The Deep

[driewerf]

And yet here it is, those same people that reject the Bible, telling you that what the Bible told you to expect is exactly what you just detected.

Imagine that. I don't reject the data, just your interpretation of that data. I "knew" it was there, doesn't surprise me at all, just you.

It's not my interpretation of the data.
It's the interpretation of all the geologists, biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, nuclear physicists, archeologists, linguists, biochemists, geneticists, geophysicists, climatologists, sedimentologists, oceanographers, geneticists, zoologists and so on.

You're giving me too much credit if you think that all their data is interpreted by me.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, and then as always when they do gather the data, it always fits what they should already have known. This is just a more striking example of that.

Now if it does erupt again and floods the earth, I'll admit I was wrong , but even the scientists don't consider that much of a possibility.

I like to be more precise, it is scientifically NOT POSSIBLE, instead of having low possibility.

God's word is simply fantastic.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I like to be more precise, it is scientifically NOT POSSIBLE, instead of having low possibility.

God's word is simply fantastic.

Nor is a molten core spinning against friction for 4+ billion years possible, but hey, they still believe that too. Likewise they believe that strata take millions of years to form.

http://cdn.trans-americas.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Joya-de-Ceren-4_ruins.jpg

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000ybt.eVUe.Ik/s/860/860/0560C020.jpg

 

[hedrick]

I don't think there's any chance that this section of Gensis is historical. But surely the question in the OP is based on an over-literal reading of the text. Fountains of the deep sounds a lot like a poetic description, perhaps based on a traditional concept of where water comes from. But there's no reason to think that the author intended it literally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nor is a molten core spinning against friction for 4+ billion years possible, but hey, they still believe that too. Likewise they believe that strata take millions of years to form.

http://cdn.trans-americas.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Joya-de-Ceren-4_ruins.jpg

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000ybt.eVUe.Ik/s/860/860/0560C020.jpg

It depends upon the type of strata. Only a fool would assume that all strata form at the same rate. There are many strata that do take millions of years to form.

 

[Mainframes]

Nor is a molten core spinning against friction for 4+ billion years possible, but hey, they still believe that too. Likewise they believe that strata take millions of years to form.

http://cdn.trans-americas.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Joya-de-Ceren-4_ruins.jpg

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000ybt.eVUe.Ik/s/860/860/0560C020.jpg

That would be radioactive decay causing heating of the outer core resulting in convection currents.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Claire talks about this in her latest Geology Brief:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVuLDITPx_o

 

[RealityCheck]

.

This news is from a study by reseachers from Northwestern University and New Mexico. Interesting "diomond cell" used by Jacobsen for visual instrumental analysis of mineral phase changes by Jaconsen at Northwestern and the exotic seismic USarray data research from Schmandt from New Mexico have evaluated the H2O/OH molecular absorption in ringwoodite and olivine in the middle mantle - the earths region that shows the "fluid" seismic behavior scientists have wondered about. The researchers have provided very plausible geophysical and geochemical conclusions tying their research together.

And yes, God is Wondrous in how He initially setup the waters of the deep, the state, location, and equilibrium these waters had prior to the world destroying Flood of Noahs day!

Let the naysayers promote science that they think proves the Bible wrong. It is their quest on this forum, but they have a lot more to learn before they can make such definitive conclusions. Their earlier conclusions are mere speculations and interpretations with what little data they have.

.

So when the science says that the waters oozed out over millions of years during the very early formation of the earth over a billion years ago, how does that square with your Bible flood story?

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think there's any chance that this section of Gensis is historical. But surely the question in the OP is based on an over-literal reading of the text. Fountains of the deep sounds a lot like a poetic description, perhaps based on a traditional concept of where water comes from. But there's no reason to think that the author intended it literally.

You are absolutely right.

For thousands of years, NOBODY knew this secret. But the Biblical description is absolutely correct, historical or not.

If you are not amazed by this information, I don't know what could amaze you. By the way, this is not the only case in the Bible. There are at least a dozen of more of this type of "fantasies" recorded in the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

So when the science says that the waters oozed out over millions of years during the very early formation of the earth over a billion years ago, how does that square with your Bible flood story?

