My Ark Challenge

Justatruthseeker said:

And you have yet to show why anything need move 10 miles a day to cause water eruption?

Click to expand...

26 July 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance about his own claim (mantle rock 400 miles below the surface containing water has to move to the surface to release it).

The discovery is not literally oceans of water (big holes in the mantle containing liquid water). The discovery is water captured inside rock being squeezed out by the high pressure.
Huge Underground Reservoir Holds Three Times as Much Water as Earth’s Oceans

The water is hidden inside a blue rock called ringwoodite that lies 700 kilometres underground in the mantle, the layer of hot rock between Earth’s surface and its core.
...
Sure enough, they found signs of wet ringwoodite in the transition zone 700 kilometres down, which divides the upper and lower regions of the mantle. At that depth, the pressures and temperatures are just right to squeeze the water out of the ringwoodite. “It’s rock with water along the boundaries between the grains, almost as if they’re sweating,” says Jacobsen.

Click to expand...

That wet ringwoodite can be detected from seismic waves which in turn gives an estimate of the rest of the ringwoodite and thus the 3 oceans of water in the rock.

Massive underground reservoir of water, ‘three times’ the size of Earth’s oceans, located

AV1611VET said:

What's this then?

Click to expand...

26 July 2018 AV1611VET: An irrelevant quotation of rain and mist in reply to my post about water from the earth causing the flood.
You really need to read what you are replying to and the verses you quote so I do not have to emphasize how irrelevant the post is.

AV1611VET said:

...Any questions?

Click to expand...

No because you have:
26 July 2018 AV1611VET: A fact less fantasy about the Biblical flood waters from "either to the moon, or to Mars" and back to "Neptune".

26 July 2018 AV1611VET: An ignorant fantasy about the cause of "meandering rivers" (Meander)

RealityCheck01 said:

Have you grasped the concept of reading a post?

The Bible according to AV1611VET states that God stopped creating things out of nothing. Thus God cannot have created the flood waters out of nothing and we have may have doubts abut returning the flood waters to nothing. So God must have got the water from somewhere.
Personally, I believe that people who have faith in an all-powerful God should not assume that there are limits on the power even if written in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Which is why I asked if you understood the difference between using what already existed and creating out of nothing was. The waters existed at day one, remember? Were separated above and below, remember? Were brought back by opening the floodgates and springs of the earth remember? Went back where they came from 3 ocean's worth of water, remember?????

Justatruthseeker, a rhetorical question: Do you think God is not powerful enough to keep track of every atom of added flood water and remove those added atoms? The answer is no, an all-powerful God can do that. So God can get water from any source and remove it leaving the oceans as is. That leaves comets and rocky asteroids as credible sources. For that matter why restrict God's powers to the Solar system? There is water in interstellar space. Exoplanets exist. etc.
Also, why restrict God's powers to comets incompatible with Earth's oceans when we know that Kuiper Belt comet 103P/Hartley 2 matched our oceans?

Click to expand...

So one out of 10 flasifications match and you choose to accept the one and discard the other 9 that falsified the theory??????

Why create more when your finished creating when you simply have to use what you already created by bringing it up from below?

No, the answer is yes, an all powerful God could do that. He can do anything. But He didn't, He used what He already created instead. So your problem is He didn't exercise His Godly power by creating more water?

26 July 2018 Justatruthseeker: An ignorant statement about a Most of Earth's Water Came from Asteroids, Not Comets article
Read what you cite:

The oceans from asteroids theory is not about todays asteroids, it is about asteroids shortly after the formation of the Solar System.

Click to expand...

Which would have been rocky bodies, just like they are today. Oh I am sorry, do you have an asteroid to show us from shortly after the formation of the solar system? No, but perhaps older?

Why, yes, why yes we do

https://www.popularmechanics.com/sp...roid-like-nothing-astronomers-have-ever-seen/

"The dark red color is a result of millions of years of irradiation from cosmic rays, and it suggests that the object is incredibly dense and rocky, or possibly high in metal content. The lack of activity or expelled debris as `Oumuamua made its close pass to the sun in September suggests the object lacks significant water or ice, classifying it as an asteroid rather than a comet as originally suggested."

What formation theories would those be? The ones already falsified?

* List of Problems with Solar System Formation: Taken together, the impressive scientific discoveries that completely falsify the nebular hypothesis of solar system formation include these:
- exoplanets contradict the predictions of the nebular hypothesis theory
- our Sun is missing nearly 100% of its predicted spin
- our Sun's rotation is seven degrees off the ecliptic
- planets would not form because as admitted in Nature in 2013, "according to standard theory, dust grains orbiting newborn stars should spiral into those stars rather than accrete to form planets”
- even when dust grains and small rocks collide gently they break apart instead of accreting to form planetesimals
- even if the laws of physics enabled planet formation 4.5 billion years is far too little time to build large planets
- the missing predicted uniform distribution pattern of solar system isotopes
- the other rocky planets don't have a lot of radioactivity in their crust as Earth does
- the missing expected uniform distribution of Earth's radioactivity
- the contrary-to-expectations fine-tuning of the solar system
- the many contrary-to-expectation transient events in the solar system
- as it would have been evolving, a faint young Sun can't explain the early Earth's warm climate
- that proponents are catastrophists trying to prop up the theory by claiming ubiquitous planetary catastrophism
- star formation has seemingly intractable physics problems (consider the Philae landing)
- contrary to an Oort or Kuiper origin, comets contain Earth-like minerals and rounded boulders
- short-period comets still exist even though they have lifespans of only thousands of years
- the 1,346 trans-Neptunian objects with known orbits reach perihelion at the ecliptic
- the MNRAS published analysis showing simulations can never demonstrate both planet and asteroid formation
- peanut-shaped asteroids present a deep, unsolved mystery to secular astrophysicists
- Mercury has greater density than can be accounted for by evolutionary accretion
- NASA's 45-year lunar dust data collector shows that miles, not inches, should have accumulated in billions of years
- the rocky planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars would rotate far more slowly if accreted from a condensing nebula
- the origin of the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn has no "satisfying explanation" as per the journal Science in 2002
- of the 170+ moons, as with others generally, those that would be explained as forming with their planets should have orbits lying near their equatorial plane but many do not
- 30 moons orbit retrograde (backwards)
- that Uranus rotates perpendicularly, Pluto rolls, and Venus rotates backwards.

And last but not least, and most important of all, stars forming along filimentry strings with not enough material under theory to even form stars.....

"The most striking discovery that emerged from these extensive surveys was a vast and intricate network of filamentary structures weaving their way through the Galaxy.

Finding filaments per se was not a novelty – similar structures had already been detected in previous decades – but their ubiquitous presence was definitely remarkable.

Herschel was the first observatory to reveal filaments nearly everywhere in the interstellar medium, from small ones, only a few light-years long, to giant threads extending over hundreds of light-years.

Such structures were spotted in all types of clouds, also in those with no ongoing star formation. Astronomers wondered: why do some filaments produce stars, while others do not?

The bounty of new data revealed not only that filaments are omnipresent, but also that they seem to have very similar properties, at least in our local neighbourhood. Regardless of their length, all filaments observed in nearby clouds have a universal width – about one third of a light-year."

But of course one and all ignore how filiments are formed in plasma, instead trying to imply that gravity now forms filimentary shapes instead of globes. Sad, Sad, Sad times for science...

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Filamentation

Your theories are dying one by one RC. It's time to step out of the gas light era and into the age of electric lights.

ADMIN HAT ON


Closed at OP request


ADMIN HAT OFF