Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Chalk one up in favor of the bible...

irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 8:34:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

In order to move that much water to the surface, it would require one hell of a volcanic eruption. Flooding water would be the least of ones worry. Bible still at zero.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 8:46:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 8:34:44 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

In order to move that much water to the surface, it would require one hell of a volcanic eruption. Flooding water would be the least of ones worry. Bible still at zero.

Not necessarily. All it would require is enough heat to turn the water to steam and an Earth porous enough to allow it to escape. Steam can build-up tremendous pressure and escape through pores much too small for water to penetrate. Scientifically I would say religion: a bit more credibility for the possibility.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 8:50:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 8:46:30 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/16/2014 8:34:44 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

In order to move that much water to the surface, it would require one hell of a volcanic eruption. Flooding water would be the least of ones worry. Bible still at zero.

Not necessarily. All it would require is enough heat to turn the water to steam and an Earth porous enough to allow it to escape. Steam can build-up tremendous pressure and escape through pores much too small for water to penetrate. Scientifically I would say religion: a bit more credibility for the possibility.

It is already hot enough to turn it into steam 400 miles down. it does not because it is under tremendous pressure and bound in the minerals. You have to release the pressure to release the water.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 9:10:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 8:50:24 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 8:46:30 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/16/2014 8:34:44 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

In order to move that much water to the surface, it would require one hell of a volcanic eruption. Flooding water would be the least of ones worry. Bible still at zero.

Not necessarily. All it would require is enough heat to turn the water to steam and an Earth porous enough to allow it to escape. Steam can build-up tremendous pressure and escape through pores much too small for water to penetrate. Scientifically I would say religion: a bit more credibility for the possibility.

It is already hot enough to turn it into steam 400 miles down. it does not because it is under tremendous pressure and bound in the minerals. You have to release the pressure to release the water.

Under enough pressure water will explode the planet. Under the right conditions (which could have existed thousands of years ago) the temperature at such depths may have been higher, or the Earth more porous, meaning less pressure would be needed. The point is that it isn't physically impossible, as it would be if the water didn't even exist. Show me a skeleton of a half-man/half-bull and I'm much more likely to believe the myth of the Minotaur than I am without it, no matter where that skeleton is found.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 9:10:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

There is nothing in this article about any of that Biblical nonsense.
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 11:59:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

You beat me in posting this. Kudos to you IG that you were willing to do it. Though I suspect you did it at least partly to mitigate the sting of a Christian posting it.

In the thread "Six Days" atheists keep saying that Genesis is wrong because water could not have existed on Earth, that water had to be "captured" from icy meteors colliding with the Earth. Yet we see, As I have seen so many times before, the Bible is uncannily right.

6,000 years ago, the Bible was right about the order in which life appeared on Earth. Could that be luck? The Bible was right about the formation of the planet, calling it void and without shape. Gas has no shape. It was right when it said that it first rained long after the formation of the Earth. How did the author know that? The Bible says that the waters parted and dry land appeared. We now know that there have been several "super-continents" which have risen, broken up and then submerged. How did the Bible know?

For the flood the Bible said that it didn't only rain, but that the Earth brought out water from within it.

Gen 7:11 - In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Gen 7:12 - And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

My point here is not to toot my horn. But atheists are quite unfair.

Someone asked atheists to explain how consciousness could arise from matter. Most said they didn't know.

Yet when a Christian doesn't know something, they treat it as if the Christian is an anti-intellectual liar. The more we understand God's world, the better we are able to understand His words. This is not a bad thing. It isn't even an unnatural thing.

The atheist who is currently arguing on the "6 Days" thread, if one should show him that the Earth was not frozen at its inception and that microbial plants could live off the Earth's geothermal heat, he would simply ooze to another point instantly forgetting that he has been spectacularly wrong. And he would behave like his new charge was what he was contending all along. And his being wrong on one of his arguments pillars would not cause him to question his conclusions in the least.

How do you take behavior like that seriously?
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 12:10:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 11:59:33 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

You beat me in posting this. Kudos to you IG that you were willing to do it. Though I suspect you did it at least partly to mitigate the sting of a Christian posting it.

In the thread "Six Days" atheists keep saying that Genesis is wrong because water could not have existed on Earth, that water had to be "captured" from icy meteors colliding with the Earth. Yet we see, As I have seen so many times before, the Bible is uncannily right.

6,000 years ago, the Bible was right about the order in which life appeared on Earth. Could that be luck? The Bible was right about the formation of the planet, calling it void and without shape. Gas has no shape. It was right when it said that it first rained long after the formation of the Earth. How did the author know that? The Bible says that the waters parted and dry land appeared. We now know that there have been several "super-continents" which have risen, broken up and then submerged. How did the Bible know?

For the flood the Bible said that it didn't only rain, but that the Earth brought out water from within it.

Gen 7:11 - In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Gen 7:12 - And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

My point here is not to toot my horn. But atheists are quite unfair.

Someone asked atheists to explain how consciousness could arise from matter. Most said they didn't know.

Yet when a Christian doesn't know something, they treat it as if the Christian is an anti-intellectual liar. The more we understand God's world, the better we are able to understand His words. This is not a bad thing. It isn't even an unnatural thing.

The atheist who is currently arguing on the "6 Days" thread, if one should show him that the Earth was not frozen at its inception and that microbial plants could live off the Earth's geothermal heat, he would simply ooze to another point instantly forgetting that he has been spectacularly wrong. And he would behave like his new charge was what he was contending all along. And his being wrong on one of his arguments pillars would not cause him to question his conclusions in the least.

How do you take behavior like that seriously?

thang you're hilarious. But I'll return on the morrow if I feel like it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 12:43:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 12:10:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/17/2014 11:59:33 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

You beat me in posting this. Kudos to you IG that you were willing to do it. Though I suspect you did it at least partly to mitigate the sting of a Christian posting it.

In the thread "Six Days" atheists keep saying that Genesis is wrong because water could not have existed on Earth, that water had to be "captured" from icy meteors colliding with the Earth. Yet we see, As I have seen so many times before, the Bible is uncannily right.

6,000 years ago, the Bible was right about the order in which life appeared on Earth. Could that be luck? The Bible was right about the formation of the planet, calling it void and without shape. Gas has no shape. It was right when it said that it first rained long after the formation of the Earth. How did the author know that? The Bible says that the waters parted and dry land appeared. We now know that there have been several "super-continents" which have risen, broken up and then submerged. How did the Bible know?

For the flood the Bible said that it didn't only rain, but that the Earth brought out water from within it.

Gen 7:11 - In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Gen 7:12 - And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

My point here is not to toot my horn. But atheists are quite unfair.

Someone asked atheists to explain how consciousness could arise from matter. Most said they didn't know.

Yet when a Christian doesn't know something, they treat it as if the Christian is an anti-intellectual liar. The more we understand God's world, the better we are able to understand His words. This is not a bad thing. It isn't even an unnatural thing.

The atheist who is currently arguing on the "6 Days" thread, if one should show him that the Earth was not frozen at its inception and that microbial plants could live off the Earth's geothermal heat, he would simply ooze to another point instantly forgetting that he has been spectacularly wrong. And he would behave like his new charge was what he was contending all along. And his being wrong on one of his arguments pillars would not cause him to question his conclusions in the least.

How do you take behavior like that seriously?

thang you're hilarious. But I'll return on the morrow if I feel like it.

What? You won't even leave me with a "Hahahahahahahahahaha!" ?
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 7:28:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 11:59:33 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:

You beat me in posting this. Kudos to you IG that you were willing to do it. Though I suspect you did it at least partly to mitigate the sting of a Christian posting it.

Thanks for the kudos (despite the tongue-in-cheek addendum). No, I really don't see any mitigation really necessary, and this is for three primary reasons:

1) The way in which the water is "held," would not accommodate "flow" from the surface into this ringwoodite. This isn't like a reservoir where water can flow freely in and out, like a lake or river. Not being in liquid form would tend to pressure the water outward, not inward, since it would be the path of least resistance.
2) This still would not account for the additional anomalous questions about migration of animals across continents (post-flood), food storage, necessary ark size, etc.
3) The 40 day / 40 night rain is what the bible emphasizes as the primary source of the flood, and the earth's atmosphere isn't capable of sustaining that volume of water, atmospherically (at present calculation).

