• 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.

The Flood is proof of the Creation

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
IF----and it's a BIG IF----the global Flood really happened, and IF----and it's an even BIGGER IF----the " fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) referred to a hollow sphere of water surrounding the earth's mantle, a layer submerged beneath the earth's rocky crust, then this would be absolute physical proof of the Creation.

Because why, through natural causes, would the earth develop a layer of water underneath the crust, all around the globe, a layer of water that was directly atop the earth's mantle (made of liquid rock, magma, when it erupts from volcanoes it's called lava)?

The Flood wasn't a miracle. Creation was a miracle. The only reason there would be a layer of water surrounding the mantle would be because God put it there, when He made the earth. iow the earth was 'set up' for the possibility of the Flood, when it was made. It could happen just once, if or whenever the crust that sealed in this supercritical water (we're guessing around half the earth's 1.4 billion cubic kms of water was down there, about a km deep layer if it were liquid, between the liquid magma below and the solid rock crust above) was 'punctured' by something, or somehow.

Once that began, however it began, then the process would not stop until basically all of the water contained in "the fountains of the great deep" was now upon the surface of the planet, and it would take not very long, and it would be absolutely devastating to the crust. Let alone to any life, that was not already in a boat.

If this is what occurred, then our thinking here is that the continents were formed in this way. Before the Flood, the crust was some sort of a mixture of different density rock, some rock being slightly more dense, and some being slightly less dense. All of this rock is still here, but before the Flood the surface of the crust was flatter, and instead of vast oceans there were instead fresh water lakes and ponds and rivers everywhere, but the earth's surface was mostly level land and very green, with fresh water everywhere, but no sea.

And then, as the Flood was happening, once the crust was punctured somehow, perhaps a meteor struck the earth's surface somewhere, all of the less dense rock during this tumultuous process (which is an understatement!) gathered together into continents (and continental shelves), and all the other denser crust gathered into the seabed.

And that's pretty much where things now sit. If this theory is right, then the Flood really does explain why the earth is how it is today, geologically, and all the residue left in the wake of the Flood is still right here, right now, clear to see, only aged about 6000 years by our count. Our inquiry in these threads has been exactly how to conceive of the Flood, that explains both the biblical record and the physical evidence.

All I'm saying in this thread is that, IF we succeed, then we will have proven not only the Flood, but Creation, because how through natural causes would there ever be a 1km thick layer of water between the earth's liquid magma mantle, and the solid rock crust, unless it was put there by God?

We will have proven God.

So let's keep going.
 

Right Divider

Body part
IF----and it's a BIG IF----the global Flood really happened, and IF----and it's an even BIGGER IF----the " fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) referred to a hollow sphere of water surrounding the earth's mantle, a layer submerged beneath the earth's rocky crust, then this would be absolute physical proof of the Creation.
Your terminology is very poor. The "great deep" is not hollow, it is water. The "foundations of the great deep" refers to the explosion of the "great deep" and is not the "great deep" itself.
Because why, through natural causes, would the earth develop a layer of water underneath the crust, all around the globe, a layer of water that was directly atop the earth's mantle (made of liquid rock, magma, when it erupts from volcanoes it's called lava)?
The earth did not "develop a layer of water underneath the crust, all around the globe". The layer of water was a direct creation of God as He says in the Bible (where He created water and divided it by the firmament).

