Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Evidence For Oceans of Water Deep In the Earth

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the there-is-water-at-the-bottom-of-the-ocean dept.

Earth 190

techtech (2016646) writes Researchers from Northwestern University and the University of New Mexico report evidence for potentially oceans worth of water deep beneath the United States. Though not in the familiar liquid form—the ingredients for water are bound up in rock deep in the Earth's mantle—the discovery may represent the planet's largest water reservoir. This research was published in Science.

cancel ×

190 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mars can wait! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47226773)

Let's get down! Down deep!

Hydraulic fracturing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47226861)

We will need much of this so-called "hydraulic liquid" (and maybe a few other chemicals) in order to release the water!

Re:Hydraulic fracturing (0)

flyneye (84093) | about 2 months ago | (#47228539)

Before you spend a bunch of money on it, just remember, piss runs deep. What grade of water, do you expect to find there?

Re:Mars can wait! (1)

The123king (2395060) | about 2 months ago | (#47228489)

Get down, deeper and down? Down down, deeper and down?

Fraking! (4, Funny)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 2 months ago | (#47226823)

This will be a new application for hydraulic fracturing to release the water from the rock.

Re:Fraking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47226845)

You partisan idiot. It would be cheaper to evaporate sea water to make pure water for drinking or irrigation.

Re:Fraking! (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 2 months ago | (#47226863)

It was a joke son.

Re:Fraking! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227003)

Your UID is not low enough to call anyone on this site "son"

Re:Fraking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227067)

What if my son reads /.?

Re:Fraking! (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 2 months ago | (#47227167)

I think the fact that I just celebrated my 62nd birthday qualifies me to call him son, but maybe he's older than me :)

But also I originally created just a "riverat" account that had an upper 5 digit or lower 6 digit UID but I stopped using /. for a few years and meanwhile lost the password and got a different email address and I could never get the admin to release it back to me. So I have this account/UID now.

Re:Fraking! (1)

Sarius64 (880298) | about 2 months ago | (#47227909)

Seriously mate. It's the Internet. Who cares.

Re:Fraking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47228169)

This guy [slashdot.org] , apparently.

Re:Fraking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227761)

I just started using this newfangled thing called the interwebs yesterday you insensitive clod!

Re:Fraking! (1)

Peter Kowalchuk-Reid (3484611) | about 2 months ago | (#47227193)

And there will be millions to be made in using polluted water to push the fracking solution back to the surface!

Is there any info that isn't behind paywalls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47226853)

I tried to look for info regarding this matter but apparently they are all behind paywalls

Is there any info that one can get without having to pay ?

Thank you !

Re:Is there any info that isn't behind paywalls? (5, Informative)

stoborrobots (577882) | about 2 months ago | (#47226997)

This looks like the original press release: http://news.unm.edu/news/new-evidence-for-oceans-of-water-deep-in-the-earth [unm.edu]

Here's an explanation of what's going on. [realclearscience.com]

The paper is already used as a reference on the Wikipedia page for Ringwoodite [wikipedia.org] .

Here are the research pages of the various authors:

Brandon Schmandt [unm.edu] , Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of New Mexico

Steven D. "Steve" Jacobsen [northwestern.edu] , Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northwestern University

Thorsten W. Becker [usc.edu] , Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California

Zhenxian Liu [ciw.edu] , Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington

Kenneth G. "Ken" Dueker [uwyo.edu] , Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wyoming

Yess!!! (1)

no-body (127863) | about 2 months ago | (#47226859)

Another irreplaceable resource to exploit an make a buck!

Re:Yess!!! (2)

BradMajors (995624) | about 2 months ago | (#47226893)

How is water "irreplaceable"?

Re:Yess!!! (2)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 months ago | (#47227033)

How is water "irreplaceable"?

The Earth's mantle is probably not replaceable though...

Re:Yess!!! (0)

no-body (127863) | about 2 months ago | (#47227127)

How is water "irreplaceable"?

Oh yoi... once it's "harvested", sold, processed - how does it get put back and be available again?

Water aquifers, oil, coal, any mining "takings", helium and what else have you.. maybe some recycled to a degree but the original source is gone for good.

