Source of water for the flood

[TheManeki]

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?

Typically, a sign of truly knowing something is the ability to express that knowledge. On the flipside, an inability to express that knowledge often indicates a lack of the aforementioned knowledge.

 

[thaumaturgy]

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

Let's be very clear here; while you may use the same "data" (ie the rock formations) YEC do not use the same "physics" and "chemistry" geologists are stuck with. Geologists have to deal within the constraints of actual physics and chemistry.

Most Flood advocates like to wave at hugely detailed rock formations and just "mush it up" as if some super flood could generate the specific types of graded bedding and specific energy environments that are presented in the rock.

Of course they have done so usually without actually examining the rock itself.

Remember, geologists look at the rock at all levels from the large-scale down to the grain-by-grain scale. We know what flooding looks like, we know what turbidite sequences look like, we know a lot about what would be expected if a Giant Global Flood would have occurred in the relatively recent past.

I like the Hjulstrom Diagram a lot. It's a nice simplified version of how sediments are transported and eroded based on the energy available:

What I fear is that Flood Advocates never stop to bother with the details of the event necessary to make the world the way it is using Flood Geology. Flood Geology seems to work only if one takes all the data and ignores all of physics and just "makes something up" and "mushes it up in their heads" as if all rocks are just some solidifed random goo.

But sadly it isn't so. There's a huge amount of data recorded in any given formation, in any given layer.

We a;so have a good witness to the event. The bible.

That is not a "witness" to the event. It is a record of the event from an unknown source and which bears striking similarities to any of a huge number of patently different and competiting myth stories from all over the globe.

This is what is called "Provenance". It isn't just a term in geology to describe where a sediment came from, but it can be applied to EVIDENCE as well. What is the "provenance" of the Genesis account? Sadly we don't really know. We have a lot of really good textual analyses that point to some ideas, but really it is still an anonymous, apocryphal account.

Let's personalize it a bit. Suppose you were brought up on charges for a heinous crime that you didn't commit, and you can account for where you were during the time of the crime to the minute. The main "witness" against you was an old piece of paper on which was scrawled

Robert Byers Did the Horrible Deed!

How sanguine would you be if the Jury just announced "Judge, we find this to be a very good witness to the events, so we will ask that we be allowed to pass a verdict of "Guilty as Charged" right here and now.

When it comes to geology, the Genesis account is just about as useful a "witness" to the events. The data we have in the rocks can tell us what was going on when with a great deal of accuracy. We may not have it down to the second, but we have a lot of data that would indicate the Genesis accounts for origin and the Flood of Noah are not as depicted in the anonymous, apocryphal "record".

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

And if you look at the rocks in the seafloor you see magnetic reversals frozen in the rocks, you have a "clock". You also have clocks built into the radioactive decay of elements in some rocks.

And, again, in terms of known physics, imagine how much force is necessary to move an entire continent, and we know how they are moved (asthenospheric convection cells and "slab push" and "slab pull" mechanisms), so how do you vastly accelerate those processes to thousands if not millions of times their current speed and not destroy the planet?

This is what I mean by being constrained by actual physics.

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?

Because it would require an almost unimaginable alteration of all known physics as well as risk destroying the planet, and interestingly enough having happened without leaving an obvious piece of data to suggest it did (other than an anonymous, apocryphal account that looks like any of a number of myth stories )

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.

As long as you are not limited to anything like reasonable physics or science or hydraulics, why not just got he extra mile and summarize it as "God did it"? Why bother with science? Obviously YEC's only use science when it suits them and don't feel the need to abide by the verdict science demands, so why bother with science at all?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

For Juvenissun



The reason alkaline elements partially Sodium and Potassium are considered as volatiles is because they tend to be found it the minerals that melt first and crystallise last. This should be clear from the diagram.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's be very clear here; while you may use the same "data" (ie the rock formations) YEC do not use the same "physics" and "chemistry" geologists are stuck with. Geologists have to deal within the constraints of actual physics and chemistry.

etc...

The reason alkaline elements partially Sodium and Potassium are considered as volatiles is because they tend to be found it the minerals that melt first and crystallise last. This should be clear from the diagram.

​

 

[Molal]

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?

For starters you can explain your statement quoted above.

 

[juvenissun]

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)

Imagine an earth with a maximum relief about 2000 meters (I am not quite sure if this is enough for the global surface relief at the time of Rodinia) I think you can calculate the maximum amount of water needed to cover the earth.

I am talking about the possibility of a global flood in the earth history. I am not talking about that at the current relief of the earth.

