Select your best hookup:
Local
Gay
Asian
Latin
East Europe

hookup sites nj

Initial, create a absolutely free profile and tell us a small about your self and what you are looking for in a partner and connection. fresno chat line This query in on line dating app is a excellent way to get somebody speaking. In my encounter, filling it out for the first time usually requires about two to three hours if you re getting thoughtful. orlando sex guide Plus, it s 2021, where getting the proper companion can be additional difficult, no thanks to stricter social distancing measures.

listcrawler news

MeetMe is one more one of those location based dating apps. best hookup sites florida 1 of the perks of working with OurTime is that you can search for international matches as nicely. For additional than six weeks, I had lots of quantity, but little top quality in the candidates coming my way, and that was beginning to transform. whitney stevens escort You also want to discover as considerably as you can with out overwhelming your date with inquiries or with stories of your own.

Home  Sign In  Search  Date Ideas  Join  Forums  Singles Groups  - 100% FREE Online Dating, Join Now!


9/13/2013 11:08:16 AM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mindya
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (18,622)
Vancouver, BC
62, joined Jan. 2009


Walt Brown's hydro plate theory has been discredited by various writers - a good many of them are young earth creationists:

The following are excepts from a fellow creationist global floodist:

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.

The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


Full text at:

http://creation.com/hydroplate-theory

Abstract

Of the variety of Flood models in existence, all need extensive work, which is actually a healthy state according to the principle of multiple working hypotheses when there are many unknowns. All of us must guard against holding Flood models too tightly.

Dr Walter Brown’s Flood model is first summarized from chapter one of Part II of the eighth edition of his book: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Then the next 7 chapters of Part II, which amplify major aspects of his model, are summarized.

In my general comments, I point out his questionable initial conditions, lack of in-depth analysis, the arbitrary fitting of data to his model, questionable references and analogies, the dubious significance of his predictions, and problematic comparison tables.


Summary evaluation

As a result of my analysis of Brown’s HPT model for the Flood, I do not consider his model a viable Flood model for the general and specific reasons summarized above. It seems to rely on the deductive method of science in which an idea is first considered and then a whole host of data is fitted into the model.

Great errors can occur with this approach as geologist Chamberlin warned. A better method is the inductive method of science in which one lets the observations speak for themselves and sees if the model can survive critical analysis. Contrary data should lead to the rejection or modification of the model. We can safely say the big picture points to the Flood as the origin of sedimentary rocks, fossils, and surface features, but as for a Flood mechanism and an explanation of diverse phenomena, Brown’s model falls far short.


General comments

Brown’s hydroplate model purports to explain an enormous number of observations and past events. It seems fantastic that one model with one assumption and the laws of physics can explain so much. But there is an old saying that “if it’s too good to be true, it probably is.”

I find much of Brown’s model and many of his explanations of phenomena lacking detailed evidence. Sometimes aspects of his model are unclear or incomplete, leading to difficulty understanding some of it. For instance, I was unsure of whether the muddy hail that fell from space froze only the woolly mammoths and other animals that are now found at high latitudes.

The initial condition

One of the first problems is his initial configuration of the pre-Flood Earth and the condition of his subterranean chamber increasing in temperature and pressure with time due to tidal pumping. This is a very special, arbitrary initial condition that has no evidence, as far as I know.

It also raises the question of whether God would have created a world that He called ‘very good’ which already had a ‘ticking time bomb’ which, in time, will explode. It also seems to me that he does not have only one assumption in his model, as claimed, but seems to make further assumptions continually in order to make his model fit the observations of rocks, fossils, and the solar system.
Lack of in-depth analysis

Brown’s book has much good information and brings up many conundrums of earth science. These include the fact that the fit of the continents across the Atlantic Ocean is not as good as most people believe. In the famous Bullard fit, Africa had to be shrunk 35%; Central America, southern Mexico, and the Caribbean Islands had to be removed; the Mediterranean Sea was reduced in size; Europe was rotated counterclockwise; Africa rotated clockwise; and North America and South America were rotated relative to each other.

