Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

I am sorry Joe Meert, but I read something you wrote on Christianforums.com and just about fell over laughing. To paraphrase:"If there was a meteor coming towards earth and God told Noah to build a spaceship, would Walt be preaching his hydroplate theory?"This is why Walt's theory is in the dust bin. His only reason for putting forth his theory is to reconcile tectonic movements with the Noachian flood. He did not derive his theory from evidence, but rather through an ancient story.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-05-2004]

Plate techtonics indicates slow movement, which is exactly what we see with the Hawaiian Islands. A single hot spot has created all of the Hawaiian islands, the farther you move away from the hot spot, the older the islands date by radiometric dating. If you map out the SLOW movement of the islands away from the hot spot with the radiometric ages of the islands, guess what you get. A perfect match. Also, erosion patterns on the islands follow the same pattern. The islands farthest away from the hot spot are noticebly eroded while those closer to the hot spot show less erosion. This is the trifecta. Three separate and independent measurements (ie, island velocity, radiometric age, and erosion) match up in a way that leaves little doubt that the Hawaiian islands took millions of years to develop through the slow movement of plates, as predicted by PT.Explain again how hydroplate theory can explain this any better.

Just in case some here have not gone to the links, which seems to be possible, here is the graph for simple and whatever (and for lurkers alike): Now please tell me why there is such a nice correlation between the age and the distance from Kilauea. Why do the islands farthest from Kilauea show the most erosion? Also, look at the values on both axes, 5000 km movement in 70 million years. For this to work in the hydroplate theory, not only would the speeding plates have to create these islands all at once, but it would also have to create K:Ar ratios that are different on each island in a way that would cause them to date in increasing order from Kilauea on a very tight line.I hate to be repeating myself, but this graph plainly shows the evidence backing slow tectonic movement. I see know such graph supporting the hydroplate theory.

Whatever,From the site that you linked to
(Geophysics University of Bonn)
It reads thus:"Scientific problem:Investigate the response of the water column in the superdeep drillhole Kola-SG3 (12.25 km deep, the deepest borehole in the world) and adjacent borehole(s) to earth tidal and (possibly tectonic) forces, to barometric loading, to mining activities in the surroundings, to the passage of seimic wave fields, to seasonal influences - all reflecting in-situ pore pressure changes in the formations that are open to the borehole. This gives evidence of the role of free and mobile pore fluids in the middle crust when considering transport processes, tectonic stress transfer, and related subjects."It seems that they are looking at the response of your "fountains of the deep" to tidal and possibly tectonic forces. They consider water movement a consequence of larger forces, such as tectonics. You seem to be saying that the water in the middle crust is causing movement, they are saying that the water responds to crust movement. Two different things.

quote:

---

Why does your dating methods and results, fit so wonderfully together'? There could be some forces at work that make it appear so. You don't know what. It is one of those things that you can put on a shelf, and, see if it stands the test of time.

---

So you are telling me that the hydroplate theory can't deal with this one graph? All you can tell me is there MIGHT be something else, therefore I am wrong? Hmm, looks like hand waving time.

quote:

---

You know, for a long time mainstream science has assumed old age, and looked for it. No other explanation will do.

---

They assumed that the earth was young but the data didn't fit the assumption. They were forced to assume an old age by the data, not the other way around.

quote:

---

Sometimes where their error lies, is in dates that are way too old.

---

Show me the dates that are way too old on that graph, and why.

quote:

---

what caused the erosion? (water?) What else besides their "dating" makes it old?

---

Answered your own question there. Water and tidal forces are causes of erosion. The longer the islands are exposed to the elements the more eroded they are. This backs up the radiometric dating, which you claim are not reliable for no apparent reason.

quote:

---

In strata layers they call things layed down in the same event millions of years old. Of course Prof Tweedly Dee agrees with Prof Tweedly Dum, and they use stata and fossils to agree with themselves.

---

Fossils and strata are dated just as the island chain was. The Hawaiian Islands are evidence of the reliability of radiometric data since they are corroborated by plate tectonics and erosion, which are independent of dating. Corroboration from two independent sources adds to the reliability of a test.

quote:

---

I wonder if you'll get any heavy hitters to straighten you out, when the moderators here are admittedly pro evolution, and seem to me (right or wrong) to be bullies.

---

Bring them on. I haven't seen anything yet that would approach a "straightening out." As to being bullies, at least I don't come on here and call mainstream scientists dishonest and liars even after they have spent years studying their profession and submitted their work to peer reviewed journals. Bullies push their point of view in the face of counter-evidence and hold their supposed "crushing evidence to evolution" close to their chest.

quote:

---

Reminds me of "Groundhog Day" Where this guy named Ned says "am I right or am I right or am I right"? Then goes on to try and sell his policy (evolution in this case).

---

At least I am not doing it in the face of counter-evidence.

quote:

---

How does the tectonic plate say the plates are moving, doesn't the tectonic plate theory say the tectonic plate is floating on a more dense rock, like JohF implied, isn't rock thats a liquid under these great pressures a solid, how could two solids move laterally (they could press inward, or upward) but not laterally, water however is a mobile fluid, under pressure, this is why its found filling the voids in the super deep wells, proof in the natural that Walts hydroplate theory is literally correct (hydro=water), etc...

---

There is oil in the crust. Why didn't Walt create a Petroleum Plate theory? It is under pressure and is also in with natural gasses which exert pressure. Oil fills the voids in deep wells. So if I were to present a Petroleum Plate Theory, I would be just as correct as Walt. Tell me what experiments to do so I can tell which is right, Petroleum or Hydro Plate Theory.

quote:

---

Creation folks have an quiver full of arrows with things pointing to a young earth. Wouldn't it be nice here to come on out and say, That is ridiculous-we never decended from cockcroaches! They are not MY ancestors! (Can you for us now honestly say that?)

---

We share a common ancestor with arthropods, we are not descended from them. So far all of you arrows have been duds. You might want to try another quiver.