About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth's surface.
Tell me how water could be in such place with the temperature of about 1000oC.
Foolishness. This ignores the observable data. For a long time scientists thought that the inner part of the earth was unable to hold such large amount of water, but newer data clearly shows that it is indeed possible.
Bergeron, L., Deep Waters, New Scientist 155(2097):22–26, August 30, 1997.
This article points out the following:
1: In certain minerals can hold water liquid water in even the worst temperatures.
2: Zone between the upper and lower mantle is now considered to be quite wet.
3: 70% of what comes out of volcanoes is water.
4: There is about 10 to 30 times as much water in the mantle then all of the earth oceans.
Your conjecture, with no supporting evidence, goes against what we know of the capabilities of water and the observable evidence.
Is there any known scientific evidence for any of this stuff?
Is there actually enough real evidence for it to be called a theory? --Drlindberg 18:08, 20 January 2007 (EST)
- These questions sound highly derogatory. Make sure your comments are constructive and free of such overtones in the future, or continued participation will not be allowed.
- Walt Brown published this theory and supporing evidence in a book that can be read free online.In the Beginning by Walt Brown. Available online in its entirety.
--Mr. Ashcraft 16:22, 21 January 2007 (EST)
Sorry. I didn't mean to be derogatory. Nobody is more ignorant about these things than I am. I guess I thought that being scientific meant asking questions, looking for evidence and being free to have doubts (You claim to be creation scientists).
Thank you for your guidance. I tooked again at what oppeared to be the relevant chapters of Walt Brown's book. He seems to have an interesting, broadly thought-out idea with lots of information and speculation, but I still didn't find anything that looked like solid evidence to me. Could you be more specific in your reference as to where to find it? Has anyone else examined and done research on Brown's ideas? As I understand it, to be considered a scientific theory, an idea would need more evidence and research.
Thanks again for your comments.--Drlindberg 19:18, 14 February 2007 (EST)
I have also read Brown's book and have to say that it does not appear to me that it contains any substantial evidence. Could someone change the nomenclature (e.g. hypothesis instead of theory) here? --nooijer
The suggested page only lists evidence for substantial amounts of water in the earth's crust and mantle, but does not contain evidence for the HP 'theory' to classify as a theory. What evidence is there that all this water suddenly came to the surface of the crust? What evidence is there on the location of this process? When did it exactly happen and how is this dated? Where did all the water go to? Remember that the listed sources of subterranean water vary in physical and chemical environments: what source can bring both types of water up simultaneously? I think for the HP 'theory' to be called a genuine theory, most of these matters should be proven by substantial amounts of evidence: existence of present, subterranean water is not sufficient.--nooijer
First, by doing so you MUST deny that plate tectonics is a theory too. Why? Because ALL evidence for plate tectonics is also compatible with Hydroplate theory.
Second, all theories need a set of assumptions. For example the Big Bang assumes the universe in perfectly homogeneous, even though there is no evidence for it. Hydroplate theories basic assumption is underground water, thus evidence for underground water is also evidence for hydroplate theory.
Third, I think much of your criticisms are based on flawed logic. You are confusing evidence with interpretation. Why do we find rocks from deep in the mantle of the surface sometimes? Something had to out them there. Old-earth's say a gradual process, but flood geologists often say that the fountains put them there.
Fourth, much of what you claim simply doesn't withstand inspection. Many can be answered by just reading creationist books or what not. Where did the water go? Well, some would have went back into the mantle. Others would have remaine on the surface, since trenches and more ocean floor made it possible for it to stay there.--Nlawrence 13:24, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
I am not completely sure about your response. In my opinion, matters are very simple: whenever someone postulates a new theory, one should have (a lot of) evidence supporting this. HP 'theory' containes a set of new claims and is presented as an alternative for conventional plate tectonics. HP 'theory' differs in a number of ways from plate tectonics, for which there should be evidence to make it a sensible alternative. An important difference lies in the rate of plate movements: which measurements does show that plates have moved so fast? Also, HP 'theory' claims that plates used to float on water masses. My question is very simple: how do we know this? If plates used to flow on water, and they currently 'flow' on mantle material, this should imply a huge differences in behaviour of the crust before and after the rupture. Again, which measurements have recorded this difference? There are some other problems with the HP't'. Before the rupture, the crust should have been absolutely flat. If not, the crust would have cracked under the weight of elevations. I won't repeat the physics behind this, but I refer to http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html for the calculations. Were there no mountains on the earth before the flood? Secondly, the energy released by the water rupturing through the crust would have released such an enormous amount of energy (and I am not even mentioning the earthquakes after crashing of the crust onto the mantle) that the escaping water is easily thrown into outer space by exceeding the escape velocity: I refer to the same page for the calculations. By no way the water was neatly kept in the atmosphere to return to the surface as rain, as stated by many creationist's sources. A serious theory deals with these kind of problems.--nooijer
Sorry I haven't replied sooner. I have been busy on my Oard page and I found that much more important.
Ok, you have claimed that HP theory doesn't qualify as a theory. I quote you:
"whenever someone postulates a new theory, one should have (a lot of) evidence supporting this."
Ok, good for things like physic or biology, but geochronology is by a separate set of rules. It is by nature a historical science and a new theory must make predictions and then interpret data in the light of it.
