Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh brother. The water is contained within the mineral structures in the mantle. It's kept in the mantle the same way ground water is kept under ground.
Really? There's enough water "in the mantle" to flood the planet with SIX MILES of water? This is absurd in the extreme. You have a source for this steaming pile of bullshit?
Physicist here. Please note that the volume of water to flood the planet would entail a significant fraction of mass. Mass that simply does not "go away".
We know from gravity and the radius of the earth that the density must consider not just rocks but molten nickel/iron. To add in water into the mantle, something pointlessly ridiculous, would undermine the mass of the Earth considering the density/mass of water you are talking about, to the degree that the Earth must have a higher density mantle/core if there is additional mass (of this mythical water).
Meaning higher density rocks than can ever be formed by plate tectonics and convection.
Plainly put, you cannot have something from nothing and back again.
If we have water sinking into the mantle, then the pressure and heat at those levels will dissociate lighter, less dense molecules - they will rise to the surface again and be released. Thus keeping water on the surface.
You can't have water in the mantle like you're suggesting.
You're trying to use proven scientific principles in an attempt to demonstrate to a Creationist that what he believes is bullshit?
What's the matter with you?
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: [quote='TheDarkestOfAngels' pid='100160' dateline='1287455143']
Wow. Why indeed statler? why indeed? What physicists? Where?
I don't know what the fallacy of this... thing is that you've presented to me off the top of my head - I'm guessing Non Sequitur, as your question clearly has nothing to do with whether or not it's made up. It certainly doesn't prove it's not made up. The fact that an equation exists doesn't mean it's used in the manner you describe.
Haha, well I guess the units of miles are just made up by Creationists since there are equations used to convert from miles to kilometers used by everyone, but this apparently doesn't prove anything according to you. Read a physics book (above the high school level) and they will all have the equation I just gave you for converting from observational time to calculated time. I got that equation out of my college textbook "Physics: for Scientists and Engineers" (not youtube lol). I can even show you how to do the equation if you need me to.
As I've pointed out to you a number of times, scientists the world over use the operational definition of time. Period. If they need to convert to another unit of measure, they do so. So what? Those units of converstion are well known and in no way affect results, such as the velocity of light in a vacuum, which has been measure time and time again and has been found invariably to be isometric in nature. No amount of flag waving is going to change the fact that the velocity of light demonstrates clearly the ancient nature of the universe.
Quote:
Really? The earth's mantle is holding ten times the amount of water needed to cover every land mass on the entire planet?
Where, Statler? Where is the water in the mantle? How is the water staying there and not coming up from the mantle, given that any four year old can recognize that rocks sink and water goes up - especially if the earth-balloon popped and all the water escaped?
Is the earth actually a giant sponge and god squeezed it the one time until all the continents disappeared?
Where did the water come out since the entire planet was drowned in water in less than two months?
Oh brother. The water is contained within the mineral structures in the mantle. It's kept in the mantle the same way ground water is kept under ground. You really need to understand what Creationists believe before you try and argue against them. The flood caused drasstic plate tectonices which formed a lot of our current mountain ranges. This would have also caused many of our deepest oceanic trenches. Level these out, and you even have enough water on Earth today to cover the entire planet. So we would not need a lot of water from the mantle, it's just one working model that makes sense. Your reasoning is not even in line with modern Science, many Scientists today believe there was a global flood on Mars despite there not being any visible water on Mars (Reuters, Mars Calamity May have Created Conditions for Life. New York Times, 16 March, 2001- not a youtube video lol) . So a lack of water obviously is not grounds for denying a flood anyways. It's just an added bonus that we have enough water on Earth.
Anyone who believes that the mantle holds significant amounts of water in the form of phase separate H2O or even bound in the minerals simply doesn't understand structural geology, groundwater hydrology (which is one of my areas of expertize), mineralogy (another of my areas of expertize), or geochemistry. Plate Tectonics is settled science. That said, there is a lot that we don't fully understand about the mantle and the core of the Earth. These are areas of active research and active debate.
