• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

The Beijing Anomaly

Chattiestspike2

New Member
arg-fallbackName="Chattiestspike2"/>
Many creationist who subscribe to the hydroplate idea, which claims that there were subterranean water pockets under the crust, claim that there are STILL subterranean water pockets under the crust that each arrived there before, or as a result FROM, the mythical global flood. One of them, which they point to, is the Beijing Anomaly, which in short, is estimated to be the same volume of water from the Arctic ocean, which rests underneat china.

This has been determined by seismic waves having a decreased speed from about 700 kilometers to about 1400 kilometers in depth below Northern China, Northwest of Beijing.

This conclusion was drawn because seismic waves travel at different speeds depending on the composition of the material it is travelling through. For instance, If it is travelling through solid crust, the waves will travel quicker than when they travel through the mantle. In this particular area, the Beijing anomoly, seismic waves travel slower than one would expect. The conclusion drawn from this is that there is, well, water down there.

So naturally the creationist will jump for joy and celebrate because they think science has just bailed out one of their claims. They look at science as a good thing because they think they found evidence for the hydroplate theory. But is that the case?

The short answer is no. The long answer is the following:

Creationists who use this as an argument tend to think that the water under Beijing is some sort of huge lake. As if an underground cavern full of water, as if there is a huge chunk of land which is litterally resting on top of a large area of water.. which of course would be the implication, if the hydroplate theory would be a viable explanation.

Unfortunately for them, it is NOT a lake under china. The water within this Beijing anomoly is estimated, based on the seismic waves, to be no more than .1% water by volume. That means, for the lack of a more precise example, for every 1 kilogram of dirt you have in a jar, you have 1 milliliter of water mixed in. Needless to say, this is not the kind of subterranean water that the hydroplate idea would require.

So that leaves us with one more question: How did the water get there? The leading explanation is that the water has been slowly dragged down as the pacific plate subducts under the asian plate. It brings a little bit of water with it as it pulls. The same sort of thing happens in other subduction zones as well, but it is more prominent and noticable in Beijing.


It isn't an underground lake, nor is it an underground ocean. It's also not a subterranean water "chamber" and finally, this is NOT evidence for any kind of global flood caused by some sort of hydroplate movement.



Fun Fact :D
 
arg-fallbackName="lrkun"/>
Chattiestspike2 said:
Many creationist who subscribe to the hydroplate idea, which claims that there were subterranean water pockets under the crust, claim that there are STILL subterranean water pockets under the crust that each arrived there before, or as a result FROM, the mythical global flood. One of them, which they point to, is the Beijing Anomaly, which in short, is estimated to be the same volume of water from the Arctic ocean, which rests underneat china.

This has been determined by seismic waves having a decreased speed from about 700 kilometers to about 1400 kilometers in depth below Northern China, Northwest of Beijing.

This conclusion was drawn because seismic waves travel at different speeds depending on the composition of the material it is travelling through. For instance, If it is travelling through solid crust, the waves will travel quicker than when they travel through the mantle. In this particular area, the Beijing anomoly, seismic waves travel slower than one would expect. The conclusion drawn from this is that there is, well, water down there.

So naturally the creationist will jump for joy and celebrate because they think science has just bailed out one of their claims. They look at science as a good thing because they think they found evidence for the hydroplate theory. But is that the case?

The short answer is no. The long answer is the following:

Creationists who use this as an argument tend to think that the water under Beijing is some sort of huge lake. As if an underground cavern full of water, as if there is a huge chunk of land which is litterally resting on top of a large area of water.. which of course would be the implication, if the hydroplate theory would be a viable explanation.

Unfortunately for them, it is NOT a lake under china. The water within this Beijing anomoly is estimated, based on the seismic waves, to be no more than .1% water by volume. That means, for the lack of a more precise example, for every 1 kilogram of dirt you have in a jar, you have 1 milliliter of water mixed in. Needless to say, this is not the kind of subterranean water that the hydroplate idea would require.

So that leaves us with one more question: How did the water get there? The leading explanation is that the water has been slowly dragged down as the pacific plate subducts under the asian plate. It brings a little bit of water with it as it pulls. The same sort of thing happens in other subduction zones as well, but it is more prominent and noticable in Beijing.