Dr. Brown does not analyze many phenomena in depth and gives a broad brush analysis without connecting details of his mechanism with the phenomena to be explained.

Although he has seven chapters amplifying aspects of his Flood model, Brown does not analyze many phenomena in depth. Instead he gives a broad brush analysis without connecting details of his mechanism with the phenomena to be explained.

Examples will be given in the section on specific comments. He also does not subject the steps in his model to peer review and publication in the creationist technical literature, although he did publish a broad brush of his model at the International Conference on Creationism15 and in the Creation Research Society Quarterly.16 Each step in his model should have been justified by peer review and publication.

For instance, he points out that some atolls in the central Pacific, such as Eniwetok Atoll, have a thick carbonate cap, but because of insufficient analysis does not realize that many of the surrounding guyots, which he calls tablemounts, in the region of atolls also have a thick carbonate cap:

“The depths of tablemounts below sea level increased rapidly; otherwise most would have coral growths rising near sea level.”17 He also thinks that the carbonate cap on Eniwetok (and presumably other atolls) is a reef, composed of corals almost a mile deep: “Eniwetok Atoll, composed of corals, lies in the tablemount region and rests on a tablemount.”16

There is much evidence that the carbonate on Eniwetok and other atolls is not from a reef,18 showing Brown’s incomplete analysis of reefs.

Fitting his model to the data

He often seems to make his model fit the data. For instance, he says that the basaltic, pre-Flood lower crust was eroded by strong horizontal currents in the subterranean chamber, adding 35% of the particles to the Flood sediments with the other 65% of the particles coming from the crushed granite. This just happens to match estimates made of the particles in sedimentary rocks by Mead in 1914 and Twenhofel in 1961.


Questionable references

Brown seems to rely on legends and myths too much, for instance a Hopi Indian legend claiming that the mid-ocean ridge in the Pacific was once above sea level,19 which supports his idea that sea level was at least 4.6 km (2.9 mi) lower than today after the Flood.

To support his idea of an Earth roll, he sometimes uses questionable sources, such as Charles Berlitz, who wrote on tribal mythology, physic studies, ancient astronauts, and archeology, but is most well known for perpetrating the massive Roswell aliens hoax in his coauthored book, The Roswell Incident.20


Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!

DateHookup.dating - 100% Free Personals


9/13/2013 5:31:11 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mindya
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (18,622)
Vancouver, BC
62, joined Jan. 2009


From:

http://www.oldearth.org/walter_brown_hydroplate_theory.htm

An old earth creation website.










9/13/2013 11:13:59 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  

casheyesblond
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (16,832)
Belmont, NC
51, joined Feb. 2009


Quote from mindya:
Walt Brown's hydro plate theory has been discredited by various writers - a good many of them are young earth creationists

It appears that you pointing out that even other young earth creationists and creationist websites have also debunked Walt Brown's hydro plate theory,...well it was just too much for some bear so they flagged your opening post.

The good news is,these ones can get all the Walt therapy they need over here.

teeheehee

To continue with the Walt therapy,key quotes from other young earth creationists/just recap of your opening post:

--"Brown seems to rely on legends and myths too much""

--" I find much of Brown’s model and many of his explanations of phenomena lacking detailed evidence."

--" It also seems to me that he does not have only one assumption in his model, as claimed, but seems to make further assumptions continually in order to make his model fit the observations of rocks, fossils, and the solar system."

--"There is much evidence that the carbonate on Eniwetok and other atolls is not from a reef,18 showing Brown’s incomplete analysis of reefs."

--"I find that he uses analogies a lot, but some give the wrong impression because they do not compare well with the phenomenon to be explained"

--"I found his comparison tables artificial "

--"Brown’s dam-breach hypothesis has numerous problems"



[Edited 9/13/2013 11:14:36 PM ]

9/14/2013 1:16:47 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mindya
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (18,622)
Vancouver, BC
62, joined Jan. 2009



Quote from casheyesblond:
It appears that you pointing out that even other young earth creationists and creationist websites have also debunked Walt Brown's hydro plate theory,...well it was just too much for some bear so they flagged your opening post.

