Source of water for the flood

[RobertByers]

Let's stop there and consider your evidence for this statement.

What you don't have any?

I am shocked

i am also sarcastic






Making up ad hoc fantasy statements based on zero evidence just makes you look foolish if you wish to debate scientists who have evidence for their views




Which premises would they be



, that is not very clever is it.



very possibly, some of you also, no doubt know science, it is just that you don't

We use the same evidence
/data as all do in geology. We a;so have a good witness to the event. The bible.
We find now deep seas everywhere that they are this way because of moving apart or colliding continents. Creationism see continental drift as a short sudden event in the flood year and so we reason the seas were more shallow and even everywhere. Why not?
We can thus account for the water by this way of seeing ddeeper seas gathering it up at the end and less needed to bury the earth at the beginning.
Good points here.
Rob byers

 

[lemmings]

We use the same evidence
/data as all do in geology. We a;so have a good witness to the event. The bible.
We find now deep seas everywhere that they are this way because of moving apart or colliding continents. Creationism see continental drift as a short sudden event in the flood year and so we reason the seas were more shallow and even everywhere. Why not?
We can thus account for the water by this way of seeing ddeeper seas gathering it up at the end and less needed to bury the earth at the beginning.
Good points here.
Rob byers

No they don't.

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

 

[juvenissun]

OK, now we have an excellent class roster:

A petroleum geologist/paleontologist
A structural geologist
and a geochemist

Juvenissun can get as detailed as he likes with this complicated issue.

So far I've been a bit intrigued by Juvenissun because he's throwing around a lot higher level terminology related to geology than most YEC or Flood Advocates.

Will this be the poster to provide us some meat for the discussion?

I am really interested now.

Well, I am not sure if I am on the same page with you geologists. But it does not matter. Do not expect me to know the details on the mechanism of the global flood. Otherwise, TE and atheists will all be blown away. I am only speculating as you do. The difference is I am thinking of reasons in favor of the Flood and you aren’t.

If you are asking me what is the process that could accumulate free water in the mantle condition, I am telling you loudly that I do not know. However, if we replace the word "water" with "volatile compounds", then many geologists can say something about it, even all we know are still only hypotheses or models. The volatiles include water, CO2, other gases and at least the alkaline elements if we do not consider the Ca and LREE.

There is no doubt that the seawater came from the earth’s interior. The problem is by what process. A real interesting comparison is the planet Venus. There is no reason for the Earth and the Venus had a dramatically different history in their early stage of formation, even the earth could have been hit by another planet. Which is only needed to explain the origin of the puzzling moon of the earth. While we are thinking how did the earth get her water, we should also think how did the Venus lose her water. Whatever idea that suggests a mechanism which allows the accumulation of water on earth (e.g. volcanism), we should also ask that why wouldn’t the same process work on Venus?

Well, this could get very long and I do not intend to do that. In fact, at this very moment, there are A LOT geoscientists (include me), regardless of their faith, working on many many detail problems on the origin of various parts of the earth. It happened that there is a very interesting “story” in the Bible, which also addresses something very closely related this big issue. A global flood is indeed one of the possible ways which could make the earth deviate from the path of the Venus. From this point of view, the global flood is simply an accumulated consequence of all the unknown processes. And it only happened ONCE in the history of the planet, which drove the earth onto a separate path from that of the Venus. As a consequence, it would be quite an endeavor in trying to restore the processes with could only happen in a miniature scale today, or the process simply stopped since the Flood.

Just remind you people that most information taught in geology about mantle-crust interactions is based on how the earth operates TODAY. So, most of them need to be modified to see what could take place in the early earth. Precambrian research is still mostly limited to academics. In order to think closer to the real past, we should start with an earth which had no (granitic) continent, but was covered with basalt. Now, you tell me how did the first drop of water appear, and more importantly, what happened to it after it was formed.

I do not know how would a lot of water be accumulated at the mantle-crust boundary, and erupted in a short period of time. But this strange picture makes sense in explaining the origin of the current earth. I think an easier way of exploring the possibility of a global flood is not to speculate on the source of large amount of flood water, but to think why wouldn’t the earth work if the ocean water originated from a regular, or an intensified volcanic process. Another much detoured way (very feasible today) of exploring the problem would be to study why did the Venus lose all her water.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's using ridicule to make an argument look less viable.

I couldn't have said that better, myself ---

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree with you AV, for me, magic implies slight-of-hand, illusion and sleeve-dwelling flowers. This is not my God.

Yup ---

 

[Nitron]

I couldn't have said that better, myself ---

6 DIGITS?? and yellow??

Now to be fair, you're doing the same thing with Gautama. Can't we just respect each other's positions?

