Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

originally posted by: cooperton
No it's just the geological source I use to show there is water beneath the earth's crust when someone asks where the water came from.

And that is all it shows, there is water there. It doesn't explain what caused it to come out.

That water is occupying space and it won't flood the earth unless something displaces it. The study showing water is there doesn't prove or disprove the noah flood story.

ETA:

Oceans upon oceans of water beneath earth's crust, confirmed in 2023, predicted in the Bible.

Looked, must admit not very hard, couldn't find it.

a reply to: cooperton

I admire your persistence. Not as easily agitated today. So keeping it clean and academic this time.

I actually looked into it, I really don't know why, but l had to find out, just to be sure. And I found out. In fact, the supercritical fluid in question is a mixture that is considered miscible or "into each-other".

This was the 101 analogy used.

You take vegetable oil and put it into water they are immiscible.

But you take alcohol dyed red and water dyed blue in any part and they form a shade between blue and red. Equal parts is purple. They are considered miscible. Because they dissolve into into each each other.

It's a simple conceptualization to apply for miscible mixtures across the board.

There is no difference in what miscible means with fluids in science. It a ubiquitous term where ever fluids mix.

Now with silicate and aqueous fluid they are considered miscible supercritical fluid under pressure. Like Na3AlSi5O13-H2O.

We agree on this, because you used the study about their miscibility, and how at lower pressures they separate into silicate and aqueous fluid.

In a simplified analogy, the flawed logic in what you're arguing can be demonstrated.

If Silicate is red and Aqueous Fluid is blue, to say it doesn't become a supercritical mixture of both is like saying the red alcohol and blue water doesn't turn a shade of purple. It's essentially arguing the mixture is entirely blue because all the red dissolved into it, becoming it.

It completely ignores what the logical implications of mixtures imply and what simple terms mean. Rhetorically, from a scientific standpoint, I feel it is deliberately deceptive and outright changes the definition of what a mixture is, and hopes people don't catch it. I feel this deliberate overlooking of basic facts is to avoid this conundrum:

It's impossible to lower the pressure of the vast majority of 'water' in question to the point where it separates and is no longer a miscible (mixed) fluid, if arguing "all water in the mantle is in supercritical form", which you are.

Furthermore, you continuously use examples of fluid accompanying subducting hydrated slabs relatively close to the overlying volcanic arc and mantle wedge, well above the vast reserve of water in question and not applicable. The majority being below the 410 km discontinuity. But that's a whole other comment entirely.

Since we are repeating ourselves ad nauseum. These are the fallacies needing to be addressed.

originally posted by: daskakik
"No it's just the geological source I use to show there is water beneath the earth's crust when someone asks where the water came from."

And that is all it shows, there is water there. It doesn't explain what caused it to come out.

Yes but that confirms that water could have come from below like the Biblical account says.

That water is occupying space and it won't flood the earth unless something displaces it. The study showing water is there doesn't prove or disprove the noah flood story.

Yeah plenty of mechanisms could do something like that. It would be less than a fraction of a percent of the water estimated to be in these layer to flood the earth up to Everest

originally posted by: cooperton
Yes but that confirms that water could have come from below like the Biblical account says.

Not without some pretty big happenings, which you have no proof of.

Yeah plenty of mechanisms could do something like that. It would be less than a fraction of a percent of the water estimated to be in these layer to flood the earth up to Everest

I think your maths are wrong. Last I have seen there is an estimated 3 times the amount of water in the mantle that is in the earth's oceans.

Remember we are talking about a sphere and everest is 8.8km high. Earth's ocean waters come to 1.3B m3.

The volume needed to fill earth above the sea level to 8.8km is 1.8 trillion m3, 4B m3 falls really short.

ETA: Did maths wrong myself. Let me try again:
earth water = 1.3B km3
Water in the mantle =/= 4Bkm3
Water to fill earth to the height of everest above sea level = 13km3

A lot less but still not the fraction of a percent you keep claiming.

originally posted by: Degradation33

If Silicate is red and Aqueous Fluid is blue, to say it doesn't become a supercritical mixture of both is like saying the red alcohol and blue water doesn't turn a shade of purple. It's essentially arguing the mixture is entirely blue because all the red dissolved into it, becoming it.

When it heats up to supercritical temperatures and pressures, the water will dissolve the minerals into a homogenous mixture. According to the research paper, It is approximately 40% water and 60% minerals. Below supercritical temperatures they separate into a heterogenous immiscible mixture of water and various minerals

It's impossible to lower the pressure of the vast majority of 'water' in question to the point where it separates and is no longer a miscible (mixed) fluid, if arguing "all water in the mantle is in supercritical form", which you are.

There's less pressure and heat towards the surface, the water would return to being a regular liquid closer to the surface.

a reply to: cooperton

Below supercritical temperatures they separate into a heterogenous immiscible mixture of water and various minerals

Thank you!

