Objection Answer

TOO MUCH MANTLE EXPOSED IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC.   This objection points out that there isn't enough current continental crust on either side of the East Pacific Rise for the claim that continental crust once covered the globe.


The Pacific Ocean is a problem for ALL tectonic models. Neither Plate Tectonics nor Catastrophic Plate Tectonics has a better answer than Hydroplate Theory. We all struggle when it comes to the Pacific Ocean. The biggest problem for HPT is not knowing the arrangement of land and sea before the Flood, because one of HPT's starting assumptions is that the world didn't start out with Pangea surrounded by a large ocean. PT, CPT, and other Flood models propose massive rearrangement of continents, as if they were pieces of furniture that can be moved around at will, to suit the theorist. In reality, continents don't move easily at all, and magma plumes are not an adequate mechanism for movement. HPT proposes only one window of opportunity for continents to slide-- when the continental plates were resting on an almost friction-free surface of supercritical water. This is the only scenario in which a continental could actually slide.

As time goes on, HPT may well undergo modifications as we learn more about the ocean floor. We know more than we did in the 1960s when PT was theorized, but in the coming decades we will continue to receive more data as exploration continues.


COMETS AND ASTEROIDS HAVE CHEMICAL COMPOSITIONS NOT IDENTICAL TO EARTH ROCKS:  If comets and asteroids are claimed to have come from earth rocks launched by the fountains of the great deep, then why is their chemical composition not more similar to earth rocks?


The material launched by the fountains was largely pulverized and ionized, as well as being at extreme temperatures. As the ejecta spewed out into space then came together again due to gravitational attraction, the atoms and molecules were free to recombine in different ways. The conditions in which they existed as they recombined were not typical earth conditions. Who knows what happens when minerals are formed in zero gravity, at temperatures hundreds of degrees below zero? More importantly, we should ask why comets and asteroids contain minerals that, as far as we know, only form in scalding hot water-- a condition never found in outer space. We should also ask how asteroids can be covered with rounded boulders that look like they were processed in a rock tumbler.

NUCLEAR DECAY IN THE CRUST WOULD HAVE COOKED THE PLANET:  The piezo-electric effects in the granite produced high voltages that broke apart atoms and created much radioactivity. The calculated amount of radioactivity would have destroyed the earth.


This objection was analyzed by several professional nuclear engineers, and they all agreed that this objection is unwarranted. (The objector did not have a degree in nuclear physics.)  It has been clearly demonstrated by thousands of experiments, at several labs, that when Z-pinch occurs (when high voltages are running through atoms in granite or quartz) and atoms break apart then recombine to form heavier elements (stable or unstable), energy is ABSORBED not released. (They call this "cold repacking.") At worst, the entire process is adiabatic (energy neutral). The majority of fast neutrons created by nuclear processes would have been absorbed by either the supercritical water or by the growing volume of ocean water.  Water is used in nuclear reactors to absorb harmful radiation. It has a huge capacity to absorb energy with producing a large rise in temp. Having said all this, the crust probably did experience some warming during the Flood. We know that parts of it melted into lava. However, the crust was never in danger due nuclear processes.

Another note: Heat energy gained by the supercritical water simply increased the pressure, the velocity, and the number of droplets, all of which then helped to increase the heat removal. As SCW gets hotter and hotter, it breaks into more ions, both positive and negative, which makes electrical potential energy, not thermal energy. After the Flood began, almost all this energy became kinetic energy (because of the properties of SCW). The kinetic energy contributed to the immense force that was able to launch debris into space.

To listen to a more detailed explanation of this, go to: https://kgov.com/heat-5



The eruption and the resulting crustal fluttering and deformation did indeed release a lot of heat. However, the release was over weeks and months, not all at once. If you do not allow for the time factor in your calculations, your calculations will lead you to wrong conclusions. Dr. Brown even shows in one of his end notes in the radioactivity chapter how the time factor can influence the final results (and your conclusions).

Additionally, quartz has a natural shut-off mechanism where the piezo-electric effect (which would have been driving the production of nuclear decay) stops at about 1000 degrees F, well below granite's melting point. So there was an upper limit to the piezo-electric effect.

