Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)

A couple of comments/questions.Your reading of these articles seems a bit selective. Did you skip some sections? Do you understand how this water is bound in the mantle?This is not exactly free water. Getting the water out of the mantle is basically a chemical reactions and getting back in is another.How do you propose to liberate 6 billion cubic miles of water from compounds in the mantle, and then put them all back in one year?This should be good.

quote:

---

Actually, I did read the articles. Did you?

---

Actually, I have read a couple of these over the last year.

quote:

---

Obviously this is pretty new science since they are changing their understanding of the evolution of the earth. Here is one quote:

---

Hmmm, I didn't see anything about a global flood in there... Maybe I missed it.

quote:

---

If you read through the articles, you would see that the only chemical reaction that is necessary to free up this water would be evaporation. Here is another quote from the researchers:

---

Ummm, no. They say nothing about evaporation. They say 'heating'. There is a big difference. Maybe you should read more carefully.

quote:

---

Science has now determined that there is a lot of water in the ocean floor,

---

Not quite. It is in the mantle. The ocean floor is something entirely different.

quote:

---

... and below the crust of the earth. They estimate this water to be significantly more than what exists on the surface. One estimate is that there is ten times more water under the surface than the total volume of water on the surface of the planet. The crust is only a few miles thick under the oceans, and it is very brittle and fragmented. The heat in the earth has the ability to separate this water from the rocks where it is imbedded.

---

Please show us how this happened. Why are island arc tholeites some of the driest magmas on earth?

quote:

---

The only chemical reaction required is evaporation. The water could then be cooled by the oceans after being liberated from the rocks.

---

No. To what medium would the water evaporate? Why is it not going on now? Why did it not happen before the flood? How do you put the water back into the mantle?

quote:

---

There is enough water on the earth today to easily account for the amount that was necessary for a world wide flood. The water is being liberated from the rock on a continual basis through the process of evaporation as we speak.

---

Ooops! You mean there is a flood going on and I missed it? And certainly there is enough water, but you would have to sterliized the planet to liberate it and bring it to the surface. THEN you would have to return it to the mantle somehow. Please explain.

quote:

---

As the Bible says, “all the fountains of the great deep were opened up.” I think it is interesting that the Bible has something to say about this significant reservoir of water under the oceans thousands of years before scientists ever found it. I hope that the day comes that science catches up with the Bible in other areas too

---

So, what fountains are you talking about?

quote:

---

I am convinced that the water for the flood has been found under the crust of this planet.

---

Actually, you are forced by religious reasons to believe this to be the case.

quote:

---

It was possible for this water to flood the entire surface.

---

No, it does not follow. This water is chemically bound to silcate minerals in the mantle. For instance, do you know that the biotite crystals sitting on your bookshelf are partly water? What do you think it would take to liberate that water? Evaporation? Not likely.Remember you have to do this to a substantial amount of the mantle in order to get your water. So, say it is liberated, now you have to transport that water to a 'fountain' at the mid-ocean ridge. How do you do that? There is no evidence for widespread fountains on the oceanic crust. Okay, so you have to do this in one year, less than that, in fact. How much heat do you think that would take?But then okay, say it could happen... Just how do you get that water back into the mantle? HOw do you rehydrated a significant part of the planet, particularly when it is already quite hot?Sorry, but this dog won't hunt.

quote:

---

I have not had the time to examine the other evidence.

---

Well, ignoring data would make it easy to create a fantastic theory about a flood.

quote:

---

I do not know about all the geology, and the fossils, and whatever else you guys debate about related to the flood.

---

It would seem to be important if you are going to discuss geological processes. But this doesn't seem to have stopped you so far.

quote:

---

I hope to have the time in the future to look into those areas. As for now, this analysis rebukes the statement that was made at the beginning of this thread that there is not enough water on this planet to flood the earth.

---

Actually, there is a major difference between water and available water. You have not made your point.