I just thought it was interesting, and as I've stated previously, I'm not afraid of finding out that I am wrong. There is still too much about the bible that is too incongruent with the reality I understand to accept, but that doesn't mean that the bible is exactly as it originated, either. I'm human, and quite capable of deciding incorrectly. I simply can't believe, on faith.

In the thread "Six Days" atheists keep saying that Genesis is wrong because water could not have existed on Earth, that water had to be "captured" from icy meteors colliding with the Earth. Yet we see, As I have seen so many times before, the Bible is uncannily right.

Maybe. At this point, it's still a lot of speculation and conjecture. As the article states, it isn't even really in liquid form. I just thought it was directly appropriate. The surest way to show yourself a coward in your approach, however, is to try to hide something, when you find it out. As (again) I have also stated, before, I don't spin evidence to adjust it to my already-drawn conclusions. The conclusions must always be made to match the evidence, rather than the converse. Else, one is not actually seeking truth or knowledge, but strictly confirmation. I'm not that way. If one doesn't study evidence honestly, there's no point in calling it "evidence," right?

6,000 years ago, the Bible was right about the order in which life appeared on Earth. Could that be luck? The Bible was right about the formation of the planet, calling it void and without shape. Gas has no shape. It was right when it said that it first rained long after the formation of the Earth. How did the author know that? The Bible says that the waters parted and dry land appeared. We now know that there have been several "super-continents" which have risen, broken up and then submerged. How did the Bible know?

I disagree with the order of life appearing. At the time that it would have been "void and without shape," it would still have been a collection of debris, in space. As to the appearance of dry land and Pangea, the bible didn't know. That can be "interpreted" in so many ways, that it's just a matter of convenient interpretation to whatever is discovered...

For the flood the Bible said that it didn't only rain, but that the Earth brought out water from within it.

True. I wonder, though, how did the waters come out? How did they "recede?" It would take an incredible amount of external pressure to drive that amount of water back into that ringwoodite, in its current form. That kind of pressure would kill any living thing, on any surface. Let me elucidate:

In order to drive the water into the earth would require unbelievable pressure. To drive it back out would require that the earth be 'compressed.' This means that the circumference of the earth's crust would have to have been reduced, by some external force. Any force of that magnitude, acting on the surface of the earth, would have crushed every living thing on the surface, long before any water came out of it. In order for the waters to recede back into the planet, the surface would have to have been uniformly expanded back out.
If you take a sponge (spherical) and place it in a spherical container, and fill with water until the water matches to the exterior surface of the sponge, what do you have to do, in order to get the water out of that sponge? The earth's crust (rock) doesn't expand or contract after the fashion of a sponge, does it? Once compressed, would rock readily "decompress," in order to "suck" that water back into that layer? How is it that the crust re-expanded uniformly? The laws of physics would have to have been completely altered, or suspended. It still simply does not fit.

Gen 7:11 - In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Gen 7:12 - And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

My point here is not to toot my horn. But atheists are quite unfair.

Not all of us, brother. If we were, it wouldn't have been an atheist that posted this, now would it? I posted it the evening my buddy sent it to me. I still think it's really interesting, but I can't connect the dots to those in the bible, either. Too much physics would have to be altered or suspended. It still just doesn't fit reality.

Someone asked atheists to explain how consciousness could arise from matter. Most said they didn't know.

We don't. We can, however, accept that it was a gradual process.

Yet when a Christian doesn't know something, they treat it as if the Christian is an anti-intellectual liar. The more we understand God's world, the better we are able to understand His words. This is not a bad thing. It isn't even an unnatural thing.

You and I still disagree on this part. It is likely that we will continue to disagree, until I experience something truly supernatural. I don't see this happening, but if I do, you will be among the first to find out...

The atheist who is currently arguing on the "6 Days" thread, if one should show him that the Earth was not frozen at its inception and that microbial plants could live off the Earth's geothermal heat, he would simply ooze to another point instantly forgetting that he has been spectacularly wrong. And he would behave like his new charge was what he was contending all along. And his being wrong on one of his arguments pillars would not cause him to question his conclusions in the least.

I'll have to revisit that thread, in order to know what it is of which you speak. I haven't been very active the last couple of days, concerning myself with more pressing issues. The only reason I even posted this was because it struck me as so directly pertinent. I had heard some talk, in my youth, about hypotheses on water below the surface. I didn't concern myself with it, much, at that time. Today's science allows us so much more than when I was a school kid. In either case, it makes the debate infinitely more fascinating.

How do you take behavior like that seriously?

You don't... any more than we take neutered or Fatihah seriously. You choose those with which you wish to deal, speak/converse/debate with them, and dismiss those whose behavior/words you simply can't tolerate. Take care and be well, brother.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 7:36:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 9:10:38 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

There is nothing in this article about any of that Biblical nonsense.

No, not in the article, but I thought it was interesting that the potential amount that scientists believe might be in that section of earth does seem to fit, uniquely, with the amount required to match the bible tale... I fully reject the bible, as well. I simply found this to make the debate all the more interesting.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 7:14:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 7:36:57 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/16/2014 9:10:38 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

There is nothing in this article about any of that Biblical nonsense.

No, not in the article,

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

but I thought it was interesting that the potential amount that scientists believe might be in that section of earth does seem to fit, uniquely, with the amount required to match the bible tale...

How do you figure? As I said, they don't say anything in the article about that.

I fully reject the bible, as well. I simply found this to make the debate all the more interesting.

You mean more stupid? A global flood didn't happen. Period. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter whether the required amount of water exists somewhere. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter how that water supposedly got here. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter where that water supposedly went. IT. DIDN'T. HAPPEN.

Questions about the logistics of water are trivial. The global flood flies in the face of everything scientists have determined about the history of this planet, biologically and geologically.

IT.
DIDN'T.
HAPPEN.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 8:05:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 7:14:02 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/17/2014 7:36:57 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/16/2014 9:10:38 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

There is nothing in this article about any of that Biblical nonsense.

No, not in the article,

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

but I thought it was interesting that the potential amount that scientists believe might be in that section of earth does seem to fit, uniquely, with the amount required to match the bible tale...

How do you figure? As I said, they don't say anything in the article about that.

I fully reject the bible, as well. I simply found this to make the debate all the more interesting.

You mean more stupid? A global flood didn't happen. Period. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter whether the required amount of water exists somewhere. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter how that water supposedly got here. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter where that water supposedly went. IT. DIDN'T. HAPPEN.

Questions about the logistics of water are trivial. The global flood flies in the face of everything scientists have determined about the history of this planet, biologically and geologically.

IT.
DIDN'T.
HAPPEN.


ROFL!!! Relax, brother! You don't have to convince me... I don't believe it happened, either. I never have. A friend simply sent me an article that (coincidentally), for a theist, would tend to answer the question: Where did all the water go? While there is no natural physical way to get the water to where they (seismologists) discovered it, The amount of water they found was rather curious...

There are many factors that make it impossible, physically, for this newly-discovered water source to have been forced to the surface and back into its current location, in the span of a single year. I just thought it was time we (atheists and agnostics) take a step back and remember that, rather than generally dismissing theists are lumbering dolts, remember that there are so many things about our wonderful world that we still don't know/understand. You and I know (with physics as a certainty), that this water couldn't make it to the surface without a cataclysmic event that would render this planet unlivable, the fact still remains that the water is, indeed, there.

In the debate, however, it is truly dishonest not to acknowledge the fact that this water is there. Now, it falls to theists to ponder how it got from it's current place, in vapor form, to the surface. Next comes the explanation of how it might have been forced to return, both to vapor form, and trapped within ringwoodite.

That would make for a fascinating explanation, indeed. Next to these (even more vast) oceans, 40 days and nights of rain seem pretty trivial...
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 8:09:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 8:34:44 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

In order to move that much water to the surface, it would require one hell of a volcanic eruption. Flooding water would be the least of ones worry. Bible still at zero.

Not to mention the required collapse of the earth's crust... And how would that amount of water make its way back? This should allow for several years of new speculations to come. It makes this debate more interesting...
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 9:30:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 8:05:44 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:14:02 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/17/2014 7:36:57 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/16/2014 9:10:38 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

There is nothing in this article about any of that Biblical nonsense.

No, not in the article,

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

but I thought it was interesting that the potential amount that scientists believe might be in that section of earth does seem to fit, uniquely, with the amount required to match the bible tale...

