Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-17-2017 12:56 PM
346 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,749 Year: 25,355/21,208 Month: 982/2,338 Week: 103/450 Day: 27/34 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Do oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 31 of 108 (729729)
06-17-2014 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Porosity
06-17-2014 9:38 PM


Re: Evidence
Judging by its neck, this has got to be a giraffe:

This is some sort of flightless bird, probably an ostrich.

Er ... a puppy dog?

Something like that.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Porosity, posted 06-17-2014 9:38 PM Porosity has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 108 (729730)
06-18-2014 12:31 AM


I didn't say "all," I said "most." Sigh. There were ALSO creatures completely unique that have since completely died out. Besides, even the behemoths may have modern relatives. Sigh, groan.

And once again, the descriptions of this phenomenon of water in the deep rocks use such words as "water" and "oceans" and here's one that says "reservoir."

How much of this mineralized water actually exists is just a guess but they do sound pretty sure of their references to hugeness. In any case, again, the descriptions support the idea of former huge quantities of water that became mineralized in the form of ringwoodite. For the Flood we don't need the water to have started out in this form, the idea is that it explains where the water went, not where it came from.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 12:40 AM Faith has responded
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 1:14 AM Faith has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6012
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 33 of 108 (729731)
06-18-2014 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
06-18-2014 12:31 AM


For the Flood we don't need the water to have started out in this form, the idea is that it explains where the water went, not where it came from.

While you are concentrating on where the water came from and where it went, perhaps you could also lend some thought to the problem of why there is no evidence for a flood of the size you want during historic times?

The problems you face are simply insurmountable, and you have to ignore massive amounts of evidence and manipulate the rest in order to try to shoehorn your flood into some semblance of reality.

So far you have failed, but that's not unusual--creationists have failed for over 200 years to document the global flood.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : BIG off-topic banner.


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

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 12:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 1:05 AM Coyote has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 108 (729732)
06-18-2014 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Coyote
06-18-2014 12:40 AM


While you are concentrating on where the water came from and where it went, perhaps you could also lend some thought to the problem of why there is no evidence for a flood of the size you want during historic times?

The whole of the Geologic Column is certainly evidence of a Flood of such proportions -- we're talking miles deep and covering huge areas of whole continents -- as well as the bazillions of fossilized creatures found therein. You have to be blind as a bat evo to miss it.

And although everybody keeps wanting to change the subject and tax me with this or that completely irrelevant argument I'm going to keep trying to stick to the topic of this thread and say again that this discovery of "oceans" worth of water, or a huge "reservoir" in the depths of the earth, also contributes to the possibility of such a Flood by suggesting where all that water went after a Flood of such proportions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 12:40 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 1:26 AM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 35 of 108 (729733)
06-18-2014 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
06-18-2014 12:31 AM


I didn't say "all," I said "most."

Yeah, why did you say that?

While you're thinking that over, here's a picture of ... uh ... a duck, maybe? Yeah, definitely a duck.

And once again, the descriptions of this phenomenon of water in the deep rocks use such words as "water" and "oceans" and here's one that says "reservoir."

And your source also says this:

This water is not in a familiar form – neither liquid, ice nor vapor. This fourth form is water trapped inside the molecular structure of the minerals in the mantle rock. The weight of 250 miles of solid rock creates such high pressure, along with temperatures above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, that a water molecule splits to form a hydroxyl radical (OH), which can be bound into a mineral’s crystal structure.

OK? It's not even water, H2O, it's these hydroxyl radicals. It's not a liquid. It's not sloshing about. It's trapped in the molecular structure of the ringwoodite.

For the Flood we don't need the water to have started out in this form, the idea is that it explains where the water went ...

It was drawn down 400 miles into the mantle by ... er ... vast antivolcanoes that suck instead of blowing? I'm just guessing here, 'cos you're not exactly painting a detailed picture.

But there's a reason why there aren't any antivolcanoes. It's because the pressure gets greater the deeper in the Earth you get.

Your post suggests that you've been made aware of the problem of the water coming out, which it would have to do as superheated steam and at supersonic speeds. But now consider, if that's how forcibly it would come out, how much force would be required to cram it in?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 12:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 1:23 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 108 (729735)
06-18-2014 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2014 1:14 AM


The articles about this phenomenon are describing it as oceans of water, as reservoirs of water etc., despite the fact that it is now in mineral form as part of the ringwoodite. These are the words of the articles on the subject. They imply vast quantities of water that formerly existed as water. Or do you dispute that?

