Well of course the continents moved! They moved during the flood! The mid oceanic ridge is evidence for this. This video is a pure example of looking at evidence through evolutionary glasses and trying to make it fit the theory, rather than looking at it clearly. Also it has been shown to be physically impossible for plates to dive under other plates. Try reading 'In the beginning' by Walt Brown for free online. Good luck friend! :)
I have already made a videa concerning Walt Brown's hydroplate theory, it is of lower quality than this video, I was still gettting used to it back then.
Second, it isn't impossible for plates to be pushed under other plates. You may be confused, two slabs of continental crust can't be subducted under one another. We can measure the movement of plates using GPS, and we can track their progress below the surface by using siesmic waves.
@MaskofMystery I do have other critiscisms of the hydroplate theory that I didn't mention in the video I made of it.
1). How would the flood explain how the different continents came together to form pangea (as traced through geomagnetism), and then split apart?
2). How does the hydroplate theory deal with changes and speed and direction of plate movements after the breakup of pangea, such as the relatively recent acceleration of India to create the Himilayas.
@IceFire9yt Sorry I haven't seen that video. I will check it out now. Maybe you should contact Walt Brown if you really want answers lol maybe you could even arrange a debate! :D
And as for the dating methods, they begin with the assumption that the earth is old in advance. There are many assumptions with all of them in all areas. The methods don't work under scrutiny.
And of course, there is the problem of dating using radioisotopes. Carbon dating goes back to about 100,000 years ago, and tree rings of bristlecone pine extend past the supposed date of the flood. However, with plate tectonics, scientists use other radioactive isotopes.
I recomend you look at potholer54's or cdk007's videos on radiometric dating.
@IceFire9yt The educational stuff around here is very important to some of us. The real world is so much more interesting and awe inspiring than the made up versions.
As much I'm not comfortable with the fact that we all live on a ball of fiery liquid rock, zipping around an incomprehensively huge radioactive fusion reactor, I'd rather stick with Reality than the comforting lies of religion!
Well of course the continents moved! They moved during the flood! The mid oceanic ridge is evidence for this. This video is a pure example of looking at evidence through evolutionary glasses and trying to make it fit the theory, rather than looking at it clearly. Also it has been shown to be physically impossible for plates to dive under other plates. Try reading 'In the beginning' by Walt Brown for free online. Good luck friend! :)
MaskofMystery 1 year ago
@MaskofMystery
I have already made a videa concerning Walt Brown's hydroplate theory, it is of lower quality than this video, I was still gettting used to it back then.
Second, it isn't impossible for plates to be pushed under other plates. You may be confused, two slabs of continental crust can't be subducted under one another. We can measure the movement of plates using GPS, and we can track their progress below the surface by using siesmic waves.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
@MaskofMystery I do have other critiscisms of the hydroplate theory that I didn't mention in the video I made of it.
1). How would the flood explain how the different continents came together to form pangea (as traced through geomagnetism), and then split apart?
2). How does the hydroplate theory deal with changes and speed and direction of plate movements after the breakup of pangea, such as the relatively recent acceleration of India to create the Himilayas.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
@IceFire9yt Sorry I haven't seen that video. I will check it out now. Maybe you should contact Walt Brown if you really want answers lol maybe you could even arrange a debate! :D
And as for the dating methods, they begin with the assumption that the earth is old in advance. There are many assumptions with all of them in all areas. The methods don't work under scrutiny.
MaskofMystery 1 year ago
@MaskofMystery
And of course, there is the problem of dating using radioisotopes. Carbon dating goes back to about 100,000 years ago, and tree rings of bristlecone pine extend past the supposed date of the flood. However, with plate tectonics, scientists use other radioactive isotopes.
I recomend you look at potholer54's or cdk007's videos on radiometric dating.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
Thanks for the very educational uploads
macnutz 1 year ago
@macnutz I'm glad people appreciate my videos.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
@IceFire9yt The educational stuff around here is very important to some of us. The real world is so much more interesting and awe inspiring than the made up versions.
macnutz 1 year ago
As much I'm not comfortable with the fact that we all live on a ball of fiery liquid rock, zipping around an incomprehensively huge radioactive fusion reactor, I'd rather stick with Reality than the comforting lies of religion!
727Phoenix 1 year ago
Great job!!
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion Thanks!
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
Been too long. Another great vid.
iiiiblaze 1 year ago
@iiiiblaze I know, the next one will have less delay.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
Good video, but with annoying sound spikes.
laalki80 1 year ago
@laalki80 Thank you, I'll try to minize that in the future.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago