Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
317 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 316 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 887,628 Year: 5,274/14,102 Month: 195/677 Week: 54/26 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 4 of 108 (729680)
06-16-2014 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porosity
06-16-2014 3:59 PM


Short answer: no.

Long answer: nooooo.

Longer answer: that's not an ocean. There are no oceans in the mantle. There's enough hydroxide ions in the ringwoodite to make an ocean. In much the same way that there's enough carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen in this jar of peanut butter to make a small owl:

The evidence that the hydroxide ions ever defied the laws of chemistry and physics by getting out of the ringwoodite, and indeed the mantle, in order to make actual water and collaborate in an act of genocide, and then went back and hid in the mantle again for no apparent reason, is as follows:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porosity, posted 06-16-2014 3:59 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Porosity, posted 06-17-2014 12:06 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 9 by Porosity, posted 06-17-2014 12:18 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 7 of 108 (729688)
06-17-2014 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porosity
06-16-2014 3:59 PM


Follow-up question. Scientists have proved that the outer core of the Earth is made of molten iron. Does this prove that there was once a global flood of molten iron, or would we need some actual evidence?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porosity, posted 06-16-2014 3:59 PM Porosity has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 108 (729691)
06-17-2014 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Porosity
06-17-2014 12:06 AM


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.

Yes, steam is the commonest volcanic gas. I think if you had that many volcanoes doing that much outgassing of that much steam, though, Noah would have more to worry about than a mere global flood.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Porosity, posted 06-17-2014 12:06 AM Porosity has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by rationalone, posted 08-24-2014 8:46 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 108 (729692)
06-17-2014 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Porosity
06-17-2014 12:18 AM


That should have been a reply to Coyote, not me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Porosity, posted 06-17-2014 12:18 AM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Porosity, posted 06-17-2014 12:29 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 108 (729718)
06-17-2014 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
06-17-2014 4:00 PM


"Evidence"
You have a strange idea of what constitutes evidence.

Imagine someone comes up to you and tells you that Mickey Mouse has bludgeoned President Obama to death with the Koh-i-Noor. You are naturally skeptical, since as far as you know Mickey Mouse is fictional and the President is still alive. You ask for evidence, and the loony says: "Evidence? Certainly: the Koh-i-Noor exists."

"That would be the Koh-i-Noor", you ask "that is kept in the Tower of London in a multi-million dollar vault with a multi-million dollar security system and a round-the-clock armed guard? The same Koh-i-Noor that's impossible to steal and has not, in point of fact, been reported missing?"

"Yes", says the loony, "but it exists. That's evidence."

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Per Dr A message at "Whine List", off-topic banner removed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 06-17-2014 4:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 108 (729726)
06-17-2014 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
06-17-2014 7:25 PM


Re: Evidence
The fossils are in fact just what should have existed pre-Flood, most being now-unknown/nonexistent variations on known Species.

Yeah. This, for example, is clearly some kind of cow:

This, obviously, is a tortoise:

Some sort of porcupine, to judge by the spikes:

A perfectly ordinary raccoon:

And a kitty!

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : BIG 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Porosity, posted 06-17-2014 9:38 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 108 (729729)
06-17-2014 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Porosity
06-17-2014 9:38 PM


Re: Evidence
Judging by its neck, this has got to be a giraffe:

This is some sort of flightless bird, probably an ostrich.

Er ... a puppy dog?

Something like that.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Porosity, posted 06-17-2014 9:38 PM Porosity has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 108 (729733)
06-18-2014 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
06-18-2014 12:31 AM


I didn't say "all," I said "most."

Yeah, why did you say that?

While you're thinking that over, here's a picture of ... uh ... a duck, maybe? Yeah, definitely a duck.

And once again, the descriptions of this phenomenon of water in the deep rocks use such words as "water" and "oceans" and here's one that says "reservoir."

And your source also says this:

This water is not in a familiar form – neither liquid, ice nor 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.

OK? It's not even water, H2O, it's these hydroxyl radicals. It's not a liquid. It's not sloshing about. It's trapped in the molecular structure of the ringwoodite.

For the Flood we don't need the water to have started out in this form, the idea is that it explains where the water went ...

It was drawn down 400 miles into the mantle by ... er ... vast antivolcanoes that suck instead of blowing? I'm just guessing here, 'cos you're not exactly painting a detailed picture.

But there's a reason why there aren't any antivolcanoes. It's because the pressure gets greater the deeper in the Earth you get.

Your post suggests that you've been made aware of the problem of the water coming out, which it would have to do as superheated steam and at supersonic speeds. But now consider, if that's how forcibly it would come out, how much force would be required to cram it in?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 12:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 1:23 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 108 (729738)
06-18-2014 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
06-18-2014 1:23 AM


The articles about this phenomenon are describing it as oceans of water, as reservoirs of water etc., despite the fact that it is now in mineral form as part of the ringwoodite. These are the words of the articles on the subject. They imply vast quantities of water that formerly existed as water. Or do you dispute that?

I don't see any scientist claiming that. And certainly not that it used to be an ocean.

It's really quite simple, no need to make it into such a huge complicated problem.

It's not a huge complicated problem, it's a huge very very simple problem. The pressure at the surface is 100 KPa. The pressure down where the ringwoodite exists is 18,000,000 KPa at the least. To pump so much as a jugful of water to that depth, against that amount of pressure, is way beyond the technological resources of the twenty-first century. And you want the water to have gone there on its own, without any mechanism to pump it.

