Do oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?

And still yet, you need to prove the ringwoodite stored 400 miles below the Earth’s surface (that is not liquid, ice or vapor)- split from hydroxyl radical, bound into a mineral crystal, made it to the surface in liquid form. And then went back to a mineral crystal structure through 400 miles of solid rock!Anyhow...where are all the creationist and IDer's..what say you guys?

With this sort of logic.... I believe so.

Seems to me it would be *nice* of the evos here at least to acknowledge that the way the information has been presented it certainly does logically support the Flood claims. We are always being challenged about where all that water could have gone when the Flood drained away, and now we're being told that there are "oceans" of water locked in these deep rocks. What else are we going to do but think Wow, there it is, all that water you said had no place to go. Again the information is presented in terms of actual water, you know, the liquid stuff. Why use such terminology that implies the liquid form if there is no way it ever was actually water, -- oceans of water yet -- or ever could be again? We're certainly aware that there are hydrogen and oxygen atoms galore throughout the physical universe in myriads of combinations, including peanut butter and small owls, but in this case these atoms somehow constitute "oceans" of water -- according to the reports, not according to creationists.Is there anybody here who really understands the science involved in all this or is everybody blowing hot air?Or, another question, is there anybody here who has the grace to acknowledge that there IS evidence for the Flood in such a fact, just as there is in the fact of the strata and the fossil record? Not PROOF -- no, we can't say that "oceans of water in mantle rock PROVES the Flood," as the title of this thread asks -- but it's certainly consistent with the idea of the Flood, just as the strata and the fossils are. Fairness should acknowledge this instead of always endlessly just trotting out all the INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence that support evoism, including of course your assumptions about dates.ABE: Yes, the mere FACTS of the Geologic Column and the bazillions of fossils ARE evidence for the Flood, not proof, but evidence, facts that are consistent with the Flood claims. And yes, in fairness this much should be acknowledged. Along with the "oceans of water" recognized as locked up in those deep rocks. {OK - A little on-topic, but a lot of off-topic - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Faith, : punctuation correctionEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner and comment.

If any of that were even close to being true you might have a point but there is no evidence in support of the Biblical Floods in the strata or fossil record either. 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.

Hi Faith,
Good to hear from you, I have read your posts throughout these forums and although I don't understand what the hell your talking about half the time, I do admire your perseverance in the face of such logic and reason. No, I can't... There's nothing in the data that logically supports any flood, none that I can see. If I'm wrong could you show me? Not true, the article clearly states:

quote:

---

This water is not in a form familiar to us -- it is not liquid, ice or vapor. This fourth form is water trapped inside the molecular structure of the minerals in the mantle rock. The weight of 250 miles of solid rock creates such high pressure, along with temperatures above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, that a water molecule splits to form a hydroxyl radical (OH), which can be bound into a mineral’s crystal structure.

---

Fragments of the blue-colored mineral called ringwoodite, synthesized in the laboratory.As for myself I understand much of it, I am no expert, but I'm certainly not going to try and spin the science to make it fit some preconceived idea, if that's what you mean.Edited by Porosity, : No reason given.Edited by Porosity, : No reason given.

You have a strange idea of what constitutes evidence.Imagine someone comes up to you and tells you that Mickey Mouse has bludgeoned President Obama to death with the Koh-i-Noor. You are naturally skeptical, since as far as you know Mickey Mouse is fictional and the President is still alive. You ask for evidence, and the loony says: "Evidence? Certainly: the Koh-i-Noor exists.""That would be the Koh-i-Noor", you ask "that is kept in the Tower of London in a multi-million dollar vault with a multi-million dollar security system and a round-the-clock armed guard? The same Koh-i-Noor that's impossible to steal and has not, in point of fact, been reported missing?""Yes", says the loony, "but it exists. That's evidence."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Per Dr A message at "Whine List", off-topic banner removed.

Gosh it's such a simple obvious point you'd think even the ingenuity of the evos here couldn't manage to mangle it but of course I always underestimate the ingenuity of the evos here......I was going to go on and explain it, but realized the effort would be futile. You'll either acknowledge it or you'll mangle it and I know which you'll choose.Cheers. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Well, the part that most needs explaining is why they call it water at all, and why they use the term "oceans," which sure does imply, you know, water, the wet stuff, in great quantities. And again, if it never was and never will be actual liquid water what on earth is the point of using such terms or of making any kind of big deal about it at all?"Data that supports the flood." Oh yawn, this gets tedious. Bazillions of fossils are, ya know, VERY consistent with the idea of a worldwide Flood that killed, ya know, bazillions of living things [abe: And buried them en masse under conditions ideal for fossilization too, wetness and pressure. /abe]. Yeah you can interpret them in a different way but just on the face of it they are fantasic evidence for such an event. Yawn, sigh. And the strata themselves, those different kinds of sediments laid down one on top of another, are awfully like something that water does with sediments, ya know, yawn, sigh. And the idea of "oceans" of water in any form at all sure does suggest,-- suggest mind you, only "suggest" -- oceans of water that once were. Sigh. Yawn. Hiccup.ABE: Oh, and the mineralized form of the water is described as the result of actual real water being acted upon by heat and pressure, which does, groan, sigh, yawn, strongly suggest that it WAS once water. Hiccup. {A trace of on-topic mixed in there. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner and comment.

Yes, some form of bazillions of fossils would be consistent with a worldwide, recent flood but not this set of bazillions of fossils that we actually see. That set of fossils and the pattern they present is not in any way consistent with your story. Again, water does lay down sediments as we see them but a single flood does not present a pattern like we see.So sediments and fossils can indeed be evidence for your flood but not the real sediments and fossils that are actually there. It would have to be different sediments and fossils. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Such PRESCIENCE, to KNOW exactly what set of fossils would be consistent with the worldwide Flood and what wouldn't, without having seen it, and strata too. The fossils are in fact just what should have existed pre-Flood, most being now-unknown/nonexistent variations on known Species. Perfect. The pattern of the strata certainly is not inconsistent with the Flood, or in other words there isn't much of a pattern there anyway, and the pattern of the fossils isn't either except in the minds of evos who can't pry it loose from their theory long enough to appreciate other ways of looking at it.But at least I should thank you for acknowledging the basic concept. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : 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.

Uhm..You do know there is no evidence anywhere that supports a global flood?
How do you explain away the arctic ice core samples, stretching back 10's of thousands of years, showing a pattern of ice/snow cover before and after the alleged flood?
In fact there is no evidence of a global flood in any ice core samples anywhere on the planet!
Even the Polar ice caps where some of these core samples are from would have been lifted and destroyed by such a flood and the samples would not even exist. GISP2 ice core at 1837 meters depth with clearly visible annual layers.
Ice core - Wikipedia Edited by Porosity, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Yeah. This, for example, is clearly some kind of cow: This, obviously, is a tortoise: Some sort of porcupine, to judge by the spikes: A perfectly ordinary raccoon: And a kitty! Edited by Adminnemooseus, : BIG off-topic banner.

LOL! Can I play!Finches!Edited by Adminnemooseus, : BIG off-topic banner.