Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [CreationTalk] Deos the Enceladus water-vapour atmosphere shed light on the canpoy theory

Expand Messages
  • stephen hiscock
    I have studied the Hydroplate Theory for years. Except for a few minor points concerning the bombardment of the Moon (which Russell Humphreys shows probably
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 1, 2008
      "I have studied the Hydroplate Theory for years. Except for a few minor points concerning the bombardment of the Moon (which Russell Humphreys shows probably occurred twice, once three centuries after the Fall of Man and again a century or so after the Flood), I don't have any problem accepting it...... said Temlakos
      Thats good to know!! - I'm still surprised that many people don't seem tto accept it.. but I'm curious where would I find information on russel Humphreys ideas about the moon bombardment?
      Stephen




      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Temlakos <temlakos@...>
      To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, 1 August, 2008 2:56:29 PM
      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Deos the Enceladus water-vapour atmosphere shed light on the canpoy theory


      stephen hiscock wrote:
      > "I routinely cite those as examples to show that the oceans of Earth could have been subcrustal originally, and broken through the Mid-Oceanic Ridges to create the Global Flood. said Temlakos"
      >
      > This sounds suspiciously pretty much like Walter Browns "Hydroplate theory".
      > www.creationscience .com
      > How of that do you know about or agree with?
      > In my humble opinion and from what I've read over the last 15 years it is the single best comprehensive explanation of the flood and the mechanisms behind it..
      > stephen
      >
      I have studied the Hydroplate Theory for years. Except for a few minor
      points concerning the bombardment of the Moon (which Russell Humphreys
      shows probably occurred twice, once three centuries after the Fall of
      Man and again a century or so after the Flood), I don't have any problem
      accepting it.

      The Hydroplate Theory also explains best of all the origins of comets,
      asteroids, and meteoroids.

      Temlakos
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message ----
      > From: Temlakos <temlakos@gmail. com>
      > To: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com
      > Sent: Monday, 28 July, 2008 2:10:19 PM
      > Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Deos the Enceladus water-vapour atmosphere shed light on the canpoy theory
      >
      >
      > I won't vouch for the canopy theory. But I'll tell you this: what
      > Enceladus has is a /subcrustal/ ocean, as does Titan, and as do Europa,
      > Ganymede, and Callisto. I routinely cite those as examples to show that
      > the oceans of Earth could have been subcrustal originally, and broken
      > through the Mid-Oceanic Ridges to create the Global Flood.
      >
      > Temlakos
      >
      > whatiscreation wrote:
      >
      >> I was just doing some reshreach and I found out that one of the
      >> planets around staturn has an water atmosphere does this Proof that
      >> the canopy theory is possible
      >>
      >>
      >> ------------ --------- --------- ------
      >>
      >> ============ ========= ========= ========= =====
      >> CreationTalk email listserv
      >> Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation. net/
      >> CreationWiki http://creationwiki .org/
      >> ============ ========= ========= ========= =====Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > ------------ --------- --------- ------
      >
      > ============ ========= ========= ========= =====
      > CreationTalk email listserv
      > Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation. net/
      > CreationWiki http://creationwiki .org/
      > ============ ========= ========= ========= =====Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Temlakos
      ... Try this: Humphreys, D. R. The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields . /Creation
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 1, 2008
        stephen hiscock wrote:
        > "I have studied the Hydroplate Theory for years. Except for a few minor points concerning the bombardment of the Moon (which Russell Humphreys shows probably occurred twice, once three centuries after the Fall of Man and again a century or so after the Flood), I don't have any problem accepting it...... said Temlakos
        > Thats good to know!! - I'm still surprised that many people don't seem tto accept it.. but I'm curious where would I find information on russel Humphreys ideas about the moon bombardment?
        > Stephen
        >

        Try this:

        Humphreys, D. R. "The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields
        <http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html>."
        /Creation Research Society Quarterly
        <http://creationwiki.org/Creation_Research_Society_Quarterly>/ 21(3),
        December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.

        Look in the article for Humphreys' discussion of the Moon and its
        magnetic-field history. He bases his theory on studies of residual
        magnetism in rock samples brought back to Earth by the teams of Apollo
        15 and 16.

        The biggest stumbling block to the hydroplate theory, other than "I
        won't accept a global flood," is the notion that any process on the
        earth could have ejected large quantities of water, mud and rock into
        space, and that those quantities persist today as comets, asteroids, and
        meteoroids. But if you check out CreationWiki's latest version of the
        article "Comet", at

        <http://creationwiki.org/Comet/>

        then you'll get the best treatment we can give, without violating Walt
        Brown's copyright. The article has a direct link to his table that
        summarizes the various comet-origin theories and rates each as to how
        well (or how poorly) each theory explains (or does not explain) various
        observations.

        Temlakos

        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message ----
        > From: Temlakos <temlakos@...>
        > To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Friday, 1 August, 2008 2:56:29 PM
        > Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Deos the Enceladus water-vapour atmosphere shed light on the canpoy theory
        >
        >
        > stephen hiscock wrote:
        >
        >> "I routinely cite those as examples to show that the oceans of Earth could have been subcrustal originally, and broken through the Mid-Oceanic Ridges to create the Global Flood. said Temlakos"
        >>
        >> This sounds suspiciously pretty much like Walter Browns "Hydroplate theory".
        >> www.creationscience .com
        >> How of that do you know about or agree with?
        >> In my humble opinion and from what I've read over the last 15 years it is the single best comprehensive explanation of the flood and the mechanisms behind it..
        >> stephen
        >>
        >>
        > I have studied the Hydroplate Theory for years. Except for a few minor
        > points concerning the bombardment of the Moon (which Russell Humphreys
        > shows probably occurred twice, once three centuries after the Fall of
        > Man and again a century or so after the Flood), I don't have any problem
        > accepting it.
        >
        > The Hydroplate Theory also explains best of all the origins of comets,
        > asteroids, and meteoroids.
        >
        > Temlakos
        >
        >> ----- Original Message ----
        >> From: Temlakos <temlakos@gmail. com>
        >> To: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com
        >> Sent: Monday, 28 July, 2008 2:10:19 PM
        >> Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Deos the Enceladus water-vapour atmosphere shed light on the canpoy theory
        >>
        >>
        >> I won't vouch for the canopy theory. But I'll tell you this: what
        >> Enceladus has is a /subcrustal/ ocean, as does Titan, and as do Europa,
        >> Ganymede, and Callisto. I routinely cite those as examples to show that
        >> the oceans of Earth could have been subcrustal originally, and broken
        >> through the Mid-Oceanic Ridges to create the Global Flood.
        >>
        >> Temlakos
        >>
        >> whatiscreation wrote:
        >>
        >>
        >>> I was just doing some reshreach and I found out that one of the
        >>> planets around staturn has an water atmosphere does this Proof that
        >>> the canopy theory is possible
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> ------------ --------- --------- ------
        >>>
        >>> ============ ========= ========= ========= =====
        >>> CreationTalk email listserv
        >>> Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation. net/
        >>> CreationWiki http://creationwiki .org/
        >>> ============ ========= ========= ========= =====Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>
        >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>
        >>
        >> ------------ --------- --------- ------
        >>
        >> ============ ========= ========= ========= =====
        >> CreationTalk email listserv
        >> Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation. net/
        >> CreationWiki http://creationwiki .org/
        >> ============ ========= ========= ========= =====Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > ============================================
        > CreationTalk email listserv
        > Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation.net/
        > CreationWiki http://creationwiki.org/
        > ============================================Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.