Note also that the mantle is not "liquid rock, magma, when it erupts from volcanoes it's called lava". The mantle is solid rock ~1800 miles thick. Some conditions can cause the mantle rock to become liquid magma/lava, like immense friction against a moving slab of crust crashing to a halt during the compression phase of the events of the great flood.
The Flood wasn't a miracle. Creation was a miracle.
Good work.
The only reason there would be a layer of water surrounding the mantle would be because God put it there, when He made the earth.
Exactly!
iow the earth was 'set up' for the possibility of the Flood, when it was made. It could happen just once, if or whenever the crust that sealed in this supercritical water (we're guessing around half the earth's 1.4 billion cubic kms of water was down there, about a km deep layer if it were liquid, between the liquid magma below and the solid rock crust above) was 'punctured' by something, or somehow.
Note that the water was not created "supercritical". I became that way due to the effects of gravity.
Once that began, however it began, then the process would not stop until basically all of the water contained in "the fountains of the great deep" was now upon the surface of the planet, and it would take not very long, and it would be absolutely devastating to the crust. Let alone to any life, that was not already in a boat.
Not all of the water what was under the crust is now on the surface. There is still some water remaining under the crust and some was launched into space.
If this is what occurred, then our thinking here is that the continents were formed in this way.
It likely that earth had one super continent in the beginning that was divided by the events of the flood.
Before the Flood, the crust was some sort of a mixture of different density rock, some rock being slightly more dense, and some being slightly less dense.
Much of the sedimentary rock was created by the events of the flood and did not exist as part of the super continent at creation.
All of this rock is still here, but before the Flood the surface of the crust was flatter, and instead of vast oceans there were instead fresh water lakes and ponds and rivers everywhere, but the earth's surface was mostly level land and very green, with fresh water everywhere, but no sea.
Yes.
And then, as the Flood was happening, once the crust was punctured somehow, perhaps a meteor struck the earth's surface somewhere, all of the less dense rock during this tumultuous process (which is an understatement!) gathered together into continents (and continental shelves), and all the other denser crust gathered into the seabed.
No, the crust was broke to expose some of the mantle. Meteors have their origin on the earth.
And that's pretty much where things now sit. If this theory is right, then the Flood really does explain why the earth is how it is today, geologically, and all the residue left in the wake of the Flood is still right here, right now, clear to see, only aged about 6000 years by our count. Our inquiry in these threads has been exactly how to conceive of the Flood, that explains both the biblical record and the physical evidence.
I believe that a man named Dr. Walt Brown has done a very thorough job of explaining all of this. Another man named Bryan Nickel has done a wonderful job of describing Dr. Brown's theory.
All I'm saying in this thread is that, IF we succeed, then we will have proven not only the Flood, but Creation, because how through natural causes would there ever be a 1km thick layer of water between the earth's liquid magma mantle, and the solid rock crust, unless it was put there by God?

We will have proven God.

So let's keep going.
In the Beginning
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Walt Brown,
https://www.creationscience.com/
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I believe that a man named Dr. Walt Brown has done a very thorough job of explaining all of this. Another man named Bryan Nickel has done a wonderful job of describing Dr. Brown's theory.
Does the scientific community applaud their explanation?
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Of course not. the "Scientific community" is primarily atheistic and prefers the "big bang" to Biblical creation.
Which is why if it can be substantiated, a significant subterranean layer of water between the mantle and the crust that was "broken up" (Genesis 7:11) causing the Flood, would simultaneously disprove atheistic cosmology, and prove God and His 'ex nihilo' Creation miracle, and that physically.
Who's side are you on?
Tam is I'm sure just collecting data.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Which is why if it can be substantiated, a significant subterranean layer of water between the mantle and the crust that was "broken up" (Genesis 7:11) causing the Flood, would simultaneously disprove atheistic cosmology, and prove God and His 'ex nihilo' Creation miracle, and that physically.
I agree and Dr. Brown has nailed that down quite well.
Tam is I'm sure just collecting data.
Seemed like she was appealing to authority/majority to me.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Of course not. the "Scientific community" is primarily atheistic and prefers the "big bang" to Biblical creation.

Who's side are you on?
If the hydroplate theory was scientifically legit it wouldn't cause the primarily atheistic scientific community to believe in God, so they would have no underlying agenda to reject the data if it was scientifically legit.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
If the hydroplate theory was scientifically legit it wouldn't cause the primarily atheistic scientific community to believe in God, so they would have no underlying agenda to reject the data if it was scientifically legit.

You'd think that miracles would convince people that God is real, but they largely had the opposite effect.

Evidence that God exists will more often than not turn people's hearts away from Him, sadly. That's just human nature.
 

Right Divider

Body part
If the hydroplate theory was scientifically legit it wouldn't cause the primarily atheistic scientific community to believe in God, so they would have no underlying agenda to reject the data if it was scientifically legit.
You are incorrect. They reject lots of valid science and support lots of invalid "science" (like the theory of evolution).
You must realize, I hope, that the currently "accepted" model for the universe is evolutionary. Which is wrong.

If you can show anything in the HPT to be wrong, please do.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You'd think that miracles would convince people that God is real, but they largely had the opposite effect.

Evidence that God exists will more often than not turn people's hearts away from Him, sadly. That's just human nature.

