Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 121 of 174 (326746)
06-27-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Coragyps
06-27-2006 6:58 AM


they pump into the rock at 3000 (or 10,000+) psi, depending on the depth and type of rock, to make fractures for oil to travel through.
Water at the bottom of the ocean, at 7 miles is at about 16,000 psi.
With all that weight on top of it, wouldn't water in an aquifer be under similar pressure?
I mea I realize that the water at the bottom of the ocean, isn't really cutting through the ocean, or is it, in certain spots. Wouldn't the water naturally take the path of least resistance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2006 6:58 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2006 9:28 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 122 of 174 (326749)
06-27-2006 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by anglagard
06-27-2006 1:54 AM


Re: rat time
Yes, rock deeper than around 5 miles or so is solid (except for the semiplastic Mororovic discontinuity) all the way down for 1800 more miles until one hits the liquid outer core.
I was speaking to a guy who does "real" geothermal work. He uses the heat from the earth to boil water and create steam which turns a turbine generator.
Where the ocean meets the continents, is where they have to do the least drilling, and have an "unlimited" supply of water. They only need to go down about 3 miles, before the water boilers out.
Wouldn't the water in an aquifer start to boil, or at least be forced upwards by the heat of the earth, and not go that deep?
Or is it because it is under pressure, and the boiling point has raised up enough to prevent that from happening?
Doesn't then increase the pressure of everything, and allow the water to force itself throuigh the rock quicker?
Lastly, it is important to remember that the travel time that water may take through an aquifer is directly measured by dying water or doping it with a radiactive isotope and pumping it down a well and then seeing how long it takes to show up in a well downstream so to speak. This measurement tells one how long it takes water to travel in a given aquifer in a rather direct manner.
Yes, I can relate to that, I do die tests on septic systems.
Let's go put some die in the Yuni mountains, and wait 830,000 years.
But really, can that test be done on rock that is 1800 miles deep? Or are we only doing that test on the surface?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by anglagard, posted 06-27-2006 1:54 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by CK, posted 06-27-2006 9:03 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 126 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2006 9:39 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 128 by deerbreh, posted 06-27-2006 9:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 123 of 174 (326759)
06-27-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by riVeRraT
06-27-2006 8:37 AM


Re: rat time
Sorry I might be misunderstanding what you are saying:
RiverRat writes:
They only need to go down about 3 miles
The way I read your statement it appears you are saying that they have drilled down to 3 miles or about 4828 metres in the ocean?
I thought that was beyond current technology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 06-27-2006 8:37 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 06-27-2006 9:25 AM CK has not replied
 Message 172 by riVeRraT, posted 06-27-2006 9:50 PM CK has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 124 of 174 (326764)
06-27-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by CK
06-27-2006 9:03 AM


Re: rat time
I thought that was beyond current technology?
I don't know exactly what's beyond current rechnology, but certainly 3 miles isn't far beyond. A Sea Change in Ocean Drilling. The KTN Borehole isn't ocean drilling, but it's interesting.
Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed tags
Edited by AdminAsgara, : hhmm fix didn't take initially

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by CK, posted 06-27-2006 9:03 AM CK has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 125 of 174 (326766)
06-27-2006 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by riVeRraT
06-27-2006 8:29 AM


Water at the bottom of the ocean, at 7 miles is at about 16,000 psi.
With all that weight on top of it, wouldn't water in an aquifer be under similar pressure?
Yup. But that pressure is equally applied to all sides of the rock - including any pore space it has - so there's no fracturing. There's not even any flow in that rock unless there's some other cause for a pressure gradient in it - like a hot area or a difference in water density due to salinity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by riVeRraT, posted 06-27-2006 8:29 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 126 of 174 (326769)
06-27-2006 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by riVeRraT
06-27-2006 8:37 AM


