Walt Brown (Center for
Scientific Creation)
The hydroplate theory of the Global Flood, first proposed by Walt Brown, PhD, in 1995 and refined considerably since then, is far more robust than one might appreciate merely by reading link summaries on Internet searches on the phrase. Most of the criticisms of it turn out to be classic exercises in circular reasoning.
The most respectable of Brown's critics is Dr. Glenn R. Morton, a physicist who clearly accepts the uniformitarian view of geology (that all processes observed today have always operated, at the same rates, since the earth began). This view colors his thinking, and clouds his judgment.
First, Morton assumes that Brown's theory requires the earth's surface to be "perfectly smooth." This he concludes after calculating that mountains, mentioned by Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 7), would overstress the ten-kilometer crust that initially covered the pre-Flood subcrustal ocean, according to Brown's central assumption. But the Bible never says how high the highest mountains were before the Flood, so that assuming that any of them were as high as are typical mountains today assumes a fact not in evidence--especially since Brown holds that the crashing of the "hydroplates" created after the initial event created the modern mountains. More to the point: to go from not being able to support mountains as high as modern mountains, to having to be "perfectly smooth," is a frankly silly exaggeration. (Morton never says how "perfect" the "smoothness" needs to be, so that one may reasonably assume that Morton is suggesting that the earth's surface needed to be a toolmaker's flat!)
Next he assumes that the crust covering the subcrustal waters would collapse very early, in geological terms. He is probably assuming the same great ages that most uniformitarians do, forgetting that 1,656 years passed between Creation and the Flood. He stated that the model requires pillars to support the crust; in fact, Brown's model does feature pillars, and has since 2001 (Margaret Brown; personal correspondence). That Morton did not mention Brown's advocacy of pillars suggests that he didn't even read Brown's work or is deliberately misrepresenting it, neither of which would redound very much to Morton's credit.
More to the point: the recent demonstration of a subcrustal ocean on Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, and the (quite reasonable) inference of a subcrustal ocean on Europa (and probably also on Ganymede, whose crust is even thicker and heavier), strongly suggests that a subcrustal ocean is not the outlandish device that Morton and others seem to believe. (Note: the surfaces of Europa and Enceladus are not toolmaker's flats, by any stretch.)
Morton's worst error is to assume that the water would be too hot, and would remain hot as it escaped from the initial rupture. The water would indeed be hot, from tidal pumping--and in fact, supercritical on account of the tremendous pressure. But it would not remain hot as it escaped. When supercritical fluids escape their confinement, they lose their heat. According to Brown's model, the water rushed nearly straight up and all the way through the atmosphere, and there lost its heat and fell as freezing rain and even hail. Nor did this rain fall all at once; Shem, Ham and Japheth clearly testify that the rain fell "for forty days and forty nights."
The common thread in all the errors that Morton makes is circular reasoning--as if Morton says to Brown, "Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong." Albert Einstein's critics no doubt made the same mistake.
This article is part of the Hydroplate theory series.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.
Comments
A concise description of the criticisms against the Hydroplate hypothesis - brackets are mine
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. (are you ASSUMING that the crust of the earth was different in the past?)
2. Even two miles deep, the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole; Bram et al. 1995), and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be ADDED (not reduced) by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
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. (nor has ANY evidence for a world-wide
You've got people thinking with this one. Good job.
how is that circular reasoning? your theory doesn't work mine does, that is a pretty clear statement,
More utterly discredited, conclusively disproved nonsense from Terry. Hydroplate theory doesn't fit at all with any of the geological observations of the past 300 years. Therefore it's wrong.
Nobody examining the facts would ever come to hydroplate, it's a desperate attempt to explain why reality doesn't fit the creationist agenda.
Terry, I have to admit that the scientific theories get lost on me. I think that is where faith takes over. I don't need to understand everything to believe that what the Bible says is true. If the Bible says there was a world wide flood and it rained for 40 days and nights then I believe it. I am glad to see that you have so many people thinking about creation. While much of what you write goes over my head, I am able to see your belief in God and that He is the Creator. Good job!
Thanks for this terrific article! The very fact that Brown used to be an evolutionist and then because of scientific evidence, he saw the truth of the Bible, and changed his mind, should wake up the rest of the evolutionists and get them thinking! After all, GOD is the greatest Scientist! Unless of course there are othes out there who think they are better!
Keith,
Here is a link to some answers to the criticisms you layed out for us.
paste the below in your address bar
creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory
then scroll down to criticisms
@Keith -- Ah, but how did the earth develop a temperature gradient? The earth had no such gradient in the beginning. It got one through one (or more likely, all) of three methods:
1. Tidal pumping of the crust that covered that ocean.
2. A possible neutrino burst from some still-unrecognized astronomical event, that sped up the decay of all the radioisotopes. (It might even have caused radioactive decay in certain elements, or their isotopes, that were normally stable--a thing that the Second General Letter of Peter suggests will happen again.)
3. The Flood event itself, and all the tremendous rubbing and sliding about of the crustal plates, during which time the continents assumed their present positions.
And you haven't come to grips, either, with this finding: Enceladus has a subcrustal ocean, *and* a temperature gradient. BTW: Mimas has neither of these things, and it's much closer. How can you explain that?
@Carol Roach: If scientist A wants to tell scientist B that his theory doesn't work, he cannot do that by assuming initial conditions that, according to B, never existed. A theory fails when it assumes initial conditions that are later positively shown never to have existed, *or* when it fails to predict something later shown to occur.
Glenn R. Morton's criticisms of the hydroplate theory fail because he assumes the initial conditions of a *uniformitarian* earth, not the initial conditions of a *created* earth.
Terry said:
"If scientist A wants to tell scientist B that his theory doesn't work, he cannot do that by assuming initial conditions that, according to B, never existed."
So why does that not apply to all the articles you've posted about evolution, where you make statements about what evolution "says", that are not actually true?
One rule for one?
Anyway, Hydroplate fails as there is NO EVIDENCE for it. Nothing to do with initial assumptions.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!