Global Biblical Flood Hydroplate Theory Analysis and Discussion

[Idolater]

Thanks to @Jefferson for providing a really helpful link which sets out "three initial conditions" for the theory.

1. The created Earth was encapsulated by a granite crust nearly 100 km thick.

2. This crust was supported by downwarps in the granite crust creating pillars on a solid basalt mantle.

3. The resulting void between the crust and solid mantle contained an interconnected shell of subterranean water averaging 1.6 km that sustained Earth’s pre-Flood hydrologic system.

Ichnofossils Refute Hydroplate Theory’s Liquefaction Submodel

Ichnofossil data challenge Hydroplate Theory’s credibility—a theory purporting to explain the global stratigraphic record and its paleontological constituents.

answersresearchjournal.org

 

[Right Divider]

http://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview5.html

I would highly recommend (again) the key source for the theory, its originator: Dr. Walt Brown.

 

[Idolater]

It's good to see these set out plainly.

Regarding point 1: 100 km ~62 miles if my math's right. It seems like too much granite. Like, we're missing a lot of granite, if that's how it all started. Maybe lost to space?

Regarding point 2: idk what I think about the pillars, idk that they're necessary. If it was just an uninterrupted shell of water beneath the Earth's surface I don't see how that would change the model very much. It still would take some sort of penetration to begin the release of water. Also I think a lack of pillars would allow the floor of the hydroplates (which I'm taking to just mean synonymous with the Earth's surface at the time), to freely grind down into the basalt right around where the initial fracture occurred, creating the friction needed to generate the heat which would push all the remaining water supercritical, forcing out more water in more areas, globally, creating a sort of chain reaction, accelerating the fountains or planetary plumes, creating still more heat through friction, along with a lot of lava.

Regarding point 3: It does make sense to me that if the hydroplates were impermeable to liquid water, but permeable to water vapor, that this could sustain "Earth's pre-Flood hydrologic system," which would mean it didn't have to rain (no rainbows without rain).

 

[Right Divider]

It's good to see these set out plainly.

Regarding point 1: 100 km ~62 miles if my math's right. It seems like too much granite.

Please give REASONS for your ideas. WHY "does it seem like" there is too much granite? How much granite is the right amount of granite and why?

Like, we're missing a lot of granite, if that's how it all started.

Again, why do you think that "we're missing a lot of granite"? What leads you to believe this?

Maybe lost to space?

A great deal of the earth was launched into space. Much of it might be granite.

Regarding point 2: idk what I think about the pillars, idk that they're necessary. If it was just an uninterrupted shell of water beneath the Earth's surface I don't see how that would change the model very much. It still would take some sort of penetration to begin the release of water. Also I think a lack of pillars would allow the floor of the hydroplates (which I'm taking to just mean synonymous with the Earth's surface at the time), to freely grind down into the basalt right around where the initial fracture occurred, creating the friction needed to generate the heat which would push all the remaining water supercritical, forcing out more water in more areas, globally, creating a sort of chain reaction, accelerating the fountains or planetary plumes, creating still more heat through friction, along with a lot of lava.

I cannot emphasize this enough.... you REALLY, REALLY need to learn at least SOMETHING about the HPT. You continue to speak about it out of your own ignorance. The crushing of the pillars is a key part of the theory. The existence of the pillars is based on the Biblical account. Gen 1:9-10

Regarding point 3: It does make sense to me that if the hydroplates were impermeable to liquid water, but permeable to water vapor, that this could sustain "Earth's pre-Flood hydrologic system," which would mean it didn't have to rain (no rainbows without rain).

There is no reason that the water that created the mist would need to be from the half of the water that was under the granite crust. Half of the water on earth was already above the crust pre-flood.

 

[7djengo7]

Please give REASONS for your ideas.

Instead of taking them for granite.

 

[Stripe]

Instead of taking them for granite.

That's not gneiss.

 

[Idolater]

Please give REASONS for your ideas.

I do, I have.

WHY "does it seem like" there is too much granite? How much granite is the right amount of granite and why?

The right amoung of granite explains why there are continents with their shelves in the first place. The HPT satisfactorily explains mountain ranges to me, but it does not explain satisfactorily to me the existence of the continents. Why did these massive granite structures exist in the first place? They're like huge granite boats. They didn't just form from a once uniformly covered granite crust which just "bunched up" to form them. The granite is not formed like that because there is sedimentary rock on all the continents, which means the continents were all already extant during the Flood, according to the Bible.

