Source of water for the flood

[Baggins]

Baggins, you call yourself a geologist. I can not see it. What do you know the best in geology? Care to take a challenge?

What ever you like.

I am a working geophysicist, at the moment I am off the coast of Senegal setting up a 3D shooting programme.

Topics I am particularly interested in are:

Palynofacies of oil source rocks. I have a Masters thesis on this topic

Late Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian adaptive radiation; I have a BSc finals thesis on this topic

and, work-wise, the quality control and interpretation of 3D seismic volumes. For confidentiallity reasons I won't be able to go into specifics on this.

What do you want to debate? If the topics above don't wet your whistle I am open to other suggestions.

 

[flatworm]

Baggins, you call yourself a geologist. I can not see it. What do you know the best in geology? Care to take a challenge?

Hey, Molal, you lost two rounds in the debates on OT forum. You did not even dare to give ONE response to my third challenge. What can you do? Only put junks into argument to disguise your ignorance?

You are no scientist.

Base on what you said here, you are not a scientist.

You offered up a half-baked idea, and rather than even attempt to defend it to three professionals in the field, resorted to cheap put-downs. Rest assured, no one is fooled.

Who has details for any hypothesis?

What exactly is it that you think, for instance, theoretical physicists do? Do you suppose all the various versions of String Theory are nothing more than "You know, there's like these, strings, dude, and they like, vibrate, and it creates, like, mass and energy and stuff."?

 

[Baggins]

If you talk about science, then you should not worry any thing about "feeling". There are only true, false, or unknown. If you abided to logical argument, nobody would be hurt and there would be nothing to regret about.

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?

Since you are not good in petrology, sedimentology. It is pretty flavorless by seeing you challenge me with naive questions. 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 you do not have any challenge to give, then wait for a while, I will throw one low T geochemistry stone to you. 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.

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.

What exactly is your field? It doesn't appear to be geology.

There is no need to get all snarky and insulting because your hypothesis has been shown to be a busted flush.

More sensible attitudes might be to try and flesh out your ideas with real evidence, or admitting that this is not going to happen and accept reality.

 

[TexasSky]

If you believe that there was at some point a global flood that covered all the mountains: [bible]Genesis 7:19[/bible]
Then where did the water come from? If it used to be underground, then the crust would have to have a porosity of about 50%; in reality, we find that it is about 1% due to the extreme pressures (source: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ278607 ). If it came from the atmosphere, then the sheer enormity of the amount of water present beforehand would introduce similar problems, as well as raise the question of why it didn't rain beforehand.

I think your information is old.
Scientists have found a "big body of water the size of an ocean" inside the earth's crust.

Which fits with the biblical account that says the waters of the deep sprang up from the eather before rain fell.

Also, given that the earth's surface changes, literally, every day, I'm always amused at the assumption the mountain ranges never changed.

http://www.physorg.com/news90171847.html

 

[Baggins]

I think your information is old.
Scientists have found a "big body of water the size of an ocean" inside the earth's crust.

As a scientist who has spent the last 20 years looking at seismic surveys of the earth's crust I can say:

No we haven't, or if we have no one has told me about it.

There is no body of water the size of an ocean in the eart's crust. There are acquifers and they are less than 1% of the volume of the oceans.

There is water in the form of hydrated minerals which we have discussed on this thread butthere is no possible mechanism for removing the water from the minerals and getting it to the surface and back.

Which fits with the biblical account that says the waters of the deep sprang up from the eather before rain fell.

It is a pretty story thathas no basis in geological reality.

Also, given that the earth's surface changes, literally, every day, I'm always amused at the assumption the mountain ranges never changed.

They change very slowly, there is little practical difference between the earth of today and the earth of 4000 years ago.

Even if it were possible to get this body of water out of the mantle and to the surface a body of water the size of the arctic ocean would not be able to inundate the earth to the hight of the highest mountains, not even close.

 

[AV1611VET]

...there is no possible mechanism for removing the water from the minerals and getting it to the surface and back.

What about reverse osmosis?

 

[Molal]

What about reverse osmosis?

I am afraid it can't work like. Osmosis is best described in biology. Take a potato and cut it in half and hollow the half out. Sit the half in a saucer of water, over time you will find that water begins to fill the inside of the potato. Water, through osmosis has traveled from an area of high water content to an area of low water content. But only free water has done this.

Hydrated minerals in the earths crust contain water that is intrinsically locked up in the crystalline structure of the mineral. It cannot move freely, therefore osmosis would not work.

Good idea though!

 

[juvenissun]

What ever you like.

I am a working geophysicist, at the moment I am off the coast of Senegal setting up a 3D shooting programme.

Topics I am particularly interested in are:

Palynofacies of oil source rocks. I have a Masters thesis on this topic

Late Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian adaptive radiation; I have a BSc finals thesis on this topic

and, work-wise, the quality control and interpretation of 3D seismic volumes. For confidentiallity reasons I won't be able to go into specifics on this.

What do you want to debate? If the topics above don't wet your whistle I am open to other suggestions.

