"Obviously you have not dug post holes in MY backyard!"
Are you one of them Noahides who live in Rainbow Swamp?
Posted on 05/08/2023 4:30:17 AM PDT by george76
How??
The MOHO drill stopped at ...
The first attempt to drill to the Moho was in 1961, off the coast of Mexico near Guadalupe, as part of Project Mohole. The deepest hole from that effort penetrated 183 m (601 ft) into the sea floor, the upper 179 m (557 ft) of which consisted of sediments. In subsequent years, only 4 holes penetrated more than 1 km (0.6 mile) into the oceanic crust; the deepest of these was 2.1 km (1.3 mi) off the coast of Ecuador.
In September 2012, a new state-of-the-art scientific drilling ship—Chikyu—surpassed the old record of 2.1 km.
https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/news/volcano-watch-after-50-years-a-renewed-effort-drill-moho
All ya had to do is read!
Scientists made the findings at the time after studying earthquakes and discovering that seismometers were picking up shockwaves under the surface of the Earth.
From that, they were able to establish that the water was being held in the rock known as ringwoodite.
That expalins it all!
Obviously you have not dug post holes in MY backyard!
Obviously you have not dug post holes in MY backyard!
Statements similar to this have been made about my stored gases.
Perhaps there are still natural means to be discovered that GOD used.
Interesting,
Noah’s Flood becomes Very
Plausable with this information. 13th
They are idiots. If it’s finite did plants and animals stop dying?
Think of the crap in the oceans.
And if oil is from dead dinosaurs, how did we find dinosaur bones in the La Brea tar pits?
Hmmm
I respect your position. It is actually the more-preferable explanation.
But these other jokesters here were implying (admittedly, no one came right out and honestly/explicitly stated it; instead, they just hinted at it) that the "discovery" of ringwoodite somehow "bolstered" the Story of the Deluge - as though, in view of an Almighty God, it needed bolstering.
Thus, I was trying to argue on their level / from their initial premises.
I concede that that may have been an unwise decision.
But the mere "discovery" of a mineral hundreds of km below the Earth's surface that, under certain circumstances (e.g.: application of enormous quantities of EXTRA energy), could theoretically yield the water which subsequently manifested as the "fountains of the deep" of the Bible - without addressing all of the necessary intermediate steps ("Where did that necessary EXTRA energy suddenly come from? How did the resultant water then make its way through hundreds of kms of Mantle to reach the Earth's surface? Did that water then later return to the layer of ringwoodite? Etc.") amounts to opening up a "can of worms" that actually creates more problems than it solves.
It's no "skin off my nose," but if someone wants to show up wearing a deerstalker cap, holding an oversized magnifying glass, and smoking a calabash pipe to smugly announce that the "discovery" of this mineral "solves" the riddle of the Story of the Deluge (in doing so, they are already implying that it is a riddle in need of solving), then they had better be prepared to exactly explain the entire chain of physical mechanisms.
It is NOT enough to simply proclaim, "Elementary, my dear Watson! It was the ringwoodite!" and then go home.
Regards,
You see, Daniel? This is the kind of errant thinking (confusing matters of faith with matters of science; tacitly demanding scientific explanations / proof for Biblical miracles) that I was talking about.
Regards,
AMEN!!!!
My aim is at the author for stating [...]
Thank you for stating this!
This is a common problem here at FR. When attacking the article or the author of the article, many FReepers erroneously reply to someone in the thread who had made a (relatively) innocuous comment. That "someone" then rightly feels attacked. Please avoid doing this and/or make it clear to whom you are actually addressing your complaints!
[...] more water is under the surface of the planet than there is on the surface!! That statement alone should have someone of your intellect going after them instead of me!! It's physically impossible!
First of all, the main article cleverly refrains from clearly stating its true objective. Rather, it merely notes the "discovery" of ringwoodite and then sits back and waits for "Bible apologists" (I am intentionally using a provocative expression here; it refers to people who think that the miraculous events mentioned in the Bible need subsequent scientific explanation, thus implying that the Bible is somehow "defective" until such explanations are proffered) to show up and crow, "Hallelujah! The Bible isn't as ridiculous and unbelievable after all!"