How do you figure? As I said, they don't say anything in the article about that.

I fully reject the bible, as well. I simply found this to make the debate all the more interesting.

You mean more stupid? A global flood didn't happen. Period. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter whether the required amount of water exists somewhere. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter how that water supposedly got here. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter where that water supposedly went. IT. DIDN'T. HAPPEN.

Questions about the logistics of water are trivial. The global flood flies in the face of everything scientists have determined about the history of this planet, biologically and geologically.

IT.
DIDN'T.
HAPPEN.


ROFL!!! Relax, brother! You don't have to convince me... I don't believe it happened, either. I never have.

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

A friend simply sent me an article that (coincidentally), for a theist, would tend to answer the question: Where did all the water go?

How so? How does this article answer that question?

While there is no natural physical way to get the water to where they (seismologists) discovered it, The amount of water they found was rather curious... There are many factors that make it impossible, physically, for this newly-discovered water source to have been forced to the surface and back into its current location, in the span of a single year. I just thought it was time we (atheists and agnostics) take a step back and remember that, rather than generally dismissing theists are lumbering dolts, remember that there are so many things about our wonderful world that we still don't know/understand. You and I know (with physics as a certainty), that this water couldn't make it to the surface without a cataclysmic event that would render this planet unlivable, the fact still remains that the water is, indeed, there.

Basically what you're saying is that the existence of the moon "chalks one up" in favor of my theory that I flew to the moon under the power of my flapping arms. After all, there's the moon!

This is little more than tooth fairy science.

In the debate, however, it is truly dishonest not to acknowledge the fact that this water is there. Now, it falls to theists to ponder how it got from it's current place, in vapor form, to the surface. Next comes the explanation of how it might have been forced to return, both to vapor form, and trapped within ringwoodite.

You're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. It isn't Do you want to know why?

I'll give you a few minutes to ponder.

Ready?

It's a secret.

Do don't tell anyone.

IT.

DID.

NOT.

HAPPEN.


That would make for a fascinating explanation, indeed. Next to these (even more vast) oceans, 40 days and nights of rain seem pretty trivial...
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 10:29:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 9:30:57 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:05:44 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:14:02 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/17/2014 7:36:57 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/16/2014 9:10:38 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

There is nothing in this article about any of that Biblical nonsense.

No, not in the article,

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

but I thought it was interesting that the potential amount that scientists believe might be in that section of earth does seem to fit, uniquely, with the amount required to match the bible tale...

How do you figure? As I said, they don't say anything in the article about that.

I fully reject the bible, as well. I simply found this to make the debate all the more interesting.

You mean more stupid? A global flood didn't happen. Period. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter whether the required amount of water exists somewhere. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter how that water supposedly got here. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter where that water supposedly went. IT. DIDN'T. HAPPEN.

Questions about the logistics of water are trivial. The global flood flies in the face of everything scientists have determined about the history of this planet, biologically and geologically.

IT.
DIDN'T.
HAPPEN.


ROFL!!! Relax, brother! You don't have to convince me... I don't believe it happened, either. I never have.

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

A friend simply sent me an article that (coincidentally), for a theist, would tend to answer the question: Where did all the water go?

How so? How does this article answer that question?

While there is no natural physical way to get the water to where they (seismologists) discovered it, The amount of water they found was rather curious... There are many factors that make it impossible, physically, for this newly-discovered water source to have been forced to the surface and back into its current location, in the span of a single year. I just thought it was time we (atheists and agnostics) take a step back and remember that, rather than generally dismissing theists are lumbering dolts, remember that there are so many things about our wonderful world that we still don't know/understand. You and I know (with physics as a certainty), that this water couldn't make it to the surface without a cataclysmic event that would render this planet unlivable, the fact still remains that the water is, indeed, there.

Basically what you're saying is that the existence of the moon "chalks one up" in favor of my theory that I flew to the moon under the power of my flapping arms. After all, there's the moon!

This is little more than tooth fairy science.

In the debate, however, it is truly dishonest not to acknowledge the fact that this water is there. Now, it falls to theists to ponder how it got from it's current place, in vapor form, to the surface. Next comes the explanation of how it might have been forced to return, both to vapor form, and trapped within ringwoodite.

You're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. It isn't Do you want to know why?

I'll give you a few minutes to ponder.

Ready?

It's a secret.

Do don't tell anyone.

IT.

DID.

NOT.

HAPPEN.


That would make for a fascinating explanation, indeed. Next to these (even more vast) oceans, 40 days and nights of rain seem pretty trivial...

See IG... you can't win lol, now you know how we feel. Doesn't matter how many times you explain your position (that you don't believe it). You should know by now you can't have anything to do with Christianity! how dare you...? don't be an ignorant goatherder! or they'll mock you to death lol.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 11:42:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 10:29:33 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 6/18/2014 9:30:57 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:05:44 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:14:02 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/17/2014 7:36:57 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/16/2014 9:10:38 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

There is nothing in this article about any of that Biblical nonsense.

No, not in the article,

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

but I thought it was interesting that the potential amount that scientists believe might be in that section of earth does seem to fit, uniquely, with the amount required to match the bible tale...

How do you figure? As I said, they don't say anything in the article about that.

I fully reject the bible, as well. I simply found this to make the debate all the more interesting.

You mean more stupid? A global flood didn't happen. Period. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter whether the required amount of water exists somewhere. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter how that water supposedly got here. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter where that water supposedly went. IT. DIDN'T. HAPPEN.

Questions about the logistics of water are trivial. The global flood flies in the face of everything scientists have determined about the history of this planet, biologically and geologically.

IT.
DIDN'T.
HAPPEN.


ROFL!!! Relax, brother! You don't have to convince me... I don't believe it happened, either. I never have.

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

A friend simply sent me an article that (coincidentally), for a theist, would tend to answer the question: Where did all the water go?

How so? How does this article answer that question?

While there is no natural physical way to get the water to where they (seismologists) discovered it, The amount of water they found was rather curious... There are many factors that make it impossible, physically, for this newly-discovered water source to have been forced to the surface and back into its current location, in the span of a single year. I just thought it was time we (atheists and agnostics) take a step back and remember that, rather than generally dismissing theists are lumbering dolts, remember that there are so many things about our wonderful world that we still don't know/understand. You and I know (with physics as a certainty), that this water couldn't make it to the surface without a cataclysmic event that would render this planet unlivable, the fact still remains that the water is, indeed, there.

Basically what you're saying is that the existence of the moon "chalks one up" in favor of my theory that I flew to the moon under the power of my flapping arms. After all, there's the moon!

This is little more than tooth fairy science.

In the debate, however, it is truly dishonest not to acknowledge the fact that this water is there. Now, it falls to theists to ponder how it got from it's current place, in vapor form, to the surface. Next comes the explanation of how it might have been forced to return, both to vapor form, and trapped within ringwoodite.

You're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. It isn't Do you want to know why?

I'll give you a few minutes to ponder.

Ready?

It's a secret.

Do don't tell anyone.

IT.

DID.

NOT.

HAPPEN.


That would make for a fascinating explanation, indeed. Next to these (even more vast) oceans, 40 days and nights of rain seem pretty trivial...

See IG... you can't win lol, now you know how we feel. Doesn't matter how many times you explain your position (that you don't believe it). You should know by now you can't have anything to do with Christianity! how dare you...? don't be an ignorant goatherder! or they'll mock you to death lol.

Actually he hasn't explained his position. I've asked, specifically, several times, how this article supports anything from the Bible and he hasn't answered that question. So, if you want to use this as an analogy as to how Christians can't/don't actually answer the questions posed to them and go around talking about unrelated tangents, then, by all means, go ahead.

I understand that he doesn't believe it. I'm not contesting whether or not he believes it. It's not anything that was ever argued one way or the other so I - personally - am at a lose to explain why he chose to bring it up.

My criticism was, and was always, about this article having nothing to do with anything in the Bible.

Or did you miss that part?
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 12:42:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 11:42:35 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/18/2014 10:29:33 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 6/18/2014 9:30:57 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:05:44 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:14:02 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/17/2014 7:36:57 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/16/2014 9:10:38 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

There is nothing in this article about any of that Biblical nonsense.

No, not in the article,

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

but I thought it was interesting that the potential amount that scientists believe might be in that section of earth does seem to fit, uniquely, with the amount required to match the bible tale...

