|
Author
|
Topic: Do oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?
|
Porosity
Member (Idle past 2265 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 seen this message but not replied |
|
Porosity
Member (Idle past 2265 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 replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 64 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 8:49 PM | | Porosity has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 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 replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 8:51 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1615 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 64 of 108 (729768)
06-18-2014 8:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by Porosity
06-18-2014 8:32 PM
|
|
The scripture implies that there were no polar ice caps before the Flood, they formed afterward.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by Porosity, posted 06-18-2014 8:32 PM | | Porosity has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1615 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Water. Amount of oceans' worth. Why mention it at all if it's a mineral that never was and never will be water?
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2277 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 66 of 108 (729770)
06-18-2014 8:58 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.
So? Its wrong about a lot of other things too. What's one more...
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 8:49 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 67 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 9:03 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1615 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 67 of 108 (729771)
06-18-2014 9:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Coyote
06-18-2014 8:58 PM
|
|
Science is wrong about whatever contradicts the Bible.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : BIG off-topic banner.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 8:58 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3983 Joined: 09-26-2002
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 68 of 108 (729772)
06-18-2014 9:11 PM
|
|
|
Temporary closure coming in 10 minutes
This topic was going really bad yesterday, but I forgot my laptop at home as was thus unable to log in at my internet connection at work. I'm going to try to force the off-topic to find a better home. And catch up on the search for on-topic at this topic. Temporary closure in about 10 minutes. Adminnemooseus
Or something like that.
|
Porosity
Member (Idle past 2265 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 replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 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 replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 73 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 2:18 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3983 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
|
|
Message 71 of 108 (729775)
06-18-2014 11:46 PM
|
|
|
Many "off-topic" banners posted - Topic reopened
Coyote gets a special off-topic prize for his message 5 regurgitation of favorite (but off-topic) anti-flood/YEC themes. Faith also gets a special off-topic prize for her major topic theme disruption at message 18. And then there were a few messages I deemed to deserve the "BIG off-topic banner". I'll now mention that there is a new nice blog entry on this topics theme at Questioning Answers In Genesis: Earth's 'Underground Ocean': No remnant of the Flood One topic title comment: I should have gotten the "prove" changed to "give evidence toward" before I approved this topic. Now let's have the messages be on-topic (or possibly suffer harsh Adminnemooseus response). 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. Adminnemooseus
Or something like that.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by Porosity, posted 06-19-2014 12:19 AM | | Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied |
|
Porosity
Member (Idle past 2265 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined: 06-15-2013
|
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: Ringwoodite Mineral DataGoogle Scholar
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-18-2014 11:46 PM | | Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1615 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
No-one said "it's a mineral that never was and never will be water". Here are some possibly relevant statements from Wikipedia:
Ringwoodite in the lower half of the transition zone is inferred to play a pivotal role in mantle dynamics, and the plastic properties of ringwoodite are thought to be critical in determining flow of material in this part of the mantle. The solubility of hydroxide in ringwoodite is important because of the effect of hydrogen upon rheology. Ringwoodite synthesized at conditions appropriate for the transition zone has been found to contain up to 2.6 weight percent water.[11][12] Because the transition zone between the Earth’s upper and lower mantle helps govern the scale of mass and heat transport throughout the Earth, the presence of water within this region, whether global or localized, may have a significant effect on mantle rheology and therefore mantle circulation.[13] In regions of subduction zones, the ringwoodite stability field hosts high levels of seismicity.[14] An ultra-deep diamond found in Juna, Brazil, contained inclusions of ringwooditethe only known sample of natural terrestrial originthus providing evidence of significant amounts of water as hydroxide in the Earth's mantle.[5] The mantle reservoir is found to contain about three times more water, in the form of hydroxide contained within the ringwoodite crystal structure, than the Earth's oceans combined.[6] Flow, solubility, percent of water "contained" in the rock and so on. The blog entry that Moose posted also speaks of actual water occurring in various phases of the chemistry involved. 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, that then became ringwoodite. And by the way I haven't felt any need for an answer to this particular question about where the water went after the Flood as I've seen creationist answers that seem sufficient to me, having to do with the dropping of the sea floor. Which incidentally could be implicated in the turning of water into ringwoodite.
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 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 replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 80 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 5:40 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9560 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 5.0
|
|
|
Message 75 of 108 (729784)
06-19-2014 3:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
06-18-2014 5:33 PM
|
|
Faith writes: No. Scripture implies a natural source for the water, not a miraculous source. At the moment, I don't care where the water came from, I'm asking you whether the fact that god flooded the world to a level higher than the highest mountain was a miracle or not. "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by Faith, posted 06-18-2014 5:33 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2