Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

originally posted by: Kurokage
You're a stickler with everyone else about grammar and use of words. You said water many times, Degradation33 has been more eloquent in her explantion about it and you still refused to except the science that disproves the flood myth..

Here come the excuses now...

The researchers themselves use the word water lol. You have nothing, that's why you have to resort to trying to criticize me, despite me using the correct semantics:

"most inclusions have high and constant water contents of ~40 wt.%, indicating negligible H2O diffusion and loss. Otherwise, the water content would be more variable."
link

Saying "aqueous solution" everytime you want to say water is like a literary major going through and replacing "use" with 'utilize' to pretend to be smarter.

a reply to: Kurokage

Yawn...

you yawn because you are asleep. If you understood what i was saying you would not be yawning..

Slumber if you need to..

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton

www.britannica.com...

Plate techtonics formed the Appalachian mountains.

Deny ignorance.

The Appalachian Mountains are not on the edge of the theorized plates though. I'm sure some 100 million time magic is the official explanation, but it makes more sense that water flooded the whole earth, rather than all the mountain chains moving in and out of oceans.

a reply to: purplemer

Plenty of stories of great floods throughout recorded history but no evidence of a global flood the likes of which is depicted in the tale of Noah's Ark.

The story is quite literally full of holes purplemer.

If you wish to take it as a parable/religious narrative, that's one thing, but as fact, the evidence against the tale of Noah's Ark is quite frankly unsurmountable.

And there is no contemporary historical, or geological evidence, from other civilisations that support a global flood occurring during the proposed time frame of Noah's Ark(around 2,000 BCE).

a reply to: Degradation33

younger dryas periods fits well. Multiple events.. in different locations over a period of time. Inducing tectonic events..
Not so long ago. Civilization has been found after the event.. So why would they not have a memory of the event and why not have civilization before the event..

a reply to: andy06shake

Subduction quakes are wicked. Especially when there's a lot of slip. Large amounts of water can be displaced. Its a good thing for Japan, Sumatra, Chile, and Alaska these zones don't exist. They don't have to worry about massive earthquakes. But I do have an alternate flood theory. It wasn't really our Earth. The Ark really WAS the Tardis!

Younger Dryas event.. mass flooding.. within memory of known civilization.. Worldwide event. world wide memeories of it..

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Kurokage

Yawn...

If you understood what i was saying you would not be yawning..

The typical new age rubbish of "I'm special and I can see the truth and nobody else can, I've been shown the real world"

So yeah Yawn

a reply to: purplemer

The Younger Dryas event occurred approximately 12,900 to 11,700 years ago.

So either Noah was a lot older than claimed or the story from the Bible just does not fit hence Younger Dryas event is not evidence to support the claims being made here in this thread.

I don't think there is any doubt that local floods and catastrophic events have occurred throughout Earth's history.

But as far as i can establish there is no geological or paleontological evidence, of a single worldwide flood, that covered the entire surface of the planet.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage
You're a stickler with everyone else about grammar and use of words. You said water many times, Degradation33 has been more eloquent in her explantion about it and you still refused to except the science that disproves the flood myth..

Here come the excuses now...

The researchers themselves use the word water lol. You have nothing, that's why you have to resort to trying to criticize me, despite me using the correct semantics:

"most inclusions have high and constant water contents of ~40 wt.%, indicating negligible H2O diffusion and loss. Otherwise, the water content would be more variable."
link

Saying "aqueous solution" everytime you want to say water is like a literary major going through and replacing "use" with 'utilize' to pretend to be smarter.

Yes but all your previous posts you missed out all things like carbon for example that are mixed. Like I said, you posted excuses!!

originally posted by: Kurokage
The typical new age rubbish of "I'm special and I can see the truth and nobody else can, I've been shown the real world"

So yeah Yawn

Maybe Britain just needs some more sun

a reply to: cooperton

The 2023 study I am referring to is talking about supercritical water closer to the surface, not in the mantle's transition zone.

Good you acknowledge the thing I spent 20 pages screaming through text.

Then we can let go of this vast reserve of water in the MTZ being of any use, yes?

So the question becomes, how much water is in subduction zones. They are hydrated as hell. Like The Pacific Plate under the Okhotsk Plate? (See 2011 9.0), it subducts at 10 degrees. That is shallow as the Farralon Plate subducted under NA.

But the Farralon plate is a better example of a complete water cycle. What goes under off the Coast of Cascadia returns via a mid plate hot spot.



Ever wonder why with Yellowstone?