The Biblical description of the Flood explains the sources of the water as two: the "fountains of the deep" as well as the torrents of rain that were released from whatever their former condition had been in the "firmament" above, nothing is said that implies release from mineral form deep in the earth, unless "fountains of the deep" could be shown to imply something along those lines. But again, we do not need a source of the water, what the ringwoodite "reservoir" suggests is where it went afterward.

It's really quite simple, no need to make it into such a huge complicated problem.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 1:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 1:48 AM Faith has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6012
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 37 of 108 (729736)
06-18-2014 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
06-18-2014 1:05 AM


The whole of the Geologic Column is certainly evidence of a Flood of such proportions -- we're talking miles deep and covering huge areas of whole continents -- as well as the bazillions of fossilized creatures found therein.

The problem with this argument is that these "bazillions of fossilized creatures" are spread out over some billions of years, not concentrated in the narrow time span of one year.

You can believe whatever you want, but don't try to claim you have facts and evidence on your side. You don't.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


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

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 1:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 1:33 AM Coyote has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 108 (729737)
06-18-2014 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coyote
06-18-2014 1:26 AM


Oh yuppity yup all those fantasy billions of years. There isn't even any differential physical wear and tear on the lower strata over those supposed billions of years to show more aging of lower versus higher. They all look like they were laid down at the same time. Not even any differential tectonic disturbances, especially if you look in the Grand Canyon where they all climb neatly from bottom to top with nary a glitch except where they were disturbed after they were all laid down.

But this thread is not about all the arguments for and against the Flood, it's about the ringwoodite "reservoir" which suggests where the Flood waters went.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 1:26 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 10:42 AM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 39 of 108 (729738)
06-18-2014 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
06-18-2014 1:23 AM


The articles about this phenomenon are describing it as oceans of water, as reservoirs of water etc., despite the fact that it is now in mineral form as part of the ringwoodite. These are the words of the articles on the subject. They imply vast quantities of water that formerly existed as water. Or do you dispute that?

I don't see any scientist claiming that. And certainly not that it used to be an ocean.

It's really quite simple, no need to make it into such a huge complicated problem.

It's not a huge complicated problem, it's a huge very very simple problem. The pressure at the surface is 100 KPa. The pressure down where the ringwoodite exists is 18,000,000 KPa at the least. To pump so much as a jugful of water to that depth, against that amount of pressure, is way beyond the technological resources of the twenty-first century. And you want the water to have gone there on its own, without any mechanism to pump it.

Now, I know it's one of the core beliefs of Floodism that water can do any darn thing you please, but surely this must give even you some pause for thought.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 1:23 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 2:46 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2014 4:36 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 108 (729739)
06-18-2014 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2014 1:48 AM


Look, there is only ONE point that is being made by creationists concerning this discovery of so much bound-up water that it can be described as "oceans," and that is that it can account for the great amount of water that had to go somewhere after the Flood. HOW it did this is of course a question but why does it have to be answered before the point is even acknowledged?

And surely if it IS being described as "oceans" and a "reservoir" when it is really just a mineral, it would seem that somebody has something in mind about WATER itself involved in the process at some point. Or are you saying No to that? If it never was water why even mention water, why not just be content to marvel at the vast quantities of this mineral known as ringwoodite found at that depth?

AND, since it is obviously described as having once BEEN liquid water it had to get there somehow, whether pumped or not, so how did it get there, Sherlock?

ABE: What I mean when I say it had to have been liquid water is that the molecules that ended up as the mineral ringwoodite are described in terms of some way H20 got transformed and incorporated into the mineral olivine. So at some point it WAS water. I don't know what else to conclude from what I've read about it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 1:48 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 3:19 AM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 41 of 108 (729740)
06-18-2014 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
06-18-2014 2:46 AM


Look, there is only ONE point that is being made by creationists concerning this discovery of so much bound-up water that it can be described as "oceans," and that is that it can account for the great amount of water that had to go somewhere after the Flood. HOW it did this is of course a question but why does it have to be answered before the point is even acknowledged?