The good news is,these ones can get all the Walt therapy they need over here.

teeheehee

To continue with the Walt therapy,key quotes from other young earth creationists/just recap of your opening post:

--"Brown seems to rely on legends and myths too much""

--" I find much of Brown’s model and many of his explanations of phenomena lacking detailed evidence."

--" It also seems to me that he does not have only one assumption in his model, as claimed, but seems to make further assumptions continually in order to make his model fit the observations of rocks, fossils, and the solar system."

--"There is much evidence that the carbonate on Eniwetok and other atolls is not from a reef,18 showing Brown’s incomplete analysis of reefs."

--"I find that he uses analogies a lot, but some give the wrong impression because they do not compare well with the phenomenon to be explained"

--"I found his comparison tables artificial "

--"Brown’s dam-breach hypothesis has numerous problems"


It appears that you pointing out that even other young earth creationists and creationist websites have also debunked Walt Brown's hydro plate theory,...well it was just too much for some bear so they flagged your opening post.


Ya - it's the best they can do with the limited IQ....



[Edited 9/14/2013 1:17:57 PM ]

9/14/2013 1:27:41 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mdennis
Columbus, NJ
67, joined Jun. 2013


Hi Everyone,

Has anyone tried Brown's hydroplate therapy? Is it good for back pain?

Regards,
Michael

9/14/2013 4:04:50 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mindya
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (18,622)
Vancouver, BC
62, joined Jan. 2009




I think they'd be better off with a nice long warm bath to help sooth all their young earth creationist global flood worries away...



[Edited 9/14/2013 4:05:50 PM ]

9/18/2013 10:07:24 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mindya
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (18,622)
Vancouver, BC
62, joined Jan. 2009


Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy is a bogus "theory".

In fact it's so bogus most credible scientists have not even bothered trying to refute it - it's not even on their "radar"..

9/21/2013 12:34:27 AM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  

casheyesblond
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (16,832)
Belmont, NC
51, joined Feb. 2009


http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html



Glenn Morton of Dallas, Texas, has a B.S. in Physics from Oklahoma University and makes his living searching for oil and gas. Interestingly enough, Morton is an old earth creationist, but unlike many other creationists, he is both able and willing to examine and critique the claims of other creationists.

Morton worked out his refutation of Brown's theory in response to a creationist description of it on an Internet Usenet newsgroup called talk.origins. For the benefit of those creationists well versed in algebra, calculus, and geophysics (unlike Brown, apparently), Morton's Internet postings are reproduced below, verbatim, with some minor typographical corrections and clarifications. Perhaps other creationists can take a lesson from Morton and spend a bit more time critically analyzing the claims of their leaders.

"Are you really suggesting what I think you are? Let's go to physics class. As I understand your model, you have the earth constructed as follows: a solid center, a water layer, then above that, a layer of granite or basalt which 'floats' on the water. This is as shown below:

^ a mountain ps = 2.1 g/cc height = h

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earth's crust (granite 2.65 g/cc, or basalt 3.3 g/cc) Thickness = T

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water (density 1.0 g/cc) Thickness = tw

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earth center (solid density > 3.3)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several things to notice about this situation. First, the crust must be absolutely impermeable to the water. There must be no earthquakes before the flood since the first crack in this sphere would allow the water to escape. This means that there must be no meteorites before the flood. And heaven help mankind if he ever were to have drilled into the crust for curiosity's sake.

