AIG: The Fountains of the Deep

A month ago we wrote Massive Creationist Ecstasy Alert!, about a geological discovery of evidence suggesting the existence of large volumes of water deep beneath the Earth. We predicted that an inevitable creationist festival of Drool was certain to follow, claiming that this is proof of the fabled “fountains of the deep” that fueled Noah’s Flood.

It’s taken some time, but we finally have what we’ve been waiting for. It’s from the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (ol’ Hambo’s online ministry), and the author is Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell. Her bio page at AIG says she’s a physician, board certified in obstetrics and gynecology. She’s a creationist gynecologist, but now she’s dabbling in geology. Her article is Diamond with Ringwoodite Reveals Water Deep in Earth’s Mantle. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

More than just a place of molten rock, earth’s mantle apparently harbors a watery zone able to hold an ocean of water. Analysis of a diamond volcanically coughed up from deep in the earth and recovered in Brazilian river gravel has serendipitously revealed water-containing ringwoodite, a testimony to the presence of both water and the elusive olivine polymorph under the earth.

She devotes several paragraphs to describing the discovery. There are better places to read about that, starting with those linked in our earlier post, so we’ll skip that and get to the good stuff. Here it comes, in a section labeled Fountains of the Great Deep:

As we examine this discovery in light of the history of the global Flood documented in God’s Word, we see that water not only changes everything about the way a planet works in the present, but also about 4,300 years ago at the time of the global Flood. Dr. Snelling explains:

“Snelling” isn’t identified, but it must be a reference to Andrew Snelling, one of AIG’s creation scientists. Mitchell, the creationist gynecologist, quotes Snelling, the flood geologist:

What is the profound significance of this discovery? It confirms the capacity of the mantle to have housed the water that was released when the fountains of the great deep were broken up to commence the Flood, and the huge volume of water that was released through these fountains for as much as 150 days, providing more than enough water to help submerge the whole globe, just as described in Genesis 7:11–24.

Verily, just as the Good Book says. Then, in a section labeled Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, there's another quote from Snelling:

So this study seems to confirm a major component of the catastrophic plate tectonics model. The break-up of the earth’s crust into plates and the resultant continental sprint was initiated by the cataclysmic release of the waters for the Flood through these fountains of the great deep.

That links to an article written by Snelling in 2007: Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology?, which you can read if you like, but we’re not going to bother with it. Here’s the last paragraph of the creationist gynecologist’s article:

Though we were not there at the time of the global Flood, God in His Word, primarily in Genesis chapters 6–9, has provided us with an eyewitness account of the violent events that remodeled the earth’s surface. The geology we see today has been strongly influenced by the global Flood, and Bible-believing geologists like Dr. Snelling note that what we see is consistent with biblical history. The Bible’s history helps us understand what we see in nature and to understand that our world did not require billions of years to take its present shape. This latest discovery is likewise completely consistent with biblical history.

So there you are. The creation scientists are happy, and so is your Curmudgeon. Why is the Curmudgeon happy? Because our prediction of a creationist Deluge of Drool has been confirmed.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

22 responses to “AIG: The Fountains of the Deep

  1. SC exalts: “It’s taken some time, but we finally have what we’ve been waiting for.”

    They needed that month to study the literature, consult with experts, put together their expedition, take copious measurements, do uncountable experiments, study their results, draw conclusions, put everything down in writing, subject their work to a stringent review process, and then – AND ONLY THEN – would they even think about maybe making a tentative announcement.

    Either that or their typewriter was on the fritz.

  2. Realist1948

    Vast hidden reserves of water? A sudden breaking-through unleashing fountains? Is this certified OBGYN saying … mother earth’s water broke??

  3. Does Dr. Snelling explain how the water returned to the deep earth? Huge pumps? Or, I suppose, God just sent it back.

    It’s an interesting theory though – water at that depth would have to be superheated by the pressure, so the flood was not merely an act of drowning, but of boiling alive, scalding, etc. I have new respect for the immense capacity for evil possessed by the old testament god.

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    This latest discovery is likewise completely consistent with biblical history.

    What exactly is consistent? If there was some science to say that this water could be extracted and rise to the surface, maybe she’s got something. But that isn’t at all what the science is about. And the ringwoodite discovery does nothing to confirm any time-scale, which she also seems to think it does.

    Believers will read her confirmation that it is ‘consistent’ and take her at her word, they aren’t really thinking about the science either.

  5. Stephen Kennedy

    Off topic but as long promised, the spectrum of Mars.
    Heres link: http://i.imgur.com/ce593rQ.jpg

  6. Stephen, it’s nice, and I see two prominent absorption lines, but I don’t have my handy-dandy spectral line book. What are they?

