The predictions of Walt Brown

Yep, that would help.

Some of the most important predictions that have the most obvious ties to the hydroplate theory in my opinion are:6: A ten-mile thick granite hydroplate will be found a mile or so under the western Pacific floor.The plate could not have simply disappeared, so it must still be there beneath the sediments and basalt overflows.17: One should never find marine fossils, layered strata, oil, coal seams, or limestone directly beneath undisturbed rock ice or frozen mammoth carcasses. (Although I think it might be possible for oil to be found beneath since it migrates, though I'm not sure)If the mammoths were frozen in by the falling muddy hail and muck at the beginning of the flood and remained so near the surface, there should not be any of these features directly below the frozen carcasses.32: Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be much older than 70,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests.I've heard claims of this being verified, but they are naturally dismissed as in error or a hoax by most. Most organic material assumed to be older than 70,000 years is never dated by radiocarbon dating because the supply should be depleted. If the hydroplate theory is true, then some organic materials believed older than 70,000 years should give a radiocarbon date.

deleted: duplicated previous thread by mistake.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-03-2004 02:27 PM

The prediction says "directly beneath undisturbed rock ice or frozen mammoth carcasses." I would imagine this means within a square mile of these features.This was also one reason I started the thread about oil, as I was wondering if anyone else ascribes to Gold's idea that oil is formed deeper (5-20) miles down in the earth's crust partially from methane gas and then rises through faults into the resevoirs we find now. If this were the case oil could form not entirely from biogenic material and seep into different locations. Northern Siberia being far from the most active edges of the hydroplates was inundated with muddy hail and rain and recieved less alluvian stratified deposits than other parts of the hydroplate. The depth of the muck near pre-flood mountains in some areas may only be a couple hundred feet. Brown cites an article that says miners in Siberia sometimes encounter frozen mammoths buried under several hundred feet of muck.

Well, there are many geologic areas where in a few miles of lateral movement you can go from pre-cambrian to quaternary rock. In Alaska there is a lot of geologic upheaval, so this may be the case.Also, (purely my speculation) some remains may have been preserved and transported in glacial ice. Of course they would have to somehow not be ground to bits, so I don't know if this is possible.The prediction should hold true directly beneath the undisturbed specimens. To know for sure, you would have to investigate the specific local area where these undisturbed frozen features are found. The prediction might not hold true in other areas. I'm looking at a map of the ocean floor, and I see a ridge running from southern Alaska down the Eastern side of the Pacific ocean. The Asian hydroplate would have extended almost all the way East to this ridge until part of it sunk forming the Western Pacific ocean floor and the arc and cusp shaped trenches near the end of the water jetting activity.

I don't know what you mean. Walt Brown predicted what should NOT be found DIRECTLY beneath UNDISTURBED rock-ice or mammoth specimens. I am trying to explain why the "undisturbed" and "directly below" requirements are necessary.There are obviously areas of great geologic upheavals in Alaska that would change things.

Thank you for your reply. Brown's model does not forbid stratification of the "muck" or loess material. Some stratification would have occured where the soil was not immediately frozen. However, undisturbed mammoth specimens frozen into this muck should lie directly above, as you said: bedrock.This does not make mention of the Yedomas. Many remains of mammoths and other animals and plants have been found in Yedomas.To quote from Brown: Now this sounds like the results of a massive EXTREMELY icy landslide. But it does not explain the similar sites found in hills called Yedomas, nor does it explain the relationship between Yedomas, loess, and the salty ice, nor does it explain temperatures of -150 necessary to freeze such specimens so quickly, nor does it explain the unique characteristics of "rock ice" found near or at mammoth burial sites. I don't think the landslide explanation accounts for all of these facts.BTW what are your beliefs on the origin of Loess?

