Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Ohanka
What happened to all the flood water then?

I would suppose it went back down where it came from: below the earth's crust.

A recent study in 2014 (link) found massive reservoirs of water deep beneath the earth's crust. This reservoir is holding enough water to fill the volume of the earth's oceans 3x over.

One researcher was quoted saying:

"We should be grateful for this deep reservoir... If it wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out."

If the lithosphere is 100 miles thick, which it generally is not and at 12 miles down the temperature can melt iron drills, how is the water is staying in liquid or steam form between the upper and lower mantle where the temperatures would be above 3000 degrees?

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

The water in the mantle is incorporated into the rock and minerals.

It doesn't exist in the same state as liquid water or steam due to the high temperatures and pressures found in the Earth's interior.

Basically any water at that depth and pressure is incorporated into the crystalline structure of minerals in the mantle.

Also, the temperatures you mention, exceeding 3000 degrees are typically associated with the lower part of the mantle, not the region between the upper and lower mantle.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Ohanka
What happened to all the flood water then?

I would suppose it went back down where it came from: below the earth's crust.

A recent study in 2014 (link) found massive reservoirs of water deep beneath the earth's crust. This reservoir is holding enough water to fill the volume of the earth's oceans 3x over.

One researcher was quoted saying:

"We should be grateful for this deep reservoir... If it wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out."

If the poles flipped by 90 degrees in relation to the planet's surface, that would create tsunamis up to a few miles high travelling at up to 1037 mph and similar, winds. So you have water destruction and sandblasting. The flip would accelerate to max speed at about 3/4 of a G or around 25'/sec/sec. Antarctica and Greenland would end up on the equator. It's happened before and will happen again in say 10 years or so.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

That is pretty much Chan Thomas Adam and Eve theory.

The thing is the idea runs contrary to our understanding of plate tectonics.

And also is not consistent with current scientific understanding with the idea of massive tsunamis and winds resulting from a rapid pole flip being speculative and not supported by science.

The scientific consensus is that pole reversals, when they do occur, happen over long geological timescales taking thousands to millions of years to occur and not within a short period of time.

en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=In%201963%2C%20he%20published%20the,cataclysmic%20events%20every%207%2C000%20years.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Already discussed.

He knows nothing about this, as evidence by using this as a creationist argument..

We should be grateful for this deep reservoir... If it wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out."

Like *ZOMG*

"That must ONLY mean it's in the same state it would be on the surface, and I will use that to support my argument and talk down to people who know better, and tell me otherwise. To me, that is ABSOLUTELY saying it's in a form that could quickly be transfered to the surface to support my global flood. Through vents. Yup, vents."

It couldn't be just a way to describe it for the average person, and grab people's attention? No, never that.

Seriously, compare the two.

Sciencist discover demolecularized water trapped in mantle rock that is 3-4x more than the oceans

Vs.

Scientist discover 3-4x the water in the earth mantle.

Means the same thing, one just is too misleading, I guess, but it certainly makes for a better lay person headline. They're hoping that when they explain it people will then understand what they mean by water. if they are capable. It's kind of a click-bait title in that way.

And that he's parading himself as an authority on GEOLOGY IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM AND TELLING PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE WRONG (from this creationist perspective) is insulting to everyone who actually studied it. Whether in school or for casual scientific interest from peer reviewed sources.

It would be different if it was an actual challenge.

For example: there is some debate as to how exactly this all looks. Most describe it as a slurry of certain hydrous olivines, wadsleyite, ringwoodite, basalts, and silicates. Every one hydrous. And not because they soaking is liquid water as some would like to believe.

a reply to: cooperton

Using plant resin was ubiquitous among all sea-faring nations it appears. This is unanimously accepted as fact.

So unanimously accepted as fact is ok except for the age of the Earth, how tectonic plates create mountain ranges, no great flood that cover the Earth, how Oil Deposits and Geological layers are formed, but if it's on a creationst pesudo science website it's an ok fact??

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Already discussed.

He knows nothing about this, as evidence by using this as a creationist argument..

We should be grateful for this deep reservoir... If it wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out."

Like *ZOMG*

"That must ONLY mean it's in the same state it would be on the surface, and I will use that to support my argument and talk down to people who know better, and tell me otherwise. To me, that is ABSOLUTELY saying it's in a form that could quickly be transfered to the surface to support my global flood. Through vents. Yup, vents."

It couldn't be just a way to describe it for the average person, and grab people's attention? No, never that.

Seriously, compare the two.

Sciencist discover demolecularized water trapped in mantle rock that is 3-4x more than the oceans

Vs.

