I used my geology knowledge to propose a possible cause of global flood. You do not take it. That is fine. But why are you here? Is "I don't believe you" or "the model is ridiculous" the best thing you can say to a Creation hypothesis? Are you here to give challenge to Creationist with your best knowledge? If so, where is your challenge?
Actually I started off simply asking you a couple of mechanistic questions around your hypothesis:
What is your water budget from the mantle?
How do you get it quickly from the mantle without destroying the planet or parboiling the surface?
Where did it all go after The Flood?
Why is our planet's tectonics the same now as it appears to have been way back in the geologic record, something that would likely not happen if you suddenly outgassed the mantle.
(Note the water serves important puproses in the mantle phases, including but not limited to melt temp and
rheology of the mantle.)
Since you are not good in petrology, sedimentology. It is pretty flavorless by seeing you challenge me with naive questions.
You are getting quite insulting here. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm not good in sedimentology.
Igneous and metamorphic petrology may not be my area (and note I am being
honest here on my skill set), but sedimentology is much closer to my field (coal and organic geochemistry, my thesis was related to hot basinal brine migration into reef-deposit-hosted sulfides in the mid continent U.S., and I spent a year working for Peabody Coal correlating and mapping coal reserves, so sedimentology is not outside of my bailiwick).
I like to see that you are able to give a blow based on your best knowledge. So, throw to me your low T organic geochemistry argument as a challenge against Creationism. I am going to your field to see what is your qualification to challenge the science in the Bible.
If we are talking Literal Genesis then we have an extremely short time frame for the earth's history, yet the rock record doesn't show anything of that nature.
In point of fact I don't feel the need to support the bible with organic geochemistry issues. If, however, a YEC were to come on here (as they often do) and claim things about the origin of coal or petroleum, then I'm glad to address those issues.
To my knowledge the Bible is pretty silent on organic geochemical topics.
If you do not have any challenge to give, then wait for a while, I will throw one low T geochemistry stone to you.
I look forward to that like there's no tomorrow.
Believe me, I would dearly love to see a "stone" thrown to me.
It is not my field. But at least I think I might be able to give you some hard time in your field of knowledge.
That is amazing hubris. I am always amazed at Creationists who seem to know
no humility. Which I find doubly ironic from Christians.
I have the humility to know that I might be mistaken on a topic. So when you started throwing out LREE's and alkali metals as volatiles, I was honestly confused if perhaps I was simply misremembering something. Thankfully Molal and Baggins have reinforced my initial feeling that you were just...off there.
Do keep in mind that while I am trained in geochemistry, I work as a regular R&D chemist. Commodity minerals are my current area of expertise, so while I am not an igneous petrologist per se, I am not a complete idiot in these fields.
Your tone has turned quite negative and dare I say sort of
vicious of late.
So, if you can make a good shot, I am ready. Otherwise, you just wait. But, it would also mean that you already lose the first round.
Oh sheesh, some sort of p****ing match?
Please don't bring up the old cannard of [sup]14[/sup]C in coal, it is likely
de novo generation
Apparently [[sup]14[/sup]C in coal] correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series.(
SOURCE)
Please also don't go off into the weeds on abiogenic sources of the worlds petroleum deposits. While there may certainly be abiogenic organic compounds in the rocks somewhere, the vast majority of petroleum we utilize carries within it the detailed history of its origins in the form of porphyrin rings and pristane/phytane derivatives from chlorophyll as well as numerous other biomarkers.
It takes extremely deep time to accumulate sufficient organic material in the black shale source rocks that ultimately generate petroleum.
So, please, "throw me a stone" on this one. Show me how badly I do in this field. Impress me with your knowledge.
But do
try to keep the
ad hominem commentary to a minimum, unless you would like it returned in kind.
[bible]Luke 6:31[/bible]
