Talk:Hydroplate theory/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 6 February 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Wait

Wait, I misspelled the totletitle? I think you mean Icewedge. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 08:08, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Fantastic

In the literal sense of the word. It's like the ravings of a psychotic. The fantasy all forms into one coherent self-supporting whole. (or perhaps hole)--Bob_M (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Predestined fountains

One web site was saying that tidal forces and the core temperature would have gradually built up pressure in the underground basins , and that pressure finally broke the supporting pillers and cracked the crust. That does mean that God designed the Earth when he made it to blow up. Proof he could see the future ? The superheated water fountain melted the orbitting ice chunks too. Creation science at its best Hamster (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Paren comments

Why do we have so many parenthesis in this article? It seems strange to my eye. Can the comments be better incorporated (by those of you who write well).GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 17:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They were useless and not adding much and could have done with a citation or two. Removed. - π 03:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Theological question

Why would God build a world with a one time only floodability pre-built in? Was he planning to destroy it the whole time? Why only once? If he could only do it once, why so quick off the mark? Why not save it for a rainy day? - π 03:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, ... As a YEC I could try to argue for this point but i Think it's as plot holish and insane as you do so... yes, I would also like to know these answers. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

yes, God being all-knowing planned from the start for the Fall and the need for a great flood. He built the earth in such a way that tidal forces would heat the underground water and cause an eruption at the right time. The fountains of the deep also made the comets, put water on the moon and mars, eroded the Grand Canyon, created Niagra falls and allowed 8 people to repopulate the entire world in time to build the tower of babel and the pyramids presumably by a lot of wild sex. Rainbows , unexplainable by science, show God will not destroy the entire world by flood again. Hamster (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename proposal

I propose we rename this to "Hydroplate hypothesis" so that we don't confuse people into thinking this is a scientifiically-backed theory in accordance with the scientific method. What saeth the mob? Lord Bacu (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In principle, yes, but two main objections. 1) it's more commonly known as "hydroplate theory", and "hydroplate hypothesis" is considerably rarer. 2) A hypothesis is a testable statement, as a creationist "theory" it offers few if any of these - as a wider explanatory mechanism, it counts as a theory, albeit a considerably shit one. ^{d hominem} 15:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, points taken. But I recently made it my mission to stop calling nonsense like this a "theory" in order to combat the oft heard "It's just a theory" espoused by creationists in reference to Big Bang and evolution. Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 16:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to stop that by making a mess of the word "hypothesis" too. ^theist 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, I suppose. Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 16:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to put the theory part in single quotes. But 'hydroplate theory' is how the creationists refer to it so we should use the same name to ensure that we are talking about the same thing. Генгис^pillaging 16:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just the facts please.

How about letting readers form their own opinions on this subject instead of trying to coerce them to form certain negative attitudes and opinions about this subject in a page that is ment to just inform?

The language on this subject page only damages wikipedia's reputation as an unbiased source of information which by the way was what I came here to get on this subject of this theory (or semi-famous opinion - since you don't want to label it as a theory).

It makes me feel justified that I'm not donating money to wikipedia. Why should I support a page run by people who are not making an effort to remain neutral when educating readers? I like to form my own opinions, just the facts please... ^{— Unsigned, by: 175.143.248.42 / talk / contribs}

Um, we are not wikipedia. Тy^{Please do not click on this} 00:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh... lol... ^postate 00:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

... what ty said--il'Dictator Mikal 00:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just the facts: Hydroplate Theory is bullshit. Article ends. Ace^Moderator 00:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who believes in Hydroplate Theory is a twat. Генгис^pillaging 14:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. Articles like this are embarrassing. We have an obligation to respond to crank theories on the merits and far more completely than this. That would entail avoiding mere assertions. As much as I'm guilty of this, I've rethought conflating snark with sloppiness. Thing is, I lack the chops to deal with this adequately. I'd be pulling resources from elsewhere with less facility with the subject matter than I'd like. 18:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What about Islam?

