Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

Speculation and theory are two different things. Speculation is what you do before you have any evidence. Theory develops out of and explains evidence.What we can gradually show you over a series of posts is that current geological theories developed from the evidence and so are consistent with that evidence. Were we to find theory and evidence incompatible we would be forced to change theory. It would be stupid, and impossible anyway, to try to uphold theory in the face of contrary evidence, especially with the huge number of field geologists out there looking for oil and minerals who would immediately notice that what they were taught in school didn't match what they were seeing in the field.What people will try to show for you is that Walt Brown's ideas, because they did not develop from the evidence, can be shown to be inconsistent with that evidence. At some point miracles have to be invoked, which whether they happened or not, is not scientific, otherwise scientists would be explaining, "And then a miracle happened," everytime they got unexpected results.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percy, 02-05-2004]

Since you're the advocate here for Walt's theories, rather than asking us what Walt says, it might be better if you checked into it yourself. But my recollection is that Walt advocates runaway subduction. Where one plate hits another, the denser plate (ocean plates are always denser than continental plates) subducts beneath the lighter plate and downward into the earth's interior.Oceanic plates today move away from mid-oceanoic ridges and subduct at the rate of 2-6 inches/year. During the flood year Walt requires that the rate be about 10 miles/day, which is about 3000 times faster. Walt needs a mechanism whereby huge tectonic plates could be accelerated from speeds of inches per year to miles per day, and he needs a source for the huge amount of energy to do this. And the same for decelerating the plates back to normal speeds.Associated with this problem is one of heat. Such huge speeds for the plates would generate enough heat through friction to melt the entire surface of the earth, wiping out all life in the process. That we are hear to discuss this at all is strong evidence that the hydroplate theory and runaway subduction never happened. You shouldn't believe Joe over Walt, though if one were short of time to look into the issues oneself one might ask the question, "Who should I trust on issues of geology: a professional geologist, or an engineer who takes the Bible literally?"What you *should* do, given the time, is assess the evidence yourself and see whose viewpoint best fits that evidence.--Percy

Hi Simple!I'm having a real tough time getting a read on your feelings about Walt Brown's theories. First you express skepticism: Then, in your very next breath, you express enthusiasm: Given these conflicting expressions, it would be appreciated if you could help us understand whether you're asking us to help you critique Walt's ideas, or if you've already embraced them and are trying to persuade us of their validity. This has the same problems mentioned before, plus some additional ones. While water certainly resides within the earth, even deep within the earth, it doesn't appear to collect in massive reservoirs beneath mid-oceanic ridges. Extremely hot water under high pressure, once it reached the ridge, would simply explode upward and outward - there would be very little force pushing on plates. A plate wouldn't move anyway when pushed on it's edge - it would simply crumple. Plates move because of magma currents beneath them that drag against their entire underside. Then there's the enormous heat of friction that such rapid motion would create. Plus there's still the lack of sufficient energy to accelerate the plates to such high speeds, and then energy to slow them down again. Perhaps you've heard that it takes miles for a large cruise ship like the Queen Mary to turn around? Well, imagine how long and how much energy it takes for continents!There are several excellent bodies of evidence that indicate plates move slowly and have always moved slowly, and we can get into the details of this evidence if you are interested. First, we have GPS data that accurately measures the rates of movement of the plates. We know how fast they're all moving and in what direction.Second, there's the radiometric data that says the age of the seafloor is very young at the ridge where new seafloor is produced, and very old at the continental margins, in some places as old as 200 million years. As you move from ridge to continental margin the age of the sea floor increases gradually - there are no jumps.Third, there's magnetic striping on the seafloor. When seafloor is produced at the ridge and cools, it takes on the magnetic direction of the earth. Since the earth's magnetic field reverses, on average, every 1/2 million years or so, this causes new seafloor to be magnetized in one direction for a long while, and then in the opposite direction for another long while. The result is stripes of oppositely magnetized seafloor. There are beautiful maps of this striping for the whole earth, and I could reproduce one of them here if you think it would be helpful. Walt Brown would be incorrect if he actually said that. The motive force behind plate tectonics is currents within the magma of the earth. These currents are driven by the huge heat engine in the earth's center generated by the decay of radioactive minerals. Perhaps you've seen chicken noodle soup cook in a glass pot and observed the eddies and flows. The heat engine in the earth's center produces a similar, though much larger, effect. No one here, especially Joe, is asking you to disbelieve God. We're only asking you to look at the evidence No one here is calling God a liar. No one appointed Walt Brown God's spokeman. There are many sincere Christians who don't agree with Walt Brown at all, and don't think they are calling God a liar when they do that. Pointing out how Walt Brown's ideas are contradicted by evidence is not blasphemy but just science doing it's job. Put your faith in God, not Walt. Big? You mean as a significant issue within science? If that's what you mean then this would be incorrect. Creation science is not accepted as science by the scientific community.But if you mean big as in having a significant influence on science education in the United States, then you are quite correct. Creationists have brought their issues to boards of education at state and local levels, and to state legislatures, and a couple times to federal courts and once even to the Supreme Court. They petition that Creation Science be taught in public school science classrooms by legislative action rather than by persuading scientists of their views.Naturally, many people are very concerned about this, and one of the reasons this website exists is so Creationists and evolutionists can exchange information in the hope that a dialogue will improve understanding on both sides.--Percy