But if it doesn't matter how it got there, then you didn't have to wait for geologists to find hydroxide ions in ringwoodite. You could have pointed to the ice on Europa, the sixth moon of Jupiter, and said "Hey, the Flood water could have gone there. HOW it did this is of course a question but why does it have to be answered before the point is even acknowledged?" Or you could have pointed to all the comets in the Oort cloud. Or you could have mentioned that there's simply loads of hydrogen and oxygen in the Sun, enough to flood the Earth millions of times over (proof at end of post). So the water could have gone there --- so long as you don't care how it got there. Or given that there's that much water in the Sun, imagine how much there is in the Andromeda Galaxy. That could be the Flood water. Sure, the Andromeda Galaxy's 2.5 million light-years from Earth, but we're not worried about how the water got there.

And surely if it IS being described as "oceans" and a "reservoir" when it is really just a mineral, it would seem that somebody has something in mind about WATER itself involved in the process at some point.

Or are you saying No to that? If it never was water why even mention water, why not just be content to marvel at the vast quantities of this mineral known as ringwoodite found at that depth?

AND, since it is obviously described as having once BEEN liquid water it had to get there somehow, whether pumped or not, so how did it get there, Sherlock?

We know there's lots of ice whizzing round the Solar System, so we know (or rather, I know and you don't) that this must have been part of the material that accreted to form the Earth.

---

How much water is in the Sun? Technically, none, but then there isn't any in the ringwoodite either. But there's lots of hydrogen and oxygen in the Sun. Let's do the math. The oxygen content of the Sun is 468 ppm. This is obviously the limiting factor, since the Sun is mainly hydrogen. Then there are about 1.2 × 1057 atoms in the Sun, so call it 5.6 × 1053 oxygen atoms (rounding down a bit) with which we can make 5 × 1053 molecules of water. There are about 3.3 × 1025 molecules of water to a liter, giving us 17 × 1027 liters of water. The volume of the Atlantic Ocean is about 3 × 1020 liters, so that's about 57 million Atlantic Ocean's worth of water. The water of Noah's Flood would barely have made a splash when it fell into the Sun --- and of course, we needn't worry our heads about how it got up there.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 2:46 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 3:36 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 108 (729741)
06-18-2014 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2014 3:19 AM


Nobody has ever suggested that there are "oceans" of water in the Sun, or a great "reservoir" of water there, but this is what is said about the mineral-bound WATER in the deep rocks of the earth. Also nobody has ever suggested that the Flood waters went anywhere but back into the ocean basins. You apparently have some kind of agenda to muddy up the discussion as much as possible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 3:19 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 10:26 AM Faith has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9992
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 43 of 108 (729743)
06-18-2014 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2014 1:48 AM


To pump so much as a jugful of water to that depth, against that amount of pressure, is way beyond the technological resources of the twenty-first century. And you want the water to have gone there on its own, without any mechanism to pump it.

At some point in the discussion, it is always possible to invoke supernatural power. In fact, if the fountains of the deep opened right on time, and if the water did drain away into the deep at some point, then surely the totality of action was not natural.

In any event, there appears to be more than enough "instant water" down there to make a global flood. I don't see anything gained by denying that.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 1:48 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 4:43 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 108 (729744)
06-18-2014 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
06-18-2014 4:36 AM


There is nothing supernatural stated or implied in the Biblical account of the physical phenomena involving the Flood. What is described is presented as physical phenomena that happen to be different from the current situation, physical and natural nevertheless. What the "fountains of the deep" means is not at all clear to me, and possibly nobody who has interpreted it gets it right, but nevertheless it is presented as natural and physical and not supernatural.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2014 4:36 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 06-18-2014 6:37 AM Faith has responded
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2014 8:55 AM Faith has responded
 Message 50 by jar, posted 06-18-2014 10:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5097
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 45 of 108 (729746)
06-18-2014 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
06-18-2014 4:43 AM


Faith writes:

There is nothing supernatural stated or implied in the Biblical account of the physical phenomena involving the Flood. What is described is presented as physical phenomena that happen to be different from the current situation, physical and natural nevertheless. What the "fountains of the deep" means is not at all clear to me, and possibly nobody who has interpreted it gets it right, but nevertheless it is presented as natural and physical and not supernatural.

That's nonsense, god made it happen in order to rid the world of sin. If that's not a miracle it's not obvious to me what is.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 4:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 6:38 AM Tangle has responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017