Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9036 total)
79 online now:
ramoss (1 member, 78 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,657 Year: 3,303/14,102 Month: 244/724 Week: 2/91 Day: 2/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 37 of 432 (642954)
12-02-2011 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
12-02-2011 9:26 PM


Re: Catastrophic (for creationists)
quote:
nd you know that to be a fact because _____________________.

The continent began to rift apart during the Triassic Period, approximately 200 my ago, based on radiometric ages and geological relationships that show incipient rifting. Prior to that, North Africa and Eurasia were joined to North America. There is no other interpretaton of the data.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 9:26 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 38 of 432 (642955)
12-03-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by ICANT
12-02-2011 10:22 PM


Re: Catastrophic (for creationists)
Could you present that scientific research to support your claim.

I worked on the rocks that were deposited during the break-up of Pangea. There is no YE explanaton for them.

I hope you are not insulted by my not taking your word for evidence.

I don't expect you would know about the geologic record here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 10:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 69 of 432 (643227)
12-05-2011 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
12-05-2011 4:29 PM


Re: Water
Any water that existed at the time of creation went somewhere as it was covered with miles of rock.

And you know this, how?

More than likely it would have been around where oil is located today.

Any evidence for this? Did the oil displace the water?

So, your story is that the fludde waters were primitive (meaning the occurred at the same time as the earth), and they were somehow concealed from human observation, probably within the earth. Is that right?

Do you have any evidence of such reservoirs? I cannot envision all of the oil reservoirs in the world holding enough water to cause a global flood. And if they did, there should be ample evidence.

Can you give us some kind of a timetable on how this happened? I'm a little foggy on that part.

Creation took place in Genesis 1:1 the seven days of Moses recorded in Genesis 1:2 - 2:3 was not creation. The Earth is billions of years old if not trillions.

Okay, we'll go with billions for now.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 12-05-2011 4:29 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 5:46 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 77 of 432 (643407)
12-06-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by mike the wiz
12-06-2011 3:30 PM


Re: My General Understanding
We have the same facts.

Then I'm wondering where you hold the fact that there are deserts in the middle of your global flood?

What about the evaporites, the termite nests, dinosaur tracks and a plethory of other evidences that show terrestrial life doing just fine in the middle of your flood?

Isn't it true that you ignore these facts?

A lot of Creation Scientists do not hold to the uniformitarian view of things but I don't think they would rubbish the efforts of the evolutionists.

Well, not all of them. Some want to project modern rates back in time indefinitely even though we know that the controls are variable through time.

And then there are those past efforts that have been abandoned because they have been shown to make no sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by mike the wiz, posted 12-06-2011 3:30 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 79 of 432 (643414)
12-06-2011 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
12-06-2011 5:21 PM


Re: Miles of rock
So there has to be some mechnism by which these life forms in a great quanity was available to be covered by miles of sediment. And a mechanism to cover the life forms with the sediment. It stands to reason when these areas of mass life forms was covered the water that was there at the time the sediment was provided would have been covered with the plant matter and life forms that became the oil in the Earth.

I read of many times that Earth has been impacted by large asteroids that sent material into the air and even into the stratosphere. This material would have fallen back to Earth thus covering the plants and animals where it fell. Some of these impacts killed almost all life forms on Earth. Some darkened the sun for years according to what has been put forward.


Why so elaborate? Why not just propose normal sedimentary processes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 5:21 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 7:06 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 81 of 432 (643428)
12-06-2011 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
12-06-2011 7:06 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Where did enough normal sedimentary material come from to cover the oil with 15,000+ feet of sediment?

Rising mountain chains and eroding continents.

What do you do with all the material that was added by the asteroids that caused several extinction events?

Still small when compared with the size of the earth. There is no evidence for this kind of bombardment while life was developing on earth. Plate tectonics was alread going on and to do that you would need a fully developed planetary structure.

There is rock between the surface of the Earth and the oil, and gas that is deep in the Earth.

Not necessarily. Some of the early oil discoveries were in oil seeps.

Where did the sediment come from that formed those rocks?

There is no evidence to support an extraterrestrial source for the younger rocks on earth. Source materials are pretty well known for most of the supracrustal rocks, including the petroleum reservoir rocks.

If you provide an example, we can explain it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 7:06 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 11:39 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 82 of 432 (643429)
12-06-2011 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ICANT
12-06-2011 5:46 PM


Re: Water
Not really. They existed on the face of the Earth as they covered it in Genesis 1:2.

When the dry land appeared some of the water had to go somewhere for the dry land to appear as it was wet land until the water gathered to one place.


I cannot think of any age in which there was no land mass exposed to erosion.