Re:Yess!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227199)

"Oh yoi... once it's "harvested", sold, processed - how does it get put back and be available again?"

Urination.

Re:Yess!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227939)

Rain

Re:Yess!!! (0)

Lotana (842533) | about 2 months ago | (#47227517)

Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"

Re:Yess!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227975)

Nice reference!

I always trash the Morganites when playing with Zakarov though....

Water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47226883)

Hydroxide is not water.

Re:Water? (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 2 months ago | (#47226897)

The chemistry is weak in this one... as well as the reading comprehension.

Re:Water? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47226931)

"This water is not in a form familiar to us—it is not liquid, ice or vapor. This fourth form is water trapped inside the molecular structure of the minerals in the mantle rock. The weight of 250 miles of solid rock creates such high pressure, along with temperatures above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, that a water molecule splits to form a hydroxyl radical (OH), which can be bound into a mineral's crystal structure."

Re:Water? (2)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 months ago | (#47227713)

Hydroxide is not water.

It is if it is hydrogen hydroxide.

Ingredients for water? (1)

leandrod (17766) | about 2 months ago | (#47226917)

Does it mean hygrogen & oxigen are separately bound up in rock?

Re:Ingredients for water? (2)

subreality (157447) | about 2 months ago | (#47226973)

By RTFA I discovered that "This water is not in a form familiar to us—it is not liquid, ice or vapor. This fourth form is water trapped inside the molecular structure of the minerals in the mantle rock. The weight of 250 miles of solid rock creates such high pressure, along with temperatures above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, that a water molecule splits to form a hydroxyl radical (OH), which can be bound into a mineral's crystal structure."

Re:Ingredients for water? (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 months ago | (#47227157)

Water.

You all keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

For all of you who think you can drill down and suck some of this out - it's several hundred KILOMETERS (that's a unit of measure, common in the rest of the world - think of it as something like half a mile) down. It's NOT liquid.

You can't have it, no matter how much you want it.

Re:Ingredients for water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227239)

People who make definitive statements don't ever seem to be proven right. Experts on subject matter seem to be more nuanced. Who the f'k are you?

Re:Ingredients for water? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227365)

The deepest hole ever drilled was just over 12 Km deep, which not even close to the thickness of the Earth's crust. This article is talking about water 400 miles deep in the Mantle. There's no equipment that exists that could possibly drill this deep.

Re:Ingredients for water? (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 2 months ago | (#47228201)

There's no equipment that exists yet that could possibly drill this deep.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Ingredients for water? (1)

pahles (701275) | about 2 months ago | (#47228227)

No need for 'yet'. At the moment of writing the equipment did not exist. Period.

Re:Ingredients for water? (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 2 months ago | (#47228511)

If man can dream it, he can achieve it.

If we really wanted to, we'd find a way.

Re:Ingredients for water? (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about 2 months ago | (#47228059)

Carnot, Clausius and Kelvin made pretty definitive statements about heat engines. They don't seem to have ever been proven wrong.

Re: Ingredients for water? (3, Funny)

relisher (2955441) | about 2 months ago | (#47228123)

Oh, well if several hundred kilometers is just half a mile, I'm sure we'll have no difficulty reaching the mantle

Re:Ingredients for water? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 months ago | (#47228165)

" KILOMETERS (that's a unit of measure, common in the rest of the world - think of it as something like half a mile) "

Actually the unit of measure common in the rest of the world Kilometre is more like 6 tenths of a mile.
I tend to think of it as 186/300 (as in thousands of, per second (light speed))

But we don't need to go hundreds of Km down to get enough energy to vapourize (and desalinate) the oceans that are on the surface of the planet.
and provide the rest of our energy needs. There are places where the magma is pretty close to the surface (Iceland, Hawaii, the central part of The North Island, Yellowstone...

Re:Ingredients for water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47228393)

"it's several hundred KILOMETERS (that's a unit of measure, common in the rest of the world - think of it as something like half a mile) "

Srsly, do we have to turn every article these days--including one about a fucking water reservoir--into USA bashing?

Re:Ingredients for water? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#47226979)

Does it mean hygrogen & oxigen are separately bound up in rock?

