Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
72 online now:
PaulK, Tanypteryx (2 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,270 Year: 4,382/6,534 Month: 596/900 Week: 120/182 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 108 (729712)
06-17-2014 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porosity
06-16-2014 3:59 PM


No, not proof, but likely evidence at least
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. We are always being challenged about where all that water could have gone when the Flood drained away, and now we're being told that there are "oceans" of water locked in these deep rocks. What else are we going to do but think Wow, there it is, all that water you said had no place to go. Again the information is presented in terms of actual water, you know, the liquid stuff. Why use such terminology that implies the liquid form if there is no way it ever was actually water, -- oceans of water yet -- or ever could be again? We're certainly aware that there are hydrogen and oxygen atoms galore throughout the physical universe in myriads of combinations, including peanut butter and small owls, but in this case these atoms somehow constitute "oceans" of water -- according to the reports, not according to creationists.

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

Or, another question, is there anybody here who has the grace to acknowledge that there IS evidence for the Flood in such a fact, just as there is in the fact of the strata and the fossil record? Not PROOF -- no, we can't say that "oceans of water in mantle rock PROVES the Flood," as the title of this thread asks -- but it's certainly consistent with the idea of the Flood, just as the strata and the fossils are. Fairness should acknowledge this instead of always endlessly just trotting out all the INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence that support evoism, including of course your assumptions about dates.

ABE: Yes, the mere FACTS of the Geologic Column and the bazillions of fossils ARE evidence for the Flood, not proof, but evidence, facts that are consistent with the Flood claims. And yes, in fairness this much should be acknowledged. Along with the "oceans of water" recognized as locked up in those deep rocks.

{OK - A little on-topic, but a lot of off-topic - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Faith, : punctuation correction

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner and comment.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 06-17-2014 4:05 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 06-17-2014 4:48 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 21 by Porosity, posted 06-17-2014 5:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2014 6:30 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 108 (729719)
06-17-2014 7:01 PM


Gosh it's such a simple obvious point you'd think even the ingenuity of the evos here couldn't manage to mangle it but of course I always underestimate the ingenuity of the evos here...

...

I was going to go on and explain it, but realized the effort would be futile. You'll either acknowledge it or you'll mangle it and I know which you'll choose.

Cheers.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 108 (729720)
06-17-2014 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Porosity
06-17-2014 5:50 PM


Re: No, not proof, but likely evidence at least
Well, the part that most needs explaining is why they call it water at all, and why they use the term "oceans," which sure does imply, you know, water, the wet stuff, in great quantities. And again, if it never was and never will be actual liquid water what on earth is the point of using such terms or of making any kind of big deal about it at all?

"Data that supports the flood." Oh yawn, this gets tedious. Bazillions of fossils are, ya know, VERY consistent with the idea of a worldwide Flood that killed, ya know, bazillions of living things [abe: And buried them en masse under conditions ideal for fossilization too, wetness and pressure. /abe]. Yeah you can interpret them in a different way but just on the face of it they are fantasic evidence for such an event. Yawn, sigh. And the strata themselves, those different kinds of sediments laid down one on top of another, are awfully like something that water does with sediments, ya know, yawn, sigh. And the idea of "oceans" of water in any form at all sure does suggest,-- suggest mind you, only "suggest" -- oceans of water that once were. Sigh. Yawn. Hiccup.

ABE: Oh, and the mineralized form of the water is described as the result of actual real water being acted upon by heat and pressure, which does, groan, sigh, yawn, strongly suggest that it WAS once water. Hiccup.

{A trace of on-topic mixed in there. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner and comment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Porosity, posted 06-17-2014 5:50 PM Porosity has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2014 7:18 PM Faith has replied
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 06-17-2014 7:55 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 26 of 108 (729722)
06-17-2014 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
06-17-2014 7:18 PM


Re: Evidence
Such PRESCIENCE, to KNOW exactly what set of fossils would be consistent with the worldwide Flood and what wouldn't, without having seen it, and strata too. The fossils are in fact just what should have existed pre-Flood, most being now-unknown/nonexistent variations on known Species. Perfect. The pattern of the strata certainly is not inconsistent with the Flood, or in other words there isn't much of a pattern there anyway, and the pattern of the fossils isn't either except in the minds of evos who can't pry it loose from their theory long enough to appreciate other ways of looking at it.

But at least I should thank you for acknowledging the basic concept.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2014 7:18 PM NosyNed has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Porosity, posted 06-17-2014 8:23 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2014 8:50 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 108 (729730)
06-18-2014 12:31 AM


I didn't say "all," I said "most." Sigh. There were ALSO creatures completely unique that have since completely died out. Besides, even the behemoths may have modern relatives. Sigh, groan.

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."

How much of this mineralized water actually exists is just a guess but they do sound pretty sure of their references to hugeness. In any case, again, the descriptions support the idea of former huge quantities of water that became mineralized in the form of 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, not where it came from.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 12:40 AM Faith has replied
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 1:14 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 108 (729732)
06-18-2014 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Coyote
06-18-2014 12:40 AM


While you are concentrating on where the water came from and where it went, perhaps you could also lend some thought to the problem of why there is no evidence for a flood of the size you want during historic times?

