Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2017 1:25 AM
389 online now:
Coyote, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 385 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,966 Year: 16,572/21,208 Month: 2,461/3,593 Week: 574/882 Day: 6/86 Hour: 0/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Author Topic:   Where did the water come from and where did it go?
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 286 of 300 (687833)
01-17-2013 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Dr Adequate
01-16-2013 6:08 PM


Show your working.

1) The tropopause is temperature sensitive and it will drop in height at low temperatures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropopause
" Since the tropopause responds to the average temperature of the entire layer that lies underneath it, it is at its peak levels over the Equator, and reaches minimum heights over the poles."

2) Water vapor is mainly limited beneath the tropopause
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
Approximately 99.13% of it is contained in the troposphere.

Moving continental crust about does not reduce its volume. The rifting of Panagea would indeed have created an chasm into which water could flow, but it would also have made the Panthalassic Ocean smaller by a corresponding amount. It would also have created a mid-ocean ridge which would have raised sea levels, not lowered them.

It didnt necessarily occur simultaneously. The chasm can be created in the midst of a landmass and then spread and widen BEFORE reaching oceans. Thus we have a reduction in the size of the Panthalassic ocean before the water reaches the chasm. This would add to the flooding effect because of the reduced size of the ocean during the creation of the dry chasm. The moment the chasm reaches the ocean, water would start pouring in, which is consistent with records of a marine regression during the PT boundary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2013 6:08 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 5:02 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 287 of 300 (687837)
01-17-2013 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by mindspawn
01-17-2013 2:11 AM


1) The tropopause is temperature sensitive and it will drop in height at low temperatures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropopause
" Since the tropopause responds to the average temperature of the entire layer that lies underneath it, it is at its peak levels over the Equator, and reaches minimum heights over the poles."

2) Water vapor is mainly limited beneath the tropopause
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
Approximately 99.13% of it is contained in the troposphere.

I said, show your working.

It didnt necessarily occur simultaneously. The chasm can be created in the midst of a landmass and then spread and widen BEFORE reaching oceans. Thus we have a reduction in the size of the Panthalassic ocean before the water reaches the chasm. This would add to the flooding effect because of the reduced size of the ocean during the creation of the dry chasm. The moment the chasm reaches the ocean, water would start pouring in, which is consistent with records of a marine regression during the PT boundary.

But after all this has happened, you have the same volume of water covering the same area as you did when you started.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 2:11 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 5:26 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 288 of 300 (687838)
01-17-2013 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Dr Adequate
01-17-2013 5:02 AM


I said, show your working.

I haven't got exact working. I would assume the bulk of the water came from the melting ice caps and melting glaciation and from the reduced ocean size during the break up of Pangea, and NOT the water vapor, but the water vapor levels and seeding from volcanoes could explain the extensive rainfalls, even if the rainfalls were not the bulk of the water. If you feel this is impossible, show your workings, otherwise its a possibility.

But after all this has happened, you have the same volume of water covering the same area as you did when you started.

Exactly, assuming the depth of the new ocean floor is approximately the same as the depth of the ocean, which is highly likely. After the flood, waters then recede to approximately pre-flood levels.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 5:02 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 5:48 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 289 of 300 (687839)
01-17-2013 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by mindspawn
01-17-2013 5:26 AM


I haven't got exact working. I would assume the bulk of the water came from the melting ice caps and melting glaciation and from the reduced ocean size during the break up of Pangea, and NOT the water vapor, but the water vapor levels and seeding from volcanoes could explain the extensive rainfalls, even if the rainfalls were not the bulk of the water. If you feel this is impossible, show your workings, otherwise its a possibility.

No, no. You produce a hypothesis, then I'll look at it. Otherwise your answer to the question posed in the OP is that you don't know. In which case this would be a good time for you to stop posting on this thread.

But surely you cannot expect that I should form your hypothesis for you. If you want me to do your thinking for you, then here's my thinking: the flood described in Genesis didn't happen. You're welcome.

