Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

a reply to: cooperton

Big Spring (Missouri), and the Huanglong Valley.

You mean a fresh water spring that connects to a fresh water river? Please show how a massive flood full of dissolved solids, ash, and vegitation would be a haven?

Some fish live only in cold, clear mountain lakes; others in brackish swamps. Some depend on splashing, rocky, oxygen-rich creeks, while others, such as a freshwater dolphin, a manatee, and a thirteen-foot catfish, live only in the sluggish Amazon. In all these instances plus many more, the environment provided by the deluge waters would have no more suited these creatures than it would have the desert tortoise or the polar bear.

This is the type of flooding you're talking about but on a massive scale..

a reply to: cooperton
Missouri would have been under sea waters from day 2 if the sea level rose 200 meters a day and 240 cubic feet is nothing. Earth has billions of cubic kilometers of sea water, and that water isn't going to head inland in a nice soft subtle trickle. It would be more like the video you posted, dragging boulders like nothing and stirring things up.

originally posted by: Kurokage
"fish have mechanisms that can find their way through varying salinity"

Thats a total assumption on your part with no evidence to back it up.

1. Taste Buds: Located primarily on their lips, gills, and barbels, these specialized sensory organs contain taste receptor cells sensitive to different chemical stimuli, including salts. Specific cell types within the taste buds respond to changes in salt concentration, sending signals to the brain for interpretation.

2. Olfactory Cilia: These hair-like structures lining the nasal cavities also play a role in salinity detection. Certain proteins embedded in the olfactory cilia recognize dissolved chemicals, including salt ions, triggering neural pathways for further processing.

3. Osmoreceptors: These specialized cells are distributed throughout the body, particularly in the gills, kidneys, and intestines. They directly sense changes in the salt concentration inside their bodies compared to the surrounding water. This internal-external comparison allows for adjustments in water and salt balance through mechanisms like urine production and gill permeability.

4. Lateral Line System: This sensory system composed of neuromasts runs along the body and head of fish. While primarily responsible for detecting water movement and vibrations, some neuromasts might also contribute to salinity perception by interacting with changes in water density caused by varying salt concentrations.

5. Behavioral Adaptations: Beyond purely sensory mechanisms, fish demonstrate behavioral changes in response to perceived salinity variations. For example, some species might avoid areas with sudden salinity shifts, while others actively seek out optimal salinity ranges for breeding or feeding.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage
"fish have mechanisms that can find their way through varying salinity"

Thats a total assumption on your part with no evidence to back it up.

1. Taste Buds: Located primarily on their lips, gills, and barbels, these specialized sensory organs contain taste receptor cells sensitive to different chemical stimuli, including salts. Specific cell types within the taste buds respond to changes in salt concentration, sending signals to the brain for interpretation.

2. Olfactory Cilia: These hair-like structures lining the nasal cavities also play a role in salinity detection. Certain proteins embedded in the olfactory cilia recognize dissolved chemicals, including salt ions, triggering neural pathways for further processing.

3. Osmoreceptors: These specialized cells are distributed throughout the body, particularly in the gills, kidneys, and intestines. They directly sense changes in the salt concentration inside their bodies compared to the surrounding water. This internal-external comparison allows for adjustments in water and salt balance through mechanisms like urine production and gill permeability.

4. Lateral Line System: This sensory system composed of neuromasts runs along the body and head of fish. While primarily responsible for detecting water movement and vibrations, some neuromasts might also contribute to salinity perception by interacting with changes in water density caused by varying salt concentrations.

5. Behavioral Adaptations: Beyond purely sensory mechanisms, fish demonstrate behavioral changes in response to perceived salinity variations. For example, some species might avoid areas with sudden salinity shifts, while others actively seek out optimal salinity ranges for breeding or feeding.

Dude I'm a Marine Biologist and have a degree in Ichthyology .

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage
"fish have mechanisms that can find their way through varying salinity"

Thats a total assumption on your part with no evidence to back it up.

1. Taste Buds: Located primarily on their lips, gills, and barbels, these specialized sensory organs contain taste receptor cells sensitive to different chemical stimuli, including salts. Specific cell types within the taste buds respond to changes in salt concentration, sending signals to the brain for interpretation.

2. Olfactory Cilia: These hair-like structures lining the nasal cavities also play a role in salinity detection. Certain proteins embedded in the olfactory cilia recognize dissolved chemicals, including salt ions, triggering neural pathways for further processing.