It's actually pretty cool where that happens. Like the reason the West Coast of Japan is so active at those thrust faults is its a heavily saturated convergent boundary. Some of which from supercritical fluid insertion into the magmatic system. Very slippery faults. The whole of Japan actually. On the East Coast the shallow angle at the Pacific Plate subduct leads to a VERY HYDROUS supercritical mixture accompying that subducting oceanic slab.

Those are accurate numbers up to 40%..

I am glad we agree. The supercritical depth varies but mostly, depending on composition and temperature of subducting slab, can be between 30 km and 70 km.

It's a P/T game, you know that.

But it's only a tiny bit of the water in the earth. While the subducting slabs are very hydrated, it gets lost in various analogs before the deep subducting slab finally arrives at the MTZ. Slabs take forever to subduct. The shallow subducting Farrallon Plate has taken 100 million years, and it's not even done yet.

But the P/T variation between the the two are immense.

How do you propose to decrease Pressure and temperature what's amounts to 850 degrees celcius and at least 13 gigapascals of pressure. From 14 to less than 1.

That separation temperature is about 700° an 0.94 GPa, the fluid up in slab easily rises and does this, but how does that apply 380 km further down, sans the mantlec wedge magmatic systems?

The water's 'absorbed' there, not in the slabs way above. So this temperature/pressure needs to drop an obscene amount to hit that unmixing point, or otherwise transition MTZ water to a spot where it does.

It's a hell of a task. You can see the pressure is less than one GPa for the typical earth samples in question.. it seemed across the board around 700° C.

But the closest flood-worthy reserve is between 520 and 410 km. Temp above 1550 and pressure above 14.

There needs to be an upwelling that begins with wadsleyite.

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Wadsleyite, with a chemical formula of (Mg,Fe)2SiO4, is the dominant mineral in the upper part of the mantle transition zone from 410 to 520 km depth. Because wadsleyite can contain up to ∼3.0 wt.% H2O as hydroxyl in its crystal structure

So there's the first water analog. First water of quality to be pushed up..

What pressure change would be required to start the upwelling processes, with cause it to melt above the 410 discontinuity. And then continue the upwelling procress through several stages.

The goal is to eventually upwell this water and feed it to the magmatic system to be released via black smokers and normal processes.

That process normally takes a really really long time.

So what massive pressure change or event did you have in mind to accomplish this without changing the laws of physics?

The upwelling event has 40 days to occur. Not the many millions of years it took the 'water' in transit, so how do you; 1) MASSIVELY accelerate this process from 50-200 million years (depending on depth) to a few weeks, and 2) Do it without a crap load of magma rising with it, due to this "godlike" sudden P/T change?

I'm all for it, but it seems really impossible.

originally posted by: daskakik
ETA: Did maths wrong myself. Let me try again:
earth water = 1.3B km3
Water in the mantle =/= 4Bkm3
Water to fill earth to the height of everest above sea level = 13km3

A lot less but still not the fraction of a percent you keep claiming.

The volume of the mantle is about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic kilometers. We multiply the volume of the mantle by 40% (the most recent estimate of water percentage in the mantle) to achieve the volume of fluid water in this layer as approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 40% = 400,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic kilometers of water in the mantle. It takes merely 4,000,000,000 cubic kilometers to fill up the ocean to make it cover Everest, which means we would only need

4,000,000,000 km^3 to cover everest /400,000,000,000,000,000,000 km^3 of water in the mantle = 0.0000000001% of the water in the mantle to be forced upon the earth. Even if the amount of water is a billion times less concentrated than the most recent study suggests, it would still be a mere drop in the bucket.

a reply to: cooperton
Your study stipulates only 8 samples. I don't think you can say it is representative of the entire mantle. I found an estimate that says the water in the mantle is estimated at 3 times the volume of the water on earth's surface.

Not going to argue anymore about it because neither of us has the facts, but you are obviously using an extrapolation to justify your argument.

Makes no difference, the noah story has more holes than just, where could the water have come from. This is the only straw you can clutch on to.

a reply to: Degradation33

The upwelling event has 40 days to occur. Not the many millions of years it took the 'water' in transit, so how do you; 1) MASSIVELY accelerate this process from 50-200 million years (depending on depth) to a few weeks, and 2) Do it without a crap load of magma rising with it, due to this "godlike" sudden P/T change?

So we disregard all the other issues with the release of all this trapped water like what form it is in, how it was released and how much, then we have to question how it all subsided so quickly and how it became sealed again in the earths mantle?

I'm no geologist, not at all, but how could this water rise up so violently and then recede so quickly and get sealed back up?

Am I missing something here?

originally posted by: Freeborn
Am I missing something here?

God wanted stuff dead, could have just yanked the creatures he wanted dead off the planet, could have just dropped, let me check my notes, 13km3 of water in like a minute.

Instead we have this stupid story about him sucking water out of rocks while also making it rain for 40 days because...God works in mysterious ways, ok?

a reply to: daskakik

God wanted stuff dead.....

Bearing in mind he's omnipotent couldn't he have just wished them all dead?

