Paste this url in your browser, and watch the 10 minute PhD Walt Brown's hydroplate theory of the Genesis flood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9ZGt9UA-U

"As it was in the day of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of man."

I totally disagree.

Why are there fish fossils on mountain tops?

Why are there fish fossils on mountain tops?

you just made the point that nobody, no scientist anyway, BELIEVES in science. science is nothing more than a discipline of ongoing study. yes, sagan erred, as did newton, einstein and so many others. scientists are their own biggest skeptics. theories are constantly being challenged by the strict scrutiny of the scientific method. no sooner will a new theory become valid after being tested to yield predictable and repeatable results than another scientist comes along with a new test that might invalidate the theory completely. if you know of somebody who BELIEVES in science i can assure you he's not much of a scientific mindset.

Well stated, JR. And I wholeheartedly agree.

Therefore, there is just as much room, as any other scientific theory, for a hydroplate theory of the Genesis flood, such as Walt Brown's

not as SCIENCE theory goes. a good theory will contain postulates that can be tested under the scientific method to produce repeatable and predictable results. can you show me where brown's 'theory' has yielded such repeatable and predictable results after testing? a you tube video posted on the internet is far from evidence of such testing.

yes, such a ship would be about half the size of an eisenhower class aircraft carrier which itself would not be large enough to hold two of every species of land animals. perhaps there was a flood, localized in nature, but that hardly makes the Noah's ark fantasy a reality.

A massive ship could well have been constructed, given ample time, and the technology of that day, which was higher than we suppose.

If that's true, how come American Christian fundamentalists like yourself haven't built such a ship using stone age technology and demonstrated it's seaworthiness and suitability for carrying lots of animals and their food for months on end - perhaps using domestic cattle instead of animals gathered from around the globe?

Fact is, we don't know what kind of technology prediluvian people had. It need not have been, as you say, "stone age." It is written the life spans were enormous, and with such experience gathered during such long lives, the technology they possessed might have been quite great. Certainly great enough to build such a vessel as the Ark.

walt, considering your numerous past postings on this forum i'd think you're going to have a tough row to hoe getting people to waste ten minutes on an internet video that you offer. other than a few fellow christians of course. my time is limited on the internet and i'm not about to spend ten minutes watching your video to find answers when i have my own sources for such reading and viewing and not enough time for even those. but i'll make you this deal. read 'a brief history in time' by stephen hawking in it's entirety and i'll watch your video. don't ask me to read your bible. i've done that more than once.

ha. the little attention that you paid to the physical sciences is screaming loudly at me. it may be a mystery to you how the egyptians moved very large stones to build the pyramids but to physicists and archeologist the method devised by the egyptians was quite rudimentary. but of course we have the pyramids to study to learn about such early technology but that cannot be said of the ark can it? as such you are inferring something from nothing no?

Something from nothing? There is another much longer documentary I recently viewed, Patterns of Evidence: Exodus, which makes quite a case for another Bible "story" being much more than a mere story, as well.

Fascinating. They actually found the very tomb where the patriarch Joseph was buried, in Egypt. All the precious items buried with him were still there, but Joseph's remains gone. Why on earth would anyone take a corpse and leave behind costly array?.....

"Moses took the bones of Joseph with him because Joseph had made the Israelites swear an oath. He had said, "God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up with you from this place." Exodus 13:19

"Something from nothing?" The film is view-able on Netflicks, for those who would like to know.

The documentary did a good job of explaining the different views and opinions that scholars have on the biblical Exodus. But, as I’ve pointed out earlier it was unclear if any clear and definitive answer was arrived at for when the Exodus actually occurred.

Near the end of the film, Mahoney made a statement along the lines of “Scholars disagree about the dating and the evidence for the biblical Exodus, but we do have evidence for it.”

The problem is that the evidence that was presented as supporting the Exodus was conflicting. My concern is that Christians may walk away from the film being even more agnostic about the Exodus than certain that it happened.

But perhaps that was Mahoney’s point. We do have evidence for the historical Exodus, but there is not a consensus among conservative scholars on the exact nature of that evidence and which evidence is most reliable for defending a historical Exodus. Christians should consider the evidence for themselves and decide.

What did you think of the hydroplate theory video.

The Toba catastrophe theory, presented in the late 1990s to early 2000s, suggested that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 10,000-30,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory was based on geological evidence of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidence of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation in humans.[3] More recent research shows the extent of climate change was much smaller than believed by proponents of the theory.[5]

Something from nothing? There is another much longer documentary I recently viewed, Patterns of Evidence: Exodus, which makes quite a case for another Bible "story" being much more than a mere story, as well.

Fascinating. They actually found the very tomb where the patriarch Joseph was buried, in Egypt. All the precious items buried with him were still there, but Joseph's remains gone. Why on earth would anyone take a corpse and leave behind costly array?.....

"Moses took the bones of Joseph with him because Joseph had made the Israelites swear an oath. He had said, "God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up with you from this place." Exodus 13:19

"Something from nothing?" The film is view-able on Netflicks, for those who would like to know.

Yes, perhaps so, but this particular find was most remarkable. No wooden craft, at the 13,000 level, with glaciers, and earthquakes, is going to be in mint condition, after what? 4,000 years?

Here is a bit from the cited link, below....

"Ron [Wyatt]attempted to take analysis with Galbraith labs to see if the structure was indeed petrified wood, in order to indicate if that was a wooded boat structure.

The results came back with the large content of carbon revealing that is was indeed organic material as expected in petrified wood. The results also revealed a large amount of iron content; this indicates the metal fittings used to connect the boats over time eroded depositing minerals in the wood as it petrified."

http://www.streetwitnessing.org/creation-evolution/noah-flood/noah-flood-archaeological-evidence/

Indeed, that image does have an apparent boat shape, and it could be a natural phenomena as you infer. But when you add to it the petrified wood and metal that was found, it then becomes something startling.

BOGUS "NOAH'S ARK FROM TURKEY EXPOSED AS A COMMON GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE

Abstract

A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.

Conclusion

Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation. It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure would so catch their attention that an eagerness to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or confirmed its existence would tend to override caution. An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994). Furthermore, if the Creationism Flood hypothesis were valid (Baumgardner, 1985, 1990), the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that cut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Noachian Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of the Ark.

When the site is again accessible to foreign investigators, the area near Kazan (Arzap) needs to be examined to see if outcrops of volcanic rocks occur there that have a mineralogy similar to that of the anchor stones. If so, a local source for the anchor stones is strongly supported. Lacking this information for this article, however, in no way negates the conclusion that the boat-shaped rock formation is totally natural.

Finally, David Fasold suggested that, although the structure is not Noah's Ark, it may very well be the site which the ancients regarded as the ship of the Deluge and may have played a role in the Flood story. As a geologist, I find this to be a interesting speculation.