And that is namely the pernicious mindset which such articles foster!
That is why I am "breaking a lance" against this article!
But, at the same time, I didn't want to become mired in a long, tedious discussion - on the article's own turf! - about the quantity of water, etc. That would have been a distraction and a diversion - and, worse, it would have played into the hands of the aforementioned pernicious mindset!
[...] someone of your intellect [...]
It probably wasn't your intention, but I'll take a compliment whenever I can get one! (smiley icon)
Regards,
You are arrogantly placing me in that camp - merely because I favor the more-elegant solution that God simply created the needed water ex nihilo?
What presumption!
I don't intend to argue Geophysics with you (it was never my wish to argue Geophysics, in depth, with anyone here - rather, I am of the position that to venture into that territory at all in attempting to "explain" Biblical stories is unnecessary and fosters a wrong mindset).
The basic "ploy" of the main article (and its ilk) is to suggest to its readership that they are in any way even remotely qualified to absorb this info (about, e.g., ringwoodite) and properly integrate it into their understanding of the Biblical narrative.
It is, after all, quite flattering for some person who flunked 8th-grade "Earth Science" to gloss over this article and then smugly announce, "Hah! I always knew the Bible was right! And this proves it!"
I can just see that person then, in later conversation with skeptics, suddenly pulling out this factoid about ringwoodite as though its mere mention "won the day" for them. Disgusting!
(Please NOTE that I am not claiming that you, personally, were such a person, DiogenesLamp.)
Regards,
Your rhetorical question makes about as little sense as asking, "If the Moon is made of green cheese, why weren't the Apollo astronauts covered in cheese when they returned to Earth?"
No "dinosaur bones" were ever found in the La Brea tar pits.
I seriously recommend that you refrain from engaging in scientific conversations until you have "brushed up" on your 8th-grade "Natural Science" curriculum. Making bold assertions and posing provocative rhetorical questions based upon half-remembered tidbits from junior high school - tarted up with factoids gleaned from repeat-viewings of "Jurassic Park" - is no way to go through life, FRiend!
Regards,
An interesting observation regarding the mechenism for how to get rid of all the water that covered the earth. Although Noah was in the ark for about a year, your point stands - a lot of disruption to get rid of enough water that covered the earth to be able to get out and about in a year. Although the high peaks would have been dry.
I’m a creationist but also “believe” in science - the world is wonderfully made and in order. But, like you said, God can cause anything to happen at His will. (Cause the wind to cease, stop the sun from moving, etc.)
I got a kick out of the scientists for calling this stuff “ringwoodite” based on just a seismic velocity at 400 miles deep. But I stand corrected as I see from the below article there has been lots of research on the rock, both from volcanic activity that hints at it, meteorites that hold a clue, lab tests trying to recreate the conditions of earth at 400 miles, and the first true real example found in 2014 of ringwoodite found inside of a diamond.
Chapter and verse, please!
Regards,
I should have clarified my “true” example found in the diamond. I am sure that the experts probably have some disagreements and unknowns with regard to that too.
Ask two geologists to look at a situation and you’ll get three different theories.
Ask a geophysicist what the answer is and he’ll say “What do you want it to be?”
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_739.cfm
Above is a link to an article with the various verses where the writer pins it down to 371 days. There are other folks that count things a bit differently (letting the birds out for 7 days, did Noah release the next bird that same day or the following day, etc.) but all close to that number.
But for a general idea based on the verses the flood began when Noah was 600 years old and they left the ark when he was 601 years old. Hmm, even if it took 30 years for the water level to get back to normal that would be like 3 years in “our time” (Noah lived to 950 years, say 10 times our lifespan if you are lucky).
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened (Genesis 7:11).
And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried. And God spake unto Noah, saying, “Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons’ wives with thee.”
(Genesis 8:13-16).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.