They could applaud the hypothesis of the hydroplate theory if it did not have scientific flaws and still not believe it proves the existence of God.
So their religious beliefs (or lack of) would not hinder the research.
One would think they would applaud it if they felt it had enough merit (based on science and not their personal belief) and would research it further.
But we ain't seeing them do that.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
They could applaud the hypothesis of the hydroplate theory if it did not have scientific flaws and still not believe it proves the existence of God.
So their religious beliefs (or lack of) would not hinder the research.
One would think they would applaud it if they felt it had enough merit (based on science and not their personal belief) and would research it further.
But we ain't seeing them do that.

Except that it contradicts their a priori belief in millions of years. Therefore it must be wrong, "because otherwise I've spent my entire career and possibly life believing in something that's wrong."
And
People don't like being shown to be wrong, especially when it comes to God. That's the point I was making above.

They have a commitment to their beliefs that they will not allow anything, even reason, to contradict.
 

Right Divider

Body part
They could applaud the hypothesis of the hydroplate theory if it did not have scientific flaws and still not believe it proves the existence of God.
So their religious beliefs (or lack of) would not hinder the research.
One would think they would applaud it if they felt it had enough merit (based on science and not their personal belief) and would research it further.
But we ain't seeing them do that.
It's rather humorous that you think that the "scientific community" will give any creation model a fair shake.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
RD#1
... the mantle is not "liquid rock, magma, when it erupts from volcanoes it's called lava". The mantle is solid rock ~1800 miles thick. ...
NOPE you're WRONG jk you're right.
tyvm. e4e.

As I said in another thread to @Stripe I am "level zero" geology!!!!
I believe that a man named Dr. Walt Brown has done a very thorough job of explaining all of this. Another man named Bryan Nickel has done a wonderful job of describing Dr. Brown's theory.
OK. Fair. I don't have any problem with your supporting these men and their theory. I have read through many pages of the website you keep linking to (and that is also welcome and tyvm for continuing to post it), so I am learning slowly what they teach (assuming that website is authorized teaching of their theory, which I take it to be based on your approval and recommendation of it), I'm not just ignoring your continued reminding me of Mr. Brown's work, and I appreciate your participation in this inquiry now and going forward.
In the Beginning
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Walt Brown,
https://www.creationscience.com/
tyvm again. e4e.

RD#2
I agree and Dr. Brown has nailed that down quite well.

Seemed like she was appealing to authority/majority to me.
Naw, just 'gettin the lay of the land' I think is all.

TAM#1
Yeppers.
For a balanced view one should hear the objections the scientific community has towards the hydroplate theory.
No harm in it.

TAM#2
They could applaud the hypothesis of the hydroplate theory if it did not have scientific flaws and still not believe it proves the existence of God. ...
It'd be really fascinating to see what kind of hare brained theories they'd imagine to explain how the natural development of the earth over the last four billion years somehow managed to jam a billion billion tons of water in between the mantle and the crust. That'd be priceless. And even if they did manage to come up with a theory that does explain the layer of water under the crust, without it being put there by God during Creation, then they're still just going to be proving the biblical account of the Flood anyway.

JR
Except that it contradicts their a priori belief in millions of years. Therefore it must be wrong, "because otherwise I've spent my entire career and possibly life believing in something that's wrong."
And
People don't like being shown to be wrong, especially when it comes to God. That's the point I was making above.

They have a commitment to their beliefs that they will not allow anything, even reason, to contradict.
You just have no idea what it's like for me as a Catholic swimming in the Protestant pool, do you. ;)
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
They have a commitment to their beliefs that they will not allow anything, even reason, to contradict.
Everyone does, based on what each of us thinks is "reason".
To some a virgin birth would not be reason, but to others it is.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You just have no idea what it's like for me as a Catholic swimming in the Protestant pool, do you. ;)
BiNGO!

It's amazing how people are being portrayed as if questioning the hydroplate theory equates to questioning scripture and God.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Everyone does, based on what each of us thinks is "reason".
To some a virgin birth would not be reason, but to others it is.

A virgin birth is perfectly rational given that God exists and can perform such a thing.

Without God, it IS irrational.
 

Right Divider

Body part
BiNGO!

It's amazing how people are being portrayed as if questioning the hydroplate theory equates to questioning scripture and God.
It's not that you are questioning it... it's that you are questioning it without a cause.

Having reasonable starting assumptions is not a reason to reject the theory.

Again, do you have some problem with Dr. Brown's starting assumptions? Other than that they are assumptions.
 
Top