3. Osmoreceptors: These specialized cells are distributed throughout the body, particularly in the gills, kidneys, and intestines. They directly sense changes in the salt concentration inside their bodies compared to the surrounding water. This internal-external comparison allows for adjustments in water and salt balance through mechanisms like urine production and gill permeability.

4. Lateral Line System: This sensory system composed of neuromasts runs along the body and head of fish. While primarily responsible for detecting water movement and vibrations, some neuromasts might also contribute to salinity perception by interacting with changes in water density caused by varying salt concentrations.

5. Behavioral Adaptations: Beyond purely sensory mechanisms, fish demonstrate behavioral changes in response to perceived salinity variations. For example, some species might avoid areas with sudden salinity shifts, while others actively seek out optimal salinity ranges for breeding or feeding.

through varying salinity

Really? Through this type of deluge for 40 days?? Please show me the degrees of varying salinity fish can survive in?



Like I said before, you like to twist facts to fit you conformation bias and disgard anything that doesn't, my friend.

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher

Dude I'm a Marine Biologist and have a degree in Ichthyology .

Nice. I was responding to kurokage though, he was saying there was no evidence that fish have any way of detecting salinity lol.

a reply to: cooperton
And humans have the sense to find shade under a blistering sun but that is of no use if you are somewhere where there is no shade.

So we drop you off in the middle of the Sahara with nothing but the scales on your back. You are smart you say this thing is wider than tall so let me head either north or south instead of east or west.

Look at the big brain on cooperton!

There might even be a bunch of natural springs somewhere.

My money is on you dying. That is what would happen with these fish as well. There being a watering hole, well or spring somewhere doesn't mean you will find it. Needle in a sand dune.

a reply to: cooperton

Nice. I was responding to kurokage though, he was saying there was no evidence that fish have any way of detecting salinity lol.

I didn't say they couldn't detect it, I said they couldn't survive the journey through a deluge washing machine ocean.
Please show a freshwater or saltwater fish in a deluge that raises sea levels 5.5 miles that can survive that? And thats not taking in to account all the other changes to the water that kind of deluge would cause!!

The entire ocean would have now looked like this...

originally posted by: Kurokage
The entire ocean would have now looked like this...

I know it wasn't your intention but I think I saw a fish hanging 10 on one of those branches. Must have been one of god's chosen fishes.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Kurokage
The entire ocean would have now looked like this...

I know it wasn't your intention but I think I saw a fish hanging 10 on one of those branches. Must have been one of god's chosen fishes.

Maybe God gave them a fish scuba kit to make it to one of Coopertons springs!!

originally posted by: Kurokage
I didn't say they couldn't detect it, I said they couldn't survive the journey through a deluge washing machine ocean.

Stop moving the goal posts. When I said "fish have mechanisms that can find their way through varying salinity", you responded and said:

originally posted by: Kurokage

Thats a total assumption on your part with no evidence to back it up.

But you were patently wrong, because there is plenty of evidence to back it up. The marine biologist is shaking his head at you but he can't say you were wrong because he has to maintain the pact of **Team Mutant-Ape Progeny**

Admit you were wrong and we can continue discussion, otherwise I have to ignore you from now on because it shows you have lost objectivity.

originally posted by: cooperton
Stop moving the goal posts.

Ok, fresh water spring guy.

2nd.

*** FINAL THREAD POST ***

Act 1:

Before this discussion sidetracked (for me) into trying in vain to explain the MTZ, and the futility therein, it was about a global flood.

But first get this "Mantle Water" out of the way.

Let the basic-minded OP think, IT'S NOT ALL IN RINGWOODITE, OR OTHER ROCK. Or however he wants it to be.

He knows he needs all that water inside Earth in an easily accessible form to pull this off.

And he will accomplish that by telling someone who understands it that, in fact, they are wrong about ringwoodite inclusions. Geologists have been misinterpreting seismic data. And this hydrated region is actually MOSTLY supercritical H2O (with no other compositional component), which just has has ringwoodite adjacent to it. Because it's supercritical and all. The MTZ isn't these hydrated polymorphs, nope, it's like he says.

Everyone saying otherwise is wrong.

But he will ignore anything like this:

(In this study, ‘water’ refers to any water-related species such as hydrogen, hydroxyl and/or molecular water detected as O–H stretching with infrared spectroscopy.)

And insist its still in surface liquid form. Just repeat blah blah supercritical blah blah.

No its not a terminology misunderstanding, like with "aqueous fluid", we just dont know what we are talking about...