But there are some things that we know with a high degree of certainty. One is that the mantle itself is bone dry. There aren't enough pore structures in mantle rock to capture water. And the reason for that is because of the intense pressure and temperature that exists at mantle depths. The pores get squeezed shut. So not only is mantle rock impermeable to water and as close to non-porous as a rock can get, the mineralogy of mantle rock doesn't contain any water either. In other words, mantle rock has no hydrous minerals. But in recent years, a transition zone has been identified. That transition zone occurs about 400-600 km down. Above that transition zone, some hydrous minerals can exist. But these transition zones are not global in nature. They occur primarily below subduction zones, where water saturated crust gets subducted and thrust into the mantle. Those slabs are hydrous. The mantle they subduct into is not. And nearly all of that water and other volatiles react with mantle rock and the crustal overburden at depth and high temperatures to form subduction zone volcanic provinces, such as the Cascade Range.
Secondly, at no time in Earth's history was there ever a global sea that covered the entire surface of the Earth. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. None. Creationists have no leg to stand on with this particular fact. As for the global flood on Mars, it wasn't and isn't considered to be a global flood at all. And Mars has no free standing water today because it lost its atmosphere, dude. Water cannot exist at Mars' current atmospheric pressure. And MArs lost its atmosphere because its internal dynamo shut off earlier in its formation. When convection ceased deep inside Mars, it lost its magnetic field. Witrh no magnetic field to protect the atmosphere, the sun stripped it clean off. When the atmosphere was destroyed, nearly all of the water evaporated to space.
I'll end it here, because the rest of this stuff is just too sad.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
October 19, 2010 at 8:45 pm (This post was last modified: October 19, 2010 at 8:58 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(October 19, 2010 at 7:49 pm)Thor Wrote:
(October 19, 2010 at 7:30 pm)Synackaon Wrote:
(October 19, 2010 at 7:00 pm)Thor Wrote:
(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh brother. The water is contained within the mineral structures in the mantle. It's kept in the mantle the same way ground water is kept under ground.
Really? There's enough water "in the mantle" to flood the planet with SIX MILES of water? This is absurd in the extreme. You have a source for this steaming pile of bullshit?
Physicist here. Please note that the volume of water to flood the planet would entail a significant fraction of mass. Mass that simply does not "go away".
We know from gravity and the radius of the earth that the density must consider not just rocks but molten nickel/iron. To add in water into the mantle, something pointlessly ridiculous, would undermine the mass of the Earth considering the density/mass of water you are talking about, to the degree that the Earth must have a higher density mantle/core if there is additional mass (of this mythical water).
Meaning higher density rocks than can ever be formed by plate tectonics and convection.
Plainly put, you cannot have something from nothing and back again.
If we have water sinking into the mantle, then the pressure and heat at those levels will dissociate lighter, less dense molecules - they will rise to the surface again and be released. Thus keeping water on the surface.
You can't have water in the mantle like you're suggesting.
You're trying to use proven scientific principles in an attempt to demonstrate to a Creationist that what he believes is bullshit?
What's the matter with you?
Why did you just accept his claim that he is a Physicist? I thought you guys were supposed to call him a liar and ask him who he works for and what school he went to and what courses he took? Or do you only do this when the person with the Science degree disagrees with you? Not very objective I see, not surprised though. The aricle posted earlier about water in the mantle actually said that it is a popular belief amongst geophysicists that the mantle DOES contain water (even though the article was aruging against this view, it admitted that this is a view held by many in the field). So to claim that this is a silly or uncommon view makes you actually look rather silly. Rather you should say that this is a view that is debated in modern science today, but the evidence is certainly not conclusive.
October 19, 2010 at 8:50 pm (This post was last modified: October 19, 2010 at 8:56 pm by orogenicman.)
I will add one last commet:
Quote:Again, you have proven you do not understand the ideas behind my "theory" so how can you approprately not agree with something you clearly do not understand?
First of all it is not "YOUR" theory, and secondly, it is not a scientific theory at all. It is a religious belief, and a ridiculous one at that.
Quote:Why did you just accept his claim that he is a Physicist? I thought you guys were supposed to call him a liar and ask him who he works for and what school he went to and what courses he took? Or do you only do this when the person with the Science degree disagrees with you? Not very objective I see, not surprised though. The aricle posted earlier about water in the mantle actually said that it is a popular belief amongst geophysicists that the mantle DOES contain water (even though the article was aruging against this view, it admitted that this is a view held by many in the field). So to claim that this is a silly or uncommon view makes you actually look rather silly. Rather you should say that this is a view that is debated in modern science today, but the evidence is certainly not conclusive.