Actually, not. Most of that water is not on the earth, but in the earth. And it's relevance to water on the surface (a global flood) is completely irrelevant. You cannot tell us how that water was liberated, nor how it was transported to the mid-ocean ridges, nor how the water was returned to the mantle. YOu have run from these questions through over 80 posts now and it has become obvious that you have no idea and you have no intention of serious discussion. What is your point? Why have you avoided my questions?

Then you are saying that you don't have a point? After all the title of this thread suggests that it is about a global flood. But not that it did so. So where is this evidence for a global flood? Semantics.

quote:

---

The only thing that matters to the discussion is that the water exists. That is what the discussion was about.

---

Then you agree that this is not evidence for a global flood? I don't get your point here.

quote:

---

Question for you: Does the water exist? If not why did the paper get published.

---

In the context of this board, no. Now if you want to discuss geochemistry or petrochemistry, sure, there's a ton of water. But this does not constitute evidence for a flood. That would be like saying well, there's enough water in the solar system. It's a sterile argument. Completely meaningless. If this is the kind of argument you want to be known for, well, fine. I could say there's enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to kill every animal on the surface of the earth. So what?

This is reaching, however. If the average person picked up a chunk of amphibolite and put it on his table, he or she would not consider it to be a puddle of water. Most of us do not see hydroxyl radicals as 'water'. Certainly YECs don't, if we take Walt Brown and others at their word. Not to be too picky, but the opening post did say 'to cover the earth'. The chemistry of mantle water means that it is not possible to do so. This is a very typical case of YEC taking an isolated fact and ignoring all of the surrounding evidence to support a mythical flood.

quote:

---

I have read that the ocean crust is saturated with water.

---

If it is, it's seawater. But this is not completely true. Mid-ocean ridge basalts, as they are erupted, are some of the driest rocks on the planet. Now you are suggesting that the water was once on the surface. I though this was not your point.

quote:

---

You can find those links yourself. It seems that I have been doing a lot of research, and it is ignored.

---

It seems that you have taken an isolated fact and ignored the surrounding evidence, if you are suggesting that all of that water was once on the surface of the earth. Maybe more research would help.

quote:

---

If you want to try to prove that the water in the ocean crust, and the water in the upper mantle, and the water in the lower mantle, and the water everywhere else on the earth could not have contributed to a global flood, then give me the calculations.

---

I guess all of the protests that you are not arguing for a global flood just collapsed. Sorry, but if this is what you want to do, then you need to answer a few questions. Like how are you going to liberate that water without sterilizing the planet? Do you think that water would be the only thing liberated?

quote:

---

However, when you make the calcuations use all the water that is on the earth. If the water scientifically cannot make it to the surface then explain why. Give evidence. That is what I have been doing.

---

And we have given you evidence that this is impossible. You have conceded this point by not addressing the questions at hand. You have also hidden behind the semantic argument that you were just proving the OP wrong. Now you are unmasked.

quote:

---

And, if you leave any of the water out of your calculations, I will try to find it. That is what Rahvin did. He left five or ten times the amount of water that is on the surface of the earth out of his calculations.

---

Well, it seemed like the right thing to do since that water is not available to you. You may as well include the water on Jupiter in your calculations.

quote:

---

Actually, this subject interests me. Maybe I should have been a scientist.

---

I don't recommend it. To be a true scientist you need to have powers of critical analysis. In this case you have taken the fact that there is water bound in mantle minerals and assumed that they could fuel a global flood. There is no evidence that this could happen. It would be like my saying, 'there is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so it should have killed all terrestrial creatures'.

quote:

---

Also when you are doing your calculations do not forget the recent study that has shown that a significant amount of the water in the mantle is coming up through the ocean floor on an annual basis.

---

Not really. Most of that water is circulating seawater. This is know isotopically.

quote:

---

Because, I will challenge your calculation. Now you explain to me how that is coming from the lower mantle.

---

Even the 'juvenile' water is probably not coming from the lower mantle. The mantle is a big place.

quote:

---

You can find the link for that study yourself.

---

Been there, done that.

quote:

---

Maybe it is time to concede that the water is here, and move on to something else.

---

If you add the phrase, 'but it has nothing to do with a global flood,' I might just do that. The problem you have is that your constant references to the flood and the 5 oceans worth of water, you give away your agenda.

quote:

---

This is new science.

---

Not all that new or all that surprising.

quote:

---

By the time you make your calculations, scientists may find twenty more oceans full of water right under the ocean floor.

---

Sure. Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.

quote:

---

I agree that the water found in the mantle is not available. But neither is all the water in the atmosphere and the ice caps. Rhavin was willing to count water that was unavailable in his OP, then people jump on Wumpini for doing the same thing.

---

Maybe Rhavin was being generous in order to make calculations easier. In fact I think there was a statement to that effect.

quote:

---

It seems obvious to me that the argument Rhavin was trying to make was that even if we took all the unavailable water in the Earth, there still isn't enough.

---

Well, that wasn't my interpretation. I'd hate to put words in R's mouth.

quote:

---

That argument is what Wumpini was arguing, and that argument is what should be defended. If we agree that Wumpini has found water, and that the volume is enough, then we can move to another thread and argue its availability.

---

You really think that Wumpini is just making a sterile point. Sorry, but there are too many references to the flood, including the title of the OP for this to be an isolated argument.

quote:

---

Enough water for a global flood to have taken place.

​

Nothing about the global flood taking place.

---

Well, it was ICANT who wrote this: There is clear reference to a global flood and its possibility.

quote:

---

The water exists concession time.

---

Do you think water is a compound? Just what is it?

quote:

---

This is a debate forum and Rahvin should have though his position a little better. Had he included the flood taking place that would be another story.

---

Perhaps, but few people will think of hydrated peridotites as water. In fact, AFAICT, most YECs believe in subcrustal caverns containing water.

Actually, as I trace the titles of posts backward, the origin of the "Where did the water come from" title seems to have come from Wumpini in post #32. This clearly implies an attempt to show where water for the flood came from. Now, if there is another place where it was going, I'd sure like to know.

Okay. Maybe then, you will answer my question: 'what is water'?

That is why I am asking what he determines water to be. That is how it is calculated, but that's like saying K2O is the same as potassium feldspar. So if I say a rock has a certain amount of CaO in it, you would think that calcium oxide actually occurs as a discreet compound? As I have said several times, I have read some of the early articles. The refer to hydrated minerals. Such compounds are not normally considered to be 'water'. As I remember, in fact, they did not really refer to the entire mantle, either. That was an extrapolation from the area beneath eastern Asia(?) where we would expect to have more water injected into the mantle from the Japan-Kuriles subduction zone.I actually have no quarrel with you except that I think ICANT and Wumpini have opened themselves up to the origin of water for the flood argument. I believe there is a clear line of logic to that effect. If you wish to disagree, that is fine with me. However, if you are criticizing people with a different opinion, you might expect some questions about your reasoning.

When you convince me that "where does the water come from" has something to with a thing other than the biblical flood, I will make a stab at it. However, I will have to suspend my reason if I include mantle water in the calculation. Actually it was a bit more than that, IIRC.

quote:

---

I do not argue whether the flood took place or not. I believe it did but for it to take place it would take a miracle.

---

Well, believe me, that would be the only available option if you were to liberate that much water from the mantle to create a flood.

quote:

---

Scientificly they do not exist. Therefore I don't argue the point.

---

You may argue this all you want, but the constant references to the flood indicate that you support the concept with the presence of 'water' in the mantel.

quote:

---

I was informed that if what is present was extracted to actually cause the flood that the flood would be the least of the problems.

---

Well, in this, you are correct. So a miracle it must be.

quote:

---

That is their problem.

---

Then you should distance yourself from this flood myth.

quote:

---

The 5 scientist that did the research said there was enough water to cover the earth well above Mt Everest. I have no way of disputing them.

---

They were not writing posts on an EvC board.

quote:

---

You can if you desire.

---

I would be glad to if they come here. Let me know. The whole problem is that they are not debating evolution and that is what this board is all about.

Umm, no. It is not H2O. It is OH.

quote:

---

... under the surface of this planet. Since that time, there has been repeated assertions that this water is not available.

---

If they are just assertions, you should refute them.

quote:

---

As ICANT and Perdition have indicated that was not the direction of this thread. Rahvin made his initial calculations in the OP that made the conclusion that there was not enough water anywhere on the planet to cover the earth by 15 meters.

---

What is water?

quote:

---

I adjusted the terrain of the earth, and used the water in his calculation to cover the earth. He did not complain about me using unavailable water in that post. He complained about me adjusting the terrain of the earth. I was not allowed to make any assumptions that would affect the earth as if a flood would take place.

---

But why would you start taking about "where the water came from"? Why did there have to be water and where was it going? Are you saying that this thread has nothing to do with a flood?

quote:

---

So, now I have taken a completely different approach and left the earth alone and found enough water (whether you want to call it available or unavailable) to cover the earth. Now you tell me that there is only certain water that I can use. However, I have not been told how much of this water I am allowed to use. I think the answer would be that I can use as much as I want as long as it doesn't flood the earth. This entire thread is beginning to bore me.

---

Me too. It has taken on this surreal tone of acting an a vacuum where the word 'flood' in the thread title is suddenly irrelevant.

quote:

---

If you go back and look at the research, you will see that a significant amount of this water under the earth was on the surface at one time.

---

Not really. It was in both places and circulated back and forth. This is still going on today. There has never been any evidence that all of the hydrogen oxide compounds were on the surface or inside the mantle at any given time in the past.

quote:

---

Actually, all of your protests that the water is not available have led me to conclude that many are not interested in the OP of this thread. I really am only learning how you guys do things. I am not very impressed. I have repeatedly stated over and over, that if the concession is made that the water is here then we can go on and make calculations as to whether it is scientifically possible or impossible for this water to flood the earth. That is not part of the OP. Coragyps has repeatedly brought up his comments about the availability of the water, and a problem with heat. If he wants to use all of the water on the earth in his calculations, then in my opinion, the result will be that he will discount the OP himself. His calculations may indicate that all of the water is not available, but his calculations will also indicate that the volume of water necessary to cover the earth is present. They are two separate and distinct arguments.

---

The problem is that this comes from the typical YEC procedure of isolating facts and then making sweeping statements about the status of the univers. I am still wondering why the opening post referred to a flood and the you started describing 'where the water came from'. Clearly the water did NOT come from where you say it did.

quote:

---

I have not conceded any point. I have not even begun to argue that point. All of the arguments about the availability of water up until now have been the opinions of those on this forum.

---

If you can refute those opinions please proceed.

quote:

---

Those opinions have not been supported by scientific evidence. What you forget is that I have not been a part of your little family. I have never seen or heard any of your arguments. Maybe there is a scientific basis for some of those arguments, but sources have not been given. I have repeatedly given sources, explanations, and links for my arguments. Where are yours?

---

Actually, your argument about 'where the water came from' are not supported by your own references. If you come up with a credible source that says 'the water for a biblical flood came from the mantle', I will then begin to actually debate. At this point it is fairly common sense that hydroxyl radicals in silicate minerals are not a ready source for water without major revisions in the earth's history that likely exclude any life on the planet.

quote:

---

It appears that you think through repetition of your unsupported claims a concession will be made. Proof by assertion.

---

Actually, at this point, you are the one making assertions. You have made the equivalent of the statement that, "Aha, there is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so it must have killed all life on earth at one time!"

quote:

---

I do not need to hide behind anything. Everything is in the open.

---

That is open to question.

quote:

---

Why don't you go back and read through the last few pages of posts and see who is acting like the true scientist.

---

Are you asking who is drawing unwarrented conclusions? In that case, the it is clear.

quote:

---

Look at my posts, and then look at some of those who oppose me. I have done research (a lot of it), I have given statements summarizing that research based upon my understanding, and then I have made conclusions based upon that work.

---

But your research does not support 'where the water came from'. You can do all of the research you want, but if you ignore certain facts that disagree with your religious position it is still not science. This reminds me of the YEC tracts that make a huge point of documenting their ideas with pages of references.

quote:

---

All through this, I have given you every single link that supports every statement that I have made.

---

They do not support your conclusion of 'where the water came from', however.

quote:

---

No one had to look for this information.

---

Actually, I did have to look for some information. I wanted to confirm that the water is bound as hydroxyl and that it needs to undergo a chemical transformation prior to becoming water.

quote:

---

I gave the quote, the link, my summarization, and my conclusion all within a few lines of each other. Even with all that, I am attacked and called all kinds of names, including a liar.

---

Well, you'll need to talk to someone else about that. I just think you misunderstand the issues.

quote:

---

I can assure you that those visitors who are reading this thread can tell who is acting in a more scientific manner.

---

And they will also see who is drawing unwarranted conclusions.

quote:

---

You say this is known. Although, I have repeatedly given you links that over the past few years scientists are finding out what they thought they know is not what they know. So, are you saying this is what they used to know (the earth is flat), or this is what they know now (the earth is a sphere). Do you have any support for your statements? I think if you go back through my links, you may find some support, but you may reach different conclusions.

---

It's pretty basic chemistry. And I believe I gave you a link about the seawater. If not I will try to track one down later. However, your point that some thermal vents are at almost zero centigrade suggests that there is a huge influx of seawater into the rising hydrothermal fluids; unles you want to deny that there is a positive geothermal gradient at the mid-ocean ridges...

quote:

---

You say this water is probably not coming from the lower mantle. Is this your opinion, or is this another scientific fact?

---

It is a logical conclusion based on some of my graduate work. The only real sources of water would be juvenile magmatic or recycled seawater. Since the mantle has been turning over for billions of years, it is likely the much water has been taken in at the subduction zones or through cracks in the crust; and that much of the original juvenile water has been outgassed over time. Now the water may have traversed the lower mantle, but it is probably dissociated in the upper mantle. The problem you have is that mid-ocean ridge basalts are actually quite dry by most geological standards. They are only saturated with water once they come into contact with downward percolating seawater. In fact, that is how the basalts are sodium-altered. There is very littel sodium in fresh basalt, but most of the oceanic crust (basalt derived from the upper mantle) has sodium added. This is a much more complex system than you imagine.

quote:

---

It appears that you are not that interested in the science.

---

I am not interested in misusing science.

quote:

---

You are more interested in making sure that anything I bring into this forum is discounted.

---

Well you are the one who suggested 'where the water came from'. I am only disagreeing.

quote:

---

However, some out there who have been reading this thread actually seem to be interested in this new research regarding the study of the mantle.

---

It is interesting but has nothing to do with "Does the evidence support the flood?"

quote:

---

Basically, what I think these researchers are saying is that we have water going down into the mantle through the subduction of tetonic plates of 900 teragrams per year. About 200 teragrams per year comes out of the mantle through volcanic activity. It appears they believe the other 700 teragrams per year comes through the ocean floor. This is the amount they indicate at the present time. This appears to be another change in their way of thinking. This change in thinking may be related to the quote that, "... the recent recognition that quantities of water equivalent to several ocean volumes may be stored in the uppermost mantle ..."

---

No problem here. However, I fail to see where they think that all of that stored water would have been on the surface of the earth at one time.

quote:

---

Notice that it says the uppermost mantle and not the lower mantle,

---

Just as I suspected.

quote:

---

...and that it says several oceans volumes.

---

And there are probably many cubic miles of magnesium in the mantle; probably several oceans worth. Does that mean that the magnesium was ever on the surface of the earth? I'm just writing logic here.

quote:

---

Do not accuse me of quote mining. Take the time to read the article. I am not familiar with scientific journals, but this appears to be a pretty good one. At least they use a lot of big words.

---

And some of us understand them.

quote:

---

There appears to be a significant pathway for water from the upper mantle into the oceans. There also appears to be a significant volume of water in the upper mantle. You can make your own conclusions.

