Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 180 (8012 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2014 4:03 AM
197 online now:
hooah212002, Malcolm, vimesey (3 members, 194 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Ed67
Post Volume:
Total: 723,596 Year: 9,437/28,606 Month: 1,127/2,455 Week: 437/428 Day: 26/137 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the water come from and where did it go?
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


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

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


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

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 146 of 300 (645488)
12-27-2011 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by foreveryoung
12-27-2011 11:30 AM


It all goes into heat
Try calculating the energy released by the conversion of the potential and kinetic energy from so many comets and asteroids into heat, and you'll find the water will be steam all right, and the surface of the Earth will be molten. Not that any macroscopic life will remain after the blast waves to see it.

The asteroid that wiped out (or at least severely impacted ;-) ) the dinosaurs was much too small to have the effect you are looking for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by foreveryoung, posted 12-27-2011 11:30 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by foreveryoung, posted 12-30-2011 3:38 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 164 of 300 (645739)
12-29-2011 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by ICANT
12-28-2011 12:10 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Present your evidence that subduction has ever taken place.

Oh there's lots of it. My favorite is seismic tomography, like CAT scans except using earthquakes as the probing waves. Here's a side view of the southwestern Pacific, with eartquakes as white dots:

(Depth Extent of the Lau Back-Arc Spreading Center and Its Relation to Subduction Processes)

Here's the Aegean between Greece and Turkey:

(Motion history of tectonic plates unravelled )

Here's some images of the western US. See the San Andreas Fault and the Yellowstone hot spot?:

(Upper Mantle Heterogeneity beneath North America from Travel Time Tomography with Global and USArray Transportable Array Data


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by ICANT, posted 12-28-2011 12:10 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 10:57 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 168 of 300 (645839)
12-30-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by foreveryoung
12-30-2011 3:27 PM


Channeling Walt Brown
Wow. Talk about ad-hoc un-evidenced assertions, we got a live one here!

Still looking for your calculations of the energy converted to heat from those asteroid impacts, and the effect of accelerated nuclear decay on life, and how life survived those catastrophes.

Ever think about how much radioactive potassium-40 you have in your body, and the effect if it's decay were accelerated enough to fit a YEC scenario?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by foreveryoung, posted 12-30-2011 3:27 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by foreveryoung, posted 12-30-2011 3:59 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 170 of 300 (645842)
12-30-2011 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by foreveryoung
12-30-2011 3:38 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
. The windows of heaven were opened for 150 days according to the bible. That is alot of time.

A million years is a lot of time. 150 days is nothing.

If you consider the amount of heat necessary to disintegrate miles of crust into sand and the amount of heat lost when water was absorbed into the mantle, there is no need to conclude all water was vaporized.

Another un-evidenced assertion. (Oh, and meteorite impacts don't produce sand). Let's see the calculations.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by foreveryoung, posted 12-30-2011 3:38 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by foreveryoung, posted 12-30-2011 4:11 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 176 of 300 (645849)
12-30-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by foreveryoung
12-30-2011 3:50 PM


Show us the numbers!!
Let's see your calculations.

It would also help if you could present a list of all the claims you have made or are going to make for which you have no evidence and require a miracle to produce.

Just for grins I thought I'd post something from the RATE I book, by prominent creationist Dr. Russel Humphreys:

quote:
Now lets briefly consider another possible problem: were there radioactive atoms in the tissues of the creatures aboard the ark? The main ones today are 40K and 14C. If creatures aboard the ark had the same percentages of those isotopes we have in our tissues today, and the acceleration applied to them as well as to everything else, they might not have survived.

Carbon 14 does not seem to be a problem. There are several good reasons to think the percentage of 14C in the air and living creatures was much lower before the Flood than it is today [Humphreys, 1994, pp. 6263]. So Noah and the other creatures aboard the ark would have acquired only a small amount of 14C by the time the Flood began. However, 40K is a problem. Even though 40K represents only about 0.01% of all the K we have in our tissues today (the other 99.99% is 39K), that would be enough to kill Noah if he underwent more than a few million radioisotopic years worth of nuclear decay. Of course, Noah may not have experienced more nuclear decay than that if most of the accelerated decay occurred during the first part of Creation week, a model we are just beginning to consider. However, let us consider where we get 40K today. Most of it comes from material which was deposited as soil or in the sea after being eroded from continental granites during the Genesis Flood. Noah, however, got his K from pre-Flood soil, soil which God had designed for a perfect world. Would God have included in that soil isotopes which He knew would become radioactive, and which would harm the creatures aboard the ark? Im inclined to say no.

That no also places a constraint upon the geology of the antediluvian world. To keep radioactive atoms out of the tissues of the ark creatures, the biosphere, both soil and water, would have to remain separate from the (at least potentially) radioactive atoms of what would become the continental granites after the Flood.


Can you count the number of miracles he's assuming?

It's convenient that your God is so accommodating, popping up another miracle whenever you want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by foreveryoung, posted 12-30-2011 3:50 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 2:38 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 177 of 300 (645850)
12-30-2011 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by foreveryoung
12-30-2011 4:11 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
It is more than enough time to get the job done.

Another un-evidenced assertion. Let's see the numbers.