Take it from a real geologist. He is right. You are wrong. You know nother about geology, much less what geologists know about the mantle of the Earth. Any suggestion that mantle tock has or had water in it was put to bed by this seminal research. It's a landmark study, dude (but certainly not the only one along these lines). Oh, and if you have a science degree, you should ask for a refund for the bad education you received, because, damn, you got ripped off.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
October 19, 2010 at 8:57 pm (This post was last modified: October 19, 2010 at 9:02 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(October 19, 2010 at 8:42 pm)orogenicman Wrote:
(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: [quote='TheDarkestOfAngels' pid='100160' dateline='1287455143']
Wow. Why indeed statler? why indeed? What physicists? Where?
I don't know what the fallacy of this... thing is that you've presented to me off the top of my head - I'm guessing Non Sequitur, as your question clearly has nothing to do with whether or not it's made up. It certainly doesn't prove it's not made up. The fact that an equation exists doesn't mean it's used in the manner you describe.
Haha, well I guess the units of miles are just made up by Creationists since there are equations used to convert from miles to kilometers used by everyone, but this apparently doesn't prove anything according to you. Read a physics book (above the high school level) and they will all have the equation I just gave you for converting from observational time to calculated time. I got that equation out of my college textbook "Physics: for Scientists and Engineers" (not youtube lol). I can even show you how to do the equation if you need me to.
As I've pointed out to you a number of times, scientists the world over use the operational definition of time. Period. If they need to convert to another unit of measure, they do so. So what? Those units of converstion are well known and in no way affect results, such as the velocity of light in a vacuum, which has been measure time and time again and has been found invariably to be isometric in nature. No amount of flag waving is going to change the fact that the velocity of light demonstrates clearly the ancient nature of the universe.
Quote:
Really? The earth's mantle is holding ten times the amount of water needed to cover every land mass on the entire planet?
Where, Statler? Where is the water in the mantle? How is the water staying there and not coming up from the mantle, given that any four year old can recognize that rocks sink and water goes up - especially if the earth-balloon popped and all the water escaped?
Is the earth actually a giant sponge and god squeezed it the one time until all the continents disappeared?
Where did the water come out since the entire planet was drowned in water in less than two months?
Oh brother. The water is contained within the mineral structures in the mantle. It's kept in the mantle the same way ground water is kept under ground. You really need to understand what Creationists believe before you try and argue against them. The flood caused drasstic plate tectonices which formed a lot of our current mountain ranges. This would have also caused many of our deepest oceanic trenches. Level these out, and you even have enough water on Earth today to cover the entire planet. So we would not need a lot of water from the mantle, it's just one working model that makes sense. Your reasoning is not even in line with modern Science, many Scientists today believe there was a global flood on Mars despite there not being any visible water on Mars (Reuters, Mars Calamity May have Created Conditions for Life. New York Times, 16 March, 2001- not a youtube video lol) . So a lack of water obviously is not grounds for denying a flood anyways. It's just an added bonus that we have enough water on Earth.
Anyone who believes that the mantle holds significant amounts of water in the form of phase separate H2O or even bound in the minerals simply doesn't understand structural geology, groundwater hydrology (which is one of my areas of expertize), mineralogy (another of my areas of expertize), or geochemistry. Plate Tectonics is settled science. That said, there is a lot that we don't fully understand about the mantle and the core of the Earth. These are areas of active research and active debate.
But there are some things that we know with a high degree of certainty. One is that the mantle itself is bone dry. There aren't enough pore structures in mantle rock to capture water. And the reason for that is because of the intense pressure and temperature that exists at mantle depths. The pores get squeezed shut. So not only is mantle rock impermeable to water and as close to non-porous as a rock can get, the mineralogy of mantle rock doesn't contain any water either. In other words, mantle rock has no hydrous minerals. But in recent years, a transition zone has been identified. That transition zone occurs about 400-600 km down. Above that transition zone, some hydrous minerals can exist. But these transition zones are not global in nature. They occur primarily below subduction zones, where water saturated crust gets subducted and thrust into the mantle. Those slabs are hydrous. The mantle they subduct into is not. And nearly all of that water and other volatiles react with mantle rock and the crustal overburden at depth and high temperatures to form subduction zone volcanic provinces, such as the Cascade Range.