There must absolutely not have been any elevation differences. The effects of a load on the top of the crust can be seen from using an elastic sheet solution to the load. The 4th order differential equation is:

4

d z

D---- + (pm-pw)zg = P(x)

4

dx

where:

P(x) is the load as a function of horizontal distance

z is the distance the load will sink

g is the acceleration of gravity

pm is the density of the crust

pw is the density of water

D = ET3 /(12(1-sig)^2

where:

E is Young's modulus, 1011 dynes/cm^2

sig is Poison's ratio, .25

T is the thickness of the crustal layer into which the load sinks

For a two dimensional load with a ½ width, A, the bending of the crust is:

z max = h(ps-pw)(1-e-^LA cos(LA)) / (pm-ps)

where:

L = 4th root ((pm-pw) g) / (4D))

With a crust thickness of 5 km (5 x 10^5 cm) sig = .25, E = 10^11, we have:

D = 1.1 x 1028

L = 4.37 x 10-7

Now, for a mountain 10 km (1.10^6 cm) in radius and 5 km (5 x 10^5 cm) in height (h), the minimum thickness of the crust must be:

= 4.1km

A crust thinner than this value will be completely broken by the weight of the mountain.

The bending of the crust by 4.1 km will occur by fracture. This would immediately release the water. Thus, there are no mountains. Even a hill one kilometre high would require that the crust bend by 830 meters.

Therefore, the crust must be perfectly smooth. Thus, you must violate the Biblical record where it says that all the high mountains were covered. In your conception of the flood, there could be no mountains or hills.

Secondly, in your model, you must have pillars to retain the physical connection with the core. If you do not do this, you will have the certainty that the crust will eventually crash into the core. Friction between the crust and the water and the water and the core will cause the outer crust to begin to move in a fashion different to that of the earth's interior. This would cause turbulence and would lead to a crash. The crust is free to move in relation to the core in response to tidal forces. The theoretical height h of the equilibrium tide in a rigid earth is:

h = .5 (M/E)(a/R)^3 a(3cos^2 (theta)-1)

where:

E is the mass of the earth

M is the mass of the moon, 1 and .123 respectively

a is the radius of the earth 6378 km

R is the distance from the earth's center to the moon's center, 384,405 km

theta is the angle between the moon and the zenith

Plugging these values into the equation we have h = .00358 km, or h = 3.58 meters. This means that your crust will heave every day by this value. Due to the fact that neither granite nor basalt are single crystalline materials, small fractures will develop in between the individual crystals.

Suppose you placed the water under 5 km of crust, the pressure of the water would be:

5 x 10^5 * 980 * 2.65 = 1.29 x 10^9 dynes = 1281 atmospheres of pressure

The temperature gradient is 1º C for every 30 m so there is a 166º C increase in temperature as we go deeper.

166 + 25º C (the surface temperature) = 191º C

A layer of cave water 2 km thick all around the earth would contain 1 x 10^24 cubic centimeters of water. At 191ºC, the high temperature water would contain 1.7 x 10^26 calories. (1 calorie per degree rise (166 degree rise)). The minute the pressure is released the water will turn to steam and you will cook the earth. Dividing the calories by the surface area of the earth shows that:

heat /cm^2 = 1.7 x 10^26 Calories/5 x 10^14 square cms = 3.3 x 10^7 Cal/cm^2

I don't think Noah could survive this. This is a poor mechanism for a flood.

I have seen the IPOD* seismic line, every inch of it, and there is absolutely no evidence of any residual buried water or deeply buried cave to hold the water. There are no indications of collapse structures of the size your model would require anywhere on any seismic data I have ever examined in the past 22 years.

9/21/2013 12:34:55 AM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  

casheyesblond
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (16,832)
Belmont, NC
51, joined Feb. 2009


continued...

Water Velocity

Brown has a 10 km thick granite crust with a 1 km thick layer of water. The pressure is enough to raise a tube of water to 17 km (see Brown, pg. 37, Fountains of the Deep). Water squirting up out of the hole will rise to that level. What is the velocity of the water coming out of the crack? Ignoring friction, this can be found by equating the potential energy of the drops at 17 km to the kinetic energy at the surface needed to propel the water that high. Thus:

gh = .5v^2

where:

h is the height of the water, 17 km

v is the velocity

g is the acceleration due to gravity, 9.8

Solving for v, we have v = 577 meters /sec. According to the steam table cited below, there is a 814 times increase of volume in the phase change. The vapor occupies 814 times more volume.

