After much exploring the theme, I was lead to some "theories" that (atheist) critics say they are rubbish.
But one of these brought my attention because of its elegance and robustness: the hydroplate theory.
I´ve read the book (or most of it) on line and it was really surprising. See here.
Yes, there are critics, but I have found this article very reasonable.
Hydroplate theory more robust than appreciated - National creationism | Examiner.com
Hydroplate theory more robust than appreciated
* February 11th, 2010 12:37 am ET
Walt Brown (Center for
The hydroplate theory of the Global Flood, first proposed by Walt Brown, PhD, in 1995 and refined considerably since then, is far more robust than one might appreciate merely by reading link summaries on Internet searches on the phrase. Most of the criticisms of it turn out to be classic exercises in circular reasoning.
The most respectable of Brown's critics is Dr. Glenn R. Morton, a physicist who clearly accepts the uniformitarian view of geology (that all processes observed today have always operated, at the same rates, since the earth began). This view colors his thinking, and clouds his judgment.
First, Morton assumes that Brown's theory requires the earth's surface to be "perfectly smooth." This he concludes after calculating that mountains, mentioned by Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 7), would overstress the ten-kilometer crust that initially covered the pre-Flood subcrustal ocean, according to Brown's central assumption. But the Bible never says how high the highest mountains were before the Flood, so that assuming that any of them were as high as are typical mountains today assumes a fact not in evidence--especially since Brown holds that the crashing of the "hydroplates" created after the initial event created the modern mountains. More to the point: to go from not being able to support mountains as high as modern mountains, to having to be "perfectly smooth," is a frankly silly exaggeration. (Morton never says how "perfect" the "smoothness" needs to be, so that one may reasonably assume that Morton is suggesting that the earth's surface needed to be a toolmaker's flat!)
Next he assumes that the crust covering the subcrustal waters would collapse very early, in geological terms. He is probably assuming the same great ages that most uniformitarians do, forgetting that 1,656 years passed between Creation and the Flood. He stated that the model requires pillars to support the crust; in fact, Brown's model does feature pillars, though this could have been a refinement added after Morton's 2003 critique. More to the point: the recent demonstration of a subcrustal ocean on Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, and the (quite reasonable) inference of a subcrustal ocean on Europa (and probably also on Ganymede, whose crust is even thicker and heavier), strongly suggests that a subcrustal ocean is not the outlandish device that Morton and others seem to believe. (Note: the surfaces of Europa and Enceladus are not toolmaker's flats, by any stretch.)
Morton's worst error is to assume that the water would be too hot, and would remain hot as it escaped from the initial rupture. The water would indeed be hot--and in fact, supercritical on account of the tremendous pressure. But it would not remain hot as it escaped. According to Brown's model, the water rushed nearly straight up and all the way through the atmosphere, and there lost its heat and fell as freezing rain and even hail. Nor did this rain fall all at once; Shem, Ham and Japheth clearly testify that the rain fell "for forty days and forty nights."
The common thread in all the errors that Morton makes is circular reasoning--as if Morton says to Brown, "Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong." Albert Einstein's critics no doubt made the same mistake.
This article is part of the Hydroplate theory series.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.
Powered by ScribeFire.