Well, yes, that's true, and it's because Walt's ideas were constructed with the the goal of being consistent with young earth preconceptions. But much of what people have been relating to you here is how Walt's ideas conflict with much of the actual evidence we have. Allow me to draw a distinction between Walt's ideas on the one hand, and the possibility of a young earth on the other. Walt's ideas have already been falsified by being shown to be inconsistent with the evidence. You *did*, after all, just say this: The many falsifications of Walt's ideas are the only reasons you need to not "embrace it too closely." If you feel you need more clarification then we'd be glad to engage in more discussion about Walt's ideas, but in the end you will find that Walt's ideas are not the young earth model you seek. Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. Let me try again.While the earth *does* contain huge amounts of water, it does not tend to collect in huge reservoirs. It is all mixed in with the magma that lies beneath earth's surface and extends down to the liquid metallic core. Walt proposes that this water collected in a huge reservoir beneath what became a mid-oceanic ridge and burst forth causing runaway plate motion. So you ask an excellent question: "Why would it collect there (now)?" The answer is that there is no reason for it to collect there now. What you could have gone on to ask is: "Why would it collect there (then)?" The answer is the same - there is no reason, no physical mechanism, by which the water would become unmixed and gather in a long strip beneath the surface. There are some real world considerations that make this a very questionable hypthesis. I'll explain this with an example. A paper towel is about the right thickness and rigidity to serve as a model for a tectonic plate. Take a paper towel and place it on the counter. The paper towel can slide fairly easily on the counter, but there is still friction, and this friction corresponds to the friction between the plate and the underlying magma.Using some kitchen utensils, perhaps a couple of pancake flippers, raise one side of the flat paper towel about 1/8 of an inch. This corresponds to the water pushing the plate boundaries to a height of about a hundred miles. Does the paper towel move? It doesn't, does it?Now raise the edge of the paper towel to a height of 1/2 of an inch. This corresponds to a height of 400 miles in Walt's model? Does the paper towel move? It doesn't, does it?Now raise the edge of the paper towel to a height of 1 whole inch. This corresponds to a height of 800 miles in Walt's model? Does the paper towel move? It doesn't, does it?See the problem? The water in Walt's model has to lift the plate edges to an enormous and ridiculous height before the plates would begin to move.There's another problem. Walt proposes that the water reduces the friction. But his model proposes that the water gathered only beneath ridges. The water would not spread to fill the entire area of millions of square miles beneath a plate, and this region 10 miles or so down is under great pressure and would tend to push water out anyway. So Walt still has an enormous friction problem.Finally, if this had really happened in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean only 6,000 years ago, there would be massive evidence. No evidence of such an event has ever been found.Perhaps Walt attempts to address these issues at his website. If you find answers please let us know. Unfortunately, scientists are not at liberty to ignore evidence. The current geological models are accepted because they explain the available evidence, and that includes the radiometric evidence. One reason Walt's ideas are not accepted within the scientific community, and in fact why people like Walt don't even bother to submit their ideas to scientific scruitiny, is because there is so much data they can't explain. You can arrive at all kinds of strange beliefs by ignoring evidence, which is why the practice is frowned upon within science. That's nice. You're certainly permitted to say whatever you like, but the evidence says the reversals occur on average every half million years. The reason we know that is because of the radiometric data, which you haven't yet incorporated into your model, but you can instead arrive at more approximate estimates if you use ocean floor sedimentation depths, since mid-ocean sedimentation rates are, on average, fairly consistent. The depth of sediments on a stretch of ocean floor increase gradually over time, so the deeper the sediment, the older the ocean floor. This approach still yields a interval for reversals of about a half million years. It isn't a case of like or dislike, but of following the evidence where it leads. I think you may have misunderstood. When I said science was just doing it's job by pointing out where Walt Brown's ideas are contradicted by the evidence, I did not mean that they were doing that out of any religious motivation. There is nothing that science can say about faith-based beliefs, and science is not trying to do this. But to the extent that Walt's ideas are brought to forums of science like this one, it is fair game to point out how those ideas measure up scientifically. It turns out Walt's ideas are contradicted by most of the evidence. It would be off-topic to get into this in any detail, but if you're interested we can open another thread. Do you really believe that what's taught in science class should be set by state statute instead of simply being about what science currently understands about our universe?--Percy