Re: rat time
Wouldn't the water in an aquifer start to boil, or at least be forced upwards by the heat of the earth, and not go that deep?
Or is it because it is under pressure, and the boiling point has raised up enough to prevent that from happening?
Doesn't then increase the pressure of everything, and allow the water to force itself throuigh the rock quicker?
There are some "aquifers," like those near Mexicali, Mexico, that have steam in them instead of water. Similar zones up near Brawley, California have 650-degree water, kept liquid by the pressure, instead. These are all in closed aquifers so that the pressure is trapped (or was until Unocal drilled wells to exploit the energy). That whole area is right on a rift zone and the Earth's crust is very thin - the wells at Brawley aren't even two miles deep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 06-27-2006 8:37 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 127 of 174 (326772)
06-27-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by anglagard
06-27-2006 8:13 AM


Re: question
Faith writes:
In other words, present conditions prove nothing about past conditions.
Anglaguard writes:
Also true, but taken together with all other geologic findings, they sure provide a lot of mutually supporting evidence concerning past conditions.
I would answer it to say, not true, because we can tell SOMETHING about past conditions. Otherwise we are into "Last Thursdayism". In this case we have the physical evidence of the aquifers. The rock or unlithified sediment that may be in the aquifer is there and we know it didn't just get there "Last Thursday". We can do the tracer tests on wells a certain distance apart and measure the speed of movement of water. We can also measure the pressure that the aquifer layer might be under and how much it is changing, so it is possible to measure the amount of lithification that would have occured over time and how that might affect water movement. It is true that we can extrapolate only so far back but certainly it will take us well beyond YEC calculations by at least several orders of magnitude - unless someone is going to argue that physical laws, such as gravity, have changed significantly. Then of course Faith might have more of a point. But I think we have agreed that in the science forums we are not going to allow that kind of argument as we have no evidence of changes in physical laws such as gravity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by anglagard, posted 06-27-2006 8:13 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 11:44 AM deerbreh has replied
 Message 157 by anglagard, posted 06-27-2006 7:47 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 128 of 174 (326774)
06-27-2006 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by riVeRraT
06-27-2006 8:37 AM


Re: rat time
Yes, I can relate to that, I do die tests on septic systems.
Sorry, can't resist such a fat target. I take it you mean "dye" tests. Or do you mean to say you are looking for Jimmy Hoffa in a septic tank in New Jersey?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 06-27-2006 8:37 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by riVeRraT, posted 06-27-2006 9:53 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 129 of 174 (326795)
06-27-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by anglagard
06-27-2006 8:13 AM


Re: question
I simply do not get how the length of time you calculate it WOULD take to move this water from point A to point B says anything about a worldwide flood 4500 years ago. Simply see no relevance whatever. Can you spell this out better?
True, it has nothing to do with any worldwide flood. What it does is provide a minimum age for the Earth which is much greater than 6000 years, although much less than the 4.5 billion found through isotopes and cosmology.
This is exactly what I don't think it proves. As I go on to say and you even go on apparently to agree with. Just because under present conditions you calculate the water takes that long to move, is no proof that it HAS taken that long in the past. That is, you are operating on uniformitarian assumptions. But is it completely impossible that an upheaval of some kind, say an earthquake, within the last four or five millennia created the current situation of the underground rocks, in fact created the confined situation itself?
In other words, present conditions prove nothing about past conditions.
Also true, but taken together with all other geologic findings, they sure provide a lot of mutually supporting evidence concerning past conditions.
Well, the evidence being considered in this thread is only the hydrologic evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by anglagard, posted 06-27-2006 8:13 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by anglagard, posted 06-27-2006 8:11 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 130 of 174 (326801)
06-27-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by deerbreh
06-27-2006 9:49 AM


Re: question
I would answer it to say, not true, because we can tell SOMETHING about past conditions. Otherwise we are into "Last Thursdayism". In this case we have the physical evidence of the aquifers. The rock or unlithified sediment that may be in the aquifer is there and we know it didn't just get there "Last Thursday".
No, but conditions could have changed appreciably at some point quite a bit earlier than last Thursday, but within a few millennia.
We can do the tracer tests on wells a certain distance apart and measure the speed of movement of water. We can also measure the pressure that the aquifer layer might be under and how much it is changing, so it is possible to measure the amount of lithification that would have occured over time and how that might affect water movement.
But since this is based on the uniformitarian assumption, you will miss possible changes in the past that might have affected water movement.
It is true that we can extrapolate only so far back but certainly it will take us well beyond YEC calculations by at least several orders of magnitude - unless someone is going to argue that physical laws, such as gravity, have changed significantly.
Nobody argues that, or argues divine intervention either, merely that you can't know whether or not a cataclysmic event might have occurred within a few millennia that created this current constancy you are now measuring, before which things were quite different.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by deerbreh, posted 06-27-2006 9:49 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by deerbreh, posted 06-27-2006 12:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 133 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2006 12:32 PM Faith has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 131 of 174 (326807)
06-27-2006 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
06-27-2006 11:44 AM