  7. Nowhere do the study’s authors state that there are inferred reservoirs of free water in the mantle, like a liquid-filled bladder. These creationists are lying when they say this study implies that. Hydrous olivine polymorph crystals do not confirm the young-earth creationists’ “hydroplate theory” (which is obviously not a theory – another lie). Tectonic plates demonstrably never moved quickly (one of the quickest ever was India moving toward Asia at 18 cm/year before the collision that formed the Himalayas). The Pangaea supercontinent demonstrably did not catastrophically separate. These creationist cult clowns have been told numerous times over decades that the evidence indicates the contrary. They continue to say the same thing – so what are they? Ignorant? No – they’ve been told what the deal is. Stupid? Maybe – they certainly don’t seem capable of understanding high school or college-level science. Wicked? Insane? Lying? Probably a mix of the latter 4 options. I was pleased that Bill Nye so decisively out-debated Hamster, but I kinda wish that he’d been much more overt about calling these science-haters and reality-deniers what they really are – stupid, wicked, insane, liars. I’m constantly torn between being entertained by these folks and being outraged at the harm they’re causing.

  8. An adult with an IQ greater than a grey squirrel would ask why not a single successful corporate entity on the planet that relies on earth science for any reason uses flood “geology”. For example, oil companies spend tens of billions of dollars every year exploring for oil and gas, and none of them waste any time or resources using creationist nonsense. They leave creationist geology to homeschooling retired gynecologists who like to babble to credulous droolers.

  9. Sensuous Curmudgeon: come for the creationist lunacy, stay for the hilarious commentary. I know you try to keep the comments troll-free but do you ever get attempts from legends like Robert Byers or FL of Panda’s Thumb?

    Btw great spectrogram Stephen! Glad I could finally see it

  10. Sean asks: “I know you try to keep the comments troll-free but do you ever get attempts from legends like Robert Byers or FL of Panda’s Thumb?”

    If a creationist shows up, I’ll let them stay for the amusement — but only as long as they’re well-behaved (which they rarely are) or until they get boring. Byers showed up once. It was last November, in this thread. I knew who he was, so I banned him immediately.

  11. Stephen Kennedy

    @DavidK

    The spectrum of Mars has pretty much the same absorption lines as the spectrum of the Sun which is not surprising since the light from Mars is sunlight reflected off of the Martian surface. What I was looking for were absorption lines not seen in the spectrum of the Sun which would indicate scattering by molecules in the Martian atmosphere. There is a fairly prominent line in the spectrum I took of Mars at around 4300 angstroms that is not prominent in the Sun and from what I have been able to learn may represent absorption by carbon dioxide. This is most likely since the Martian atmosphere is about 95% CO2.

    I am sure there are better spectrums of Mars out there. My equipment is not up to professional standards. My telescope is a 21 cm (8.3″) Newtonian reflector (but on an extremely stable quartz motor driven German equatorial mount), my camera is not an astronomical CCD camera, it is a Canon T3 DSLR and instead of a high resolution $25,000 slit spectrometer I have a $250 spectroscope which consists of a grating with 200 lines/mm. My wife has frozen my space exploration budget so I will have to make due with what I have. As I tried to explain to my wife why I needed a spectroscope when she is certain that some observatory must have obtained a spectrum of Mars before, it was important to me to have one that I took myself with my own equipment.

  12. Lot of techno-jargon in the doctor’s piece, but all I derived from it was that a very small gem, thought to come from some middle-earth region of the mantle, was coughed up to the surface and it contained a minute quantity of water. This means, she says, that there could be an ocean of water in the mantle. Sounds pretty thin, but is there a real geologist response to it?

  13. “God in His Word, primarily in Genesis chapters 6–9, has provided us with an eyewitness account”
    Were you there when god wrote down these chapters, Mitchell?

  14. mnbo, I’ll bet she was . . .

  15. Sadly, Snelling and the other IDiots STILL can’t account for 600 million cubic miles of water, whether it’s locked in rock structures or in the mythical fountains of the deep.

  16. @mnbo
    “God in His Word, primarily in Genesis chapters 6–9, has provided us with an eyewitness account”
    Where you there when god wrote down these chapters, Mitchell?

    Where is it said in the Bible that this is an eyewitness account? I thought that the common claim is that Moses wrote this.

  17. @TomS: you should ask Mitchell. She is the one who claims it’s an eyewitness account coming from god.
    But if Moses wrote it the question remains the same: Mitchell, were you there when your god inspired Moses to write it down?

  18. @Eric Collier – The water referred to is not “free water” but occurs as hyrdroxide (OH-) bound within the crystalline structure of ringwoodite crystals (a high pressure polymorph of olivine).

  19. docbill1351

    A Real Creationist ™ will never engage in a discussion about covering a sphere with water. They will duck from depth, swim away from the height of mountains and hold their breath talking about sea level. It’s well beyond cognitive dissonance.

  20. SC, thanks for the link. Hilarious reply to Byer’s usual nonsense.

  21. @mnbo The thought just occurred to me, is there a different meaning for “eyewitness account”, one which would include second-hand accounts? So they can say both that this is an eyewitness account and that Moses wrote it?
    “Yes, this is eyewitness testimony, your honor, it really happened to a friend of a friend.”