Secondly, at no time in Earth's history was there ever a global sea that covered the entire surface of the Earth. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. None. Creationists have no leg to stand on with this particular fact. As for the global flood on Mars, it wasn't and isn't considered to be a global flood at all. And Mars has no free standing water today because it lost its atmosphere, dude. Water cannot exist at Mars' current atmospheric pressure. And MArs lost its atmosphere because its internal dynamo shut off earlier in its formation. When convection ceased deep inside Mars, it lost its magnetic field. Witrh no magnetic field to protect the atmosphere, the sun stripped it clean off. When the atmosphere was destroyed, nearly all of the water evaporated to space.
I'll end it here, because the rest of this stuff is just too sad.
As I have ponited out to you numerous times before. I am fully aware of which definition of time Scientists use today. You seem to not be fully aware that scripture was not written by Scientists in the 20th Century. So of course it uses the observational definition of time. So to argue against its account by using a definition of time it did not use is inappropriate. Everyone knows this, it's not complicated.
Well the article that you cited earlier even admitted that the belief that the mantle contains water is a "popular belief amongst many geophysicists". So do these geophysicists not have a clear understanding of their own field like you asserted in yoru response?
Like I said earlier this is just one model that can be used, other models have different means of accounting for the "missing water" (which really is not missing). My point about mars was completely missed if you seriously thought I was not aware of the fact the water is no longer on Mars because of it's abscent atmosphere. The point was there is less evidence on Mars for a global flood than there is on Earth, yet Scientists have no problem believing in one. Many Scientists do not like to agree with scripture so they will take whatever steps are necessary not to do so (case and ponit, you).
There is lots of evidence for a global flood (there are geologists who believe this I am sure you are aware) so I respectfully disagree with you.
Quote:Well the article that you cited earlier even admitted that the belief that the mantle contains water is a "popular belief amongst many geophysicists". So do these geophysicists not have a clear understanding of their own field like you asserted in yoru response?
Like I said earlier this is just one model that can be used, other models have different means of accounting for the "missing water" (which really is not missing). My point about mars was completely missed if you seriously thought I was not aware of the fact the water is no longer on Mars because of it's abscent atmosphere. The point was there is less evidence on Mars for a global flood than there is on Earth, yet Scientists have no problem believing in one. Many Scientists do not like to agree with scripture so they will take whatever steps are necessary not to do so (case and ponit, you).
There is lots of evidence for a global flood (there are geologists who believe this I am sure you are aware) so I respectfully disagree with you.
The article I cited was referring to hydrous zones within subduction zones. Much of the crust on those zones contain fractures that have long thought by some to allow water to migrate close to, if not into the mantle. In addition, much of that oceanic crustal rock contains a hydrous mineralogy, such as serpentine. What has been argued for many years is whether or not those fracture zones actually contain significant amounts of water, and whether or not the hydrous minerals remain hydrous at mantle depths. This and several other projects have show that they don't in either case. But none of this has to do with native mantle rock, which has a completely anhydrous mineralogy and is hydraulically virgin with respect to water.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
October 19, 2010 at 9:10 pm (This post was last modified: October 19, 2010 at 9:13 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(October 19, 2010 at 8:50 pm)orogenicman Wrote: I will add one last commet:
Quote:Again, you have proven you do not understand the ideas behind my "theory" so how can you approprately not agree with something you clearly do not understand?
First of all it is not "YOUR" theory, and secondly, it is not a scientific theory at all. It is a religious belief, and a ridiculous one at that.
Quote:Why did you just accept his claim that he is a Physicist? I thought you guys were supposed to call him a liar and ask him who he works for and what school he went to and what courses he took? Or do you only do this when the person with the Science degree disagrees with you? Not very objective I see, not surprised though. The aricle posted earlier about water in the mantle actually said that it is a popular belief amongst geophysicists that the mantle DOES contain water (even though the article was aruging against this view, it admitted that this is a view held by many in the field). So to claim that this is a silly or uncommon view makes you actually look rather silly. Rather you should say that this is a view that is debated in modern science today, but the evidence is certainly not conclusive.
