Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents

11/8/2013 8:08:17 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	No matter how Brown's theory is presented it is still bunk - not matter how many times it is referenced it still does not make it a viable theory. Floggin' a dead horse.. 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, 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. Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
11/8/2013 11:17:15 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	re-posting some of the key quotes from the other young earth creationists you've mentioned that have debunked Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory: --"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"
11/9/2013 12:13:49 AM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, 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.
11/9/2013 6:39:17 AM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 62, joined Mar. 2012	I dunno guys, once I really thought a world wide flood was impossible. But Jimmy Swaggert proved it could be done with tears.
11/9/2013 10:51:16 AM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Quote from isna_la_wica: I dunno guys, once I really thought a world wide flood was impossible. But Jimmy Swaggert proved it could be done with tears. snicker From: http://www.oldearth.org/walter_brown_hydroplate_theory.htm An old earth creation website. [Edited 11/9/2013 10:51:53 AM ]
11/9/2013 8:20:55 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Quote from casheyesblond: 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.
11/9/2013 9:00:50 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	In granting Walt Brown one miracle to explain the initial conditions, on energy calculations alone, and using the same level of physics he has used in his book, we can see that his theory for the formation of the asteroids is totally untenable by many orders of magnitude, and no explanation of how Noah and company could have survived the equivalent of the detonation of about 20 trillion hydrogen bombs. Of course if miracles are invoked as an explanation, including the theologically repugnant miracle of God covering up or otherwise concealing the evidence of such a huge amount of energy being released, then he can explain anything he likes, but it is not science. Also the orbits of the asteroids do not at all correspond to any catastrophe taking place on the earth, let alone a few thousand years ago. Walt Brown is an example of a so-called creation scientist who uses science when it suits him to make what he says sound plausible to the uninitiated, but his theories are refuted by the very same science he uses. Although his book certainly looks attractive and well written, ultimately what matters is the truth behind what is written, and I am afraid to say that at least as far as asteroids are concerned, it falls down very badly on this. In glancing casually through some of the other astronomy in the book, I am afraid to say that it is also riddled with errors; for example on pages 34 and 35 is the old creationist canard of the shrinking sun and the missing solar neutrinos to explain a young (about 6000 year old) sun. These arguments have long been refuted, even by some young earth creationists themselves. People like Walt Brown do immense harm to the Christian faith by making absurd claims that anybody with a knowledge of freshman physics will know is wrong. This has serious consequences to Christian witness on university and college campuses, and in general amongst people with at least some grasp of science. Many Christians complain that their children leave Christianity after attending college. If such children are fed on a diet like that published by Walt Brown before leaving for college, they will certainly have a serious problem if they attend classes in astronomy or geology. As is usually the case with the claims of young earth creationists, they depart by many orders of magnitudes, often by factors of a million or more, in timescales, energies and other quantities from what is known with good confidence in science, so calculations are not necessary – a good analogy is that I know that the amount of money necessary to buy a hamburger combo is insufficient to buy a nice house in the foothills (here in Tucson, Arizona), without considering whether the combo should have a super-sized portion of fries, or the house has a heated outdoor Jacuzzi. I just wanted to present some calculations to show the absurdity of his claims, and the damage he and his ilk are doing to the credibility of Christianity in the USA. click on the link for a further read http://www.csharp.com/hydroplate.html
11/9/2013 9:02:38 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	Quote from isna_la_wica: I dunno guys, once I really thought a world wide flood was impossible. But Jimmy Swaggert proved it could be done with tears.
11/10/2013 12:44:49 AM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009
11/16/2013 6:57:20 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009
11/27/2013 9:54:53 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	repost to prevent thread death: No matter how Brown's theory is presented it is still bunk - not matter how many times it is referenced it still does not make it a viable theory. Floggin' a dead horse.. 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, 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.
