27 Apr 15
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core.html#.VT68mCFVhBc
You all know me by know. I think creationism is idiotic, unfounded and unscientific.
However,
the link above has to do with the discovery of a "massive ocean" that's three times the volume of the other oceans...combined.
Given that the Bible talks about springs from the "deep" were opened during the flood, and that there is now evidence of enough water to indeed cover the highest mountains by forty feet (a notion previously scoffed at), don't we have a HUGE piece of evidence for creationism?
And given how specific the bible was about the "deep" (the crystals which hold the water are located in the earth's core) and it's possible that the heat combined with the immense pressure could indeed cause water to spring up as described in the bible...can we really argue against this being a point for creationism?
I mean, if more evidence like this starts showing up, we may indeed have to start taking creationism seriously...right?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyNo. This is not a "HUGE piece of evidence" for creationism... Or indeed a little piece of evidence.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core.html#.VT68mCFVhBc
You all know me by know. I think creationism is idiotic, unfounded and unscientific.
However,
the link above has to do with the discovery of a "massive ocean" that's three times the volume of the other oceans...combined.
Given that the Bib ...[text shortened]... e like this starts showing up, we may indeed have to start taking creationism seriously...right?
And as a quick note... The crystals that hold this water are not in the core, they are in
the Mantle.
The writers of the OT had basically three options for what to do with the water they had 'rain down'
to cover the Earth's lands:
1) They could send it back into the sky, the problem with that being that people can look up and ask
'where is it?', or worry about it falling down again.
2) They could have god Magic it out of existence, which would work, but is narratively messy.
3) Or they could send it down deep into the Earth, which is an appealing solution to the problem.
Thus it's not at all surprising that the flood story has the water being sent down into the Earth at the end.
It is also not that surprising that we have discovered water inside the Earth [although the quantities were
definitely surprising] as water is one of the most common molecules in the universe, and we find it almost
everywhere.
What the 'World Flood' believers need however is a mechanism for all that water to have arrived on the Earth
to rain down onto the surface, and then rapidly [over a couple of month period, few years absolute max] drain
into the Mantle... And, [this bit is important] EVIDENCE THAT THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Which this isn't, and they don't have.
Proving that something is possible, [which this does not do] is not the same as proving that that something actually
happened.
This would, at most, be evidence that one part of the story is possible. And it fails pretty hard even at that.
The water at these depths is at high temperature and under MASSIVE pressure.
If you create a path for that water to the surface it is not going to go down, it will go UP.
According to the article, it's a potential source of the water that formed our oceans.
Not a place a large portion of our oceans might have gone to.
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeRegarding the writers of the bible, adding that the entire earth was covered, and to the point where the highest mountains were submerged by forty feet---that's about how much water is contained in those crystals. That's a rather lucky coincidence, isn't it?
No. This is not a "HUGE piece of evidence" for creationism... Or indeed a little piece of evidence.
And as a quick note... The crystals that hold this water are not in the core, they are in
the Mantle.
The writers of the OT had basically three options for what to do with the water they had 'rain down'
to cover the Earth's lands:
1) Th ...[text shortened]... the water that formed our oceans.
Not a place a large portion of our oceans might have gone to.
As far evidence that a flood actually happened, let's be fair: don't scientists make a big deal about something merely being possible? There are many discoveries that show how life could've started. Should we disregard those because that evidence isn't actually "proving" how life started? Isn't the important issue, is that a huge support for creationism exists, that didn't exist just a few years ago?
Originally posted by vivifyHow does this in any way vindicate creationism? The historicity of a great flood is not disputed (and indeed historical memory of a great flood is found in a number of Near East traditions), but this is far from being evidence of a six day creation of the universe.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core.html#.VT68mCFVhBc
You all know me by know. I think creationism is idiotic, unfounded and unscientific.
However,
the link above has to do with the discovery of a "massive ocean" that's three times the volume of the other oceans...combined.
Given that the Bib ...[text shortened]... e like this starts showing up, we may indeed have to start taking creationism seriously...right?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by vivifyBut it isn't a support for creationism [for which, btw, no evidence can be a support for***]
Regarding the writers of the bible, adding that the entire earth was covered, and to the point where the highest mountains were submerged by forty feet---that's about how much water is contained in those crystals. That's a rather lucky coincidence, isn't it?
As far evidence that a flood actually happened, let's be fair: don't scientists make a big deal ...[text shortened]... nt issue, is that a huge support for creationism exists, that didn't exist just a few years ago?
or, more importantly and relevantly, for the Great Flood.
As I said, there is no known mechanism by which huge amounts of surface water can
'drain' into the mantle 700 freaking km deep over a 'short' period of time.
To get water INTO the mantle, you have to slowly percolate water into the ocean crust,
and then subduct it. The water in the crust then gets added to the mantle, where if
it is pulled down deep enough, it can get squeezed out to form these observed deep
"oceans" [really bad word to use here, they are not in the form of a contiguous volume
of water] of water. This takes millions of years, and is almost certainly counterbalanced
by water being added from the mantle at the spreading mid-ocean ridges.
Which is what the article suggested.
This is further evidence of how the natural processes of the world function, and what the
nature of that world is.
It doesn't make the 'great flood' story any more plausible than it was before.
***Creationism being the 'hypothesis' "god did it".
"God did it" could 'explain' anything, and thus explains nothing.
As such there is nothing that could be evidence FOR it, as there is nothing you could be 'surprised'
to observe based upon creationism. God could have made the world any way it wanted, and thus
no observation of the world is inconsistent with creationism. but equally thus no observation can
be evidence FOR creationism, as all observations are equally likely.
