New geological discovery provides evidence to support hydroplate theory, page 1

Here is an interesting refutation of hydroplate theory, it doesn't jive with science, and it doesn't jive with the bible (and the only reason it exists is because of the bible).

After viewing the refutation that nygdan quoted I must say that the refuter is another in a long string of persons who has not given proper attention to understanding Hydroplate theory before attempting a refution. I will do my best to explain the inconsistancies here.

The author of the page has three main areas of refutation.

Mountains

Early colapse

and everybody cooks

The first point the author makes is that there could be no mountains because the flexing of the crust would cause the crust to crack and release the water in the subteranean chambers. This is actually dealt with by Brown in his theory in two ways.

First he states that the subteranean water layer was supported by large areas of solid rock or pillars. These pillars certainly would form where uplifts of land had their corresponding downthrusts. The cracking of the upper crust would not necessarily affect the seal in the lower crust. While the crust above 5 miles deep would crack under the strain for mountains the crust below 5 miles deep would not crack in the traditional sense due to the nature of rock under these kinds of pressures. Here is a quote from Brown's work.

Pressures in the crust 5 miles or more below the earth’s surface are so great that the rock can deform like highly compressed, extremely stiff putty. The slightest crack or opening could not open from below.

Brown does state that mountains in the preflood earth were less than 5000 feet high. Hydroplate theory goes on to explain how the current mountain ranges came to their heights.

Hence while all the nice mathematics seem very convincing they do not take into account the nature of geology and rock that is under pressure and hence do not represent a refutation of the theory.

The second line of refutation has to do with early colapse of the subteranian chambers due to friction between the crust and the core. The page author states

one must have pillars to retain the physical connection with the core.

He then goes on to talk about how the lack of these pillars would cause a colapse. This second line of refutation is particularly showing of the authors ignorance of hydroplate theory since in the introduction to the theory Dr. Brown states there were "extensive solid structues, called pillars that supported and connected the upper and lower levels of the water layer. The formation of these chambers is detailed in his work on Page 338-342. Hence in the original assumptions that underly the theory the necessary pillars are detailed.

The authors final point is that the release of water under such pressure would "cook" everone on the planet. The pages author does some well meaning arithmatic to show that the energy released. Unfortunatley the author uses some assumptions that do not hold up to the theory proposed. First is the volume of water in question. Hydroplate theory, nor Dr. Brown have never proposed a layer of water 2 km thick surround the globe. Second the temperature variant for todays crust is not uniform nor can it be assumed that todays temperature gradient is equivalent with what was preflood since the hydroplate event did release a massive amount of energy into the crust via friction in the post breach event. (take the time to read the theory to undertand this)

Skewed figures aside the refuter has also failed to take into account the fact that the flood event as described took place first at the bottom of the ocean, hence the whole sea would act as a heat sink for the event. Additionally the event would have been so cataclysmic that much of the energy would have been vented to the high upper atmosphere and even ejected into space. This by the way is also covered in Dr. Browns explanation of his hypothesis.

With these mitigating factors it is perfectly conceivable that the whole Earth would not be cooked. In fact the only thing baking here is the half baked attempt at a refutation of a theory that the author did not even bother to comprehend before dismissing. Bad science always begins with a closed mind and proceeds to prove itself right anyway.