Darwin's against young earth preconceptions? Yes, of course, but it makes no sense, given that you disagree with Darwin, that you would offer this as rebuttal, so I guess I don't know what you're saying. I see that in a couple of the replies to you people assumed you misspoke and that you really meant Darwin was against an ancient earth, and of course that is not true. As others have described, Darwin desired far more antiquity than other scientists, Lord Kelvin foremost among them, would allow him at the time. I'm only replying to what you've told us about Walt's views. And I didn't say Walt's views were silly, I said they were falsified. As I told you in another thread, the views of many great scientists have been falsified, including Archimedes and Newton. That doesn't make their views silly. Of course, having your views falsified doesn't make you a great scientist, either.So you say the water wasn't just beneath mid-oceanic ridges, but everywhere. This is a far greater amount of water than if it were just beneath the ridges, and it causes a problem that was only minor before to become huge: where's all this water now, since only the water that burst forth from beneath the ridges escaped. The rest of the water should still be there beneath the earth's surface, but it isn't.The issue I raised still applies. While the earth *does* contain huge amounts of water, it does not tend to collect in huge reservoirs. It is all mixed in with the magma that lies beneath earth's surface and extends down to the liquid metallic core. Walt proposes that some of this water was in a huge reservoir beneath what became a mid-oceanic ridge and burst forth causing runaway plate motion. What caused the water that is usually distributed throughout the earth's interior to gather in narrow strips? Rock is much firmer than paper towels, but the paper towel is only a model for a plate thousands of miles in extent. At that scale the rock is weaker than a paper towel. This is because the strength of the material can only increase by the square (cross-sectional area), while the weight increases by the cube (volume).Skyscrapers are a good example of the strength of materials on a large scale. Perhaps you've had the opportunity to see a solid steel girder, perhaps even examined one or touched one? They are very strong, and it is very difficult to imagine them bending. Skyscrapers are built from steel girders, and if you ever went up in a tall skyscraper, perhaps the World Trade Center or the Sears Tower, then you know from the talk they give you on the elevator ride up that the towers sway back and forth 10 feet or so in high winds. That's because on a large scale the steel girders are very flexible.And on a large scale, so is rock. And the tectonic plates are not tiny like skyscrapers, which are less than 1/4 of a mile tall, but are huges, thousands of miles in extent. They are very flexible on that scale, even more flexible than a paper towel.And unlike steel, rock is extremely brittle. It shatters when subjected to great forces. Water bursting forth to push the edge of a tectonic plate 500 or a thousand miles into space would shatter the rock of the plate.Even if, for the sake of argument, we pretend the tectonic wouldn't crumble, there would be massive debris blown from the ridge, and it would turn on up the land on both sides of the ridge. Rocks that have been under great stress have particular analytical profiles. No such rocks have ever been found.And the rocks near the ridge (they'd have to be near the ridge, since motion of 2-6 inches per year for 6000 years is only about 5 miles) show no signs of being bent and stressed, either. In fact, even though this huge explosion supposedly happened only 6000 years ago, no evidence of it has ever turned up.And you still haven't addressed the original point. The friction of the paper towel against the counter is less than the friction of the plate against the underlying magma, yet when you lift the edge of the paper towel a distance equal to 800 miles, the paper towel doesn't budge. Even if you could blow the edge of a tectonic plate 800 miles into space without it coming apart, the tectonic plate would not begin sliding 10 miles a day because the friction is far too great. In science, issues are argued using evidence and insight, not name calling. If it were the practice of science to reply to this in kind, saying perhaps that your community is immature and ignorant, then science would never make any progress, it would become just people calling each other names.The point I was making was that scientists are not at liberty to ignore evidence. The current geological models are accepted because they explain the available evidence, and that includes the radiometric evidence. If you're going to reject the radiometric evidence then you have to argue based on that evidence, or upon such other evidence that you have. But if you're doing science, you cannot simply choose to ignore it.So if you're to have a complete model, one capable of competing with modern views within geology, then you must consider the radiometric data, even if you do so only to falsify it. This isn't an answer, but just a restatement of your opinion. Your supposed to be advancing arguments in support of your position, not just repeating your position. We already know what you believe.It has already been described for you how floods leave very large grained debris. In very violent floods the grain size can be boulders the size of houses. What we instead find on the seafloor is very fine grained sediment, and in depths that would have taken millions of years to deposit. We find no deposits that resemble a flood. Well, if you'd like to discuss it, then open a thread Education and Creation/Evolution forum.--Percy

