Neither answered the question before and they don't answer it now either. In 35 you are emphasizing the fact that the water is not in water form, and yet my sources recently quoted do suggest that it does have or can revert to a watery form under certain circumstances. I get your point about the pressure too but what about the situation where there is space for the water to flow into at that depth? What happens to the water then?
You mean, if there was a 400 mile deep hole in the ground? Then if you threw water down it, it would boil on the way down and come back up as steam. Also I suspect the hole would immediately turn into a volcano or otherwise close itself up. (What would happen if there was a mile deep hole in the sea?)
It's hard to do things against pressure. The tires of your car, for example, have a pressure of about 250 KPa, two and a half times atmospheric pressure. So you can't just open the valve of the tire and wait for air from outside to flow in, because it won't. That's thermodynamics for you. Instead, you need a machine that pumps air in by artificially creating a higher pressure outside than inside. The machine needs a power source. This is not the sort of thing that happens by itself.
To form ringwoodite from olivine DOES REQUIRE WATER, does it not? I mean it is formed FROM water. So there had to be that much water available to form that much ringwoodite from the olivine. The question is how it came to be that there was that much water at that depth?
Well, a creationist answer might be that God magicked it there when he magicked the rest of the Earth into being.
For a non-creationist answer, see post #41. The Earth, astronomers say, accreted. We know that there's plenty of ice in the solar system, e.g. comets. So chunks of ice would have got squidged into the mix.
I object to your characterization of creationist explanations as "magicking" anything, which is something you love to do. I think you should get a moderator's slap on the wrist -- or better across the jowls -- for that. In discussing the mechanisms of the Flood there is never any reason to invoke anything supernatural or miraculous and I never do.
I was describing the origin of the Earth. If you will agree with me that the Earth formed naturally by accretion, I shall be delighted. Then I'll see if I can interest you in a naturalistic account of the origin of species.
Whatever is whizzing around the Solar System could just as well have been the product of the Flood as whatever happened on earth.
And then it leaped off the Earth, achieving escape velocity, and then turned on its rockets to maneuver itself into completely different orbits from Earth.
But you never invoke anything supernatural or miraculous.
In any case, I have now provided you with two explanations of how the hydroxide got in the ringwoodite --- a dumb creationist one, and a non-dumb non-creationist one. There you go.
So when the Flood was busy fooling paleontologists by stacking the fauna to make the fossil record reflect the theory of evolution, and while it was fiddling with the radiometric dates to make the Earth look old and fool the geologists, some part of "the Flood event", but not the Flood itself, was doing stuff in space to deceive astronomers? Something that the Bible doesn't mention, but which you can daydream about in terms so vague that it's impossible to form a mental picture of what you can possibly be thinking of?
This rapid cooling of the surface of the core would result in rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field.
These magnetic reversals would have been expressed at the earth’s surface and been recorded in the zebra-shaped magnetic stripes in the new ocean-floor rocks. This magnetization would have been erratic and locally patchy, laterally as well as at depth, unlike the pattern expected in the slow-and-gradual version. It was predicted that similar records of “astonishingly rapid” magnetic reversals ought to be present in thin continental lava flows, and such astonishingly rapid reversals in continental lava flows were subsequently found.
Now this is just equivocation. What they need is short --- incredibly short --- intervals between the reversals. What they have is a couple of (real) scientists saying that the reversals themselves are quick.
It's like someone trying to compress American history into a few weeks by saying, yes, we've had 44 Presidents, but the process (inauguration) where we change from one President to another only takes a few hours. And -then they say, "See, our American-history-only-takes-a-few-weeks model predicts that inaugurations should be quick. Behold the awesome predictive power of our theory!"