Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8134 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-01-2014 10:16 AM
117 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tali_Zorah
Post Volume:
Total: 736,883 Year: 22,724/28,606 Month: 25/1,786 Week: 214/384 Day: 25/69 Hour: 0/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Where did the water come from and where did it go?
ICANT
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 121 of 300 (645311)
12-25-2011 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dr Adequate
12-24-2011 11:02 AM


Re: Miles of rock
Hi Dr,

Dr Adequate writes:

Surely you need more than 1 inch of water to ... y'know ... drown people? As I understand Genesis, God did not merely punish the wicked by giving them damp feet.

Why should I reply to your strawman?

I never said 1 inch of water. I did say at least 1 inch evevation as there was dry land protuding out of the water.

Using the Holy cubit I would need 39 feet and 1 inch of water to cover that land mass that was protruding 1 inch out of the water.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-24-2011 11:02 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Trixie, posted 12-26-2011 6:22 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2011 12:21 PM ICANT has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 2514
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 122 of 300 (645317)
12-25-2011 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
12-25-2011 4:40 PM


Re: Miles of rock
You give me too much credit for my imagination. I don't make this stuff up. I read it where scientest with Phd's have said there is continental crust underwater in the Atlantic and Indian ocean.
And no they are not talking about a little bit. They talk about a lot.

Where?

And no, you did not say 'underwater'. You said under the bottom of the ocean. Most of the ocean bottom is abyssal plain.

Question: I live in central Florida we are at 49 feet above sea level. If the water in the oceans was to rise 100 feet would land mass that is Florida cease to be continental crust just because it was under water at that time?

It would not be the 'bottom of the ocean'.

Science tells me it was covered at one time with water.

How many years ago?

When did sea water cease to be water?

When the water you are talking about, the FOD, was not seawater in the first place. You are saying it was primitive water, locked up in the mantle.

Actually, this is interesting since the magmas erupted at the mid-ocean ridges are some of the driest on earth.

The process of evaporation when changing the saltwater to unsalted water by superheating, is called distillation.

Irrelevant.

Then produce the evidence that proves I am wrong.

Hardly necessary, but already alluded to.

As far as wasting your time, it is impossible for me to waste your time. All I can waste is my time.

You claims are so outlandish and geologically ignorant that I feel they must be refuted. In due time, I will consider my job done.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2011 4:40 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2011 8:49 PM edge has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 123 of 300 (645331)
12-26-2011 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by ICANT
12-25-2011 4:53 PM


Amount of water
According to your calculation, you'd need 12 metres of water to cover your 1" of land since you've used the Holy cubit. That's double what my calculation needs since I used the smallest cubit I could find, which came in at 17".

The problem with all of this is that, yet again, you ignore the need for land higher than 1" above sea level which the text absolutely requires. It matters not a jot what word you translate your Hebrew to, the only way you are going to get

5And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.Genesis 8: 4,5, KJV

Whether it's mountains, hills or small mounds, the only way the tops are going to be uncovered is if the land of the tops is higher than the rest of the land, unless you're proposing that the land was as flat as a pancake and it was the water which had a contoured surface Now I'm no physicist or engineer, but I do know that a body of water tends to have a level surface, as does any liquid with a low viscosity.

Previously I said

Taking the smallest estimate for a cubit, the flood would require the land to be covered with 6.48 metres of water (15 cubits + 1"). Previously I calculated the volume needed to cover the earth to 4000 metres was 2046 million cubic kilometres so to cover the earth to a depth of 6.48 metres we'd need 2046 million/(4000/6.48) =3.13 million cubic kilometres of water which equates to 5303.2 million cubic kilometres of steam.

So what would be the effect of 5303.2 million cubic kilometres of steam bursting through the ocean floors? How much would it have cooled down before it reached the ocean floor? How much could it heat the oceans and the atmosphere by?

You haven't addressed this at all and in addition, your own figure almost doubles the amount of water needed, even leaving out the existence of hills. You've now got to account for the effects of 10,606.4 million cubic kilometres of steam. You've asserted that it would all have cooled by the time it reached the ocean floor, but you have shown no calculations to back this up. Bear in mind that the water in hydrothermal vents is still at temperatures up to about 400C and tends to be acidic, with a pH value as low as 2.8 approximately that of vinegar. If small hydrothermal vents haven't been cooled by passage through the rock of the ocean floor, how do you think your fountains of the deep are going to behave? You also have the pH to cope with now.

