Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Jun 14, 2013.
Talk Origins is a pretty cool site.
This theory really doesn't address how the water started out the way it did either. I don't feel real confident on his math, but I'm pretty certain that for the dramatic changes suggested in this would render the planet uninhabitable. I mean... this guy seriously underestimates the power of atomic bombs. But realistically, such as in the case of supercritical water vents, it's hot enough to melt things. So on a global scale, everything would pretty wind up dead by heat. Another criticism, off the top of my head, is why does it -selectively- freeze mammoths and not anything else? It makes sense with our current model, because mammoths existed in the ice age. But if all life existed at the time, we'd see all life frozen, right? Last one I can think of off hand, is that it's silly to say that The Flood is responsible for lakes. It ignores the very real, and very observable thing known as the water cycle.
Listen... when you have an end goal in mind (what the bible says) and try to fit evidence to support it, that's not science. And it's certainly not honest. In science, multiple people can come up with the same formulas, because we're unlocking how the universe works. With creationism... well... other people will use hydroplate theory to suggest that the craters on the moon were caused by the great flood. It seems silly that no two creationist can get the same story. But energy will always equal it's mass multiplied by it's velocity squared.
Separate names with a comma.