Now, According to Steam Tables (Combustion Engineering Inc., 1940), the pressure needed to keep water a liquid at 250º F, which is the temperature of Brown's water, is 2.02 atmospheres.

Consider a 1 square meter tube with 577 cubic m/s emanating from it. Due to the fact that 2.02 atmosphere is the weight of 20 meters of water, water coming up the crack will not change to steam until the final 20 meters. With the velocity of 577 meters per second coming out of the crack, this means that 577 cubic meters each second will occupy 814 times the volume that it used to. As a water surface passes the point at which it turns into vapor, it will, within one second, be pushed 577 x 814 = 469,779 m. This is a velocity of 469 kilometers per second. There would be no flood since none of the vapor would remain on the earth. The earth's escape velocity is about 11 kilometers per second. Any object that exceeds 11 km per second leaves the earth and never returns. How could this theory cause a flood?

In reality these numbers would be somewhat smaller due to frictional effects, but even if they are off by 99%, the steam escaping is still above escape velocity for the earth. The steam would be sent to Alpha Centauri!!"

(End of Morton's posts.)

(Glenn Morton can be reached via E-mail at: [email protected])

Brown's theory is a rare example of a creationist actually trying to formulate a scientific theory. This would be quite commendable, were it not for the fact that Brown's main objective is to make sure his theory is in accord with Genesis and the Biblical flood, regardless of conflicting evidence. This is not scientific. However, if creationists use the methods of science, albeit imperfectly, to try and demonstrate the "facts" of creationism, they should be willing to accept and respond to scientific criticism of their theories, whether it be from evolutionists or iconoclast creationists like Morton. Peer review is part of what science is all about. An inability to respond on an appropriate scientific level would make any creationist theory suspect.

With that in mind, I invite creationists to examine Morton's refutations of Brown's theory and respond to them, if they can. For those interested in learning more about Brown's theory, he has written about it in the new sixth edition of his book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. It is available for $22.95 U.S. (postage and handling included) from the Center for Scientific Creation, 5612 N. 20th Place, Phoenix, Arizona, 85016.

* The IPOD seismic line stretches from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to the mid-Atlantic ridge. IPOD stands for International Project for Offshore Drilling. Maps of the IPOD seismic line are available from the U.S. Geological Survey.

References

Walter T. Brown, The Fountains of the Deep, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), p. 23-38.

For Young's Modulus and Poison's Ratio, see Milton Dobrin's Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1952, p. 178.

For the Elastic Equation, see Philip Keary and Frederick J. Vine, Global Tectonics, Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1990, p. 35.

Tide is from Charles B. Officer, Introduction to Theoretical Geophysics, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1974, p. 340.

Steam Tables, New York: Combustion Engineering Inc, 1940, p. 5.

Temperature Gradient is from O. M. Phillips' The Heart of the Earth, San Francisco: Freeman & Cooper, 1968, p. 138.

9/21/2013 7:04:10 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  

casheyesblond
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (16,832)
Belmont, NC
51, joined Feb. 2009


I guess people like Walt Brown thinks 'The Flintstones' is a documentary

9/22/2013 4:10:27 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mindya
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (18,622)
Vancouver, BC
62, joined Jan. 2009


Quote from casheyesblond:
I guess people like Walt Brown thinks 'The Flintstones' is a documentary


They are certainly not really looking at the physics of reality - how does water from under the crust reach escape velocity at around 25000 mph...

9/23/2013 10:15:52 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  

casheyesblond
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (16,832)
Belmont, NC
51, joined Feb. 2009


Walt Brown's hydroplate model is a deficient model of earth history, flying in the face of many lines of evidence from geology, paleontology, physics, and math. It has NOT been published in scientific journals, and is not supported by mainstream scientists, or even most creationists with backgrounds in relevant fields.