 

[AV1611VET]

6 DIGITS?? and yellow??

Huh?

Now to be fair, you're doing the same thing with Gautama. Can't we just respect each other's positions?

What?

 

[Nitron]

Huh?

My reps

What?

Calling Buddha a deadbeat dad is basically the same thing as calling Creation ex Nihilo magic poofing.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, I am not sure if I am on the same page with you geologists. But it does not matter. Do not expect me to know the details on the mechanism of the global flood.

But your statements indicated you were going to provide us with some info:

It is complicate. It would take me a while if I choose to answer them, and frankly, no one knows the details for sure so far.

An extremely rough idea is called "fractionation". That is why we got so called the hydrothermal deposit.

That alone indicated you were going to tackle it. Was it because you ran into some geologists and geochemists? Was it because we might know some of this that causes you to say the following?

Otherwise, TE and atheists will all be blown away. I am only speculating as you do. The difference is I am thinking of reasons in favor of the Flood and you aren’t.

Except we might have some experience with the data and might know something about the processes?

I have to say I am somewhat disappointed, Juvenissun. I really hoped you would continue with some detailed stuff. It seems as if you are doing the usual Flood Advocate and running away from details when you meet people who might know a thing or two about this topic.

I hope I am wrong.

If you are asking me what is the process that could accumulate free water in the mantle condition, I am telling you loudly that I do not know.

Then why don't you tell us what you do know.

However, if we replace the word "water" with "volatile compounds", then many geologists can say something about it, even all we know are still only hypotheses or models.

But they are not completely unknown materials. I hope you can understand that some of us have some real experience and it isn't all just mushed up in our heads. I'll admit I'm not a metamorphic petrologist. So I was interested that you might actually carry on a discussion that would cause me to settle in and re-learn my old met pet stuff. But I see you are running away. And that saddens me.

You used lherzolite and hydrothermal deposits in your posts! You made me think you were going to provide some information.

The volatiles include water, CO2, other gases and at least the alkaline elements if we do not consider the Ca and LREE.

I do not understand why you are calling alkaline elements "volatiles". Nor do I understand why you felt the need to bring up Light Rare Earth Elements.

There is no doubt that the seawater came from the earth’s interior.

Why just "Sea water"? I assume you are back on the juvenile water thing? Why limit it to just sea water?

Well, this could get very long and I do not intend to do that. In fact, at this very moment, there are A LOT geoscientists (include me), regardless of their faith, working on many many detail problems on the origin of various parts of the earth.

Ah so you are a geologist! Please, then, do follow through and provide us some details of how you will get the water out of the mantle and back into it so we resume with the same planet we started out with.

Also, please do tell us about your work on origins of things in the earth.

It happened that there is a very interesting “story” in the Bible, which also addresses something very closely related this big issue. A global flood is indeed one of the possible ways which could make the earth deviate from the path of the Venus.

Some details here. This is not my area but I look forward to as detailed a description as you wish to give.

From this point of view, the global flood is simply an accumulated consequence of all the unknown processes.

Don't hide too much stuff in this "Unknown" process thing. We know quite a bit about what went on in the past of the earth's history. Venus not so much. But earth definitely.

And it only happened ONCE in the history of the planet, which drove the earth onto a separate path from that of the Venus.

But why didn't it leave an obvious mark in the earth's geology? That's a big question in and of itself.

Precambrian research is still mostly limited to academics.

I'll leave that one to Molal and Baggins. I was rather under the impression that Precambrian stuff was not so very theoretical.

In order to think closer to the real past, we should start with an earth which had no (granitic) continent, but was covered with basalt. Now, you tell me how did the first drop of water appear, and more importantly, what happened to it after it was formed.

Well since hydrogen is very common in the universe and we do have oxygen available, we surely had the necessary ingredients in the early earth the question being how much, and in what form. When you are talking about The Flood you are presumably talking about something much much later in geologic history and then you most assuredly do have to deal with more regular modern-style geology.

I think an easier way of exploring the possibility of a global flood is not to speculate on the source of large amount of flood water

But this is key. This is a very important topic. Unless you can produce sufficient water only then can you play the "Flood" scenario. It's like me suggesting a giant invasion of Jello encompassing Los Angeles. I think I'd have to figure out where the Jello came from before I could draw any conclusions about it's possible occurence.

, but to think why wouldn’t the earth work if the ocean water originated from a regular, or an intensified volcanic process. Another much detoured way (very feasible today) of exploring the problem would be to study why did the Venus lose all her water.

