Significance of 40 Days

[OldWiseGuy]

Correct.

In climate science rain is what is known as a "feedback". The entire global moisture content cycles completely every 7 to 10 days.

Kidneys! (points at head).

 

[cerad]

Isn't it just an error, based on a misunderstanding of the old Hebrew word for 'many', which now means 'forty'?

Close. It was a translation error. However, the correct number was supposed to be 42.

 

[AV1611VET]

As for the sandwiched water between the earth's crust and mantle; neither drill cores, boreholes, or seismic data analysis, including P-waves, S-waves, or surface waves, whether Love wave or Rayleigh wave, show no such water sources.

Please refrain from "just making stuff up".

Making stuff up, huh?

You mean like here: Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth?

 

[RickG]

Making stuff up, huh?

You mean like here: Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth?

I knew I would get a bite if I threw that out. You are an easy one to hook.

There is no lithosphere or mantle ocean. The word "ocean" is used only to describe the amount of water contained there encapsulated in rock. Your source even states that their estimate is that 0.1% of the "rock" sinking into the mantle contains water. There is no sea, ocean, or fountains in the deep.

BTW, did you know that an inner inner core of the earth has been detected? Here's the link.
Earth's surprise inside: Geologists unlock mysteries of the planet's inner core

 

[AV1611VET]

The word "ocean" is used only to describe the amount of water contained there encapsulated in rock.

Is that why "ocean" in the title was placed in single quotes?

And is that why the article starts off calling it a 'vast water reservoir'?

Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

Hung-up on the word 'ocean' are you?

I'll ask again:

Do you really think JacksBratt made that up?

If so, did the author of that article make it up as well?

 

[RickG]

Is that why "ocean" in the title was placed in single quotes?

And is that why the article starts off calling it a 'vast water reservoir'?



Hung-up on the word 'ocean' are you?

I'll ask again:

Do you really think JacksBratt made that up?

If so, did the author of that article make it up as well?

The article is a news article in a magazine, not a peer review science journal. However, the article did mention an up coming publication in one of the AGU journals, but a search for it shows it not available yet.

Is it a vast reservoir, yes; but not in the sense you want to make it. Plants contain more water than the rock they are talking about. Do you think the fountains could be from plants?

 

[AV1611VET]

The article is a news article in a magazine, not a peer review science journal.

I don't care if the article is a Foxtrot comic.

Do you really think JacksBratt made that up?

 

[RickG]

I don't care if the article is a Foxtrot comic.

Do you really think JacksBratt made that up?

My reply to him about something being made up pertains specifically to the earth's mantle having ocean's/reservoirs. No source for his claim was provided. How else am I supposed to take it?

At the very least, it is propagation of gross misrepresentation of scientific research.

Here's an example of how this "reservoir" water is stored. And understand that all the inclusions shown in this photo are not liquid.

 

[AV1611VET]

My reply to him about something being made up pertains specifically to the earth's mantle having ocean's/reservoirs. No source for his claim was provided.

Now it has.

From the link:

The discovery marks the first time such a large body of water has found in the planet's deep mantle.

That article is eight years old; and you're just now hearing about it?

 

[RickG]

Now it has.

From the link:


That article is eight years old; and you're just now hearing about it?

Here are the facts.

1. Your article source is not from a professional journal.
2. The article mentions that the research was submitted for publication, it apparently never made it through peer review. A search for all publications by said scientist, Wysession, show no such article, ever being published in an AGU Journal or any other peer review journal.
3. There are a lot of science news magazines out there that will publish anything that seems to be sensational and will sell copies to the public. The creation science is all too willing to pick up on this kind of stuff and give their spin in support of their position.
4. Even if it were true, it still lacks any evidence in support of creation science claims.
5. There was an article published last year which did describe vast amounts of water in the mantle based on seismic data, which is described much like the pictured example I provided previously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here are the facts.