Re: question
No, but conditions could have changed appreciably at some point quite a bit earlier than last Thursday, but within a few millennia.
If so there would be physical evidence of that. If we have none, we have to assume none until someone comes up with some credible evidence.
But since this is based on the uniformitarian assumption, you will miss possible changes in the past that might have affected water movement.
This is true only if one ignores any evidence for cataclysmic changes that might have occured. I am not proposing that any such evidence be ignored. But taking a non uniformitarian approach is also not justified if there is no evidence for a cataclysm.
Nobody argues that, or argues divine intervention either, merely that you can't know whether or not a cataclysmic event might have occurred within a few millennia that created this current constancy you are now measuring, before which things were quite different.
Edited by AdminFaith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 11:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 12:23 PM deerbreh has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 132 of 174 (326811)
06-27-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by deerbreh
06-27-2006 12:03 PM


Re: question
Same answer. Show me the evidence. Lacking that, we stick with the evidence we have based on current understanding of how the world works. We can do it no other way unless we want to argue divine intervention (or change of physical laws, which amounts to the same thing).
No, you do not have to argue either of these things, and nobody is arguing this. The argument is strictly for a physical upheaval of some sort. And your point is fine that if you see no evidence for it, all you can do is assume what you assume. On the other hand, you can't very well call your assumption "evidence" for an old earth. An assumption is not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by deerbreh, posted 06-27-2006 12:03 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by deerbreh, posted 06-27-2006 12:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 168 by lfen, posted 06-27-2006 9:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 133 of 174 (326812)
06-27-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
06-27-2006 11:44 AM


Re: question
merely that you can't know whether or not a cataclysmic event might have occurred within a few millennia that created this current constancy you are now measuring, before which things were quite different.
What sorts of cataclysmic events would change the permeability of a sandstone from 100 darcies to 0.01 darcy? What sort of cataclysmic events would instantly swap salt water for fresh or vice versa in the pores of a 100-mile-wide sheet of sandstone? Help us out here, Faith: what can this Floode do? Anything at all that you want it to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 11:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 12:35 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 134 of 174 (326813)
06-27-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Coragyps
06-27-2006 12:32 PM


Re: question
What sorts of cataclysmic events would change the permeability of a sandstone from 100 darcies to 0.01 darcy? What sort of cataclysmic events would instantly swap salt water for fresh or vice versa in the pores of a 100-mile-wide sheet of sandstone? Help us out here, Faith: what can this Floode do? Anything at all that you want it to?
I'm thinking more along the lines of changing an unconfined area to a confined area, opening or closing caverns and spaces, allowing more or less water into an underground area.
And the oceans are not presumed to have been salty at the time, salt being added by leaching off the continents, which would have been very minimal in a time when the earth was one great undivided mass that was watered by "mist" which would certainly minimize runoff. As for animals adapted to salt water, ever heard of natural selection?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2006 12:32 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by deerbreh, posted 06-27-2006 12:56 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 147 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2006 2:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 135 of 174 (326814)
06-27-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Faith
06-27-2006 12:23 PM


Re: question
On the other hand, you can't very well call your assumption "evidence" for an old earth. An assumption is not evidence.
Lack of evidence is not proof but it IS evidence.
If there are no symptoms that I am ill, it is evidence that I am healthy, but not proof, because maybe I have cancer and just don't have any symptoms. But unless I am a hypochondriac I am going to assume I am healthy.
Lack of evidence for a cataclysmic event means it is safe to assume that the event did not occur. This is an even safer assumption then me assuming I am healthy because cataclysmic events leave evidence. That is sort of the definition of cataclysmic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 12:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 12:44 PM deerbreh has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024