Walt Brown's super-tectonics

It seems to me evilution has many problems, which are legion. The Hydroplate theory seems to have much less. Someone mentioned that the lower water would have been so hot, it would have scalded Noah. It seems it may have fast frozen mammoths, as well. Could it be that some type of balance was present, not making it as bad as a few seem to think? Unless you throw out the bible with the flood water, there was water coming up, as well as down. Would there be a better explanation for this-or is it just the whole idea of a flood that some people really fight??

"they had to give up the idea of the flood... wild speculations that are demonstrably wrong or don't explain all the facts that we have"
They are getting back to it, in case you haven't noticed to some extent. And yes, evilution's pitiful religious, and baseless worn out grasping at straws has a lot of people waking up to the fact they were duped! (By 'those wild speculations that are that are demonstrably wrong or don't explain all the facts that we have.')
Besides omnipotent sounding empty rhetoric, perhaps some honest answers would be in order? For example, is it or is it not true that a fossil can be and is used to date a strata, and a strata can be and is used to date a fossil? yes or no? Also about the water someone said was too hot, could there have been a balance or not? Please, refrain from using the typical evilutionist high and mighty 'how dare thou question' condesending bluster, followed of course by substanceless contempt for all ideas that leave room for the fact that things did not create their little selves. There is room in the real world for those minds that try to include a creator in their pitifully limited attempts to understand orgins.

OK thanks for answers. 39 mammoths preserved seems a lot if it were millions of years ago!?
"routine"?! Wow. millions of creatures up there wiped out hardly sounds routine! An 8 ft crocodile (champosaurus) found up near the pole in 1998 (with a toad in it's belly) wasn't on a routine sun bath! And as far as these "cave-ins, DROWNings, FLOODplains, and 'rivers' there are a lot of ways to explain things, Funny how they almost all include water! Maybe more than you think!

I guess you haven't heard about the many folks who are abandoning evilution like rats from a sinking ship! I don't have the names handy, any more than I do folks who still hold to evilution. In either case, their names would not fit in this forum. There is many websites on creation science, with testimonies of converted former uniformists, as you probably know.
As far as how soon evilution completly falls, I can not say. Your job if you're in the deception business, folks, may be safe for a while.
--your answer about the fossils and stata being used to date each other "No, not in the manner that you state it. " Can anyone else out there confirm this?
Finally, you sound pretty convinced of this hot water stuff. Pity Walt never thought of it. Somehow I think there may be an answer for that. For example, are you accounting for dispersed water (of the theory) cooling in the atmosphere, and space? Are you accounting that there was a lot of salt etc in it, and that there was cooler seas already on the surface? You could be right, but so many assumptions usually go into mainstream science, I like to know why they say certain things. After all science can't even predict earthquakes, with all the silly assumptions, and pet theories they embrace. Could there be a 'Paradise' somewhere under the earth? how about 'hell' where one would be able to, as Jesus did, visit the spirits down there? What's really down there anyhow? Isn't several miles the most anyones been down? Was there then no 'fountains of the deep'?

Ok I give up, how old do the current theorists put them? Used to be, it seemed to me they were thought of as dinosaurs almost, till they of course changed their dates?. (Funny how billions of years are tossed around in the scramble to keep a theory afloat, as it suits the need to evilute the dates!)Anyhow, I got a feeling that these big mammoth delicasies in the uniformist opinion (I like that word, opinion)are somewhat older than the flood date of a relative few thousand years ago.

"lying or they don't know what they are talking about... or they're creationists" Perhaps I should try to adopt the respect you have for the non evilution believers?
"
No. Strata is not used to date fossils " ever?" you reap what you sow. So sow well" Quoting the bible now, are we? Well, I would rather not sow creator less and baseless theories in the classrooms as fact, because I might reap the whirlwind!
"Balance?" ...In other words a balance of forces acting upon the water that could possibly allow for only 99.999% of mankind, and oh say about the same % of animal life being wiped out, allowing somehow for a very few "organisms" (Noah & co) to survive? Walt's theory does have the water shooting up I believe about 20 miles, could it not cool a little on the way down?

