One on One: Stripe & genuineoriginal - The Hydroplate Theory

[genuineoriginal]

Deposition either side of the rupture would have been very similar.

The evidence from Paleocurrents disagrees.

What are Paleocurrents?
Paleocurrents are directions of movement of fluid and the entrained particles responsible for the
formation of sedimentary rocks. These current directions can be retrieved from sedimentary
rocks by measuring the direction and/or sense of paleocurrent indicators preserved within the
rocks themselves. These paleocurrent indicators include crossbeds, ripple marks, flute and
groove casts, parting lineations, fossil orientations, imbrications and other more obscure features
of sedimentary rocks. Crossbeds are faint layering visible in sandstones and other clastic rocks
(rocks made of particles of other rocks – sandstone, shale, etc.) that strike diagonally across the
thickness of the beds. Ripple marks are miniature dunes resulting from the transport of sand and
mud that are often seen on the banks of rivers and streams. Flute casts, groove casts and tool
marks are structures reflecting deposition in turbidites and other mass flow phenomena that are
seen most often on the underside of rock layers. Parting lineations are trains of sand grains
exposed when layers of sandstone are pried apart that reflect the movement of the grains during
deposition. Imbrication is the domino-like orientation of clasts resulting when the grains achieve
the most stable position during deposition. All of these features are capable of yielding the kinds
of data required for reconstruction of paleocurrents.​

 

[Stripe]

How?

 

[genuineoriginal]

How?

Sedimentary layers that span continents show that the water flowed across South American and Africa at the same time with the same sediment and the same pre-fossilized plants and animals.

This would not happen if the water erupted from the middle of the areas covered with the same sediment, since the sediment would be different on both sides of the gap and would not show the continuity that led to the acknowledgment of Pangaea as a super-continent.

The water flow from the Hydroplate Theory would come from the Atlantic and towards the coastlines on either side of the Atlantic washing over both sides and continuing away from the Atlantic, but the Paleocurrents show many different directions of water flow that do not correspond to the flow which would be predicted from the Hydroplate Theory.

The "fit" of the continents of South America and Africa led scientists into searching for evidence that would prove whether the land masses were joined, and they discovered plenty of evidence. Dr. Brown doesn't address that evidence, but concentrates only on the "fit" and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge to show how the continents could not have been joined together. This is understandable, since Dr. Brown is one of the first to make sure people know that he is not a geologist.

But it is the geological evidence that prevents me from accepting the Hydroplate Theory as the definitive answer.

I think this is the best explanation I have seen for the flood:
Eden as Pangea and the Flood as a Mass Extinction: Catastrophes at the Time of the End

 

[Stripe]

The water flow from the Hydroplate Theory would come from the Atlantic and towards the coastlines on either side of the Atlantic washing over both sides and continuing away from the Atlantic, but the Paleocurrents show many different directions of water flow that do not correspond to the flow which would be predicted from the Hydroplate Theory.

Seds were not deposited by erupting or fast moving waters.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Seds were not deposited by erupting or fast moving waters.

:idunno:

 

[Stripe]

Once the water flow rates drop, then sediments can be deposited.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Once the water flow rates drop, then sediments can be deposited.

But not with the same plants, animals, and minerals in a band on both sides of an 800 mile ocean gap. The sedimentary deposits show that South America and Africa were not separated by an 800 mile wide ocean gap when the sediments were deposited, but were parts of the same continent.

 

[Stripe]

But not with the same plants, animals, and minerals in a band on both sides of an 800 mile ocean gap. The sedimentary deposits show that South America and Africa were not separated by an 800 mile wide ocean gap when the sediments were deposited, but were parts of the same continent.

Wide deposition area.

 

[genuineoriginal]

And, it looks like the discussion has run its course.

Thank you for an interesting discussion. The Hydroplate Theory is a better theory than the Theory of Evolution, but appears to have a number of flaws.

I appreciate the work Dr. Brown put into the theory, and would really like to see what would happen if he started comparing notes with Dr. Chadwick.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

The last word might go to Dr. Brown.

