Skip to comments.Scientists Confirm Biblical Account of the ‘Fountains of The Deep’
Posted on 04/08/2014 2:41:22 PM PDT by OneVike
In yet another confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy, scientists have now confirmed what Scripture refers to as “the fountains of the deep.” In the days of Noah and the Ark, these large pools of water beneath the Earth’s crust burst forth onto the surface providing the massive amounts of water needed for the global flood judgment. What has once been a source of skepticism and mockery for those who doubt the Bible, has now been confirmed by secular scientists, again showing that although written over 3,000 years ago, the Bible’s description of the Earth and its natural properties are indeed accurate.
According to reports:
An international team of scientists led by Graham Pearson, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Arctic Resources at the U of A, has discovered the first-ever sample of a mineral called ringwoodite. Analysis of the mineral shows it contains a significant amount of water — 1.5 per cent of its weight — a finding that confirms scientific theories about vast volumes of water trapped 410 to 660 kilometres beneath Earth’s surface, between the upper and lower mantle.
“This sample really provides extremely strong confirmation that there are local wet spots deep in the Earth in this area,” said Pearson, a professor in the Faculty of Science, whose findings were published March 13 in Nature. “That particular zone in the Earth, the transition zone, might have as much water as all the world’s oceans put together.”
Ringwoodite is a form of the mineral peridot, believed to exist in large quantities under high pressures in the transition zone. Ringwoodite has been found in meteorites but, until now, no terrestrial sample has ever been unearthed because scientists haven’t been able to conduct fieldwork at extreme depths. (source).
The vast oceans of water beneath the Earth’s crust is precisely what the Bible describes in the first book of Genesis. In fact, prior to the flood of Noah’s day, it had never rained. The waters from the fountains of the deep, the water reservoirs beneath the Earth’s crust: provided water:
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. (Genesis 2:5-6).
This was the state of the Earth until the days of the flood judgment. And it would be two-fold: water came from the sky in torrential rain, and from the ground, as The Lord caused the huge oceans of subterranean water to burst forth and shoot onto the surface.
(Excerpt) Read more at Beginning And End ...
And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (Genesis 7:10-11).
Confirms Dr. Walt Brown’s hydroplate theory for the flood. Great to see!
True science confirms the Bible. True science and the Bible are friends, not enemies.
The bible says it rained. The movie Noah agrees with you. Credit to the movie?
Read it closely - the fountains of the deep were opened, shooting massive amounts of water into the atmosphere, whence it fell as rain. It had not rained previously, which is why the rainbow had not been seen before.
possible “fountain” ?
11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
I think there was some kind of water in the atmosphere, too. Kept the earth “moist” and protected the planet from solar radiation - could account for the long lives of people during the time. Less radiation, less nuclear degradation.
Possibly. I think there was a pretty think atmosphere made up heavily of water vapor. I’ll find the verse, but it did exist before the flood.
I wonder if tha pertains to oil too?
I wonder if tha pertains to oil too?
It has always been my belief, that the heavy rains and flooding, loosened all of the trees and plant life from the soil, such that, when the waters ‘receded’, they collected in the lowest parts of the earth. The subsequent pressure is what produced Petroleum. It is an established fact, that plant material, under pressure, result in OIL !
You don’t know how right you are,
As I type this, freshly produced crude oil is oozing out at the bottom of the deepest portions of the oceans. So oil is being produced daily from the vast amount of pressure at the depths of the sea.
Something like this may have made a difference, as well. It sure explains a lot. In any event, it’s really interesting.
Neal Adams - Science: 01 - Conspiracy: Earth is Growing!
If God wants a "fountain of the great deep", he will make one. There is no need for there to be an ocean under the crust.
People need to read the source papers before agreeing to stuff like this.
Oil has been found in “ancient” city dumps... time of Christ city dumps, era. Being produced by the yuck being dumped in there, waste, etc, and then over centuries being built on top of.
