Earths catastrophic past (plate techtonics) vs Hydroplate theory

in the past 5 years, I have had the wonderful privilege through visiting the creation museum in Kentucky of reading the earth's catastrophic past by Dr. Andrew Snelling, which I found to be an amazing book, albeit someone over my head in many scientific areas. and the book by Dr Brown concerning his theory on hydro plate explosion.

I have yet to see a discussion where both books are discussed or looked at. I do not want to start a thread where we pit one against the other. I feel both have great qualities and most likely great truths generated in the (I myself wonder if they are both right in some areas. and if reality is not somewhere in between them both)

I am hoping we can get some constructive conversation concerning the creation of mankind, and the great flood. and see Gods mighty hand at work in the formation of earth as we see it today.

so what are everyone's view of these theories. It has been a few years since I looked at Dr. Snellings book (I did read the Genesis book he stated he tried to update) I remember getting the same reaction from both (astonishment and amazement and Joy) how abut everyone else?

Views: 500

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I must say, I'm not familiar with Hydropate Theory - I am familiar with catastrophic plate tectonics, but can't really speak to comparing the two.

Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International have multiple articles responding to Hydroplate model.

Then Bob Enyart has much material responding to the objections to Hydroplate. Also, Walt Brown himself has articulated the view which he conceived.

Both views agree that the flood was catastrophic and destroyed the whole earth.

Both views attempt to show how the evidence of geology clearly confirms the biblical record of the global flood

The position of this site is that the Flood was catastrophic and global.

For my part as I look at both models, they ideas contribute to my collage of the events of the Flood and the subsequent residual effects. I don't see the ideas as entirely mutually exclusive, though the proponents of either side seem to disallow anything of the other from having any validity.

As long as it is catastrophic, then it is certainly in the ball park of biblical possibility. That's my rather wide umbrella approach.

The only thing that does not fit the Bible by any stretch of the imagination is an anemic sissy local flood. The Bible simply does not allow it and neither does good science.

Both models are interesting to follow, but John Baumgardner, who basically originated Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - has less assumptions, more evidence, and most importantly predictions later proven to be true. His mathematical models are huge undertakings and have made useful predictions.

In a more general sense - scientists like to have models that show how things work and are able to make predictions. Plate Tectonics is an incredibly descriptive and predictive model (such as explaining why we have basalt volcanoes in the ocean and andesite volcanoes on the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean. It does have some limitations though. When you make the process catastrophic (in geology this means it happened very quickly), it becomes even more accurate and predictive.

The question of this thread is the mechanism of the Flood - and how much the earth was affected geologically.

  • What is the meaning of "windows of heaven were opened" ?
  • What is the meaning of "the fountains of the great deep were broken up" ?
  • We all know the meaning of "and there was rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights."

The first two are something different than the third.

THESE ARE THE MAJOR CAUSES OF THE FLOOD.

One is RAIN. YES.

Another is something from below, from the deep coming up,

AND another is some superabundance from above, from heaven, from where God is.

THAT is the meaning of the terms.

Now what do those terms suggest about mechanisms? And clearly God used mechanisms. He did not just destroy the earth by decree, but He used methods and natural things - rain in particular. There were mechanisms involved in the destruction of the earth and in the onset of the year of the Flood.

CPT (Catastrophic Plate Tectonics) is one effort at an explanation of what natural processes were involve in the onset of the Flood, and in the continuation of the Flood until the earth wa finally covered with water above the tops of the mountains.

Another suggestions is called the Hydroplate Theory.

Those who recognize CPT as a key mechanism see it in the language of the Bible as well as in the evidence of geology.

Have you studied hydroplate theory. It also has placed forward many predicitions, and those predictions came true. that is what got me interested in it.. 

Todd Elder said:

Both models are interesting to follow, but John Baumgardner, who basically originated Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - has less assumptions, more evidence, and most importantly predictions later proven to be true. His mathematical models are huge undertakings and have made useful predictions.

In a more general sense - scientists like to have models that show how things work and are able to make predictions. Plate Tectonics is an incredibly descriptive and predictive model (such as explaining why we have basalt volcanoes in the ocean and andesite volcanoes on the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean. It does have some limitations though. When you make the process catastrophic (in geology this means it happened very quickly), it becomes even more accurate and predictive.

The Bible shows clearly that there were three sources or mechanisms that God used to bring water to the flood the Earth:

  1. The Fountains of the Great Deep were Broken Up.
  2. The Windows of Heaven were Opened
  3. AND there was rain upon the earth.

The first of these three speaks of some sort of catastrophic mechanism or process from BENEATH -

  • a. Involving the "Fountains" - this suggests Geysers, Springs, some form of water shooting upward.
  • b. These were of the "Great Deep" - generally thought to be the oceans or seas, but there is a different word that is used for these bodies of water. And this is the great deep - so it could refer to some deeper source than the oceans, but the violent breaking up of this "Great Deep" would doubtless move the seas as well. That it is the "Deep" also points to a source from beneath.
  • c. Note they were not just "opened" but were rather "broken up," a strong statement of a violent action. It is used of splitting wood and tearing open the ground elsewhere. The idea is burst open.