Scientist discover 3-4x the water in the earth mantle.

Means the same thing, one just is too misleading, I guess, but it certainly makes for a better lay person headline. They're hoping that when they explain it people will then understand what they mean by water. if they are capable. It's kind of a click-bait title in that way.

And that he's parading himself as an authority on GEOLOGY IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM AND TELLING PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE WRONG (from this creationist perspective) is insulting to everyone who actually studied it. Whether in school or for casual scientific interest from peer reviewed sources.

Dang.
This is some crazy reaction to being tested.

Didn't you start a thread to counter argue this thread so you could be unopposed?
Are you not at the bare minimum agreeing now that this is at least, at a minimum water that at least there was enough water available for a global flood?
But not now because it is now become ringwoodite?
But it was water once?
Before?

Aren't you, a trained scientist, supposed to be opened minded and always testing your theories?
Like always testing your theories?
Instead of getting so butthurt by others testing the theories?
Instead of getting Uber offended that nobody is elevating you to top brain and the final answer and we must all "respect my authoritay".

At a bare minimum you at least have to admit you are proving there once was enough water to flood the Earth's surface.
But now it's trapped....maybe?
Instead you have resorted to outbursts that equate to, "I am a scientist damnit. I am the authoritay!!
You are stupid."

Didn't you make a thread to do that but that wasn't enough?
You demand to be unopposed in testing your theories?
Certainly you are not claiming it is settled science because that is what they taught you.
Dr. John Taylor Gatto says this is just memorizing someone else's prethought thoughts and not actually real learning.
This is a chicken or the egg dilemma at least right?
Where did the water come from to become ringwoodite?
3 times more than what is on the Earth's surface, you don't say?



Oh, BTW.
My point is he is not talking down to you.
You are talking down to him because you are a scientist damnit

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Where did the water come from to become ringwoodite?

The water in "Ringwoodite" likely originated from the early stages of planets formation.

And was transported into the mantle through various geological processes, probably involving subduction zones.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

.....supposed to be opened minded and always testing your theories?

The Global Flood Theory and that of Noah's Ark have both been tested.....and based on the evidence provided and available have both been found to be wanting.

Bring something new to the table and not the repeatedly regurgitated stuff already provided and refuted and I'll consider that. Until then I personally think both have been thoroughly disproven.

a reply to: cooperton

Good question. I know I am on the right track when I research these things and it turns out to be a match. When we check the estimated amount of biomass on the planet today, about 550 billion tons [source], and compare it to the estimated amount of oil deposits on earth, we get a close match.

I am a Christian and I believe in God. That being said your numbers just dont add up. Heres the current situation with respect to estimates. Were talking trillions and you are referencing billions.

The world holds around 1.56 trillion barrels in proved crude oil reserves as of 2022. This is excluding oil sands. Since 1960, there has been a marked increase in oil reserves, especially in the decade between 1960 and 1970.Dec 15, 2023

Can you thump that as I am all for the flood theory. But...................................

a reply to: Freeborn

PM4U

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Where did the water come from to become ringwoodite?

The water in "Ringwoodite" likely originated from the early stages of planets formation.

And was transported into the mantle through various geological processes, probably involving subduction zones.

There was water when the planet was formed?
Was there an atmosphere when it was formed?
I mean "likely", "probably", maybe?
Wouldn't too much water put out a fire?
Too much water means too much steam?
Was there water first like Genesis proposes?
No water, no life.
Did it start as a marble and grow?
Or a gas star that exploded and chaotically formed?
Help me here.
Where when how and why did water get here?
Shouldn't it all be a form of hardened water?
Ringwoodite, and zeolite and...
Did some of the hardened water melt?
Help me out here

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: cooperton

Good question. I know I am on the right track when I research these things and it turns out to be a match. When we check the estimated amount of biomass on the planet today, about 550 billion tons [source], and compare it to the estimated amount of oil deposits on earth, we get a close match.

I am a Christian and I believe in God. That being said your numbers just dont add up. Heres the current situation with respect to estimates. Were talking trillions and you are referencing billions.

The world holds around 1.56 trillion barrels in proved crude oil reserves as of 2022. This is excluding oil sands. Since 1960, there has been a marked increase in oil reserves, especially in the decade between 1960 and 1970.Dec 15, 2023

Can you thump that as I am all for the flood theory. But...................................

Oil fields replenish themselves.
Peak oil is a marketing tool.
Gas should be at 25 cents a gallon.
OPEC. STANDARD OIL.
Control=profit

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

There was water when the planet was formed?

