Talk:Hydroplate theory

Guy complains about fallacies by committing argument from authority
I teach philosophy and critical thinking, and so I'm always looking for good resources for students that will challenge them, intellectually. I was hoping for a more rational and scientific appraisal of this theory at a site called "RationalWiki," even if I don't buy the theory.

Dr. Brown's book on the hydroplate theory lists at least 17 scientific phenomena that are best explained by his theory, and pits it up against other geologic theories, arguing that his model gives a better explanation of the data. He also has a standing, open invitation to anyone who would like to debate the scientific merits/demerits of his theory to contact him.

In short, this MIT scientist's theory sets out a hypothesis that can be examined evidentially against competing scientific theories. If it's such a laughable theory, then put up the science that debunks it. I'd humbly encourage a more rigorous, scientific critique that goes beyond the genetic fallacy, straw-manning, and loaded language if you want people to take this site seriously. It does not appear that the person who wrote the entry has any scientific credentials.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.94.251.57 / talk / contribs

How is this page rational?
This article does nothing to disprove the hydroplate theory, and basically this page pokes fun at the theory by calling it a fantasy, and basically the reasoning behind is that its wrong because "we said so". Please provide scientific proof that refutes the hydroplane theory, or links to a document that refute the theory.
 * BON is actually kinda right here. We should at least mention that continents floating on water / on "pillars" is ridiculous. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki! DRINK!  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's sort of like refuting "The moon is made of cheese" hypothesis. But I suppose it should be done.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not how burden of proof works. --IAMELIPHAS (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Eggs in the wrong basket
Almost all the current External links could and should be used as footnotes instead. Srsly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yet another flaw I find with this theory
Either this one or the one that suggests about Pangaea broke down during the Flood -including the "Peleg" thing- ignores there would be so much geological activity in the form of volcanoes, earthquakes, name it that would make Jupiter's moon Io envious. I very much doubt that would be harmless for the health of Noah and everyone onboard the Ark. --Panzerfaust (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Pole problem
Can someone develop 'the ghastly pun' involving the theoretical supercontient, polar icecaps and 'this theory skating on thin ice.' Anna Livia (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)