How do you figure? As I said, they don't say anything in the article about that.

I fully reject the bible, as well. I simply found this to make the debate all the more interesting.

You mean more stupid? A global flood didn't happen. Period. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter whether the required amount of water exists somewhere. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter how that water supposedly got here. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter where that water supposedly went. IT. DIDN'T. HAPPEN.

Questions about the logistics of water are trivial. The global flood flies in the face of everything scientists have determined about the history of this planet, biologically and geologically.

IT.
DIDN'T.
HAPPEN.


ROFL!!! Relax, brother! You don't have to convince me... I don't believe it happened, either. I never have.

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

A friend simply sent me an article that (coincidentally), for a theist, would tend to answer the question: Where did all the water go?

How so? How does this article answer that question?

While there is no natural physical way to get the water to where they (seismologists) discovered it, The amount of water they found was rather curious... There are many factors that make it impossible, physically, for this newly-discovered water source to have been forced to the surface and back into its current location, in the span of a single year. I just thought it was time we (atheists and agnostics) take a step back and remember that, rather than generally dismissing theists are lumbering dolts, remember that there are so many things about our wonderful world that we still don't know/understand. You and I know (with physics as a certainty), that this water couldn't make it to the surface without a cataclysmic event that would render this planet unlivable, the fact still remains that the water is, indeed, there.

Basically what you're saying is that the existence of the moon "chalks one up" in favor of my theory that I flew to the moon under the power of my flapping arms. After all, there's the moon!

This is little more than tooth fairy science.

In the debate, however, it is truly dishonest not to acknowledge the fact that this water is there. Now, it falls to theists to ponder how it got from it's current place, in vapor form, to the surface. Next comes the explanation of how it might have been forced to return, both to vapor form, and trapped within ringwoodite.

You're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. It isn't Do you want to know why?

I'll give you a few minutes to ponder.

Ready?

It's a secret.

Do don't tell anyone.

IT.

DID.

NOT.

HAPPEN.


That would make for a fascinating explanation, indeed. Next to these (even more vast) oceans, 40 days and nights of rain seem pretty trivial...

See IG... you can't win lol, now you know how we feel. Doesn't matter how many times you explain your position (that you don't believe it). You should know by now you can't have anything to do with Christianity! how dare you...? don't be an ignorant goatherder! or they'll mock you to death lol.

Actually he hasn't explained his position. I've asked, specifically, several times, how this article supports anything from the Bible and he hasn't answered that question. So, if you want to use this as an analogy as to how Christians can't/don't actually answer the questions posed to them and go around talking about unrelated tangents, then, by all means, go ahead.

I understand that he doesn't believe it. I'm not contesting whether or not he believes it. It's not anything that was ever argued one way or the other so I - personally - am at a lose to explain why he chose to bring it up.

My criticism was, and was always, about this article having nothing to do with anything in the Bible.

Or did you miss that part?

I don't believe he meant it as literally as you're taking it, probably more of a goof than anything else, so relax he's convinced the Bible is a fairy tale.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:39:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 12:42:49 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 6/18/2014 11:42:35 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/18/2014 10:29:33 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 6/18/2014 9:30:57 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:05:44 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:14:02 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/17/2014 7:36:57 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/16/2014 9:10:38 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

There is nothing in this article about any of that Biblical nonsense.

No, not in the article,

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

but I thought it was interesting that the potential amount that scientists believe might be in that section of earth does seem to fit, uniquely, with the amount required to match the bible tale...

How do you figure? As I said, they don't say anything in the article about that.

I fully reject the bible, as well. I simply found this to make the debate all the more interesting.

You mean more stupid? A global flood didn't happen. Period. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter whether the required amount of water exists somewhere. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter how that water supposedly got here. It. Didn't. Happen. It doesn't matter where that water supposedly went. IT. DIDN'T. HAPPEN.

Questions about the logistics of water are trivial. The global flood flies in the face of everything scientists have determined about the history of this planet, biologically and geologically.

IT.
DIDN'T.
HAPPEN.


ROFL!!! Relax, brother! You don't have to convince me... I don't believe it happened, either. I never have.

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

A friend simply sent me an article that (coincidentally), for a theist, would tend to answer the question: Where did all the water go?

How so? How does this article answer that question?

While there is no natural physical way to get the water to where they (seismologists) discovered it, The amount of water they found was rather curious... There are many factors that make it impossible, physically, for this newly-discovered water source to have been forced to the surface and back into its current location, in the span of a single year. I just thought it was time we (atheists and agnostics) take a step back and remember that, rather than generally dismissing theists are lumbering dolts, remember that there are so many things about our wonderful world that we still don't know/understand. You and I know (with physics as a certainty), that this water couldn't make it to the surface without a cataclysmic event that would render this planet unlivable, the fact still remains that the water is, indeed, there.

Basically what you're saying is that the existence of the moon "chalks one up" in favor of my theory that I flew to the moon under the power of my flapping arms. After all, there's the moon!

This is little more than tooth fairy science.

In the debate, however, it is truly dishonest not to acknowledge the fact that this water is there. Now, it falls to theists to ponder how it got from it's current place, in vapor form, to the surface. Next comes the explanation of how it might have been forced to return, both to vapor form, and trapped within ringwoodite.

You're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. It isn't Do you want to know why?

I'll give you a few minutes to ponder.

Ready?

It's a secret.

Do don't tell anyone.

IT.

DID.

NOT.

HAPPEN.


That would make for a fascinating explanation, indeed. Next to these (even more vast) oceans, 40 days and nights of rain seem pretty trivial...

See IG... you can't win lol, now you know how we feel. Doesn't matter how many times you explain your position (that you don't believe it). You should know by now you can't have anything to do with Christianity! how dare you...? don't be an ignorant goatherder! or they'll mock you to death lol.

Actually he hasn't explained his position. I've asked, specifically, several times, how this article supports anything from the Bible and he hasn't answered that question. So, if you want to use this as an analogy as to how Christians can't/don't actually answer the questions posed to them and go around talking about unrelated tangents, then, by all means, go ahead.

I understand that he doesn't believe it. I'm not contesting whether or not he believes it. It's not anything that was ever argued one way or the other so I - personally - am at a lose to explain why he chose to bring it up.

My criticism was, and was always, about this article having nothing to do with anything in the Bible.

Or did you miss that part?

I don't believe he meant it as literally as you're taking it,

Seems like it'd be easy enough for him to say that himself. As it is, hes repeated his assertion that this supports a global flood theory, which is an odd thing to do unless he actually believes it supports a global flood theory.

probably more of a goof than anything else, so relax he's convinced the Bible is a fairy tale.

Then why is he "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 2:43:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 9:30:57 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

Because until that water was actually discovered (at least by instrumentation), enough water wasn't even thought to exist. Those that argue in favor of the bible now have some valid evidence that it might have been possible. Yes, the water required appears to be there. That's something that believers in the bible, heretofore, have never had available, before. It's in favor... I've never even come close to calling it "proof."

A friend simply sent me an article that (coincidentally), for a theist, would tend to answer the question: Where did all the water go?

How so? How does this article answer that question?

OK, listen closely....FOR A THEIST. Not for me. That the water is there, is sufficient to convince them. Can you just imagine what that rationally stunted Ken Ham is plotting, right now? How about Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. If they think that a banana is "check mate" on atheists and agnostics, just imagine what this does, to solidify their faith...

While there is no natural physical way to get the water to where they (seismologists) discovered it, The amount of water they found was rather curious... There are many factors that make it impossible, physically, for this newly-discovered water source to have been forced to the surface and back into its current location, in the span of a single year. I just thought it was time we (atheists and agnostics) take a step back and remember that, rather than generally dismissing theists are lumbering dolts, remember that there are so many things about our wonderful world that we still don't know/understand. You and I know (with physics as a certainty), that this water couldn't make it to the surface without a cataclysmic event that would render this planet unlivable, the fact still remains that the water is, indeed, there.

Basically what you're saying is that the existence of the moon "chalks one up" in favor of my theory that I flew to the moon under the power of my flapping arms. After all, there's the moon!

No, because we have had evidence of the moon having existed, all along. The water under the earth's crust is a new discovery. If you claimed that you had been to the moon, but we had no evidence of the existence of any moon, don't you think the feasibility of going to the moon would increase greatly, upon discovering said moon? Until its existence is established, it isn't even a possibility...

