Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)

To be perfectly fair to Wumpini and ICANT, the opening post, which is what sets the thread and determines "on-topic" or off, was only stating that there is not enough water to flood the Earth to the extent mentioned in the Bible. All the other arguments about the impossibility of the flood, are therefore, off topic.Wumpini then, in a great post, referenced a number of scientific journals that seem to confirm the fact that there is more water than Rhavin took into account. Again, the availability of the water was not mentioned in the OP. In fact, the OP specifically took unavailable water and used that as a strength of the argument.I don't agree with Wumpini that there is evidence for the flood, but I do think he has quite admirably taken on the OP and argued that i is false. If you disagree with that argument, argue it on its own merits. If you want to start a Flood apologetics thread, feel free to do one. That was quite specifically NOT the point of this thread, as stated in the OP.

I agree that the water found in the mantle is not available. But neither is all the water in the atmosphere and the ice caps. Rhavin was willing to count water that was unavailable in his OP, then people jump on Wumpini for doing the same thing. It seems obvious to me that the argument Rhavin was trying to make was that even if we took all the unavailable water in the Earth, there still isn't enough. That argument is what Wumpini was arguing, and that argument is what should be defended. If we agree that Wumpini has found water, and that the volume is enough, then we can move to another thread and argue its availability.

That may be true. And I think it is an obvious argument to make that the water could not have contributed to the flood. I just think that argument would require a different thread since the OP was specifically about the sheer volume of water, regardless of its availability.

To be clear, I'm not supporting Wumpini's assertion, I'm merely pointing out that he has provided what he feels is evidence. If you want to argue his point, argue the evidence. I have not read the links Wumpini provided, but it does seem that the articles say water. If scientists are comfortable saying water, then I'm comfortable saying water. I would suggest reading the articles linked (if you haven't already) and then argue the articles on their merits. They seem to be the basis for Wumpini's argument.