Do oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?

Read the two references I gave.

Who gives a damn what you think YECs should think. I don't.

Continuing to repeat falsehoods does not make them true. The creationist position that things were different back then has been totally refuted for at least the last 150 years and ALL of the evidence agrees.There was no Biblical Flood and it has been raining on Earth for billions of years.Spouting utter nonsense that creationists believe is not evidence.

there were no references in the message to which I replied. If you have relevant references in another message, point to it or trot 'em out again so I can point out how irrelevant they are.No matter how many references you give, mantle material is plastic and flows because of heat and pressure, and solubility does not imply liquidity.Edited by JonF, : fix material in qs tags

It has to be one of the major miracles described in the bible, probably only second to the creation of the universe. Or was that also not a miracle? And if not who needs God - it appears that the natural world can do it all itself - are you now proposing pantheism, that nature and god are the same thing and knows what needs doing, when and how to do it?

Went right over your head, huh? It's not I think what YECs should think, it's what the majority of YECs do think, especially all of them who have a smidgen of a clue about the properties of water.We know a lot about the properties of water (hint: Age of Steam) and we know that bringing any appreciable amount of water from the atmosphere or above to the Earth's surface as liquid would release enough heat to boil the oceans and cook everything with thousand-degree temperatures.Some YEC debunkings of this silly idea can be found at In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Arguments for a Canopy—and Brief Responses, The Collapse of the Canopy Model | Answers in Genesis , Explaining the Flood without the Canopy | Creation Today, http://godandscience.org/youngearth/canopy.html, and Canopy theory - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science.But we all realize that reality is of no concern to you.

So things were different. They were so different that they were contrary to the laws of physics.But there wasn't any magicking.[/sarcasm]

Based on my understanding, the Flood had two sources from which the water appeared: the rain and the Fountains of the Deep.1. Pertaining to the rainRain is the product of evaporation and condensation of existing water sources. i.e. while rain itself can cause localized flooding in one area, by the law of conservation of mass, another area would have had to give up 'X' amount of water to service that rain. Most of our rain has its origins in sea and ocean water evaporating and then condensing over land. Faith has indicated that the rain source in her scenario is the 'firmament'. However, there is an underlying problem here: a firmament of water encircling the Earth would have blocked out the vast majority of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth, since photons can only penetrate so far into water. One only needs to go diving to moderate depths to realize this. Thus, the nature and function of the firmament and its permeability to photons is a violation of our known laws of physics.2. Pertaining to the Fountains of the DeepSince we don't actually know what these are, let me make some assumptions: they exist underground. There are several problems with this scenario, so let's go through them:
Based on water levels needed, the volume of water required in addition to current ocean levels is massive. I have not done the math, but one can speculate that it was a lot. But to the main point, if the water was occupying 'X' space beneath the surface of the Earth, if that water then moved to the surface, the area that it was filling would then collapse. This is how sinkholes are formed. This would have far reaching ramifications on the topography of the Earth as its land mass would be devastated by this effect.
Additionally, and more importantly, the water itself can only move based on pressure differences. For the scenario that Faith is describing to work, there had to have been some 'force' keeping that original water at bay prior to the Flood. This force (call it a plug if you will) was then released to allow the water to flow. If Faith can describe this force as some natural phenomenon, I would be interested in hearing about that.
But there is one final point. The Earth is now flooded completely. Now, evaporation will cause some of the water to exist in a newly formed cloud barrier. However, the water which was sourced from the Fountains of the Deep has no way of returning to its origin since whatever 'force' was required to keep it at bay would now have to be invoked. And its not a simple plug anymore. It requires a pumping action of some kind. Once again, this is not a 'natural' occurrence.And we don't even have to get into the whole argument about how the plants survived.

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. 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.

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

The answer to your question is the water did not go anywhere, the reason for this is cause it did exist on the surface, it was trapped in molecular form under immense pressure as the planet cooled.The ringwoodite likely came from the interior of the Earth, within our planet’s mantle contained in its molecular state, rather than some other source, like comets or magic rain. It's possible water could have been released from its molecular state into a liquid state due to the saturated rocks being partially melted through the action of plate tectonics as the Earth cools.
These new findings could mean this might be the evidence that Earth’s water came from these underground reserves. Not the other way round.

Unfortunately I just can't understand what you are trying to say in that post. Can you make it easier to understand?Edited by Faith, : Basically rewrote it. First version sounded confrontational which I didn't intend.

I believe I had added an edit that should have made your silly response look as silly as it is. The edit said something about how it was all part of the Flood event, hoping to correct the impression that I meant the Flood itself.I hope this clarifies things.

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?

Not impressed by these creationist arguments.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add 2 blank lines between paragraphs.Edited by Dedit, : No reason given.