It isn't an underground lake, nor is it an underground ocean. It's also not a subterranean water "chamber" and finally, this is NOT evidence for any kind of global flood caused by some sort of hydroplate movement.



Fun Fact :D

Event - The pacific plate subducts under the asian plate.
Result - The event causes the water to be dragged down.

Good article. Please cite your sources so it may help your fellow freethinkers.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 499"/>
It's not necessarily only for hydroplate either, another argument they put out is based on just a generalised notion of accelerated tectonic processes (as far as I know, although I may be wrong, hydroplate rejects the concept of subduction anyway so not sure what they're celebrating about) based on nothing more than "the slabs can't have been at that depth for very long (unspecified how long they could have been there) so it must have happened very quickly". Conveniently this completely ignores the phase transitions of minerals within the slab as it sinks.

There's also a misconception about the water being "dragged down". It's often interpreted as seawater being dragged along on the surface of the slab, it isn't (not at depth anyway). The water comes from the dehydration of hydrous minerals at varying depths. I realise people may already know that but this sentence
The leading explanation is that the water has been slowly dragged down as the pacific plate subducts under the asian plate. It brings a little bit of water with it as it pulls.
didn't really make it clear.

On a more scientific note, if they've managed to image a slab post ~660 Km discontinuity then I guess it's +1 for the slab graveyard hypothesis.

The paper and some other links are here:
http://epsc.wustl.edu/seismology/michael/web/LawrenceandWysession_AGU_2006.pdf
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/may252007/1340.pdf
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070228_beijing_anomoly.html
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/8222.aspx
 
arg-fallbackName="Chattiestspike2"/>
Actually that does make sense. Thank you for posting those sources. Now I have clearer understanding of how exactly the water was "dragged" down. Technically, the water is dragged down, but it is more like the water is absorbed in the minerals that make up the oceanic crust that subducts under the continental crust. Perhaps how I worded it wasn't completely accurate.

And it helps the hydroplate theory because so many of its proponents say that there was water under the crust. This makes it seem like some of the water is still under the crust. Creation "Scientist" Emil Silvetru claims that this water somehow GOT there because of the flood. Not sure how he manages that logic but then again, like many creationists, he just slips it by as if to be unnoticed.

Thanks again for sharing those sources. It grew my understanding. However, what did you mean by "I guess it's +1 for the slab graveyard hypothesis?" That part confused me.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 499"/>
Chattiestspike2 said:
Creation "Scientist" Emil Silvetru claims that this water somehow GOT there because of the flood. Not sure how he manages that logic but then again, like many creationists, he just slips it by as if to be unnoticed.

I guess he assumes his lack of understanding of modern geology means it's wrong, so he thinks he can bastardise it without people noticing.
Chattiestspike2 said:
However, what did you mean by "I guess it's +1 for the slab graveyard hypothesis?" That part confused me

Sorry, that part was actually unrelated to the topic in hand, it was more my own musing. It was in regards to the issue that nobody really understands the ultimate fate of subduction slabs. There are two main hypotheses (to my current knowledge). The first is that they get trapped at the 660 Km discontinuity (at 440 Km the pressure is enough to convert olivine into spinel which assists in the sinking of the slab but the 660 Km phase change from spinel to perovskite inhibits it to the point where it may stop). The second is the "slab graveyard" which essentially says that the slab ultimately sinks all the way to the core mantle boundary. I was suggesting that evidence for slab derived water at 700-1400 Km makes the latter scenario more likely as it shows slabs descending below 660 Km.
 
arg-fallbackName="ThetaOmega"/>
I was actually astounded when I watched your video Spike that someone other than Nephilimfree was using that argument, although they didn't go as far as he did (caliming that the "core" had been removed from the diagram because it was made of water and thus The Conspiracy had to hush it up.) After getting a google search term out of him, found the article and realised that the diagram only displayed a depth of 600 miles, and it only looked roughly like the mantle with the core missing. Unfortunately Nephilimfree's wonderful research skills didn't pick this up, he never responded to my video showing what the article actually said...
 
Back
Top