Now, I know it's one of the core beliefs of Floodism that water can do any darn thing you please, but surely this must give even you some pause for thought.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 1:23 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 2:46 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2014 4:36 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 108 (729740)
06-18-2014 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
06-18-2014 2:46 AM


Look, there is only ONE point that is being made by creationists concerning this discovery of so much bound-up water that it can be described as "oceans," and that is that it can account for the great amount of water that had to go somewhere after the Flood. HOW it did this is of course a question but why does it have to be answered before the point is even acknowledged?

But if it doesn't matter how it got there, then you didn't have to wait for geologists to find hydroxide ions in ringwoodite. You could have pointed to the ice on Europa, the sixth moon of Jupiter, and said "Hey, the Flood water could have gone there. HOW it did this is of course a question but why does it have to be answered before the point is even acknowledged?" Or you could have pointed to all the comets in the Oort cloud. Or you could have mentioned that there's simply loads of hydrogen and oxygen in the Sun, enough to flood the Earth millions of times over (proof at end of post). So the water could have gone there --- so long as you don't care how it got there. Or given that there's that much water in the Sun, imagine how much there is in the Andromeda Galaxy. That could be the Flood water. Sure, the Andromeda Galaxy's 2.5 million light-years from Earth, but we're not worried about how the water got there.

And surely if it IS being described as "oceans" and a "reservoir" when it is really just a mineral, it would seem that somebody has something in mind about WATER itself involved in the process at some point.

Or are you saying No to that? If it never was water why even mention water, why not just be content to marvel at the vast quantities of this mineral known as ringwoodite found at that depth?

AND, since it is obviously described as having once BEEN liquid water it had to get there somehow, whether pumped or not, so how did it get there, Sherlock?

We know there's lots of ice whizzing round the Solar System, so we know (or rather, I know and you don't) that this must have been part of the material that accreted to form the Earth.

---

How much water is in the Sun? Technically, none, but then there isn't any in the ringwoodite either. But there's lots of hydrogen and oxygen in the Sun. Let's do the math. The oxygen content of the Sun is 468 ppm. This is obviously the limiting factor, since the Sun is mainly hydrogen. Then there are about 1.2 × 1057 atoms in the Sun, so call it 5.6 × 1053 oxygen atoms (rounding down a bit) with which we can make 5 × 1053 molecules of water. There are about 3.3 × 1025 molecules of water to a liter, giving us 17 × 1027 liters of water. The volume of the Atlantic Ocean is about 3 × 1020 liters, so that's about 57 million Atlantic Ocean's worth of water. The water of Noah's Flood would barely have made a splash when it fell into the Sun --- and of course, we needn't worry our heads about how it got up there.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 2:46 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 3:36 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 108 (729751)
06-18-2014 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
06-18-2014 3:36 AM


Nobody has ever suggested that there are "oceans" of water in the Sun, or a great "reservoir" of water there, but this is what is said about the mineral-bound WATER in the deep rocks of the earth.

I will if you like.

There are oceans of water in the sun, a great reservoir of water.

This is false, but then it's false when lazy journalists say it about the ringwoodite, so there you go. Now someone's said it. Apparently for the purposes of creationism, all that matters is whether someone's said it, not whether it's true.

Also nobody has ever suggested that the Flood waters went anywhere but back into the ocean basins.

Er, yes they have. For example, some people have suggested that it went into the ringwoodite in the mantle. Now, if we're not going to worry about how it got there, why not say it went to the Sun?

You apparently have some kind of agenda to muddy up the discussion as much as possible.

I'm actually trying to clarify your thinking. I know the process is painful. It's painful for me too. It's like trying to squeeze water from a stone.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 3:36 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 4:44 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 108 (729767)
06-18-2014 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
06-18-2014 4:44 PM


But I'm not talking about getting water OUT of the stone, the whole idea is that it went INTO the stone.

It's a figure of speech, Faith.

And nobody has yet accounted for why the stories about this discovery keep talking about "oceans" of water and a huge "reservoir" of water if all they mean is the "water" that exists on the sun, about which nobody ever speaks of "oceans" or "reservoirs."

There are 57,000,000 ocean's-worth of "water" on the Sun, enough to fill a vast reservoir. There you go. Now I've spoken of it in those terms.

And nobody has yet accounted for why the stories about this discovery keep talking about "oceans" of water and a huge "reservoir" of water [...] Kindly answer the question. "Lazy journalists" doesn't do it, they obviously got it from the scientists working on it.

The things you make up without evidence are not obvious.

Here's something the lead scientist did say: "It translates into a very, very large mass of water, approaching the sort of mass of water that's present in all the world's ocean".

This is not the same as calling it an ocean.

The question is Why mention water at all if it's really just a mineral they are talking about?

It's a mineral with hydroxide ions in it.

If you are genuinely too stupid to understand this interesting scientific result, you should stop talking about it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


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 65 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 8:51 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 108 (729774)
06-18-2014 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
06-18-2014 8:51 PM


Water. Amount of oceans' worth. Why mention it at all if it's a mineral that never was and never will be water?

No-one said "it's a mineral that never was and never will be water".

Sheesh.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 8:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 2:18 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 108 (729783)
06-19-2014 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
06-19-2014 2:18 AM


Flow

Of the mantle.

solubility

Of hydroxide in ringwoodite.

All I want to know is whether the enormous quantity of water contained in the ringwoodite was possibly ever actual water in such a quantity

No. There was never that amount of liquid water just sloshing about in bulk. If I have correctly understood your question, that is the answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 2:18 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 5:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 81 of 108 (729791)
06-19-2014 5:47 AM
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 this point the clearest answer I've received is Dr. A's flat "No" which he doesn't bother to explain.

See posts #35 and #39, especially the latter.


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 82 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 5:58 AM Dr Adequate 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