Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
110 online now:
Percy (Admin), ringo, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 106 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,297 Year: 6,409/6,534 Month: 602/650 Week: 140/232 Day: 25/54 Hour: 10/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 59 of 108 (729763)
06-18-2014 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Diomedes
06-18-2014 4:48 PM


The vast majority of events do not violate any natural laws, although God is in all of them. It's only those that violate natural laws that are called miraculous, such as causing the sun to move backwards or bringing someone who had died back to life or turning water into wine.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Diomedes, posted 06-18-2014 4:48 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 60 of 108 (729764)
06-18-2014 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Tangle
06-18-2014 4:47 PM


Just to be clear, god causing the world to be flooded above the highest mountain was not a miracle?

No. Scripture implies a natural source for the water, not a miraculous source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Tangle, posted 06-18-2014 4:47 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Tangle, posted 06-19-2014 3:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 64 of 108 (729768)
06-18-2014 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Porosity
06-18-2014 8:32 PM


The scripture implies that there were no polar ice caps before the Flood, they formed afterward.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Porosity, posted 06-18-2014 8:32 PM Porosity has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 8:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 69 by Porosity, posted 06-18-2014 9:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 108 (729769)
06-18-2014 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2014 8:38 PM


Water. Amount of oceans' worth. Why mention it at all if it's a mineral that never was and never will be water?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 8:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 9:21 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 67 of 108 (729771)
06-18-2014 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coyote
06-18-2014 8:58 PM


Science is wrong about whatever contradicts the Bible.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : BIG off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 8:58 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 73 of 108 (729782)
06-19-2014 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2014 9:21 PM


No-one said "it's a mineral that never was and never will be water".

Here are some possibly relevant statements from Wikipedia:

Ringwoodite in the lower half of the transition zone is inferred to play a pivotal role in mantle dynamics, and the plastic properties of ringwoodite are thought to be critical in determining flow of material in this part of the mantle. The solubility of hydroxide in ringwoodite is important because of the effect of hydrogen upon rheology.

Ringwoodite synthesized at conditions appropriate for the transition zone has been found to contain up to 2.6 weight percent water.[11][12]

Because the transition zone between the Earth’s upper and lower mantle helps govern the scale of mass and heat transport throughout the Earth, the presence of water within this region, whether global or localized, may have a significant effect on mantle rheology and therefore mantle circulation.[13] In regions of subduction zones, the ringwoodite stability field hosts high levels of seismicity.[14]

An ultra-deep diamond found in Juína, Brazil, contained inclusions of ringwoodite—the only known sample of natural terrestrial origin—thus providing evidence of significant amounts of water as hydroxide in the Earth's mantle.[5] The mantle reservoir is found to contain about three times more water, in the form of hydroxide contained within the ringwoodite crystal structure, than the Earth's oceans combined.[6]

Flow, solubility, percent of water "contained" in the rock and so on.

The blog entry that Moose posted also speaks of actual water occurring in various phases of the chemistry involved.

All I want to know is whether the enormous quantity of water contained in the ringwoodite was possibly ever actual water in such a quantity, that then became ringwoodite.

And by the way I haven't felt any need for an answer to this particular question about where the water went after the Flood as I've seen creationist answers that seem sufficient to me, having to do with the dropping of the sea floor. Which incidentally could be implicated in the turning of water into ringwoodite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 9:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2014 2:39 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 79 of 108 (729789)
06-19-2014 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Minnemooseus
06-19-2014 4:54 AM


Re: From the "on/off-topic fuzzy" zone
2) Is there a natural way to get that water to the surface, especially in "The Flood" time-frame? No. I would say that such would require a major miracle. As such, the mantle would be "a miraculous source".

If it is not to be said "miraculous source", then Faith needs to come up with a non-miraculous mechanism.

But I've said I'm not interested in getting the water to the surface since I have adequate explanations for how that could have happened in the Flood without the ringwoodite, I'm interested in whether the water held in the ringwoodite represents "where the water went" after the Flood. And to be clear, I'm also not terribly interested in this question either, since I think creationists have had sufficient answers to this one too, I'm simply pursuing it as an interesting alternative explanation.

And to this point the clearest answer I've received is Dr. A's flat "No" which he doesn't bother to explain.

One creationist explanation is that the sea floor dropped during the Flood, perhaps because of the emptying of the "fountains of the deep" which were part of its inauguration, which would have to be quite a drop to accommodate all the Flood water. Doesn't take us to the depth of the ringwoodite, though, but that's under the continent anyway isn't it?

To me it's still an interesting question what was the source of these "oceans" of water, also called a "reservoir" which you must admit is pretty watery terminology despite this water's being locked into this mineral called ringwoodite. The formation of olivine I get, but when "water" is added to it under great heat and pressure to create ringwoodite I have to picture, in fact, water, the wet stuff, H20 you know, and the fact that there had to be "oceans" of it to combine with the olivine to produce this mineral in the quantities described just raises all kinds of natural questions for a creationist, which I would think a fair evo might just gracefully recognize for a change.

And my answer to Tangle's off-topic question is the same one I already gave for the reason I already gave: No.