The whole of the Geologic Column is certainly evidence of a Flood of such proportions -- we're talking miles deep and covering huge areas of whole continents -- as well as the bazillions of fossilized creatures found therein. You have to be blind as a bat evo to miss it.

And although everybody keeps wanting to change the subject and tax me with this or that completely irrelevant argument I'm going to keep trying to stick to the topic of this thread and say again that this discovery of "oceans" worth of water, or a huge "reservoir" in the depths of the earth, also contributes to the possibility of such a Flood by suggesting where all that water went after a Flood of such proportions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 12:40 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 1:26 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 36 of 108 (729735)
06-18-2014 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2014 1:14 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?

The Biblical description of the Flood explains the sources of the water as two: the "fountains of the deep" as well as the torrents of rain that were released from whatever their former condition had been in the "firmament" above, nothing is said that implies release from mineral form deep in the earth, unless "fountains of the deep" could be shown to imply something along those lines. But again, we do not need a source of the water, what the ringwoodite "reservoir" suggests is where it went afterward.

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

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 1:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 1:48 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 38 of 108 (729737)
06-18-2014 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coyote
06-18-2014 1:26 AM


Oh yuppity yup all those fantasy billions of years. There isn't even any differential physical wear and tear on the lower strata over those supposed billions of years to show more aging of lower versus higher. They all look like they were laid down at the same time. Not even any differential tectonic disturbances, especially if you look in the Grand Canyon where they all climb neatly from bottom to top with nary a glitch except where they were disturbed after they were all laid down.

But this thread is not about all the arguments for and against the Flood, it's about the ringwoodite "reservoir" which suggests where the Flood waters went.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 1:26 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 10:42 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 108 (729739)
06-18-2014 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2014 1:48 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?

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?

ABE: What I mean when I say it had to have been liquid water is that the molecules that ended up as the mineral ringwoodite are described in terms of some way H20 got transformed and incorporated into the mineral olivine. So at some point it WAS water. I don't know what else to conclude from what I've read about it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 1:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 3:19 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 42 of 108 (729741)
06-18-2014 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2014 3:19 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. Also nobody has ever suggested that the Flood waters went anywhere but back into the ocean basins. You apparently have some kind of agenda to muddy up the discussion as much as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 3:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 10:26 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 108 (729744)
06-18-2014 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
06-18-2014 4:36 AM


There is nothing supernatural stated or implied in the Biblical account of the physical phenomena involving the Flood. What is described is presented as physical phenomena that happen to be different from the current situation, physical and natural nevertheless. What the "fountains of the deep" means is not at all clear to me, and possibly nobody who has interpreted it gets it right, but nevertheless it is presented as natural and physical and not supernatural.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2014 4:36 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 06-18-2014 6:37 AM Faith has replied
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2014 8:55 AM Faith has replied
 Message 50 by jar, posted 06-18-2014 10:33 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 46 of 108 (729747)
06-18-2014 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Tangle
06-18-2014 6:37 AM


God makes everything happen, but He normally doesn't use miraculous means.

ABE:

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
/ABE

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 06-18-2014 6:37 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2014 8:59 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 06-18-2014 11:58 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 57 by Tangle, posted 06-18-2014 4:47 PM Faith has replied
 Message 58 by Diomedes, posted 06-18-2014 4:48 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 54 of 108 (729758)
06-18-2014 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Coyote
06-18-2014 10:42 AM


They all look like they were laid down at the same time.

To you perhaps.

To you too, if you're being honest. There is no sign of any difference in wear and tear from bottom to top of the column, some billions of years according to you guys.

To those who are not blinded by old tribal myths, the geological strata and the fossils they contain are easily read as the record of billions of years.

Not "easily." It takes some fancy interpretive work to deny the obvious, which is that there is no sign of a difference between the "older" and the "recent" or of any kind of what is considered to be normal activity during those long long periods of time.

Evidence of this has been presented to you in many different threads here.

Which of course I've answered.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 10:42 AM Coyote has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 108 (729759)
06-18-2014 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
06-18-2014 8:55 AM


As I said, there is nothing that ever happens that is not God's doing, but very few things He does are truly miraculous and those are clearly designated in the scripture, which the events of the Flood are not. When the "fountains of the deep" are mentioned there is no hint of there being anything miraculous about their existence or their being released. Now, when the scripture says that God closed the door to the ark after Noah and company were all inside you could take that as an unusual intervention. Otherwise you can suppose that everything you experience every day has God's hand in it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2014 8:55 AM NoNukes has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 56 of 108 (729760)
06-18-2014 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2014 10:26 AM


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

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." Kindly answer the question. "Lazy journalists" doesn't do it, they obviously got it from the scientists working on it.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 10:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Porosity, posted 06-18-2014 8:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2014 8:38 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022