I keep saying that this is your model, why are you refusing to test it? You will never manage to build a valid model unless you test the validity. I've pointed out some problems with your model and what sort of factors you need to look at and test, but you continually handwave these away. Show us that your model is scientifically possible Do the calculations, think about the information that's been provided and factor it in and, above all, stop claiming that there were no hills and that the land was as flat as a pancake, since that directly contradicts any text.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2011 4:53 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13230
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 124 of 300 (645339)
12-26-2011 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
12-25-2011 4:40 PM


Re: Miles of rock
ICANT writes:

edge writes:

Also, wrong is your answer. If there is continental crust at the bottom of the oceans it is an exceedingly small piece.

You give me too much credit for my imagination. I don't make this stuff up. I read it where scientest with Phd's have said there is continental crust underwater in the Atlantic and Indian ocean.
And no they are not talking about a little bit. They talk about a lot.

Question: I live in central Florida we are at 49 feet above sea level. If the water in the oceans was to rise 100 feet would land mass that is Florida cease to be continental crust just because it was under water at that time?
Science tells me it was covered at one time with water.

There seems to be a terminology problem here. When you mentioned continental crust at the bottom of the ocean, I don't think Edge interpreted this as referring to coastal continental crust. If by "bottom of the ocean" you only mean"submerged along coastal boundaries", then sure, there's continental crust at the "bottom of the ocean" all around the globe.

Continental crust is thought to form by the accumulation of the lighter portions of oceanic crust at subduction zones. Mid-ocean subduction zones definitely exist, and the relatively lighter continental crust does form in these areas. Looking at the Wikipedia article on subduction I see that island arcs frequently form at subduction zones between two oceanic plates.

What does continental crust at the bottom of the ocean have to do with where the water came from before the flood and where it went after?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2011 4:40 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by edge, posted 12-26-2011 10:25 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 137 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2011 9:42 PM Percy has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 2514
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 125 of 300 (645341)
12-26-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
12-26-2011 8:47 AM


Re: Miles of rock
What does continental crust at the bottom of the ocean have to do with where the water came from before the flood and where it went after?

I believe that IC is saying that the water for the biblical flood came from the same rocks that oil is developed from. Hence all of the points about oil field depths and pressures.

I'm not sure of this because the posts are a bit incoherrent.

On the other hand, this does not conform to the fact that the mantle is the largest reservoir of 'water' on the planet, which is another argument he alludes to.

He seems to confuse lithosphere with crust and continental crust with supracrustal deposits. IC is also extremely confused as to the source of pressure in oil fields and likens it to pressures on the 'fountains of the deep'. And 'fountains of the deep themselves' seem to be equated with the spring that I have in my back yard.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 12-26-2011 8:47 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by JonF, posted 12-26-2011 12:09 PM edge has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2827
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 126 of 300 (645346)
12-26-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by edge
12-26-2011 10:25 AM


Re: Miles of rock
Yeah, he's equivocating (probably without realizing it) between water in aquifers and water bound up in hydrated rocks. He thinks of all that water down there as an artesian well waiting to be tapped.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by edge, posted 12-26-2011 10:25 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Coragyps, posted 12-26-2011 1:06 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12778
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 127 of 300 (645347)
12-26-2011 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by ICANT
12-25-2011 4:53 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Why should I reply to your strawman?

I never said 1 inch of water. I did say at least 1 inch evevation as there was dry land protuding out of the water.

Using the Holy cubit I would need 39 feet and 1 inch of water to cover that land mass that was protruding 1 inch out of the water.

Well, 39 feet to cover the hills, and 39 feet 1 inch to cover the valleys between them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2011 4:53 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2011 6:17 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5142
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 128 of 300 (645350)
12-26-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by JonF
12-26-2011 12:09 PM


Re: Miles of rock
And with no inkling of what "permeability" or "deliverability" mean, either. 5-kilometer-deep rocks tend to not have the megadarcy perms that Ye Greate Fludde would seem to demand. They, and the water in them, do, though, tend to be hotter than gopher wood will insulate against.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by JonF, posted 12-26-2011 12:09 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 129 of 300 (645355)
12-26-2011 3:59 PM


Calculations, anyone?
Does anyone fancy calculating the temerature effects if vast quantities of water were released from the crust? I'm sure it's been posted on here years ago, but I can't find it.
  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 130 of 300 (645370)
12-26-2011 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Coyote
12-23-2011 10:12 PM


Re: Parbroiled?
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

I haven't been paying much attention to this thread

And it shows.

