Courtney Snell

Okay, Preston, I can’t let your silliness about religion and science continue without a response. You describe the history of the two competing philosophies of flood geology versus the new science of the day (which was magma) pretty well. But you stop short in your history lesson when you don’t give the reason for why flood geology lost out. But its so simple, and I’m guessing you know that. In a nutshell, as stated in the Universal Model which you haven’t read yet, the neptunists (flood) proponents couldn’t come up with a way to counter the vulcanists (magma) when they claimed the observable lava coming from volcanoes was their cherished magma, simply coming through the crust. It has taken 150+ years for the Universal Model to recognize the difference between the magma pseudotheory and the observable substance of lava which would have ended the debate back then had it been known. Again, Preston, if you had read the book you would know this.

As for your great concern for the spiritual welfare of the readers of the UM, because they may be fooled by the UM into believing something that isn’t real. How real are the many psuedotheories that you as a geologist teach to those same people, and what effect has those teachings had on them. You suggest that the marginalization of flood geology has not led to the death of religion, and yet your magma paradigm has led to the death of the historicity of the Universal Flood, by claiming that it is a myth and that “there will never be any evidence” for it in science, as one of your “peers” has already claimed. Well, the UM begs to differ and we don’t expect your peers to give the evidence a fair review, just as you haven’t, seeing as how you haven’t even read it. That is why the UM did not concern itself with peer review before publishing. Contrary to what your peer reviewers claim there is a tremendously significant amount of observable, verifiable evidence for a Universal Flood that can be found in the pages of the UM. You should read it, you may learn something. I promise it won’t harm your spirituality.

Preston, as a geologist you of course formulate your theory of the building of the Hawaiian islands upon another theory, that of uniformitarianism, which says that all current global mechanisms for change continue at the same rate as when the earth originally formed, which deny’s the observable evidence for catastrophism in the mechanisms of the earth’s development, of which there are hundreds in the Universal Model. Maybe you might want to present observable evidence, not theory, to support geology’s theory of uniformitarianism before you attempt to use that theory to support your theory of the age of the Hawaiian islands. You see, you are falling into modern science’s trap – building theory upon theory upon theory, and then calling the result fact because everyone “agrees” with it now.

Casey, your concern about the UM is noted and we understand it because it is the same concern that we and many others have had about modern science’s theories. Hundred year old theories continue to be taught to children that have never been proven, yet they continue to be taught as fact. To suggest that the UM has nothing of value to present for instruction is both dishonest, prejudiced and sloppy review. Any current student of academic science today in high school or college has the same dilemma of deciding what portions they can agree with and which they believe to be wrong. Why should their study of the UM be different. Professional scientists are welcome to review our discoveries, evidence and conclusions. We recognize that they will often come to a different conclusion on certain issues than the UM because their paradigm is so different and so well entrenched.

We also recognize that a large portion of the general public do not agree with many of modern science’s general theories or resultant paradigm. The UM is written for this portion of the public because they continue to search for real explanations for how our world works and are uncomfortable with modern science’s rendition. They are the peer group that the UM is concerned with. Professional scientists will likely be the last group within human society that will recognize the discoveries of the UM and we accept that. The UM does not claim to be the final word, but rather will always be open to new possibilities and ideas if they are accompanied by verifiable evidence, not just theory. One should not “review” the UM without actually reading the evidences presented. One last thing, the complete evidence of the UM’s position on the earth’s mass and gravitation has not yet been completed or made available to the public. Therefore, your “review” of it is incomplete. That information will come in volume three. Stay tuned!

Barry, you make claims in your first paragraph that are not supported in the text of your argument. This is especially true in regard to the author of the UM. Additionally, the evidence that you do provide, which you claimed that the UM withheld, only serves to support the UM model.

Your premise is that modern science also claims that granite and other forms of quartz based rock can and has been created in the lab. Upon that we agree. But your suggestion is that they are made from a magmatic type (or heat only) melt as they would be found naturally in modern science’s paradigm. However, the source that you provide as proof for this idea is from a neighboring paragraph to one that the UM quotes as well, “experiments show that feldspars of the size and shape typical of plutonic rocks can be grown in a matter of days or weeks in the laboratory…. Peak growth rates of feldspar and quartz in hydrous granitic melts are in the range of 10^-6 to 10^-8 cm/sec, and growth rates of plagioclase, pyroxene, and olivine are even greater in more depolymerized melts.” You fail to point out that these laboratory tests are performed in hydrous (water) environments rather than magmatic (magma) environments which would be reflective of the natural environment championed by modern science.

So, you are using a Universal Model style experiment which includes water, pressure and heat to try to disprove the Universal Model and then claim that crystals really do come from melted magma. The UM would call that the Mingle – mingling truth with error.