This is little more than tooth fairy science.

You misunderstood my premise, brother. Scientifically, it doesn't even connect to the fairy tale. It's simply one aspect of the fairy tale that, heretofore, didn't even exist, as far as we knew.

In the debate, however, it is truly dishonest not to acknowledge the fact that this water is there. Now, it falls to theists to ponder how it got from it's current place, in vapor form, to the surface. Next comes the explanation of how it might have been forced to return, both to vapor form, and trapped within ringwoodite.

You're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. It isn't Do you want to know why?

I didn't say valid debate. I simply said debate. I already know why. I already agree with you. The biblical gawd doesn't exist. Go read some of my other posts. You'll readily ascertain my position (complete rejection of the bible).

I'll give you a few minutes to ponder.

Ready?

It's a secret.

Do don't tell anyone.

IT.

DID.

NOT.

HAPPEN.


Really, kid... you're killin' me, here.

I
ALREADY
AGREE
WITH
YOU

I don't know how many more times I'll need to tell you this, or in how many different ways. You are acting as though I committed some act of betrayal against you, for giving my thread a tongue-in-cheek title. I don't believe the bible to be of any value. Period.

That would make for a fascinating explanation, indeed. Next to these (even more vast) oceans, 40 days and nights of rain seem pretty trivial...
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 8:38:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 2:43:07 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/18/2014 9:30:57 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

Because until that water was actually discovered (at least by instrumentation), enough water wasn't even thought to exist. Those that argue in favor of the bible now have some valid evidence that it might have been possible.

No they don't.

Yes, the water required appears to be there. That's something that believers in the bible, heretofore, have never had available, before. It's in favor... I've never even come close to calling it "proof."

A friend simply sent me an article that (coincidentally), for a theist, would tend to answer the question: Where did all the water go?

How so? How does this article answer that question?

OK, listen closely....FOR A THEIST. Not for me. That the water is there, is sufficient to convince them. Can you just imagine what that rationally stunted Ken Ham is plotting, right now? How about Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. If they think that a banana is "check mate" on atheists and agnostics, just imagine what this does, to solidify their faith...

And how does this article answer that question, for a theist?

While there is no natural physical way to get the water to where they (seismologists) discovered it, The amount of water they found was rather curious... There are many factors that make it impossible, physically, for this newly-discovered water source to have been forced to the surface and back into its current location, in the span of a single year. I just thought it was time we (atheists and agnostics) take a step back and remember that, rather than generally dismissing theists are lumbering dolts, remember that there are so many things about our wonderful world that we still don't know/understand. You and I know (with physics as a certainty), that this water couldn't make it to the surface without a cataclysmic event that would render this planet unlivable, the fact still remains that the water is, indeed, there.

Basically what you're saying is that the existence of the moon "chalks one up" in favor of my theory that I flew to the moon under the power of my flapping arms. After all, there's the moon!

No, because we have had evidence of the moon having existed, all along.

Then chalk one up for my theory!

The water under the earth's crust is a new discovery. If you claimed that you had been to the moon, but we had no evidence of the existence of any moon, don't you think the feasibility of going to the moon would increase greatly, upon discovering said moon? Until its existence is established, it isn't even a possibility...

Then you agree, I flew to the moon.

This is little more than tooth fairy science.

You misunderstood my premise, brother. Scientifically, it doesn't even connect to the fairy tale. It's simply one aspect of the fairy tale that, heretofore, didn't even exist, as far as we knew.

You apparently don't know what I'm talking about.
http://www.skepdic.com...

In the debate, however, it is truly dishonest not to acknowledge the fact that this water is there. Now, it falls to theists to ponder how it got from it's current place, in vapor form, to the surface. Next comes the explanation of how it might have been forced to return, both to vapor form, and trapped within ringwoodite.

You're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. It isn't Do you want to know why?

I didn't say valid debate.

And I didn't say you said valid debate. I said you're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. Actions speak louder than words.

I simply said debate. I already know why. I already agree with you.

Given the fact that we are arguing over a point in contention, you don't agree with me. Unless your conceding the argument that this article says absolutely nothing about anything even remotely Biblical and this doesn't chalk one up in favor of any such thing. Are you doing that?

The biblical gawd doesn't exist. Go read some of my other posts. You'll readily ascertain my position (complete rejection of the bible).

You seem to be concentrating on this fictitious conversation where you imagine that I'm calling you a theist, accusing you of believing in God and the Bible. I'm not. I haven't said anything remotely along those lines. I'm criticizing what you're saying here, in this thread, about this article. It has nothing to do with your belief (or lack thereof) of the God or the Bible.


I'll give you a few minutes to ponder.

Ready?

It's a secret.

Do don't tell anyone.

IT.

DID.

NOT.

HAPPEN.


Really, kid... you're killin' me, here.

I
ALREADY
AGREE
WITH
YOU

I don't know how many more times I'll need to tell you this, or in how many different ways. You are acting as though I committed some act of betrayal against you, for giving my thread a tongue-in-cheek title. I don't believe the bible to be of any value. Period.

You seem to not understand basic logic. The Flood is impossible. Ergo NOTHING exists "in favor" of it. Nothing. It isn't a valid hypothesis by which we can conduct observations and support/refute it. It's a dead idea. I'm not accusing you of thinking the Flood is real. I'm accusing you of suggesting that there exists anything at all which could support it, as you are claiming in this thread, tongue-in-cheek or not.

That would make for a fascinating explanation, indeed. Next to these (even more vast) oceans, 40 days and nights of rain seem pretty trivial...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:22:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 8:38:41 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/18/2014 2:43:07 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/18/2014 9:30:57 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

Because until that water was actually discovered (at least by instrumentation), enough water wasn't even thought to exist. Those that argue in favor of the bible now have some valid evidence that it might have been possible.

No they don't.

Yes, the water required appears to be there. That's something that believers in the bible, heretofore, have never had available, before. It's in favor... I've never even come close to calling it "proof."

A friend simply sent me an article that (coincidentally), for a theist, would tend to answer the question: Where did all the water go?

How so? How does this article answer that question?

OK, listen closely....FOR A THEIST. Not for me. That the water is there, is sufficient to convince them. Can you just imagine what that rationally stunted Ken Ham is plotting, right now? How about Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. If they think that a banana is "check mate" on atheists and agnostics, just imagine what this does, to solidify their faith...

And how does this article answer that question, for a theist?

While there is no natural physical way to get the water to where they (seismologists) discovered it, The amount of water they found was rather curious... There are many factors that make it impossible, physically, for this newly-discovered water source to have been forced to the surface and back into its current location, in the span of a single year. I just thought it was time we (atheists and agnostics) take a step back and remember that, rather than generally dismissing theists are lumbering dolts, remember that there are so many things about our wonderful world that we still don't know/understand. You and I know (with physics as a certainty), that this water couldn't make it to the surface without a cataclysmic event that would render this planet unlivable, the fact still remains that the water is, indeed, there.

Basically what you're saying is that the existence of the moon "chalks one up" in favor of my theory that I flew to the moon under the power of my flapping arms. After all, there's the moon!

No, because we have had evidence of the moon having existed, all along.

Then chalk one up for my theory!

The water under the earth's crust is a new discovery. If you claimed that you had been to the moon, but we had no evidence of the existence of any moon, don't you think the feasibility of going to the moon would increase greatly, upon discovering said moon? Until its existence is established, it isn't even a possibility...

Then you agree, I flew to the moon.

This is little more than tooth fairy science.

You misunderstood my premise, brother. Scientifically, it doesn't even connect to the fairy tale. It's simply one aspect of the fairy tale that, heretofore, didn't even exist, as far as we knew.

You apparently don't know what I'm talking about.
http://www.skepdic.com...

In the debate, however, it is truly dishonest not to acknowledge the fact that this water is there. Now, it falls to theists to ponder how it got from it's current place, in vapor form, to the surface. Next comes the explanation of how it might have been forced to return, both to vapor form, and trapped within ringwoodite.

You're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. It isn't Do you want to know why?

I didn't say valid debate.

And I didn't say you said valid debate. I said you're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. Actions speak louder than words.

I simply said debate. I already know why. I already agree with you.

Given the fact that we are arguing over a point in contention, you don't agree with me. Unless your conceding the argument that this article says absolutely nothing about anything even remotely Biblical and this doesn't chalk one up in favor of any such thing. Are you doing that?

