Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)

This is reaching, however. If the average person picked up a chunk of amphibolite and put it on his table, he or she would not consider it to be a puddle of water. Most of us do not see hydroxyl radicals as 'water'. Certainly YECs don't, if we take Walt Brown and others at their word. Not to be too picky, but the opening post did say 'to cover the earth'. The chemistry of mantle water means that it is not possible to do so. This is a very typical case of YEC taking an isolated fact and ignoring all of the surrounding evidence to support a mythical flood.

I finally found the article you were referencing. HereI had not read the paper referenced above until just now. It was done by one man and questioned by others.I claimed to have read all three articles I referenced in Message 75I read all three articles the one by Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer. One by By Ben Harder for National Geographic News.I have been told on EvC that article by authors and anything on National Geographic is suspect.Then I read an article by Motohiko Murakami, Kei Hirose, Hisayoshi Yurimoto, Naoto Takafuji Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan. and Satoru Nakashima of the Interactive Research Center of Science, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan, that was published in Science Magazine.This paper is found Here. The paper I reference is in a scientific magazine and written by 5 scientist. It doesn't have to be transfered anywhere, all it has to do is exist to answer Rahvin's claim that there is not enough water on earth to cover it like the Bible says.We are not covering the earth with water. The only thing that matters to the discussion is that the water exists. You depend on my math you will fall in the ditch.I tend to trust the math of the 5 scientist I referenced above to my math and they say there is enough water to cover the earth and Mt Everest at it's present height.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I agree that the water found in the mantle is not available. But neither is all the water in the atmosphere and the ice caps. Rhavin was willing to count water that was unavailable in his OP, then people jump on Wumpini for doing the same thing. It seems obvious to me that the argument Rhavin was trying to make was that even if we took all the unavailable water in the Earth, there still isn't enough. That argument is what Wumpini was arguing, and that argument is what should be defended. If we agree that Wumpini has found water, and that the volume is enough, then we can move to another thread and argue its availability.

Let's be clear.You are saying that the ARTICLE THAT YOU LINKED IS WRONG.That you have been presenting KNOWINGLY INCORRECT INFORMATION and CLAIMING IT AS EVIDENCE FOR YOU ARGUMENT.That's "lying".You may not want "personal attacks" on you, but your behavior leaves little else available.By your own admission, your sources are not to be trusted (and obviously neither are you).So, given that we can now disregard ALL the evidence you claim, that leaves us with only you as a (very untrustworthy) person to confront.So, take it personally or not, your LIES prove to us that not only is your position false, but that YOU YOURSELF KNOW that it is false. Otherwise, WHY LIE?So, there we have it.We have the evidence on our side, you've got lies. Both sides agree that science is correct.Why exactly are you still here?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note - Nuggin given 24 hour suspension for this message.

quote:

---

I have read that the ocean crust is saturated with water.

---

If it is, it's seawater. But this is not completely true. Mid-ocean ridge basalts, as they are erupted, are some of the driest rocks on the planet. Now you are suggesting that the water was once on the surface. I though this was not your point.

quote:

---

You can find those links yourself. It seems that I have been doing a lot of research, and it is ignored.

---

It seems that you have taken an isolated fact and ignored the surrounding evidence, if you are suggesting that all of that water was once on the surface of the earth. Maybe more research would help.

quote:

---

If you want to try to prove that the water in the ocean crust, and the water in the upper mantle, and the water in the lower mantle, and the water everywhere else on the earth could not have contributed to a global flood, then give me the calculations.

---

I guess all of the protests that you are not arguing for a global flood just collapsed. Sorry, but if this is what you want to do, then you need to answer a few questions. Like how are you going to liberate that water without sterilizing the planet? Do you think that water would be the only thing liberated?

quote:

---

However, when you make the calcuations use all the water that is on the earth. If the water scientifically cannot make it to the surface then explain why. Give evidence. That is what I have been doing.

---

And we have given you evidence that this is impossible. You have conceded this point by not addressing the questions at hand. You have also hidden behind the semantic argument that you were just proving the OP wrong. Now you are unmasked.

quote:

---

And, if you leave any of the water out of your calculations, I will try to find it. That is what Rahvin did. He left five or ten times the amount of water that is on the surface of the earth out of his calculations.

---

Well, it seemed like the right thing to do since that water is not available to you. You may as well include the water on Jupiter in your calculations.

quote:

---

Actually, this subject interests me. Maybe I should have been a scientist.

---

I don't recommend it. To be a true scientist you need to have powers of critical analysis. In this case you have taken the fact that there is water bound in mantle minerals and assumed that they could fuel a global flood. There is no evidence that this could happen. It would be like my saying, 'there is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so it should have killed all terrestrial creatures'.

quote:

---

Also when you are doing your calculations do not forget the recent study that has shown that a significant amount of the water in the mantle is coming up through the ocean floor on an annual basis.

