did Noahs Ark really happen?

[busterdog]

Interesting. Do you know where this was published?
Too bad it still doesn't explain the fossil record, molecular clocks or biogeography. :-/

Indeed it does not.

But, they found a whole new freakin' ocean!

How much else is there to be found that will change everything, including our understanding of the fossil record?

To me, this is lip stick on the collar of our scientific spouse. I needn't address every possible act of unfaithfulness to what is indeed possible, which is what our hope is based upon.

 

[Servant222]

To me, this is lip stick on the collar of our scientific spouse.

Definitely a keeper!

 

[gluadys]

Indeed it does not.

But, they found a whole new freakin' ocean!

Not that new. If I have read the article correctly, this is actually recycled water. It was carried into the mantle as oceanic tectonic plates were subducted.

Previous predictions calculated that if a cold slab of the ocean floor were to sink thousands of miles into the Earth’s mantle, the hot temperatures would cause water stored inside the rock to evaporate out.

“That is exactly what we show here,” Wysession said. “Water inside the rock goes down with the sinking slab and it’s quite cold, but it heats up the deeper it goes, and the rock eventually becomes unstable and loses its water.”

The water then rises up into the overlying region, which becomes saturated with water [image]. “It would still look like solid rock to you,” Wysession told LiveScience. “You would have to put it in the lab to find the water in it.”​

Bolding added

And, as the bolded sentence indicates, you couldn't fill a bucket with it. Or rather what would be in the bucket would be rock. It would take a laboratory analysis to find the water molecules in it.

The researchers estimate that up to 0.1 percent of the rock sinking down into the Earth’s mantle in that part of the world is water, which works out to about an Arctic Ocean’s worth of water.​

What I see again here is creationists' lack of attention to detail. Did you just read the headline and not the full article?

 

[gluadys]

Come on now, be honest. You didn't really read much of AiG's "answers" at all. Each on of the points that you brought up are answered.

They weren't answered in the article that was presented. In most cases the questions weren't even raised.

If the answers you refer to are in different articles, perhaps you could provide the links?

 

[Mallon]

Not that new. If I have read the article correctly, this is actually recycled water. It was carried into the mantle as oceanic tectonic plates were subducted.

... which raises another question about the creationist model. If plate tectonism didn't come into play until about the time of the Flood (a la John Baumgardner), and the water can only be vesseled underground via plate subduction, then how could the floodwaters ever have accumulated in "the fountains of the deep" before active tectonism?

Devil's in the details.

 

[busterdog]

Not that new. If I have read the article correctly, this is actually recycled water. It was carried into the mantle as oceanic tectonic plates were subducted.

Previous predictions calculated that if a cold slab of the ocean floor were to sink thousands of miles into the Earth’s mantle, the hot temperatures would cause water stored inside the rock to evaporate out.

“That is exactly what we show here,” Wysession said. “Water inside the rock goes down with the sinking slab and it’s quite cold, but it heats up the deeper it goes, and the rock eventually becomes unstable and loses its water.”

The water then rises up into the overlying region, which becomes saturated with water [image]. “It would still look like solid rock to you,” Wysession told LiveScience. “You would have to put it in the lab to find the water in it.”​

Bolding added

And, as the bolded sentence indicates, you couldn't fill a bucket with it. Or rather what would be in the bucket would be rock. It would take a laboratory analysis to find the water molecules in it.

The researchers estimate that up to 0.1 percent of the rock sinking down into the Earth’s mantle in that part of the world is water, which works out to about an Arctic Ocean’s worth of water.​

What I see again here is creationists' lack of attention to detail. Did you just read the headline and not the full article?

Well to be fair, my point was that this is anomaly, was it not? A number of things stand out from the article. The word "anomaly" and that this is really a "back of the evelope" calculation. The water was allegedly precipitated out, which makes its likely appearance a little less than clear. Obviously the enormous pressures at which this stuff exists leaves little hope that the recently planned venture to find a North Pole tunnel to the center of the earth will allow for any beach time beside the Beijing anomaly. (My humor is intentional, unlike that of this unlikely "explorer").

However, the idea that you would need a microscope to see it is not completely clear in reference to the water having precipitated out. If you had a microscope, you have have a normal atmospheric pressure and you would see something entirely different. I am not criticizing that part of the science, I am simply saying that the current state of this water is not so much the issue as the fact that the earth has a mechanism to hide enormous volumes of "recycled" water, if not water released from heated crystals (serpentine, which does not require subduction), as opposed to clays.