We are discussing ideas here buddy. I'm not wearing a lab coat, and I don't have labratory utensils at hand, do YOU?

Lab coats and utensils aren't necessary to do the math. List your assumptions and calculate the impact.

Saying it is an un-evidenced assertion is like saying the sky is blue. It is meaningless to the discussion at hand. Meteorite impacts don't produce sand when you don't have 5 miles of subterranean water underneath you and the size of the crust is 35 miles. Those were not the conditions in noahs day.

OK, let's see a list of the conditions that were different in Noah's day and the evidence that indicates that those conditions were different. Your un-evidenced assertions are still just that no matter what you want to claim about the sky today.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by foreveryoung, posted 12-30-2011 4:11 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 3:12 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 178 of 300 (645851)
12-30-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by foreveryoung
12-30-2011 4:04 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
Again, that is not how it works buddy. You guys are the one who make the claim of impossibility. I show you ways that it is not impossible. I just did. It is now up to YOU to show why my scenario is impossible.

You're making the positive claim of possibility, we're requesting sufficient information to evaluate that claim. The ball's in your court. Under today's conditions the scenario you propose would wipe out all macroscopic life at least twice over. List the conditions for your scenario including the evidence that those conditions were as you are assuming. You also need to address the observations we have such as the constancy of radioactive decay rates, for example The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivations

So far you're just making s**t up and assuming a miracle whenever your scenario has a problem. We know that's all you got, we've seen the same tired story many times before, we're just poking you for the fun of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by foreveryoung, posted 12-30-2011 4:04 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 12-30-2011 5:26 PM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 194 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 3:37 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 216 of 300 (646046)
01-02-2012 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ICANT
01-02-2012 10:57 AM


Re: Miles of rock
So a picture created on a computer from seismic waves passing through the Earth which is interpeted by man is evidence.

If so, why isn't evidence presented from the Bible equal evidence?

A man's interpretation of the Bible is perfectly good evidence for what it's writers believed. It doesn't contain much that is useful in trying to determine the structure of the Earth or how the alleged flood happened.

So you don't mind if I don't pay much attention to what some man thinks, do you?

Pay attention to whatever you want for whatever reasons make sense to you. However, if you want to discuss the alleged flood or convince someone to adopt your beliefs, you will have to accept existing observations. Those pictures are presentations of observations, and demand explanation.

If you ignore them, as I expect you will, your participation in this thread is pointless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 10:57 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 5:45 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 223 of 300 (646074)
01-02-2012 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
01-02-2012 5:22 PM


Re: Miles of rock
I echo edge's call for references for your assertions about plate tectonics.

I have no problem with existing observations.

You appear to have a problem with the observations I posted. What is your explanation for this data?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 5:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by edge, posted 01-03-2012 12:18 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 224 of 300 (646076)
01-02-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
01-02-2012 5:22 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Isn't it required by tectonicists that the volume of crust generated at ocean ridges be equal to the volume subducted?

There are 80,000 km of ridges that is supposed to be producing new crust.

Yet there are only 30,500 km of trenches in existence. Adding the 9,000 km of collision zones don't help much.

Oh, and you forgot to factor in the rates of motion and the raising of mountains. Probably a few other things, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 5:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 241 of 300 (646345)
01-04-2012 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Coragyps
01-03-2012 9:24 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Steam for the Fludde

He thinks that the Earth's interior was cold before the fludde, and was heated by accelerated radioactive decay during and after the fludde. Never mind all the issues with accelerated radioactive decay and the evidence we have of radioactive decay rates being constant for many billions of years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Coragyps, posted 01-03-2012 9:24 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 242 of 300 (646348)
01-04-2012 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
01-02-2012 5:22 PM


Re: Miles of rock
There are 80,000 km of ridges that is supposed to be producing new crust.

Yet there are only 30,500 km of trenches in existence. Adding the 9,000 km of collision zones don't help much.

But I find, in many places such as Subduction Zones:

quote:
The cumulative length of convergent plate margins is 55,000 km [Lallemand, 1999], almost equal to that of mid-ocean ridges (60,000 km [Kearey and Vine, 1990]).

Kearey, P., and F. J. Vine, Global Tectonics, Blackwell Sci., Malden, Mass., 1990.

Lallemand, S., La Subduction Oceanique, Gordon and Breach, Newark, N. J., 1999.


I'm not an expert in this field, but it seems pretty obvious than the length of convergent plate margins is more relevant than the length of trenches. I also note that the above-quoted numbers were published before your source, and yet your source didn't mention these often-referenced sources. So, based on this evidence, I'm going to conclude that your source is a crank.

Unlike, of course, your refusal to address the seismic tomography evidence I posted. There's data there, no matter how it's presented, and it cries out for explanation.

Edited by JonF, : tinty typo

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 5:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 258 of 300 (646573)
01-05-2012 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by foreveryoung
01-04-2012 7:38 PM


Re: Miles of rock
There is no solid boulder around today that has been dated later than 3.9 billion years ago

Nope. 4.0-4.03 billion years: Priscoan (4.004.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada. And, 4.28 billion years: Neodymium-142 Evidence for Hadean Mafic Crust (full text requires free registration).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by foreveryoung, posted 01-04-2012 7:38 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014