Exactly, assuming the depth of the new ocean floor is approximately the same as the depth of the ocean, which is highly likely. After the flood, waters then recede to approximately pre-flood levels.

So ... where does all the water go to?

As you explain it, it appears that we have the same amount of water before the flood and after the flood. So the extra water that caused the flood is ... where?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 5:26 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 6:24 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 290 of 300 (687843)
01-17-2013 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Dr Adequate
01-17-2013 5:48 AM


No, no. You produce a hypothesis, then I'll look at it. Otherwise your answer to the question posed in the OP is that you don't know. In which case this would be a good time for you to stop posting on this thread.

But surely you cannot expect that I should form your hypothesis for you. If you want me to do your thinking for you, then here's my thinking: the flood described in Genesis didn't happen. You're welcome.

To say it didn't happen, you would have to disprove all reasonable possibilities presented. I have presented a reasonable hypothesis if you think the hypothesis unreasonable , present your case why you think so.

As you explain it, it appears that we have the same amount of water before the flood and after the flood. So the extra water that caused the flood is ... where?

I'm not following you, why the need for "extra water". I believe sea levels would have risen from the melted glaciation and melted ice caps, and also the compressed oceans from tectonic activity, with maybe a slight rainfall effect too. They would have receded when the new oceans opened up, and ice caps started re-forming.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 5:48 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 6:35 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 291 of 300 (687845)
01-17-2013 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by mindspawn
01-17-2013 6:24 AM


To say it didn't happen, you would have to disprove all reasonable possibilities presented. I have presented a reasonable hypothesis ...

No you haven't. You haven't even presented a hypothesis, let alone a reasonable one.

That would be your job.

I admit that I too am unable to think of a hypothesis which would make Noah's Flood physically plausible, but then I don't go around pretending that it happened.

I'm not following you, why the need for "extra water".

For the Flood. Floods traditionally involve water.

They would have receded when the new oceans opened up ...

No they wouldn't, as I have explained.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 6:24 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 6:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 292 of 300 (687847)
01-17-2013 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Dr Adequate
01-17-2013 6:35 AM


hmmmm ok, that's your view

Maybe someone else will be prepared to discuss the validity of the claim of Siberian Trap related melting of ice caps/glaciation at the end Permian/PT boundary causing rising sea levels? I do think this is on topic for the thread, which is asking for claims of where the flood waters came from.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 6:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Larni, posted 01-17-2013 7:08 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 294 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 7:10 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3942
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 293 of 300 (687849)
01-17-2013 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by mindspawn
01-17-2013 6:50 AM


There can be no further scientific discussion until you support you hypothesis.

What you need to do is provide supporting evidence for your idea. Otherwise one could claim anything and simply say 'you can't prove it wrong'.

This is called falsiability and is pretty basic philosophy of science and integral to the scientific method.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 6:50 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 294 of 300 (687850)
01-17-2013 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by mindspawn
01-17-2013 6:50 AM


hmmmm ok, that's your view

And it is gratifying to see that you find it unanswerable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 6:50 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 8:44 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 295 of 300 (687853)
01-17-2013 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Dr Adequate
01-17-2013 7:10 AM


And it is gratifying to see that you find it unanswerable.

Not at all.

The PT boundary is famous for what is known as the Siberian Traps. This was a period of extreme volcanic activity in northern Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps

http://palaeoentomolog.ru/Lib/Chumakov3.pdf
"—The Late Permian–initial Triassic was a period of the Earth climate change, as the glacial climate of the Late Paleozoic was replaced by the non-glacial one of the Mesozoic"

The continental land mass of Pangea peaked at the end Paleozoic
http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/permian_period.html
For most of the Permian, life on Earth was much like it had been in the Carboniferous. Temperatures were cooler because the continent of Pangea was moving northward. Mountains were forming as the supercontinent Pangea moved. When the continent of Siberia collided into the northern part of Euramerica, Pangea was complete. The Ural Mountains were pushed up by this collision.