How about taking a swing at Islam? I'm sure their beliefs are similar and you can focus lots of time bashing that and rediculing it. ^{— Unsigned, by: 175.143.248.42 / talk / contribs}

Already done. Argumentum ad you-wouldnt-ridicule-Islam, anyone? ^pathetic 13:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, no death threats yet?^{— Unsigned, by: 175.143.248.42 / talk / contribs}

You'd probably have to try a lot harder than that. I'm Muslim, and I read much of the page and didn't get incensed about anything. Now, if your goal is to incense people, I'll point out that it's a dangerous occupation, because people are people and actually do get pissed. I was a prison chaplain, and saw the results of people going about trying to piss off other people. Do that in the "right" place, you're dead right. Hey, I think I'll try to piss off that tiger in the zoo exhibit, he couldn't possibly jump that moat, and it would be fun to watch him being frustrated.

Look, the ignorant extremists would kill me first, I've given them plenty of cause, but not because I was trying to piss them off. I don't walk into their lairs and point out what idiots they are. Okay, okay, I did do it a few times. I was younger and lucky and didn't keep it up. Others in the same place were murdered. I'll say that it was worth it for one thing, the memory of a certain Imam screaming "No!" when a verse of the Qur'an was quoted to him. He'd just pissed in his own soup. --Abd (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See RationalWiki:Pissed at us.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think our BoN is, not very subtly, accusing us of being scared to take on the big bad Mooslim terrorists. There are a number of points here.

• The original driving force behind RW was refuting Christian fundies over at CP. This leads to a Christian bias
• Mostly the contributors to RW are immersed in a Christian culture so that is the one we know about. Again this leads to a Christian bias.
• We're more than happy to take on any religious bollocks - we'll refute all religious nonsense.
• A little searching would have revealed that there are numerous articles - enough for Islam have it's own category (I'd provide a link but my wiki foo isn't good enough)
• We would more than welcome BoN to contribute. If (s)he feels there is insufficient stuff on Islam then go ahead and write it.

In short this smacks of the "see how those awful atheists oppress us" without any attempt at due diligence. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See Category:Islam (put a ":" after the "[["s so it will link it instead of including it on the page, like Images or Categories). Cow...Hammer^time! 17:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's that old pickle that Islamic Awakening accuse us of being an extreme Islamophobic hate site, that wouldn't dare attack our "Christian Brothers" while the Anglo-Saxon Foundation think that we wouldn't dare pick on Muslims and are just anti-English. What the fuck, guys? Seriously, what part of "I despise you all equally" don't you understand? ^bomination 17:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing we can all agree on I think is that the authors of Rational Wiki are far from professional. You mix "facts" with emotional bias. ^{— Unsigned, by: 175.143.248.42 / talk / contribs}

Yeah, not at all like the trustworthy blog encyclopaedia.--Fergus Mason (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Says a BoN that immediately jumped on the "you wouldn't say this about Islam" train, without checking, which is a pretty strong bias in itself. No one here is paid, so "professionalism" is really off the cards almost by definition. And no, hydroplate 'theory' is a load of crap, we'll say so kthnaxby. ^theist 20:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case Rational Wiki is no better than me (but it's supposed to be) in fact what you're saying is that rational wiki is just as good as graffiti on walls in the streets, I'm not the one who has to live up to public expectations so what I am is of no consequence, but what you are doing is destroying Rational Wiki's reputation.^{— Unsigned, by: 175.143.248.42 / talk / contribs}

Not that you care, but one thing you have to remember is that our target audience is english speaking primariy american readers, but UK as well. In both the UK and the US, the single greatest "anti rational" part about islam is not islam itself, but the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Islam as a terrorist religion. We do take cracks at the religion a bit, but more than that, we look at idiots who like to say "islam is bad cause terrorism", rather than people who say "I'm a muslim and think that the world is 6000 years old". It's all about who's irrationality we are picking apart, and by and large there is no small part of Western 'anti muslim sentiment" that needs picking apart. GodotGrow a vagina 14:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm allowed to be irrational, but the authors of "Rational" Wiki have not been rational in their language. This is not Rational Wiki at all. It's the mob. A bunch of bullies that used the same IRRATIONAL methods of redicule to demean people that claim the world was round in a time where the majority believed otherwise. You've inherited the same spirit of irrational behaviour and are trying to use it to paint your selves as rational? O.M.G. What a bunch of Hypocrates...^{— Unsigned, by: 175.143.248.42 / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Sophie^{because liberals} 22:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Water in the lower mantle.

