Hydroplate Theory Prediction: Underground Water

Posted in Creation/Evolution, Genesis Flood on December 6th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo

MORE EVIDENCE OF WALT BROWN’S FOUNTAINS OF THE DEEP: A SURPRISE FOR DEEP DRILLERS

Richard A. Kerr, “Looking—Deeply—into the Earth’s Crust in Europe,” Science, Vol. 261, 16 July 1993, pp. 295–297. Water from the stone. The brines are another surprise that is opening researchers’ eyes to the merit of deep drilling. “When I started 25 years ago, the idea was that the deeper you go into the crust, the drier it gets,” says Kehrer. Conventional wisdom had it that kilometers of overlying rock squeeze shut any cracks, cutting off the fluid flows that deposit ores and chemically alter the rock at shallower depths. But after the drill bit had penetrated more than 3 kilometers of dry rock, it broke into water aplenty. Core samples retrieved from 3.4 kilometers were veined with open cracks more than a centimeter wide that had presumably carried fluids. That was only a hint of what was to come at 4 kilometers, where more than half a million liters of a gas-rich, calcium-sodium-chloride brine twice as concentrated as seawater poured into the well. Abundant fluids gushed from depths as great as 6 kilometers. “This has been a real sensation,” says Kehrer. “The surprise is that there are fluids of that amount.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/261/5119/295.pdf

The drilling stopped at 9.1 kilometers because they could not go further. Was Walt’s predicted saltwater still flowing? Yes it was …

But the abundant brines that had poured into the well at shallower depths continued to flow in at below 8 kilometers, surprising many geophysicists. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/266/5185/545.pdf

Read more »

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
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 …

CHAPTER VI
DIFFICULTIES ON THEORY

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.

Venus (and Earth) Resurfaced in a Single Catastrophic Event?

Posted in Creation/Evolution, Genesis Flood on October 15th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo

David Grinspoon is a planetary scientist at the University of Colorado-Boulder, Principal Investigator for NASA’s Exobiology Research Program and author of “Venus Revealed” and “Lonely Planets.” He made some interesting statements about the planet Venus in an interview with Astrobiology Magazine. I find them quite interesting because Grinspoon’s statements about what happened on Venus bear a strong resemblance in several important ways to the two leading creationist theories which attempt to explain earth’s present geologic features: Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) advocated by Dr. John Baumgardner, and the Hydroplate Theory (HPT) advocated by Dr. Walter Brown). I will quote Grinspoon at length, but note the key points to be gleaned from his statements:

1) Magellan scientists were surprised to find that the surface of Venus appears to be all the same age
2) The older surface of the planet was wiped out by massive volcanism, so possibly 90% of it’s supposed 4.5 billion year history is unknown
3) Grinspoon talks about possible heat buildup inside Venus to a critical point at which a “rapid overturning” takes place
4) All three of the above features are very close to what is postulated by CPT and HPT above

Some excerpts from the interview with Grinspoon … Read more »

Mussel Reproduction: Darwinist Explanations Please?

Posted in Creation/Evolution on October 1st, 2007 by dhawkinsmo

Dr. Jobe Martin has a neat DVD series entitled “Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution” in which he shows some very high quality video clips of some pretty amazing creatures. In Part 3 of the series, he describes mussels — little clam-like creatures that live on the sea floor and have the amazing ability to mimic minnows. The picture above is a screenshot of such a mussel going “fishing” for a larger fish like a bass. The bass is tricked into thinking he is seeing a minnow, and, following his bass instincts, opens his mouth and tries to eat the “minnow.” Now everyone knows how fast bass are in grabbing bait. They apparently didn’t attend the Emily Post School of Table Manners because they gulp their food quickly. But … the mussel is faster. Before the bass has chance to get his mouth around the “minnow,” the mussel shoots a high velocity stream of eggs (!!) into the bass’ mouth! The eggs hatch and the larva attach to the gills of the bass and extract nourishment from them. Read more HERE. Amazing! Why didn’t I learn this in school? Why are mussels not even mentioned in the 2006 Prentice Hall Biology textbook used in public high school classrooms around the USA? Why did a supposedly “anti-science” creationist have to be the one that informed me of this amazing little creature with such a weird reproductive system? Maybe because Miller and Levine (the Prentice Hall authors) don’t have an evolutionary explanation for it? Think of it! Shooting your eggs into a fish’s mouth to nourish your babies? Wow. That’s weird. How in the world did these creatures evolve this ability?

