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

Which ones was that? The one's that said there was 5 times as much water than in the oceans or the ones that said there was 10 times as much as in the oceans.It does not matter where it is only that it exists.Rahvin did not say anything about there being a flood only that there was not enough water on planet earth to cover the earth as the Bible states.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No, there was one that claims that there is 10x the amount of water and then there is one that claims that the water in the mantle represents seepage totaling 10% of the ocean water.Only, Wumpi didn't bother to quote THAT part of the article, did he?No, he quoted the paragraph directly above it which said that "50% of the water in the mantle is ocean water".You see, Can't, when someone cherry picks data from one study and combines it with cherry picked data from another study, then present both as collaborating evidence - that's called LYING.And when you guys LIE to try and convince people that you are correct, that means that you KNOW that you are incorrect. Otherwise, why would you lie.So here we have it. Wumpi KNOWS that he's incorrect, resorts to LYING in the hopes that he won't get caught. He does get caught. The lie is exposed, then you come along and PRETEND like you are unaware of his lie.Interesting position.You may want to check with the Bible to see what it says about lying. (Hint: It's one of the commandments).Additionally, exactly WHEN did you become the self proclaimed GOD of the forums?The TITLE of the thread is: "Does the evidence support the Flood".The TITLE of the thread is NOT: "Can a Creationist pretend like there is a lot of water".WHERE is the EVIDENCE which SUPPORTS THE FLOOD.I've asked several times. You've dodged several times.I'm even ALLOWING YOU to PRETEND that the wizard used "magic water" so you don't have to rely on LYING about what is or is not in the articles.Well, time to pony up.WHERE is the EVIDENCE?

Regardless of the title of the thread.Rahvin and Wumpini agree to discuss was there enough water on planet earth to cover the earth as stated in the Bible.I read the complete article that was put forth that said there was 5 times as much water in the mantel as in the oceans.Now if you have a different paper I would like to read it.I take exception to your statement "And when you guys LIE" That is pretty strong. Where is the evidence that I lied?Please produce the sentences in which I lied that I might correct it.ABE: The following comes from the full paper found here:
Just a moment... Subscription required.

quote:

---

When this capacity is integrated over the mass of the lower mantle, the total mass of water is ~5 times that of oceans.

---

God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : to add quote and source

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

It may well be that there is enough water in the upper mantle to cover Mt Everest plus 15 more cubits. But, as has been mentioned here several times already, it doesn't help your deity drown all but eight folks! That water could as easily be on Mars, for at least three reasons:
1) if it was in the mantle, it's at about 700 Celsius.
2) if it was in the mantle, it's trapped in and below rocks with permeability to water no greater than, and almost certainly much less than, the reservoirs that we produce oil and gas from. That can't get you three ocean's worth of water in forty days. If it could, refer to #1.
3) how do you disappear three oceans of water in the time your book tells us the waters had to "asswage?"Yes, if you had a driving force to bring all that water to surface, and if you could condense it all from superheated steam back to water, perhaps there really is that much water under the rocks. But it just ain't happening in 40 days. Or 40 years. Or 40 centuries.Added by edit: What does that word "lower" signify there, d'ya think? Wump? Icant? Anyone?Edited by Coragyps, : add a bit

And since I am NEITHER of those people, I am not restricted to that discussion. Instead, I am ON TOPIC for the thread. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you bring it up with the admins. GOOD LUCK. Then I suggest you go back and follow Wumpi's links. You CLAIM to have read all the article Wumpi linked. You ALSO claim to have NOT read the paragraph I quoted.ONE of those two claims is a lie.As for your REPEATEDLY quoting ONE of the two articles (as though referring repeatedly to one somehow negates the lie), I didn't contradict that article. Wumpi did.My point is that he can not cite TWO different articles which claim RADICALLY different things and use BOTH of them as evidence for water.EITHER one is right and the other is wrong OR both are wrong.Both are right is NOT a possible outcome.I understand that YOU are backing the 5x as much water article. That's fine.HOWEVER, that article DOESN'T allow for water to transfer out of the magma.The article which DOES allow for water to transfer out of the magma states that the water in the mantle (or 50% of the water in the mantle depending on how you read it) consists of sea water which represents 10% of the total amount of sea water on the planet.In other words, depending on your math, the mantle contains either an addition 10 or 20% of the volume of sea water.I know the Bible fans aren't exact "strong" in math (after all the Bible claims that pi=3) but 10-20% more water is LESS than 500% more water.