The science does not say the water oozed out. It says the water bursted out. The water has no place to ooze. It came out, and still comes out, from cracks. I am sure you know how cracking works.

 

[RealityCheck]

The science does not say the water oozed out. It says the water bursted out. The water has no place to ooze. It came out, and still comes out, from cracks. I am sure you know how cracking works.

Then you didn't read the article.

 

[Heissonear]

So when the science says that the waters oozed out over millions of years during the very early formation of the earth over a billion years ago, how does that square with your Bible flood story?

.

As another has stated, the fountains of the deep "bursted", not oozed.

The size, shape, locations, rock and sediment accumulation/interaction, equilibrium states, and the like were all part of the initial Design by the Creator. The way He set it up you can only imagine!

When the equilibriums were changed by His doing a world-wide flood occured, with whole geographic areas eventually a part that created near state-wide turbidites, and resultant successions of of deposits/strata.

The shift to restabilize natural isostatic, thermodynamic, tectonic stresses and pressures, vaporizations, and the more were to say the least highly dynamic after the burst of the fountains of the deep.

Godless Naturalists have not a clue of the Plan, Physical Dynamics, nor how to interprete the flood's massive results.

.

 

[RickG]

.

As another has stated, the fountains of the deep "bursted", not oozed.

The size, shape, locations, rock and sediment accumulation/interaction, equilibrium states, and the like were all part of the initial Design by the Creator. The way He set it up you can only imagine!

When the equilibriums were changed by His doing a world-wide flood occured, with whole geographic areas eventually a part that created near state-wide turbidites, and resultant successions of of deposits/strata.

The shift to restabilize natural isostatic, thermodynamic, tectonic stresses and pressures, vaporizations, and the more were to say the least highly dynamic after the burst of the fountains of the deep.

Godless Naturalists have not a clue of the Plan, Physical Dynamics, nor how to interprete the flood's massive results.

.

So which which resultant successions of deposits/strata do you suggest show show what you described?

 

[granpa]

Australite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

australites formed during a large asteroid or comet impact on the Earth. The impact ejected myriads of small rocks right out of the atmosphere. The australites acquired their streamlined, aerodynamic forms when they re-entered the Earth's atmosphere while molten and travelling at high velocities


Australasian strewnfield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Australasian strewnfield, covering at least one-tenth of the Earth's surface, is the largest and the youngest of the tektite strewnfields. The 800,000 year-old strewnfield includes most of Southeast Asia

Archeological artifacts found with these tektites suggests that a Homo Erectus population was living in the area during and after the impact

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So when the science says that the waters oozed out over millions of years during the very early formation of the earth over a billion years ago, how does that square with your Bible flood story?

And yet not a few months ago, it was comets that brought water to earth. Then suddenly when they discover an underground ocean, it's from oozing out, right?

That hasn't been observed at all and besides which mainstream's comet theories have already been falsified, so we can rule out those. Probably why they are so eager to jump on this band wagon, knowing their comet theory is wrong.

 

[RickG]

You know, all one has to do is read the paper just published in the Journal Science
Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle
to see that the Newscientist article titled "Massive 'ocean' discovered towards Earth's core" implies just the opposite of the very Science journal article they are describing. None of the authors in that paper, including Jacobsen, even hint that there is an ocean in the mantle.

This is just another blatant misrepresentation of legitimate science by creationists. Shame on you.

 

[juvenissun]

Then you didn't read the article.

I can write a better one than that.

 

[juvenissun]

So which which resultant successions of deposits/strata do you suggest show show what you described?

This is not a sedimentary issue. Cut it out.

 

[juvenissun]

You know, all one has to do is read the paper just published in the Journal Science
Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle
to see that the Newscientist article titled "Massive 'ocean' discovered towards Earth's core" implies just the opposite of the very Science journal article they are describing. None of the authors in that paper, including Jacobsen, even hint that there is an ocean in the mantle.

This is just another blatant misrepresentation of legitimate science by creationists. Shame on you.

No. By that journalist. I believe he is an evolutionist and flunked his geology class.

 

[digitalgoth]

No. By that journalist. I believe he is an evolutionist and flunked his geology class.

I would assume an evolutionist could flunk out of geology, what with evolutionary biology having little to do with geology.

Might as well have said, "I believe he is a priest who flunked his child safety class"