Do oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?

Yes, but many of those posters still insist that means only a few thousand years ago.Most creos are not looking for proof because they already believe. Instead they are latching onto anything that might indicate that they aren't idiots. If there were an ocean of liquid water underground, would that really prove the flood happened? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

You think you have evidence because you are clueless about what evidence is. Assuming momentarily that the facts in question are consistent with the Flood as you say, those facts would not evidence unless they are consistent with the flood and inconsistent with their not being a flood. And you've never come close to establishing anything like that.The earth existing is complete consistent with the Flood and with there not being a Flood. So that is not evidence for either proposition.And of course, as has been demonstrated many times here, the geological column is actually completely incompatible with the Biblical account, as are the existence of the Egyptian pyramids, the genetic makeup of the human race and nearly every other animal on this planet, the 30,000 year old cave paintings in France and Spain, and dozens of other facts, some of which you acknowledge not having an answer. No, Faith. Evidence does not include 'facts I can weave into a tale consistent with the Bible'. It means facts that would likely not be facts if the Flood actually had occurred.Thanks for showing more of the 'indomitable will'. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

I suppose that "oceans" could only mean "water, the wet stuff" to a Bible literalist.

quote:

---

To be, or not to be, that is the question
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?

---

A Sea??That's right, troubles are the wet stuff. Hamlet is talking about picking up a spear and fighting the ocean.

At some point in the discussion, it is always possible to invoke supernatural power. In fact, if the fountains of the deep opened right on time, and if the water did drain away into the deep at some point, then surely the totality of action was not natural.In any event, there appears to be more than enough "instant water" down there to make a global flood. I don't see anything gained by denying that.

Have you forgotten that you don't know any physics? Well, no. Unless you want to designate all of God's actions as natural, there is no such implication in the Biblical text that things just followed the rules of nature.God announces that he is going to destroy most of the living beings on earth with a Flood, and then you assume that he did absolutely nothing and the Flood just happened naturally.There is nothing in the Biblical account that is inconsistent with God taking supernatural action, and every implication that things happened under God's direction and timing. That's particularly true about the timing and events causing the Flood.

Your quote does not say how God does any of those things. Surely you saw that lack before you posted it, so I'm wondering why you bothered.Further you say this: "God makes everything happen, but He normally doesn't use miraculous means."I take this to mean that you understand there are exceptions to the non miraculous means rule in the Bible.

You can object all you want. There is nothing off topic or inappropriate about doing so.And speaking of unscientific stupidity, I hope you'll think through your new thread proposal a bit before it gets promoted. Do you know where rain water comes from?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Because the position is stupid? There was never water suspended in a canopy over the earth.