You make a very good point.I would like to say that I appreciate you addressing my point from an objective scientific view.It seems that many think they can attack me personally, or attack my God and this will make the research disappear. It will not. This is a science forum. There is no place, in my opinion, for personal attacks upon me, or for attacks upon those who they call creationists, or attacks upon God. The only appropriate avenue that anyone has here is to evaluate the evidence that has been presented and to refute it if possible. I thank you for objectively attempting to do that.First, let me say that I have proven my point. There is enough water on the earth for a global flood.I am going to try to help you to understand why there appears to be a contradiction. Why do some scientists say there is enough water, and others say there is not? The problem that we seem to be having is a failure to understand the timeline of events that have taken place in this area of science.I have given you links to all of the articles. All of the information that you need to understand this timeline has been provided. I have taken quotes from scientists who seemed to have incomplete knowledge and filled in the gaps for you. I thought that you would be able to see those gaps. This was obviously not the case. So, I will attempt to spell it out for you step by step.____________________________________________________________________Here is the list of articles and the progression of advances in science in this field related to the study of water in the mantle that I have been discussing.March 8, 2002 - Scientists speculate that there is up to five times the amount of water in the mantle as on the surface of the earth.April 7, 2005 - Scientists drilling into the mantle under the ocean’s crust indicate that their findings are causing them to change their view of the earth’s evolution. It is much more complex than they previously believed.July 2006 - Scientists determine that 50% of the water in the mantle is composed of seawater. They theorize that this water is circulating from the surface. It appears that they are not aware of the speculation of the additional water found in the mantle from the study a few years earlier. They were looking for content, not for volume.May 25, 2007 - Additional research confirms the previous speculation that there is a lot of additional water in the mantle. They again say five times the amount in the oceans, and then speculate that there could be more. Others have speculated that additional water between the crust and the mantle could bring this amount to ten times the amount in the oceans.October 25, 2007 - Scientists acknowledge that they have had to completely change their view of the inner workings of the planet in the last few years.____________________________________________________________________Now I will give you each of these articles with the respective quotes and links, along with a brief description of the article:_____March 8, 2002 - This research is what scientists later called speculation about there being a lot of water discovered in the mantle:

quote:

---

Secondary ion mass spectrometry measurements show that Earth's representative lower mantle minerals synthesized in a natural peridotitic composition can dissolve considerable amounts of hydrogen. Both MgSiO3-rich perovskite and magnesiowstite contain about 0.2 weight percent (wt%) H2O, and CaSiO3-rich perovskite contains about 0.4 wt% H2O. The OH absorption bands in Mg-perovskite and magnesiowstite were also confirmed with the use of infrared microspectroscopic measurements. Earth's lower mantle may store about five times more H2O than the oceans.

---

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/5561/..._____April 7, 2005 - This article shows that the science related to the inner earth and the mantle is changing quickly. Their entire view of the earth’s evolution is changing.

quote:

---

Already the types of rocks recovered show that conventional interpretation of Earth's evolution are "oversimplifying many of the features of the ocean's crust," said expedition leader Jay Miller of Texas A&M University. "Each time we drill a hole, we learn that Earth's structure is more complex. Our understanding of how the Earth evolved is changing accordingly."

---

Hole Drilled to Bottom of Earth's Crust, Breakthrough to Mantle Looms | Live Science_____July 2006 - These scientists were not looking for the volume of water in the mantle, they were looking for content. They discovered that 50% of the water in the mantle was seawater. Unfortunately, it does not appear that they tied this into earlier research that speculated that there was a lot of extra water in the mantle. In only a few years, it appears a lot of advances and changes had been made in this area of science.Although these researchers concluded that seawater accounts for 50% of the water in the mantle, they greatly understated the amount of water that had scientifically been determined to be in the mantle a couple of years earlier. They did not appear to know about the extra water that had been discovered. Why did they not know this? I do not know. If you look down a couple of articles then you’re going to see that this speculation of additional water was confirmed. Science seems to have jumped ahead of their understanding.

quote:

---

Geologists have long thought that seawater does not travel very far through Earth’s interior, stopped by an invisible heat and pressure barrier that recycles it back up through the crust. A new study, however, is challenging that notion, saying that traces of seawater exist deep inside the planet.

​

What they found was surprising: The samples contained a distinct seawater fingerprint. Assuming the same seawater composition for the entire mantle, they calculated that seawater accounts for about 50 percent of the water in the mantle, with the rest of the water trapped during the planet’s formation, they reported in the May 11 Nature.

​

That much seawater in the mantle means that as much as 10 percent of Earth’s oceans have been subducted into the planet’s interior throughout its history ” more than returns to the atmosphere and oceans through volcanic eruptions, Holland says. “On balance,” he adds, “the cycle is moving water from the surface and into the mantle.”