It's stored in hydrates when underground usually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Ingredients for water? (1)

leandrod (17766) | about 2 months ago | (#47227005)

Thanks for the link. Thus my whining at a patently absurd phrase actually taught me something nice!

Not Sure (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227009)

Mineral hydration? I guess even rocks love Brawndo. It's got electrolytes. That's what rocks crave!

300 miles down... (1)

Streetlight (1102081) | about 2 months ago | (#47226929)

At first I thought this might be impossible to build a well to get at this water as the well pump would require nuclear reactors to power it. Then again it might be hot enough down at these depths to get steam up the well, but what kind of material would line the drill hole to prevent its collapse? This water is not going to solve the need for water in California's Central Valley anytime soon.

Re:300 miles down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47226975)

Wait wait. You're on to something here. If we can find a way to extract water from 300 miles down, we'll raise the sea level. Higher sea level means bye bye California, and the problem is solved permanently! :-D

Re:300 miles down... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47226993)

This water is not going to solve the need for water in California's Central Valley anytime soon.

Can't they just import it from India during the monsoons?

Re:300 miles down... (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 2 months ago | (#47227159)

How far away is the central valley from the ocean?

Just build specially designed pipelines with parabolic reflectors under them to separate out the salt.

Why's everybody got to think harder not smarter.

Re:300 miles down... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 months ago | (#47227723)

Why's everybody got to think harder not smarter.

Because there's more funding available.

Re:300 miles down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47228153)

You underestimate how much water is involved, and what a staggering fuckton of energy it takes to boil water or perform any other form of desalination.

As hard as it might be to believe, there may just be a reason that the first potential solution that popped into your head after 30 seconds has been ignored or rejected by experts.

Oblig XKCD (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 2 months ago | (#47228207)

What! You mean a grumpy slashdotter can't just come up with a remarkably brilliant solution to solve the world's problems in just 30 seconds of thinking?

http://xkcd.com/793/ [xkcd.com]

Seems to me (3, Informative)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47226951)

It's still easier to get fresh water from the atmosphere. Since it falls down freely, we just have to harvest it. I mean, the deepest hole we've dug is what, five miles? Let's just wait for it to seep out, like the methane and oil do. Besides we are only using about one percent of the water we have on or above the surface. The "crisis" is in management, not supply.

Re:Seems to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47226995)

Yep. The joke is that America is the only place in the world where people urinate and defecate into the water. It's not exactly true; but our whole system has been designed to do this.

It's a trade-off. Waste disposal systems that don't use water require waste-hauling. It's hard to haul human waste and keep it clean. It's not for lack of trying. Countries that it aren't "dirty foreigners", they're just regular people with companies that want to make money. Companies cut corners and... shit spills. This happens with our system too. Inadequate and outdated flowing-water disposal systems frequently overflow into San Francisco Bay during Winter rains. It's just that most of us can avoid the bay so it's not right in our noses when something goes wrong.

Anyway, I digress. We use water like it's going out of style because until now it's been cheap. Sewers aren't the only example, just the first that came to mind. Other examples: green lawns in deserts, golf courses (many also in deserts), fountains, evaporative cooling, growing rice (a water loving plant) in California (a water constrained state), or for that matter living in LA where there isn't a lot of water (LA has tried to siphon more water from the north, with as much protest as you'd expect).

So. We'll keep wasting water until it gets expensive. Then we'll start eliminating or substituting things that waste water. This may or may not mean walking to the end of the block and taking a dump in a composting toilet. I think water would have to get very expensive here in the US before that happened.

I got this one guys (0)

Zynder (2773551) | about 2 months ago | (#47227053)

Well AC, I understand the haughty "green" derision that is so fashionable these days, but you have to understand that you most likely wouldn't be here to bitch about all of this "wasted" water if it weren't for the fact we "waste" so much water. Proper water treatment facilities, wastewater management, and just good ol general sanitation are the reason we don't worry about dying of dysentery, cholera, and many other pathogens these days. Third world nations still using old fashioned cesspits do worry about these. Evidently there's even a trend for Crone's sufferers that involve infecting yourself with tapeworms and the pioneer of this method went to Africa to stand around barefoot all day in these public cesspits to get infected. Why? Because America is too clean! So be aware that if we go back to these "greener" methods, you'll need to be sure you're wearing some shit waders cause it'd be a damned shame if you got a tapeworm when you jumped down off your high horse.