---

But there are limits to those conclusions. I have read the statements and they only confirm my suspicions. The water is bound in hydrous aluminosilicates. That means that the water is not 'water' as one would expect in a flood. There would be a couple of chemical reactions to get it to the liquid phase. There for this coudl not be 'where the water came from'.

quote:

---

It is a scientific fact that there is enough water on the ENTIRE planet to Flood the Earth.

---

No. Most of that 'water' is not on the earth. It is in the earth and there is no evidence that the mantle was dry and all the water had fled to the surface.

quote:

---

I have proven my point. I have repeatedly asked for the one who proposed this argument to concede that it has been discounted. I do not have to change the wording of anything. Why should I need to change the argument that has been presented by saying that it has nothing to do with a global flood. Rahvin's argument has everything to do with a global flood. Look at the argument. Flood the Earth as claimed in the Bible. Global Flood. The same thing.

---

Well it is a rather limited point and does not provide evidence to support a flood. Nor does it make sense that this is 'where the water came from'. I am glad that you are not taking this out of context as some here would seem to desire. We ARE talking about a biblical flood and supporting evidence for it. If you are to say that this water exists, but is not evidence for a global flood, we could just agree and walk away.

quote:

---

As I said, I have become bored by the personal attacks upon myself, by the assertions that are made by participants without evidence, and by the failure of those whose arguments are refuted to admit those facts.

---

I do not believe that I have attacked you. That is, unless you feel so attached to your arguments that they are an extension of yourself.

quote:

---

If someone wants to argue other elements of a global flood besides the OP of this thread than I will consider participating in another thread. Considering the personal attacks, and the lack of scientific objectivity that I have seen in this thread, I may choose not to participate.

---

Well, I apologize for the stridency of my side, but you must understand that we all have seen these same old arguments year in and year out and have likewise repeatedly had our intelligence assaulted.

quote:

---

Once again edge you have not disappointed me. You give not one reference to any scientific source. The only source that you give is yourself.

---

Actually, they are your sources. If a hydrated mineral exists at high temperatures, they most likely contain hydroxyl and not water.

quote:

---

You are not treating this as a scientific thread. You make this statement without any scientific source.

---

Tell ya what. Why not consider me to be your scientific source until you've had an igneous and metamorphic petrology class.

quote:

---

Where is the source? What does the statement mean? Do you even know what it means? I don't think so.

---

Well, one of my committee members was one of the best known petrologists in the country.

quote:

---

Every scientific article that I have quoted calls this substance under the surface water.

---

Yah, well, when that's how it's reported chemically, it would be the easiest way to talk about it. But that's kinda what happens when you get a bunch of geophysicists(?) talking about rocks anyway. Now if they said there was a lot of calcium in those rocks (reported as CaO) would you expect to see pure calcium deposits if you could see these rocks? Or maybe pure CaO?

quote:

---

They all give the notation of H2O.

---

And with enough heat, you could drive the the hydroxyl out at water. The key would be a metamorphic reaction.

quote:

---

Now you are saying that all of these articles are wrong? Are you saying that when scientists say water, they do not mean water? Are you saying that when water becomes stored in something it is no longer water?

---

Sure. And yes, just like calcium would be stored as something other than pure calcium.

quote:

---

For example, if I spill some water and use a sponge to wipe it up, is it still water?

---

If you did not bind it with something like calcium sulfate, sure.

quote:

---

How about if there is some dirt on the ground, and I pour water into that dirt? Does the water cease to be water when it is put in the dirt? What if the water evaporates from the dirt into the air? Is it still water?

---

What is left behind may not be water.

quote:

---

What if it freezes? Exactly what form must H2O be in for you to call it water? Later you ask the question "what is water?" I do not think you know.

---

Unfortunately for you we are not freezing water or evaporating it when we produce new compound with it.

quote:

---

What do you think these dense hydrous aluminum silicates are? It is a clay (like dirt), and it is storing oceans full of water. Not hydroxyl oxide, but H2O.