The oceans were already there, and plate tectonics was in action. This means that there was a lithosphere, a mantle, a core and a thin skin of sedimentary rocks on top. That means that the planetary structure was mature and little different from today.

How much water would it take to cover the dry land in Genesis 1:10?

Search me. Genesis is irrelevant.

You need to know the area of land and the elevation of the land to determine how much water would be required.

It was a lot of water.

In the flat Earth thread Granny Magda presented some ancient maps that showed a single piece of dry land surounded by water. So that is what the ancient's said existed at one time.

And you don't question these 'ancient maps'?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 5:46 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 11:49 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 84 of 432 (643442)
12-06-2011 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICANT
12-06-2011 11:39 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Then why isn't there oil on the mountains? Oh that is right there is coal on the mountains.

Hunh? You are not making sense.

Then why is there oil under the mountains?

Because that is where it was trapped. Oil migrates, by the way.

Yes, and some of those seeps were at pretty high elevations.

Probably, but also irrelevant.

The seeps were caused by the porous rock sediment and the pressure on the oil from beneath.

And? What is your point?

In Texas many oil wells are at 4,000 feet, due to the pressure below it.

Let me guess: you're from Texas...

But no, it is there because that is where it was trapped.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 11:39 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 87 of 432 (643462)
12-07-2011 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by ICANT
12-06-2011 11:49 PM


Re: Water
Land is exposed to erosion whether it is above water or below water.

Only marginally. But that's not the point.

But could you tell me why you are so sure there has never been a time all the land mass was covered with water?

Because I have studied the topic using a couple of textbooks on historical geology and stratigraphy. Besides all it would take is one example such as Permian evaporites, or Devonian conglomerates, or Jurassic sand dunes...

Have you actually studied the geologic record? Or do you just believe what professional creationist websites tell you?

There is evidence of sea creatures all over the place.

Not relevant and not even true. Even if there were marine organisms in all locations, that does not mean they occurred at one time.

This reminds me of one time when Fred Williams told us that the fossils in his back yard are the same as the ones on top of Longs Peak.

What utter ignorance...

And yet that is common in the YEC community.

Oh I question everything. But they are so old and carved in rock it would be hard to prove they are fakes.

I didnt' say they were fakes. I said they are likely inaccurate. Do you think that people who carved maps in stone actually knew the world accurately?

Do you ever question anything you are told by anyone other than a creationist?

I am a skeptic.

I always prefer to see the evidence. Creationists don't really have any.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 11:49 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 12-22-2011 2:58 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 88 of 432 (643464)
12-07-2011 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Trixie
12-07-2011 5:45 AM


Re: Miles of rock
I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the size of the earth grew because of constant sedimentation or because of asteroid impacts. One of the largest asteroid impacts was at Chixulub and the asteroid in question had a diameter estimated to be 10 km. The volume is therefore approximately 5,309 cubic km. You can caculate from that how thick a uniform worlwide layer would be and it's not much. I don't think asteroids added much to the size of the planet at all.

Well, it would depend on when you think you have a planet. I'm pretty sure there was an early bombardment period, but you are correct. Since the earliest history of the earth there have not been enough impacts to affect the mass of the earth appreciably.

At present, I have heard that micrometeorites add a few tons of mass to the planet in a year. Really an insignificant amount, but they can be detected in some slowly deposited sediments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Trixie, posted 12-07-2011 5:45 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 90 of 432 (643481)
12-07-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coragyps
12-07-2011 9:08 AM


Re: Miles of rock
I work on Texas oil wells every day. They range from less than 400 feet deep to about 26,000 feet deep. As often as not, the reservoirs when initially discovered have pressure in excess of that from the overburden rock because they have natural gas trapped inside in addition to oil. No "pressure below it" is involved, unless it's a water drive. If it is a water drive, gravity is the motive force behind it. That's pressure from above, not from below.

Just to amplify a little bit...

"Is an expression which has been used commonly to refer to high pressure found in some formations; super-normal pressure or surpressure. Technically, it should be said that overpressure is that amount of pore pressure which is in excess of normal pore pressure in overpressured formations.

Any pore pressure greater than normal pore pressure can result from a number of conditions, some of which are listed below:

(1) Abnormally high pore pressure related to geostatic load. As geostatic load increases. porous clay rock compresses with the resulting expulsion of associated water. Fractures and porous and permeable reservoir beds serve as conduits to carry off the expelled water. If the water in the pore spaces of the reservoir rock cannot be expelled, the water will be trapped. Under these conditions, as overburden is increased, the clay rock is prevented from further compaction and the compressive stress is transmitted to the interstitial water. Pore pressure in isolated reservoir beds will increase along with the pore pressures in the overlying clay rock (shale).

