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.
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.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?
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.
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.
For starters you can explain your statement quoted above.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?
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.
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.For starters you can explain your statement quoted above.
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.
UCSD said: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)
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.
I think we are all discussing fractional crystallization, except no-one has brought it up, yetNow 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.
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.
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.
How about the tropical wooly mammoth got frozen alive in the arctics?
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 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)
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.
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.
I
This does not explain concentration of elements in the mantle......
Concentration of what?
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.
I thought you meant elements, as in elemental.....periodic table......see my point - a severe lack of concise explanation.I
Concentration of what?
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?
Yes, I am talking about elements. What is your question?I thought you meant elements, as in elemental.....periodic table......see my point - a severe lack of concise explanation.
When talk about crustal magma, we do not think alkaline elements are volatile.
JPetrology said: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.
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.
I am asking YOU about the elements YOU are talking about.Yes, I am talking about elements. What is your question?
I just want clarification - if you can't follow your own arguement, how can I?
Concentration of what?
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.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.
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?