ORIGIN OF RADIOACTIVITY IDEAS NOT SOURCED ADEQUATELY:  This objection says Dr. Brown does not provide enough proof that his ideas are valid.


The radioactivity chapter has 160 end notes citing research articles that support his ideas. By any academic publisher's standards this would be considered adequate support.

TOO MUCH RADIOACTIVITY: Radioactivity generated during the Compression Event (and while the crust was fluttering) would have been so high that the heat of the radioactive decay would have melted the crust or even blown it off the earth.


The process by which super-heavy elements were formed has been shown in laboratory experiments to be adiabatic, meaning heat neutral. This was a surprise to the scientist who first did these experiments in Ukraine and the Proton 21 Lab, however the results have also been confirmed by the Los Alamos Labs. Extremely high voltages of electricity can cause atoms to fall apart, then recombine again into random isotopes, some of which are super-heavy isotopes. The process of forming heavy elements actually absorbs energy.

For a 30-minute radio show that addresses these issues, go to: https://kgov.com/heat-4

INITIAL CONDITIONS (STARTING ASSUMPTIONS) ARE NOT PLAUSIBLE:  This is an objection to the assumption of water deep under a seamless granite shell.


This objection has come from both secular and creationist sources. Secular scientists believe that the early earth was molten for millions of years, so water cannot possibly have existed anywhere but on the surface. However, the existence of water itself, even on the surface, is a huge problem for their theories. The current theory is that comets brought water to earth, but they know there are huge problems with this theory. For creationists who believe God created the world, this objection is ridiculous. God was able to make the earth in any way He chose. Water under the crust is not  any harder to believe than God creating the universe from nothing.

Support for the idea of deep water under the crust has come from the world's deepest boreholes, which found hot, salty water with dissolved gases at depths up to 7 miles (deeper than any surface water goes) and the presence of "potential water" locked up in the chemical structure of minerals assumed to be abundant in mantle rock.

LACK OF CARBON IN GRANITE:  There isn't any carbon in granite. HPT states that the supercritical water was dissolving the underside of the crust (which is assume to be granitic) and from these dissolved ions, particles of limestone, CaCO3, were formed. You can get calcium and oxygen out of granite, but not carbon.


Dr. Brown assumed that dissolved carbon dioxide was in the supercritical water right from the beginning, but never stated this clearly in his book. As of 2023, carbon dioxide has offically been added to the initial conditions in the subterranean chamber. This seems like a reasonable assumption because the deepest boreholes in the world discovered hot, salty water with dissolved CO2 in it, up to 7 miles deep. The scientific consensus has been that this water did not come from the surface, but from below, though there is no guess yet as to how far below.

TOO MUCH HEAT PUT INTO RISING FLOOD WATERS:  After the cracks in the earth's crust had widened, the velocity of the fountains slowed down and material was no longer being ejected into space. The scalding hot water escaping from the subterranean chamber would then have been going right onto the earth's surface and directly into the oceans.


Some of the forces that were contributing to the extreme heat and pressure were no longer in operation (such as the nuclear heat produced by the fluttering crust), so only the original temp of the supercritical water was still in play. However, the principle of cooling due to expansion was still operating, and the escaping hot water was being allowed to quickly expand as it exited the chamber. This caused rapid cooling. The water might still have been warm, but not hot enough to boil the oceans or kill ocean life. (To be sure, much ocean life did die, as seen in the fossil record. Perhaps some organisms were indeed killed by hot water, but probably most died for other reasons, perhaps from great amounts of dirt in the water around them, causing asphyxiation; or they were buried alive by great volumes of sediments descending down upon them.)

RADIATING HEAT OBJECTION:  Radiation is the weakest form of heat transfer (compared to convection and conduction) and thus cannot be invoked to get rid of excess heat of erupting fountains.


FALSE.  Radiation is an excellent form of heat transfer. (Where did the objector get his information?)  As the water and rock particles went into the cold upper atmosphere and into the exosphere, the surface to volume ratio of the tiny particles would allow them get rid of their heat very quickly. Convection and conduction were not necessary.