11/30/2013 12:24:32 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	Lying for Jesus: Walter Brown on the Grand Canyon As a Christian, I am embarrassed and angered by the "lying for Jesus," as offended unbelievers call it, by the anti-evolution movement. This page covers Walter Brown's public dishonesty concerning the Grand Canyon. Start the video that follows this quote at 38:45 in, and you will hear Walter Brown make this statement: If the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon, the first question we should ask is "where did all the eroded sediments go?" There should be a very large river delta at the end of the Colorado River. It's not there. Is the claim true? Is there no "very large" delta at the end of the Colorado River? Until the early 20th century the Colorado River ran free from its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado southwest into Mexico, where it flowed into the Gulf of California. Significant quantities of nourishing silt from throughout the Colorado River Basin were carried downstream, creating the vast Colorado River Delta. Prior to the construction of major dams along its route, the Colorado River fed one of the largest desert estuaries in the world. Spread across the northernmost end of the Gulf of California, the Colorado River delta’s vast riparian, freshwater, brackish, and tidal wetlands once covered 7,810 km² (1,930,000 acres) and supported a large population of plant, bird, and marine life. ("Colorado River Delta"; Wikipedia; accessed 11/13/2013) Since Wikipedia can vary widely in its reliability, let me give you a better source. NASA provides a description of the former Colorado River delta (accessed 11/13/2013), along with a map--just click on the link-->http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1288. They explain that the Colorado River, due to damming and farm usage, no longer reaches its former delta, but stops at the Sierra de Juarez mountains. Only 10% of the river's water makes it to the current delta. None of it makes it to the delta it reached a century ago. Almost none of the sediment makes it even to the current delta because it's caught by the Hoover Dam. Here is the photo of the region that NASA provides, which includes in the bottom right hand corner a portion of the old river delta. Colorado River delta by NASA NASA images are all public domain National Geographic writes: This post is part of a series on the Colorado River Delta. Once teeming with life and spanning some two million acres, the delta of the Colorado River ranked among the planet’s greatest desert deltas. and: The Colorado River Delta once boasted a million acres of lush cattail marshes and riverside forests of cottonwoods and willows. But today, due to dams and diversions upstream, the river rarely flows through its delta anymore. So Doctor Walter Brown, who has a Ph. D. in mechanical engineering from MIT, one of the most prestigious universities in the United States, was unable to do the research to find out that the Colorado River delta "ranked among the planet's greatest desert deltas"? He was unable to determine that it once provided a million acres of marshes and forests and two million acres of water and sediment? No, anyone with an engineering doctorate from MIT could have done that research better than I could have. This is one more example of lying for Jesus. Readers, you can get as angry at me as you want for saying such things, but liars for Jesus are not helping the cause of God's kingdom, and we have to stand up and declare that this is not the Gospel nor the Christianity that we know. This sort of behavior destroys our testimony and causes the our Savior to be blasphemed among the nations. Our Master and Lord, Jesus the King, is the Truth incarnate. He does not lie, and those who do are not his servants. http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/walter-brown-grand-canyon.html
12/9/2013 10:00:46 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Good post there Cash. Brown's Hydro-plate theory is bunk -
12/12/2013 8:28:08 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Quote from casheyesblond: Lying for Jesus: Walter Brown on the Grand Canyon As a Christian, I am embarrassed and angered by the "lying for Jesus," as offended unbelievers call it, by the anti-evolution movement. This page covers Walter Brown's public dishonesty concerning the Grand Canyon. Start the video that follows this quote at 38:45 in, and you will hear Walter Brown make this statement: If the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon, the first question we should ask is "where did all the eroded sediments go?" There should be a very large river delta at the end of the Colorado River. It's not there. Is the claim true? Is there no "very large" delta at the end of the Colorado River? Until the early 20th century the Colorado River ran free from its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado southwest into Mexico, where it flowed into the Gulf of California. Significant quantities of nourishing silt from throughout the Colorado River Basin were carried downstream, creating the vast Colorado River Delta. Prior to the construction of major dams along its route, the Colorado River fed one of the largest desert estuaries in the world. Spread across the northernmost end of the Gulf of California, the Colorado River delta’s vast riparian, freshwater, brackish, and tidal wetlands once covered 7,810 km² (1,930,000 acres) and supported a large population of plant, bird, and marine life. ("Colorado River Delta"; Wikipedia; accessed 11/13/2013) Since Wikipedia can vary widely in its reliability, let me give you a better source. NASA provides a description of the former Colorado River delta (accessed 11/13/2013), along with a map--just click on the link-->http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1288. They explain that the Colorado River, due to damming and farm usage, no longer reaches its former delta, but stops at the Sierra de Juarez mountains. Only 10% of the river's water makes it to the current delta. None of it makes it to the delta it reached a century ago. Almost none of the sediment makes it even to the current delta because it's caught by the Hoover Dam. Here is the photo of the region that NASA provides, which includes in the bottom right hand corner a portion of the old river delta. Colorado River delta by NASA NASA images are all public domain National Geographic writes: This post is part of a series on the Colorado River Delta. Once teeming with life and spanning some two million acres, the delta of the Colorado River ranked among the planet’s greatest desert deltas. and: The Colorado River Delta once boasted a million acres of lush cattail marshes and riverside forests of cottonwoods and willows. But today, due to dams and diversions upstream, the river rarely flows through its delta anymore. So Doctor Walter Brown, who has a Ph. D. in mechanical engineering from MIT, one of the most prestigious universities in the United States, was unable to do the research to find out that the Colorado River delta "ranked among the planet's greatest desert deltas"? He was unable to determine that it once provided a million acres of marshes and forests and two million acres of water and sediment? No, anyone with an engineering doctorate from MIT could have done that research better than I could have. This is one more example of lying for Jesus. Readers, you can get as angry at me as you want for saying such things, but liars for Jesus are not helping the cause of God's kingdom, and we have to stand up and declare that this is not the Gospel nor the Christianity that we know. This sort of behavior destroys our testimony and causes the our Savior to be blasphemed among the nations. Our Master and Lord, Jesus the King, is the Truth incarnate. He does not lie, and those who do are not his servants. http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/walter-brown-grand-canyon.html He's not the only one lying for Jesus
12/13/2013 11:39:20 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory is not even taken seriously by most of his fellow young-earth creationists. Brown hasn't submitted his theory for peer-reviewed publication, even though there are creationist journals open to him, such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Journal of Creation (formerly the Ex Nihilo Technical Journal). Brown has advocated a number of very bad arguments for a young earth which have been refuted even by his own fellow creationists, including the moon dust argument, the shrinking sun argument, and an argument from missing time based on a misunderstanding of leap seconds, which Brown ended up removing from later editions of his book. Brown has made the erroneous arguments that Lucy's knee joint was found away from the rest of the skeleton and that Archaeopteryx is a hoax. His book's assessment of human evolution has been critiqued in detail by Jim Foley on the talkorigins.org website.
12/14/2013 11:11:41 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	Quote from mindya: No matter how Brown's theory is presented it is still bunk - not matter how many times it is referenced it still does not make it a viable theory. Floggin' a dead horse.. 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, 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. very solid post
12/15/2013 2:28:57 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	Walt Brown is a loner who doesn't belong to any of the major creationist organizations, doesn't publish even in creationist journals, and has no track record of effective debating on the internet. I suspect very few creationists would choose Brown to be their representative in a published debate. The fact that Brown would doubtless want to promote his hydroplate theory makes him an even less attractive choice, since [b ]the hydroplate theory has almost no acceptance even among other creationists.
12/15/2013 8:07:35 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	Quote from mindya: From: http://www.oldearth.org/walter_brown_hydroplate_theory.htm An old earth creation website.
12/16/2013 8:25:20 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Quote from casheyesblond: Walt Brown is a loner who doesn't belong to any of the major creationist organizations, doesn't publish even in creationist journals, and has no track record of effective debating on the internet. I suspect very few creationists would choose Brown to be their representative in a published debate. The fact that Brown would doubtless want to promote his hydroplate theory makes him an even less attractive choice, since the hydroplate theory has almost no acceptance even among other creationists. Exactly - it's bogus junk and not even science..
12/16/2013 10:43:47 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	Quote from mindya: Exactly - it's bogus junk and not even science.. yep Both evolutionists and other creationists have frequently challenged Brown's arguments, and asked him to respond, without hiding behind conditions and excuses. Brown has always refused.
12/18/2013 9:01:55 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Quote from casheyesblond: yep Both evolutionists and other creationists have frequently challenged Brown's arguments, and asked him to respond, without hiding behind conditions and excuses. Brown has always refused. Exactly - but I guess the video tickles certain peoples ears.
