Yes, I am, until I have good geological reason not to. If I were to qualify this (and other) scientific assumption(s) to conform to the prescientific mythology of one nomadic desert tribe, science as we know it would become meaningless.Are’nt you assuming the growth rates have been constant over the last 50 million years?
And none of that water is available to cover the planet. And there is no geological evidence that water ever covered the planet. We’ve been over this ground before.
You literally have no reason to believe the growth rates were constant over the last 50 million years. Do you know how fast two continental plates have to be moving to lift mountains 9 kilometers into the sky? Does this impact have no effect on the speed of the continental plates, i.e., do they not slow down when they crash? If they are moving slower now, because of the impact, how fast *were *they travelling initially?
Not available now. But there is at least one slender possibility that things could have been different. One must disprove that possibility to remove it permanently.
If it is not available, it is not relevant.
I’m not going to dispute your (or their) calculations because it is irrelevant if the water is not available.
You have that backwards. It is YOU that has to show that the water locked up in the mantle was available for your idea to merit any discussion. So if you want to continue with this line of reasoning, show how that water can be extracted, how did it happen and what were the effects of the process that extracted the water (ie the heat question, what happened to the rocks that lost the water, how did it get back into the mantle, etc…).Not available now. But there is at least one slender possibility that things could have been different. One must disprove that possibility to remove it permanently.
Same challenge to you as to Thing. For this water to be part of this discussion, you have to have at least some idea how the water was extracted from the mantle, how come the heat didn’t vaporize all life (including marine life and life in a wooden boat) and how the water got back into the mantle.
Could this be the “fountains of the deep”?
Arctic Ocean’s worth of water’ discovered in Earth’s mantle
I already did all that…
Really? I must have missed it. Could you either re-state it or provide a link to your post?
I can do neither, but its there and no, you did not miss it. In fact, I remember you were singularly unimpressed with it, I don’t understand why,… your exact words were ‘Nah’.
No change to my challenge. I understand that there is plenty of water in the mantle.
Wow, deja vu all over again!I can do neither, but its there and no, you did not miss it. In fact, I remember you were singularly unimpressed with it, I don’t understand why,… your exact words were ‘Nah’.
Excuse me, i should have just said “past” But the point remains the same. Science has changed Biblical interpretation.
So I take it you don’t have a mechanism to do the things necessary to have the mantle water be the fountains of the deep.
I remember a year or so ago debating you on whether or not there was sufficient water down below. As I recall you were pretty adamant that was not the case, so accepting this is a positive step.
The water is there, now we just need to know the mechanism.Well, there isn’t sufficient free-phase water down there. The vast majority of the water is tied up in the crystal lattice of the semi-molten rock. When you are talking about water for the flood, unless the water is free-phase, it isn’t available.I remember a year or so ago debating you on whether or not there was sufficient water down below. As I recall you were pretty adamant that was not the case, so accepting this is a positive step.