Thank you for your reply. I guess "lack of hydroplate activity" was an incorrect term. I meant that areas where undisturbed frozen mammoths are found would have mostly been covered with loess from hail and from erosive material by rainwater rather than erosive material from the incoming water from the edges of the hydroplates. Alaska was on the leading edge of a hydroplate and was drastically effected by the "compression event" Parts of Siberia on the other hand were in the center of a vast hydroplate and experienced less coverage by sandy material and little compression. I'm still thinking about reasons why certain fossils have specific localities. And I can't answer that right now.I do think that it is incorrect to make simplistic assumptions about such a unique and complex event as a worldwide flood.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-04-2004 12:40 PM

Thank you for your reply.I understand your point. Like I said, I am thinking about the different layering processes that would occur during such an event, and I will surely never be able to understand it all.How an area was layered and how fossils were trapped would depend on how close it was to an HP edge, the velocity and direction of water at the edge, how much the hp edge was submerged, how much hail if any fell on an area, how much the area rose or fell during the initial inundation and during compression event, how much rain fell on the area and how quickly, how windy it was, how cold or hot it was, how much debris fell from space, how many days it took for the area to be completely submerged, whether the sediments were laid down by mudslides or by suspended particles settling, the variations of preflood topography, tectonic faulting, how long organisms survived, how mobile they were, how bouyant they were, what elevation they were at, whether they escaped mudlides to drown in the rising seas or not, post flood erosion as the waters drained, post flood aeloian erosian, post flood flooding by precariously damed lakes, post flood glaciation, post flood mudslides, post-flood and inter-flood volcanic and seismic activity, etc... and so forth and so on...When (if ever) I can understand all of these processes working in combination and in detail, THEN I will make predictions about how the geologic column should be layered in different areas.I agree that there probably should be some modern fossils in certain locations in cambrian rock that lies beneath several thousand feet of layered strata, but I don't even know if they would likely still be recognizable or not and I don't know if we would ever find them or not. Their remains may have been reduced to their elemental components to add to oil deposits or they may have just been crushed, ground, heated, and then mineralogically replaced. And on top of that I don't think we have anywhere near a complete knowldege of what lies in the earth's strata. What percent of the earth's non-exposed cambrian rock has even been searched for fossils?This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-05-2004 12:57 PM

Thank you for your reply. Agreed. I'm just saying that there are many diverse mechanisms involved. I think the argument that turbidity currents could not produce the geologic column is comparable to creationists saying a cup of primordial soup could not sprout eyes and legs. I think abiogenesis and a certain dearth or complete lack of transitional features in certain cases cannot be ignored by evolutionists, but this is done because other evidence makes the theory plausible. I would first like to be able to recognize the HP theory as plausible by seeing if certain important predictions come true. Then I might want to put more effort in understanding the various mechanisms in detail and see how it might explain the evidence.I think any further discussion along these lines belongs in the fossil sorting thread.Let's get back to the prediction. If these frozen mammoths and other creatures were inundated by muddy hail as they scrambled for higher ground at the initiation of the flood, then the frozen undisturbed mammoths and undisturbed rock-ice should be close to the surface of pre-flood earth meaning there should be no marine fossils, stratified sedimentary geologic eras, coal seams, or limestone directly beneath these specimens. So... does anyone know of any core samples taken next to undisturbed frozen mammoth sites?

Thank you for your reply. He does not discuss turbidity currents specifically. He only says that much material would be eroded from the water jetting out of the edges of the hydroplates. He talks a lot about large-scale liquefaction.I think that there would probably have been some sediments on the ground before the flood, but not nearly to the extent of the geologic column.TTBOMK, turbidity currents are basically mudslides. I think it is pretty safe to say that during a world-wide flood turbidity currents would occur over most of the land surface, but not all at once. Some sediments would fall out of the air in rain and hail. Some sediments would precipiate chemically from disolved minerals in the water. Magma pockets would also form during this time beginning volcanic activity forming releasing other sediments into the atmosphere. Close to the edges of hydroplates such flows would immediately overwhelm everything in their path. Further into the continent rain water would cause initial flooding followed by mud flows coming in from continental edges. Pre-flood topography and topography changes during the flood would direct the currents different directions at different times. During the compression event (when the hydroplates came to rest) mountains would be pressed up and all sorts of geologic features would form. As the water then drained off of the continents, new alluvian features would form as turbidity currents moved sediments around. As the geologic features were pressed up, they would form naturally damned lakes (some of them very large) at various altitudes. These lakes would eventually break their dams and create new features.So throughout the first couple of weeks, turbidity currents would occur at different times and flow in from different places as the water rose forming various layers. Once the continents were completely covered in water, then Brown hypothesizes that cyclical liquefaction would stratify the sediments.In his book he shows a liquefaction experiment, which he says produced alternating layers of sediments closely resembling strata. He also says that liquefaction lenses were produced, which are temporary lenses of water in which buoyant materials could float into and be trapped. I am going to try this experiment myself and see if I get the same results as soon as I get the chance.During the compression event, a final giant liquefaction event would occur as water was "squeezed" out of the sediments. He says this may be responsible for certain features, noteably the sometimes incredibly large sedimentary dikes. He cites Ayer's rock as an example of a large sedimentary dike (I think I am using dike correctly... He calls them liquefaction plumes).ANYWAYS... I don't know why I'm listing all of these things off. Since ya'll have debated the HP theory before, you've probably heard this.