LET HIM THINK IT'S ALL WHATEVER AND TALK DOWN TO PEOPLE BECAUSE GOD. AS THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP THIS RIDICULOUS OP ALIVE.

SO ONCE AGAIN LETS GO BACK TO THAT, THE RIDICULOUS OP.

AND KILL IT RIGHT.

WITH NO MORE TALK OF MANTLE WATER. DONE LETTING THIS GUY UNEXPLAIN IT.

Anyway, there's much much much more glaring problems.

***************************************

Act 2:

The Claim: Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

Evidence A:



What he calls a "polystrate fossil", a creationist term.

He submits a recent flood, happening 4500 years ago, is the cause of the rapid sedimentation in The Joggins Formation.

And yet..

THAT'S POSSIBLY THE MOST RETARDED ASSUMPTION ONE COULD POSSIBLY MAKE ABOUT THAT FORMATION.

EPICALLY STUPID.

The rapid sedimentation will be seen as the recent proof, WHILE NEGLECTING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FOLLOWING:

1) The formation was created at a time of fault related land subsidence in THE CARBONIFEROUS PERIOD (358-298 MYA)

2) The Appalachian Mountains ran east-west and straddled the equator. And were the taller than The Himalayas. It was at a point of significant orogeny and techtonic motion. And several million years before the Atlantic Ocean even existed.

3) The "rapid sedimentation" that created it was by localized flood waters and in no way due to a global flood.

* Note - a retarded creationist will at this point see "Flood waters" and ignore everything else, or how common floods are. It will ONLY pertain to one specific flood.

Any look on any geology source will give you roughly this description for The Joggins Formation's creation:

The deposit represents a time when the region was dominated by a tropical rainforest, and consists of an enormous quantity of sedimentary rock. This material was deposited by rivers and flood water moving northwards, leaving behind sediment that subsided between two fault blocks: the Cobequid Mountains and Caledonia Mountain (present-day Caledonia Mountain, New Brunswick), both of which were active in the Carboniferous.[22] Halokinesis along basement faults sped up the process of subsidence by removing subsurface salt from the ground. The high occurrence of flooding events in the Joggins Formation suggests that the territory rapidly subsided into the Cumberland Basin.[11] Sand from a crevasse splay may also have been responsible for intermittently burying the region and preserving its biota as fossils.

That's not for debate.

I can say, with absolute confidence, that IN NO WAY WAS THE JOGGINS FORMATION CAUSED BY A GLOBAL FLOOD, AND THE RAPID SEDIMENTATION THEREIN IS ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED BY OTHER GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES (LIKE FORNING BETWEEN TWO ACTIVE FAULTS IN A WATERSHED UNDERGOING SUBSIDENCE)

THIS OP IS DEAD.

Or at least it should be.

******************************************

Act 3:

But with insolent stubbornness comes an Ad-Hom attack. Because it's earned.

He will refuse to acknowledge that, instead returning to making people defend ancillary points (like the state of mantle water), that is ultimately irrelevant, because the evidence used as "proof" of a biblical flood is completely known and totally refuted.

It's all False Dilemma. False premises. Very little knowledge of geology. Maybe chemistry, BUT LARGELY MISINTERPRETING SCIENTIFIC DATA or processes to validate wildly preposterous notions.

All he needs is something he thinks agrees with him, and doesn't even need to understand it.

He is not a scientist, he refuses the method.
Not an academic, outside scripture, and even there I wonder.
He is mostly a pseudointellectual theologian incapable of defending his BS without wildly redirecting the discussion into infuriating ouroboros.

Instead of facing the criticism he will pivot on try to focus on things (Like mantle H2O composition) to distract from the premise being totally flawed.

It's EXACTLY LIKE arguing with a righteous creationist too narcissistic to even admit their own ignorance.

And now, I will likewise recuse myself from this engagement, feeling this last statement is incontrovertible, and not respond to any retort. I will think I gave the better arguments, even though much of this is new and required a bit of reference.

Did I mess up in some places? Probably.
But I feel I did better than this guy did.

Adding a final statement of.