12/18/2013 10:21:46 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	Claim CA342: A standing offer exists for a written debate between Walt Brown and an evolutionist, the debate to be published later. In over fifteen years, no evolutionist has accepted this offer. Source: Brown, Walt. 1995. In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, 212. http://www.creationscience.com Response: Several aspects of Walt Brown's twenty-two requirements may make his debate unattractive. The editor for the debate (who must be qualified, willing, and impartial) would be very difficult to find.Walt Brown requires that his challenger must have a PhD, for no good reason. Walt Brown stipulates that he will not allow theology into the debate, despite the fact that creationism is nothing but theology and that Brown himself uses theology as the basis for his conclusions. People have attempted to debate Walt Brown, but Brown refuses. Joe Meert signed Brown's contract in 1996. He proposed (in accordance with the contract terms) that evidence regarding a global flood be a topic for discussion within the debate. Brown has steadfastly refused to debate Meert (Meert 2003). Brown himself refuses to debate in the proper venue for deciding scientific questions: scientific conferences and peer-reviewed literature. References: Meert, Joe. 2003. Walt Brown's pseudochallenge. http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm
12/18/2013 10:43:33 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	Quote from casheyesblond: Several aspects of Walt Brown's twenty-two requirements may make his debate unattractive. The editor for the debate (who must be qualified, willing, and impartial) would be very difficult to find.Walt Brown requires that his challenger must have a PhD, for no good reason. Walt Brown stipulates that he will not allow theology into the debate, despite the fact that creationism is nothing but theology and that Brown himself uses theology as the basis for his conclusions. People have attempted to debate Walt Brown, but Brown refuses. Joe Meert signed Brown's contract in 1996. He proposed (in accordance with the contract terms) that evidence regarding a global flood be a topic for discussion within the debate. Brown has steadfastly refused to debate Meert (Meert 2003). Brown himself refuses to debate in the proper venue for deciding scientific questions: scientific conferences and peer-reviewed literature. References: Meert, Joe. 2003. Walt Brown's pseudochallenge. http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm To follow up on that post of mine,the following is from a lawyer who negotiates, writes, and litigates contracts for a living that happens to be a Bible believing creationist Christian who has attended and enjoyed Dr. Brown's seminar in the past,but is now speaking out against Walt Brown's dishonesty and diversion tactics used to avoid debate as well as dishonesty and diversion tactics used to avoid honoring the contract to debate. Dr. Meert & Dr. Brown/Peggy: I have written with some thoughts on the debate feud chronicled at Dr. Meert's site, and to an extent at Dr. Brown's site, CreationScience.com. (This email also keeps the promise I made Peggy that I would respond to Dr. Brown's position in submissions to both sides. Also, as a courtesy to Dr. Meert, I have attached the PDF file that Peggy sent me earlier today.) As a lawyer who negotiates, writes, and litigates contracts for a living, I believe that neither Dr. Meert nor Dr. Brown has read the debate agreement exactly right. However, on the whole, Dr. Meert's reading seems much closer to correct (i.e., his misreading is minor), and Dr. Brown's reading -- particularly on the "modification" clause near the end -- seems (at best) hyper-technical and (at worst) materially and even deliberately wrong. Dr. Brown argues that the "modification" clause applies only to "procedures," and that Dr. Meert's proposal does not deal with "procedures" -- meaning, in a nutshell, that r. Meert has not truly agreed to Dr. Brown's terms for debate. That, to use lawyer speak, is hogwash. While the modification clause does refer to "procedures," the term is not self-defining, nor is it defined in the agreement -- so what exactly the word means or includes must be determined in view of the entire document. When read as part of the agreement as a whole (and consistent with reported court decisions), "procedures" seems clearly to embrace all acts and powers of the editor listed in paragraph 8 -- including the power to "[m]ake whatever rulings will help accomplish paragraph 2 above." In other words, the editor has contractual authority to decide anything -- whether concerning submission lengths, formats, content, or anything else within the debate relationship -- if it makes the debate better or more helpful to its audience. If "procedures" does not include such items, then what exactly does the word mean? The agreement gives no clue. Against this backdrop -- and using common sense -- Dr. Meert's proposal seems easily to fall within the scope of "procedures" as the term is used in the modification clause. On