Science Agrees With The Bible:Earth&#39;s Water

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

09.24.2021 06:15PM

-->

@Ramshutu

The bible states the earth was created in 7 days. It was not.

The term "day" has multiple meanings as to length of time, some of which are not 24 hours. You are insisting that the passage be according to your limited understanding.

The bible states that the trees, fruits, seeds, and a variety of plant life, land and sea was created on the third day.

I see no contradiction.

The bible also states on the fourth day that the lights in the sky, including sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day.

No Sir. The very first sentence of Genesis tells us that the "Heavens" (Stars) were created before the Earth. On the 4th "day" the already existing sun became luminous, and was able to penetrate the thick cloudy atmosphere of the early Earth.

The bible also states that on the fifth day animals, fish, etc were all created.

Because the Bible is not using your taxidermy. God is not an evolutionists.

...these things cannot have been specially created

I haven't a clue what "specially created" means, but as it is not my claim, there is no need for me to address it.

...the earth has to put out 1400 times the power we receive from the sun in order to get rid of all that steam condensation heat.

Lol. No wonder you are so invested in steam. Let the record show that,

1. The water in the Earth's mantle is not in magma. Magma comes from below the mantle. Magma is your claim.

2. Neither magma or steam has anything to do with the Genesis flood story. Those are your claims.

3. The water never became steam. Liquids cannot significantly be compressed. It came out in liquid form. Steam is your claim.

The chronology of the flood is based on two things: modern humans have only existed in societies for a few tens of thousand years; and there is no evidence of any meaningful civilization prior much before that.

What is a "meaningful" civilization to a man in the 21st century? And how much of a civilization tens of thousands of years ago would remain from a tropical climate?

We have evidence of habitation, but no point in time at which there was any massive flood of any kind in the few hundred thousands years of hominids.

As science's estimation f dates and processes change all the time, people who are familiar with science know not to be overly dogmatic.

This makes the maximum time of the flood a few thousand years, and minimum of 5-6000

As Noah lived much earlier than that, your conditions are obviously ad-hoc and incorrect.

The second aspect is biblical lineages which describe descendants of Noah down; with around 10 generations between Noah and the Abraham who is historically placeable to ~4000 years ago

Trying to estimate geological times using human generations is certainly not science. The Bible doesn't do that. And not every person in Noah's line is mentioned in his geneology.

...despite there being no physical way it could come out without destroying the planet, and no way to get rid of it in 130 dayson the one hand.

This is like a theist dismissing evolutionary biology because how nonliving matter becomes alive is not presently known. The water is there. Facts are discovered and established one at a time.

This is the issue you seem to ignore; it’s still impossible that the water can get out:...

All I'm trying to establish here is that the water is there. That is something we did not previously know. You want to disprove the flood when my claim is that the Earth has enough water. You believe abiogenesis even though it’s still impossible that non-living matter comes to life. There are many things science believes long before it knows the exact mechanism of how those things work. It isn't cherry picking, it's just science.

note: the lower bound estimate of how much water there is, is still too low to cover the planet - a point you ignore.

The water from underground augmented the water in the oceans, rivers, lakes and atmosphere. That certainly is enough water.

Now there *may* be enough water present. However; it is physically impossible for that water to escape into the planet - or return in a few years - because of basic principles of physics.
In fact, it hasn’t validated the bible - it actually makes it more unlikely for the reasons above

Now imagine what you would be saying if no water had been found in the Earth. Wouldn't that have made the Genesis account more unlikely? Wouldn't you be pointing out the lack of water? Wouldn't you be correctly asking where the water the Bible says came from within the Earth comes from?

The fact that there is a very large amount of water within the Earth makes it more likely that the Genesis account is correct.

Topic's author

#63

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

09.24.2021 06:26PM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

Hey village idiot,

You are still dodging. You said you were not a racist, but Jesus was.

So I pointed out to you how you disagreed with your Lord Jesus, asking you if true Christians followed their Lord. You agreed that all true Christians follow Jesus.

I then told you that you denied following Jesus. You asked me to cite where you did that. I posted the citation, the link, the thread title, the thread page, and the post number.

You ran away.

When I pressed you, you first lied and said you didn't have to talk religion with me because I "didn't" matter. When pressed further, you pretended that the link I sent didn't work.