---

Not really. Most of that water is circulating seawater. This is know isotopically.

quote:

---

Because, I will challenge your calculation. Now you explain to me how that is coming from the lower mantle.

---

Even the 'juvenile' water is probably not coming from the lower mantle. The mantle is a big place.

quote:

---

You can find the link for that study yourself.

---

Been there, done that.

quote:

---

Maybe it is time to concede that the water is here, and move on to something else.

---

If you add the phrase, 'but it has nothing to do with a global flood,' I might just do that. The problem you have is that your constant references to the flood and the 5 oceans worth of water, you give away your agenda.

quote:

---

This is new science.

---

Not all that new or all that surprising.

quote:

---

By the time you make your calculations, scientists may find twenty more oceans full of water right under the ocean floor.

---

Sure. Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.

Which are you? Rahvin or Wumpini? Because, on my computer you are "ICANT" and you are posting in the "Does the Evidence support the Flood" thread.What color is the sky in your world?

This is the point: Enough water for a global flood to have taken place.Nothing about the global flood taking place.The water exists concession time.This is a debate forum and Rahvin should have though his position a little better. Had he included the flood taking place that would be another story.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

That would be a valid point if Wumpini was not ALSO trying to discredit the articles he linked.Can't have it both ways. Either they ARE evidence or they ARE not evidence.He can't selectively use SOME of the data when it fits his claims and discount other data because it doesn't fit his claims.It's DISHONEST (and frankly par for the course for Creationists).

quote:

---

I agree that the water found in the mantle is not available. But neither is all the water in the atmosphere and the ice caps. Rhavin was willing to count water that was unavailable in his OP, then people jump on Wumpini for doing the same thing.

---

Maybe Rhavin was being generous in order to make calculations easier. In fact I think there was a statement to that effect.

quote:

---

It seems obvious to me that the argument Rhavin was trying to make was that even if we took all the unavailable water in the Earth, there still isn't enough.

---

Well, that wasn't my interpretation. I'd hate to put words in R's mouth.

quote:

---

That argument is what Wumpini was arguing, and that argument is what should be defended. If we agree that Wumpini has found water, and that the volume is enough, then we can move to another thread and argue its availability.

---

You really think that Wumpini is just making a sterile point. Sorry, but there are too many references to the flood, including the title of the OP for this to be an isolated argument.

I am discussing what Rahvin put in his OP.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

Enough water for a global flood to have taken place.

​

Nothing about the global flood taking place.

---

Well, it was ICANT who wrote this: There is clear reference to a global flood and its possibility.

quote:

---

The water exists concession time.

---

Do you think water is a compound? Just what is it?

quote:

---

This is a debate forum and Rahvin should have though his position a little better. Had he included the flood taking place that would be another story.

---

Perhaps, but few people will think of hydrated peridotites as water. In fact, AFAICT, most YECs believe in subcrustal caverns containing water.

Once again, you are being extremely dishonest (or should I just say "Christian") in your methodology here.I could EASILY say "Well, since hydrogen and oxygen are the components of water, THEORETICALLY any hydrogen or oxygen in any molecule anywhere on/in/or near the Earth counts as water".But that's NOT the point Rahvin is making, is it?Here, I'll help you, since clearly honesty is a problem for you. NO, it isn't.Rahvin is talking about WATER.WATER being FREE h2o. If you have a hunk of sandstone which is saturated with water, that IS water.If you have a pool of magma with superheated hydrogen and oxygen gas infused through out - that is NOT water. It's MAGMA.You can't get the water out, therefore the water is NOT available.You CHOOSE to believe that the discussion is about "all the potential water which may or may not exist in inaccessible areas" because that provides you with access to unprovable assertations like "There's 500 million gallons of water hiding in the Earth's core" while allowing you to studiously avoid questions like: "Where's the evidence OF ACTUAL FLOODING".So, fine, believe what you will about the nature of the discussion. It's EXACTLY what we'd expect from you.And, for the record, you don't get to tell me "God Bless" at the end of your posts. God isn't going to listen to you. "Thou shalt not bear false witness." It's a commandment. You might want to look into it.

Actually, as I trace the titles of posts backward, the origin of the "Where did the water come from" title seems to have come from Wumpini in post #32. This clearly implies an attempt to show where water for the flood came from. Now, if there is another place where it was going, I'd sure like to know.

That may be true. And I think it is an obvious argument to make that the water could not have contributed to the flood. I just think that argument would require a different thread since the OP was specifically about the sheer volume of water, regardless of its availability.

Okay. Maybe then, you will answer my question: 'what is water'?