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.

My model of water that came out of mantle is something similar to the occurrence of flood basalt today. It is an one-way traffic. The water does not return to the mantle.

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

How about the tropical wooly mammoth got frozen alive in the arctics? This is a simple one. There are others, but are much more complicate. And, these are not "evidences". These features just demand explanation.

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?

Not much. But it is enough for us to know that the Venus does not have the same tectonic process as we have on the earth. The Venus is still degassing (means thrown out water and gas). And we think this process is in pulsation. In contrast, I think another global flood will never be possible on earth, even the mantle still have enough water to do it many times over.

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

If we are looking for depositional feature, we probably won't find it. However, a global unconformity is not a strange feature. One of it might be created by the Noah's Flood.

----------------

Please try to challenge me with better questions, so a human being could possibly answer something. It is meaningless and useless to ask a science question which none of the TE or atheist on the earth have any clue about.

 

[juvenissun]

For starters you can explain your statement quoted above.

Whenever water is separated from mantle rock, alkaline elements ( < 0.01%) are also separated together. Petrologically, they are treated as one type of substance together. Of course, you can imagine that other elements get concentrated in the mantle by the same process.

 

[thaumaturgy]

For Juvenissun



The reason alkaline elements partially Sodium and Potassium are considered as volatiles is because they tend to be found it the minerals that melt first and crystallise last. This should be clear from the diagram.

Has it been so long since I was in a petrology class? I am unfamiliar with this designation of the Group I metals as "volatiles". I am used to thinking of volatiles as they are more commonly considered:

Volatiles are chemicals that exist in magma in their gaseous state. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are the most common and important ones, and there are a number of questions we have about volatiles like them. (SOURCE)

I was an organic geochemist, so the high temp stuff was not my main bag, but I don't recall ever hearing Group I metals being considered "volatiles" in magmas, or "volatiles" as being defined as metals in the silicates at the bottom of Bowen's, but of course there is a very strong possibility I was mistaken.

Could someone provide a linky to this sort of thing?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Whenever water is separated from mantle rock, alkaline elements ( < 0.01%) are also separated together. Petrologically, they are treated as one type of substance together. Of course, you can imagine that other elements get concentrated in the mantle by the same process.

Now certainly I can agree that, when roughly considered from the Bowen's reaction series, there is a successive increase in Na and K in late-stage crystallized materials with fractional crystallization, and as pointed out earlier that explains felsics and pegmatites, but I am unfamiliar with the concept that water + Group I metals are considered petrologically the same.

Could you provide a link to a reference for this?

Again, I could be mistaken, but the use of terms here is sounding strange.



If all we are talking about is fractional crystallization I don't believe there is any sort of "mystery" or any real confusion. I believe this is pretty well-understood chemistry.

I just ran across a discussion on alkali-metal and water enrichment in lithospheric mantle HERE, but I don't believe this is necessarily what you are getting at here.

 

[Molal]

Now certainly I can agree that, when roughly considered from the Bowen's reaction series, there is a successive increase in Na and K in late-stage crystallized materials with fractional crystallization, and as pointed out earlier that explains felsics and pegmatites, but I am unfamiliar with the concept that water + Group I metals are considered petrologically the same.

Could you provide a link to a reference for this?

Again, I could be mistaken, but the use of terms here is sounding strange.



If all we are talking about is fractional crystallization I don't believe there is any sort of "mystery" or any real confusion. I believe this is pretty well-understood chemistry.

I just ran across a discussion on alkali-metal and water enrichment in lithospheric mantle HERE, but I don't believe this is necessarily what you are getting at here.

I think we are all discussing fractional crystallization, except no-one has brought it up, yet

I too have never heard of sodium and potassium (felsic minerals) being referred to as volatile. No where in my literature at hand can I find that reference. Although I maybe wrong, I think this use of terminology is a red herring.

Volatiles, such as water (whether it be juvenile or not) and CO2 do affect fractional crystallisation as evidenced in the many igneous plutons on earth today. Fractional crystallisation is also highly dependent upon double diffusive convection......but this is not under scrutiny in this thread.

Juvenissun,

Whenever water is separated from mantle rock, alkaline elements ( < 0.01%) are also separated together. Petrologically, they are treated as one type of substance together. Of course, you can imagine that other elements get concentrated in the mantle by the same process.

This does not explain concentration of elements in the mantle......

I am fantastically confused by your comments juvenissun. I am afraid that, as a practicing, publishing geologist, your ideas make little sense and are highly confusing.

