|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
Regardless, the evidence against the "the great flood" having happened is overwhelming. But that is not the theme of this topic. In all, I think Wumpini (and ICANT?) have done a pretty good job at refuting or at least denting Rahvin's above quoted assertion. Which is why I offered a partial concession to Wumpini (his inappropriate "rewording" aside). The OH dissolved in the mantle (from my understanding - you're the geologist, so feel free to correct me) is a "form" of stored water, despite the fact that it's technically a different compound. When heated to extreme temperatures (significantly higher than the 700 Celsius the magma is already at), the OH could form back into water. The "including water trapped in rock" portion of my claim is refuted - and yet since it would be impossible (without direct miraculous intervention) for this OH to have contributed significantly to a global Flood event a few scant thousand years ago given the geological evidence we see and the chemical reaction necessary to "un-store" the OH and make it water again, it still doesn't approach making a case for there being sufficient water to Flood the Earth. One might as well look at the water on Europa for all the relevance this water has for a global Flood event.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5791 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
Hi edge,
I apologize for the tone of my last message. I am coming to realize that I have become more and more defensive during this discussion. I hope to be able to change that in the future. I am presently considering starting another thread to continue the discussion of how much of this water (H2O or OH) in the mantle could feasibly (naturally) be brought to the surface in a short time. Before I state the OP, I would like to make sure that I am understanding most of the science of this topic.
edge writes: Tell ya what. Why not consider me to be your scientific source until you've had an igneous and metamorphic petrology class. I think I will take you up on that. I need a scientific source, and I do try to listen. I am hardheaded at times, but I am learning. I also get frustrated at times. You have probably figured out by now that I am not a Geologist, or a Chemist, or a Biologist, etc. If you would like, maybe you can help me to understand this overall process a little better. It may also help those non-scientific people who have been reading this thread to have a better understanding of what is taking place, and what we have been talking about for many, many posts. Here goes nothing: My original understanding was that the chemical bonding that takes place in these rocks with the water in the mantle was similar to the chemical solution that you would have with water in the ocean, or fluoride in drinking water, etc. I am sure it would be difficult to find any water that is 100% pure unless it was in a laboratory or something. This was the reason for my defensive tone. In my mind, I had two concepts for water. The first was form; Water could be liquid, frozen, evaporated, or gas. The second was purity; you can have ocean water, chlorinated water, fluoride water, etc. Therefore, I was seeing mantle water as in gas form and it was mixed with minerals or rocks. Now it appears to me, from what I am being told, that after the water reaches a certain pressure and temperature it converts to OH. I truly had the impression from all of those articles that I read that H2O was present in the deep mantle. I thought that some of the water in the deep mantle was chemically bonded as H2O and some as OH. I gather this understanding was incorrect. Here is a quote of something I read on the internet about the formation of magma. I think it is explaining (remember I am not a Geologist) this process in layman’s terms.
quote: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/...Volcanoes-and-Water.html If I am reading this correctly and tying it into what you and others have said, this is what I understand:
Now we have either H2O or OH in four places that I can see:
Does this understanding sound correct? Can you tell me in these four places which would contain H2O, and which would have OH chemically bonded with the mineral (rock)? Wumpini writes: They all give the notation of H2O.
edge writes: And with enough heat, you could drive the the hydroxyl out at water. The key would be a metamorphic reaction. Could you explain this statement as it applies to what I have explained above?
edge writes: Yes, water can degass during an eruption, but these effects are occurring very high in the mantle and at the surface, and have nothing to do with the bulk of the mantle rock where your 5 oceans worth of water are occurring. This confuses me also. You may have already answered this question above when I talked about the different places that water appears to be present in the mantle. Some of that water seemed to be near the surface. The water vapor that had escaped and was rising, the water bound sediment from subduction that had not yet reached 100 kilometers deep, and the magma. All of these were within 100 kilometers of the surface, if my understanding is correct. Then, I read statements such as this one that I quoted before about the silicates:
quote: You had told me before that these were probably high temperature hydrated minerals or dissolve hydroxide in magma. I realize that the five oceans that were referenced earlier are in the deep mantle. However, other articles have mentioned significant other water. I know I read one article called the Bejing Anamoly where they said they found a reservoir (Some heavily saturated rock) equal to the Artic Ocean beneath Eastern Asia. Would this not indicate that there is substantial water stored in the upper mantle near the crust? This would be water in magma, or in high temperature hydrated minerals, or water vapor that has not yet chemically bound to form magma.