"out by a factor of 1000"... OK the mammoth may not be, according to the latest OPINION of evolutionists millions of years old.(they are closer to the truth then on this particular age!) But there are oodles of destroyed and fossilized critters up there that would be much older, would there not? Is is not true that millions and billions of years are freely bandied about by evolutionists, as it suits their need to adapt? I stand corrected at my lack of following the guesswork of clueless theorists, as to their latest fantasy guess at the mammoths age. I thought I remembered long ago in school that they used to place the creatures as before men came, like they do still with the dinosaurs. Was there not an adjustment in their mammoth age guesses since the sixties? As I mentioned, since they throw billions of years around, even if they stuck to their guns on this one, could you blame one for throwing a few million back?

"So, any fossil found in the sediment layers are assumed to have formed the same time the sediment layer formed"..
thank you! So all the poor drowned creatures somewhere in a sediment layer are to be ASSUMED -a certain age! ha
..."We could also go into the energy released by plates smacking into each other" -- Are we talking about the huge continental plates rolling on water, and settling down? Or are we talking theoretical plates of the p.tectonic theory? Walt said that mountain ranges, I believe, like on the west coast of America would have been formed then, and a lot of molten rock was involved. After all, why is this harder to imagine than the plates just drifting with no apparent reason except of course, the old mantra that is supposed to explain every and anything --'millions and millions of years..' Why does some primordial soup sound better than an ark as man's orgin?

--"So the dates haven't been clueless guesswork for a very long time and certainly not for about half a century" So they were clueless before that?
"You clearly don't have much of a clue about the actual facts behind what you are arguing about" ...From what you've said so far, I haven't heard much except for contemptuous jibes, as if backed up by something. I guess we'll have to assume you really have some substancial knowledge you just don't feel like bringing to bear here.
"But there are oodles of destroyed and fossilized critters up there that would be much older, would there not?" ------.."So"? So there was a violent event, and some animals in the event are still edible!

OK thanks, so perhaps the simple question I asked was simply answered wrong by the other guy who says it just ain't so. As far as the Hydroplate theory, it seems to me it covers a lot of ground, in the worldwide effects, therefore a wide array of things would still be on topic.

OK, thanks for your typo work. If you find yourself in need of a job, let me know. At least you may have a knack for something! I might be hiring in about thirty million years. It is amazing to me that Walt came up with a theory so fairly well accepted that lacks, according to you, so basic a grasp of physics. Have there really been some studies done about this Hydroplate heat thing? Or are you talking generally in how you think some principles may apply here? How do you know that continents sliding away from the ridge would toast the world?

Here again we are assuming that water will cook the world. If we assume this the theory does look bad. But precisely why must this be?

"What edible animals are there that are much older (you said millions of years) "up there"? I'm afraid you are making things up as you go along"
I said they were all in a violent event, some still edible (ie the mammoths in question). I didn't say any particular ones you prefer to call 'older' were as tasty. I can see why you would assume others to be making things up.

"But, yes, they were comparitively clueless" thank you. I think men would be much wiser to admit they are comparitively clueless even now. The danger is when they think they know it all."..If you don't happen to like the dating methods (and I'm guessing you don't without knowing a damm thing about them)..." -Because I believe in the flood, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to guess I would question the so called "dating" methods. Question: If indeed there was a flood, would any of the dating methods you mention be affected? In other words, would the resultant date given be more of less that if the cataclysm never happened?

"Mammoths lived in a very cold climate " Is this a fact? Don't think so.
"I've become a bit confused. Are you now arguing that there were several violent events spread over millions of years or that there was one recent event that leaves old creatures as fossils and a very few mammoths partially preserved by freezing? Could you spell it out a bit" -I think they died in the worldwide flood year, and it was what you would call recently. One reason I am eyeing the Hydroplate theory, to see if it is sound, before adopting it too closely, as some poor souls have done with a much inferior theory!