Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
You make a gigantic assumption it was not water used during the flood and then captured within.

And you make a gigantic assumption it was.

If it was an ice canopy, or water from Saturn's rings, it was water. Simply water.
And before it was ringwoodite, crystal or zeolite.
It was water.
Your contention is when not if.

And you can't answer either.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

No.

Start with your retarded [explitive] story..

Start with with that absolute pompous idiocy and back it up.

I'm not discussing [explitive] about geology anymore because you're too [explitive] ignorant and obstinate for it. You have no [explitive] clue what you are talking about, and what's worse, you tell me I don't either. So no.

I was posting direct quotes that refer to the water, in both liquid (aqueous) form and supercritical form, and you were flat-out denying it. Now you're trying to shift the goalposts and say this liquid and supercritical water present in these regions could not be able to come to the surface. We can debate those possibilities, but first you have to admit that water in the supercritical and liquid state are present abundantly in the mantle. There's no use with further debate if you can't accept scientific empiricism... From this source, the water is in a supercritical fluid state and is actually able to dissolve the minerals due to the high temperatures and pressures exhibited in these regions:

"Our research presents a method that more accurately determines the quantitative composition of ultrahigh-pressure (UHP) fluid [high H2O (~40 wt.%) and solute (~60 wt.%) contents] released by a slab during deep subduction compared with that detailed in previous studies. The data provide important information for understanding the characteristics of UHP fluids, especially supercritical fluids... The contribution of supercritical fluids to the deep carbon and sulfur cycle may have been significantly underestimated previously."
link

You even posted a picture from a study that was reinforcing this notion, that the supercritical fluid can actually dissolve various minerals at high percentages:



In the diagram you can see that when a certain temperature is reached, the noticeable immiscibility, i.e. the two distinct zones of the aqueous fluid (water) and the silicate melt, blend together into a homogenous mixture. This is showing a deep truth about our mantle, that water in the liquid and supercritical form is essential to perpetuating the deep water cycle:

"The data provide important information for understanding the characteristics of UHP fluids, especially supercritical fluids. Supercritical fluids with high dissolved contents of carbon (2 wt.%) and sulfur (3 wt.%) released during deep subduction could cause efficient migration of carbon and sulfur from slabs. This improves their recycling efficiency in the subduction zone, playing a vital role in the deep cycling of these elements. "
link

Can you just admit there is supercritical water in these regions? It is very much acknowledged now with recent research. I need to see you are at least objective before we move on to the next topic.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah because he was calling me an idiot, so I pointed out how he made a very novice error regarding the difference between weight and density. You guys even liked his comment that asked where the saltwater creatures would go during the flood lolol

But we got what they meant, also the saltwater creatures is/was a valid observation posted by someone else that pointed out the difference in salt concentration due to all the extra water would affect them as well.

You just skirted that. It is what you do, cherry-pick.

Just like harping on this water in the mantle thing, like that somehow proves it just popped up out of there, although nobody has ever seen it do that.

originally posted by: daskakik

But we got what they meant, also the saltwater creatures is/was a valid observation posted by someone else that pointed out the difference in concentration due to all the extra water would affect them as well.

You just skirted that. It is what you do, cherry-pick.

Just like harping on this water in the mantle thing, like that somehow proves it just popped up out of there, although nobody has ever seen it do that.

No he wasn't even saying that, he didn't mention anything about a potential change in salinity that would not allow the fish to live. He literally was curious where saltwater fish would be put when the whole world became an ocean.

Also, I'm responding to like 8 of you so I'm not going to respond to absolutely everything. The reason it's a silly objection, is because you were objecting that it would be both too salty for freshwater fish, yet also too fresh for saltwater fish. You're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something will stick. The ocean likely maintained it's salinity everywhere but the top, while freshwater pockets existed near the surface and near major freshwater springs.