Now, with egg on your face, you're just blatantly dodging. You are a fake and a fraud DeeDee. I'm surprised that it bothers you enough for you to lie and dodge. Your running means that more reaches your fetid brain than it seems. I didn't know you could feel shame.

Jesus must be so disappointed in you. Perhaps if you let Jesus know you think all black people like Hari are cursed by God, Jesus might accept you back as a true racist like the self-hating Hari.

It's worth a shot. Don't you want to be more than just the board's village idiot?

#64

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6789/post-links/294185

09.24.2021 06:54PM

-->

@ethang5

EtHAMg5, the "masked" Ham Cursed king of non sequiturs,

REGARDING YOUR "YOU FORGOT WHAT YOU SAID" POST #63: Listen up Bible fool, what part of your following statement to me shown below don't you understand bird-brained, GET IT?!

"Why would I discuss Christian religion with a fake Christian who has admitted he doesn't follow Jesus?"

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6789-science-agrees-with-the-bible-earths-water?page=1&post_number=9

You made your bed, now sleep in it, whereas you should be thanking me where I am following in what you want to save yourself further embarrassment, in NOT talking about Christianity with you, as your quote above explicitly states! Because if I did, I would once again Bible Slap you Silly®️ in front of the membership again, and again, and again, and again! LOL!

Now, hide your running shoes and at least "TRY" to address my post #61 that you are blatantly RUNNING AWAY from in total embarrassment!

BEGIN:

AGAIN, please think about following this statements outcome:

#65

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,113

FLRW

09.24.2021 06:59PM

-->

@ethang5

Lol. No wonder you are so invested in steam. Let the record show that,
1. The water in the Earth's mantle is not in magma. Magma comes from below the mantle. Magma is your claim.
2. Neither magma or steam has anything to do with the Genesis flood story. Those are your claims.
3. The water never became steam. Liquids cannot significantly be compressed. It came out in liquid form. Steam is your claim.

Earth’s mantle, the layer just beneath the crust, is the source of most of the magma that erupts at volcanoes. Minerals that make up the mantle contain small amounts of water, not as a liquid, but as individual molecules in the mineral’s atomic structure. Mid-ocean ridges, volcanic undersea mountain ranges, are formed when these mantle minerals exceed their melting point, become partially molten, and produce magma that ascends to the surface. As the magmas cool, they form basalt, the most-common rock on Earth and the basis of oceanic crust. In these oceanic ridges, basalt can be three to four miles thick.

Topic's author

#66

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

09.24.2021 07:07PM

-->

@FLRW

Off topic. My argument has nothing to do with magma. Let the one who brought it up, explain or defend it.

Topic's author

#67

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

09.24.2021 07:13PM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

You're still running village idiot.

Even your Hindu pal saw your confession and posted about it.

You are now running away from your own confession. You let your mouth write a check your schtick couldn't cash.

Your posts are still basically gibberish. I guess they must represent the scattered mess in your mind.

No matter, I will continue to highlight your fraud and fakery, and you will continue in your moron schtick.

You must have no ambition higher than village idiot. Fortunately for you, I like idiots.

#68

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6789-science-agrees-with-the-bible-earths-water?page=1&post_number=9

09.24.2021 07:36PM

-->

@ethang5

EtHAMg5, the "masked" Ham Cursed king of non sequiturs,

YOUR QUOTE THAT YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND AGAIN!!!!:
"Why would I discuss Christian religion with a fake Christian who has admitted he doesn't follow Jesus?"

As your quote above so states, you DO NOT want to discuss with me ANYTHING to do with the Christian Religion, STOP! Therefore I cannot address your continued statements to me relative to the Christian religion, STOP! Therefore you are a hypocrite when you try in vain to discuss the Christian religion with me. STOP!

Therefore, to help you with your total lack of reading comprehension, join this Children's Reading Comprehension Class post haste, because this forum cannot take anymore of your lack of the English language skills, PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE take advantage of the following link's class herewith:

https://parents.mindplay.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3rOF3KmY8wIVOB6tBh3faAj4EAAYAiAAEgInNfD_BwE

Again, the membership laughs at you for not having reading comprehension skills and your outright Bible stupidity LOL!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krTAzjoTuuY

EtHAMg5, seriously, because of your Satanic mentally challenged presence within this forum, you can't realize in how your runaway posts #50, 63, and 67 to me is so wanting and drastically weak. This is a sign that you are accepting the fact that you bit off more than you can chew with your topic of this thread, whereas to save the modicum of face you have left within this esteemed forum, you should close this thread down before I and others make it unbelievably worse for you, do you understand? Yeah, as shown thus far in you being bludgeoned on your topic, you deep down do understand..

