Ringwoodite...is it a direct result of Noahs flood

following on from this thread https://discourse.biologos.org/t/re-could-the-genesis-flood-have-ejected-large-rocks-into-space/52053

I have recently stumbled across ringwoodite Mg2SiO4 (magnesium silicate)

I note that it is found in massive quantities (400-600km beneath the earths surface) such that the 1% water content it contains is far greater in total volume than the water in all of our Oceans (it could be 3 times as much).

Interestingly enough, have a guess how we first came across this crystal…The Tenham meteorite in 1969! That certainly seems very coincidental given the theory discussed in the related forum post above (that the breakup of the fountains of the deep ejected meteorites into space)

As a YEC, i have the view that this mineral and its water content were related to Noahs flood. It could be that it was formed under high pressure and heat when the fountains of the deep broke up, i am wondering what the Biologos view is going to be and why this was found in a meteorite and is also in the earth?

It may be easier to begin with what are the scientific sources you are citing?

There is no evidence of a global flood. The only reason why someone believes in it is because of how they interpret a few chapters in the Bible. It’s not related to anything scientific at all. If the few chapters were never mistakenly interpreted literally, no one would have looked at anything in science and think it’s a global flood.

4 Likes

@Moderators:

  • “Tagging Suggestion”: Add a Tag for New OPs that are intended to stump a specific person or an implicit or explicit group, such as: (insert the name or kind of individual or group to be stumped).
2 Likes

I am wondering if this is just bait, with the usual switch, stab, and proof texts, to come.

3 Likes

no bait here Ron…i assumed that those elite scientific members of Biologos had already studied into this and had answers that address both the theological and scientific dilemmas.

You already see in the post that i have openly stated my YEC view…im not hiding that. I am simply interested in the Biologos (or TEist if you like) view considering:

  1. the vast amount of water theoretically assumed to be in ringwoodite (far greater than all the oceans around the globe)
  2. the fact it was first found in a meteorite suggests
  • meteorites and the earth were made out of the same stuff or
  • in fact the meteorite in which this sample was found in 1969 came from the earth originally and was ejected into space sometime in the past!
  • both of the above are reasonable assumptions to investigate…and given I am Christian and believe God created everything…i have can initially make both of the above assumptions no problem and branch out from them.

*I accept the criticism regarding proof texts *

…but that is because unlike most people here, i accept the reality that we are driven by the epistemological questions of our existence and therefore ask the philosophical questions because of that, then go searching for answers “within that philosophy”. If one finds answers that discredit the philosophy, then the entire philsophy is wrong and has to be thrown out.

*The philosophy here is Christianity…the philosophy is not whether the writings of Moses are allegorical and that is at the very core of my complaint against TEism…it denies the fundamental philsophy of Christianity and doesnt even know it!

Anyway, im interested more in what Biologos has to say about Ringwoodite, the meteorite it was found in, and the vast quantity of water potentinally contained 400-600km below the earth’s surface.

Also, how difficult would it be to extract water from this crystal? could it be done in space in a cost-effective and practical manner?

I don’t understand the fascination with this mineral since it is hardly unique; many minerals contain water either as part of their chemical makeup or part of their crystalline structure. Water is an essential component of such minerals regardless of where they came from, and there is no link to any kind of flood. And magnesium silicate doesn’t even have water in its formula,
Mg2SiO4 is nothing new; it’s forsterite, which is a form of olivine, which has been known to be abundant in the mantle for over half a century, being found in various intrusive magmas. The only interesting thing about it is that along with other similar minerals its structure can alter under intense pressure and temperature (which is why, for example, the olivine in gabbro differs somewhat from that in basalt; they’re essentially the same thing except basalt is found close to or on the surface while gabbro is always deep underground).
It’s been known for a very long time that there is far more water in the mantle than in the oceans; this is just another mineral that plays a part in that fact – and none of them have anything to do with “flood geology” (which is fake science).

1 Like

It isn’t likely to be abundant in space in the first place since the great majority of rocks in space were not formed under high pressure and temperature. Like other such minerals, water can be baked out unless it’s actually part of the chemical formula and even sometimes then. Getting water in space will be vastly easier by just finding water ice, which is abundant on many planetary moons along with asteroids. If any refining of ores gets done in space, water could be baked out as a byproduct and possibly captured, but to try to extract it from minerals won’t be cost-effective, though it could be on the surfaces of bodies large enough for gravity to make them spherical, e.g. the moon and Mars.

1 Like

Found the paper that contains this. Doesn’t really help your cause.