Re:I got this one guys (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 2 months ago | (#47228001)

That's all you've got? That it's worse in developing countries, so lay off the US? Wow. How utterly pathetic.

Re:I got this one guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47228453)

All you've got is your pot smoking loser ways dave420

Re:Seems to me (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 2 months ago | (#47227171)

Hey! Don't forget about the positives of our sanitary toilets!

LIke all the money that goes to the medical industry because of all the problems caused by incorrect elimination posture!! And those knees don't magically lose their flexibility on their own! Physiotherapists need love too! Why even the pot and chiropractic industries get to cash in on the resulting back problems after the knees go!

Re:Seems to me (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 months ago | (#47227195)

This is going to shock you. There are places in the US where so much water falls from the sky that getting rid of the surplus is the bigger problem. Seattle for example.

Re:Seems to me (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 months ago | (#47227627)

Agriculture is the biggest user.

Would it be possible to farm under domes? The Millennium Folly can withstand any storm, and is quite big enough to farm under. Mass produce to bring the costs down, seal off the lower edge, and you can reclaim all that water lost to transpiration. Added bonus of protecting the crops from storm damage and pests.

Re:Seems to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227933)

BTW rice doesn't use as much water as you would think. The water used to flood the rice paddies is drained and reused to water other plants. So it's not a huge amount of water that goes to waste.

Old bible scolars (-1)

Technician (215283) | about 2 months ago | (#47226955)

For as much contrivocery as there is in the biblical history, only recently some of the evidence supporting it is starting to show up in science. First the discovery of the "Big Bang" and the Genisis creation story. In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded or something like that.

The entire earth was covered in a flood, poor Noah. Hmm, now we find the flood drained somewhere. Is the Great Flood of Noah fiction? I have my doubts. Some of the stories are beginning to be supported by recent discoveries. How did they possibly get it right so many years ago?

Maybe there is another explination we will find.

Re:Old bible scolars (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 months ago | (#47226967)

I think the "other explanation" is that a story is told, and then people try to fit elements of that story to new discoveries that are made. So the waters of the "Great Flood" vanished? And we discover an ocean's worth of water under North America. How is it obvious that those two are linked? Couldn't it also be true that the stories in the bible are parables meant to teach a lesson and not meant as a literal history lesson?

Re:Old bible scolars (3, Interesting)

Imrik (148191) | about 2 months ago | (#47227749)

To be fair, it's highly likely that the story is based in historical fact to begin with. While the whole world may not have flooded, there was most likely a large enough flood to be worth telling stories about. This would explain why the story of the single family surviving the flood has appeared in several different religions.

Re:Old bible scolars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47226981)

you make me want to kill myself.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227069)

Why in the hell would you do that? Killing yourself doesn't stop this retard from retardedly spewing his retarded beliefs and making other retards believe the same retarded shit. Kill HIM instead, DUH!



Never go full retard!

Re:Old bible scolars (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227027)

What isn't "contrivocerial" is that you are an idiot.

If you had an ounce of critical thinking skills (or had even bothered to read the article), you would realize that hydroxyl radicals pervasively bound up in mineral deposits that are hundreds of millions of years old in no way support the idea of an imaginary flood that allegedly occurred 6000 years ago before being written about by semi-ltierate Bronze Age goat herders.

Go thump your bible elsewhere, and retake 3rd grade spelling while you are at it.

Re:Old bible scolars (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 2 months ago | (#47227679)

There you have it, folks, another tolerant Slashdot mind!

Re:Old bible scolars (5, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 2 months ago | (#47227739)

There you have it, folks, another tolerant Slashdot mind!

You're absolutely right!

People, please, when you're writing in Slashdot, try to make an effort to respect the opinions of retards and trolls.

Re:Old bible scolars (1)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 2 months ago | (#47227875)

I don't actually think this is about tolerance. Sure AC is a rude bastard, but he isn't entirely wrong. It is ... shall we say unwise... to jump upon every minor discovery as supporting a particular world view without considering it carefully first.