The Fontaine de Vaucluse spring in France discharges around 470 million US gallons (1,800,000 cubic meters) of water per day, with a peak measured rate of 727 cubic feet (21 cubic meters) per second.

a reply to: cooperton


And about those fish, NO they would not survive. Enthalpy alone would have killed off most of the fish. In addition, the temperature differential between water rising to the surface and water on the surface would have killed off fish. You can't take tropical fish and put them in the Arctic waters - cold and warm water fish require a narrow range of temperature and pH. If the ocean leaches into a fresh water lake, the fresh water fish die off. The salinity variability in your model alone would kill off the fish.

If it rained 40 days and 40 days per your bible, the pH of the water would have changed drastically killing fish.

Go get an aquarium and see how many fish you can kill by changing the salinity and pH of the water. That would be at least one experiment that you've done in your lifetime. Remember to report the results back to us. I wait with bated breath - but I won't hold it.

a reply to: cooperton
Ravenwatcher brought it up earlier, way back on page 5.

Who cares if you can't keep track of who you are responding to, it was a valid point that you can't explain away.

ETA:

The Fontaine de Vaucluse spring in France discharges around 470 million US gallons (1,800,000 cubic meters) of water per day, with a peak measured rate of 727 cubic feet (21 cubic meters) per second.

A spring is not the same type of water you are talking about being trapped in the mantle. And while those numbers might seem huge, they are nothing compared to what would have been needed for a global flood.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton


And about those fish, NO they would not survive. Enthalpy alone would have killed off most of the fish. In addition, the temperature differential between water rising to the surface and water on the surface would have killed off fish. You can't take tropical fish and put them in the Arctic waters - cold and warm water fish require a narrow range of temperature and pH. If the ocean leaches into a fresh water lake, the fresh water fish die off. The salinity variability in your model alone would kill off the fish.

If it rained 40 days and 40 days per your bible, the pH of the water would have changed drastically killing fish.



Go get an aquarium and see how many fish you can kill by changing the salinity and pH of the water. That would be at least one experiment that you've done in your lifetime. Remember to report the results back to us. I wait with bated breath - but I won't hold it.

It was a global flood, not a bathtub flood.
There is not one single reason to assume that what happened near the vents happened everywhere. The only thing you can assume is it was flooded.
Examine a river where there are calm areas away from flow.
Imagine it leading to a waterfall but upstream it forked and went into a pond or lake.
But you want to assume it was a washing machine. Nobody put you is postulating these strawman scenarios

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Go get a textbook on fluid dynamics. You're 100% WRONG. The turbulence alone of water coming to the surface would cause temperature and pH changes.

Like I told the other idiot, go get an aquarium and see how many fish you can kill with turbulence, salinity and pH variables.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Go get a textbook on fluid dynamics.

You have no room to talk, you literally didnt know the difference between weight and density just a few pages ago lol.

You're 100% WRONG. The turbulence alone of water coming to the surface would cause temperature and pH changes.

Of course it would cause changes, but it wouldnt be drastic enough to kill all fish life on the planet. If anything this would help establish various gradients, like how salt water is more dense (sorry I know that's a hard word for you hahah) than fresh water and will tend towards the bottom. The cold freshwater rain would also help balance it out. Fish have mechanisms that allow them to find ideal water concentrations and temperature

Like I told the other idiot, go get an aquarium and see how many fish you can kill with turbulence, salinity and pH variables.

You're so dense bro, so dense.

hahaha

a reply to: cooperton
That is not how it works, there are no long standing gradients of fresh and salt water. In a matter of minutes the fresh water would have some salt and the salt water would lose salt and that is what would kill the fish.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
That is not how it works, there are no long standing gradients of fresh and salt water. In a matter of minutes the fresh water would have some salt and the salt water would lose salt and that is what would kill the fish.

During hurricanes the surface of the ocean in those areas becomes less saline, while maintaining salinity at medium to deep depths. Now imagine nonstop rain for 40 days, there would certainly be freshwater havens for fish. Not to mention the various freshwater springs that would create zones where freshwater fish would survive.

a reply to: cooperton
Less saline doesn't mean salt free.

All the fresh water fish would be dead, something you seem to be ignoring.

The amount of salinity in the water would also drop in general, that is what would kill the salt water creatures.

There are no havens, the mixing is quick.

