Origin of Lunar Maria: Fountains of the Deep?

Posted in Creation/Evolution, Genesis Flood on November 30th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo

NOTE: I tried to discuss this topic HERE at the Internet Infidels Forum, a forum where many PhD level scientists from various fields post regularly. The moderators shut the thread down — you can read their excuse in the final post. But the moderator who shut down the topic shows no evidence of ever having even read the Hydroplate Theory at all and none of the scientists who post there have taken the challenge to actually read the theory and engage Dr. Brown in a telephone debate although at least 4 of them said they would initially. Interesting behavior. I think many of them are AFRAID of Dr. Brown and AFRAID that his Hydroplate Theory might be correct. One notable exception is “Jet Black,” a highly respected poster and former moderator and administrator at IIDB who holds a PhD in physics and is not afraid at all to engage me regarding the Hydroplate Theory. He lodged a complaint HERE for the mods closing the thread.


Maria? No, we’re not speaking Spanish for the mother of Jesus here … the term “maria” is plural for “mare” which is the Latin word for sea … which is what ancient astronomers believed the dark spots on the near side of the moon were.
Let’s take a look at these “maria” … The NEAR side of the moon (always faces earth by the way) is shown in the top picture … and the FAR side of the moon is shown in the lower picture …

Here’s what Walt Brown, originator of the Hydroplate Theory, has to say about the topic …

If the impacts that produced these volcanic features occurred slowly from any or all directions other than Earth, both near and far sides would be equally hit. If the impacts occurred rapidly (within a few weeks), large impact features would not be concentrated on the near side unless the projectiles came from Earth. Evidently, the impactors came from Earth.

Read more »

Nested Hierarchies: Failed Prediction of ToE

Posted in Creation/Evolution on November 14th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo

The Nested Hierarchy that we actually see in nature is not the one predicted by the ToE, but rather the one predicted by the Theory of Special Creation (it’s actually a ‘retrodiction‘). Darwin wrote …


LONG before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:–Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?(The Origin of Species. Contributors: Charles Darwin – author, Gillian Beer – editor. Publisher: Oxford University Press. Place of Publication: Oxford. Publication Year: 1996. Page Number: 140.)

So Darwin clearly thought that, according to his theory, all of nature should NOT be well-defined. Rather, we should see “innumerable transitional forms.”

Now if this is not clear evidence from a source that evolutionists consider to be scientific (if evolutionists don’t think Darwin is scientific, then who DO they think is scientific?), that Nested Hierarchies ARE NOT a prediction of ToE, then I give up. Now Douglas Theobald points out Darwin’s discussion of Nested Hierarchies HERE, but the important point to note is that Darwin’s diagram implies one huge Nested Hierarchy with a single celled ancestor at the top, which of course, would be true if Macroevolution had actually happened. But there’s no way to show that it actually did happen, and the fact is that the Linnaean Nested Hierarchy (not Darwin’s Hierarchy) is what we actually find in nature. Read more »

Fountains of the Deep on Enceladus

Posted in Creation/Evolution, Genesis Flood on November 5th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo

Enceladus is a small moon orbiting the planet Saturn. Interestingly, it has a miniature “Hydroplate Theory” scenario going on right now. Read more about it HERE. You can read about Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory of the Global Flood at www.creationscience.com. I have begun to discuss the Hydroplate Theory at IIDB. Click HERE for some interesting links in the discussion.

Note the similarities to Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Model …

* Tidal Heating
* Pressurized Liquid Water below surface
* Water and ice being ejected into the orbit of a larger neighboring body

Notice that in Walt’s model, the ejecta leaves earth and ALSO enters the orbit of a larger, neighboring body — THE SUN

Now … of course there are many differences as well and it will be fun to examine these and other issues surrounding this fascinating little moon.

Click HERE for an ongoing discussion about this at my favorite place to get commentary from non-creationist scientists … IIDB.