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

[CSHF] Hydroplate Theory v. Plate Tectonics

Expand Messages
  • Creation Science Hall of Fame
    Creation Science Hall of Fame has posted a new item, Hydroplate theory v. plate tectonics The hydroplate theory competes with catastrophic plate tectonics
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Creation Science Hall of Fame has posted a new item, 'Hydroplate theory v. plate
      tectonics'

      The hydroplate theory competes with catastrophic plate tectonics for acceptance
      among creation scientists.

      CSHOF presents this side-by-side comparison to show
      whether the hydroplate theory, or catastrophic plate tectonics, explains more
      and has more evidence to support it.

      You may view the latest post at

      http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/2013/03/02/creation-2/apologetics/hydroplate-theory-v-plate-tectonics/

      You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are
      posted.

      Best regards,
      Creation Science Hall of Fame
      terry@...
    • Ray Ausban
      I went and read this site and find it interesting because of the religious aspect. First, by 1960, nearly all churches believed in the science of old earth and
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I went and read this site and find it interesting because of the religious aspect. First, by 1960, nearly all churches believed in the science of old earth and evolution, but more importantly the churches from which the YEC ministers sprang in particular believed it. Then, they realized because of Velikovsky, that Bible catastrophes very well could be true, so some of these guys started the YEC movement.
         
        In other words, the YEC movement came from a branch of Christianity that had 'died' and they view their mission is to save that branch and any one else who will listen. Therefore, 'God' must have inspired them to start their YEC churches. Now, this gets really interesting because God is apparently, not inspiring them in their explanations. First, the vapor canopy high up in the atmosphere, when that didn't work, then it was an orbiting vapor canopy, which that wouldn't work either, so then it is ripped and buckling crust, then exploding crust with an under crust ocean spilling onto the surface. For being inspired, this is a lot of theories.
         
        These same people believe in the flood because of a written record from the past, but do not investigate the other written accounts for evidence that might help them understand the past. The most they will do is note that other cultures had global flood stories as evidence to support their Bible view but never go into those accounts to help them understand the past.
         
        I did not listen to the video links, but the one shows oyster remains found at 12,000 feet. I am also aware of a whale skeleton in the Lima, Peru museum which also was found at 12,000 feet, far to high for accepted plate tectonics to explain. The past is an unusal place that needs further research.
         
        From: Creation Science Hall of Fame <terry@...>
        To: terry@...
        Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 5:14 AM
        Subject: [M & B] [CSHF] Hydroplate Theory v. Plate Tectonics
         
        Creation Science Hall of Fame has posted a new item, 'Hydroplate theory v. plate
        tectonics'

        The hydroplate theory competes with catastrophic plate tectonics for acceptance
        among creation scientists.

        CSHOF presents this side-by-side comparison to show
        whether the hydroplate theory, or catastrophic plate tectonics, explains more
        and has more evidence to support it.

        You may view the latest post at

        http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/2013/03/02/creation-2/apologetics/hydroplate-theory-v-plate-tectonics/

        You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are
        posted.

        Best regards,
        Creation Science Hall of Fame
        mailto:terry%40creationsciencehalloffame.org

      • Ray Ausban
        Additionally, for those who dislike YEC ministers, you can add the following to your list of complaints: YEC routinely cite Antonio Snyder (1859) as the first
        Message 3 of 4 , Mar 2, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Additionally, for those who dislike YEC ministers, you can add the following to your list of complaints:
          YEC routinely cite Antonio Snyder (1859) as the first person to come up with the idea that the continents were all one land mass (as indicated in the Bible). In doing so, there is the denial of history, which shows the early map maker Abraham Ortelius (1596) was actually the first person. While Wikipedia makes it sound like Ortelius dreamed up a 'drift' senario, it is clear from his writings (I've read elsewhere) that a catastrophic senario is what he actually recorded.
          The first religious leader I am aware of which took this position as the 'division of the earth' was the division of earth's land masses and more, was the LDS founder Joseph Smith. His writings and LDS scripture which date from from the 1830's and 1840's are a direct indication to the concept.
           
          This is decades before Antonio Synder. The suggestion that a "YEC" of their brand, dreamed up this Bible interpertation is simply false.

           
           
          From: Creation Science Hall of Fame <terry@...>
          To: terry@...
          Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 5:14 AM
          Subject: [M & B] [CSHF] Hydroplate Theory v. Plate Tectonics
           
          Creation Science Hall of Fame has posted a new item, 'Hydroplate theory v. plate tectonics' The hydroplate theory competes with catastrophic plate tectonics for acceptance among creation scientists. CSHOF presents this side-by-side comparison to show whether the hydroplate theory, or catastrophic plate tectonics, explains more and has more evidence to support it. You may view the latest post at http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/2013/03/02/creation-2/apologetics/hydroplate-theory-v-plate-tectonics/ You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are posted. Best regards, Creation Science Hall of Fame mailto:terry%40creationsciencehalloffame.org
        • piasanaol
          From: Creation Science Hall of Fame The hydroplate theory competes with catastrophic plate tectonics for acceptance among creation scientists. CSHOF presents
          Message 4 of 4 , Mar 2, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            From: Creation Science Hall of Fame
             
            The hydroplate theory competes with catastrophic plate tectonics for acceptance
            among creation scientists.

            CSHOF presents this side-by-side comparison to show
            whether the hydroplate theory, or catastrophic plate tectonics, explains more
            and has more evidence to support it.

            You may view the latest post at

            http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/2013/03/02/creation-2/apologetics/hydroplate-theory-v-plate-tectonics/

             
             
            Pi:
            According to the article, CPT has been presented to a scientific conference of creationists.  There is no evidence Brown's hydroplates have ever been presented in a scientific forum of any kind.  Brown hasn't entered the "competition."
             
            The hydroplate theory is a scientific no-show.
             



             
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.