4 Likes

The first of the two is the case, but it’s not the ringwoodite that shows this, since ringwoodite only forms at high pressure and was not originally present in either the Earth or the meteorites. Rather, olivine is a major component of both, and in both some of it has been transformed to ringwoodite. In the Earth, the change occurred because of the pressure deep underground. In meteorites, it occurs because of the shock of impact. The meteorite isn’t a chunk of ringwoodite, as it would be if it had been ejected from deep within the earth. Rather, it occurs in small amounts and shows evidence of being the product of shock. Thus, from this article: ‘Portions of some large grains of olivine immediately adjacent to black, shock-generated veins are recognized as transforms to the spinel phase’, where ‘spinel phase’ means ringwoodite.

3 Likes

First terrestrial discovery of an extremely rare mineral called ringwoodite confirms theory about huge water ‘reservoirs’ 410 to 660 km beneath the surface of our planet, says a team of researchers led by Prof Graham Pearson from the University of Alberta, Canada.

This sample really provides extremely strong confirmation that there are local wet spots deep in the Earth in this area. That particular zone in the Earth, the transition zone, might have as much water as all the world’s oceans put together,” Prof Pearson said.
https://www.sci.news/geology/science-ringwoodite-oceans-beneath-earth-01806.html

"evolutionary origins have the burden of explaining where Earth’s ocean water came from since the planet was supposedly cooling from the collision of space rocks over millions of years.4 Many evolutionists believe that the oceans formed when those molten materials degassed—released water from within their minerals—over a span of 500 million years.

But after all that time, wouldn’t the molten planet steam itself dry? Now, naturalistic stories also face explaining a second ocean—the mantle’s deep water. Will secular researchers have trouble modeling the ways that blistering-hot, ancient Earth rocks could have provided two oceans’ volumes of water?" Water Deep in Earth's Mantle | The Institute for Creation Research

We have a major theological conflict between TEism and YECism in this debate...YECism follows the Biblical claim that the earth was once all water...whereas TEism is forced to follow the secular view that it formed from the collision of space rocks.

The Bible makes no mention of a molten planet in Genesis 1. I feel that this is a massive problem for TEism…its the complete opposite of the creation account surely?

I recognize that we are told, in the book of Revelation for example, that the earth will eventually be destroyed by fire, however, that is how God cleanses what sin has corrupted (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah). The important point is, sin was not in the world prior to Genesis 3.

It comes as no surprise to me that the hydroplate theory surfaced, the discovery of the Ringwoodite specimen adds legitimacy to that theory.

Scientists have been deeply divided about the composition of the transition zone and whether it is full of water or desert-dry. Knowing water exists beneath the crust has implications for the study of volcanism and plate tectonics, affecting how rock melts, cools and shifts below the crust.

One of the reasons the Earth is such a dynamic planet is because of the presence of some water in its interior. Water changes everything about the way a planet works,” Prof Pearson concluded. https://www.sci.news/geology/science-ringwoodite-oceans-beneath-earth-01806.html

The presence of liquid water on the surface is what makes our “blue planet” habitable, and scientists have long been trying to figure out just how much water may be cycling between Earth’s surface and interior reservoirs through plate tectonics.New Evidence for Oceans of Water Deep in the Earth | BNL Newsroom

image

What is really interesting is this article and the referenced study

Researchers have looked at how magma forms in the transition zone. First, they analyzed seismic data related to earthquakes and volcanic activity. Then, they synthesized ringwoodite in their lab. They exposed the mineral to the same high temperatures and pressures found in the transition zone. The ringwoodite began to melt, releasing some of its water. The water decreased the melting point of the rock, and this allowed magma to form.(New Evidence of Earth’s Deep Water Cycle Reveals A Virtual Buried Ocean | KQED).

None of what you posted has anything to do with my response. The fact is that meteorites with ringwoodite in them only have small amounts that were clearly produced by the force of impact. This is strong evidence that they are not fragments from deep within the Earth.

2 Likes

Did you not bother to read the entire article?

Calling it an “ocean” isn’t correct.

3 Likes

I think it’s hard to avoid such fascinations when someone believes so strongly in certain explanations about the Earth’s past, similar to this quote by Adam Sedgwick, who retired as president of the Geological Society in this recantation shared the other day by @T_aquaticus :

We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.

Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.

It’s a really natural sort of thing to do, with such a strong belief in a global flood to get really excited about things you think fit well with that (now discarded in the geological community) hypothesis. I’m speaking from my personal experience having believed and devoured YEC articles, books, etc. and feeling what I imagine is similar to what Adam is experiencing here.