edge writes: This is a minute amount of water. How much of the mantle do you think you would have to expose to some kind of heating condition to generate 5 oceans of water from such minute amounts. What you don't understand is that the mantle is the largest residence of mass for the entire earth. Even tiny amounts of water in it would generate huge quantities. The point, however, is that this is simply 'water'. I do not understand the part about a heating condition. What kind of heating condition could affect the deep mantle to release significant water? Is there such a thing? Is there some website that I can look at to see all of these relationships?
edge writes: Regardless, you are talking about dessicating and changing the mineralogy of a significant part of the mantle. Then you need the reaction to go backward.... all in one year. Are you telling me that this does not sound silly? I am being very careful to use the right tone. To be quite honest it sounds less silly to me than the Big Bang Theory (without a supernatural cause), or Abiogenesis where you must theorize about nonliving matter coming together by chance, or nature putting together a complex structure like a wing through a lot of simple steps by natural selection when the wing would never function until it was complete. We have never witnessed or been able to repeat any of these theories of science. But, science allows for these theories. They are accepted. However, with this process of earth degassing we have evidence. The water in the mantle is coming to the surface right now. We know that, and we can witness the process through volcanic activity. Scientists say another significant source is through the crustal metamorphic fluid system. Therefore, I can conclude with almost complete assurance that some of this water was coming to the surface 5000 years ago. I can also conclude with almost complete assurance that more of this water could come to the surface than is degassing today without causing a drastic change in the environment. I could also project different series of geological events that could result in the release of some of this water. How much more could come to the surface in what period of time? I have not figured that out yet. What would be the effect on the climate if more came to the surface? I have not figured that out yet either. I think we should give as much credence to scientific theories such as this as we do for Abiogenesis, and other very, very, very improbable events. If someone proposes that a Geological event could have occurred that resulted in a significant increase in this natural degassing process, then it is worth of consideration in my opinion. I do not think that is silly. If someone proposed that five oceans of water could come up naturally from the mantle in 150 days (without some gigantic offsetting natural cooling agent) and not cause mass destruction? That is silly. It would take a miracle to bring that much water up and control the heat! The question, in my opinion, is where we draw the line between silly and not silly!
edge writes: Frankly, I don't care what you believe. When you show me your degrees in Geology, I will start to listen. Until then, you are just misconstruing isolated facts. I wish it was that easy. It seems that to participate in these forums; I need degrees in Geology, Chemistry, Physics, Logic, Biology, Evolutionary Analysis, Cosmology, and who knows what else. I have been trying to work with what little I know, and I realize that it is taking me time to understand some of these concepts. It frustrates me at times, and I am sure it frustrates others. I have had some tell me that since I am not a scientist, I should stay out of these science forums. What do you think? I do appreciate your assistance, and I once again apologize for my improper tone in my previous post. P.S. - Here is another link dealing with Potassium storage in the upper mantle. You were remarking about the lack of information related to chemical bonds in other posts. I really am not sure whether this would help. It does have a lot of chemical symbols with H2O and OH. Transport and Storage of Potassium in the Earth’s Upper Mantle and Transition Zone: an Experimental Study to 23 GPa in Simplified and Natural Bulk Compositions | Journal of Petrology | Oxford Academic Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given. Edited by Wumpini, : spelling Edited by Wumpini, : Added bullets "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote:Keeping in mind that much of the water is recycled seawater, of course. The assumption of your sources is that there is an equilibrium of water in equals water out. To make drastic changes of the amount of water on either side of the equation would mean some rather dramatic changes in the conditions of the planet. The other assumption is that the geophysical evidence is explained properly. I am not convinced that it is. Rather, I think that some of these 'water' anomalies are related to continental crust thickness and temperature. In other words, I am not sure that they know what they are dealing with or that is is applicable to the entire mantle.
