Donate -or- Patronize our Creation Science Store

Hydroplate theory (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Response Article
This article (Hydroplate theory (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CH420:

The Flood's waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.

Source: Brown, Walt, 1995.In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, pp. 87-98.

CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. The rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or before Adam's time for that matter.
X mark.png
This argument represents a
Straw man .

This is a logical fallacy known as a straw man. If Talk Origins had actually bothered to read what Walt Brown wrote they would know that the hydroplate theory does not assert that the rock floated on this water like a boat, but that 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.

With such text, one wonders if Talk.Origins has heard of underwater and undersea caves, or aquifers, or geysers like Yellowstone where water still shoots up from underground, or other such geological formations.

2. Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.

This is assuming current conditions, on the pre-Flood world. It is likely that the heat to which Talk Origins refers was generated by events of the Flood, hence the water could have been cold.

3. The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

What is the basis for this claim? Given Talk Origins's track record of grossly misunderstanding the theory as shown above, it is likely that this too is based on a misunderstanding. Their reference to basalt suggest that they based it in part on #2.

Without a better description or even a source, it is impossible to evaluate this claim so as to provide a proper response. However the following are factors that represent a problem for their argument:

  1. The water would be eroding mainly granite not basalt.
  2. The force behind the eruption would pulverize what was eroded so the particles of such deposits would be removed and resorted by the Flood waters.
Personal tools