So either they were already in their present shape before the Flood, or they weren't. Occam's razor says, if there isn't any reason to add complexity then don't, and I don't see the need for continents and their shelves to form by thinner granitic crust all bunching up from a previously completely covered-in-granite Earth.

The continents might just be all that's left from the whole rest of the granitic crust getting blown off into outer space, because of the broken fountains of the deep. Meaning they were here all along, and like the stone sculptor removing material to reveal a sculpture, after the Flood removed excess granitic crust now the Earth looks the way that it does, with just the seven continents, but before, granitic crust covered the whole Earth.

If the Earth did lose like 75% of its previous surface crust (going down maybe 24 miles, not all the way to the mantle) then that would only constitute like 0.60% of the Earth's mass at the time, and probably less, probably 0.5%, so five parts per thousand would have launched into space. Obviously it's an enormous amount of material, even though it's not very much compared with the Earth's mass.

Again, why do you think that "we're missing a lot of granite"? What leads you to believe this?

A great deal of the earth was launched into space. Much of it might be granite.

I cannot emphasize this enough.... you REALLY, REALLY need to learn at least SOMETHING about the HPT.

I do. I've interacted with you folks for years now. I spent multiple hours watching HPT documentary videos that you recommended. I saw a brief interview with Mr. Walt Brown one time. I even read the study posted in the OP, which shows that one key part of Mr. Brown's theory is obviously wrong. You can't find fossilized snail trails if what he says explains the stratified sedimentation which formed the sedimentary strata. They wouldn't survive. But they did survive, so therefore that part of Mr. Brown's theory is definitely wrong.

You continue to speak about it out of your own ignorance. The crushing of the pillars is a key part of the theory. The existence of the pillars is based on the Biblical account. Gen 1:9-10

There is no reason that the water that created the mist would need to be from the half of the water that was under the granite crust. Half of the water on earth was already above the crust pre-flood.

So it is said.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why did these massive granite structures exist in the first place? They're like huge granite boats. They didn't just form from a once uniformly covered granite crust which just "bunched up" to form them. The granite is not formed like that because there is sedimentary rock on all the continents, which means the continents were all already extant during the Flood, according to the Bible.

The continents are what remain of the once unbroken granitic shell that completely surrounded the earth.

Start here.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html and read until you reach "/HydroplateOverview6"

So either they were already in their present shape before the Flood, or they weren't.

They were already in their present shape before the flood, just contained within the greater global continent. See Figures 12 and 25 in the above

continents and their shelves to form by thinner granitic crust all bunching up from a previously completely covered-in-granite Earth.

Not what happened anyways.

The continents might just be all that's left from the whole rest of the granitic crust getting blown off into outer space, because of the broken fountains of the deep. Meaning they were here all along, and like the stone sculptor removing material to reveal a sculpture, after the Flood removed excess granitic crust now the Earth looks the way that it does, with just the seven continents, but before, granitic crust covered the whole Earth.

Exactly. Just don't forget that the hydroplates (they were on top of about a mile deep of water, supercritical at that point), and slid away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge until they encountered resistance.

If the Earth did lose like 75% of its previous surface crust (going down maybe 24 miles, not all the way to the mantle)

Well there's your problem, or at least one of them...

The material was eroded mostly from the edges and underside of the hydroplates, and hardly any from the surface.

then that would only constitute like 0.60% of the Earth's mass at the time, and probably less, probably 0.5%, so five parts per thousand would have launched into space. Obviously it's an enormous amount of material, even though it's not very much compared with the Earth's mass.

About 3% ± 1% of the Earth's original mass was ejected into space, not 0.5-0.6%.

So it is said.

It's what the Bible says.

 

[Stripe]

I don't see the need for continents and their shelves to form by thinner granitic crust all bunching up from a previously completely covered-in-granite Earth.

Granite.

 

[Right Divider]

I do, I have.

Link to the post.

The right amoung of granite explains why there are continents with their shelves in the first place. The HPT satisfactorily explains mountain ranges to me, but it does not explain satisfactorily to me the existence of the continents.