Personally, I don't buy a literal interpretation of Genesis, and I have found people who do tend to grasp desperately at anything that seems to support their argument, which often leaves them with egg on the face, as it were. Almost as if they don't really believe, but are trying desperately to convince themselves. It's a position that seems to me to be a bit antithetical to Christianity, and perhaps is ill-advised. I don't doubt that there are literalists who aren't quite like that, but it seems to be a trend of sorts. Perhaps because the television evangelists realised that a good conspiracy sells very well and have been pushing it for years to try and trap people in order to part them with their money.

Re:Old bible scolars (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 2 months ago | (#47227039)

No, first there was everything, then it changed.

Re:Old bible scolars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227055)

I can't tell if you're joking, or insane and trying to fit world events into religious delusions.

Re:Old bible scolars (1)

the_fat_kid (1094399) | about 2 months ago | (#47227121)

I can't tell if you're joking, or insane and trying to fit world events into religious delusions.

either way I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

Re: Old bible scolars (1)

chill (34294) | about 2 months ago | (#47227989)

Those options aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they often go hand in hand.

Re:Old bible scolars (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 2 months ago | (#47227191)

I sure hope you're not a medical technician 'cause I know I wouldn't want mine to get so high.

What's funny is how many people will think you're being serious and you're a crazy bible thumper... except it's clear you haven't read the bible.

What would be really sad is if you were a bible thumper and didn't know anything about your 'holy' book.

Re:Old bible scolars (1)

quantaman (517394) | about 2 months ago | (#47227209)

For as much contrivocery as there is in the biblical history, only recently some of the evidence supporting it is starting to show up in science. First the discovery of the "Big Bang" and the Genisis creation story. In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded or something like that.

The entire earth was covered in a flood, poor Noah. Hmm, now we find the flood drained somewhere. Is the Great Flood of Noah fiction? I have my doubts. Some of the stories are beginning to be supported by recent discoveries. How did they possibly get it right so many years ago?

Maybe there is another explination we will find.

What was in those caverns beforehand? Did God kill the Morlocks after he killed the humans?

Re:Old bible scolars (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 2 months ago | (#47227211)

Actually, science supports the theory of a Great Flood: the end of the last glacial age. Sea levels rose more than a hundred meters, glaciers collapsed, colossal floods submerged plains and coasts. It changed the whole map of the earth. [iceagenow.com]

It didn't all happen at once, of course, but neither was it without punctuation. Bursting glacial dams and mega-tsunamis are sudden and apocalyptic by anyone's standards; combined with the incessant rise of the tides it's easy to see where so many cultures got their legends of civilization-ending floods.

Re:Old bible scolars (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 months ago | (#47227531)

It's said the English channel was cut by an ice dam burst, the rubble found when they dug the channel tunnel pretty much confirms it. However just because science has found evidence of massive floods does not add an ounce of weight to the bibical claims about Noah. It's like claiming the fact rock and roll started in the 50's proves Elvis is an alien. The moral of the Noah story and indeed most biblical stories is that blind obiedience to the dictates of power is a virtue.

Re:Old bible scolars (1)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 2 months ago | (#47227885)

I thought everyone knew about Elvis!

Re:Old bible scolars (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 months ago | (#47227635)

But then where did the water come from? It can't rain upwards!

Interesting implication for Mars (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | about 2 months ago | (#47226989)

Seriously, this could be where a lot of Mar's water went. That is under Martian surface.

Re:Interesting implication for Mars (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227205)

I'm glad you clarified with that second sentence.

Re:Interesting implication for Mars (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 months ago | (#47227561)

We know where the water went on Mars, it was split by UV radiation and the Hydrogen was blown off into space, pretty much the same as what happened on Venus but Mars lacks the gravity to retain a big pile of CO2. The water that was already under the crust has stayed there and will definitely be in liquid form where the ground pressure it just right for that to occur.

Funny definition of ocean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47226999)

So rock contains water? That's not new.

Re:Funny definition of ocean (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 months ago | (#47227757)

So rock contains water?

... and water soaks paper.
Paper disproves Spock
Spock... um...

How does that go again?

Water? (4, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about 2 months ago | (#47227017)

"a hydroxyl radical (OH), which can be bound into a mineral's crystal structure."

Oceans of water? OH, no!