9/24/2013 11:53:00 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mindya
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (18,622)
Vancouver, BC
62, joined Jan. 2009


Quote from casheyesblond:
Walt Brown's hydroplate model is a deficient model of earth history, flying in the face of many lines of evidence from geology, paleontology, physics, and math. It has NOT been published in scientific journals, and is not supported by mainstream scientists, or even most creationists with backgrounds in relevant fields.


Exactly - what I find ironic is the poster that presented this "supposed science" is complaining when we post REAL peer reviewed science - this posters hemorrhoids must be stinging really bad..

I guess being full of pride and chagrin that his pet theory was shot down by real science he has nothing left to do but complain and whine and seek comfort from the other chaff in this forum - these people are more flaky that pastry...

What a hypocrite...

But hey, it's good to have been able to sort out the wheat from the chaff.



[Edited 9/24/2013 11:53:27 PM ]

9/26/2013 4:24:02 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mindya
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (18,622)
Vancouver, BC
62, joined Jan. 2009


I just love when people accept parts of science that confirms their own pet ideas yet reject it when science contradicts what they believe.

Talk about having you cake and eat it.

9/28/2013 9:37:21 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  

casheyesblond
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (16,832)
Belmont, NC
51, joined Feb. 2009


up for air

10/2/2013 8:11:48 AM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mindya
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (18,622)
Vancouver, BC
62, joined Jan. 2009


Quote from casheyesblond:
up for air


10/2/2013 8:12:11 AM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mindya
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (18,622)
Vancouver, BC
62, joined Jan. 2009


Quote from mindya:
Walt Brown's hydro plate theory has been discredited by various writers - a good many of them are young earth creationists:

The following are excepts from a fellow creationist global floodist:

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.

The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


Full text at:

http://creation.com/hydroplate-theory

Abstract

Of the variety of Flood models in existence, all need extensive work, which is actually a healthy state according to the principle of multiple working hypotheses when there are many unknowns. All of us must guard against holding Flood models too tightly.

Dr Walter Brown’s Flood model is first summarized from chapter one of Part II of the eighth edition of his book: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Then the next 7 chapters of Part II, which amplify major aspects of his model, are summarized.

In my general comments, I point out his questionable initial conditions, lack of in-depth analysis, the arbitrary fitting of data to his model, questionable references and analogies, the dubious significance of his predictions, and problematic comparison tables.


Summary evaluation

As a result of my analysis of Brown’s HPT model for the Flood, I do not consider his model a viable Flood model for the general and specific reasons summarized above. It seems to rely on the deductive method of science in which an idea is first considered and then a whole host of data is fitted into the model.

Great errors can occur with this approach as geologist Chamberlin warned. A better method is the inductive method of science in which one lets the observations speak for themselves and sees if the model can survive critical analysis. Contrary data should lead to the rejection or modification of the model. We can safely say the big picture points to the Flood as the origin of sedimentary rocks, fossils, and surface features, but as for a Flood mechanism and an explanation of diverse phenomena, Brown’s model falls far short.


General comments

Brown’s hydroplate model purports to explain an enormous number of observations and past events. It seems fantastic that one model with one assumption and the laws of physics can explain so much. But there is an old saying that “if it’s too good to be true, it probably is.”

I find much of Brown’s model and many of his explanations of phenomena lacking detailed evidence. Sometimes aspects of his model are unclear or incomplete, leading to difficulty understanding some of it. For instance, I was unsure of whether the muddy hail that fell from space froze only the woolly mammoths and other animals that are now found at high latitudes.

The initial condition

One of the first problems is his initial configuration of the pre-Flood Earth and the condition of his subterranean chamber increasing in temperature and pressure with time due to tidal pumping. This is a very special, arbitrary initial condition that has no evidence, as far as I know.

It also raises the question of whether God would have created a world that He called ‘very good’ which already had a ‘ticking time bomb’ which, in time, will explode. It also seems to me that he does not have only one assumption in his model, as claimed, but seems to make further assumptions continually in order to make his model fit the observations of rocks, fossils, and the solar system.
Lack of in-depth analysis

Brown’s book has much good information and brings up many conundrums of earth science. These include the fact that the fit of the continents across the Atlantic Ocean is not as good as most people believe. In the famous Bullard fit, Africa had to be shrunk 35%; Central America, southern Mexico, and the Caribbean Islands had to be removed; the Mediterranean Sea was reduced in size; Europe was rotated counterclockwise; Africa rotated clockwise; and North America and South America were rotated relative to each other.