Its called accretion, where smaller particles and objects collide and stick together to form larger bodies.

Was there an atmosphere when it was formed?

There may not have been an atmosphere in the very early moments of planets formation, but an atmosphere would have began to develop as the planet cooled.

I mean "likely", "probably", maybe?

How many times did you use the word "but" in your previous post?

Wouldn't too much water put out a fire?

Where?

Too much water means too much steam?

Does it?

Was there water first like Genesis proposes?

The Genesis account in the Bible proposes a narrative where water existed before the Earth was formed.

No water, no life.

Where?

Did it start as a marble and grow?
Or a gas star that exploded and chaotically formed?

The process of planetary accretion has been explained to you and is a widely accepted scientific concept.

Help me here.

That's beyond my skill im afraid and only you can do that.

Try opening a real science text as opposed to the Christian nationalist creationist guff you seem fascinated with, that might help.

Where when how and why did water get here?
Shouldn't it all be a form of hardened water?

The exact details are still the subject of ongoing research, but there are several hypotheses and pieces of evidence that provide insights into how water may have arrived on our planet.

Take for instance possible origin in the Solar Nebula or via delivery from comets and asteroids.

Ringwoodite, and zeolite and...
Did some of the hardened water melt?

The water in the mantle is incorporated into the rock and minerals. It does not exist in the same state as liquid water or steam hence melt is simply the wrong terminology as its embedded in to the crystalline structure of minerals.

Help me out here

In your case Is that not Gods job?

Good luck to the big fellow on that score.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

I'm not doing two of you.

It's bad science.

All hypotheticals are moot when science can absolutely tell someone the historical crest of global sea level and they still you refuse to accept it. (+400 m)

I'm not being arrogant, it's like holding an apple in your hand and having to argue with someone in front you that you are holding an apple. It provokes escalating response.

It's fun if your a rhetorical masochist, I guess.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

.....supposed to be opened minded and always testing your theories?

The Global Flood Theory and that of Noah's Ark have both been tested.....and based on the evidence provided and available have both been found to be wanting.

Bring something new to the table and not the repeatedly regurgitated stuff already provided and refuted and I'll consider that. Until then I personally think both have been thoroughly disproven.

I am way more into the anthropology side of this.
I have gone over it.
For me it bottlenecks in the Caucusus, Anatolia/Armenia, Persia Iran, gods and civilizations that lead to Noah and his sons.
I am trying to just hang out on the peripheral edge in this thread but I get drawn in by the authoritative demands that theories be accepted as settled science when obviously it isn't.
I find it amazing how bent out of shape just one poster got because 300-400years of Egyptology dating back 4 millenia could be wrong by chronological dogma in dating.
Because the pagan gods align with each otherwise.
Modern anthropology is ripping these timelines apart.
There is no settled science in this regard.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

I'm not doing two of you.

It's bad science.

All hypotheticals are moot when science can absolutely tell you the historical crest of global sea level and you refuse to accept it. I'm not being arrogant, it's like holding an apple in your hand and having to argue with someone in front you that you are holding an apple.

Does that apple have apeel on it.
Because that would make it age differently.
Side note: do not eat it if it has apeel.
It may age well without looking rotted.
But it will destroy your organs.
This was a public service announcement

a reply to: FarmerSimulation


Oil fields replenish themselves.

So do humans

The human body produces an average of about 20,000 liters (5,283 gallons) of oil in its entire lifetime.Sep 16, 2014

a reply to: andy06shake

It is water and atmosphere that sets this planet apart from the rest of the universe.
So it becomes a chicken or the egg hypothesis.
If all water becomes solid from magma.
Then water had to come later?
The atmosphere creating a vacuum too?
Tiamat explains it better?
Just asking because the current hypothesis is that once water becomes part of rock it never can become h2o? Again?

The creation story/myth talks of the Spirit hovering over the waters in the beginning.
Was that ringwoodite do you imagine?
Or did water come after land?

a reply to: Degradation33


Not doing two's?

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144

I always thought your were a Fibonacci type in your theory of logic as yes its part of science!

Fibonacci

However, just where are you coming up with the 400+ metres when Uncle Google reflects the following?

But the people who came off the Ark settled in the area around Babylon (Genesis 11:2). The Zagros Mountains to the north-west rise 2,000 to 4,000 metres above sea level (You can check using Google maps with the terrain view). At 2,000 metres virtually the whole of Australia would have been underwater.

Remember that the Flood lasted more than a year, and that, after it peaked, the water was going down for many months before those on the Ark saw any other mountains appear above the surface (Genesis 8:5).

TBD