Thank you for your reply. Right... and as in the evolutionary theory, I believe there are correlations in the evidence to support it. The problem is that people dismiss it out-right without ever giving it much thought... Just like creos with evolution.My Dad brought me two of his Geology textbooks on geologic structures and lithography. I've been pouring over them today. I'm trying to read them with both viewpoints: uniformitarianism vs catastrophism. I keep seeing statements and apparent mysteries that would support the HP theory (although the books are 30 years old). Right. Bit by bit... which means I will never be able to figure out ALL the mechanisms to explain every feature by the HP theory, but if enough evidence makes it plausible, I will try.BTW, I'm headed for New Mexico tomorrow, so ya'll will have to keep this debate about the predictions alive without me. Maybe someone could attempt to take the position supporting the HP theory and its predictions?

Thank you for your reply.I've been reading a little about Loess on the internet. There seem to be a wide variety of opinions on it and a small variety of definitions for it. It does seem to be a unique widely scattered sediment. Some say it is evidence that a comet crashed somewhere scattering it's dust everywhere, others (most) give the explanation you gave, and others say in some areas (like china or Iowa) it is dust from the deserts or plains.I wonder if and where any Loess exists in the geologic column. To my knowledge it is uniquely quaternary. According to the HP theory, it should only exist as a quaternary sediment or rest beneath ice masses that have been around since near the beginning of the flood

Thank you for your reply. I'm learning that it's not so easy to determine where geologic column ends and the mainly granite hydroplate begins. For example, I've seen pictures of Cambrian rock on top of Pre-Cambrian rock and both were layered like sedimentary rock. In other words, I'm not sure where the pre-flood earth would end and the post flood geologic column would begin. According to this text book, many times rocks are simply dated by the fossils found in them to give relative ages. It shows a picture of quaternary rock sitting right on top of and next to pre-cambrian rock. It just makes me wonder if the pre-cambrian rock was pre-flood earth and the rock above it was only designated as quaternary deposits because of the modern fossils found in it.In most places, however, the geologic column is so thick anything buried beneath it would surely be destroyed.

Thank you for your reply. [qs]Your saying that most of the earths sedimentary rocks were a result of the Noahtic flood? If so, where did the sediment come from?Much of the sediments would have come from erosian at the edges of the hydroplates. Some erosian would have occured on the continents as flood waters flowed around. Other sediments would have would have precipitated out depending on the conditions. Meteorites would have fallen most prevalently at the beginning and end of the flood. These would have stirred up other sediments. Volcanoes would begin creating ash that would settle at differnt places and times. After the Bouma sequence was deposited more sediments might be laid down. If the layering of sediments caused a change in topography, then new flows might form. All of these layers would have been affected by liquefaction. Sorry. I thought Alluvial meant sediments of a watery origin. So how was it form, and why could it not have been formed as a liquefaction plume. I've been looking at Waulsortian mounds that look like smaller, limestone versions of the rock. Like I said, I've got to do this experiment to see for myself if the stratification and lensing occurs.I think it is really hard to know exactly how a column of water laden sediments a mile or more thick would act under wave action and the compression event as nothing of this sort has ever been observed on such a scale.Thanks for your input.Well, It's off to the mountains for me!