You know how Noah sent out a crow that never came back before sending out that dove?

How come there are crows now? Surely that crow was half of the remaining population following God's malevolent omnicidal drowning of all life, ergo there should be no crows since last I checked they are not capable of parthenogenesis.

a reply to: cooperton

but you missed the part of them being trapped in the structure of the minerals and not an actual free floating fluid, almost the same as the ringwoodite.

Turns out there is plenty of supercritical and liquid water in these layers

Also, I thought that you didn't believe in these layers and that it was all layed down in the flood?

originally posted by: Ohanka
You know how Noah sent out a crow that never came back before sending out that dove?

How come there are crows now? Surely that crow was half of the remaining population following God's malevolent omnicidal drowning of all life, ergo there should be no crows since last I checked they are not capable of parthenogenesis.

This would be like saying how did a soldier have a child born in the US while he was off at war. They can get their wife pregnant before they leave for their service.

a reply to: cooperton

Now imagine nonstop rain for 40 days,

The surface would act like a washing machine (40 days of it) which would change the gravity of ocean water, making marine fish stressed and kill them. I've had marine fish as a hobby for years and any deviation form around 1.018 to 1.025 could be fatal for most marine species.
Fresh water fish would also die as there bodily fluids would leech out due to osmosis because of the salinity. both marine and freshwater fish can't see this imaginary magic line you think happens in such a large scale of 'world flooding'.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

but you missed the part of them being trapped in the structure of the minerals and not an actual free floating fluid, almost the same as the ringwoodite.

"Our research presents a method that more accurately determines the quantitative composition of ultrahigh-pressure (UHP) fluid [high H2O (~40 wt.%) and solute (~60 wt.%) contents] released by a slab during deep subduction compared with that detailed in previous studies."

It's in supercritical fluid form, it is not trapped in the minerals. The minerals are dissolved in the supercritical water, that's why they refer to them as a solute. This is a big difference, and this is from the most recent research on this topic.

a reply to: cooperton

Your wrong again...

A solute is a substance that can be dissolved into a solution by a solvent. A solute can take many forms. It may be in the form of a gas, a liquid, or a solid.

To also add.
From the link in your post

released by a slab during deep subduction compared with that detailed in previous studies.

Subduction...

the sideways and downward movement of the edge of a plate of the earth's crust into the mantle beneath another plate:

I thought you didn't believe that's how marine fossils ended up on mountains?

In what layer of Earth do we find all the bones of the dead , Seems to me if everything on Earth was killed at the same time we would have a layer of death 100's of feet there would be a layer in the crust surrounding the globe "A Flood layer"

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
Less saline doesn't mean salt free.

All the fresh water fish would be dead, something you seem to be ignoring.

There are fresh water fish that can survive high saline conditions, and even more that can survive moderate saline conditions, but towards the surface the water would not be nearly as salty during the rain. And there would also be plenty of freshwater springs that would be a freshwater haven for these fish:

The Fontaine de Vaucluse spring in France discharges around 470 million US gallons (1,800,000 cubic meters) of water per day, with a peak measured rate of 727 cubic feet (21 cubic meters) per second. 727 cubic feet per second would be plenty of water to create a freshwater microcosm near this spring. It is well known that the region where a river meets an ocean can maintain its freshwater attributes, so the same could be occurring for an underwater spring. And again, fish have detection methods that allow them to find their ideal water salinity conditions.

It is also important to note that even though high salinity would eventually kill some fresh water fish, they would still be able to tolerate it for hours or even days until they found ideal conditions.

The amount of salinity in the water would also drop in general, that is what would kill the salt water creatures.

No that's not true, research regarding hurricane and ocean pH show that the salinity change only occurs towards the surface, and the deeper regions maintain their saltiness since it is denser (link for the difference between density and weight for phantom's sake).

There are no havens, the mixing is quick.

While the rains were coming there would be plenty of freshwater near the surface, data shows that a hurricane which only lasts 2 or 3 days can change salinity near the surface by about 15%. So given a 10x longer duration and a wider span of rain, it would allow a strong decrease in salt concentration near the surface.