Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
267 online now:
(267 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 887,628 Year: 5,274/14,102 Month: 195/677 Week: 0/54 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 1 of 108 (729675)
06-16-2014 3:59 PM


New Evidence for Oceans of Water Deep in the Earth

http://www.northwestern.edu/...-water-deep-in-the-earth.html

EVANSTON, Ill. --- Researchers from Northwestern University and the University of New Mexico report evidence for potentially oceans worth of water deep beneath the United States. Though not in the familiar liquid form -- the ingredients for water are bound up in rock deep in the Earth’s mantle -- the discovery may represent the planet’s largest water reservoir.

The presence of liquid water on the surface is what makes our “blue planet” habitable, and scientists have long been trying to figure out just how much water may be cycling between Earth’s surface and interior reservoirs through plate tectonics.

Hi all,

I'm starting to see the argument that this new discovery is "proof" of the biblical flood, creeping into other forums.

quote:
Or science could continue to prove creationism like finding under earth oceans. One of the arguments against the great flood has been where did all the water come from and where did it go.

Now they have a explanation for that, although that will be ignored or debunked by their logical thinking. If you look for god you will see his hand in every aspect of creation, if you choose to believe that everything is a random chance, well I guess that's easy enough too. People see what they want to see always have always will.


For me this more as evidence of how the Earth formed, it's composition and Earth's water cycle. I see no evidence that this water could have magically flooded the planet then receded proving any global flood.
I do see YEC's and their like jumping all over this as "proof" of the flood. In this thread I would like to hear your agruments and see if we can't pull this weed before it takes over the garden. Or do any creationist here feel this is proof of the flood?

Edited by Admin, : Fix title.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-16-2014 11:32 PM Porosity has responded
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2014 11:45 PM Porosity has responded
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2014 11:52 PM Porosity has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2014 12:03 AM Porosity has not yet responded
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 06-17-2014 12:35 PM Porosity has responded
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 06-17-2014 4:00 PM Porosity has responded

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 6 of 108 (729687)
06-17-2014 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Minnemooseus
06-16-2014 11:32 PM


Re: Some earlier related topics
Thanks for the links.
What's your take on the subject?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-16-2014 11:32 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 8 of 108 (729689)
06-17-2014 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
06-16-2014 11:45 PM


So.. are you saying that there is no way this water is going to make to the surface? I was under the impression this water is cycled via tectonic activity.

Edited by Porosity, : no


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2014 11:45 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2014 12:20 AM Porosity has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 9 of 108 (729690)
06-17-2014 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
06-16-2014 11:45 PM


quote:
Because of this, and much more evidence of a similar general nature, creationists have had to push the date of their purported flood back to the K-T boundary about 65 million years ago, or even more extreme, to the P-T boundary, some 262 million years ago. This ignores the fact that modern humans are only some 200 thousand years old. But hey! When you're searching around for evidence of a global flood, what are a few mangled facts here and there?

I have never seen any creo's pushing the flood back millions of years, but I don't doubt your word.
I know for sure in the forums I normally haunt they now have their gods existing outside our universe in some imaginary infinite time.

There is not much in any "mangled facts" that I have come across, just more of the same circular arguments involving the bible and willful ignorance. But of course they are already starting to mangle and misinterpret this finding.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2014 11:45 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2014 12:21 AM Porosity has responded
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 06-17-2014 12:44 AM Porosity has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 12 of 108 (729693)
06-17-2014 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
06-17-2014 12:21 AM


Yep..still learning these forums. I don't know how to fix it..sorry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2014 12:21 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 16 of 108 (729710)
06-17-2014 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ringo
06-17-2014 12:35 PM


Even if it could, you'd still need evidence that it did. A pond in my back yard isn't evidence of a pond in my living room. You'd need some trace of it wandering into the house and then wandering back outside.

And still yet, you need to prove the ringwoodite stored 400 miles below the Earth’s surface (that is not liquid, ice or vapor)- split from hydroxyl radical, bound into a mineral crystal, made it to the surface in liquid form. And then went back to a mineral crystal structure through 400 miles of solid rock!

Anyhow...where are all the creationist and IDer's..what say you guys?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 06-17-2014 12:35 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 06-18-2014 11:48 AM Porosity has responded

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 17 of 108 (729711)
06-17-2014 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NoNukes
06-17-2014 2:00 PM


If there were an ocean of liquid water underground, would that really prove the flood happened?

With this sort of logic....

Yes, but many of those posters still insist that means only a few thousand years ago.

I believe so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 06-17-2014 2:00 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 21 of 108 (729717)
06-17-2014 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
06-17-2014 4:00 PM


Re: No, not proof, but likely evidence at least
Hi Faith,
Good to hear from you, I have read your posts throughout these forums and although I don't understand what the hell your talking about half the time, I do admire your perseverance in the face of such logic and reason.