#69

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

09.24.2021 09:01PM

-->

@ethang5

So; the scientifically established order of creation, was the heavens, the stars, the sun, the earth, the moon, water/land, bacteria, sea creatures, some land plants, land animals, trees, flowering plants/trees/fruits etc.

Despite you’re weird denials considering that Genesis 1 is literally public domains, the order in the bible is:

Heaven and earth.
Light, day/night (day 1)
Weird firmament (day 2)
Grass, plants and trees (day 3)
Day 4: stars, sun and moon - seriously the Bible is pretty explicit:

“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also”

Day 5: all animals
Day 6: cattle and humans

So even if we assume this nonsense of days/indeterminate age - this Bible has the completely wrong order. Science clearly refutes the bible.

Special creation; is what the Bible said - that animals, plants and living organisms were created directly by God. That is your claim, and definitely did not happen. Don’t be obtuse.

Finally; you don’t seem to be actually attacking any points. So let’s go back.

There is no evidence of any global flood at any point where humans existed. Period.

There is no evidence of any global flood at any period of geological time.

The bible is explicit about the ages of individuals when they had their children, and their genealogy: using these numbers - the flood can be chronologically placed at 4600 BC; geological time of the flood cannot be estimated - as there is no geological evidence of a global flood....

Lol. No wonder you are so invested in steam. Let the record show that,
1. The water in the Earth's mantle is not in magma. Magma comes from below the mantle. Magma is your claim.
2. Neither magma or steam has anything to do with the Genesis flood story. Those are your claims.
3. The water never became steam. Liquids cannot significantly be compressed. It came out in liquid form. Steam is your claim.

Actually - these are all your claims. They are all the necessary physical implications of what you said.

If you claim the water in the mantle came out as liquid water: then you must claim that it was carried by rising magma. The mantle is at tremendous temperature and pressure. If any of it begins to rise containing water - it melts: becomes magma - due to physics.

If you claim that water in the mantle came out as liquid water - then sufficient magma at 3% water by volume) must be moving upward; and must depressurize; otherwise the water remains dissolved and contain with the molten rock. As magma is over a thousand degrees; when this happens; the water is able to spontaneously flash to steam (it’s only not steam because it’s under massive pressure in the magma and mantle). To then condense to water releases the vast quantities of energy I suggested. This is a product of the physical relationship between temperature, pressure, and volume.

All these things are physically required to happen for your claim to be correct - whether you want to admit it or not.

What you’re doing is like declaring that you can pick up a Boeing 747 with your bare hands unassisted - then suggesting “superhuman strength is your claim, not mine.”

Frankly - it’s idiotic.

Like I said: your fixating only on the existence of water. Water which cannot leave where it is.

So the absence or presence of water here does not make the flood any more or less likely - it’s impossible both ways.

However - if there was no water - people would simply argue (as they have) that it doesn’t matter as the earth was flatter than it is now; or that it came from a firmament and drained away.

Reality is unimportant for those who wish to believe their fairytales.

Indeed, the whole point here, is that you claiming the water in the flood was the deep earth water, makes the flood even less likely than it was before. Because of all the physical implications of that water coming out. Pretending that those implications don’t exist is not the best argument

#70

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6789-science-agrees-with-the-bible-earths-water?page=1&post_number=10

09.24.2021 09:01PM

-->

@ethang5

EtHAMg5, the “masked” Ham Cursed king of non sequiturs,

EtHAMg5, since you cannot directly address the following question to me because of your revealing post #9, then the godly drill is for me to address the following biblical axiomatic question to the membership instead relative to my post #6, and that you are to answer for them. Don’t be SCARED again, okay?