1. Your article source is not from a professional journal.
2. The article mentions that the research was submitted for publication, it apparently never made it through peer review. A search for all publications by said scientist, Wysession, show no such article, ever being published in an AGU Journal or any other peer review journal.
3. There are a lot of science news magazines out there that will publish anything that seems to be sensational and will sell copies to the public. The creation science is all too willing to pick up on this kind of stuff and give their spin in support of their position.
4. Even if it were true, it still lacks any evidence in support of creation science claims.
5. There was an article published last year which did describe vast amounts of water in the mantle based on seismic data, which is described much like the pictured example I provided previously.

1. Oooooh ... step back, everybody.

2. Oooooh ... step forward, peer review.

3. Meaning JacksBratt didn't make it up?

4. It should be a satisfactory answer to where so much water came from during the Flood.

5. Meaning JacksBratt didn't make it up?

 

[RickG]

1. Oooooh ... step back, everybody.

2. Oooooh ... step forward, peer review.

3. Meaning JacksBratt didn't make it up?

4. It should be a satisfactory answer to where so much water came from during the Flood.

5. Meaning JacksBratt didn't make it up?

Fine, go ahead and condone dishonest practices and dishonest science. The very thing directly opposite of what Jesus taught us.

From day 1 when I first came aboard the CF Oct. 1, 2011, I have done nothing but point out misrepresented science and at the same time making it clear that I am fine with ones literal views of scripture not based on science, and what I caution against is the misuse and misrepresentation of science to support ones beliefs, whether intentional or not, rather than take them on faith. I feel very comfortable with my salvation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fine, go ahead and condone dishonest practices and dishonest science.

What are you talking about?

You said it, yourself, that it was published that there was water in the mantle.

Remember saying this?

There was an article published last year which did describe vast amounts of water in the mantle based on seismic data, which is described much like the pictured example I provided previously.

Yet earlier, you said:

My reply to him about something being made up pertains specifically to the earth's mantle having ocean's/reservoirs. No source for his claim was provided. How else am I supposed to take it?

And you said that, knowing that there was an article published last year on vast amounts of water in the mantle, based on seismic data?

Or is your point that JacksBratt simply didn't provide an article?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Isn't it just an error, based on a misunderstanding of the old Hebrew word for 'many', which now means 'forty'?

Interesting, I just got in from Church and that was the topic of today's sermon. You are correct, it simply means many.

I'd heard that this is why the ancient Hebrews used "forty" in the same way we'd use "a thousand," or " a million," as in "I've told you a million times..."

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd heard that this is why the ancient Hebrews used "forty" in the same way we'd use "a thousand," or " a million," as in "I've told you a million times..."

Either that, or it rained forty days and forty nights.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Either that, or it rained forty days and forty nights.

And Jesus fasted in the desert for forty days and forty nights -- when any other fully human being would be long dead by seven.

 

[AV1611VET]

And Jesus fasted in the desert for forty days and forty nights -- when any other fully human being would be long dead by seven.

Yes, I know.

And He should have drowned in the Sea of Galilee trying to walk on the water, shouldn't He?

I mean, any other fully human being would be ... wouldn't he?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, I know.

And He should have drowned in the Sea of Galilee trying to walk on the water, shouldn't he?

I mean, any other fully human being would be ... wouldn't he?

it is certainly within God's power to suspend gravity to allow Jesus to walk on water -- and yes, it would equally be within His power to suspend the normal bodily processes to allow him to go without food and water for such an extended time, as well.

Of course, The Bible says he fasted, not that he did so with miraculous aid... odd, really, considering that it usually doesn't try to hide his miracles.

 

[AV1611VET]

it is certainly within God's power to suspend gravity to allow Jesus to walk on water -- and yes, it would equally be within His power to suspend the normal bodily processes to allow him to go without food and water for such an extended time, as well.

Of course, The Bible says he fasted, not that he did so with miraculous aid... odd, really, considering that it usually doesn't try to hide his miracles.

Then your point is moot.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Interesting, I just got in from Church and that was the topic of today's sermon. You are correct, it simply means many.

Very interesting.