---

Geotimes - July 2006 - Earth soaks up seawater______May 25, 2007 - This article confirms the earlier speculation of a lot of water down in the mantle. It is estimated at five times the amount in the oceans, and then speculation is made that it could be more. The earlier study had indicated up to ten times the amount in the oceans.

quote:

---

Oceans of mineral-bound water in earth’s lower mantle: Seismic study confirms earlier speculations

---

quote:

---

Thus in the lower mantle, which is about 60% of the earth’s volume and essentially peridotitic in composition (79 wt% Mg-perovskite, 16 wt% magnesiowstite and 5 wt% Ca-perovskite) with a H2O content of 0.2 wt%, the total mass of water present works out to a staggering figure - nearly five times that of surface oceans3,4,10,11.

​

This could be more if one takes into account the possible contributions from primitive or primordial reservoirs formed in the early earth’s magma ocean as well as additions from hydrogen-saturated outer core12 or chemical impurities-aided point defects in high-pressure polymorphs13.

---

1340.pdf | may252007 | currsci | Indian Academy of Sciences______October 25, 2007 - This article is indicating that science has to change or recast their entire understanding of the inner workings of the earth.

quote:

---

Seismologists in recent years have recast their understanding of the inner workings of Earth from a relatively benign homogeneous environment to one that is highly dynamic and chemically diverse. This new view of Earth's inner workings depicts the planet as a living organism where events that happen deep inside can affect what happens at its surface, like the rub and slip of tectonic plates and the rumble of the occasional volcano.

---

http://www.earthtoday.net/news/viewpr.html?pid=23889____________________________________________________________________If you study these articles and the timeline that I have given above, then you will see that I have not misstated anything. I have given links to every single article. I have not mined quotes out of these articles. I have attempted to help you to understand the science that is taking place in this area of the earth.Let me clarify one more time the problem that some are having understanding the articles that I have referenced. It appears the team that found that the water in the mantle was made up of 50% seawater was using incorrect figures for the total volume of water in the mantle. New research has shown that there is much more water in the mantle then they previously thought.Therefore, their percentage calculation of the amount of seawater in the mantle should be applied to the correct amount of water that is supposed by science to be in the mantle. Why would we apply their percentage to an amount that we now know is incorrect? That would not be logical. This is new science. I keep saying that over and over again.Do you know what this incident tells me about science? It lets me know how easy it is for someone to make a mistake when they rely upon other scientists for the information they need for their conclusions. These scientists relied upon other scientists for the volume of water in the mantle, and the information appears to have been outdated. The number they used seems to have been wrong, and it messed up some of their conclusions.I could see the same thing happening so easily in other areas of science like evolution. Those in the field of evolution depend upon all other areas of science for dating purposes, for geology, etc. It is like the old saying goes. Garbage IN, Garbage OUT. It may be something to think about.I have proven scientifically that there is enough water on the earth to account for the global flood shown in the Bible. You cannot change the scientific facts. The water is there. If Rahvin is ready to concede to this fact, then we can move on.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shortened display form of long URL, to restore page width to normal.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I've noticed in the so called evidence for the underground water that every single one of them has temperatures well above the amount necessary to kill all forms of life except for thermophylic bacteria.Now, I haven't seen any of the creationists even attempt to deal with the heat.Why is that? What good is the water if it kills everything?

There that "lower mantle" term is again, more than once! Hmm, what could it mean? - Wikipedia, Mantle (geology) - WikipediaLessee.....670 km is over 400 miles, all of it rock. And the temperature there is around 1900K or 3000F. How are we transporting and cooling that water, again?

When you folks going to get it.I am not arguing that the Flood took place.I am not arguing that the Flood did not take placeThat is not the point.The point is that Rahvin agreed to discuss with Wumpini his assertion that there was not enough water on the earth to cover the earth as stated in the Bible nothing else.That has nothing to do with it covering the earth.Science says that there is enough water to cover the earth as stated in the Bible.It makes no difference where the water is today as long as it is on planet earth.The only thing that matters to the discussion is that the water exists. That is what the discussion was about.Question for you: Does the water exist? If not why did the paper get published.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Actually, not. Most of that water is not on the earth, but in the earth. And it's relevance to water on the surface (a global flood) is completely irrelevant. You cannot tell us how that water was liberated, nor how it was transported to the mid-ocean ridges, nor how the water was returned to the mantle. YOu have run from these questions through over 80 posts now and it has become obvious that you have no idea and you have no intention of serious discussion. What is your point? Why have you avoided my questions?

Then you are saying that you don't have a point? After all the title of this thread suggests that it is about a global flood. But not that it did so. So where is this evidence for a global flood? Semantics.

quote:

---

The only thing that matters to the discussion is that the water exists. That is what the discussion was about.