The biblical gawd doesn't exist. Go read some of my other posts. You'll readily ascertain my position (complete rejection of the bible).

You seem to be concentrating on this fictitious conversation where you imagine that I'm calling you a theist, accusing you of believing in God and the Bible. I'm not. I haven't said anything remotely along those lines. I'm criticizing what you're saying here, in this thread, about this article. It has nothing to do with your belief (or lack thereof) of the God or the Bible.


I'll give you a few minutes to ponder.

Ready?

It's a secret.

Do don't tell anyone.

IT.

DID.

NOT.

HAPPEN.


Really, kid... you're killin' me, here.

I
ALREADY
AGREE
WITH
YOU

I don't know how many more times I'll need to tell you this, or in how many different ways. You are acting as though I committed some act of betrayal against you, for giving my thread a tongue-in-cheek title. I don't believe the bible to be of any value. Period.

You seem to not understand basic logic. The Flood is impossible. Ergo NOTHING exists "in favor" of it. Nothing. It isn't a valid hypothesis by which we can conduct observations and support/refute it. It's a dead idea. I'm not accusing you of thinking the Flood is real. I'm accusing you of suggesting that there exists anything at all which could support it, as you are claiming in this thread, tongue-in-cheek or not.

That would make for a fascinating explanation, indeed. Next to these (even more vast) oceans, 40 days and nights of rain seem pretty trivial...

The water in those minerals comes from Theia. She was a beautiful life supporting world, that crashed into Earth. When it crashed into Earth some animals and humanoids survived the transfer. This flood idea is a myth to explain why the Theian reptilians had to be driven extinct. Some of the waters that came with the collision wiped over the earth and escaped outward with the creation of the moon. This took 40 days and killed everything.

They were interlopers on Human genetic purity. Duh. How do we know this happened? There is water on the moon.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 7:37:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 8:38:41 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/18/2014 2:43:07 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/18/2014 9:30:57 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Then why are you "chalking one up in favor of the bible?"

Because until that water was actually discovered (at least by instrumentation), enough water wasn't even thought to exist. Those that argue in favor of the bible now have some valid evidence that it might have been possible.

No they don't.

Yes, they do, but you're not really getting my point.

Yes, the water required appears to be there. That's something that believers in the bible, heretofore, have never had available, before. It's in favor... I've never even come close to calling it "proof."

A friend simply sent me an article that (coincidentally), for a theist, would tend to answer the question: Where did all the water go?

How so? How does this article answer that question?

OK, listen closely....FOR A THEIST. Not for me. That the water is there, is sufficient to convince them. Can you just imagine what that rationally stunted Ken Ham is plotting, right now? How about Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. If they think that a banana is "check mate" on atheists and agnostics, just imagine what this does, to solidify their faith...

And how does this article answer that question, for a theist?

In their minds, this answers the question, "Where did all the water go?"

While there is no natural physical way to get the water to where they (seismologists) discovered it, The amount of water they found was rather curious... There are many factors that make it impossible, physically, for this newly-discovered water source to have been forced to the surface and back into its current location, in the span of a single year. I just thought it was time we (atheists and agnostics) take a step back and remember that, rather than generally dismissing theists are lumbering dolts, remember that there are so many things about our wonderful world that we still don't know/understand. You and I know (with physics as a certainty), that this water couldn't make it to the surface without a cataclysmic event that would render this planet unlivable, the fact still remains that the water is, indeed, there.

Basically what you're saying is that the existence of the moon "chalks one up" in favor of my theory that I flew to the moon under the power of my flapping arms. After all, there's the moon!

No, because we have had evidence of the moon having existed, all along.

Then chalk one up for my theory!

You don't have a theory. Further, in using that word, you don't even understand what a "theory" is. What you should have stated is, "Chalk one up for my claim." And the answer would still be, "No."

The water under the earth's crust is a new discovery. If you claimed that you had been to the moon, but we had no evidence of the existence of any moon, don't you think the feasibility of going to the moon would increase greatly, upon discovering said moon? Until its existence is established, it isn't even a possibility...

Then you agree, I flew to the moon.

Sure, kid. Whatever you say...

This is little more than tooth fairy science.

You misunderstood my premise, brother. Scientifically, it doesn't even connect to the fairy tale. It's simply one aspect of the fairy tale that, heretofore, didn't even exist, as far as we knew.

You apparently don't know what I'm talking about.
http://www.skepdic.com...

I'm fully aware of your meaning. You seem to have missed the entirety of my point.

In the debate, however, it is truly dishonest not to acknowledge the fact that this water is there. Now, it falls to theists to ponder how it got from it's current place, in vapor form, to the surface. Next comes the explanation of how it might have been forced to return, both to vapor form, and trapped within ringwoodite.

You're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. It isn't Do you want to know why?

I didn't say valid debate.

And I didn't say you said valid debate. I said you're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. Actions speak louder than words.

No, I'm not. I'm acting as though theists believe there is debate. I'm further recognizing that this discovery will be used by theists to support their belief in the flood fairy tale.

I simply said debate. I already know why. I already agree with you.

Given the fact that we are arguing over a point in contention, you don't agree with me. Unless your conceding the argument that this article says absolutely nothing about anything even remotely Biblical and this doesn't chalk one up in favor of any such thing. Are you doing that?

There was never any argument about that. I never stated that the article even mentioned the bible or the flood. I only stated that believers will use the discovery is support of their flood fairy tale.

The biblical gawd doesn't exist. Go read some of my other posts. You'll readily ascertain my position (complete rejection of the bible).

You seem to be concentrating on this fictitious conversation where you imagine that I'm calling you a theist, accusing you of believing in God and the Bible. I'm not. I haven't said anything remotely along those lines. I'm criticizing what you're saying here, in this thread, about this article. It has nothing to do with your belief (or lack thereof) of the God or the Bible.

But you are arguing something that I didn't say. I never said the bible was even mentioned, in the article I posted. It was merely the recognition that those that believe will use this discovery. That's all. It makes things interesting, to me.


I'll give you a few minutes to ponder.

Ready?

It's a secret.

Do don't tell anyone.

IT.

DID.

NOT.

HAPPEN.


Really, kid... you're killin' me, here.

I
ALREADY
AGREE
WITH
YOU

I don't know how many more times I'll need to tell you this, or in how many different ways. You are acting as though I committed some act of betrayal against you, for giving my thread a tongue-in-cheek title. I don't believe the bible to be of any value. Period.

You seem to not understand basic logic. The Flood is impossible. Ergo NOTHING exists "in favor" of it. Nothing. It isn't a valid hypothesis by which we can conduct observations and support/refute it. It's a dead idea. I'm not accusing you of thinking the Flood is real. I'm accusing you of suggesting that there exists anything at all which could support it, as you are claiming in this thread, tongue-in-cheek or not.

It is you, whose understanding falls short. The "in favor" was the "tongue-in-cheek" part. I don't think anything supports it. I still think that theists will use it. All of the physics required to get that water to the surface and then back down, again, would actually destroy the earth. I know this. Staunch biblical supporters won't care. Take a look at this, and you will see just how much believers believe.

http://www.debate.org...

Ever heard the term, "playing devil's advocate?" Again, relax.

That would make for a fascinating explanation, indeed. Next to these (even more vast) oceans, 40 days and nights of rain seem pretty trivial...
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:17:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 7:37:38 AM, irreverent_god wrote:

Because until that water was actually discovered (at least by instrumentation), enough water wasn't even thought to exist. Those that argue in favor of the bible now have some valid evidence that it might have been possible.

No they don't.

Yes, they do, but you're not really getting my point.

No, they don't. There can't be valid evidence for something that is impossible.

OK, listen closely....FOR A THEIST. Not for me. That the water is there, is sufficient to convince them. Can you just imagine what that rationally stunted Ken Ham is plotting, right now? How about Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. If they think that a banana is "check mate" on atheists and agnostics, just imagine what this does, to solidify their faith...

And how does this article answer that question, for a theist?

In their minds, this answers the question, "Where did all the water go?"

And how does it do that?