quote:Just as it is now. quote:The problem is that there is no real evidence for this. quote:There likely would be no climate. At least not as far as life if concerned. quote: Well, all you need is evidence and it would no longer be silly.
quote:Yes. quote:When the preponderance of evidence is against you, it becomes silly. You have many questions. The one regarding poassium transport identifies the mineral potassium-hornblende which has the chemical formula KNaCaMg5Si8O22(OH)2. Note the hydrated ion in this formula. Now look at the analytical breakdown where they discuss K2O-Na2O-CaO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2-H2O. Do you recognize the water compound in the second formula but not the first? That is because we measure the major elements in their oxide form. Water is one of those. So it is recorded as H2O, but is not really water in the mineral. This is what I have been trying to get at for most of this thread. That water is not truly water. It is part of a chemical compound. You will notice the many reactions in this paper that evolove water. These are essentially metamorphic reactions that require heat. The question is, how do you find enough heat to affect a significant part of the mantle in such a short time to cause outgassing of the required amount of water. Then where does the water go? How does it get there and at what temperature does it erupt to the surface?
quote:I don't know of any. However, we do know that there are volcanic episodes in the history of the earth that suggest heat being released. The problem here is that there are many such events over a very long period of time. quote:Strictly a guess. However, your source on K-transport has some possible mineral phases although the are mainly focussed on potassium rather than water. quote:Purely a guess, but I would suggest that this is related to a long history of subduction at the easter edge of Asia and a cool continental crust that has somehow capped the water. How the water is bound is not clear to me. The real point here is that this area is an anomaly quote:In that area, possibly, the problem is that it is not likely to be free water. quote:Possibly, but the question is still how do you move so much water to the surface in less than a year, and why does that not occur frequently? quote:This is not a simple system. There are probably too many variables to consider, but I believe most of the water is driven off early in the subduction process. At deeper levels the chemical reactions that drive off more water will help to form melts that may or may not reach the surface. quote:It is better than most peoples' understanding and could me more complex, but basically, yes. Free water would be driven off mostly early in the subduction process, I believe. As your sources say, somewhere below 100km it will start to enter the chemical formula of minerals as OH complexes. These become more and more refactory (difficult to separate) with increasing depth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
edge writes: Possibly, but the question is still how do you move so much water to the surface in less than a year, and why does that not occur frequently? What if you didn't have to move the water to the surface, With the uper mantel and the lower mantels just being storage bins for the water after the flood? I know but cavediver said the only stupid question was the one I didn't ask. So I am asking. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote:This creates an even greater problem. How do you get water to migrate up the geothermal gradient, particularly into higher pressure regimes with higher density materials?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
edge writes: This creates an even greater problem. How do you get water to migrate up the geothermal gradient, particularly into higher pressure regimes with higher density materials? You guys have sparked an interest is this subject for me which I have never had. I have been doing quite a bit of reading and many questions come to my mind. I would like to discuss a hypothetical point and get your opinion and disagreements. If the flood took place at a time that all land mass was in one place as in pangea there would be very few high places on that land mass. As I understand it the mountains were formed by the movement of the land masses to where they are today. I asked about what if the water was stored in the upper and lower mantels. Your answer was that there was a problem getting the water there. There are many subduction zones in the oceans around the world where water in being introduced into the deep mantel now. So what is the problem other than the massive amount of water at one time. But with a lower profile of land mass the amount of water needed to cover that mass is diminished. With 5 times the water in the deep mantel and 10 times the water in the upper mantel than is in the oceans that is a lot of water. The water is necessary for the plates to move to cool the friction of the shifting of the land masses. I would assume that much of the water got into the mantels with the movement of the plates as the earth divided into its present locations. (Then again I could be wrong) Back to the land mass in one place. How large would that land mass have to be? I lived on a mountain top in the middle of the Caribbean sea from 1989 until 