Friday, December 28, 2007

More on the Hydroplate Theory

I missed this November article in regard to Brown’s Hydroplate theory that was posted at the Christian Broadcasting Network website. They did a great job of condensing his theory for a short article.

The Foundation for Creation Doctrine has also posted an article referencing Brown’s work and his take on what some creationists describe as the Catastrophic Plate Tectonic Theory.

It’s interesting to me that there are several mainstream theories that are being questioned lately, yet the latest findings don’t seem to pose a problem for Dr. Brown’s Hydroplate theory. If you are familiar with Brown’s work, consider it with regard to new concerns posed in regard to the supposedly well established ancient super continent Pangea.

Or, consider that some scientists are now questioning the extent to which meteorites or asteroids could have caused mass extinctions.

From Carl Zimmer‘s article in Wired Magazine:
At the same time, scientists have also been putting together a chronology of fossils from the same time, known as the Ordovician Period. They're recording when species first emerged in the fossil record, and when they disappeared as they became extinct. And this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, the scientists report that the impacts coincided with a drastic change in the world's biodiversity.

You might expect mass extinctions. The most famous of all impacts, a ten-mile-wide asteroid that hit the Earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period 65 million years ago, has been linked to mass extinctions that wiped out Tyrannosaurus rex, the other dinosaurs without wings, and about half of all other species on Earth.

But 470 million years ago, that's not what happened. Instead, the diversity of life took a sharp climb right after the meteorites started falling.

Scientists say the discovery is quite unusual. Nature Geoscience's press release declares, "These results are surprising as meteorite impacts are often more commonly associated with mass extinctions."


From the Nature abstract referenced in Zimmer’s article:
The rise and diversification of shelled invertebrate life in the early Phanerozoic eon occurred in two major stages. During the first stage (termed as the Cambrian explosion), a large number of new phyla appeared over a short time interval 540 Myr ago. Biodiversity at the family, genus and species level, however, remained low until the second stage marked by the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event in the Middle Ordovician period1, 2, 3. Although this event represents the most intense phase of species radiation during the Palaeozoic era and led to irreversible changes in the biological make-up of Earth's seafloors, the causes of this event remain elusive. Here, we show that the onset of the major phase of biodiversification 470 Myr ago coincides with the disruption in the asteroid belt of the L-chondrite parent body—the largest documented asteroid breakup event during the past few billion years4, 5. The precise coincidence between these two events is established by bed-by-bed records of extraterrestrial chromite, osmium isotopes and invertebrate fossils in Middle Ordovician strata in Baltoscandia and China. We argue that frequent impacts on Earth of kilometre-sized asteroids—supported by abundant Middle Ordovician fossil meteorites and impact craters6—accelerated the biodiversification process.

If one is familiar with Brown’s theory, it seems to me that it fits these finding more accurately if one can actually step away from the Darwin/old earth mindset for a bit. Brown’s theory would support the notion that “diversity of life took a sharp climb right after the meteorites started falling“. His theory suggests that comets, asteroids, and meteorites formed when jetting water and rock debris were forcefully launched from the subterranean chamber, escaped the earth’s gravitational pull and blasted into space to become part of our solar system.

For a time after this catastrophe occurred, it would seem to make sense that meteorites and asteroids may have more frequently collided with the earth if they were not launched far enough to escape the earth's gravitational pull. Shortly after the flood waters started to subside and earth became more stable, there would have been a sharp increase in the diversity of life as the population started to grow again.

I also recently read this article in regard to comets. Again, scientists still question where they came from, and are starting to question many previously held beliefs such as the notion that comments helped deliver water to planet earth. What if this hypothetical Oort cloud (which has never been observed) does not exist...where then do comets come from?

I’d also like to know why there are comets left after 4.5 billion years. Where is the evidence for this comet reservoir? Comets have a short life span, so when, where and how did they evolve?

When reading Brown’s hydroplate theory and considering the many issues that it addresses, it’s make so much more sense and solves so many mysteries that mainstream scientists keep going back to the drawing board to try to explain.

Brown’s theory explains...
... using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined.

The Grand Canyon (pages 175–204)
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Ocean Trenches (pages 138–159)
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Frozen Mammoths (pages 220–251)
Major Mountain Ranges
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 162–173)
Limestone (pages 212–217)
Metamorphic Rock
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Comets (pages 254–284)
Asteroids and Meteoroids (pages 286–303)

When reading this material, it fits together so coherently.

Yes, yes, I know....I’m no scientist, so I’m only considering what I read and ponder the issues which seem to be a conundrum for the current scientific consensus, but which seem (to me) to lend some support to Brown’s work.

I won’t be discussing this post here or in other forums or blogs as I’ve grown quite weary of debating with Darwinists who have no intention of actually peering outside of the box.

But, if there is anyone truly interested in meaningful dialogue with regard to Brown’s hydroplate theory, I’d rather you debate the man yourself and allow me to listen as I do not have the background that he does in regard to these issues. A phone debate offer can be found here.

To the dismay of many evolutionists, I find Brown’s work fascinating and probably always will. Although his theory falls in line with the Genesis flood, he has provided scientific evidence for his claims based on empirical evidence or inference to support his theories rather than miracles or supernatural events.

Consider theses final thoughts found in an excerpt from Brown’s Book, In the Beginning:

Thomas Crowder Chamberlin1, former president of the University of Wisconsin and the first head of the Geology Department at the University of Chicago, published a famous paper in which he warned researchers not to let one hypothesis dominate their thinking. Instead, they should always have or seek multiple working hypotheses, especially in fields, such as geology, where much remains to be learned. Chamberlin stated that testing competing hypotheses or theories sharpens one’s analytical skills, develops thoroughness, reduces biases, and helps students and teachers learn to think independently and discriminate rather than simply memorize and conform. Chamberlin said the dangers of teaching only one explanation are especially great in the earth sciences. The explanation for oceanic trenches is an example. The plate tectonic theory dominates the earth sciences. A recent survey of scientists selected it as the most significant theory of the 20th century. Undoubtedly, Darwin’s theory of organic evolution would be voted as the most significant theory of the 19th century. Both dominate, despite their growing scientific problems, because schools and the media ignore competing explanations. Chamberlin warned about the comfort of conformity.