a related point, I disagree with Dr. Brown's claim that Dr. Meert has made inclusion of religion a mandatory condition of participation in the debate. To the contrary, Dr. Meert says at http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm that he "will abide by the independent judges [sic] ruling (even if it goes against me) and will debate Walt in writing or in public at any time.") More important, perhaps, is a different but related principle: Even if Dr. Brown's reading of "procedures" is correct, that does not free him from the separate obligation to proceed with selection of an editor under paragraph 5 -- after which Dr. Meert's proposed modification would be submitted to and decided by that editor. Stated differently, once Dr. Meert signed the contract (with or without a proposal attached), Dr. Brown had no choice but to proceed with selection of an editor -- which editor would then have sole power to decide whether Dr. Meert's proposal is proper or should be rejected. To be blunt, nothing in the agreement gives Dr. Brown any power either (a) to decide that Dr. Meert's proposal does not concern "procedures," and therefore does not fall within the modification clause, or (b) then to do nothing based on that determination, and thus kill the debate before it begins. By refusing to act in any way on Dr. Meert's agreement, Dr. Brown is effectively serving as judge and jury, as well as advocate -- which, of course, makes the "debate" inherently unfair as well as impossible. If Dr. Brown will pounce on "procedures" to avoid appointment of the editor in this case, what word will provide his next exit? I am not an evolutionist -- to the contrary, I am a Bible-believing, creationist Christian who has attended and enjoyed Dr. Brown's seminar, and who teaches a Bible class every week at my church. In addition, however, I am a Vanderbilt-educated, naturally skeptical lawyer who wants creation science claims to be backed up by evidence, is embarassed by faulty logic and argument, and cringes whenever a creation science proponent appears to avoid instead of welcome direct engagement with an opponent. In this instance, Dr. Brown has disappointed me, because his misinterpretation and/or hyper-elevation of the term "procedures" looks like evasion. Of course, I might be entirely wrong, and I would welcome correction. Many thanks for the opportunity to give my thoughts. Please use them however you wish. Matthew Foster McMains Foster & Morse, P.C. 9000 Guaranty Building 20 North Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Telephone (317) 638-7100 Telecopier (317) 638-7171 [Edited 12/18/2013 10:45:26 PM ]
12/19/2013 12:51:20 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Quote from casheyesblond: Walt Brown stipulates that he will not allow theology into the debate, despite the fact that creationism is nothing but theology and that Brown himself uses theology as the basis for his conclusions. ..... Why am I not surprised - at least we use the scriptures in our posts about the flood.
12/21/2013 2:59:55 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	Quote from mindya: ..... Why am I not surprised - at least we use the scriptures in our posts about the flood. Walt Brown based his pseudoscience on his interpretation of Scripture but want allow others to use Scripture when debating him. oh the irony And no matter how many times we demonstrate that scientists have refuted Walt Brown's pseudoscience,we have certain ones in this forum that keep promoting Walt Brown's Hydro plate theory Walt Brown's hydro plate theory is NOT published in any science journals because it's NOT science and Walt Brown does not even submit his paper to other creationist websites because even the other creationist websites have refuted it as well And yet we have certain ones in this forum that keep promoting it oh my,this is too funny
12/22/2013 12:03:00 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Quote from casheyesblond: Walt Brown's hydro plate theory is NOT published in any science journals because it's NOT science and Walt Brown does not even submit his paper to other creationist websites because even the other creationist websites have refuted it as well Exactly - no peer review - dismissed by other creationist websites - it's an ear tickler for the Duck Dynasty type Christians...
12/30/2013 11:23:35 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
casheyesblond Belmont, NC 53, joined Feb. 2009	Why are there no companies listed on a stock exchange which use Young Earth geology to explore for oil and gas? teeheehee
12/31/2013 2:07:24 PM	Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Quote from casheyesblond: Why are there no companies listed on a stock exchange which use Young Earth geology to explore for oil and gas? teeheehee ...good point. Ya know, it's one thing to say I believe the bible talks about a global or world wide flood but it's absolutely schtooopid to be promoting a hopelessly flawed theory that has no scientific credibility and is rejected by most other global flood and young earth promoters. .......

megapwrsonals

skipthegames chat