Seems to me it would be *nice* of the evos here at least to acknowledge that the way the information has been presented it certainly does logically support the Flood claims.

No, I can't... There's nothing in the data that logically supports any flood, none that I can see. If I'm wrong could you show me?

Again the information is presented in terms of actual water, you know, the liquid stuff.

Not true, the article clearly states:

quote:
This water is not in a form familiar to us -- it is not liquid, ice or vapor. This fourth form is water trapped inside the molecular structure of the minerals in the mantle rock. The weight of 250 miles of solid rock creates such high pressure, along with temperatures above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, that a water molecule splits to form a hydroxyl radical (OH), which can be bound into a mineral’s crystal structure.


Fragments of the blue-colored mineral called ringwoodite, synthesized in the laboratory.

Is there anybody here who really understands the science involved in all this or is everybody blowing hot air?

As for myself I understand much of it, I am no expert, but I'm certainly not going to try and spin the science to make it fit some preconceived idea, if that's what you mean.

Edited by Porosity, : No reason given.

Edited by Porosity, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 06-17-2014 4:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 06-17-2014 7:10 PM Porosity has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 28 of 108 (729725)
06-17-2014 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
06-17-2014 7:25 PM


Re: Evidence
Uhm..You do know there is no evidence anywhere that supports a global flood?
How do you explain away the arctic ice core samples, stretching back 10's of thousands of years, showing a pattern of ice/snow cover before and after the alleged flood?
In fact there is no evidence of a global flood in any ice core samples anywhere on the planet!
Even the Polar ice caps where some of these core samples are from would have been lifted and destroyed by such a flood and the samples would not even exist.


GISP2 ice core at 1837 meters depth with clearly visible annual layers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Edited by Porosity, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 06-17-2014 7:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 30 of 108 (729727)
06-17-2014 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
06-17-2014 8:50 PM


Re: Evidence
And a kitty!

LOL! Can I play!

Finches!

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : BIG off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2014 8:50 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2014 11:22 PM Porosity has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 61 of 108 (729765)
06-18-2014 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ringo
06-18-2014 11:48 AM


My point is that it's no use even trying to prove that. It doesn't get you any closer to proving the Flood.

Understood... I was just pointing out another thorn.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 06-18-2014 11:48 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 62 of 108 (729766)
06-18-2014 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
06-18-2014 4:44 PM


You still have not addressed my points.
There is no record of a global flood in any ice core samples taken from all corners of the globe.

If a global flood happened without a doubt, it would have destroyed the polar ice caps removing any record of sediment.

Did your god protected the ice caps?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 4:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 8:49 PM Porosity has responded

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 69 of 108 (729773)
06-18-2014 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
06-18-2014 8:49 PM


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

There are ice core samples that record sediments that date back thousands of years before any human records, including Abrianic mythology.

Ice core samples can be dated extremely accurately, you literally count yearly snowfall down the column, back thousands of years.

New Ice Core Reveals 800,000 Years of Climate History
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...05-antarctica-ice.html

Although it is not the deepest Antarctic core (the 3,263-meter [10,705-foot] Vostok core holds this record), its compressed ice does provide the longest polar climate record, going back 800,000 years.

Are you suggesting your scriptures or indeed your flood is older than 800,000 years?


Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 8:49 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 72 of 108 (729779)
06-19-2014 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Adminnemooseus
06-18-2014 11:46 PM


Re: Many "off-topic" banners posted - Topic reopened
As I see it, it's some sort of "getting the water out of the mantle and/or getting it back in" sort of thing.

I also see a better understanding of the chemistry of Ringwoodite should be allowed OT. The terminology used by the major new sources gives the impression of "oceans" when in fact all this H2o is locked up in the Ringwoodite mineral.

Here are some good resources:
http://webmineral.com/data/Ringwoodite.shtml
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ringwoodite


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-18-2014 11:46 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 101 of 108 (729834)
06-19-2014 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
06-19-2014 5:24 AM


Re: From the "on/off-topic fuzzy" zone
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.

The answer to your question is the water did not go anywhere, the reason for this is cause it did exist on the surface, it was trapped in molecular form under immense pressure as the planet cooled.

The ringwoodite likely came from the interior of the Earth, within our planet’s mantle contained in its molecular state, rather than some other source, like comets or magic rain. It's possible water could have been released from its molecular state into a liquid state due to the saturated rocks being partially melted through the action of plate tectonics as the Earth cools.
These new findings could mean this might be the evidence that Earth’s water came from these underground reserves. Not the other way round.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 5:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 11:48 PM Porosity has not yet 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