QUESTION: ”Where did all of the food and water come from to accommodate 19.2 million animals, 16 pairs of insects, birds and fish species that are not counted, and most importantly, 16 pairs of 1670 ton Argentinosaurus dinosaurs and 16 6 ton African Bush elephants. Now remember, as biblically shown, Noah’s Ark was only 450 long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, and was upon Jesus’ Great Flood waters for over a year subsequent to Him killing innocent zygotes, fetus’ and babies as their mothers watched in horror their offspring drown an horrific death. Respond to this question for the membership, thank you.

Now, as embarrassingly shown once again in your behalf, YOU HAVE RAN AWAY 6 TIMES TO DATE from my godly inspired biblical axioms regarding Noah’s Ark in my post #6, which is part and parcel to your threads topic to begin with, get it?! The irony of which, you perceive yourself as a Christian, huh, surely you jest you "kidder"against facts!

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6789-science-agrees-with-the-bible-earths-water?page=1&post_number=23

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6789-science-agrees-with-the-bible-earths-water?page=2&post_number=26

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6789-science-agrees-with-the-bible-earths-water?page=2&post_number=38

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6789-science-agrees-with-the-bible-earths-water?page=2&post_number=29

EtHAMg5, BEGIN:

#71

Double_R

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,246

Double_R

09.24.2021 10:53PM

-->

@ethang5

Again, though the Bible AND science silences and shames atheists, they can only dismiss the Bible while claiming to uphold science which says the same thing!

So I take it you’re saying that genesis got the order right?

Topic's author

#72

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

09.25.2021 04:29AM

-->

@Double_R

Of course Genesis got the order correctly. But before we run down your escape route rabbit hole, please acknowledge that the water is there.

For the record, I do not use science to validate the Bible. The Bible does not need validation. I think the Bible can validate science.

Do any of you know how many times the "order" of evolution has changed? How many times evolution has had to "correct" or backtrack something it previously insisted was ironclad truth?

On one level, that is commendable, for that shows evolution is willing to change to be more correct, and IS becoming more correct, but then it can't be insisting anything it says is unassailable truth. Evolution cannot have it both ways.

If everything it states is just our current running idea of truth, then nothing it says is reliable as truth.

The Bible is not a science book. By that I mean the authors were not trying to explain any scientific truth. They were not trying to convince anyone of the Bible's scientific insight. The Bible does not, and should not use Darwinian classification. The Bible does not operate within a framework set up by Darwin, or any 21st century standard. It could not be true if it did.

The scope of this thread is Earth's water. Here are some facts.

Scientists are perplexed by how Earth got so much water. Compared to other Rocky planets, the Earth has amazing amount of liquid water. We have found many other planets similar to Earth in size and location from their sun's, no planet with free flowing water so far. The Earth is not relatively arid. That is simply untrue.

Scientists proposed that water came to Earth with icy comets that smashed into Earth, but are now rethinking that theory. The water found in Earth's mantle appears to be very old(Google dating h2O)

Some have now proposed an Earth that has always had water. Of course, that would move science closer to the Bible's narrative. How and why the Earth has so much water is one of science's biggest mysteries.

Dispute Ram's contention, I think it's amazing that there is not a single thing anyone can point to out of a 2,000 year old book that gets science wrong. Some will insist they have examples, but examine the claims and you'll find the are attacking

1. Claims the Bible doesn't make

2. Claims science doesn't make, or

3. Their own unwarranted assumtions.

For the last 500 years, our scientific knowledge has grown tremendously, and every new discovery in science has been consistent with the Bible's narrative. This pattern will continue.

#73

Tradesecret

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

Tradesecret

09.25.2021 04:31AM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

Why are you putting my name on here?

Topic's author

#74

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

09.25.2021 07:17AM

-->

@Tradesecret

No one is engaging him and he desperately needs attention, so he just @s people in hopes that someone will talk to him.

Like Hari and Stephen, it will never dawn on him that it's his borish behavior that causes no one to want to talk to him.

Topic's author

#75

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

09.25.2021 10:16AM

-->

@Ramshutu

So; the scientifically established order of creation,

The Bible is not attempting to be a science book. Science is inferior to the Bible. When the Bible deviates from science, science is wrong. Just as in the case of the thread's topic.

was the heavens, the stars, the sun,

The sun is a star.

So even if we assume this nonsense of days/indeterminate age - this Bible has the completely wrong order. Science clearly refutes the bible.

You still are being dishonest. Observe:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights;...