Dr. Brown does not analyze many phenomena in depth and gives a broad brush analysis without connecting details of his mechanism with the phenomena to be explained.

Although he has seven chapters amplifying aspects of his Flood model, Brown does not analyze many phenomena in depth. Instead he gives a broad brush analysis without connecting details of his mechanism with the phenomena to be explained.

Examples will be given in the section on specific comments. He also does not subject the steps in his model to peer review and publication in the creationist technical literature, although he did publish a broad brush of his model at the International Conference on Creationism15 and in the Creation Research Society Quarterly.16 Each step in his model should have been justified by peer review and publication.

For instance, he points out that some atolls in the central Pacific, such as Eniwetok Atoll, have a thick carbonate cap, but because of insufficient analysis does not realize that many of the surrounding guyots, which he calls tablemounts, in the region of atolls also have a thick carbonate cap:

“The depths of tablemounts below sea level increased rapidly; otherwise most would have coral growths rising near sea level.”17 He also thinks that the carbonate cap on Eniwetok (and presumably other atolls) is a reef, composed of corals almost a mile deep: “Eniwetok Atoll, composed of corals, lies in the tablemount region and rests on a tablemount.”16

There is much evidence that the carbonate on Eniwetok and other atolls is not from a reef,18 showing Brown’s incomplete analysis of reefs.

Fitting his model to the data

He often seems to make his model fit the data. For instance, he says that the basaltic, pre-Flood lower crust was eroded by strong horizontal currents in the subterranean chamber, adding 35% of the particles to the Flood sediments with the other 65% of the particles coming from the crushed granite. This just happens to match estimates made of the particles in sedimentary rocks by Mead in 1914 and Twenhofel in 1961.


Questionable references

Brown seems to rely on legends and myths too much, for instance a Hopi Indian legend claiming that the mid-ocean ridge in the Pacific was once above sea level,19 which supports his idea that sea level was at least 4.6 km (2.9 mi) lower than today after the Flood.

To support his idea of an Earth roll, he sometimes uses questionable sources, such as Charles Berlitz, who wrote on tribal mythology, physic studies, ancient astronauts, and archeology, but is most well known for perpetrating the massive Roswell aliens hoax in his coauthored book, The Roswell Incident.20


10/2/2013 11:20:01 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  

casheyesblond
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (16,832)
Belmont, NC
51, joined Feb. 2009


Walt Brown's hydroplate "theory" is so far out there that even the other creationist websites have debunked it. And his so-called Center for Scientific Creation is little more than a website that promotes his book.That's all it is.




Claim CH420:
The Flood's waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, pp. 87-98. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

Response:

The rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or before Adam's time for that matter.

Even two miles deep, the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole; Bram et al. 1995), and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.

The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

References:

Bram, Kurt et al. 1995. The KTB borehole -- Germany's superdeep telescope into the earth's crust. Oilfield Review 7(1): 4-22. http://www.oilfield.slb.com/content/services/resources/oilfieldreview/ors95/jan95/01950422.pdf

10/3/2013 12:44:34 AM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  

casheyesblond
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (16,832)
Belmont, NC
51, joined Feb. 2009


Quote from mindya:
Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy is a bogus "theory".

In fact it's so bogus most credible scientists have not even bothered trying to refute it - it's not even on their "radar"..

exactly

And as I have pointed out before,Walter Brown has a PhD in mechanical engineering.

When you need a doctor,you don't go see a dentist.And when you need a geologist,you don't see a mechanical engineer.

It's as simple as that.

Brown's Hydroplate theory is rejected as pseudoscience by every geologist who's looked at it,which is not many because Brown won't submit it for peer review.