And, I always felt that the oil post flood came, similar to your descriptions, of the vast plant and animal life lost during the time. And if these under crust water reserves emptied, there was probably a reverse suction that pulled some of that material down.
OneVike: You dont know how right you are, As I type this, freshly produced crude oil is oozing out at the bottom of the deepest portions of the oceans. So oil is being produced daily from the vast amount of pressure at the depths of the sea.
Well actually, that might not be true.
Well actually, that might not be true.
And, actually, it might BE true...
Amen to that. We can trust that His word is the truth.
Wasn’t it called a water canopy, or possibly just a canopy? I know I’ve heard that term before in connection with the flood account.
for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
So who then was killed in the flood?
And how did they survive without rain?
I’ve never been much of a YECer, but This did indeed make me think of Browns unusual hydroplate theory. Curious.
Thanks for the ping!
What appeared to be water rising from the Earth was simply the comet’s melt water from half the world away seeking a common head.
It appears there was mist that watered the ground. As to the quote you reference, where is that? I don’t have it in the versions I use.
1 quart of super-critical water = 1 stick of dynamite. The global flood was very much so an Earth changing / climate changing worldwide event that changed everything regarding life as we know it.
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Whether the linked article confirms it or not there are several other secular scientific findings confirming the cleanest water w/ the lowest salt contents are found deep in the Earth’s crust from 5 to 10 miles deep.
Sorry but any comet could never provide enough water to raise the ocean level even 1 inch. Furthermore the hydroplate theory that originated w/ Dr. Walt Brown PhD circa 1980 stipulates that the comets, meteoroids and asteroids come from the global flood of Noah’s day. I dare you to read it for yourselves. In fact, I triple-dog-dare ya!
And if he wanted to get rid of all the unclean animals and all but a handful of people, they'd just be gone.
A water canopy makes sense. I wonder how they would have seen the stars through it. I did read one article that said the water could have acted as a magnifying glass.
Wouldn’t that be something?
If God had done it any other way, the the Biblically inspired scriptures would support some other way - but it simply does not! I sleep much better with men being the liars than I am with God being a liar about even one jot or tittle.
Jots and tittles are the creation of men.
Again, God can do whatever he wants, but a layer of hydrated silicate rock in/near the mantle does not prove "fountains of the great deep".
Some Christians are too quick to pick up on scientific discoveries and say they support the Judeo-Christian accounts, when if they had read the paper in question, they'd know better, and not look like fools in the eyes of those who don't believe in God, and thus damage the cause of Christ.
I am a Christian, but I don't want us to look like fools by claiming hydrated silicate rock is the same as "fountains of the great deep".
There may be "fountains of the great deep", but:
a) this discovery (hydrated silicate rock) is NOT THAT, and
b) these "fountains" may yet be discovered, but by yammering about silicate rock being the same as "fountains", we look like idiots to the atheists.
Please, be reasonable.
But the gravitational forces from a near miss by a planet-sized comet could cause the effects noted in the Bible. A very interesting theory is presented in "Worlds In Collision", 1950, by Emanuel Velikovsky.
Full disclosure: I believe God did it; the how is the fascinating part.
Agreed. It's like the "hydrologic sorting" theory. It doesn't really hold up to critical analysis, and gives the impression of desperately grasping at straws.
You did not read through the slides. Take a few minutes to do so - have Google Earth or Google Maps (satellite view) open so that you can see for yourself the evidence (which, by the way, was unavailable to geologists when they made fundamentally bad assumptions about 50 years ago).
You might even think about comets, their structure, how easily they fragment (did you see what happened to Ison?), and then how they might form.... Nearly every comet that we have observed is but a fragment of a much much larger one that formed about a dense nucleus. The nucleus remnants of The Flood Comet can be recovered - they’re in the Southern Ocean.
Bottom line: accepting the bad assumptions in geology has prevented us from achieving a correct understanding of our past.
I’m not discussing hydrated silicate rock, nor this threads link, rather that large pools of crystal clear water have been discovered at depths deeper than the oceans.
Also - “OH NO!?” - I could care less what the atheists might think...