OK, I will just take the higher level one:

Creationist suggests that hydrocarbon deposit could not be millions of years old. Now, here is the question for you:

What is the permeability of the source rock of hydrocarbon? Is it possible that the cap rock of the reservoir (related to the source rock) has a slightly higher permeability than the source rock?

 

[Molal]

OK, I will just take the higher level one:

Creationist suggests that hydrocarbon deposit could not be millions of years old. Now, here is the question for you:

What is the permeability of the source rock of hydrocarbon? Is it possible that the cap rock of the reservoir (related to the source rock) has a slightly higher permeability than the source rock?

So, how about fleshing out your previous ideas and providing evidence for your assertions?

We are still waiting Juvenissun.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am afraid it can't work like. Osmosis is best described in biology. Take a potato and cut it in half and hollow the half out. Sit the half in a saucer of water, over time you will find that water begins to fill the inside of the potato. Water, through osmosis has traveled from an area of high water content to an area of low water content. But only free water has done this.

Hydrated minerals in the earths crust contain water that is intrinsically locked up in the crystalline structure of the mineral. It cannot move freely, therefore osmosis would not work.

Good idea though!

Okay, thanks, Molal. It was just a thought. (I didn't believe it anyway.)

 

[juvenissun]

I think your information is old.
Scientists have found a "big body of water the size of an ocean" inside the earth's crust.

Which fits with the biblical account that says the waters of the deep sprang up from the eather before rain fell.

Also, given that the earth's surface changes, literally, every day, I'm always amused at the assumption the mountain ranges never changed.

http://www.physorg.com/news90171847.html

Hey, Baggins, you are doing the seismic work. What do you think about this?

 

[Molal]

Okay, thanks, Molal. It was just a thought. (I didn't believe it anyway.)

No problem my friend!

 

[juvenissun]

So, how about fleshing out your previous ideas and providing evidence for your assertions?

We are still waiting Juvenissun.

If you can not say any positive, you better just keep quiet.

 

[Molal]

If you can not say any positive, you better just keep quiet.

I'll take that as an inability to provide any evidence to support your assertions.

 

[Baggins]

OK, I will just take the higher level one:

Creationist suggests that hydrocarbon deposit could not be millions of years old. Now, here is the question for you:

What is the permeability of the source rock of hydrocarbon? Is it possible that the cap rock of the reservoir (related to the source rock) has a slightly higher permeability than the source rock?

There is no "source rock" for hydrocarbons there are many.

Most hydrocarbon source rocks would have very low permiability as they are organic shales.

In that case it is quite possible that a reservoir cap rock has a higher permiability than the source rock as they would both be fairly impermiable.

Do you want to talk specifics because you question really makes no sense in the general form above.

Once again it looks as if you have trawled through a basic geological text without really understanding it.

Try again.

 

[Molal]

Baggins,

Have you ever been asked to correct your 3D seismics for oceanic hum?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5710/682?ck=nck

I never have, but it is quite variable given atmospheric conditions.

Just wondered....

 

[Baggins]

Hey, Baggins, you are doing the seismic work. What do you think about this?

My reply is directly below the post.

You and TexasSky appear to view this mantle water as a great big body of H2O like an underground lake.

That isn't what it is like, read the article TexasSky linked to, but apparantly didn't read.

 

[Baggins]

Baggins,

Have you ever been asked to correct your 3D seismics for oceanic hum?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5710/682?ck=nck

I never have, but it is quite variable given atmospheric conditions.

Just wondered....

We bandpass filter our data 3-6-60-90Hz.

So the chances are we lose this noise.

I can't access the paper to find out what frequencies we are talking about here but the abstract says low frequency.

 

[Molal]

We bandpass filter our data 3-6-60-90Hz.

So the chances are we lose this noise.

I can't access the paper to find out what frequencies we are talking about here but the abstract says low frequency.

I see, thanks mate.

It does say low frequency, but I have just shut down my work computer - I'll have a look tomorrow at the frequency.

I have to admit I enjoy coming here, I learn so much from you and Thau!

Thanks

 

[RobertByers]

So much discussion.
Baggins
chordatestlegacy
thaumaturgy

This thread was about where did all the water go after the flood.
Ew creationists gave good answers of where it went.
Then you guys change the subject.
For me you talked about continents moving being impossible.
Then you say the bible is not a legitamate witness and then you say geologists know the truth.
I know the bible is a witness but I don't rely on it to make the creationist case. We use the data.
Saying you are the experts is just a way to avoid criticism of your ideas.
From my readings in geology every geology graduation class overthrows the previous ideas in geology.
It is not scientific but speculative.

The separation of the continents is one of the best things to come along in geology for the gain of creationism.
It is the source for the great movement of sediment and volcanic chaos that is found in the data of rocks in the field.
The continents did move and this fits fine and is welcomed by creationism.
How to move a continent well just speed up and hit the brakes.
Modern scenery explained.

The deepened seas is a good idea for where the water went to. The seas before the flood were shallow relatively.
Its reasonable from biblical foundation and evidence in the field.

You are not showing their was too much water.
Rob Byers