Do oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?

I somehow missed reviewing 30(!) messages.Closing in 10 minutes.Adminnemooseus

I off-topic bannered more messages of the message 31-60 page (page 2 for my set up).I was finding that quite a few messages there were really getting into the on-topic/off-topic fuzzy zone.I will make further comment in a separate message, probable from the Minnemooseus mode.Adminnemooseus

As I see it, "where the water came from" is an essential of this topics theme. The question is, IF the world was flooded per the Biblical description (apparently covering the highest mountain), might the Earths mantle have been the major water source?That breaks down into two parts:1) Is the water there? Yes, mostly in the form of OH in a minerals structure (which brings up the additional side question, where is that extra H?).2) Is there a natural way to get that water to the surface, especially in "The Flood" time-frame? No. I would say that such would require a major miracle. As such, the mantle would be "a miraculous source".If it is not to be said "miraculous source", then Faith needs to come up with a non-miraculous mechanism.Moose

But I've said I'm not interested in getting the water to the surface since I have adequate explanations for how that could have happened in the Flood without the ringwoodite, I'm interested in whether the water held in the ringwoodite represents "where the water went" after the Flood. And to be clear, I'm also not terribly interested in this question either, since I think creationists have had sufficient answers to this one too, I'm simply pursuing it as an interesting alternative explanation.And to this point the clearest answer I've received is Dr. A's flat "No" which he doesn't bother to explain.One creationist explanation is that the sea floor dropped during the Flood, perhaps because of the emptying of the "fountains of the deep" which were part of its inauguration, which would have to be quite a drop to accommodate all the Flood water. Doesn't take us to the depth of the ringwoodite, though, but that's under the continent anyway isn't it?To me it's still an interesting question what was the source of these "oceans" of water, also called a "reservoir" which you must admit is pretty watery terminology despite this water's being locked into this mineral called ringwoodite. The formation of olivine I get, but when "water" is added to it under great heat and pressure to create ringwoodite I have to picture, in fact, water, the wet stuff, H20 you know, and the fact that there had to be "oceans" of it to combine with the olivine to produce this mineral in the quantities described just raises all kinds of natural questions for a creationist, which I would think a fair evo might just gracefully recognize for a change.And my answer to Tangle's off-topic question is the same one I already gave for the reason I already gave: No.ABE: OH, AND THANK YOU FOR POLICING THIS THREAD. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : change "course" to "source"

Due to the water content of the ringwoodite. Suggests an actual liquid wateriness. Suggests an actual liquid wateriness that can occur. Uh huh, well "No" is nice and clear as far as it goes, but I wonder if you might be so kind as to explain how you arrived at this conclusion that it could not ever have been actual water that combined with the olivine under such enormous heat and pressure to make the ringwoodite in the quantities now found, which seems to retain some ability to become liquiddy under some circumstances, which implies that it is indeed a sort of watery thing that had a watery source and if there is oceans' worth of this watery stuff it just still remains a question how all that water got there in the first place.

See posts #35 and #39, especially the latter.

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?ABE: Say the dropping of the sea floor. It wouldn't create space of course, the water would just drop with it.ABE: HERE"S ANOTHER STAB AT THE QUESTION I KEEP TRYING TO GET ASKED: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? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

Sorry, I added a couple of edits apparently after you copied out the post. Please see if they change anything in your answer. Thanks.

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.As for your supposed answer, post 41 is just some kind of joke so I didn't pay much attention to it. However, apparently you meant this much seriously: Whatever is whizzing around the Solar System could just as well have been the product of the Flood as whatever happened on earth. Ice would have been formed on the earth after the Flood, not before.ABE: Perhaps it would be clearer to say it was the product of the whole scenario of which the Flood was the major event on Earth.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

If Moose will give you a punch in the chops for that I'll gladly take one for responding to it.It's not off topic, it's just false, devious and mean.As for where rain comes from, why don't all you know-it-alls at least acknowledge the one basic fact of the creationist position which is that THINGS WERE DIFFERENT BACK THEN. The Biblical position is that there had been no rain at all prior to that forty days and forty nights, that the water was suspended in the "firmament" overhead and the earth was watered by a "mist." Rain as we know it was only possible after the Flood when the familiar cycles were established.

Will you never learn that making stuff up never works for you? The mantle material flows because rock is "plastic" (in the sense of "deformable without breaking") under the high pressure and temperature in the mantle. The ringwoodite and any of its content has nothing to do with it. No it doesn't. That's crazy even for you. From Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Solubility is the property of a solid, liquid, or gaseous chemical substance called solute to dissolve in a solid, liquid, or gaseous solvent to form a homogeneous solution of the solute in the solvent. ...

​

Solubility is not to be confused with the ability to dissolve or liquefy a substance, because the solution might occur not only because of dissolution but also because of a chemical reaction.

---

Even most YECs gave up on that one long ago. It just can't work. No matter where you put the water up above or in the atmosphere, getting it to the ground al liquid water involves releasing so much heat that the only survivors would be a few thermophilic bacteria.