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: 416

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think the discovery of a original single earth mass by non creationists was one of the best things ton ever happen to YEC creationism. Actually some old roman catholic creation believes suggested this long ago.

the earth was one mass, good looking unlike the crazy thing today. s o the flood year led to the splitt. it makes sense.

The world was overthrown as the bible says. not just drowned.

YEC needs a great mass breaking iup, as i see it, to have a origin for great water flows to deposit hugh intact and otherwise, amounts of sediment. This turning it also to stone and biology caught within(fossils).

So how did the mass continent break up and move. I don't know. It must of taken months to go from here to there.

The great movement of rock to the surface EVERYWHERE proves there was great earth movement. Hmmm. Its difficult to figure out unless some creationists have done so like you document here.

Our discussions on the geophysical mechanisms (and astrophysical?) that were involved in the Flood must not ignore the evidence, and our discussions must not manipulate the evidence.
Our discussions must involve recognition of what is theory and interpretation and a "view" and a mere model - in contrast to recognizing what may be OBSERVED and accepted as fact and reality - both from the revelation given throughnatural world, and from the scriptural revelation.

What are the Scriptural Facts?
What are the Scientific Facts?

  • Scriptural Facts: In this forum - Creation Conversations we share a consensus position on Scripture that recognizes Six Day Creation about 6000 years ago, and a catastrophic global flood about 4,300 years ago.
  • Scientific Facts: What are the "Consensus Facts" - the models are not facts. The facts are things such as Spheroid Earth, Suspended in Space, Rotating on its axis, Orbiting the Sun, the fact of plates, and atmosphere, and Oceans, and Poles. . .

These are the facts. Our desire then is to always conform our models to the facts - and NOT VICE VERSA! We must never resort to redefining words of Scripture to some plausible meaning that satisfies our model. And we must not selectively chose natural evidences that support our model.

This is a great comment by Robert Byers - notice how he points to the facts, and how he also notes the deficiencies of the Models. I will Highlight the facts that he has noted:

Robert Byers said:

I think the discovery of a original single earth mass by non creationists was one of the best things ton ever happen to YEC creationism. Actually some old roman catholic creation believes suggested this long ago.

  • a original single earth mass AND
  • the earth was one mass

Robert continues:

  • The world was overthrown as the Bible says, not just drowned.[Scriptural Fact]

Then he adds other scientific facts:

  • great water flows deposit huge. . . amounts of sediment.
  • This turning it also to stone (sedimentary rock)
  • and biology caught within (ubiquitous fossils)

Then Robert notes the uncertainty, the things that are speculation:

  • So how did the mass continent break up and move. I don't know. It must of taken months to go from here to there.

Then Robert notes yet another FACT:

  • Great movement of rock to the surface EVERYWHERE proves there was great earth movement. Hmmm.

Then again the uncertainties:

  • Its difficult to figure out unless some creationists have done so like you document here.

The problems arise when we begin to assume that our models are the facts and that we can manipulate the Scriptures and the evidence of science to fit our model. That is backwards. We must categorically state the factual evidences and the gently and politely proceed with our models.

I think it is unfair to say that CPT is a "Christianized" evolutionary model. That is not a discussion of evidence - that is an ad hominem. Plate Tectonics is a fact. It is a reality. CPT is an effort to show how the facts of geology align with the facts of Scripture, just like the Walt Brown view of H-P is endeavoring to do.

Is magma and volcanic activity unscriptural? Is it unfactual? OR is it actual?

Lou F. Reyes said:

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).

Howdy brother Jim.

My bad, didn't meant to come across like that.  I will make sure and start a separate thread to address the evidence around my comment as suggested.

In there, more than likely it will address the 'plate tectonics' (in particular the way that they are presented... as subducting, etc...).  Magma or volcanic activity nowadays is factual... the mistake is to place that at the creation scenario where that is not stated.  That is injected into the text to make the model fit... but is due to the presuppositions at play.

Grace and peace to you!

Lou

Jim Brenneman said:

I think it is unfair to say that CPT is a "Christianized" evolutionary model. That is not a discussion of evidence - that is an ad hominem. Plate Tectonics is a fact. It is a reality. CPT is an effort to show how the facts of geology align with the facts of Scripture, just like the Walt Brown view of H-P is endeavoring to do.

Is magma and volcanic activity unscriptural? Is it unfactual? OR is it actual?

Lou F. Reyes said:

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).

If Mount Everest has a fossil record close to the current top, something was going on?  But my question here is when?  This has two faces it seems.  Either it happened before the flood or during/the flood.  

Since its all marine biological Cambrian type sea creatures, there are no sharks or whales or other modern fish in this layer?  It seems it had a specific Chronologic time line when comparing to other fossils? 

The hydrology and mass deposition of the actual fossil layer seems out of place with the depositions of heavier more modern fossil type fish? WOuld this have taken place before the Flood? One would think that heavier debris and body parts would have fossilized on the bottom first due to their weight, but thats not the case here?? To raise this above ancient sea levels it must have been a very cataclysmic event even just to get it above the surface of the waters?   

Jim said this:
And we must not selectively chose natural evidences that support our model.

Jim in principle I agree, however we also don't want to discount the natural evidences of God's work in nature and the creation event. IF your model has flaws then maybe observing the observable evidences may help one to come to a better conclusion..

It was this very evidence that Solomon educated his self on and men of old observed the work that God left behind for us to extrapolate. I assume a factual and robust model fits with sciurpture as well.


How ever if there was no global flood this question is totally irrelevant. When we don't believe in the global extent of the Flood then how does Mount Everest have any bearing on the discussion?

Those of us who affirm the biblical flood affirm that Mount Everest was once a part of the SEA FLOOR. Those who reject the biblical flood as global must affirm some sort of pre-flood catastrophism.

FURTHER -the strata have nothing to do with progressive ages or eras - the strata have no relation to a chronology of creation or of the passage of time since creation. The strata are a record of the Flood Year. The strata that are represented in the top of Everest are from AFTER THE CREATION WEEK. To move them from the bottom of the seafloor to the highest elevation on the entire planet would require a catastrophic global event. How does one move the bottom of the sea to 29,000 feet ABOVE sea level. This simply cannot occur in a world that sustains life. It must have taken place in a world that destroys life. It must have taken place in a world that was being destroyed global.

It is an example of SELECTIVELY CHOOSING EVIDENCES to ignore the fact that ocean bottom strata are at the highest elevations on the planet.

I'm really quite amused at how we creationists are accused of "Discounting the natural evidences of God's work in nature" by those who simply wave off the billions and billions of fossils around the world, found formed in flood deposited layers. Fossils were all formed rapidly - not through gradual day-by-day normal processes.

Creationists account for the evidences of the natural world. Flood-deniers ignore the and discount the evidences of the natural world. Their model fails to account for the observable factual actual and real evidences that God left behind in the Flood.


Lou Hamby said:

If Mount Everest has a fossil record close to the current top, something was going on?  But my question here is when?  This has two faces it seems.  Either it happened before the flood or during/the flood.  

Since its all marine biological Cambrian type sea creatures, there are no sharks or whales or other modern fish in this layer?  It seems it had a specific Chronologic time line when comparing to other fossils? 

The hydrology and mass deposition of the actual fossil layer seems out of place with the depositions of heavier more modern fossil type fish? WOuld this have taken place before the Flood? One would think that heavier debris and body parts would have fossilized on the bottom first due to their weight, but thats not the case here?? To raise this above ancient sea levels it must have been a very cataclysmic event even just to get it above the surface of the waters?   

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!

© 2018   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service