You could try to put this under the banner of confirmation bias, or Morton’s demon, but I feel like those are inadequate to describe the sense of awe that one experiences to believe you’ve figured something out like this. It’s kind of like the joy of discovery combined with a deeply religious experience that is transcendent in nature. I found it deeply unsettling at least at first to unlink my deep religious experience, the enriching of my faith when I would come across things like those described in the OP, and my joy in figuring out something about the natural world - from such beliefs I now consider to be false. Funny enough I would have never believed myself, but freedom from YEC beliefs has deepened my sense of awe about God’s creation and him as the creator. Yet at the time, I would have considered anything but YEC to be heresy.

5 Likes

Having walked a similar road, I agree with your description here. Confirmation bias is probably an element but doesn’t do that heady euphoric (transcendent?) feeling justice. I also agree about a deepening of that awe having come out the other side. I think part of the problem is that engaging with creation isn’t an end for the YEC, it is most often a means to an end. Normally, an ammo factory. Can evolution-affirming believers fall into the same trap? Sure, but less likely as we have fewer horses in the race, I think, having walked away from the scorched earth rhetoric of YEC or bust.

2 Likes

not if the ringwoodite itself did not exist prior to the flood and it was the result of the breakup of the fountains of the deep that formed it in the first place. your statement about the quantity of ringwoodite in the meteorites is not even on topic. It [ringwoodite] shows the presence of water deep in the earth…not that ringwoodite itself was ejected into space in huge quantities. You are completely missing the point!

you didnt read the other articles did you Bill. We live in a world where one needs to broaden ones reading out a little more than just one source. The point is, these articles show evidence of at some point what is a considerable amount of water deep within the earth. The techtonic plate movements are not relevant to what quantity of water existed deep within the earth prior to the flood, what they show is that there is certainly a modern cycle where its probably circulated.

i think that some of the earliest statements of the Bible may cause enormous problems for TEism:

Genesis1: 2Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

genesis 1: 9And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. 10God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.”

Now for the TEism dilemma:

  1. The bible specifically states… "the earth was formless and void
  2. The bible specifically states The Spirit of God hovered over the waters

So here we have in Gensis 1:2 the biblical statement that there was no land anywhere to be found…only water.

  1. He caused the waters to part (i suppose you might say) and for dry land to appear and God called the land earth.

Questions…

  1. scientifically, where did the land come from…from water molecules?
  2. did the earth get bigger in size when the land appeared or was the earth already the size it is today before the land appeared?
  3. If the size of the earth remained basically constant and its weight remained essentially the same, where did all that water, that originally covered the land, go? Is it not possible that indeed God made it switch places with the land he called earth and the land began to (for want of a better term) “float” on it?

If life evolved over millions of years prior to Genesis 1:2, then how does one explain there was no land prior to this for animals to live on? it means that sea creatures must have evolved to quite an advanced state by Genesis 1:2 and yet the Genesis account says that animals (air, sea, and land creatures) did not appear until after vegetation appeared on the land!

What is your model of exactly how Genesis 1:2-9 occured?

and yet Liam, you are still left with the following dilemma:

If Adam and Eve’s warning about death as a result of eating of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was only a spiritual death,

  • why is it that its a biblical theological fact that suffering was not in the world prior to the fall of Adam and Eve? Revelation 21:4
    And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

  • How can we have evolution over millions of years prior to Genesis 1:1 without suffering?

  • why did Christ physically die as an act of atonement for sin on the cross (Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death)

  • why are the scars on his hands and in his sides going to be visible at the second coming, and

  • why is the second coming a physical event (ie that the dead in Christ are caught up in the air with those who are alive, to meet Christ in the air)?

Id say that if you do not have a biblically supported and therefore theologically sound explanation of the above dilemma, you are most certainly bust, and that it is the above philosophical dilemma that is crux of the issue…not whether or not science is right!

Forgive me, I find it hard to believe that you’ve debunked my view on any of these things when you don’t know my view on any of these things.

2 Likes

Bad assumption on your part. Yes I did and the science doesn’t support your position. As is usual, the YEC like to quote mine the parts that they think agree with them.

As most YEC do you keep confusing geology with biology. The TOE says nothing about the age of the earth. And properly understood Genesis doesn’t poise any problems for the age of the earth.

Land was first. Water came later.

Genesis is not a science text so of course it doesn’t explain exactly how the earth was created. Just why it was created. That is the whole point, and only point by the way, of the text.

3 Likes

Geologists have known that water exists beneath the crust for more than three decades.

So? Geologists knew that thirty-five years ago. There’s nothing new or exciting about this.

The sci.news article you linked is lying with this image:
image_1806_2-Ringwoodite-1

Showing water with waves for the transition zone is blatantly deceptive.

Which is why the above image is lying.

1 Like