Author
|
Topic: Beijing Anomaly
|
Dirk
Member (Idle past 4344 days) Posts: 84 Joined: 08-20-2010
|
|
Message 1 of 10 (685119)
12-20-2012 11:58 AM
|
|
|
I was browsing a little bit on EvolutionFairytale (for those who can still access that site, see here) when I came across a link to something called the Beijing Anomaly (also here), which they use as argument in favor of the "fountains of the deep". I decided to look it up and found this paper on it. However, when I search for "Beijing Anomaly" on Google Scholar, I don't get any relevant hits (not even a link to this paper), which makes it somewhat suspect. When I put it into regular Google, I mostly get hits to creationist sites. It's also not referenced on Talkorigins and I couldn't find a thread on it here. Anyone with a better understanding of geology than me care to comment on this? Edited by Dirk, : No reason given. Edited by Dirk, : link to eft
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13140 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002
|
|
Message 2 of 10 (685121)
12-20-2012 3:38 PM
|
|
|
Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Beijing Anomaly thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
TrueCreation
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 3 of 10 (685171)
12-20-2012 6:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Dirk 12-20-2012 11:58 AM
|
|
The published version of that paper can be found here: http://qcn.stanford.edu/...ession_AGU_Monograph_Mantle_Q.pdf Linking elevated water (i.e. hydrogen) concentrations in the mantle related to deep dehydration of subducting slabs (or hydrated slabs at depth) to the biblical story of 'fountains of the deep', makes no sense.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by Dirk, posted 12-20-2012 11:58 AM | | Dirk has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 12-20-2012 8:57 PM | | TrueCreation has not replied | | Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2012 9:05 PM | | TrueCreation has not replied | | Message 8 by jar, posted 12-21-2012 4:26 PM | | TrueCreation has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 1055 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Water trapped at 0.2 or 0.3% in 1000C rock several hundred km deep doesn't, indeed, seem like a real good candidate for fueling "fountains of the deep." Maybe, just maybe, "superheated geysers from the deep" after a big asteroid strike, but it would not be real pretty....
This message is a reply to: | | Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 6:32 PM | | TrueCreation has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
The published version of that paper can be found here: http://qcn.stanford.edu/...ession_AGU_Monograph_Mantle_Q.pdf Linking elevated water (i.e. hydrogen) concentrations in the mantle related to deep dehydration of subducting slabs (or hydrated slabs at depth) to the biblical story of 'fountains of the deep', makes no sense. But they both involve water! That's proof.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 6:32 PM | | TrueCreation has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 6 by AZPaul3, posted 12-21-2012 3:08 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8711 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 5.0
(1)
|
|
|
|
Wonder
I often wonder if those creationists who look for all these scientific answers to how the flud could have happened, where the water came from and where it went, realize that what they are attempting is to show how their god was not necessary to the process. Should we tell them? Naa. Edited by AZPaul3, : spln
This message is a reply to: | | Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2012 9:05 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2012 4:19 PM | | AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 7 of 10 (685310)
12-21-2012 4:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by AZPaul3 12-21-2012 3:08 PM
|
|
Re: Wonder
I've told them repeatedly. Someone on these forums (I forget who) has my comments on this subject as his signature.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 6 by AZPaul3, posted 12-21-2012 3:08 PM | | AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 159 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Is there an anomaly?
I can't quite figure out what is supposed to be anomalous in those papers. What is it that is unique in this case when compared to other subduction zones? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to: | | Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 6:32 PM | | TrueCreation has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
|
|
|
|
|
Message 9 of 10 (685313)
12-21-2012 4:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by jar 12-21-2012 4:26 PM
|
|
Re: Is there an anomaly?
I can't quite figure out what is supposed to be anomalous in those papers. Nothing. "Anomaly" in geology doesn't mean the same thing as it means in the philosophy of science --- in geology, an anomaly is just a reading which is different from the average or background signal. So the answer to this question ...
What is it that is unique in this case when compared to other subduction zones? ... is, again, nothing. All active subduction zones have anomalies associated with them, because the slab of crust sinking into the mantle looks different from the mantle. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 8 by jar, posted 12-21-2012 4:26 PM | | jar has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 10 by jar, posted 12-21-2012 4:36 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 159 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Is there an anomaly?
I know that but could you perhaps repeat it in big flashing letters for those who MIGHT actually read this thread? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to: | | Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2012 4:29 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|