I watched with interest the entire exchange you had with Genuineoriginal. You did a good job. I am attaching a debate offer you might want to pass on to him or anyone else that disagrees with the hydroplate theory, including Art Chadwick (a friend of mine). He visited my office many years ago. I doubt that Art knows much about the hydroplate theory. If Genuineoriginal lives on the opposite side of the globe from me, we can still link by phone for the debate. The trick will be getting someone willing to read the theory beforehand. Thank you for your interest. Walt Brown

What Is the Recorded and Transcribed Oral/Phone Debate Offer? The hydroplate theory, explained in this book, shows how a catastrophic, global flood rapidly produced 25 otherwise mysterious features of the earth and solar system. The theory also explains where all the flood water came from and where it went. Failure to understand the flood led to the mistaken belief that evolution happened over billions of years. If you know any credible individuals who disagree with the hydroplate theory, but will not enter a written, publishable debate as explained on pages 495–497, here is their opportunity to show orally, before a potentially large audience, that they have a scientific case. This is also your opportunity to see if their criticisms have merit. Critics—with your urging, if necessary—should send an email to phonedebate@creationscience.com (1) requesting a recorded telephone debate with Dr. Walt Brown, followed with written exchanges as necessary, and (2) stating that they have read the hydroplate theory (Part II of In the Beginning and pertinent technical notes and cross references). Please include full name, address, phone and FAX numbers, present job, academic background, and date of birth. No particular academic credentials are required. Walt Brown is able to participate in a 60-minute conference-call debate once a month. This debate will be recorded by goconferencecall.com and will be available to anyone immediately afterward. The recording (in MP3 and WAV format) and its transcription can be distributed, broadcast, or posted at any website by anyone if done in its entirety. Participants may also record the call. If more than one person wishes to debate Dr. Brown in a given month, the one with the strongest scientific credentials will be selected. Participants will be notified at least one month before each conference call, and a mutually agreeable time for the call will be arranged. CSC will post a transcript and an audio version of each month’s oral/phone debate at www.creationscience.com/podcasts/csc_phonedebate_podcasts.rss A neutral moderator, jointly selected by both debaters, will be a debate instructor/coach from a randomly selected university or college in the United States. The conference call will begin with the moderator introducing both participants to the listening audience and summarizing the debate rules—namely, that all of the hydroplate theory has been read, and that no religion (only science) will be discussed. The “no religion” rule would be violated in this telephone exchange by: referring to religious writings, such as the Bible, ridiculing a deity or religious belief, or using a religious writing to support a scientific claim. However, using scientific evidence to reach a conclusion that happens to correspond to a religious writing would not be a violation. After introducing the two debaters, the moderator will ask the hydroplate critic two questions: Is it correct that you have read the hydroplate theory? What is your first criticism of the theory? Then Dr. Brown will respond and the discussion will focus on the critic’s topics and related issues. The moderator’s role is not to interview participants, but to enforce the rules and ensure that both sides have about the same speaking time and questioning opportunities. If necessary, the moderator will intervene or edit out statements about religion or unprofessional comments (repeated interruptions, insults, shouting, etc.). If, in the moderator’s opinion, the hydroplate critic has not carefully read the theory, as previously claimed, the moderator will end the conference call. Obviously, a debater’s credibility falls apart if it becomes clear that he has not read what he is criticizing. Dr. Brown will not be expected to take his limited debate time to explain relevant portions that the opponent has chosen not to read. However, Brown can raise issues and question the critic on portions of the theory that are relevant to a criticism. Also, the breadth of the hydroplate theory—purportedly explaining the origin of mountains, volcanoes, coal, oil, the Grand Canyon, earthquakes, ocean basins, the ice age, fossil sorting, layered strata, frozen mammoths, rapid continental drift, earth’s inner and outer core, magnetic field, comets, meteorites, asteroids, earth’s radioactivity, and dozens of other unexplained features—makes a thorough reading even more imperative. The events that formed each feature often relate to and support those that formed other features—and a global flood. Dr. Brown will be happy to read before the debate the critic’s written objections to the hydroplate theory. If complex issues are raised, the debate could be continued a following month with calculations and writings exchanged during the interim. Part II of this book, pages 108–384 and associated cross references (including technical notes), explain the hydroplate theory.A 170-word summary of the theory is on page 49, and a one-chapter summary begins on page 110. You may hear of an alleged flaw in the hydroplate theory. Be advised that almost all critics have not read the theory, choose to be anonymous, will not put their science to the test before Dr. Brown (as he will before them), or are scientifically uninformed. This may explain why no one, as of this writing, has accepted this balanced offer. If you press the critic to bring the alleged problem directly to Walt Brown and before a neutral moderator and a large, listening audience, you will help prevent the spreading of misinformation, will finally see the critic’s true confidence, and will help us all get much closer to the truth.