It still literally takes a miracle to get it onto the surface from dissolved in the mantle and back in the earth, and there's still a lot of problems with a global deluge, but there is an explanation for where the water could have come from, and it reminds me a little of "hydroplate". See: Water in Earth's Lower Mantle, by Motohiko Murakami et al. Hey, if John Adams was a lawyer for the Brits after the Boston Massacre, I can concede a somewhat related point to creationists. This doesn't improve their bearings very much: there are so many problems with a global flood beside "where'd the water come from" that it still all falls apart. Just sayin'. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

H2O is a nice little space filler for crystal formation, so tends to find its way into solids easy enough, and rocks are no exception to that. There's a difference between bulk water that we would drink or see flow in the oceans and this water that is taken up within solids. By a somewhat stretched analogy, stating that the mantle may contain about 5 times as much water as the oceans is interesting but no more relevant to hydroplate theory that stating that it contains a hundred times more carbon than the entire biosphere, therefore is a source of life. ^theist 13:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know the water's dissolved in the mantle and isn't an "underground ocean": this water dissolved in the lower mantle could not be brought to the surface and "put back where it belongs" without a miracle, and there are many other problems with a global flood. I just found the notion of there being many times more water in the mantle than in the ocean to remind me a bit of hydroplate "theory". Probably shouldn't have used the word "strongly" in the OP, I fixed my wording. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What a lot of ...

[1]water. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hydroplate theory vindicated?

"A battered diamond that survived a trip from "hell" confirms a long-held theory: Earth's mantle holds an ocean's worth of water. "It's actually the confirmation that there is a very, very large amount of water that's trapped in a really distinct layer in the deep Earth," said Graham Pearson, lead study author and a geochemist at the University of Alberta in Canada. The findings were published today (March 12) in the journal Nature... - http://www.livescience.com/44057-diamond-inclusions-mantle-water-earth.html--197.229.0.175 (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the actual Nature article? I don't think it means what you think it means. Among other things, the notion that water could "explode" out from the mantle and flood the Earth is still absolutely ridiculous. We're also not talking about some ocean of liquid water just sitting in this transition layer; we're talking about incredibly high pressure concentrations of non-liquid ringwoodite that contain "water" in the form of hydroxide ions. The idea that all of the Earth's water could have come from the mantle is not a crazy one, as when the Earth formed ~4 billion years ago, it's conceivable that these hydroxide ions could have been forced to the surface, where chemical reactions could have allowed them to bond and form water. Hydroplate "theory" as understood by creationists is still a bunch of garbage. - Grant (Talk) 15:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Brown Vindicated?

Why did you remove the following comment? What have you got to hide? This is a talk page!!! "A battered diamond that survived a trip from "hell" confirms a long-held theory: Earth's mantle holds an ocean's worth of water. "It's actually the confirmation that there is a very, very large amount of water that's trapped in a really distinct layer in the deep Earth," said Graham Pearson, lead study author and a geochemist at the University of Alberta in Canada. The findings were published today (March 12) in the journal Nature..." For more see: http://www.livescience.com/44057-diamond-inclusions-mantle-water-earth.html--197.229.0.175 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Grant addressed your concerns above. Why do you you need to mis-read science to prove your faith? Is your belief in your concept of the divine so weak that it needs buttressing through mendacity or ignorance? TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You point out that this is a talk page, and yet you don't follow proper protocol by placing your comments at the bottom of the page. You'll note that I simply moved your last post, and then responded to it. Evidently you did not feel it necessary to take the time to check that first. - Grant (Talk) 16:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. So the flood wasn't miraculous after all! Or was it partly miraculous and partly scientific? Or wholly naturalistic? I'm so confused. Could you explain?--Coffee (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I doubt the people who would support a biblical flood would be satisfied with a layer of ringwoodite (1.5% made out of OH-, which is not yet H2O) between upper and lower mantle, which could hardly have caused any kind of flood through any plate activity or other vertical transport mechanisms. You'd have an easier time theorizing that all the groundwater on Earth somehow was under large enough pressure at some point to squirt to the surface simultaneously and cause a flood (I wouldn't advise theorizing that).

Certainly there could have been a time when floods were occurring everywhere on the Earth's surface... billions of years ago when the oceans first formed due to water condensing down from the atmosphere. Nullahnung (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)