I win!!! XD

This is one of the most recent papers (2023) regarding water's presence in the mantle:

link

It contains everything I was saying regarding the presence of water:


(The water is the turquoise regions)

The researchers estimate that water composes about 40% by weight of these mantle layers, and when it is hot and pressurized enough it is even able to dissolve these various minerals into a supercritical fluid:



It would not take a lot of water to flood the whole earth from mantle reserves. The mantle is over 10,000,000,000x more voluminous than our ocean. Therefore, It would be a drop in the bucket for enough water to totally flood the earth from the mantle. A relatively small pressure increase would be able to force enough water to earth's surface. Most of this water is stored as a supercritical fluid when the water is beyond the critical point in the deeper layers of the mantle, approximately 40% of the weight of the mantle, as shown by the researchers analysis from 2023:

"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."
link

As shown in the second picture above, when these fluids reach closer to earth's surface, and experience a drop in pressure and temperature, water will resume behaving like a normal liquid, able to be expunged onto the surface given the right physical impetus.

a reply to: cooperton

I posted this in the other thread. Put it here too...

THERE'S A PROBLEM IN YOUR SUPERCRITICAL WATER. You're missing something.


FINAL COMMENT ON "SUPERCRITICAL" MANTLE WATER


Image: geological fluid with the composition "thicker" than magmatic melts and "thinner" than aqueous liquids.

But that's not what you're missing.

Let's look at this example.

They are showing that around and below 700°C the aqueous/silicate separates.



The Earth is 700 C at about 50 km, at most. If you use the typical gradient of 25° C/km, it's 700° 28 km down. It actually varies for a number of reasons, like cold vs. hot subduction zones.

The results aren't surprising. This is right on the edge of saline water surviving the P/T.

However, above 700° this is totally mixed supercritical fluid. Not silicate, not water.

IT CAN ONLY BE IN A SUPERCRITICAL FORM AFTER THIS POINT, RIGHT? PRESSURE ONLY GOES UP.

So if you insist water doesn't refer to...

(any water-related species such as hydrogen, hydroxyl and/or molecular water detected as O–H stretching with infrared spectroscopy.)

...or exist mostly in crystal, it must be entirely supercritical fluid above 700°, right?

But...

Where is the VAST majority of this "water"?

IN THE MANTLE TRANSITION ZONE.

The 700° supercritical point (the point of unmixing) IS WAY ABOVE the MTZ. Way way above it. Above wadsleyite, above olivine. Way ABOVE EVERYTHING of storage capacity.

The Transition zone is between 1565° and 1600° Celcius.

Hence, what's in the transition zone is either largely in hydrous polymorphs (as i still believe) or in a supercritical mix. A TOTAL MIX.

And yes I'm giving you supercritical fluid in the MTZ. Maybe concensus is wrong, maybe the wadsleyite and ringwoodite ISNT enough to explain the electrical conductivity???

It doesn't matter to your argument though.

Here's why.

Using that example, and considering supercritical form, for your theory to work, you have to force the P/T in THE MANTLE WHERE THIS H20 IS LOCATED to fall below 700° C and 0.94 GPa.

The 410 discontinuity has a pressure 14 times that. 14 GIGAPASCALS. The 660 discontinuity is 22 GPa.

IT DOESNT MATTER HOW THE 'WATER' EXISTS, WHETHER MIXED SUPERCRITICAL FLUID OR INSIDE POLYMORPH, IN ORDER TO SEPARATE IT YOU MUST REDUCE THE PRESSURE 14 to 22 TIMES OVER. Keep in mind the lower part of the MTZ is more hydrous then the upper part.

And this doesn't even consider ANY OF THE OTHER CHANGES THAT WOULD HAPPEN BEFORE THAT POINT.

So back to the question.

What possible natural process could cause the pressure between the 410 and 660 discontinuity to fall 14 to 22 times over, which is necessary to separate H20 from silicate, a typical supercritical fluid in the mantle. And then flood Earth.

What could possibly cause this unmixing to happen? That's a huge required pressure drop. Not just "a little bit".

And what about what I said about the Joggins Formation and how IT ACTUALLY FORMED? Care to address the REAL SCIENCE about that claim. It was your exhibit A. You'd be terrible as a lawyer if that was your introduced evidence.

Plus I really want to switch up and do orogeny for a bit, really focus on The Pennsylvanian Age of The Carboniferous Period. Polymorphs and H2O-silicate supercritical fluids are cool, but I'm sick of the interior, let's do all those sedimentary claims?!

And I won't just make dyke jokes this time.

a reply to: cooperton
Great, there is water there, a butt load, but you still have not told us how it gets forced out.

What took its place when it did get forced out?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
Great, there is water there, a butt load, but you still have not told us how it gets forced out.

What took its place when it did get forced out?