 

[thaumaturgy]

My model of water that came out of mantle is something similar to the occurrence of flood basalt today. It is an one-way traffic. The water does not return to the mantle.

OK. So where did this water go?

But as for the topograhy before the flood I'm still having a bit of difficulty with this. I'm thinking of
[bible]Genesis 8:5[/bible]

So by "Mountains" the ancients meant hills of ~2000 feet max? Or did the mountains spring up under the flood water?

How about the tropical wooly mammoth got frozen alive in the arctics?

"Tropical woolly mammoth"?

I was unfamiliar that such a thing existed. Why would a tropical animal have a thick coat of fur like that?

Not much. But it is enough for us to know that the Venus does not have the same tectonic process as we have on the earth.

To my knowledge Venus likely no longer has any tectonics:

The global tectonics of Venus differs significantly from that of Earth, most markedly in that the surface is covered predominately by gently rolling terrain; there apparently are no features like ocean rises; the gravity is positively correlated with topography at all wavelengths; and the few highlands are estimated to be supported or compensated at a depth of approximately 100 kilometers. The surface of Venus appears to be covered mainly by an ancient crust, the high surface temperature making subduction difficult. It seems likely that well over 1 billion years ago water was destabilized at the surface and, soon after, plate tectonics ceased. The highlands appear to be actively supported, presumably as manifestations of long-enduring hot spots.
Tectonics and Evolution of Venus

R. J. Phillips, W. M. Kaula, G. E. McGill , and M. C. Malin

Science
(SOURCE)

So, if the loss of water from Venus' planetary body helped shut down tectonism, why didn't a similar loss of water from our mantle cause a shutdown of our tectonism?

In contrast, I think another global flood will never be possible on earth, even the mantle still have enough water to do it many times over.

Well, clearly that is true:

[bible]Genesis 8:21[/bible]

If we are looking for depositional feature, we probably won't find it.

Well, there you go: unfalsifiable, ergo non-scientific. Why wouldn't we find anything?

However, a global unconformity is not a strange feature. One of it might be created by the Noah's Flood.

Well, to be fair, unconformities mean that material has been removed from the record, but since we are all stuck on the planet, it had to go somewhere. So we would obviously find it piled up somewhere. Did it leave the planet? Shouldn't we find some huge pile of stuff stashed somewhere?

Please try to challenge me with better questions, so a human being could possibly answer something.

Please don't take that tone. I have been more than forebearant on these topics. If you have something that is "complicate", don't be afraid to present it in its full glory. I assure you, I have a PhD in geology, have taught and worked with mineralogical issues and would welcome a "complicate" topic, even if it is ancillary or outside of my main area of focus (low temp and organic geochem).

Let's dispense with what appears to be a "dart game" of throwing out whatever high-level geochemical and petrologic terms you can find and settle into an outline of your topic.

It is meaningless and useless to ask a science question which none of the TE or atheist on the earth have any clue about.

Well, be fair to those of us who are geologists and rest assured there is a ton of information out there.

If you have an idea of how the Flood occurred, and you believe it to be true or compelling, then please provide us with reason to believe you.

It is not irrational to ask for this in opposition of a more standard uniformitarianist model. If you believe it to be "reasonable" to believe as you do, then why, in detail, do you so believe? Or is it just an attempt to mush up some ideas that might provide support for literal Noachian Flood (as long as the details are ignored sufficiently)?

 

[juvenissun]

I

This does not explain concentration of elements in the mantle......

Concentration of what?

 

[juvenissun]

Now certainly I can agree that, when roughly considered from the Bowen's reaction series, there is a successive increase in Na and K in late-stage crystallized materials with fractional crystallization, and as pointed out earlier that explains felsics and pegmatites, but I am unfamiliar with the concept that water + Group I metals are considered petrologically the same.

When talk about crustal magma, we do not think alkaline elements are volatile.

But when we talk about mantle petrology, many elements are treated as volatiles. Like I said before, LREE, or B, C, etc.

Or, if you really don't like the word, you may say they are incompactible elements. It has the same meaning.

 

[Molal]

I




Concentration of what?

I thought you meant elements, as in elemental.....periodic table......see my point - a severe lack of concise explanation.

 

[juvenissun]

So, if the loss of water from Venus' planetary body helped shut down tectonism, why didn't a similar loss of water from our mantle cause a shutdown of our tectonism?

This is a billion dollars question. Nobody can answer that so far. However, Creationist HAS a hint: it is because of the Noah's Flood.