How could verse 15 be talking about lights if God doesn't create the sun till verse 16?

You try to take common linguistic techniques and spin them into contradictions. When describing an event, one can flit back and forth between the beginning and ending within the description of the entire event. Do you get confused when movies have flashbacks?

I know why atheists have to pretend stupidity when they argue against the Bible, but is murdering your credibility with public stupidity worth the shot on the Bible? Really?

Or;

Weird firmament (day 2)

If your case was as good as you claim, you wouldn't need to add in your side comments to color the narrative. The word "firmament" is a perfectly normal word used in Genesis. It is a translation done in the 15th century, but completely normal. You have no case, you you must build one with your personal impressions presented as part of the bible's narrative.

Special creation; is what the Bible said - that animals, plants and living organisms were created directly by God. That is your claim, and definitely did not happen. Don’t be obtuse.

The phrase "special creation" is not used in the Bible. And I still don't know how it differs from ordinary creation. Please take ownership of your concepts.

The bible is explicit about the ages of individuals when they had their children, and their genealogy: using these numbers

Was the bible using the calendar you're using today? Please use some common sense. Also, the Bible does not mention every person in the gyneology. Counting people to figure geological timelines is only done by scientifically ignorant people.

Actually - these are all your claims. They are all the necessary physical implications of what you said.

You are just scientifically ignorant. They are not implications, they are your assumptions based on poor knowledge of science and arrogance.

On Earth, we can compress water enough for it to cut steel and it still doesn't become steam. Because you don't know geology, you assumed because magma comes out of the Earth, it must contain water, and that must be how the water in the mantle gets to the surface. You didn't even know that magma is generally below the Earth's mantle and must travel up to be in volcanos. You were using magma synonymously with mantle.

You need them to be my implications because your science illiterate objections need them to float.

If you claim the water in the mantle came out as liquid water: then you must claim that it was carried by rising magma.

If I was illiterate I might.

The mantle is at tremendous temperature and pressure.

Not necessarily and not in all places.

If any of it begins to rise containing water - it melts: becomes magma - due to physics.

Lol!! If the mantle is pushed up, pressure is released and it cools. Below the mantle is the core of hot molten rock. Water cannot be in molten rock genius.

Magma and mantle are not the same thing.

All these things are physically required to happen for your claim to be correct - whether you want to admit it or not

I am not limited in any way by your ignorance of science. We have a 3 mile deep tunnel in the Earth. One of the problems with it is that water seeps in and must be pumped out. Where is the steam? Where is the magma? It's amazing you can be both so ignorant and so arrogant at the same time!

So the absence or presence of water here does not make the flood any more or less likely - it’s impossible both ways.

No Sir. That is just your bias showing itself.

It is possible we do not yet know the mechanism by which the water came to the surface, but because it's there, the possibility exists, as opposed to if it wasn't there. You do not know it is impossible, you just hope it is.

However - if there was no water...

You would be insisting the Bible was wrong and that there is not enough water on Earth, as you have in the past before science validated the Bible's narrative.

Indeed, the whole point here, is that you claiming the water in the flood was the deep earth water...

It's the Bible's claim, and the water in the flood was only augmented by deep Earth water.

You can fume and rage, and demand that we ignore the fact that the water is there because we don't yet know how it came up, but the fact remains. The Earth has enough water. On this fact, between you and the Bible, you were the one who was wrong. The Bible was correct.

You were sure you were correct, till science caught up. And now, you have been beaten back to, "ok, the water is there, but it could not come up." But you are once again sure you are right, till science discovers some mechanism by which the water could have come up. Then you'll beat a hasty retreat to, "but where did all that water go?"

I hope I'm around then to see an atheist who once insisted that the Earth didn't have enough water, now object because the Earth has too much water!

#76

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

09.25.2021 04:55PM

-->

@ethang5

The Bible is not attempting to be a science book. Science is inferior to the Bible. When the Bible deviates from science, science is wrong. Just as in the case of the thread's topic.

“Science proves the Bible, except where it doesn’t - in which case science is wrong”

This is the cherry picking I am talking about and you were strongly objecting to. Thank you for Conceding my point

was the heavens, the stars, the sun,
The sun is a star.