I think I'm starting to see what you are getting at here. I've got to get offa here and do some stuff for work, but I'm hoping you'll flesh this out in more detail. Complete with a reasonable "water budget" and how it was mobilized out of the mantle onto the surface in a very short time without destroying the planet and then where it all went (presumably back into the mantle because we have roughly the same planet we had pre-dating the occurence of humans on the planet. If the geologic record is to be believed.)

 

[BrainHertz]

I agree with you AV, for me, magic implies slight-of-hand, illusion and sleeve-dwelling flowers. This is not my God.

Hmmm. Personally, I would call that kind of stuff an illusion; there's no magic of any kind involved. But, whatever.

Would "supernatural means" work better?

 

[Baggins]

We use the same evidence
/data as all do in geology. We a;so have a good witness to the event. The bible.

So the bible, a book written 2000 years ago by an agrarian community far away from all the centers of advanced human thought at that time is a good guide to modern geology?

OK, In that case "The Lord of The Rings" can probably give us insights into quantum physics wouldn't you say?

We find now deep seas everywhere that they are this way because of moving apart or colliding continents.

Discovered by scientists piecing together intuition from geographical shape, sedimentary and palaeontological evidence and finally GPS information to show that this is a slow uniformitarian process.

Creationism see continental drift as a short sudden event in the flood year

Which has been shown mathematically to turn the earth into a molten ball

and so we reason the seas were more shallow and even everywhere. Why not?

Because you didn't use reason, and you haven't got any evidence.

We can thus account for the water by this way of seeing ddeeper seas gathering it up at the end and less needed to bury the earth at the beginning.

You have turned into Mr Ad Hoc, have you been taking lessons from Dad?

Good points here.

Really! could you highlight it, all I can see is ad hoc justification of an ancient text backed up by no evidence.

 

[Baggins]

Do not expect me to know the details on the mechanism of the global flood.

All rather pointless then isn't it?

You have speculation we have evidence.

We win.

If you are asking me what is the process that could accumulate free water in the mantle condition, I am telling you loudly that I do not know.

No process no hypothesis, come back when you have a process that doesn't destroy the earth.

However, if we replace the word "water" with "volatile compounds",

Why? we are talking about water.

There is no doubt that the seawater came from the earth’s interior.

Typical creationist, conclusion first, followed by zero evidence.

And they wonder why they aren't taken seriously.

we should also ask that why wouldn’t the same process work on Venus?

Evidence?

Well, this could get very long and I do not intend to do that. In fact, at this very moment, there are A LOT geoscientists (include me),

You are a geoscientist?

Credentials please.

regardless of their faith, working on many many detail problems on the origin of various parts of the earth.

Kind of goes with the definition of geoscientist

It happened that there is a very interesting “story”

Story.........

snip.

Conclusion, ad hoc flummery, no evidence.

Typical creationist

 

[Baggins]

Just remind you people that most information taught in geology about mantle-crust interactions is based on how the earth operates TODAY. So, most of them need to be modified to see what could take place in the early earth. Precambrian research is still mostly limited to academics. In order to think closer to the real past, we should start with an earth which had no (granitic) continent, but was covered with basalt. Now, you tell me how did the first drop of water appear, and more importantly, what happened to it after it was formed..

You obviously haven't read " The Evolving Continents" by Brian F, Windley.

There is plenty of research on young earth geology. It is so well established that it is taught to undergraduates, in fact it was taught to undergraduates 25 years ago when I was one.

I am off to Africa to work as a geoscientists, I will out of coms for a few days.

I don't think I will miss much.

Seriously, do some reading

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

We use the same evidence
/data as all do in geology. We a;so have a good witness to the event. The bible.
We find now deep seas everywhere that they are this way because of moving apart or colliding continents. Creationism see continental drift as a short sudden event in the flood year and so we reason the seas were more shallow and even everywhere. Why not?
We can thus account for the water by this way of seeing ddeeper seas gathering it up at the end and less needed to bury the earth at the beginning.
Good points here.
Rob byers

We use the same evidence/data as all do in geology

No creationists do not use the same evidence; they ignore the same evidence as geologists use.

. We also have a good witness to the event. The bible.

The bible is not good evidence of the geological processes that have shaped the Earth. Even to suggest that all the geological column, plate tectonic movements, large igneous provinces, evaporate deposits, meteorite impacts etc, occurred in a one year period, shows a total lack of understanding for the subject.


We find now deep seas everywhere that they are this way because of moving apart or colliding continents.

The deepest parts of the oceans are a consequence of tectonic plate movements; however, the continents are a consequence of their lighter buoyancy. This buoyancy is the product of fractionation, i.e. the segregation of differing elemental compositions based on their condensation (or solidification temperatures) temperatures. This has lead to continental crusts extremely rich in Si, Al, Ca as compared to the Fe and Mg rich oceanic crust.