The entire earth was basically one giant crust of granite (approximately 60 miles thick), like the Bible describes.

Why did these massive granite structures exist in the first place?

Because God created the earth with water separated by the granite crust, like the Bible describes.

They're like huge granite boats.

They were not so much "floating" as they were simply sitting on a sealed system of underground water. Some parts sank to sit on the basaltic mantle (which would cause "seas" for the water above the crust); other parts were raised (in reaction to the sunken parts) which would cause hills and "mountains" (not like the huge mountains that we see today).

They didn't just form from a once uniformly covered granite crust which just "bunched up" to form them.

Why not?

The granite is not formed like that because there is sedimentary rock on all the continents, which means the continents were all already extant during the Flood, according to the Bible.

Much of the sedimentary rock was created during the flood. Much of the material that formed the sedimentary rock layers came from below the granite crust. Again, it appears that you've read practically nothing of Dr. Walt Brown's work.

So either they were already in their present shape before the Flood, or they weren't.

Nothing like an obviously true statement that explains nothing.

Occam's razor says, if there isn't any reason to add complexity then don't, and I don't see the need for continents and their shelves to form by thinner granitic crust all bunching up from a previously completely covered-in-granite Earth.

The high mountains are the things that were created by the "bunching up" of the sliding crust. The continental shelves were formed by the erosion caused by the escape of the super critical water from below the surface. See figure 5 on this page: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview3.html

The continents might just be all that's left from the whole rest of the granitic crust getting blown off into outer space, because of the broken fountains of the deep. Meaning they were here all along, and like the stone sculptor removing material to reveal a sculpture, after the Flood removed excess granitic crust now the Earth looks the way that it does, with just the seven continents, but before, granitic crust covered the whole Earth.

That is exactly what Dr. Brown says and it agrees with that the Bible says. Don't forget that there is a huge "chunk" of crust that is currently submerged in the Pacific ocean (caused when the Atlantic side was raised up first).
See this:

If the Earth did lose like 75% of its previous surface crust (going down maybe 24 miles, not all the way to the mantle) then that would only constitute like 0.60% of the Earth's mass at the time, and probably less, probably 0.5%, so five parts per thousand would have launched into space. Obviously it's an enormous amount of material, even though it's not very much compared with the Earth's mass.

The earth did NOT lose "like 75% of its previous surface crust". Much of it is simply under water (on the Pacific side) or stacked up (see the major mountains ranges of the world).

I do. I've interacted with you folks for years now. I spent multiple hours watching HPT documentary videos that you recommended. I saw a brief interview with Mr. Walt Brown one time.

You say this... but your responses show that you must not have watched much of it. Because so many things that you ask are CLEARLY explained in those videos (and in the book).

I even read the study posted in the OP, which shows that one key part of Mr. Brown's theory is obviously wrong. You can't find fossilized snail trails if what he says explains the stratified sedimentation which formed the sedimentary strata. They wouldn't survive. But they did survive, so therefore that part of Mr. Brown's theory is definitely wrong.

Nope... their explanation is simply wrong.

 

[Idolater]

The Grand Canyon, if any global Flood theory is correct, whether HPT or otherwise, is like a snapshot from during the 150 days recorded in the Bible.

It looks like there was an enormous area which was rapidly covered in sediments. And then, while that whole geologic column was in the process of hardening, from top to bottom, but it wasn't quite done hardening, there was an enormous drainage which formed the Canyon. Some parts of it (most of it) was retained, but some of it was just swept away pretty much all at once. iow, not "millions of years" worth of slow erosion, but one big gigantic flow.

Does anybody know of a source which catalogs all the fossils which have been found at different strata in the Grand Canyon?

 

[Right Divider]

The Grand Canyon, if any global Flood theory is correct, whether HPT or otherwise, is like a snapshot from during the 150 days recorded in the Bible.

I really wish that you would finally READ the book (https://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html). Particularly, this section: https://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook/GrandCanyon.html
NO, the Grand Canyon was NOT part of the "150 days recorded in the Bible". It happened later, but was due to the events that happened during and shortly after the flood.

It looks like there was an enormous area which was rapidly covered in sediments.

That applies to the entire planet.

