Do oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?

New Evidence for Oceans of Water Deep in the EarthNew Evidence for Oceans of Water Deep in the Earth - Northwestern Now Hi all,I'm starting to see the argument that this new discovery is "proof" of the biblical flood, creeping into other forums.

quote:

---

Or science could continue to prove creationism like finding under earth oceans. One of the arguments against the great flood has been where did all the water come from and where did it go.

​

Now they have a explanation for that, although that will be ignored or debunked by their logical thinking. If you look for god you will see his hand in every aspect of creation, if you choose to believe that everything is a random chance, well I guess that's easy enough too. People see what they want to see always have always will.

---

For me this more as evidence of how the Earth formed, it's composition and Earth's water cycle. I see no evidence that this water could have magically flooded the planet then receded proving any global flood.
I do see YEC's and their like jumping all over this as "proof" of the flood. In this thread I would like to hear your agruments and see if we can't pull this weed before it takes over the garden. Or do any creationist here feel this is proof of the flood?Edited by Admin, : Fix title.

Thread copied here from the Does oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

In order of increasing number of messages: Beijing Anomaly - 10 messages, including message 3 from TrueCreation (ex-YEC version). Fountains of the deep, new evidence - 16 messages. Where did the water come from and where did it go? - 300 messages.Moose

Short answer: no.Long answer: nooooo.Longer answer: that's not an ocean. There are no oceans in the mantle. There's enough hydroxide ions in the ringwoodite to make an ocean. In much the same way that there's enough carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen in this jar of peanut butter to make a small owl: The evidence that the hydroxide ions ever defied the laws of chemistry and physics by getting out of the ringwoodite, and indeed the mantle, in order to make actual water and collaborate in an act of genocide, and then went back and hid in the mantle again for no apparent reason, is as follows:

No, water in the mantle does not prove the flood.What is required to prove the flood is evidence of a massive flood during historic times, i.e., in the past 10,000 years or so. That is lacking.What we have instead is evidence of continuity during that time period:
--Continuity of human cultures in all parts of the world
--Continuity of human DNA in all parts of the world, with no break followed by replacement with one narrow DNA strain from the Middle East
--Continuity of stratigraphy, with no evidence of massive flood or erosional deposits
--Continuity of fauna and flora, with no evidence of massive bottlenecks within the last 10,000 or so years.Just one little piece of evidence from my field (archaeology): A skeleton was found in southern Alaska which dated to 10,300 years. It had a rare mtDNA haplotype, but that same haplotype was found in about 46 living individuals stretching down the coasts of North and South America. This shows that there has been no flood since 10,300 years ago which wiped out all worldwide populations.But wait, there's more! In the past few months information from a Clovis age skeleton has been released--it dated about 12,600 years old, and had the same rare mtDNA haplotype! Again, no evidence of the massive die-off which must have accompanied the purported flood, but rather a continuity throughout the historic period.(We'll leave for another time the DNA being sequenced from Neanderthal fossils in Europe and Asia. It shows continuity back some 50,000 years.)Because of this, and much more evidence of a similar general nature, creationists have had to push the date of their purported flood back to the K-T boundary about 65 million years ago, or even more extreme, to the P-T boundary, some 262 million years ago. This ignores the fact that modern humans are only some 200 thousand years old. But hey! When you're searching around for evidence of a global flood, what are a few mangled facts here and there?So, the answer is no. To have evidence for a global flood during historic times you must go far beyond just a source of water. You need to have real-world evidence for a global flood! And that is the one thing that they don't have. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Thanks for the links.
What's your take on the subject?

Follow-up question. Scientists have proved that the outer core of the Earth is made of molten iron. Does this prove that there was once a global flood of molten iron, or would we need some actual evidence?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So.. are you saying that there is no way this water is going to make to the surface? I was under the impression this water is cycled via tectonic activity. Edited by Porosity, : no

quote:

---

Because of this, and much more evidence of a similar general nature, creationists have had to push the date of their purported flood back to the K-T boundary about 65 million years ago, or even more extreme, to the P-T boundary, some 262 million years ago. This ignores the fact that modern humans are only some 200 thousand years old. But hey! When you're searching around for evidence of a global flood, what are a few mangled facts here and there?

---

I have never seen any creo's pushing the flood back millions of years, but I don't doubt your word.
I know for sure in the forums I normally haunt they now have their gods existing outside our universe in some imaginary infinite time.There is not much in any "mangled facts" that I have come across, just more of the same circular arguments involving the bible and willful ignorance. But of course they are already starting to mangle and misinterpret this finding. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Yes, steam is the commonest volcanic gas. I think if you had that many volcanoes doing that much outgassing of that much steam, though, Noah would have more to worry about than a mere global flood.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That should have been a reply to Coyote, not me.

Yep..still learning these forums. I don't know how to fix it..sorry

We have had posters on these very forums advocating both the K-T and the P-T boundaries as the location of the global flood. That would not be a problem.What we most often see instead is attempts to shoehorn religious beliefs into scientific terms, while ignoring both the methods and findings of science. This, of course, doesn't work in the real world. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Even if it could, you'd still need evidence that it did. A pond in my back yard isn't evidence of a pond in my living room. You'd need some trace of it wandering into the house and then wandering back outside.

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.