So, this source is from beneath, and the language lends it self to the breaking up of crustal plates. But at the same time it does not exclude many of the premises of the the Hydroplate theory. I am not backing the theory, but I am just trying to look at the

The second source mentioned in Genesis 7:11 is the "Windows of Heaven" - clearly from ABOVE

  • a. They are the windows of heaven - indicating some water from above.
  • b. Throughout the OT, this phrase is ALWAYS USED of supernatural and divine abundance supplied from Heaven. It seems clear from usage that this is introducing something that is not natural, that is not part of the normal course of events upon the earth.
  • c. But while it is miraculous, it involves the moving or bringing of an entirely natural substance: a Flood of WATER. Was it an Icy asteroid? was it a layer from above the atmosphere? Was it a meteor bombardment that shook the earth? It is not necessary that this be water from heaven. It could be just cosmic objects that helped to move things on the earth and produce the Flood.
  • d. Or if you please it could be angels with hoses. But it was from above and it was supernatural in abundance.

Now again, I am not endorsing or supporting any view or model or theory. I am just trying to see from the Hebrew what might be allowed or disallowed.

Thirdly there was rain.

  • a. Again we all are aware that the flood was much more than 40 days and 40 nights of rain. It was catastrophic and global and the family and the cargo remained on the Ark for more than a year.
  • b. "And there was rain upon the earth" could also be read "And SO there was rain upon the earth. . ." suggesting that this rain RESULTED from the other two mechanisms.
  • c. It was for forty days. Water combined with tectonics is going to produce rain. AND this special rain continued forty days. This does not mean it was the only rain, but only the unrelenting rain. Intermittent rain could continue throughout the flood, and from then on to the present.

Then chapter 8:2 tells us the first two sources were STOPPED, and the rain was RESTRAINED. Stopped is not necessarily absolute. Water still comes from beneath and things still come from above. BUT as a source for a universal flood they were stopped. And there was a great wind, and water was stored in treasure houses of ice and the mountains went up and the valleys He caused to go down and the Pelaggios were formed in the days that followed. Floods continued as the continents drained - and there were on-going catastrophes for centuries following from residual catastrophic effects (Missoula Flood? Black Sea Flood?).

But these were the mechanisms as suggested by the Hebrew. Where does Impact theory fit? Canopy Theory? Hydroplate, Castatrophic Plate Tectonics, Ice bodies from heaven, Comet, Icy Asteroid?

We have to settle the question though that it did happen and then NOT be too insistent about how it happened. God asks us the same question He asked Job:

WERE YOU THERE? (Job 38)

And we should respond with the same humility as Job and put our hands over our mouths when it comes to being absolutist and saying this or that could not have happened, or this would have certainly happened, or this is how it must have been.

Then Job answered Yahweh, and said,
I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be restrained.
[Yahweh had said:] Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?

[Job replied:] Therefore have I uttered that which I understood not, Things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.


[God had said:] Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak; I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.


[Job replied now:] I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; But now mine eye seeth thee: Wherefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes.         Job 42:1-6

I don't remember the competing ones.

Continental drift or rather red eye is one of the best things to come along for creationism.

It makes more sense the earth was one piece and not the dumb broken pieces we now have.Also the breakup is needed as a source for the great wave movements to move and deposit repeatedly sediment loads and so fossilize everything it covers quick.

Both CPT and Hydroplate are based on this movement of the continents. One theory has them moving slowly. one has them moving in a catastrophic way, the separation of the plates occurs quickly.

Have not heard of red eye. Where can I find good info on it?

Robert Byers said:

I don't remember the competing ones.

Continental drift or rather red eye is one of the best things to come along for creationism.

It makes more sense the earth was one piece and not the dumb broken pieces we now have.Also the breakup is needed as a source for the great wave movements to move and deposit repeatedly sediment loads and so fossilize everything it covers quick.

Hydroplate theory is found here.

Hydroplate Theory



Brian Guiley said:

I must say, I'm not familiar with Hydropate Theory - I am familiar with catastrophic plate tectonics, but can't really speak to comparing the two.



Bryan Brodess said:

Both CPT and Hydroplate are based on this movement of the continents. One theory has them moving slowly. one has them moving in a catastrophic way, the separation of the plates occurs quickly.

Have not heard of red eye. Where can I find good info on it?

Robert Byers said:

I don't remember the competing ones.

Continental drift or rather red eye is one of the best things to come along for creationism.

It makes more sense the earth was one piece and not the dumb broken pieces we now have.Also the breakup is needed as a source for the great wave movements to move and deposit repeatedly sediment loads and so fossilize everything it covers quick.

redeye just means to have separated in the flood year. It could only be this way. afterwards I am sure there was continent movements but just up and down and not miles one way or another.

Howdy brother.  Here is some great details about it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hhE6tzJR_c.  Grace and peace to you.

Brian Guiley said:

I must say, I'm not familiar with Hydropate Theory - I am familiar with catastrophic plate tectonics, but can't really speak to comparing the two.

I think the biggest problem with the CPT is that it has several presuppositions (since it's mainly an evolutionary model that has been 'christianized') which inject notions that the Scripture doesn't point to (for example, Magma, volcanic activity... whereas Scripture points to water when it typically refers to the fountains of the great deep).

A great reference video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpQSPaJ-X_U

Robert Byers said:

I don't remember the competing ones.

Continental drift or rather red eye is one of the best things to come along for creationism.

It makes more sense the earth was one piece and not the dumb broken pieces we now have.Also the breakup is needed as a source for the great wave movements to move and deposit repeatedly sediment loads and so fossilize everything it covers quick.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service