And then, while that whole geologic column was in the process of hardening, from top to bottom, but it wasn't quite done hardening, there was an enormous drainage which formed the Canyon. Some parts of it (most of it) was retained, but some of it was just swept away pretty much all at once. iow, not "millions of years" worth of slow erosion, but one big gigantic flow.

Yes, this likely happened many years after the flood, and was likely completed in a matter of weeks.

 

[Derf]

I really wish that you would finally READ the book (https://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html). Particularly, this section: https://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook/GrandCanyon.html
NO, the Grand Canyon was NOT part of the "150 days recorded in the Bible". It happened later, but was due to the events that happened during and shortly after the flood.

I think he's referring to the visible layers being the snapshot, not the carving of the canyon.

That applies to the entire planet.

Yes, this

Meaning the carving, not the laying down of the sediments.

likely happened many years after the flood, and was likely completed in a matter of weeks.

 

[Right Divider]

I think he's referring to the visible layers being the snapshot, not the carving of the canyon.

The "visible layers" in the Grand Canyon were not visible until they were exposed by the carving of the canyon. That did not occur until many years later (Dr. Brown, per Bryan Nickel, says several centuries).

 

[Derf]

The Grand Canyon, if any global Flood theory is correct, whether HPT or otherwise, is like a snapshot from during the 150 days recorded in the Bible.

It looks like there was an enormous area which was rapidly covered in sediments. And then, while that whole geologic column was in the process of hardening, from top to bottom, but it wasn't quite done hardening, there was an enormous drainage which formed the Canyon. Some parts of it (most of it) was retained, but some of it was just swept away pretty much all at once. iow, not "millions of years" worth of slow erosion, but one big gigantic flow.

Does anybody know of a source which catalogs all the fossils which have been found at different strata in the Grand Canyon?

Try this for a start

View of Grand Canyon National Park Centennial Paleontological Resources Inventory

giw.utahgeology.org

 

[Derf]

The "visible layers" in the Grand Canyon were not visible until they were exposed by the carving of the canyon. That did not occur until many years later (Dr. Brown, per Bryan Nickel, says several centuries).

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But the layers were built up during the flood. That's what @Idolater was getting at. And because the canyon was carved (later) we can see a stunning picture of what was going on during the 150 days of the flood build-up.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But the layers were built up during the flood. That's what @Idolater was getting at. And because the canyon was carved (later) we can see a stunning picture of what was going on during the 150 days of the flood build-up.

I agree with that. That was not the way that I read it.

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But the layers were built up during the flood. That's what @Idolater was getting at. And because the canyon was carved (later) we can see a stunning picture of what was going on during the 150 days of the flood build-up.

And, as Dr. Brown says, we can see even more sediments above the rim of the Grand Canyon in the form of the plateaus across the SW United States. And they appear to be planed off so there were sediments above them as well. We have a truly amazing resource to gather data about the flood.

 

[Derf]

The Grand Canyon, if any global Flood theory is correct, whether HPT or otherwise, is like a snapshot from during the 150 days recorded in the Bible.

It looks like there was an enormous area which was rapidly covered in sediments. And then, while that whole geologic column was in the process of hardening, from top to bottom, but it wasn't quite done hardening, there was an enormous drainage which formed the Canyon. Some parts of it (most of it) was retained, but some of it was just swept away pretty much all at once. iow, not "millions of years" worth of slow erosion, but one big gigantic flow.

Does anybody know of a source which catalogs all the fossils which have been found at different strata in the Grand Canyon?

Interestingly, the sources I checked said there are NO dinosaur fossils there because the strata are all too old. But there are ground sloths and mammoths, etc. The reason they gave was that the latter fossils were in caves, I.e., they were not buried with the sediments, but afterward. This might be true, but mammoths? In caves on the side of cliffs?

 

[Right Divider]

2. This crust was supported by downwarps in the granite crust creating pillars on a solid basalt mantle.

From page 124 of In The Beginning, 9th edition:

Pillars partially supported the roof. (The confined, high-pressure subterranean water provided most of the support.)​

BOLD is mine.

So the pillars support some, but not most.

3. The resulting void between the crust and solid mantle contained an interconnected shell of subterranean water averaging 1.6 km that sustained Earth’s pre-Flood hydrologic system.

It was never a "void", the water was divided by the crust.