Creationism see continental drift as a short sudden event in the flood year and so we reason the seas were more shallow and even everywhere. Why not?

Totally impossible; what you must remember is that the Earth’s outer crust is not floating on a molten mantle. The mantle is solid, albeit plastic, which gives it a flow rate comparable to the rate human finger nails grow. To suggest that the ocean basins occurred in one year would need energy levels that would turn the entire Earth to a molten mass.

Above all; the entire accumulated evidence on plate tectonics indicates overwhelmingly that the process operates slowly over vast time scales.

We can thus account for the water by this way of seeing ddeeper seas gathering it up at the end and less needed to bury the earth at the beginning.
Good points here.
Rob byers

Very poor point here: Because you have not used any evidence to support your suppositions. All you are doing is pipe dreaming without the basic knowledge to see the flaws in your imaginary world.

 

[juvenissun]

Quote:
However, if we replace the word "water" with "volatile compounds", then many geologists can say something about it, even all we know are still only hypotheses or models.
But they are not completely unknown materials. I hope you can understand that some of us have some real experience and it isn't all just mushed up in our heads. I'll admit I'm not a metamorphic petrologist. So I was interested that you might actually carry on a discussion that would cause me to settle in and re-learn my old met pet stuff. But I see you are running away. And that saddens me.

You used lherzolite and hydrothermal deposits in your posts! You made me think you were going to provide some information.

Quote:
The volatiles include water, CO2, other gases and at least the alkaline elements if we do not consider the Ca and LREE.
I do not understand why you are calling alkaline elements "volatiles". Nor do I understand why you felt the need to bring up Light Rare Earth Elements.

When I was trying to bring up some meat, then you can not digest it. What should I say so you can understand? I think it would be better if you give me some specific questions, so I can answer you on your level.

 

[Molal]

When I was trying to bring up some meat, then you can not digest it. What should I say so you can understand? I think it would be better if you give me some specific questions, so I can answer you on your level.

You should explain using more concise language. If you are knowledgeable about geology, then please explain to us in geological terms - since they have a most strict definition, no confusion will happen. If you do not know geology, then explain using concise language.

In this manner, you will be able to deliver your arguement with the most accuracy.

 

[AV1611VET]

You should explain using more concise language. If you are knowledgeable about geology, then please explain to us in geological terms - since they have a most strict definition, no confusion will happen. If you do not know geology, then explain using concise language.

In this manner, you will be able to deliver your arguement with the most accuracy.

All the geology in the world isn't going to matter, if you can't get past Genesis 1. Henry Morris makes that point in his Defender's Study Bible.

 

[Molal]

All the geology in the world isn't going to matter, if you can't get past Genesis 1. Henry Morris makes that point in his Defender's Study Bible.

That's not what I was asking, AV.

 

[thaumaturgy]

When I was trying to bring up some meat, then you can not digest it.

Sorry, I didn't perceive much but a thin veneer of loosely-used geologic terms.

What should I say so you can understand? I think it would be better if you give me some specific questions, so I can answer you on your level.

I believe I've asked a number of times already but here goes again:

If you wish to Flood the entire world to the dept of the mountains in the Ararat Region of Turkey and you do so with the water trapped in the mantle:

1. Please give me some idea of your "water budget". ie how much water is in the various phases in the mantle and in what form (as water of hydration, absorbed, adsorbed, or as hydroxy groups)

2. Since we are talking about the Flood of Noah it was at a point relatively recently in human history (certainly after the appearance of humanity). We know what the earth was like going back many millions of years (or at least long before humans showed up on the scene), so we know what the earth was like before the Flood and after. How do we remove water from the mantle in sufficient quantities and with sufficient speed to flood the earth without destroying the earth or "par-boiling" it, and then return this water to the mantle such that the tectonics we see today and which are quite similar to the tectonics of the distant past match up again.

3. What evidence do you have for some "different state" (ie "accelerated tectonics")?

4. Other than a strange "repaving" of Venus that we have inferred from the relative density of impact structures on the surface of Venus, what do we know about Venus' tectonism and structure?

5. Please outline your idea that without the Flood of Noah we wouldn't have the planet we have today and please explain why this catastrophic flood left no discernible correlatable marker bed or event horizon in the geologic record.

 

[juvenissun]

You should explain using more concise language. If you are knowledgeable about geology, then please explain to us in geological terms - since they have a most strict definition, no confusion will happen. If you do not know geology, then explain using concise language.

In this manner, you will be able to deliver your arguement with the most accuracy.

I am afraid people here could not take the concise explanation. For example, it seems why are alkaline elements treated as volatiles in the mantle is still a question.

What should I explain?