2005. The land mass was 27 miles long and 7 miles wide at the widest point. A sister island just 70 miles away is over 8,000 feet tall but the highest point on Cayman Brac is only 140' above sea level. So how big did that original land mass have to be? I know the pictures of pangea shows a massive amount of land mass but since that was 250 million years ago who took the picture. There are sea fossils throughout our land masses today even on our mountains, when did they get there? So now let me dream for a bit. The land mass is all in one place.It is not a very large land mass compared to today. It is a pretty uniform land mass. It begins to rain, and rains for 40 days. The fountains of the deep open up. Underground water under pressure. The small amount of land mass is covered with water. The water subsides until the mass highest above sea level is uncovered. Much of the land mass is still covered with water. People and animals begin to repopulate the earth. The land masses begin to move causing an upraising of land masses. People begin to scatter out over the face of the land. The land mass is divided while people and animals are scattered. With all this land movement the subduction of water into the mantels by the land masses moving and the friction from all the movement more land appears until we finally have the planet earth as we see it today. I am probably just delusional. Science says the land mass was in one place at one time. Science says the land mass was divided to what we see today. Science tells us it finds sea fossils on mountains proving that land mass was under sea water at one time. Science says water is subducted into the mantels today. Catholic Scientist is probably right and I should not think. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So now let me dream for a bit. The land mass is all in one place.It is not a very large land mass compared to today. It is a pretty uniform land mass. It begins to rain, and rains for 40 days. The fountains of the deep open up. Underground water under pressure. The small amount of land mass is covered with water. The water subsides until the mass highest above sea level is uncovered. Much of the land mass is still covered with water. People and animals begin to repopulate the earth. The land masses begin to move causing an upraising of land masses. People begin to scatter out over the face of the land. The land mass is divided while people and animals are scattered. With all this land movement the subduction of water into the mantels by the land masses moving and the friction from all the movement more land appears until we finally have the planet earth as we see it today. I am probably just delusional. Science says the land mass was in one place at one time. Science says the land mass was divided to what we see today. Science tells us it finds sea fossils on mountains proving that land mass was under sea water at one time. Science says water is subducted into the mantels today. Catholic Scientist is probably right and I should not think. I would suggest that you do research, and that you should think about what you research. I would further suggest that you ease up on the dogma end of things. What you are doing seems more to be trying to shoehorn science into a biblical timeframe, perhaps 4,500 years, instead of the few hundred million years that scientists see. But to do this you have to account for a lot of unintended consequences. You have to throw out just about all we know about geology, archaeology, and dating, the earth would be cooked from the radioactive decay of millions of years being forced into thousands, and you need to come up with some mechanism (and a date) for all of these hurried-up events to suddenly return to their normal rates. These are just a few of the problems you end up with. Science has to account for all the facts when it proposes theories. When you start arbitrarily changing things, the unintended consequences really begin to pile up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Coyote writes: What you are doing seems more to be trying to shoehorn science into a biblical timeframe, perhaps 4,500 years, instead of the few hundred million years that scientists see. Where did I mention a time frame other than 250 million years ago? You guys got to quit jumping to conclusions. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Coyote writes:
What you are doing seems more to be trying to shoehorn science into a biblical timeframe, perhaps 4,500 years, instead of the few hundred million years that scientists see.Where did I mention a time frame other than 250 million years ago? You guys got to quit jumping to conclusions. God Bless, You posited these events happening with and after the global flood, which according to a consensus of biblical scholars occurred abut 4,500 years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Where did I mention a time frame other than 250 million years ago? You didn't - but wouldn't your Flood need to be when humans were around? That's only been a couple hundred thousand years. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
If the flood took place at a time that all land mass was in one place as in pangea there would be very few high places on that land mass. As I understand it the mountains were formed by the movement of the land masses to where they are today.