Re:Water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47228355)

But, but...it's more sensationalistic to claim otherwise in a headline! Slashdot knows best to follow all the other totally non-moron blogs!

Noah's Ark Story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227135)

Maybe this explains where God got the extra water to flood the earth. I don't believe that story, but one of the many arguments to refute the Ark story being true is that there wasn't enough water to flood the Earth.

Re:Noah's Ark Story (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | about 2 months ago | (#47227633)

I imagine if anything the Zanclean flood is more likely the root of the Noah story aside from the timeline mismatch.

I'm not saying it was aliens... but it was aliens.

Re:Noah's Ark Story (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 months ago | (#47227647)

It's never been a very good argument, though. The flood was divine intervention. God could just click his fingers and magic the water into existence, and get rid of it in the same manner.

For that matter he could have just clicked his fingers and made everyone drop dead, but God really loves to put on a big flashy show of things.

Noah's Ark Story (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227669)

"but one of the many arguments to refute the Ark story being true is that there wasn't enough water to flood the Earth."

Really? Trying to claim that ommnipotent GOD didn't have enough water to do something? If GOD is so GODLY as religious people say there didn't even have to be flood "for real". God could have just moved everything into new position, altered everyones memories, and there, a big flood just happened without any "real" water at all. When discussing what GOD can or cannot do you might as well be discussing if unicorn can fly or not. It kinda depends how you want to imagine them. Same with GOD. Refuting some bible stories is just bloody stupid, refute Lord of the Rings instead, you'll have more fun, and the opponents don't hopefully actually take it seriously enough to be mental patients if their delusion was anything but GOD.

Re:Noah's Ark Story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47228277)

A pegasus can fly. Unicorns? Not so much.

Re:Noah's Ark Story (0)

docwatson223 (986360) | about 2 months ago | (#47228591)

Versus the religion of science which is a constant series of hypothesis (many unprovable at the macro scale) and demands complete orthodoxy, obeisance, and strict obedience - or face excommunication, expulsion, and ridicule. Over and over again, science has burned it's own at the stake literally and figuratively for challenging the status quo. For all intents and purposes, science is no better than any other religion.

Re:Noah's Ark Story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227931)

We will just have to use the other arguments then.

The story is full of shit.
Plenty of water but not enough god's.
No evidence whatsoever.
The impossibility of feeding the creatures on the ark.
The impossibility of their being a big enough ark.
Why would water kill off creatures that live in water.
Many many more.

How long before a Republican... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47227653)

tries to pollute it? Since their kind hates nature, it won't be long. I know here in CA they constantly fight to increase pollution levels. Several have even been caught trying to sabotage infrastructure like the Bay Bridge. They hate minorities so they tried to destroy the bridge. All they did was waste money in repairs which also makes their kind so happy. They want to keep raising taxes until no one, other than rich old white men, can afford to work.

Re:How long before a Republican... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 months ago | (#47227771)

Wait 'til they find out the ugly truth: rich old white men don't want to work.

Drill baby, drill ! (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 2 months ago | (#47227689)

......can't wait to pollute this, too.

Stephen Baxter (1)

jpkunst (612360) | about 2 months ago | (#47227767)

The plot of the SF novels "Flood" and "Ark" by Stephen Baxter is that huge water reservoirs beneath the earth's crust get released to the surface, which raises the ocean levels until all land is under water.

Gypsum (2)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about 2 months ago | (#47228087)

How is it different than gypsum, CaSO4-2H2O?

Are we lacking water here on the surface? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47228243)

Don't we have enough water here on the surface? Oceans of water? We have 5 of them on the surface, right?
Anyone complaining that there is not enough water in the Pacific Ocean?

Wait, fresh water you mean?
Sorry, I do not know that fresh water exists in the oceans, at least that's not the case on the surface.

Is that the case in the mantle?

Life? (1)

Singularitarian2048 (1068276) | about 2 months ago | (#47228367)

Do you think there's life down there?

Genesis 7:11 (1)

docwatson223 (986360) | about 2 months ago | (#47228525)

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. - KJV

So, the rock breaks up and water flows; a big enough break and it becomes a massive discharge into the atmosphere which then comes back down as one heck of a deluge. Interesting.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>