---

No, these are probably high temperature hydrated minerals or dissolve hydroxide in magma. However, I must say that these articles do not mention any mineral phases. This is a bit disturbing to me. In other words, they don't really know what is goind on. They have geophysical models but nothing to pin them on.

quote:

---

If you read what the real scientists have written then you will see that they have studied this much more than you have. They have proposed a metamorphic fluid transportion system of this water from the surface from its initial subduction at the tetonic plates throughout the mantle and then circulating back up through volcanic activity and ocean crust permeation. At times during this process it appears that the water bonds with certain minerals. At other times it is released from those minerals through vaporization. It depends upon where the water is in the fluid transportation system. Scientists have seemed to figure this out.

---

Wumpini, do you actualy understand what these authors are saying? They are not really discussing the inventory of water in the mantle. They are talking about the water balance from subducting boundaries compared to divergent boundaries. The actually say nothing about how the water is bound in the mantle. Not a bit. 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.

quote:

---

Do you see that there are changes as the water goes through the system? However, if you look we still have H2O and by definition that is water.

---

Read carefully. Do you see the words 'as hydroxide'? Do you also see the words 'anhydrous basalt containing 0.2 wt% water'? 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'.

quote:

---

You ask later, "What is water?" Well by definition it is H2O in whatever form and in whatever storage mechanism you find it. That is why the scientists in all of the articles call it water.

---

Ah, but that is not what you find in chemically bound water. So, take amphibole (Ca2(Mg,Fe,Al)5(Al,Si)8O22(OH)2). Do you see H20 in this formula? Yes there is 'water' there but it is not the same compound as H2O, is it?

quote:

---

I guess this is a philosophical question. If I had to ponder an answer then I would say H2O, and it is the stuff that all these scientists are saying is under the surface of the earth.

---

You have a very interesting and unconventional dictionary...

quote:

---

Who ever said that all of this water was in one place?

---

Well, if there was a global flood with 5 oceans worth of water at the surface and it came from the mantle ('where did the water come from', remember?), then a substantial part of the mantle would have to have been dehydrated. Can you even imagine the amount of energy it would take to do this?

quote:

---

Do you have any idea how deep this water would be if you placed it all on the surface of the planet?

---

Sure, but we couldn't do that. Partly because it is not water.

quote:

---

Do the calculations.

---

Why? This is a completely silly notion. Why do you not calculated the energy necessary to change millions of cubic miles of high-temperature hydrous minerals to anhydrous species.

quote:

---

I used half of what some are projecting and came up with a figure of over 13,000 meters. If you doubled that for the more agressive speculations, then you would have 26,000 meters. How deep is that? This would be between three and ten miles ABOVE Mt Everest depending upon which calculation you used. We don't need all that water on the surface. I am sure it has never all been in one place.

---

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?

quote:

---

If you are going to contradict all of these scientists, then you really should give us some details.

---

Actually, if they read this thread, they would agree with me. Besides, it appears that many of your sources are from geophysicists. Nice folks, but they work with models. It would be rare for one of them to have ever touched a mantle-derived rock.

quote:

---

Are these hydrogen oxide compounds considered water when they are on the surface?

---

No, they are a separate compound.

quote:

---

At what depth does this water turn into something other than water?

---

It can happen fairly close to the surface. Zeolites and gypsum have true water in them, though still chemically bound. I believe that at about 300-350C, the hydroxides begin to form in prograde metamorphic reactions. I good igneous petrologist could probably tell you off the top of his head.Are you sure that all of that stuff that scientists are calling water under the surface of the earth is not water? Why are you right and all of the real scientists wrong?

quote:

---

If you are right and all of their papers are wrong then give your references. If not then apologize to the real scientists who have done all the research in this area.

---

If you read their papers, they talk about chemically bound water. They admit that the water is bound.

quote:

---

You have turned this into a child's game. You give no scientific facts, and no sources. Your entire focus is to discount whatever I say with whatever method, and it does not seem to include any credible scientific evidence.

---

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.

quote:

---

I am finished playing this game. I believe that Rahvin has decided that he wants to join you in your theory, so maybe you two can play together.

---

That's fine with me. It would probably be a good way for you to avoid further embarrassment, so I recommend it. This thread is obviously going nowhere as long as you refuse to listen.