I remember by geology prof. talking to the class about the super-continent theory, a widely accepted theory. It says that land masses began as one and over time they will return as one and the mechanism is differental heat. So were is the absolute proof for every single detail of the theory? There is non of course .
"HP 'theory' containes a set of new claims and is presented as an alternative for conventional plate tectonics."
Not really. It is already known water in the mantle can cause earthquakes. So HP theory is merely a expansion of an already known phenomenon.
Lou Bergeron Deep Waters Posted on OOPARTS collection, but first published in New Scientist, August 1997.
"HP 'theory' differs in a number of ways from plate tectonics,"
Please explain to me how there is more evidence for plate tectonics then HP theory. You are using a double standard.
"for which there should be evidence to make it a sensible alternative."
There is. The existence of massive subterranean chambers full of water. How is that NOT evidence for hydroplate theory. Just please explain that.
"An important difference lies in the rate of plate movements: which measurements does show that plates have moved so fast?"
There is vast amount of evidence for the rapid movement of plate. First there is the state of magnetic reversals. They are highly chaotic and show a picture only consistent reversals not being caused by plate movement or very fast plate movement. See our article on it.
Second is the fact that differental heat and every other proposed mechanism can't generate enough energy to make mountains. Some else, with a lot more power had to do it. (http://www.newgeology.us./presentation21.html)
We know rapid plate movement is possible. We have clear evidence of such events on Venus. (Strom, R.G., Schaber, G.G. and Dawson, D.D., The global resurfacing of Venus, J. Geophys. Res. 99:10899–10926, 1994.)
I could go on
"Also, HP 'theory' claims that plates used to float on water masses. My question is very simple: how do we know this?"
All this shows is that you in fact HAVEN'T read Brown's book (he has a whole section refuting this) and you haven't even read the very article you are criticizing. For our article actually REPLIES to this gibberish. Did you even read it? Let me quote it for you.
The rocks were not floating on the subterranean water like a boat; rather the water was in a sealed chamber. Water or even air in a sealed chamber will support a large amount of weight, that would other wise sink through it. It would be more like a water bed than a boat. Furthermore, Brown was clear that "About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth’s surface.
My conclusion is that you are not familiar with his work, so you are in no position to criticize it.
"If plates used to flow on water, and they currently 'flow' on mantle material, this should imply a huge differences in behaviour of the crust before and after the rupture."
No problem here, so how does refute HP? Your logic isn't flowing. Get some sleep.
"There are some other problems with the HP't'. Before the rupture, the crust should have been absolutely flat. If not, the crust would have cracked under the weight of elevations. I won't repeat the physics behind this, but I refer to http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html for the calculations. Were there no mountains on the earth before the flood?"
That article actually made me laugh. Lets just go through the errors. First the mathematics assume that the mantle floated on water and the water was homogeneous underneath the mantle. What part of Brown's book claims this?
Second, it says the min. thickness of the crust is 4.1km. Much of it's reasoning is based on this figure. It cites no credible reason why we MUST agree with this figure.
Also, Brown's theory says that the crust was about 10 miles thick and during the process it expanded to about 22 miles thick.
"Secondly, the energy released by the water rupturing through the crust would have released such an enormous amount of energy."
This had already been replied to by Brown and CreationWiki.
This assumes current conditions, on the pre Flood world. It is likely that the current levels of heat inside the Earth were generated by the events of the Flood; furthermore the vaporization that would occur during the eruption due to decompression would have cooled it as well; hence the water would not have been too hot.
your reference divides by the earth surface area. Since it wasn't homogeneous, so this is an invalid assumption.
"(and I am not even mentioning the earthquakes after crashing of the crust onto the mantle)"
Which would be inhomogeneous. duh.
"that the escaping water is easily thrown into outer space by exceeding the escape velocity: I refer to the same page for the calculations. "
I make a series of point refuting it.
1: It ignores friction. The article it self says so. Believe it or not, going through a ten mile thick piece of rock and then through cold surface water might cause some friction!
2: It also assumes that it is a steam through out it's whole trip. By time it would have reached the sky, it would have turned by to water, do to pressure/etc, so Morton's figures on steam through out are useless.
So you can't multiply it by 814.
3: He confuses escape velocity with not be able to return is earth. This isn't turn. objects fall back to earth after a period of time. Over time Hubble will. It's common knowledge.
Your response is lengthy: mind if we take it step by step? I am afraid that the 'super-continent theory' is a straw man. From your description, it sounds as if this 'super-continent theory' differs from the theory of plate tectonics in the prediction it makes. In plate tectonic theory, plates move in relation to each other (not merely by differential heat, as you stated, but to a large extent by density differences by which plates sink into the mantle at subduction zones and pull the plates onward). The theory indeed predicts certain movements of plates in the near (geological) future. It does not, however, predict at what exact time the plates will bump into one another again. The more time you have, the more likely it becomes that it will happen someday. Evidence on the existence of former supercontinents (Pangea, Gondwanaland), may indicate some kind of cyclicity in the formation and breaking up of supercontinents, but there is no mechanism that can explain this (pseudo)cyclicity to date. I don't see what exactly is missing supporting data. Do you mean data indicating plate movements themselves? Or the dating of it all? Perhaps your teacher has mixed up plate tectonic theory with the Wilson cycle. An interesting topic for sure, but before we move on: what kind of detail of which theory exactly lacks supporting evidence in your opinion?--nooijer