Quote:Well the article that you cited earlier even admitted that the belief that the mantle contains water is a "popular belief amongst many geophysicists". So do these geophysicists not have a clear understanding of their own field like you asserted in yoru response?
Like I said earlier this is just one model that can be used, other models have different means of accounting for the "missing water" (which really is not missing). My point about mars was completely missed if you seriously thought I was not aware of the fact the water is no longer on Mars because of it's abscent atmosphere. The point was there is less evidence on Mars for a global flood than there is on Earth, yet Scientists have no problem believing in one. Many Scientists do not like to agree with scripture so they will take whatever steps are necessary not to do so (case and ponit, you).
There is lots of evidence for a global flood (there are geologists who believe this I am sure you are aware) so I respectfully disagree with you.
The article I cited was referring to hydrous zones within subduction zones. Much of the crust on those zones contain fractures that have long thought by some to allow water to migrate close to, if not into the mantle. In addition, much of that oceanic crustal rock contains a hydrous mineralogy, such as serpentine. What has been argued for many years is whether or not those fracture zones actually contain significant amounts of water, and whether or not the hydrous minerals remain hydrous at mantle depths. This and several other projects have show that they don't in either case. But none of this has to do with native mantle rock, which has a completely anhydrous mineralogy and is hydraulically virgin with respect to water.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