ABE: OH, AND THANK YOU FOR POLICING THIS THREAD.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : change "course" to "source"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-19-2014 4:54 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2014 5:47 AM Faith has replied
 Message 95 by Tangle, posted 06-19-2014 8:47 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 101 by Porosity, posted 06-19-2014 7:11 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 80 of 108 (729790)
06-19-2014 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dr Adequate
06-19-2014 2:39 AM


Flow

Of the mantle.

Due to the water content of the ringwoodite. Suggests an actual liquid wateriness.

solubility

Of hydroxide in ringwoodite.

Suggests an actual liquid wateriness that can occur.

All I want to know is whether the enormous quantity of water contained in the ringwoodite was possibly ever actual water in such a quantity

No. There was never that amount of liquid water just sloshing about in bulk. If I have correctly understood your question, that is the answer.

Uh huh, well "No" is nice and clear as far as it goes, but I wonder if you might be so kind as to explain how you arrived at this conclusion that it could not ever have been actual water that combined with the olivine under such enormous heat and pressure to make the ringwoodite in the quantities now found, which seems to retain some ability to become liquiddy under some circumstances, which implies that it is indeed a sort of watery thing that had a watery source and if there is oceans' worth of this watery stuff it just still remains a question how all that water got there in the first place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2014 2:39 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by JonF, posted 06-19-2014 7:57 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 108 (729792)
06-19-2014 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dr Adequate
06-19-2014 5:47 AM


Re: From the "on/off-topic fuzzy" zone
Neither answered the question before and they don't answer it now either. In 35 you are emphasizing the fact that the water is not in water form, and yet my sources recently quoted do suggest that it does have or can revert to a watery form under certain circumstances. I get your point about the pressure too but what about the situation where there is space for the water to flow into at that depth? What happens to the water then?

ABE: Say the dropping of the sea floor. It wouldn't create space of course, the water would just drop with it.

ABE: HERE"S ANOTHER STAB AT THE QUESTION I KEEP TRYING TO GET ASKED:

To form ringwoodite from olivine DOES REQUIRE WATER, does it not? I mean it is formed FROM water. So there had to be that much water available to form that much ringwoodite from the olivine. The question is how it came to be that there was that much water at that depth?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2014 5:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2014 6:31 AM Faith has replied
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2014 6:48 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 108 (729796)
06-19-2014 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dr Adequate
06-19-2014 6:31 AM


Re: From the "on/off-topic fuzzy" zone
Sorry, I added a couple of edits apparently after you copied out the post. Please see if they change anything in your answer. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2014 6:31 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 108 (729798)
06-19-2014 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dr Adequate
06-19-2014 6:48 AM


Re: From the "on/off-topic fuzzy" zone
I object to your characterization of creationist explanations as "magicking" anything, which is something you love to do. I think you should get a moderator's slap on the wrist -- or better across the jowls -- for that. In discussing the mechanisms of the Flood there is never any reason to invoke anything supernatural or miraculous and I never do.

As for your supposed answer, post 41 is just some kind of joke so I didn't pay much attention to it. However, apparently you meant this much seriously:

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.

Whatever is whizzing around the Solar System could just as well have been the product of the Flood as whatever happened on earth. Ice would have been formed on the earth after the Flood, not before.

ABE: Perhaps it would be clearer to say it was the product of the whole scenario of which the Flood was the major event on Earth.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2014 6:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 06-19-2014 7:13 AM Faith has replied
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2014 12:30 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 108 (729800)
06-19-2014 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by NoNukes
06-19-2014 7:13 AM


Re: From the "on/off-topic fuzzy" zone
If Moose will give you a punch in the chops for that I'll gladly take one for responding to it.

It's not off topic, it's just false, devious and mean.

As for where rain comes from, why don't all you know-it-alls at least acknowledge the one basic fact of the creationist position which is that THINGS WERE DIFFERENT BACK THEN. The Biblical position is that there had been no rain at all prior to that forty days and forty nights, that the water was suspended in the "firmament" overhead and the earth was watered by a "mist." Rain as we know it was only possible after the Flood when the familiar cycles were established.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 06-19-2014 7:13 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by JonF, posted 06-19-2014 8:00 AM Faith has replied
 Message 93 by jar, posted 06-19-2014 8:42 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 97 by nwr, posted 06-19-2014 9:12 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 100 by NoNukes, posted 06-19-2014 4:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 91 of 108 (729803)
06-19-2014 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by JonF
06-19-2014 7:57 AM


Read the two references I gave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by JonF, posted 06-19-2014 7:57 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by JonF, posted 06-19-2014 8:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 92 of 108 (729804)
06-19-2014 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by JonF
06-19-2014 8:00 AM


Re: From the "on/off-topic fuzzy" zone
Who gives a damn what you think YECs should think. I don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by JonF, posted 06-19-2014 8:00 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by JonF, posted 06-19-2014 9:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 108 (729842)
06-19-2014 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Porosity
06-19-2014 7:11 PM


Re: From the "on/off-topic fuzzy" zone
Unfortunately I just can't understand what you are trying to say in that post. Can you make it easier to understand?

Edited by Faith, : Basically rewrote it. First version sounded confrontational which I didn't intend.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Porosity, posted 06-19-2014 7:11 PM Porosity has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022