- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Correct.
In climate science rain is what is known as a "feedback". The entire global moisture content cycles completely every 7 to 10 days.
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".
The word "ocean" is used only to describe the amount of water contained there encapsulated in rock.
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.
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.
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.
The discovery marks the first time such a large body of water has found in the planet's deep mantle.
Now it has.
From the link:
That article is eight years old; and you're just now hearing about it?
Here are the facts.
- Your article source is not from a professional journal.
- 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.
- 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.
- Even if it were true, it still lacks any evidence in support of creation science claims.
- 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?
Fine, go ahead and condone dishonest practices and dishonest science.
Yet earlier, you said: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.
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?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?
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..."
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.
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.
Interesting, I just got in from Church and that was the topic of today's sermon. You are correct, it simply means many.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?