory. The existence of the pillars is based on the Biblical account. Gen 1:9-10

There is no reason that the water that created the mist would need to be from the half of the water that was under the granite crust. Half of the water on earth was already above the crust pre-flood.
So it is said.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Why did these massive granite structures exist in the first place? They're like huge granite boats. They didn't just form from a once uniformly covered granite crust which just "bunched up" to form them. The granite is not formed like that because there is sedimentary rock on all the continents, which means the continents were all already extant during the Flood, according to the Bible.

The continents are what remain of the once unbroken granitic shell that completely surrounded the earth.

Start here.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html and read until you reach "/HydroplateOverview6"

So either they were already in their present shape before the Flood, or they weren't.

They were already in their present shape before the flood, just contained within the greater global continent. See Figures 12 and 25 in the above

continents and their shelves to form by thinner granitic crust all bunching up from a previously completely covered-in-granite Earth.

Not what happened anyways.

The continents might just be all that's left from the whole rest of the granitic crust getting blown off into outer space, because of the broken fountains of the deep. Meaning they were here all along, and like the stone sculptor removing material to reveal a sculpture, after the Flood removed excess granitic crust now the Earth looks the way that it does, with just the seven continents, but before, granitic crust covered the whole Earth.

Exactly. Just don't forget that the hydroplates (they were on top of about a mile deep of water, supercritical at that point), and slid away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge until they encountered resistance.

If the Earth did lose like 75% of its previous surface crust (going down maybe 24 miles, not all the way to the mantle)

Well there's your problem, or at least one of them...

The material was eroded mostly from the edges and underside of the hydroplates, and hardly any from the surface.

then that would only constitute like 0.60% of the Earth's mass at the time, and probably less, probably 0.5%, so five parts per thousand would have launched into space. Obviously it's an enormous amount of material, even though it's not very much compared with the Earth's mass.

About 3% ± 1% of the Earth's original mass was ejected into space, not 0.5-0.6%.

So it is said.

It's what the Bible says.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I don't see the need for continents and their shelves to form by thinner granitic crust all bunching up from a previously completely covered-in-granite Earth.
bahia-Pia-fold.jpg


Granite.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I do, I have.
Link to the post.
The right amoung of granite explains why there are continents with their shelves in the first place. The HPT satisfactorily explains mountain ranges to me, but it does not explain satisfactorily to me the existence of the continents.
The entire earth was basically one giant crust of granite (approximately 60 miles thick), like the Bible describes.
Why did these massive granite structures exist in the first place?
Because God created the earth with water separated by the granite crust, like the Bible describes.
They're like huge granite boats.
They were not so much "floating" as they were simply sitting on a sealed system of underground water. Some parts sank to sit on the basaltic mantle (which would cause "seas" for the water above the crust); other parts were raised (in reaction to the sunken parts) which would cause hills and "mountains" (not like the huge mountains that we see today).
They didn't just form from a once uniformly covered granite crust which just "bunched up" to form them.
Why not?
The granite is not formed like that because there is sedimentary rock on all the continents, which means the continents were all already extant during the Flood, according to the Bible.
Much of the sedimentary rock was created during the flood. Much of the material that formed the sedimentary rock layers came from below the granite crust. Again, it appears that you've read practically nothing of Dr. Walt Brown's work.
So either they were already in their present shape before the Flood, or they weren't.
Nothing like an obviously true statement that explains nothing.
Occam's razor says, if there isn't any reason to add complexity then don't, and I don't see the need for continents and their shelves to form by thinner granitic crust all bunching up from a previously completely covered-in-granite Earth.
The high mountains are the things that were created by the "bunching up" of the sliding crust. The continental shelves were formed by the erosion caused by the escape of the super critical water from below the surface. See figure 5 on this page: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview3.html
The continents might just be all that's left from the whole rest of the granitic crust getting blown off into outer space, because of the broken fountains of the deep. Meaning they were here all along, and like the stone sculptor removing material to reveal a sculpture, after the Flood removed excess granitic crust now the Earth looks the way that it does, with just the seven continents, but before, granitic crust covered the whole Earth.
That is exactly what Dr. Brown says and it agrees with that the Bible says. Don't forget that there is a huge "chunk" of crust that is currently submerged in the Pacific ocean (caused when the Atlantic side was raised up first).
See this:
If the Earth did lose like 75% of its previous surface crust (going down maybe 24 miles, not all the way to the mantle) then that would only constitute like 0.60% of the Earth's mass at the time, and probably less, probably 0.5%, so five parts per thousand would have launched into space. Obviously it's an enormous amount of material, even though it's not very much compared with the Earth's mass.
The earth did NOT lose "like 75% of its previous surface crust". Much of it is simply under water (on the Pacific side) or stacked up (see the major mountains ranges of the world).
I do. I've interacted with you folks for years now. I spent multiple hours watching HPT documentary videos that you recommended. I saw a brief interview with Mr. Walt Brown one time.
You say this... but your responses show that you must not have watched much of it. Because so many things that you ask are CLEARLY explained in those videos (and in the book).
I even read the study posted in the OP, which shows that one key part of Mr. Brown's theory is obviously wrong. You can't find fossilized snail trails if what he says explains the stratified sedimentation which formed the sedimentary strata. They wouldn't survive. But they did survive, so therefore that part of Mr. Brown's theory is definitely wrong.
Nope... their explanation is simply wrong.
 
Top