Earth may have underground 'ocean' three times that on surface

[Nathon Detroit]

Interesting....

After decades of searching scientists have discovered that a vast reservoir of water, enough to fill the Earth’s oceans three times over, may be trapped hundreds of miles beneath the surface, potentially transforming our understanding of how the planet was formed.

The water is locked up in a mineral called ringwoodite about 660km (400 miles) beneath the crust of the Earth, researchers say. Geophysicist Steve Jacobsen from Northwestern University in the US co-authored the study published in the journal Science and said the discovery suggested Earth’s water may have come from within, driven to the surface by geological activity, rather than being deposited by icy comets hitting the forming planet as held by the prevailing theories.

“Geological processes on the Earth’s surface, such as earthquakes or erupting volcanoes, are an expression of what is going on inside the Earth, out of our sight,” Jacobsen said.

“I think we are finally seeing evidence for a whole-Earth water cycle, which may help explain the vast amount of liquid water on the surface of our habitable planet. Scientists have been looking for this missing deep water for decades.”

- COMPLETE ARTICLE

 

[theophilus]

April 7, 2014 - http://beginningandend.com/scientists-confirm-biblical-account-of-the-fountains-of-the-deep/

So all the water isn't locked up in glaciers and ice.

!!!

 

[chrysostom]

is this just interesting
or
are there theological implications?

 

[Stripe]

The water is locked up in a mineral called ringwoodite about 660km (400 miles) beneath the crust of the Earth, researchers say.

That's an interesting depth.

There is probably a reason they give this depth, but the rocks they are studying almost certainly formed about where they were found.

Geophysicist Steve Jacobsen from Northwestern University in the US co-authored the study published in the journal Science and said the discovery suggested Earth’s water may have come from within, driven to the surface by geological activity, rather than being deposited by icy comets hitting the forming planet as held by the prevailing theories.

Sounds familiar.

“Geological processes on the Earth’s surface, such as earthquakes or erupting volcanoes, are an expression of what is going on inside the Earth, out of our sight,” Jacobsen said.

Too right! The same is true of the moon.

 

[Granite]

is this just interesting
or
are there theological implications?

I'm sure they'll try to tie this into Noah's Flood.

 

[theophilus]

I'm sure they'll try to tie this into Noah's Flood.

Right you are! - in the link I posted.

"SPIN" knows no parameters.

 

[Stripe]

I'm sure they'll try to tie this into Noah's Flood.

And we know for a fact that you will deny everything from a Christian source.

 

[ok doser]

makes me wonder if there's a simiiar source of available water on mars :think:

 

[Stripe]

makes me wonder if there's a simiiar source of available water on mars :think:

The one they are scratching at the edges of here.

 

[gcthomas]

And we know for a fact that you will deny everything from a Christian source.

Bound water molecules are not really the oceans of free water that would support the claims of Walt's Magical Theory of Everything. Hydrated crystals wouldn't produce fountains, as you know.

 

[john w]

Scientists for years, until recently, said this was "bogus:"



Genesis 7:11 KJV 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.

Genesis 8:2 KJVthe fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;


The "volume of the book" is always true.

 

[gcthomas]

Scientists for years, until recently, said this was "bogus:"

I was taught in geology classes in the 80s that the upper mantle was expected to have masses of water, so I don't believe your statement is true. Also, the deep origin of the 'fountains' water is not helped by this science, since no liquid has been found.

 

[Stripe]

Bound water molecules are not really the oceans of free water that would support the claims of [Dr] Walt [Brown's Hydrolate] Theory... Hydrated crystals wouldn't produce fountains, as you know.

And as luck would have it, Dr Brown postulates nothing of the sort.

It would pay for you evolutionists to actually know what you're talking about before exposing your ignorance.

 

[Stripe]

The problem with the article is that it tries to explain the transition zone using the assumption that plate tectonics theory is correct. There are things going on at that depth that the authors simply do not understand because the notion of convection currents in the mantle dominates their thinking.

 

[gcthomas]

And as luck would have it, Dr Brown postulates nothing of the sort.

It would pay for you evolutionists to actually know what you're talking about before exposing your ignorance.

So how does it support his hypothesis? Or are you only interested in making negative comments?

The op title says 'ocean', which requires liquid, and the mantle doesn't have it. Where are the 'oceans' of the op?

Walt predicted 'pooled water under mountains', but this don't exist. Why doesn't that undermine the idea on your mind?

 

[john w]

I was taught in geology classes in the 80s that the upper mantle was expected to have masses of water, so I don't believe your statement is true. Also, the deep origin of the 'fountains' water is not helped by this science, since no liquid has been found.

"in the 80s"-you


You missed it-I qualified it:

"until recently,"-me


My statement is true, as acceptance by the scientific community, of fountains beneath, is a relatively new acceptance, timewise. In the 1970s, as I understand it, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors.

 

[gcthomas]

"in the 80s"-you


You missed it-I qualified it:

"until recently,"-me


My statement is true, as acceptance by the scientific community, of fountains beneath, is a relatively new acceptance, timewise. In the 1970s, as I understand it, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors.

Those are nothing remotely like the Hydroplate fountains - how do these small vents relate to the huge vents that are necessary for biblical purposes?

 

[john w]

Those are nothing remotely like the Hydroplate fountains - how do these small vents relate to the huge vents that are necessary for biblical purposes?

Translated: You are not an honest seeker, but a troll, not here to "argue"(provide reasons for a conclusion), but here merelely prove to yourself, that you are right.

I was addressing your "argument" of...

"I was taught in geology classes in the 80s that the upper mantle was expected to have masses of water, so I don't believe your statement is true."


It is "recent," relatively, and you went off on a rabbit trail...


Now, have a seat, troll.

 

[gcthomas]

It is "recent," relatively, and you went off on a rabbit trail...

Now, have a seat, troll.

So considering 30 years ago as not 'recent' makes me a troll? You really are an idiot.

 

[musterion]

So that's where the waters assuaged/receded to. Gen 8:2-3.