http://www.episodes.co.in/...s/244/239-244%20Metcalfe%20.pdf
The boundary between the Permian and Triassic periods shows the most significant change in global biota in the Phanerozoic (and perhaps in the entire history of life on earth) and marks the boundary between the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic Eras. More than 90% of shelly marine genera were wiped out in this event and approximately 70% of animals and plants on land suffered similarly. Possible global catastrophic events suggested as causes of the P-T mass extinction include bolide impact, melting of gas hydrates flooding the world's atmosphere with methane, major marine regression, massive volcanism, oceanic anoxia and overturn of stagnant deep ocean waters

The end -Permian is well known for an extensive marine transgression
http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionSeaLevel.pdf
The relationship between transgression and anoxia is frequently seen in the geological record Hallam, 1981; Wignall, 1994 , but the lethality of the end Permian event may be because of the exceptionally shallow-water development of anoxic conditions during this event

If anyone is interested I can show evidence for widespread mass movements of sedimentation during the PT boundary as well.

I am not saying I have proved a flood at the PT boundary, just supporting a hypothesis that there were factors contributing towards a worldwide marine transgression then. Volcanic activity, melting glaciation, melting ice caps, huge landmass of Pangea established.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 7:10 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 296 of 300 (687854)
01-17-2013 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by mindspawn
01-16-2013 4:45 PM


Hi Mindspawn,

Before you posted you should have seen a note that this thread is scheduled to close for summations at 300 messages, which is just a few messages away. There's no time to begin a dialog about your idea now, but in other threads it has been pointed out that even at 100% humidity the atmosphere can contain just a fraction of a percent of the world's total water, nowhere near enough to significantly affect sea levels.

If you want to continue discussion you should propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by mindspawn, posted 01-16-2013 4:45 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 12:44 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 297 of 300 (687881)
01-17-2013 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Percy
01-17-2013 9:14 AM


but in other threads it has been pointed out that even at 100% humidity the atmosphere can contain just a fraction of a percent of the world's total water, nowhere near enough to significantly affect sea levels.

Completely agree. That is why my focus for the source of flooding is the melting glaciation and melting ice caps, sea levels often changed by a couple of hundred meters in ages past. Contributing factor is the expansion of the land mass to a peak at the formation of Pangea., continental masses and movements contributing towards changes in sea levels as well.

As you know I've been discussing this on the "Portillo" thread, so I feel there has already been sufficient back and forth on the subject, its not as if these threads reach consensus so I don't really see the need to carry on the discussion further in yet a third thread. Those in the other thread seemed too distracted by side issues to really challenge the basic hypothesis that in fact the PT boundary is an extreme situation involving a marine transgression, marine regression and vast sediment movements. Enough evidence for a valid hypothesis already exists, sure its not proven, its an evidence based hypothesis awaiting futher proof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Percy, posted 01-17-2013 9:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
CoolBeans
Member (Idle past 1055 days)
Posts: 196
From: Honduras
Joined: 02-11-2013


Message 298 of 300 (692534)
03-04-2013 3:05 PM


I suppose that this might be relevant.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/195645/
"Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean. The discovery marks the first time such a large body of water has found in the planet's deep mantle."

Nah is still not enough.

Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Coyote, posted 03-04-2013 3:09 PM CoolBeans has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5863
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 299 of 300 (692535)
03-04-2013 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by CoolBeans
03-04-2013 3:05 PM


Re: I suppose that this might be relevant.
Re: I suppose that this might be relevant.

Or not.

The flood story is a myth, with overwhelming evidence that it never happened as described.

Clutching at straws is futile.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by CoolBeans, posted 03-04-2013 3:05 PM CoolBeans has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by CoolBeans, posted 03-04-2013 3:22 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
CoolBeans
Member (Idle past 1055 days)
Posts: 196
From: Honduras
Joined: 02-11-2013


Message 300 of 300 (692536)
03-04-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Coyote
03-04-2013 3:09 PM


Re: I suppose that this might be relevant.
I agree
This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Coyote, posted 03-04-2013 3:09 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017