We'll address whatever you tell us about Walt's views. As I've said before, we can't address what you don't tell us.About the scenario you describe, that's quite a story!Back in the 19th century when geologists first began uncovering the evidence for what events shaped the modern earth, they were expecting to find evidence of Noah's flood. What they instead found was evidence for a very ancient earth. They found no evidence for anything you describe, and that has remained true right up until today. Specifically:

1. No evidence of massive steam explosions at mid-oceanic ridges.
   ​
2. No evidence of the edges of tectonic plates having been blown hundreds of miles upward.
   ​
3. No evidence of pillars supporting the edges of the plates.
   ​
4. No evidence of shattered pillars.
   ​
5. No evidence near mid-oceanic ridges of rock strain associated with bending the plate edge up into space.
   ​
6. No evidence that almost all life on earth died about 6000 years ago.
   ​
7. No evidence of a layer of water underlying the tectonic plates.
   ​
8. No evidence of runaway continental drift or runaway subduction.
   ​
9. No evidence that mammoths are frozen in water that had a subterranean origin.
   ​
10. No evidence that the asteroid belt has a terrestrial origin.
    ​
11. No evidence that representatives of all the animal species of the world migrated either to or from a point in the Middle East.
    ​
12. No evidence of Atlantis.
    ​
13. No evidence of recent dramatic ocean-level changes.

Science works by forming a hypothesis for how something might have happened, and then seeking evidence in support of the hypothesis. You've got the hypothesis part down, but you not only have no evidence supporting it, it is contradicted by all the evidence we *do* have.You didn't address all the other issues of my previous post:

1. How did the water come to reside beneath oceanic ridges?
   ​
2. If water underlies all tectonic plates, where is it now?
   ​
3. How did the edges of the tectonic plates hold together and not fragment when blasted into space, as you would expect rock to do?
   ​
4. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the plate edges didn't fragment, raising the plate edges would not produce enough force to cause the plates to move at the rate of 10 miles/day.
   ​
5. You need to address the radiometric evidence, even if only to falsify it.
   ​
6. Even without radiometric data, the deep sea sediments give a very good indication of the age of the ocean floor.
   ​
7. Magnetic reversals are another confirmation of current theory.

--Percy