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

Though changes in temperature and/or pressure (prograde or retrograde metamorphism), is it possible to get water out of a hydrated mineral? Can that OH be freed and combined with an H, such as from another (OH)?Point of discussion - Goethite -Now I know this isn't a mantle mineral, but it is a hydrated mineral {FeO(OH)}. From the above Wikipedia cite:

quote:

---

Goethite often forms through the weathering of other iron-rich minerals,...

---

I'm presuming that prograde metamorphism of Goethite would yield water. Am I wrong?What about mantle mineral(s) containing such a (OH)?MooseNote: Fixed error pointed out in next message.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Changed "is it possible to get water out of a hydrated mineral? Can that OH be freed and combined with an O" to "is it possible to get water out of a hydrated mineral? Can that OH be freed and combined with an H, such as from another (OH)" - Doh!

Thanks for the link - Nice page. I did have a metamorphic petrology class 30+ years ago, but I wasn't that strong on the material back then, much less now. I fully agree with you that considerations of mantle composition is rather voodoo geology.I make no claim to having assimilated the information presented in this topic. It, however, has been supported that there is (maybe?) a vast amount of water (as (OH)) in the mantle. If God executed a miracle and got that water cooled and to the surface, perhaps it could have done "the great flood". Then another miracle would be needed to put the water back.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.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Change ID.

My "bolding".I'm calling you on that "bolded" part. The Earth's continents have been flooded to considerably deeper than 15 cubits above the current sea levels (which is what I presume you mean by "above even the continental shelves".We have Cretaceous (65 to 145 million years ago) marine deposits in northern Minnesota. That is currently 1000+ feet above sea level. I think said topography was about the same during the Cretaceous - Said rocks are underlain by the preCambrian shield.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

​

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

The geologic history of the Earth is made up with a vast (to say the least) number of details. Those details add up to an old Earth.Now, the old Earth is science's big picture, as opposed to most creationists big picture of a young Earth.The science side here is looking at the evidence or lack of evidence of a recent (last 5000 year) detail of a worldwide flood, in the context of an old Earth. Evidence for such a flood is a detail not to be found amongst all those vast details of paragraph 1.So, when the science side views the creationist side as being either wrong or ignorant of all the details that make up the big picture, how is there to be a debate over one little detail (the flood) in that big picture?Young Earth creationism is wrong, right from the statement "young Earth". Any debate within that young Earth context is thus automatically wacked.Moose