And why did he deem it necessary to kill all those animals in such a dreadful way considering they had no part to play in the corruption of mankind?

a reply to: cooperton

We multiply the volume of the mantle by 40% (the most recent estimate of water percentage in the mantle)

Just checking I'm now reading this correctly, you're saying that 40% of the planet's mantle is comprised of water?

Cooperton the Earth's mantle is composed mostly of solid rock, with some molten rock in the form of magma.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
Your study stipulates only 8 samples. I don't think you can say it is representative of the entire mantle.

Sure, so let's say it applies to merely the top 1/100th of the volume of the mantle:

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 40% = 400,000,000,000,000,000,000 x (1/100) = 4,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic km in the upper 1/100th of the mantle

4,000,000,000 km^3 to cover everest /4,000,000,000,000,000,000 km^3 of water in the mantle = 0.00000001% of the water in the mantle to be forced upon the earth. Still just a mere drop in the bucket. Even if it would be merely the top 1/1,000,000,000th of the mantle, it would still not even be a full percentage point of water to flood Everest.

I found an estimate that says the water in the mantle is estimated at 3 times the volume of the water on earth's surface.

Not going to argue anymore about it because neither of us has the facts, but you are obviously using an extrapolation to justify your argument.

That estimate you are referring to is from 2014. My estimate I am using is from a more recent study in 2023 that showed there is remarkably more water in the mantle

originally posted by: daskakik
God wanted stuff dead, could have just yanked the creatures he wanted dead off the planet, could have just dropped, let me check my notes, 13km3 of water in like a minute.

Instead we have this stupid story about him sucking water out of rocks while also making it rain for 40 days because...God works in mysterious ways, ok?

He was returning the earth back to its prototype-state.

You guys get upset when God allows free will and doesn't stop evil, then you get upset when he does stop evil lol. A full cleansing of the land was required.

originally posted by: andy06shake

Just checking I'm now reading this correctly, you're saying that 40% of the planet's mantle is comprised of water?

Cooperton the Earth's mantle is composed mostly of solid rock, with some molten rock in the form of magma.

The most recent study on the topic shows otherwise:

"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] "
link

More assessments need to be made for the deeper aspects of the mantle, but even if this is merely true for the top 1/100th of the mantle there is still plenty of water to flood Everest literally millions of times over. The mantle is enormous compared to the surface.

a reply to: Freeborn

It was the Nephilim he was apparently after with the ""global flood"".

Who were seemingly the product of fallen angels and earthy women.

Not that you're are not correct all the same.

As he could have fixed the entire shebang with one snap of an omnipotent finger.

But instead seemingly chooses to wipe his own creations because.............?

a reply to: cooperton

More assessments need to be made for the deeper aspects of the mantle, but even if this is merely true for the top 1/100th of the mantle there is still plenty of water to flood Everest literally millions of times over.

Absolute tripe im afraid, water levels have never been that high.

The mantle is enormous compared to the surface.

Really, i would never have guessed.

a reply to: Freeborn

Switched to purely rhetorical points after logic failed.

And It can't. At all. You are very correct to be skeptical.

This is going on assumptions the OP has stated about the composition of everything.

This is more or less to demonstrate how complicated and impossible the process would be even under the most 'supercritical' circumstances..

And everything argued is impossible. You can't upwell crap outside geologic time. But I hope it demonstrates the absurdity of such suggestions. You basically have to covert hydroxyl to liquid water and upwell it at least 410 km in a few weeks. There's no way to draw it out, or return it to its hydroxylated place, in that short amount of time.

* And even if it is all supercritical instead of hydroxylated (as has been argued) there is problem moving the fluid to a place of low enough pressure where it unmixes.

The recap is: the vast majority of water is in a location and state that is impossible to access for flood purposes. Hydrated slabs are fine with returning hydrous material back to the magmatic system, but the water is in The MTZ 95% inside crystal.

There is honestly no way to change the earth to accommodate such an event event unless you change the laws of reality.

a reply to: cooperton

Again, really? It's not water, it's a solution.
Which is why they say 'aqueous fluid' and 'Supercritical fluids' (again, not water) with high dissolved contents of carbon.

Just for fun, look up high amounts carbon being added to sea water and see what happens to sea life???

Fluids released from slabs at different subduction depths may show large differences in chemical composition and speciation, and they can be subdivided into hydrous melts, aqueous fluids, and supercritical fluids, with the latter being released at high-temperature and high-pressure (HP) conditions (1). Their high mobility and low viscosity make supercritical fluids

en.wikipedia.org...

A supercritical fluid (SCF) is any substance at a temperature and pressure above its critical point, where distinct liquid and gas phases do not exist, but below the pressure required to compress it into a solid.[1] It can effuse through porous solids like a gas, overcoming the mass transfer limitations that slow liquid transport through such materials. SCF are superior to gases in their ability to dissolve materials like liquids or solids. Also, near the critical point, small changes in pressure or temperature result in large changes in density, allowing many properties of a supercritical fluid to be "fine-tuned".

It is not just 'water' sloshing around. You've been shown this many, many times but can't seem to grasp it, or don't want to as you seem to want your magic water to be some giant free ocean under the mantle that can suddenly escape and magically return...