You'd be a riot at a party with David Copperfield and Chris Angel.




But you get no pass on this one.
I give Cooperton a pass and tell you as a penalty he does not have to answer your post until you prove to the class you went back and read the entire thread.
Because that has been answered...
A lot.
Now go do your homework and quit disrupting the class. Don't come back till you have the answer

a reply to: FarmerSimulation
I have read the entire thread, even reminded OP of what Ravenwatcher said about water salinity in regards to fresh and saltwater fish on page 5.

I will admit maybe I missed something, well mister teacher's pet, maybe you can point us in the direction of that answer because all I have seen is OP going on and on about there being water in the mantle but nothing about how it would get out, and more importantly, what would take its place.

Now put up or just butt out.

Creationist Geology Fail Thread Recap

There have been 4 noted claims so far in support of the OP.

1. Rapid sedimentation, as noted by "polystrate" trees is evidence of a Global flood.
2. Because humans can create brick is absolute evidence all sedimentary stone can be instantly created, including all igneous rock.
3. Oil Deposits are evidence of that same global flood. Including coal deposits in The Appalachians.
4. The "supercritical fluid" in the mantle can be unmixed at lower pressures and forced to the surface to flood the Earth.

Claim 1. Rapid sedimentation, as noted by "polystrate" trees is evidence of a Global flood.

Rated as: False (Fallacy)

Rapid sedimentation in a localized area millions upon millions of years ago is not evidence of a recent flood. Deposits referenced were created in Pennsylvanian during a time of land subsidence.

Claim 2. Because humans can create brick is absolute evidence all sedimentary stone can be instantly created, including all igneous rock.

Rated as: False (Fallacy)

A large granite batholith can take many millions of years to cool to the point of complete crystallization. Limestone takes 750,000 to over a million years to cement from organic material

Claim 3. Oil Deposits are evidence of that same global flood. Even coal deposits in The Appalachians.

Rated as: False (Fallacy)

Petroleum deposits in sedimentary layers, contrary to popular belief, are mostly created by algae through sedimentation in an oxygen deprived enviroment. This takes MILLIONS OF YEARS. For example, The West Texas Oil Field's organic material was deposited in the Permian Period when it was a shallow sea, and eventually sedimented over. It is literally called the Permian Basin

Likewise, coal fields in The Appalachians were formed by swamps that existed during The Pennsylvanian, thats why its called The Carboniferous Period. These were sedimented over, and in the millions of years since, have turned to coal, the most evil carbon deposit of all... except blood diamonds

Claim 4. The "supercritical fluid" in the mantle can be unmixed at lower pressures and forced to the surface to flood the Earth.

Rated as: False (Impossible)

To unmix any supercritical fluid existing in the mantle transition zone (where ALL the 'water' is) into silicate and aqueous fluid requires a P/T reduction on the order of 14 to 22 times, depending on depth, to bring it to the noted 700° C/0.94 GPa threshhold required for aqueous-silicate unmixing. Conditions generally found in the crust or upper mantle. Around 30-50 km deep.

That really should be it.. across the board pseudoscience deserving of all criticism.

But it won't be... Not a chance. I'll believe in divine grace if it is.

Been an abscessed tooth of a thread otherwise. I love Geology. I just didn't know talking about it could piss me off so much.

Be back as soon as any of those are legitimately disputed.

a reply to: cooperton

Stop moving the goal posts. When I said "fish have mechanisms that can find their way through varying salinity", you responded and said:

I'm not moving the goal posts here, thats you with dipping into scientific papers only using tiny slithers of real science to try to make your flood myth look more real.
Varying salinty is one thing, it's another when 5.5 miles of flood water has covered the earth in 40 days and thats what you expected me to swallow. This is what I was asking you to prove here. A fish in a washing machine of salt and fresh water.

I showed you a video of what the surface of the ocean would've looked like, mutiple people have told you how the waters chemistry would have been if a 40 day deludge had happened and you made an off hand comment about fish being able to tell differing salinities.



The only reason you ignore people is because they show the flood myth to be wrong.

The marine biologist is shaking his head at you but he can't say you were wrong because he has to maintain the pact of **Team Mutant-Ape Progeny**

Ok, ask our Marine Biologist Member about dumping a fish into a washing machine of salt and fresh water, mud, rock and vegitation and see what he says??

I dare you!!!!

And again with your attempts to slur the real science with your 'Team mutant-ape' comment. What, are you the Team fantasy Tardis Ark or maybe Team imaginary Geology?