This idea supports the concept of the "fountains of the deep."

How surface water got back down there is a perhaps more perplexing, but as yet unanswered question.

From another board, I recall endless speculation about the interplay of heated water, the temperature effect of the release of those waters under pressure, the potential interplay of super-cooled air, etc, etc. I just don't think we really know how to model any of those forces with any likely reliability. That is really my point.

 

[busterdog]

... which raises another question about the creationist model. If plate tectonism didn't come into play until about the time of the Flood (a la John Baumgardner), and the water can only be vesseled underground via plate subduction, then how could the floodwaters ever have accumulated in "the fountains of the deep" before active tectonism?

Devil's in the details.

The mineral serpentine is 13% water, which is released with heat.

 

[gluadys]

However, the idea that you would need a microscope to see it is not completely clear in reference to the water having precipitated out.

Well, I may be missing something, but I saw no reference in the article to the water precipitating out. That was my point. If one wishes to propose this water as a source for the fountains of the deep, some mechanism for releasing it from the rock would have to be found.

Heat, of course, could do it, but most flood scenarios generate too much heat as it is. This would add to that problem.

How surface water got back down there is a perhaps more perplexing, but as yet unanswered question.

As I understand it, this was not surface water. It was water held in the rocks of the tectonic plates undergoing subduction.

 

[Mallon]

The mineral serpentine is 13% water, which is released with heat.

Yes, but the water does not reach the surface of the earth as such.
Dehydrate any mineral in the earth's mantle (that is, release volatiles), and all you create is volcanism. You cannot flood the earth that way. That's first-year geology.
Relevant science paper here:
http://www.perplex.ethz.ch/papers/Ruepke_EPSL_04.pdf

 

[novacaine]

My question is what does the OP have to do with the creation vs evolution debate?

 

[laptoppop]

If the flood of Noah is real, and if it is a global event, not a local flood, then you would expect it to leave evidence.

In such a case, you would likely see the majority of the geologic column as representing the results of such a flood. Huge deposits spanning vast areas of land would be expected. You would see the different layers as representing different times in the flood, with varying hydrodeposition according to local conditions. You would see the fossils in the flood sorted by ecological positioning, motility and body characteristics as opposed to time. Huge areas where the fossil layers are supposedly "out of order" would not be any surprise or problem.

In other words, the same evidence used to point towards evolution is actually evidence that God caused a global flood, just as His revelation says. Same evidence - different interpretation.

 

[random_guy]

If the flood of Noah is real, and if it is a global event, not a local flood, then you would expect it to leave evidence.

In such a case, you would likely see the majority of the geologic column as representing the results of such a flood. Huge deposits spanning vast areas of land would be expected. You would see the different layers as representing different times in the flood, with varying hydrodeposition according to local conditions. You would see the fossils in the flood sorted by ecological positioning, motility and body characteristics as opposed to time. Huge areas where the fossil layers are supposedly "out of order" would not be any surprise or problem.

In other words, the same evidence used to point towards evolution is actually evidence that God caused a global flood, just as His revelation says. Same evidence - different interpretation.

Why don't you come back to the thread on hydrological sorting. Last time I checked, you still haven't come up with a method that shows sorting dinosaurs from chickens, even though there were dinosaurs the size of chickens. You also haven't shown how plants outran each other.

 

[epyon]

Yes

 

[novacaine]

Why don't you come back to the thread on hydrological sorting. Last time I checked, you still haven't come up with a method that shows sorting dinosaurs from chickens, even though there were dinosaurs the size of chickens. You also haven't shown how plants outran each other.

Thanks funny! I didn't know that plants could run. I've never seen a plant with legs. I would like to see that!

 

[Mallon]

Thanks funny! I didn't know that plants could run. I've never seen a plant with legs. I would like to see that!

Hey, as a wise man once told me, "there is no limit on God's ability to design different critters."

 

[laptoppop]

Wasn't that a wiseguy as opposed to a wise man? <grin>

 

[Assyrian]

Thanks funny! I didn't know that plants could run. I've never seen a plant with legs. I would like to see that!

Runnerbeans

 

[lopez23]

How is it possible that Noah fit two of ever species onto his ark and how big was it? The dinosaur section alone musta been as big as a modern ocean liner.

It's a story. It never happened.