The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

Oh brother. The water is contained within the mineral structures in the mantle. It's kept in the mantle the same way ground water is kept under ground.

Really? There's enough water "in the mantle" to flood the planet with SIX MILES of water? This is absurd in the extreme. You have a source for this steaming pile of bullshit?

Physicist here. Please note that the volume of water to flood the planet would entail a significant fraction of mass. Mass that simply does not "go away".

We know from gravity and the radius of the earth that the density must consider not just rocks but molten nickel/iron. To add in water into the mantle, something pointlessly ridiculous, would undermine the mass of the Earth considering the density/mass of water you are talking about, to the degree that the Earth must have a higher density mantle/core if there is additional mass (of this mythical water).

Meaning higher density rocks than can ever be formed by plate tectonics and convection.

Plainly put, you cannot have something from nothing and back again.

If we have water sinking into the mantle, then the pressure and heat at those levels will dissociate lighter, less dense molecules - they will rise to the surface again and be released. Thus keeping water on the surface.

You can't have water in the mantle like you're suggesting.

You're trying to use proven scientific principles in an attempt to demonstrate to a Creationist that what he believes is bullshit?

What's the matter with you?

Why did you just accept his claim that he is a Physicist? I thought you guys were supposed to call him a liar and ask him who he works for and what school he went to and what courses he took? Or do you only do this when the person with the Science degree disagrees with you? Not very objective I see, not surprised though. The aricle posted earlier about water in the mantle actually said that it is a popular belief amongst geophysicists that the mantle DOES contain water (even though the article was aruging against this view, it admitted that this is a view held by many in the field). So to claim that this is a silly or uncommon view makes you actually look rather silly. Rather you should say that this is a view that is debated in modern science today, but the evidence is certainly not conclusive.