While there is no natural physical way to get the water to where they (seismologists) discovered it, The amount of water they found was rather curious... There are many factors that make it impossible, physically, for this newly-discovered water source to have been forced to the surface and back into its current location, in the span of a single year. I just thought it was time we (atheists and agnostics) take a step back and remember that, rather than generally dismissing theists are lumbering dolts, remember that there are so many things about our wonderful world that we still don't know/understand. You and I know (with physics as a certainty), that this water couldn't make it to the surface without a cataclysmic event that would render this planet unlivable, the fact still remains that the water is, indeed, there.

Basically what you're saying is that the existence of the moon "chalks one up" in favor of my theory that I flew to the moon under the power of my flapping arms. After all, there's the moon!

No, because we have had evidence of the moon having existed, all along.

Then chalk one up for my theory!

You don't have a theory. Further, in using that word, you don't even understand what a "theory" is. What you should have stated is, "Chalk one up for my claim." And the answer would still be, "No."

Then you should now understand why it's also "No" for this nonsense.

The water under the earth's crust is a new discovery. If you claimed that you had been to the moon, but we had no evidence of the existence of any moon, don't you think the feasibility of going to the moon would increase greatly, upon discovering said moon? Until its existence is established, it isn't even a possibility...

Then you agree, I flew to the moon.

Sure, kid. Whatever you say...

This is little more than tooth fairy science.

You misunderstood my premise, brother. Scientifically, it doesn't even connect to the fairy tale. It's simply one aspect of the fairy tale that, heretofore, didn't even exist, as far as we knew.

You apparently don't know what I'm talking about.
http://www.skepdic.com...

I'm fully aware of your meaning. You seem to have missed the entirety of my point.

I disagree, or, at least, your awareness is not evident in your responses.

In the debate, however, it is truly dishonest not to acknowledge the fact that this water is there. Now, it falls to theists to ponder how it got from it's current place, in vapor form, to the surface. Next comes the explanation of how it might have been forced to return, both to vapor form, and trapped within ringwoodite.

You're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. It isn't Do you want to know why?

I didn't say valid debate.

And I didn't say you said valid debate. I said you're acting like this is still something for which there is valid debate. Actions speak louder than words.

No, I'm not. I'm acting as though theists believe there is debate.

Valid debate, otherwise there wouldn't be chaling one up in favor of one side or the other.

I'm further recognizing that this discovery will be used by theists to support their belief in the flood fairy tale.

Theists don't need any help in that regard. So why are you helping them perpetuate their nonsense?

I simply said debate. I already know why. I already agree with you.

Given the fact that we are arguing over a point in contention, you don't agree with me. Unless your conceding the argument that this article says absolutely nothing about anything even remotely Biblical and this doesn't chalk one up in favor of any such thing. Are you doing that?

There was never any argument about that. I never stated that the article even mentioned the bible or the flood. I only stated that believers will use the discovery is support of their flood fairy tale.

Your OP clearly implies that this article directly supports the Bible.

The biblical gawd doesn't exist. Go read some of my other posts. You'll readily ascertain my position (complete rejection of the bible).

You seem to be concentrating on this fictitious conversation where you imagine that I'm calling you a theist, accusing you of believing in God and the Bible. I'm not. I haven't said anything remotely along those lines. I'm criticizing what you're saying here, in this thread, about this article. It has nothing to do with your belief (or lack thereof) of the God or the Bible.

But you are arguing something that I didn't say. I never said the bible was even mentioned, in the article I posted. It was merely the recognition that those that believe will use this discovery. That's all. It makes things interesting, to me.

No, you were clearly asserting that this article supports the Bible, in fact you said:

"Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed..."

None of that appears in the article.

You seem to not understand basic logic. The Flood is impossible. Ergo NOTHING exists "in favor" of it. Nothing. It isn't a valid hypothesis by which we can conduct observations and support/refute it. It's a dead idea. I'm not accusing you of thinking the Flood is real. I'm accusing you of suggesting that there exists anything at all which could support it, as you are claiming in this thread, tongue-in-cheek or not.

It is you, whose understanding falls short. The "in favor" was the "tongue-in-cheek" part. I don't think anything supports it.

Except this, because you said so.

I still think that theists will use it. All of the physics required to get that water to the surface and then back down, again, would actually destroy the earth. I know this. Staunch biblical supporters won't care. Take a look at this, and you will see just how much believers believe.

http://www.debate.org...

Ever heard the term, "playing devil's advocate?" Again, relax.

If you're going to play devil's advocate, then do it. Defend your position or concede it. Which is it?
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:42:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 8:17:56 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
No they don't.

Yes, they do, but you're not really getting my point.

No, they don't. There can't be valid evidence for something that is impossible.

It really seems as though you're just wanting to be intentionally obstinate. They see the presence of the amount of water necessary to fulfill the requirement for the tale as proof. They don't worry about the details of how it got from its present location up to the surface and back again. The fact that it exists is enough for them.

And how does it do that?

As I just explained, how is not an important factor. Believers want to believe, and "gawddidit!" is a satisfactory answer. Even if the laws of physics have to be "temporarily altered" or "suspended" by their gawd, they're perfectly fine, as long as the water is there.

Then you should now understand why it's also "No" for this nonsense.

I always did understand it.

I disagree, or, at least, your awareness is not evident in your responses.

That's because I was discussing something that a theist would assume, based on the mere presence of the water. While you and I (as well as all other atheists/agnostics) understand that much, much, much more is needed to satisfy the outlandish claims and assertions, a theists accepts on faith what you and I would require a logical path to follow.

Valid debate, otherwise there wouldn't be chaling one up in favor of one side or the other.

I'm afraid I missed your meaning, here.
Theists don't need any help in that regard. So why are you helping them perpetuate their nonsense?

I'm not! This is merely an observation that the water is present. A biblical theist would still have to ice skate uphill (at about 80 degrees), trying to explain how the water (and it's not even water, it's vapor) got up to the surface and back again, without destroying the globe or crushing those left alive.

Your OP clearly implies that this article directly supports the Bible.

ROFGLASK!!! I rejected the bible before I was a teenager. I just received a link from one of my (atheist) buddies, and thought I'd share it. No sense trying to bury the fact that it's there. It does not support the bible, in any way. It simply affirms one fact that, heretofore, had been absent. There are still hundreds of assertions that would require substantiation (like all the different "arks" that have been "found," and subsequently debunked). After that, the physics/logistics/evidence would still need to be figured out.

The line from the OP:
the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the 'flood...'
Do you realize that the statement refers to "claims," of the flood, not "the flood?" It's only the amount of water that has been discovered. Nothing else. Just the amount. In fact, it's still not even water... It's OH. At the pressure and temperature present, at that depth, these molecules still require another hydrogen atom. Given that Hydrogen is among the most plentiful of elements, and the one with which OH would most readily bond, becoming water isn't a big step. It's just not really water, down there. It would have to become water, on its way up (something for which the biblical tale makes no room). The title was simply chosen in order to be provocative.

No, you were clearly asserting that this article supports the Bible, in fact you said:

"Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed..."

None of that appears in the article.

No, it wasn't. I was likely in one of the other articles that I pulled up. I likely simply inadvertently pasted a different link... Try this article:

http://io9.com...

Except this, because you said so.

No, I didn't say so. I said it would favor the claims. Up to this point, we (atheists and agnostics) have argued from the stand point of thinking that the water wasn't there, at all. Now, we haven't that position anymore. It is there. There is simply no viable reasoning that would get it from its current location to the surface, and back again, without destroying the planet.

If you're going to play devil's advocate, then do it. Defend your position or concede it. Which is it?

I have defended my position. You're just not listening.

Pre-discovery - No water
Post-discovery - water

It changes the standpoint of our rejection, not the rejection, of the flood claims. Previous to the discovery, we thought the necessary water didn't even exist. Now we know it does. It may not change the conclusion, but it definitely changes the dynamics. We have always asked bible believers: Where did all that water go? They have never had an answer. Now, they can point to this discovery and say, "It went there!" They have no answer as to "how," but they have a "where." Since you seem so hot and bothered to have me "concede" something to you, I'll concede this: Perhaps I should have worded it, differently. Then again, I was just having fun. The literalistic gene in you simply isn't ready for a sense of humor, is it?
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 4:52:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

I had an atheist one time, back maybe five years ago, who was swearing up and down that there were no huge reservoirs of water beneath the earth's surface, knowing full well that the Bible indicates the presence of such. He had rattled off maybe three or four "impossibilities" of the Bible, and this was one of them. I'm sure he'll just move on to something else. That's the MO.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 6:34:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

Nice...but, is there any evidence of how an 800 year old man can fit 2 of every animal on a boat so an all just God can drown pretty much all of mankind?
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 6:54:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 4:52:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

I had an atheist one time, back maybe five years ago, who was swearing up and down that there were no huge reservoirs of water beneath the earth's surface, knowing full well that the Bible indicates the presence of such. He had rattled off maybe three or four "impossibilities" of the Bible, and this was one of them. I'm sure he'll just move on to something else. That's the MO.