Where does the Bible tell us to concern ourselves with what these godless fools think anyways?
Thanks for the BEEP!
Where does it tell us? 1 Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..."
Let me try this again - in post #15 you claim:
“This is an incorrect interpretation of the ringwoodite discovery. There is not liquid water down there. It’s hydrated silicate rock. Again, not liquid water.
If God wants a “fountain of the great deep”, he will make one. There is no need for there to be an ocean under the crust.”
I simply tried to tell you that you are wrong - deeper than these hydrated silicates - God did make these fountains, they did erupt and modern day scientists continually mis-read the signs left from a global flood.
Dr. Walt Brown documented in creationscience.com the research finings of 5-7 mile deep clean large water pools [remnants of the fountains of the great deep] - possibly still meeting or exceeding the quantities in the oceans.
When it comes to looking like ‘idiots to atheists’ you are the one who has assumed the wrong information and connected the wrong bits of information.
I’d say whatever you hold to be true about long ages and evolution is closer to the ‘straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.’ I’m really truly not worried about my annonymous reputation with atheists on a christian based conservative forum. Esp. atheists who may or may not be who they claim to be and who may or may not have true and sincere debate intentions.
Oh, sir, please do tell us all your critical thinking regarding hydrologcal sorting - I’m sure we’ll all be more informed by your in-depth analysis - sarc.
I doubt I'll tell you anything you don't already know. What they describe should be reproducible in a hydrology lab, and they can't do it.
I’ve seen very little if any true critical thinking re: hydroplate theory. Only things I’ve observed on the web and these discussion threads - take something out of context and create a strawman then mix in heavy amounts of ridicule and more miscommunications till the debates turns into a circus side show.
I guess we’ll find out someday just how wrong the Archbishop of Ussher was. But you’re in good company in FR; there is a large young-earth contingent here, so you all can congratulate one another on how right you are, and how wrong the day-age Christians are. Good day.
Since we somehow just went seamlessly from hydrologic sorting to hydroplate theory, I don't wonder.
Hydrologic sorting as I have encountered the term refers to Dr. Walt Brown’s hydroplate theory and the laying down of the fossil record and vast majorities of limestone and other sendimentary rocks in the aftermath of 40 days and nights deluge. Your mileage obviously varies or you just enjoy being obtuse.
Hydrologic sorting describes the water flow sorting the fossils into the layers we see today. That involves objects of a small enough size scale that you should be able to reproduce it in a lab environment.
Can you think of any reason that should not be reproducible?
So reading between the lines you claim that on a small scale experiment hydrologic sorting is not supported - totally debunked in fact - correct?
Even though you may need all the conditions of the flood [which I agree can never be reporoduced by mankind and God promises not to do allow another global flood again either] to prove that hydrologic sorting works as we see with the fossil layers.
Are you also unaware of the experiments Walt conducted that supported the hydroplate theory? How did these other small scale experiments differ. What assumptions were made? Blah blah blah etc and so on = it’s debunked b/c we claim so. Funny how often key data is not shared or even lost by the secular mainstream [eerily familiar example of AGW].
Furthermore, from the hydroplate theory Walt points out how the sea levels changed in the centuries following the global flood as there would have been many local floods that would also affect the layering of the fossil record depending of course upon where those local floods occurred and how it affected sedimentary layers that may or may not have been fully cemented in place. After the global flood, the hydroplate theory conjectures that all of the land masses would still be connected by land bridges and island chains - therefore specialized flora and fauna on each continent is also supported.
So since you can not re-create all of the conditions in the lab or some other small scale type of experiment you think that the theory is completely debunked - correct?
Have you even read the entire free online book at creationscience.com? Because your arguments fit neatly in the scenario I described in my prior post.
I said I believe they should be able to reproduce those results in a lab, and they haven't been able to. I asked if you could think of any reason they shouldn't be able to do that.
I examined the theory critically (which you claim you want more people to do), I offered an opinion and asked if you had any ideas I hadn't considered.
What more do you want?