---

Then you agree that this is not evidence for a global flood? I don't get your point here.

quote:

---

Question for you: Does the water exist? If not why did the paper get published.

---

In the context of this board, no. Now if you want to discuss geochemistry or petrochemistry, sure, there's a ton of water. But this does not constitute evidence for a flood. That would be like saying well, there's enough water in the solar system. It's a sterile argument. Completely meaningless. If this is the kind of argument you want to be known for, well, fine. I could say there's enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to kill every animal on the surface of the earth. So what?

To be perfectly fair to Wumpini and ICANT, the opening post, which is what sets the thread and determines "on-topic" or off, was only stating that there is not enough water to flood the Earth to the extent mentioned in the Bible. All the other arguments about the impossibility of the flood, are therefore, off topic.Wumpini then, in a great post, referenced a number of scientific journals that seem to confirm the fact that there is more water than Rhavin took into account. Again, the availability of the water was not mentioned in the OP. In fact, the OP specifically took unavailable water and used that as a strength of the argument.I don't agree with Wumpini that there is evidence for the flood, but I do think he has quite admirably taken on the OP and argued that i is false. If you disagree with that argument, argue it on its own merits. If you want to start a Flood apologetics thread, feel free to do one. That was quite specifically NOT the point of this thread, as stated in the OP.

He has avoided my questions also.I have brought up the lack of evidence for a widespread flood in sediments of ca. 4,500 years of age, as well as continuities of mtDNA in the western US from pre-"flood" to post-"flood" times. That was ignored.I brought up recent studies from archaeology and genetics. One example I posted dealt with a cave in southern Alaska which produced a burial dated to 10,300 years. It had a direct mtDNA connection to 46+ living individuals along the west coasts of North and South America. In addition to being nice supporting evidence for an early coastal migration, it disproves a global flood about 4,500 years ago. I also mentioned another example from my own work with a connection from 5,300 years ago to living individuals.But just recently there has been an even nicer find--Paisley Caves. These caves in southern Oregon produced human coprolites dated to about 14,300 years, and those coprolites produced mtDNA associated with living individuals throughout North America.The conclusion is clear: there was continuity of human occupation and their mtDNA types for well over 10,000 years in the western US. There was no disruption or extinction of the early mtDNA types, with replacement by mtDNA associated with Noah's Near Eastern female kin.Any one of these cases disproves the flood story. Together they join thousands or tens of thousands of other examples from a wide range of sciences that disprove the flood story.The conclusion of science is pretty obvious -- there is no convincing evidence for a global flood about 4,500 years ago.(Incidentally, the early creationist geologists, seeking to prove the flood, gave up long ago. The last major holdout folded his tent in 1831.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hmm, let's see. Could it mean that they have discovered a lot of water in the lower mantle? Maybe five times or more of the amount of water that is on the surface of the earth?Does that mean there is no water in the oceans?
Or, is there no water in the atmosphere?
Or, is there no water in the ocean crust?
Or, is there no water in the upper mantle?Hmm, what could it mean?I have read that the ocean crust is saturated with water. That makes sense doesn't it. I have read one article that says there could be a lot of water between the crust and the mantle. Maybe that is where that other five oceans that has been suggested is located. You can find those links yourself. It seems that I have been doing a lot of research, and it is ignored.How much water do I need to find to satisfy this argument.Why am I doing all the work. Rahvin made a statement that was false. I challenged that statement. It has been proven false by science.If you want to try to prove that the water in the ocean crust, and the water in the upper mantle, and the water in the lower mantle, and the water everywhere else on the earth could not have contributed to a global flood, then give me the calculations. However, when you make the calcuations use all the water that is on the earth. If the water scientifically cannot make it to the surface then explain why. Give evidence. That is what I have been doing.And, if you leave any of the water out of your calculations, I will try to find it. That is what Rahvin did. He left five or ten times the amount of water that is on the surface of the earth out of his calculations.Actually, this subject interests me. Maybe I should have been a scientist.Also when you are doing your calculations do not forget the recent study that has shown that a significant amount of the water in the mantle is coming up through the ocean floor on an annual basis. Because, I will challenge your calculation. Now you explain to me how that is coming from the lower mantle. You can find the link for that study yourself.Maybe it is time to concede that the water is here, and move on to something else. This is new science. By the time you make your calculations, scientists may find twenty more oceans full of water right under the ocean floor.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

A very good moderator type message. Please look at this message if you haven't already.Now, perhaps Perdition could give that message a Post of the Month (POTM) nomination?This also points out the (potential?) value of a quality topic title. In this case the topic title probably should have be something along the lines of "There's not enough water for a global flood".Please, no replies to this message (such might get you a 24 hour suspension).AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Added last line.