Yellowstone's volcanism is linked not just to the currently subducting young Juan de Fuca Plate, but also to the remnants of its older incarnation, the Farallon Plate, the simulations suggest. Those remnants have continued to slide deeper and now lie beneath the eastern United States.

.

It is LITERALLY IN THE TRANSITION ZONE. But as you can learn, there are massive magmatic plumes, LIKE AT THE YELLOWSTONE CALDERA, that are directly related to this slab's subduction. All the fluid released has made it into the magmatic plumes under North America.

This is how the water returns.

E.g. Old Faithful may be returning water that went down with the Farralon Plate and has made it through to its reintroduction into magmatic systems. Who knows how long it took? The plate has been subducting for 100 million years

a reply to: andy06shake

So either Noah was a lot older than claimed or the story from the Bible just does not fit hence Younger Dryas event is not evidence to support the claims being made here in this thread.

calibration of many events in the world is incorrect. Thats how it works

I thought you were saying the story is not real.. Infact what you are looking at in the bible is mythos from earlier sources.. thats the story of Noah from the bible. Once you establish that fact. you can ignore the calibration of time..

but no evidence of a global flood

i have provided evidence of a global event.. younger dryas..

originally posted by: Kurokage

Yes but all your previous posts you missed out all things like carbon for example that are mixed. Like I said, you posted excuses!!

Because your objections are quite absurd.

1) The concentration of carbon solutes has nothing to do with the volume of water in these layers

2) Carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, being dissolved in the water was part of the paper that I provided. I never denied the existence of carbon in the solution lol. It's not even relevant to the discussion. stay on topic.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage
The typical new age rubbish of "I'm special and I can see the truth and nobody else can, I've been shown the real world"

So yeah Yawn

Maybe Britain just needs some more sun

Sun? In the winter? That would be weird??
The amount it rains here, if Noah had been real he'd have been British for sure!

a reply to: Degradation33

Its unclear in biblical verse where the water comes from..

“the fountains of the great deep” and the “windows of heaven.”

Maybe the oceans.. maybe from under the earth....

a reply to: andy06shake

If you wish to take it as a parable/religious narrative, that's one thing, but as fact, the evidence against the tale of Noah's Ark is quite frankly unsurmountable

Bold statement.. prove it..

a reply to: purplemer

calibration of many events in the world is incorrect. Thats how it works

Then im sure you will be able to provide a better calibration that makes it all make sense.

I thought you were saying the story is not real.. Infact what you are looking at in the bible is mythos from earlier sources.. thats the story of Noah from the bible. Once you establish that fact. you can ignore the calibration of time..

I'm saying that while there have been regional flooding events and changes in sea levels throughout Earth's history.

The concept of a recent global flood covering the entire Earth's surface is not supported by scientific evidence.

i have provided evidence of a global event.. younger dryas..

I'm afraid that whilst "The Younger Dryas" is linked to the melting of ice sheets, and the release of freshwater into the oceans, which had a serious regional impact on the climate and environment, it did not result in a global flood or the entire planet being covered in water or ice.

originally posted by: Degradation33
Good you acknowledge the thing I spent 20 pages screaming through text.

Then we can let go of this vast reserve of water in the MTZ being of any use, yes?

Hydroxylated minerals strongly insists upon the presence of water in some form or another in these layers, supercritical water is even used in engineering purposes to hasten these types of reactions. I also doubt the presence of water just stops in the upper mantle. It is interesting though regarding the possibility of a solidified supercritical state in these transition zones. It may be hard to find relevant data on solidified supercritical water, let me check.

a reply to: purplemer

That magic TARDIS boats that can hold 2 pairs of millions of animals on Earth are impossible? LoL

I think the onus is on anyone that chooses to entertain such nonsense to "prove it" as you so ""eloquently"" put it.

Let's put it this way there is no geological evidence for a global flood that matches the timeline and scale described in the biblical narrative.

The idea of fitting two of every species onto a single wooden boat half the size of the Titanic and sending them on a year-long cruise presents immense logistical challenges.

And once again there is no historical or geological evidence from other civilisations that supports a global flood occurring during the proposed time frame(2000 BCE).

a reply to: cooperton

Because your objections are quite absurd.

You may think the're absurd but you're the one trying to fudge science to prove the myth of a global flood and the claim its the reason for gas and oil.

All the pesudo-science used to try and 'prove' theses myths tend to gloss over the hard facts, just like you've done with your magic 'water'.
I'ts the same glossing over with your Pixar freshwater fish merrily swimming through a torrent of storms, Hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones to find a few freshwater springs amongst a vast ocean now 5.5 miles above normal sea level.