The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I will add one last commet:

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.

---

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.

---

---

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.