Any, rational, honest, coherent or minimally intelligent human should be able to understand that By “sun” and “stars” I mean “the sun” and other stars that are not our sun”

It seems you’re just trying to object - rather than trying to figure out whether the objection is coherent or relevant.

I’d love to focus on your thought process here: on what basis did you think this was a meaningful argument?

How could verse 15 be talking about lights if God doesn't create the sun till verse 16?

The bible doesn’t say every single last light that is in the sky does it? Again, it seems you’re just trying to say anything just so you can say something. This makes no sense, and you don’t appear to bother to explain it.

What you seem to omit, though, is that everything mentioned in day 4 existed before the things in day 3.

When describing an event, one can flit back and forth between the beginning and ending within the description of the entire event.

Got it: so when there is a conflict between what the bible said and what science says, when the bible is obviously false, you insert interpretation to change the meaning of what it explicitly says, even though the Bible didn’t say any such thing...

The phrase "special creation" is not used in the Bible. And I still don't know how it differs from ordinary creation. Please take ownership of your concepts.

Not my concept - it’s what you refer to as biblical creation - where God created animals - which you’re still ignoring, fixating on this bizarre side issue

The very first sentence of Genesis tells us that the "Heavens" (Stars) were created before the Earth.

It doesn’t say it created the stars - that’s you inserting meaning. It says it created stars on the 4th day

On the 4th "day" the already existing sun became luminous, and was able to penetrate the thick cloudy atmosphere of the early Earth.

Well we know that didn’t happen...

You are just scientifically ignorant. They are not implications, they are your assumptions based on poor knowledge of science and arrogance.

On Earth, we can compress water enough for it to cut steel and it still doesn't become steam.

Methinks you need to review some high school physics. Temperature turns water to steam, pressure changes the temperature at which that happens.

Because you don't know geology, you assumed because magma comes out of the Earth, it must contain water, and that must be how the water in the mantle gets to the surface. You didn't even know that magma is generally below the Earth's mantle and must travel up to be in volcanos. You were using magma synonymously with mantle.

You need them to be my implications because your science illiterate objections need them to float.
Lol!! If the mantle is pushed up, pressure is released and it cools. Below the mantle is the core of hot molten rock. Water cannot be in molten rock genius.

Magma and mantle are not the same thing.

I am not limited in any way by your ignorance of science. We have a 3 mile deep tunnel in the Earth. One of the problems with it is that water seeps in and must be pumped out. Where is the steam? Where is the magma? It's amazing you can be both so ignorant and so arrogant at the same time!

Oh my Good lord; wtf. I can’t event... I think there is a level of total ignorance that no amount of explanation is going to correct this level of stupidity.

So the earths outer core is molten nickel/iron (not rock). This is followed by upper and lower mantle. These are made up high temperature solid rocks - and melted rock - magma. Magma is not from below the mantle - lol. Magma comes from the mantle melting.

They are high temperature due to the head conducted from the code via first law of thermodynamics and radioactive decay of various isotopes they contain. Whether an area is rock or magma depends on whether the temperature exceeds the melting point of the rock - which is dependent on the pressure it’s under, and what the rock contains. Melting point of rock goes down as the pressure drops; (it has to overcome or reduce the interaction forces that keeps the particles together in solid state. As the pressure of substance increases, particles tends to remains compacted, increasing of pressure during melting hindering in melting process, makes it difficult to overcome the strong force of attraction, i.e. more thermal energy is required.)

The rock is being pulled to the center of the planet; but is less dense than the outer core, and more dense than the upper mantle, so it’s buoyancy forces with respect to the liquid below is in equilibrium with gravity.

The rock is required to undergo a change in density in order to overcome the force of gravity - increase itsBouyancy with respect to the rock pushing down on it. In addition, it must have the viscosity to allow the rock above it to flow around it.

One of the key ways it does this; is through melting into magma. This can be achieved as a result of lowering the boiling point through impurities in the rock (the same reasons that salt drops the melting point of water), a drop in pressure or a rise in temperature. Water molecules trapped in the rock (not liquid water - you colossal numpty), increases the average distance between rock molecules through displacement and drops the melting point enough for the rock to turn to magma.

This is how this water was detected: by observing the melt in the magma caused by the presence of sufficient pockets of water to drop the melting point enough for the mantle to melt...

If the rock in the mantle moves upwards due to Bouyancy forces, and contains water - it will melt.