Rattling off "impossibilities is best left to the people who argue most adamantly, from a perspective of ignorance. The reservoir beneath the crust is not actually "water." However, it is not a big step to make it so. Being "monohydrogen monoxide" (AKA hydroxyl) requires only an atom of hydrogen to complete the molecule. However, this does not automatically validate or verify the flood tale. I still believe it to be completely false. I just find it to be interesting.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 7:43:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 6:54:55 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/19/2014 4:52:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/16/2014 7:20:35 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
A friend of mine, at work, sent me this, today. The following link indicates that there is actually water, under the earth's mantle:

http://www.techtimes.com...

Estimates I have read, thus far, indicate that the potential amount, trapped in porous ringwoodite, about 700 km under the surface, may contain between 100% and 300% of the water found in all of the oceans. Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed...

While the water doesn't appear to be in liquid form, scientists have been speculating about this since the mid-80's. While it may still be too early to draw any real conclusions, the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the flood (although it still doesn't answer any of the myriad of other contradictory assertions). It must still be accepted at face value that there very well may be sufficient water to account for this particular detail of the flood story...

Any thoughts?

I had an atheist one time, back maybe five years ago, who was swearing up and down that there were no huge reservoirs of water beneath the earth's surface, knowing full well that the Bible indicates the presence of such. He had rattled off maybe three or four "impossibilities" of the Bible, and this was one of them. I'm sure he'll just move on to something else. That's the MO.

Rattling off "impossibilities is best left to the people who argue most adamantly, from a perspective of ignorance. The reservoir beneath the crust is not actually "water." However, it is not a big step to make it so. Being "monohydrogen monoxide" (AKA hydroxyl) requires only an atom of hydrogen to complete the molecule. However, this does not automatically validate or verify the flood tale. I still believe it to be completely false. I just find it to be interesting.

I'm curious as to how "monohydrogen monoxide" would exist for very long without simply turning into water. Guess I'll look it up.

No, the finding does not "validate or verify" the flood tale per se. The narrative does, however, speak of the fountains of the deep as if they existed. Nothing will ever really "verify" the narrative, and nothing will ever "disprove" it, since it obviously relies upon the miraculous.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2014 9:17:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:42:38 PM, irreverent_god wrote:

No, they don't. There can't be valid evidence for something that is impossible.

It really seems as though you're just wanting to be intentionally obstinate. They see the presence of the amount of water necessary to fulfill the requirement for the tale as proof. They don't worry about the details of how it got from its present location up to the surface and back again. The fact that it exists is enough for them.

What water? Who is saying there is the necessary about of water to fulfill this requirement? Who? Where? Show me. It's not in this article!

As I just explained, how is not an important factor. Believers want to believe, and "gawddidit!" is a satisfactory answer. Even if the laws of physics have to be "temporarily altered" or "suspended" by their gawd, they're perfectly fine, as long as the water is there.

I'm not talking about believers, I'm talking about you.

I always did understand it.

Your behavior to this point contradicts that statement.

That's because I was discussing something that a theist would assume, based on the mere presence of the water. While you and I (as well as all other atheists/agnostics) understand that much, much, much more is needed to satisfy the outlandish claims and assertions, a theists accepts on faith what you and I would require a logical path to follow.

No you weren't. Every time I've tried to address your "devil's advocate" assertions, you back away claiming you don't really believe.

Valid debate, otherwise there wouldn't be chaling one up in favor of one side or the other.

I'm afraid I missed your meaning, here.

If there is no valid debate, why are you "chalking one up" in favor of one side of that debate?

Theists don't need any help in that regard. So why are you helping them perpetuate their nonsense?

I'm not!

Yes you are.

This is merely an observation that the water is present. A biblical theist would still have to ice skate uphill (at about 80 degrees), trying to explain how the water (and it's not even water, it's vapor) got up to the surface and back again, without destroying the globe or crushing those left alive.

The article says that some water is present. They don't know how much. In fact, they know very little about it. You've somehow tied this to the Bible and that's not support, at all, from anything said by anyone in the article.

Your OP clearly implies that this article directly supports the Bible.

ROFGLASK!!! I rejected the bible before I was a teenager. I just received a link from one of my (atheist) buddies, and thought I'd share it. No sense trying to bury the fact that it's there. It does not support the bible, in any way. It simply affirms one fact that, heretofore, had been absent. There are still hundreds of assertions that would require substantiation (like all the different "arks" that have been "found," and subsequently debunked). After that, the physics/logistics/evidence would still need to be figured out.

You keep saying "there are still [things theists would have to show]" as if there is one less thing they'd have to show. You keep acting like this answers some question for the flood, some observation that reduces (however marginally) the burden to support the Global Flood.

It doesn't do that. This article answers precisely 0 questions raised by a Global Flood. 0. None.

The line from the OP:
the potential amount of water would seem to coincide with claims in favor of the 'flood...'
Do you realize that the statement refers to "claims," of the flood, not "the flood?" It's only the amount of water that has been discovered. Nothing else. Just the amount. In fact, it's still not even water... It's OH. At the pressure and temperature present, at that depth, these molecules still require another hydrogen atom. Given that Hydrogen is among the most plentiful of elements, and the one with which OH would most readily bond, becoming water isn't a big step. It's just not really water, down there. It would have to become water, on its way up (something for which the biblical tale makes no room). The title was simply chosen in order to be provocative.

Then why are you bitching that you've provoked a response. Or do you not know what "provocative means"?

"Some scientist have begun to speculate that it may be enough water to cover the earth enough so that only the tallest mountains would be exposed..."

None of that appears in the article.

No, it wasn't. I was likely in one of the other articles that I pulled up. I likely simply inadvertently pasted a different link... Try this article:

http://io9.com...

Ok, so then at least cop-up to being an idiot. You keep acting like this is some overreaction on my part despite you admitting you were deliberately being provocative and not even being able to post the right link you were talking about.

As it is, your statement is still an inaccurate exaggeration of what's in the article, but I'll give you half a point for posting an article that at least mentions mountains.

Except this, because you said so.

No, I didn't say so. I said it would favor the claims.

And how does it do that?

Up to this point, we (atheists and agnostics) have argued from the stand point of thinking that the water wasn't there, at all.

No we haven't. We've argued from the stand point that it is a physical and logical impossibility for dozens of reasons. "Where did the water go?" is probably the most trivial, least important, most inconsequential question ever raised about the Flood and literally irrelevant when we're talking about a God that could have simply magicked it all away. More damning is the biological and geographical evidence that such a flood would have necessarily left that it didn't.

Now, we haven't that position anymore.

Yes we do. This doesn't answer that question.

It is there. There is simply no viable reasoning that would get it from its current location to the surface, and back again, without destroying the planet.

If you're going to play devil's advocate, then do it. Defend your position or concede it. Which is it?

I have defended my position. You're just not listening.

No you haven't. You just keep saying that it offers support to the theists. Whenever I ask "how" you wine that you aren't a theist.

Pre-discovery - No water
Post-discovery - water

Wrong.
"Post-discovery - some results that suggest that there might be water somewhere down there, but it's still inconclusive, and we don't know how much or fully understand the mechanics of how it gets from here to there and back"

It changes the standpoint of our rejection,

No, it doesn't.

not the rejection, of the flood claims. Previous to the discovery, we thought the necessary water didn't even exist. Now we know it does.

No we don't.

It may not change the conclusion, but it definitely changes the dynamics. We have always asked bible believers: Where did all that water go? They have never had an answer. Now, they can point to this discovery and say, "It went there!" They have no answer as to "how," but they have a "where." Since you seem so hot and bothered to have me "concede" something to you, I'll concede this: Perhaps I should have worded it, differently. Then again, I was just having fun. The literalistic gene in you simply isn't ready for a sense of humor, is it?

The hallmark of the unfunny is the claim that other people simply "don't get it." If you want to tell jokes, we have a forum for that.