No. There are ancient mountain ranges. How do you think there got to be one land mass? Several came together.
There are many subduction zones in the oceans around the world where water in being introduced into the deep mantel now. So what is the problem other than the massive amount of water at one time.
There is a major heat problem, for one. And most of that water is lost to magma formation at the subduction zone.
But with a lower profile of land mass the amount of water needed to cover that mass is diminished. With 5 times the water in the deep mantel and 10 times the water in the upper mantel than is in the oceans that is a lot of water.
Then all you need to do is prove that the earth was smooth at one time. Then you need to show that the water as all on the surface of the earth at one time. Good luck.
The water is necessary for the plates to move to cool the friction of the shifting of the land masses. I would assume that much of the water got into the mantels with the movement of the plates as the earth divided into its present locations. (Then again I could be wrong)
This doesn't make sense. Heat has to go somewhere. Just because water is present does not mean that something is cooler.
Back to the land mass in one place. How large would that land mass have to be?
Not sure why that would matter. Besides it's not a matter of 'having to be'. You guys look for reasons for everything.
I know the pictures of pangea shows a massive amount of land mass but since that was 250 million years ago who took the picture. There are sea fossils throughout our land masses today even on our mountains, when did they get there?
You are starting to ramble. The picture is reconstructed from known geology. And no. Fossils are not found throughout our landmasses. They occur in sedimentary rocks that were deposited in a number of depositional environments.
So now let me dream for a bit.
Well, you are certainly subject to wishful thinking. You want the people to scatter over the earth at a time when geological calamities are going on. Is this even biblical?
The land mass is all in one place.It is not a very large land mass compared to today. It is a pretty uniform land mass. It begins to rain, and rains for 40 days. The fountains of the deep open up. Underground water under pressure. The small amount of land mass is covered with water. The water subsides until the mass highest above sea level is uncovered. Much of the land mass is still covered with water. People and animals begin to repopulate the earth. The land masses begin to move causing an upraising of land masses. People begin to scatter out over the face of the land. The land mass is divided while people and animals are scattered. With all this land movement the subduction of water into the mantels by the land masses moving and the friction from all the movement more land appears until we finally have the planet earth as we see it today. I am probably just delusional. Science says the land mass was in one place at one time.
These are what I call isolated factoids. You cannot make them into anything but a fanciful story. You need to work on your research more.
Science says the land mass was divided to what we see today. Science tells us it finds sea fossils on mountains proving that land mass was under sea water at one time. Science says water is subducted into the mantels today. Catholic Scientist is probably right and I should not think.
Heh, heh... Well, it does take practice. But actually, the problem is that you are not thinking. You are simply accepting authority and reading selected sources that confirm your learned prejudices. Take a class in Geology from your local community college sometime. Just for fun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Science says the land mass was in one place at one time. Science says the land mass was divided to what we see today. Science tells us it finds sea fossils on mountains proving that land mass was under sea water at one time. Science says water is subducted into the mantels today. These are what I call isolated factoids. You cannot make them into anything but a fanciful story. You need to work on your research more. Yes and he is trying to fit over 4 billion years of earth's history in the space of ~5000 years. Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Coragyps writes: You didn't - but wouldn't your Flood need to be when humans were around? That's only been a couple hundred thousand years. Is that a fact or a guess? I think they were here long before that. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I think they were here long before that. You may think that all you please, but you have no evidence of them, right? Or if you do, you'll open a thread to show it to us? Or, better, publish it in Nature? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2920 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
In order to have condensation (rain) you need to have evaporation of the same amount or water. It is impossible for rain to fall worldwide. So NONE of the water that caused a worldwide flood could come from the atmosphere as the amount of water in the atmosphere worldwide has to be in equilibrium. So the only source of water to cover mountains has to be those "fountains of the deep". Any calculations which include rain are flawed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024