Coyote writes:

And did I see somewhere here that the volume of water needed for the flood was some seven times that on the surface?

I did a search and your post is the only one where, "seven times that on the surface" appears.

Coyote writes:

And that you are proposing that this water comes from under the earth as superheated steam?

Well no, I have proposed that the water in the mantle under 100 C is hot water. Water in the mantle between 100 C and 176.6666666666 C is steam. Water in the mantle between 176.6666666666 C and 815 C would be superheated steam.

Steam rises and as it does so it will cool until it condenses into water and that water as it rises will cool.

So I am not proposing that superheated steam will be released into the ocean.

Coyote writes:

Could you supply some numbers for the equivalent of 7x earth's surface water being condensed from superheated steam,

Why would I need too as I have made no such proposal?

Coyote writes:

But you proposed this, so you must have some figures you can share with us.

Well no I did not make such a proposal.

You did propose such a strawman and demand that I explain your strawman.

Its your strawman if you want it explained you will have to do it yourself.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 12-23-2011 10:12 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Trixie, posted 12-26-2011 6:29 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 134 by JonF, posted 12-26-2011 7:17 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 131 of 300 (645376)
12-26-2011 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Dr Adequate
12-26-2011 12:21 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Hi Dr,

Dr Adequate writes:

Well, 39 feet to cover the hills, and 39 feet 1 inch to cover the valleys between them.

No.

It would require 39 feet and 1 inch to cover the dry land with 39 feet of water.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2011 12:21 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2011 11:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 132 of 300 (645380)
12-26-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ICANT
12-26-2011 5:55 PM


Re: Parbroiled?
Can you show your calculations that your superheated steam would cool enough to have no effects on atmospheric or ocean temperatures? It's your assertion so can you back it up?

I'd also appreciate an explanation as to how the mantle can contain water below 100C since the temperature of the mantle is much higher than that

In the mantle, temperatures range between 500 to 900 C (932 to 1,652 F) at the upper boundary with the crust; to over 4,000 C (7,230 F) at the boundary with the core. Wiki

There are numerous other references which agree with the temperatures given by Wiki.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2011 5:55 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jar, posted 12-26-2011 6:32 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 133 of 300 (645381)
12-26-2011 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Trixie
12-26-2011 6:29 PM


Re: Parbroiled?
The only way it can cool is to make something else hotter.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Trixie, posted 12-26-2011 6:29 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2827
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 134 of 300 (645385)
12-26-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ICANT
12-26-2011 5:55 PM


Re: Parbroiled?
Well no, I have proposed that the water in the mantle under 100 C is hot water. Water in the mantle between 100 C and 176.6666666666 C is steam. Water in the mantle between 176.6666666666 C and 815 C would be superheated steam.

Steam rises and as it does so it will cool until it condenses into water and that water as it rises will cool.

So I am not proposing that superheated steam will be released into the ocean.

Ever hear of the Age of Steam? Are you aware that for a long time the entire industrialized world depended on accurate knowledge of the properties of water and steam?

Apparently not.

W know a lot about the properties of water and steam. You don't get to make up properties to suit you.

Water under the pressures found under the crust and in the mantle is not steam. Period.

Releasing that water from that pressure would flash it instantaneously into superheated steam. Period.

Which superheated steam would, by conservation of mass, have to erupt at incredible supersonic velocities, probably above escape velocity, dragging all the water in the oceans and our atmosphere along with it.

Sorry, kiddo, your scenario has been analyzed by those who know and found wanting.

It's much like Waltie Brown's original hydropants theory. See Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model, especially under the "everyone will cook" heading. See also THe KTB Borehole and The Phase Diagram of Water


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2011 5:55 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Trixie, posted 12-26-2011 7:43 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 135 of 300 (645394)
12-26-2011 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by JonF
12-26-2011 7:17 PM


Re: Parbroiled?
Thanks for the links, I remembered the AIG calculations, but thought they were on EvC - that could explain why I couldn't find them with a site search. Both links are very interesting.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by JonF, posted 12-26-2011 7:17 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014