28 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeAs for how water could rapidly drain into the mantle, we know that ringwoodite forms at high temps or high pressure. The pressure at the bottom of the oceans is already incredibly high, but what about the pressure from a depth three times as much as the oceans are now? The water could've been retained somehow by the crystals that formed under intense pressure.
But it isn't a support for creationism [for which, btw, no evidence can be a support for***]
or, more importantly and relevantly, for the Great Flood.
As I said, there is no known mechanism by which huge amounts of surface water can
'drain' into the mantle 700 freaking km deep over a 'short' period of time.
To get water INTO the mantle, you hav ...[text shortened]... y thus no observation can
be evidence FOR creationism, as all observations are equally likely.
I guess there's nothing more that can be said. But what a crazy coincidence that this discovery was made, if it's completely unrelated to the Global Food.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by vivifyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringwoodite
As for how water could rapidly drain into the mantle, we know that ringwoodite forms at high temps or high pressure. The pressure at the bottom of the oceans is already incredibly high, but what about the pressure from a depth three times as much as the oceans are now? The water could've been retained somehow by the crystals that formed under intense pres ...[text shortened]... crazy coincidence that this discovery was made, if it's completely unrelated to the Global Food.
Ringwoodite is a high-pressure phase of Mg2SiO4 formed at high temperatures and pressures of the
Earth's mantle between 525 and 660 km depth
Ringwoodite is thought to be the most abundant mineral phase in the lower part of Earth’s transition zone.
The physical and chemical property of this mineral partly determine properties of the mantle at those depths.
The pressure range for stability of ringwoodite lies in the approximate range from 18 to 23 GPa.
The pressure at the bottom of the Mariana Trench is ~0.11 GPa [11,000m, 11km deep]
If we double that depth [22km], way more than enough to cover all the mountains, we get ~0.22 GPa.
Ignoring the effects of increasing gravity, you would need an ocean depth of ~1,800km to achieve a pressure of ~18 GPa
And the water at the depth would be nowhere near as hot as the temperatures in the Mantle that are also required.
There is nothing about this discovery that makes "The Great Flood" any more plausible or acts as evidence for it.
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeGotcha. Thanks for your post. You've restored my anti-Christian beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringwoodite
[quote]Ringwoodite is a high-pressure phase of Mg2SiO4 formed at high temperatures and pressures of the
Earth's mantle between 525 and 660 km depth
Ringwoodite is thought to be the most abundant mineral phase in the lower part of Earth’s transition zone.
The physical and chemical property of this mineral p ...[text shortened]... about this discovery that makes "The Great Flood" any more plausible or acts as evidence for it.
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeHow do you account for these ignorant people like Moses even knowing that there was a gigantic amount of water deep in the earth?
No. This is not a "HUGE piece of evidence" for creationism... Or indeed a little piece of evidence.
And as a quick note... The crystals that hold this water are not in the core, they are in
the Mantle.
The writers of the OT had basically three options for what to do with the water they had 'rain down'
to cover the Earth's lands:
1) Th ...[text shortened]... the water that formed our oceans.
Not a place a large portion of our oceans might have gone to.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsAssuming he actually existed...
How do you account for these ignorant people like Moses even knowing that there was a gigantic amount of water deep in the earth?
He didn't know that there was water in the mantle, or that the mantle existed.
Knowledge is a Justifiable true belief.
[I include the Gettier considerations inside justifiable]
Simply believing something does not constitute knowledge even if that belief is true.
ONLY if you can also sufficiently justify that belief can it be considered knowledge.
He couldn't have sufficient justification and thus couldn't have known that there was
water in the mantle.
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by vivifyAs far as where the h20's came from consider:
Gotcha. Thanks for your post. You've restored my anti-Christian beliefs.
(Genesis 1:6, 7) Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so.
This describes God's arrangement for the Earth at that time of the creation.
The expanse is what we call the atmosphere. (See genesis 1:20b)
There were h20's below the atmosphere. The smaller catch basins on the surface of the Earth. No doubt with rivers running downto them.
And there were h20's above the atmosphere. These formed a h20 blanket to protect the Earth from harmful Sun's rays or perhaps space debris. This is a common principle that is used by Engineers for example.
When the Flood occurred, that protective h20 blanket burst and those h20's came crashing down to the surface of the Earth.
The small catch basins would have overflowed and formed the deep Oceans as we see them today.
Even the surface of the Earth substantiates this.
It's like a child's sandbox that has been doused with a barel of h20!
AND, they have found riverbeds under the current Oceans.
God's Word is True!
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorumOh yes it most certainly is. Or rather its the other way around. The non-historicity of a great flood of global proportions is not disputed by any scholars who do not have a religious reason for disputing it.
The historicity of a great flood is not disputed .....
28 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyWhere do you get that figure from again for your 'coincidence'? It sure isn't in the link you gave. The article you linked to says that he has so far found evidence of the rock beneath the US and no indication of whether it is found elsewhere. If there are any estimates of how much water there is then it is almost entirely guess work. Certainly nothing down to a 'forty feet' type of accuracy.
Regarding the writers of the bible, adding that the entire earth was covered, and to the point where the highest mountains were submerged by forty feet---that's about how much water is contained in those crystals. That's a rather lucky coincidence, isn't it?
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, I do not support the theory of a flood of 'global proportions'; I do believe that there was a great flood.
Oh yes it most certainly is. Or rather its the other way around. The non-historicity of a great flood of global proportions is not disputed by any scholars who do not have a religious reason for disputing it.