(2) Abnormally high pore pressure related to the density contrast between reservoir fluid (if oil or gas) and interstitial water. Some reservoirs (which when filled with water, exhibit normal pore pressures) exhibit abnormal pressure at the crest of the structure when containing a column of oil or gas. For example. in a gas-filled reservoir, the normal pore pressure at the level of the gas-water contact may be transmitted through the gas column to the crest of the structure with only a small reduction (since the pressure exerted by the weight of a substantial column of gas is low compared to that of the same height of interstitial water). This results in higher than normal pore pressure at the crest of the structure.

(3) Abnormally high pore pressure related to causes other than those found in (1) or (2). For example, high pressure may result from the charging of one bed in communication with another at higher pressure."

The BB codes don't work very well on this, but the source is here:

http://www.fesaus.org/glossary/doku.php?id=terms:

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : Try to get codes to work...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 12-07-2011 9:08 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 100 of 432 (645117)
12-23-2011 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Theodoric
12-22-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Not really the same thing is it?

Not exactly, but it is very possible. In the Los Angeles basin there used to be natural oil seeps at the surface. The point is that oil will migrate until it stops, and that could be at the surface.

As oil production has gone on, we have ended up drilling deeper and deeper.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 12-22-2011 5:00 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Theodoric, posted 12-23-2011 2:07 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 101 of 432 (645120)
12-23-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
12-22-2011 2:58 PM


Re: Water
I have done a lot of studying.

Apparently, your studies should continue.

I never consult creationist websites. Most of them are clueless.

I am glad. Now, I suggest a college level class or two if you really want to know. This medium is not really conducive to detailed learning. I can see that you have fragments of information, but no framework to fit them into.

I am not YEC.

Again, I am happy for you.

quote:
I am older universe than you are.

I'm not sure how that is possible. Perhaps you mean you are just 'older'?

In fact there is enough water in the Earth to fill our oceans 7 to 10 times according to which scientist you agree with.

Yes, but it is not in an accesible form.

How did that water get there?

Probably by accretion. That really doesn't bother me since it is not free water.

Was Earth formed by accretion?

Probably, but that is not my field.

How much pressure is the water in the Earth under the oceans under?

Most of the free water is under hydrostatic load. Virtually all of the bound water is lithostatic since it is in the mantle.

If I understand correctly some of those wells have in excess of 10,000 psi. That is a lot of pressure.

Not really. That maximum pressure on a liquid would be lithostatic which calculates according to the formula here:

http://www.usouthal.edu/...ison/GY403/LithoStressProbKey.pdf

As you can see, the pressure at 5km burial is about 1.5kb. Since a bar is about 15psi, you are already at about 22,000psi.

Hydrostatic load would be a minimum pressure for liquid at depth. For a depth of 16,400' (5km) that would be about 0.5kb or about 7500psi.

Realistically, the pressure on a liquid must be somewhere in between, unless it is artificiall overpressured. Your wellhead pressure 0f 10,000psi is not all that huge in geologic terms, and in a subsiding basin, where sediments are being compacted by the sedimentary load, this is not outlandish nor unexpected. Neither would they exist all over the world.

If the fountains of the deep opened up that pressure would force a lot of that water into our oceans?

No. There is no such thing as 'fountains of the deep' in the sense you use it. First, there is little if any free water in the mantle. Second, it is not connected by a plumbing system to get it to the 'fountains'. Third, there is no mechanism for it to go back into the mantle. In fact, I'm guessing that such a process as this, if there were one, might freeze plate tectonics.

I am sorry, but your scenario is fantastic and scarcely imaginable only in fevered YEC dreams.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 12-22-2011 2:58 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2011 5:54 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 105 of 432 (645142)
12-23-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Theodoric
12-23-2011 2:07 PM


Re: Miles of rock
But there were not any of these in the oilfield ICANT is discussing. Your comment has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

The point is that IC could have chosen a better example. As it is, he is only heaping ignorance on misinformation and we see another example in the most recent post. Now we have water crystals in the core of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Theodoric, posted 12-23-2011 2:07 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2011 6:01 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 119 of 432 (645283)
12-24-2011 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICANT
12-23-2011 10:04 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Is there contintental crust on the bottom of the Atlantic ocean? Yes is my answer.

Also, wrong is your answer. If there is continental crust at the bottom of the oceans it is an exceedingly small piece.

If you don't think there is water there tell me what that stuff is that comes out of hydrothermal vents?

Recycled seawater. This has been prety well established. Really, it is little different from terrestrial springs which are ultimately rainwater.

You are too wrong on too many points here, IC. I think from this point is is clear that you are wasting our time with stubborn, uneducated assertions.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2011 10:04 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2011 4:40 PM edge has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021