Take it from a real geologist. He is right. You are wrong. You know nother about geology, much less what geologists know about the mantle of the Earth. Any suggestion that mantle tock has or had water in it was put to bed by this seminal research. It's a landmark study, dude (but certainly not the only one along these lines). Oh, and if you have a science degree, you should ask for a refund for the bad education you received, because, damn, you got ripped off.
You will notice my usage of quotations when I called it my theory. This is because people on here acted like it was my theory. So you really should take this up with them, not me. I know you will not do that because they agree with you and you are not an objective person.
I am thinking you are the one who got ripped off. Maybe you should hop on out of the weak historical sciences and jump on in with those of us who practice emperical science. My employer would disagree with you that my education was not any good. They hire more people out of my school than any other school in the state because of its high credintials. I will be honest, I was a little worried when I saw you were a Geologist because that is not my strongest field. However, after seeing the arguments you have presented I am no longer worried. You seem to make the same baseless assertions and personal attacks as most of the other guys on here, so maybe you should have skipped paying for a degree and saved yourself some time.
(October 19, 2010 at 9:04 pm)orogenicman Wrote:
Quote:Well the article that you cited earlier even admitted that the belief that the mantle contains water is a "popular belief amongst many geophysicists". So do these geophysicists not have a clear understanding of their own field like you asserted in yoru response?
Like I said earlier this is just one model that can be used, other models have different means of accounting for the "missing water" (which really is not missing). My point about mars was completely missed if you seriously thought I was not aware of the fact the water is no longer on Mars because of it's abscent atmosphere. The point was there is less evidence on Mars for a global flood than there is on Earth, yet Scientists have no problem believing in one. Many Scientists do not like to agree with scripture so they will take whatever steps are necessary not to do so (case and ponit, you).
There is lots of evidence for a global flood (there are geologists who believe this I am sure you are aware) so I respectfully disagree with you.
The article I cited was referring to hydrous zones within subduction zones. Much of the crust on those zones contain fractures that have long thought by some to allow water to migrate close to, if not into the mantle. In addition, much of that oceanic crustal rock contains a hydrous mineralogy, such as serpentine. What has been argued for many years is whether or not those fracture zones actually contain significant amounts of water, and whether or not the hydrous minerals remain hydrous at mantle depths. This and several other projects have show that they don't in either case. But none of this has to do with native mantle rock, which has a completely anhydrous mineralogy and is hydraulically virgin with respect to water.
Then you should not have wasted time posting the article since that is not even what we were talking about. Figured you would have been able to see that.
(October 16, 2010 at 2:38 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
(October 15, 2010 at 10:10 pm)Chuck Wrote: Why do you bother with that piece of shit?
I just find this entertaining. I'm not sure I can explain it better than that.
Like remember that Bill Cosby show "Kids Say the Darndest Things?"
Creationists are like that for me.
Quote:You will notice my usage of quotations when I called it my theory. This is because people on here acted like it was my theory. So you really should take this up with them, not me. I know you will not do that because they agree with you and you are not an objective person.
I am thinking you are the one who got ripped off. Maybe you should hop on out of the weak historical sciences and jump on in with those of us who practice emperical science. My employer would disagree with you that my education was not any good. They hire more people out of my school than any other school in the state because of its high credintials. I will be honest, I was a little worried when I saw you were a Geologist because that is not my strongest field. However, after seeing the arguments you have presented I am no longer worried. You seem to make the same baseless assertions and personal attacks as most of the other guys on here, so maybe you should have skipped paying for a degree and saved yourself some time.
I took it up with you because it was your statement that I was responding to. If you didn't believe it was your theory, you should have made it clear.
Any time you want to go on a little geology field trip to see what it is really all about, let me know. By the way, here is a little bit of irony in all of this. That Creation Museum (the one from which you've yet to acknowledge that you've been plagiarizing)? That Creation Museum is built on top of a 475 millon year old marine fossil bed. Talk about ironies!
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If a flood took place, then that pyramid would not date to being as old as you just claimed it was because the methods used to date that pyramid assume no flood took place. So to argue against the flood by using dating methods that assume no flood is inappropriate.
So, basically, your line of reasoning amounts to "you're wrong and I'm right" without actually giving any reason to doubt the veracity of Egyptian historiography than that.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
![[Image: facepalm.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i297.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fmm232%2Fmintkiller%2Ffacepalm.jpg)
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png)