As mentioned earlier, the Universal Model is not in a position to make comparisons with the Electrical Universe. Through independent research, discovery, experimentation and observation has come many answers to Fundamental Questions, including the establishment of many new natural laws. Specifically, our research in the area of crater creation methodology is more extensive, well documented and explained than any other treatise on the subject (including EU) that we have found anywhere in almost 30 years of research. One of many key pieces of evidence for the formation of the Arizona “Meteor” Crater is the discovery of the diatreme that sits beneath it and is presented and discussed in Sub-chapter 7.11, The Arizona Hydrocrater. Along with the other hydrothermal and geophysical evidences and mechanisms of crater formation that are finely detailed in Volume I, but most specifically in Chapter 7 titled, The Hydroplanet Model, any reader will likely conclude that the vast majority of craters on earth and throughout our solar system were and are made in accordance with the new natural laws pertaining to Crater Formation discovered and presented within the Universal Model.

It is expected that there may be some areas of common ground between the Electric Universe and the Universal Model, just as there are between Modern Science and the UM. We encourage all adherents to the tenants of both the Electric Universe and Modern Science to read and become acquainted with the knowledge and wisdom that the UM presents. Add what you learn to what you already know or believe and discover if you are not then further along the path to a greater knowledge of the beauty and structure of our earth and universe.

We do not yet know what the complete specific structure is throughout the entire center of the Earth. Science has confirmed that there are liquids and solids within and we know approximately where they reside in relation to each other. We also know that the crust is floating on that liquid. As for the forces that allow that to happen, among other things like surface tension, the displacement of the floating crust overcomes the gravitational pull of gravity on it. If it had a lower displacement value, as in our rock example, it may very well sink and your suggestion of an Earth that had only oceans on its outer side might then be reality. However, we also don’t know if there is additional solid structure under-girding parts of the crust in a supporting role as well. There is obviously much for Millennial Science to discover about the interior of the Earth. We envision that the UM will give you and others the basic information to further the research through experimentation, observation and other scientific study methods described and used in the UM, as well as those methods yet to be found, to be able to find answers to more unanswered scientific inquiry.

As to your question relating to a mathematical formula on gravity that would “allow someone to see or plot” the massive global wide event of the universal flood, there were far too many different activities going on during that time, including significant widespread hyprethermal activity, to attempt to explain even parts of the activity in mathematical terms. Even if that were possible, the UM wouldn’t then be a book that could target junior high through the first two years of college level work.

We encourage you to continue your reading of the Universal Model and expect that you will find the answers to many as yet unanswered questions in your mind, as so many others have.

This is a great question that the book does not entirely explain. This one subject of the mechanism that caused the crust to sink, like so many other individual subjects discussed in the book, could easily employ the space of an entire chapter if one were to add detail to the process. An attempt will be made here to shorten that explanation, but still present the necessary components.

There are multiple forces involved in the process including gravity and centrifugal force. Gravity pulls things toward the center of an object and the centrifugal force from the spinning object pulls things away from the center of the object. The component that adds to the ability of continents to float on the surface of the underground oceans is displacement. Much like a very large ship made of steel can float on the ocean.

All of these components, and others, were in perfect balance before the comet flyby and are now again today. A fourth component came into play as the unbalancing process began which is the answer to your question and it is a simple matter of density. The crust is more dense than water. When the crust sunk, it displaced the less dense water. We use the analogy of a bucket of water swinging in a circle over our head; the water stays in the bottom of the bucket. Drop a rock in the bucket of water and it sinks to the bottom, under the water because it is denser than the water. The bucket analogy demonstrates centrifugal force well, but the force of gravity is a little harder to see, although it is absolutely there and exerts a greater force on a higher density object when the equilibrium changes.

To put it another way, the water, crust, and everything else all basically slowed at the same rate. The reason the crust sunk was its density in relation to the water beneath it. Centrifugal and gravitational forces affect objects differently based on their density.

Terry, this looks like a great mountain to go look at and take some closer surveys. From the picture it certainly looks like the original event was hyprethermal. Maybe even more than one diatreme involved. I’m guessing maybe some later seismic events as well due to the boulders from the upper mountain that are down by the green line. Also, where the brown top and green lower parts merge there is a very interesting white spot that is probably not snow due to the time of the year. Would love to see what that is made of. Isn’t it fun to view the unexplained crustal features of the Earth through the lens of the Universal Model?

David, you have posed great Fundamental Questions that you will find answers to in the Universal Model. However, answers to your questions on the Universal Flood water height and pre-universal flood mountain height will be provided more specifically in the next Volume of the UM which will be published next year. The key to the water height is in the fossilization process and the amount of pressure necessary to achieve it. The key to knowing whether the Earth’s tallest mountains existed before the Universal Flood lies in the discussion of microbes which is also in the second Volume of the UM. Stay tuned and know that all of the different disciplines of science are interconnected.