One possible reason that the water could not stay on Venus is that Venus was too hot and lasted too long so the evaporation was too fast. In other words, the Venus cooled too slow.

The earth could and should be the same. However, the Noah's Flood cooled off the surface of the earth rapid enough to allow the beginning of the hydrological cycle. And that changed everything.

If you check the crustal geothermal gradient of Archean and Early Proterozoic time, you would appreciate how hot was the earth surface at that time. I am not saying it proves anything. I am just saying that it was an entirely different earth. If you think the last tectonic activity on Venus was about 1 Bya, then it corresponds to the late Proterozoic time on the earth. It wasn't really that long time ago. It is interesting to know that it was also the time that the earth went though many dramatic changes. One of them is a very fast cooling on the surface.

I like to talk about one idea in one post. So, I am sorry that I am not responding to your other points.

 

[juvenissun]

I thought you meant elements, as in elemental.....periodic table......see my point - a severe lack of concise explanation.

Yes, I am talking about elements. What is your question?

 

[thaumaturgy]

When talk about crustal magma, we do not think alkaline elements are volatile.

Boy howdy, I am not tracking on this "definition". As I said, I'm far more comfortable with the usual "volatiles". Now, indeed metal ions may partition into the various volatiles:

Here's an article of interest here:

The dominant volatile components of the Earth's interior, species of C-H-O, may be dissolved in the molten core, and in solid carbides, hydrides and oxides in the deep mantle.

O'neal and Plame (1998) calculated H2O contents in depleted and primitive mantle to be 250 and 1160ppm, respectively.
...
H2O appears to be the most abundant among volatile species in the upper mantle. The abundance of carbon and H2O in normal mantle are low enough that they may best stored entirely within minerals. (SOURCE)

Volatile components, magmas, and critical fluids in upwelling mantle. 2000, Wyllie, P., Ryabchikov, I., J. Petrology v 41.

So we at least have a starting point for a possible water-budget.

But when we talk about mantle petrology, many elements are treated as volatiles. Like I said before, LREE, or B, C, etc.

Surely these materials may partition into the volatile component in solution, are the metals themselves "volatile"?

Or, if you really don't like the word, you may say they are incompactible elements. It has the same meaning.

Well, I am kind of hung up on technical definitions here, perhaps. As Molal has indicated specific definitions help bring the discussion in line. I am perhaps getting a bit pedantic.

If you are merely wanting to describe the transport of REE and various other metal cations, then perhaps we are all on the same page.

But just the same, perhaps you could utilize the above-quoted figure from O'Neal and Plame to rough out some calculations of how much mantle you'd have to catastrophically bring to the surface to cover the planet to a couple thousand to a couple tens of thousands of meters thick in water.

And where that will all go after the Flood.

And how it is done without shutting down plate tectonics.

And how it is done without destroying the planet.

 

[Molal]

Yes, I am talking about elements. What is your question?

I am asking YOU about the elements YOU are talking about.

I just want clarification - if you can't follow your own arguement, how can I?

Concentration of what?

 

[Molal]

Boy howdy, I am not tracking on this "definition". As I said, I'm far more comfortable with the usual "volatiles". Now, indeed metal ions may partition into the various volatiles:

Here's an article of interest here:


So we at least have a starting point for a possible water-budget.



Surely these materials may partition into the volatile component in solution, are the metals themselves "volatile"?



Well, I am kind of hung up on technical definitions here, perhaps. As Molal has indicated specific definitions help bring the discussion in line. I am perhaps getting a bit pedantic.

If you are merely wanting to describe the transport of REE and various other metal cations, then perhaps we are all on the same page.

But just the same, perhaps you could utilize the above-quoted figure from O'Neal and Plame to rough out some calculations of how much mantle you'd have to catastrophically bring to the surface to cover the planet to a couple thousand to a couple tens of thousands of meters thick in water.

And where that will all go after the Flood.

And how it is done without shutting down plate tectonics.

And how it is done without destroying the planet.

I don't see this as being pedantic. I just want to hammer out definitions, to hammer out arguements and discussions so we are on the same page.

So far, I am lost. All I have read is J's assertions and my and your (Thau's) replies trying to decipher the assertions.

 

[DeathMagus]

I'm no physicist, but why are we debating plausible explanations of a global flood? Wouldn't the energy required to cause a global flood and then remove all the water release enough heat to thoroughly cook practically all complex life?

IIRC, wouldn't magic be the only way it could occur, rendering a discussion of physics pointless?