It's not published in any scientific journals !!!! What does that tell ya ?


And I repeat,
engineering is not science. Engineers generally don't "do" science. Science is about discovering the natural. Engineering is creating the artificial.

I repeat,engineers are not scientists nor are they mathematicians.They are engineers.

Please keep this mind that many prominent figures in the creationism movement are or have been engineers, for example Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research.

Creationists single out their engineers in an attempt to pull off argumentum ad verecundiam.

And if you notice,at Walt Brown's website,he list a few engineers as supporters,like Kent Davey for example.On his website,Kent Davey is elaborately described as "Senior Research Scientist" but the fact is, his field is electromechanics. In engineering, electromechanics combines electrical and mechanical processes and procedures drawn from electrical engineering and mechanical engineering.

I'll say it again.Engineering is not science. Engineers generally don't "do" science. Science is about discovering the natural. Engineering is creating the artificial.

I repeat,engineers are not scientists nor are they mathematicians.They are engineers.



When creationist websites give mention to petitions that have been sent out that say "these scientists reject evolution", the majority aren't qualified biologists or cosmologists but are from completely unrelated professions, such as engineers, medical doctors or even veterinary surgeons. (Creation Ministries International's List of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation is a good example.)

And I repeat again,the theory that Walt Brown has put together is not only debunked by others in the scientific community,even creationist websites have debunked it as well as placed it on a list of arguments that creationists should not use.

Persisting in using discredited arguments is something I do not understand.

10/5/2013 9:20:56 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mindya
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (18,622)
Vancouver, BC
62, joined Jan. 2009


Quote from casheyesblond:
And I repeat again,the theory that Walt Brown has put together is not only debunked by others in the scientific community,even creationist websites have debunked it as well as placed it on a list of arguments that creationists should not use.

Persisting in using discredited arguments is something I do not understand.


Me neither - it's the same with clinging to Ron Wyatt's "Amazing Frauds".

10/9/2013 9:41:09 PM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  

casheyesblond
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (16,832)
Belmont, NC
51, joined Feb. 2009


Quote from casheyesblond:
As I have pointed out before,Walter Brown has a PhD in mechanical engineering.

When you need a doctor,you don't go see a dentist.And when you need a geologist,you don't see a mechanical engineer.

It's as simple as that.

Brown's Hydroplate theory is rejected as pseudoscience by every geologist who's looked at it,which is not many because Brown won't submit it for peer review.

It's not published in any scientific journals !!!! What does that tell ya ?


And I repeat,
engineering is not science. Engineers generally don't "do" science. Science is about discovering the natural. Engineering is creating the artificial.

I repeat,engineers are not scientists nor are they mathematicians.They are engineers.

Please keep this mind that many prominent figures in the creationism movement are or have been engineers, for example Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research.

Creationists single out their engineers in an attempt to pull off argumentum ad verecundiam.

And if you notice,at Walt Brown's website,he list a few engineers as supporters,like Kent Davey for example.On his website,Kent Davey is elaborately described as "Senior Research Scientist" but the fact is, his field is electromechanics. In engineering, electromechanics combines electrical and mechanical processes and procedures drawn from electrical engineering and mechanical engineering.

I'll say it again.Engineering is not science. Engineers generally don't "do" science. Science is about discovering the natural. Engineering is creating the artificial.

I repeat,engineers are not scientists nor are they mathematicians.They are engineers.



When creationist websites give mention to petitions that have been sent out that say "these scientists reject evolution", the majority aren't qualified biologists or cosmologists but are from completely unrelated professions, such as engineers, medical doctors or even veterinary surgeons. (Creation Ministries International's List of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation is a good example.)

And I repeat again,the theory that Walt Brown has put together is not only debunked by others in the scientific community,even creationist websites have debunked it as well as placed it on a list of arguments that creationists should not use.

Persisting in using discredited arguments is something I do not understand.


10/10/2013 11:30:36 AM Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents  
mindya
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (18,622)
Vancouver, BC
62, joined Jan. 2009


.