Without moving - the water is trapped. The pressure from gravity; allows the water molecules to remain dissolved in the magma or trapped as hydroxyl molecules in the rock. They move with the rock. Again - not liquid water you colloidal numpty.

So the rock has to move; which means it has to melt and rises as a result, or rises and melts as a result.

When it does this, the water remains dissolved in the rising magma due to the pressure of the solid rocks above pushing down. Typically the 25 miles of continental crust (lol wtf are you talking about no magma found in a hole 3 miles below the surface, and 4 miles of oceanic crust preventing a solid barrier preventing the dissolved gasses from escaping the rising liquid rock.

So the rock has to be super hot - due to thermodynamics of having a molten hot core and requiring viscosity to move. It has to melt as it rises due to physics, and remains at high pressure and temperature with dissolved gasses present. I don’t what laws of physics you’re using to suggest that magma can’t contain water - but it isn’t ours. A can of coke shows you that gasses can dissolve in liquids; and remains so under pressure.

If the magma reaches the surface; or a region of the magma is exposed to atmospheric pressure - the gasses dissolved will degas; and the water will expand into steam, as it’s held at a high temperature with only the pressure keeping it within the magma.

If the magma remains under pressure; the water is held in. That’s what pressure is. It’s not going to bubble out, because it’s under pressure; it remains within the magma.

If the magma cools enough to drop below the boiling of water; the water still has to condense out (it’s dissolved gas), so the issue of energy generated is still an issue; but you also have the additional issue that the water is now trapped within solid rock.

In fact the only way to avoid condensation energy is if the entire mantle (where this water is) is less than the boiling point of water.

That’s the laws of physics I’m afraid: the basic laws of thermodynamics, buoyancy, temperature/pressure relationship of electrostatic forces renders it impossible.

What you’re doing, is just throwing out wild and nonsensical claims; and suggesting a set of completely impossible scenarios that can be ruled out by physics; interspersed with a bunch of nonsense about me not understanding science - which I absolutely do.

So while you fixate in this mantle/magma nonsense (which you don’t appear to understand), you’re left with multiple issues.

It’s only an estimate. There may not be enough water; the lower bound of water is completely insufficient to cover the water.
Huge volumes of water must be transported from this layer to the surface. The laws of physics, and how this water is trapped mean that the only way is as part of moving molten rock.
Huge volumes of molten rock must move. To produce enough water, impossible amounts of magma has to move.
Thermodynamics, and Bouyancy mean that the mantle must be above the boiling point of water in order for water to actually be moved.
The energy released is impossible ; and would make earth glow...

The whole nonsensical mess is just utterly ridiculous pseudoscientific nonsense; it violates the laws of physics and, as I said, renders the flood story less likely.

Saying that, it doesn’t even really matter; if there wasn’t enough water, you’d find some way to account for it - the earth was less flat meaning less water would have been needed to cover the earth.

It is silly to suggest the biblical account is confirmed when the volume of water present is unnecessarily to the flood myth.

#77

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

09.25.2021 07:51PM

-->

@Tradesecret

.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and then to unknown, and then back to a man, and then went to unknown again, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, has now changed genders 5 TIMES in their profile page, and now has reading comprehension problems,

YOUR DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: "Why are you putting my name on here? "

Why? Because even if you "glanced" at my post #61, I mentioned your pseudo-christian stupidity and presence within this thread, of which I always do this for the member in question to give them a chance to "try" and refute what I truthfully said about them, understood Bible fool?

Remember the times I gave you links in your behalf to take a Children's Reading Comprehension Class? If you followed my requests, then I wouldn't have to take the time to answer your child like questions again, and again, and again, get it Bible stupid fool?

You are dismissed for now, that is, until you once again make a Bible fool of yourself where Jesus and I will correct you once again at your expense!

NEXT?

Topic's author

#78

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

09.26.2021 03:04AM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

No one is talking to you again DeeDee. I suggested to you that you @ the entire membership. Surely someone here besides the troll whisperer wants to deal with your turd schtick posts.

Aren't you embarrassed as the threads conversation flows right around you like water in a river flowing past a country stone? What am I saying? Only sentient beings can be embarrassed.

Keep trying DeeDee. We can always use your turd posts as door stops.

Lol!

#79

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140