Jump to content


Photo

Hydroplate Theory Vs Plate Tectonic Theory

hydroplate theory

  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#41 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:27 AM

Your answer was "probably not". If you cannot concede that a rock balloon would not sink below water inside it, I think we're done. :)

#42 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:48 AM

Actually thinking on it more I'm leaning towards "definitely not". It's not an issue of sinking, it's an issue of crumbling (and then the bits sinking), and I've remembered we do have an example of hard, rock-like substances taking on balloon shapes - eggs. And the wall of an ostrich egg is an order of magnitude or more thicker than that of an inflated balloon.

#43 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:47 PM

Actually thinking on it more I'm leaning towards "definitely not".

Oh, you're leaning now? Posted Image

Let us know when you have decided which way you want to go with a balloon sinking through water. Posted Image
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#44 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:51 PM

Oh, you're leaning now? Posted Image Let us know when you have decided which way you want to go with a balloon sinking through water. Posted Image


The guy is still running I see. Good job, stripe.

#45 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:01 AM

Keep it up Stripe. As long as you don't engage with any response that differs from your predetermined "how to prove I'm right" template you won't have to question whether you're actually right or not.

#46 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:43 AM

Keep it up Stripe. As long as you don't engage with any response that differs from your predetermined "how to prove I'm right" template you won't have to question whether you're actually right or not.

Dude!

My aim is to agree with you as much as possible. Thus I presented an extremely simple example that I thought you should have no trouble agreeing with. If you can understand my example and agree with my assessment of what would happen then we might benefit from a more in depth discussion.

If you can't agree, there isn't much point talking about more complex situations.

So, let me restate the stage we're at. Get a metal sphere. Enclose it in a water-tight plastic ball of slightly larger diameter. Fill the gap between the sphere and the ball completely with water. Will the ball sink into the water?

#47 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:09 AM

Dude! My aim is to agree with you as much as possible. Thus I presented an extremely simple example that I thought you should have no trouble agreeing with. If you can understand my example and agree with my assessment of what would happen then we might benefit from a more in depth discussion. If you can't agree, there isn't much point talking about more complex situations. So, let me restate the stage we're at. Get a metal sphere. Enclose it in a water-tight plastic ball of slightly larger diameter. Fill the gap between the sphere and the ball completely with water. Will the ball sink into the water?

Dude, if your aim is to agree with me as much as possible, and you offer a premise that you think we'll both agree on, and I don't agree with your premise and I explain why... the proper response is to find another premise, or address my objections to the first premise, not insist that NO YOU MUST AGREE WITH THE PREMISE SAY YOU AGREE WITH MY PREMISE NOW.

As for your new scenario, no the plastic ball won't sink into the water.

#48 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:21 AM

no the plastic ball won't sink into the water.

Great! We agree.

Now do you understand why we reject the notion that the crust, according to Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory, would necessarily sink below its subterranean waters?

#49 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:49 AM

Great! We agree. Now do you understand why we reject the notion that the crust, according to Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory, would necessarily sink below its subterranean waters?

No. The Earth's crust isn't a balloon-sized plastic ball, it's a ~50km-thick shell of rock 12500km in diameter. Those two things have extremely different properties. Going from one to the other with no additional explanation is like saying I can throw my toy cars against the wall and they'll bounce off virtually unscathed, therefore real car accidents aren't dangerous.

#50 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:32 AM

No.

No? You don't understand why we reject that the crust, according to Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory, would necessarily sink below its subterranean waters?

Seriously?

Do you understand why the plastic ball won't sink? We think the crust wouldn't have sunk for the same reason.

#51 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:45 AM

No? You don't understand why we reject that the crust, according to Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory, would necessarily sink below its subterranean waters? Seriously?

Oh, I think I understand it fine : you have no clue how different forces relate at different scales. If you even know which forces are involved in the first place.

Do you understand why the plastic ball won't sink?

Yes, but I don't think you do. If you did you'd know why those reasons apply differently to different materials and scales.

We think the crust wouldn't have sunk for the same reason.

Why don't you explain in detail what that reason is. Not inapplicable metaphors or analogies, tell me what you think the actual physical forces involved are here.

#52 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:05 PM

Oh, I think I understand it fine

Great! So you understand why it is silly to say water cannot support rock, right?

#53 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

And Stripe's back in beautiful question-dodging form.

I really don't understand why you keep asking the same question, did you calculate that if you do it often enough statistically I should eventually answer by "yes Stripe you're right" ? I'd ask you if you were a computer but a computer would have dealt with humans before so that can't be it.

#54 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:50 PM

And Stripe's back in beautiful question-dodging form. I really don't understand why you keep asking the same question, did you calculate that if you do it often enough statistically I should eventually answer by "yes Stripe you're right" ? I'd ask you if you were a computer but a computer would have dealt with humans before so that can't be it.

What?

Anyway, now that you understand the setup and why it's not susceptible to the "rocks don't float" challenge, what is it that you see wrong with having, pre-flood, numerous interconnected chambers below an impermeable and unbroken crust?

#55 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 05 December 2012 - 01:15 PM

What?

I'm referring to the way you appear to have this argument in your mind with its steps all laid out, and by Jove you will go through each of its steps regardless of what responses you get. If you don't get the response that will allow you to go to the next step you'll just repeat the step indefinitely until you get the response you like, or until you can fool yourself into thinking you got the response you liked and can then proceed to the next step of your program algorithm "argument".

Anyway, now that you understand the setup and why it's not susceptible to the "rocks don't float" challenge, what is it that you see wrong with having, pre-flood, numerous interconnected chambers below an impermeable and unbroken crust?

Posted Image

#56 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:53 PM

Oooooo. kay....

#57 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 18 December 2012 - 12:50 AM

...


So, is anyone going to do any real commentary on my message 20 content?

Or perhaps someone would like to bring in something specific from the cited source in message 1.

Moose

#58 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 18 December 2012 - 08:06 AM

So, is anyone going to do any real commentary on my message 20 content?

I'll have a crack. :yes:

The hydroplate hypothesis is wishful thinking to come up with a water source for the flood.

Nothing like an open mind to approach a subject with. Posted Image

OK. Doesn’t make sense from the scientific perspective,

Because you say so?

but if God wanted to create the Earth that way, so be it (for sake of discussion). So, it seems that God created a vast reservoir of water, to have handy in case he needed to flood the Earth. Actually, the instability of this situation would seem to make the flood inevitable.

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.

One thing the paragraph doesn’t mention, is that the waters would also contain enormous amounts of heat. Can you say “pressure cooker?”

I can say, "pressure cooker". Did you have something of relevance to share?

Offhand, I don’t know why this is important to the hypothesis

It isn't. It's important to the status quo.

Good thing God had reason to flood the Earth. Sounds to me like it was going to happen anyway.

And why should anyone care what you think?

High evaporation rate? More like boiling. Stand by to be cooked

That's about a third of the temperature increase necessary to boil water.

So that’s where all the water went. But all the oceans water is not enough to cover the highest mountains,

Might pay to read the rest of the story then. Posted Image

I’m now going to make whoever cares bring specific points they wish to discuss. Moose

Oh? How are you going to manage that? It took two pages for anyone to even notice you.
  • Salsa likes this

#59 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 18 December 2012 - 08:23 AM

Hehe. You're on a roll stripe. Posted Image But I get the feeling that you're going to be told that you are not providing any "real commentary" either!

#60 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 18 December 2012 - 08:39 AM

Folks should read the book. :)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users