Well, like a good evolution skeptic, I did a literature search (including Talk Origins) for evolutionary explanations of mussel mimicry and did not find anything. I did find a poster in a forum who made an attempt HERE. He writes … Read more »

The Fossil Record: Another Confirmed Creationist Prediction

Posted in Creation/Evolution on September 20th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo

We should actually call it a “retrodiction,” not a “prediction” (see my article on Karl Popper and retrodictions), but very few people know what a “retrodiction” is, so call it what you will. The interesting thing is that within the Creation/Flood paradigm, one would expect that …

1) Most fossils would be marine fossils. And they are. See the chart above (from The New Answers Book by Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, 2006, p. 179)
2) Most mammals would escape fossilization because of their mobility and ability to escape rising floodwaters for a long time. When they finally get drowned, they would not normally be buried by sediment, but would float and be eaten by scavengers. See link in (3) below.
3) Marine fossils would be sorted hydrodynamically. See Hydraulic Engineer Henry Morris’ discussion on this in The Genesis Flood, quoted HERE. Search the page (CTRL-F) for “hydrodynamic”.
4) Most of the supposed evolutionary history of life would be missing entirely from the fossil record. And this is exactly what we find …

Furthermore, useful fossils are either rare or totally absent in rocks from Precambrian time, which constitutes more than 87 percent of Earth history.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69753/dating

Read more »

“Selling Evolution” is Getting Harder Each Day

Posted in Creation/Evolution on September 18th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo

There is an interesting article in Nature, the leading international journal of science, entitled “Selling Evolution,” which is a book review of Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin’s Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives by David Sloan Wilson, Delacorte Press: 2007. 400 pp. The author of the Nature review notes …

Evolutionary biologists — those enthusiastic foot-soldiers of Darwin’s grand notion that life evolves by a process of descent with modification — cannot understand why so many people reject the great man’s theory, and often in favour of some form of creationist account of the existence and diversity of life on Earth. In the opening pages of David Sloan Wilson’s new popular-science book, hopefully entitled Evolution for Everyone, we discover that 54% of adults in the United States prefer to believe that humans did not evolve from some earlier species. What makes this figure surprising is that it is up from 46% in 1994.

Where have the evolutionists gone wrong?

Mark Pagel, “Selling evolution,” Nature 447, 533 (31 May 2007) | doi:10.1038/447533a; Published online 30 May 2007

Where have the evolutionists gone wrong? I have an answer for them. Their theory is wrong. Period. It’s unsupported by the scientific evidence.

I got into a discussion yesterday with some skeptics at IIDB and there was a new thread by someone named “Johnny Skeptic” entitled … “Maybe YEC’s [Young Earth Creationists] are good for skepticism.” Comparing the above survey with the history of Answers in Genesis International (they are the leading YEC organization in America), I found something fascinating. Look what I found … the Nature survey covered the last 13 years and recorded +8% for the creationist side. How long has Answers in Genesis has been in existence promoting the YEC view? 13 years exactly.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/history.asp
Hmmm …. So I would say, “No, Johnny Skeptic, YECs are NOT good for skepticism.” They are fighting a much needed war to restore the Book of Genesis and the entire Bible to its rightful position of respect in our culture.

Atheist Conundrums

Posted in Creation/Evolution on September 17th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo

Atheists, I believe, are in a pickle. They have a contradictory world view which appears not to be consistent with reality. Let me give you a recent example. I spend quite a bit of time discussing Biblical topics with atheists at IIDB. They are constantly accusing creationists of being liars (false in my opinion), so recently I asked them to tell me why they are so concerned about other people lying. And while they are at it, why would they have a problem with ANY type of ‘immoral’ behavior … not just lying, but cheating, stealing, killing, etc.?? They most certainly DO have a problem with these behaviors … but WHY? What in their world view requires it? The answer I think is ‘nothing requires it.’ They must borrow (steal?) from the Christian world view, which they repudiate, in order to have these values at all. And my view is that they actually have these basics values built in to their minds … put there by God when He created the human race … C.S. Lewis calls it Universal Morality and uses it as evidence for the existence of God. See my article on this HERE. Interestingly, when discussing Universal Morality, atheists will tell you that there is no such thing, but then when you start asking why they, being atheists, have morality, they will tell you that it IS universal after all. Yet another contradiction … a conundrum. which they cannot explain. Click HERE for this discussion at IIDB.

The solution for the atheist is for him or her to realize the contradictory nature of their view and repudiate it. Everything makes sense if you accept the most evidentially supported position that the God of the Bible really exists and the Bible truly is His Message to Mankind. (Picture credit: Wiki)

A 4800 Year Old Living Tree: Confirmed Prediction of Creationism

Posted in Creation/Evolution, Genesis Flood on September 14th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo

The scientific Theory of Special Creation and the Flood, commonly referred to as Creationism for short, predicts that the oldest living plant could not be much over 5000 years old because this is the approximate oldest date for the Great Flood of Noah, in which all terrestrial life (including plants) was destroyed. It turns out that this prediction is correct as demonstrated by the discovery in 1957 of Methuselah. Wikipedia has this to say about “Methuselah” …

Methuselah (estimated germination 2832 BC) is a bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California, which was 4,789 years old when sampled in 1957 (when the trees were originally being surveyed by Schulman and Harlan). It is the oldest living organism currently known and documented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_%28tree%29

There is another bristlecone called Prometheus which is a bit older than Methuselah, but it was cut down in 1964.  Numerous claims of older plants of other species have been made, but these are all of clonal colonies, not individual plants. One such claim appears below in Science, but it is debunked as you can see … Read more »