Very good. This is actually quite an interesting study, and I have the original article in my library. The original peer-reviewed scientific article appeared in “Nature” magazine early last year (available at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7491/full/nature13080.html). The article is quite technical, and a precis of it appeared in “Science Daily”. It appears it is that precis that the article 6days links to uses as its source. It is commonly known that the more remote you are from relying directly on original sources, the more likely you are to misconstrue what was actually said. (For this reason, Biblical translators often go to great lengths to identify what ancient manuscripts are the closest to the originals.)
The link 6days provides quotes the important part of the original article. It says, in summary, that a certain type of rock that is believed to come from very deep in the earth was found to contain a significant amount of water in it. Rock of this type is believed to compose a huge layer deep within the earth, and if we assume all of that rock has a similar water content, then the total volume of water down there is more than all the water we see here on the surface of the earth. This vast subterranean amount of water has sometimes been referred to as a subterranean ocean. However, it is important to note that nowhere in the original study is there any reference to the subterranean water being in actual bodies of water – “oceans” if you prefer. The article only addresses water found embedded in the crystalline matrix of the rock. The closest to hinting at free-standing deep subterranean water is when the article speaks of “regionally localized wet-spots in the transition zone”.
The precis in “Science Daily” of the original article takes the liberty of including a graphic showing what appears to be a thick layer of water deep in the earth, and uses the inaccurate term “subterranean ocean”. There probably is a subterranean ocean down there, in the sense of the vast quantity of water, but I have seen no studies that indicate it is in isolated free-standing pools. Large deep free-standing pools would likely be detectable by P and S-wave analysis. (P and S-wave analysis is probably beyond what most of the readers at TOL are interested in, but if anyone really wants to know – ask).
So, my question, how do you get a huge quantity of water that is trapped in crystal lattices in rocks deep in the earth into a “fountain” at the surface? And (referring to the article), to get this water you don’t just need a shallow crack in the earth, you have to have a split that reaches down about 300 miles just to reach the top most layer where the water is at. Is that a big deal? Over the past few decades, several efforts have been made to see just how deep we could reach into the earth with drilling equipment. How deep did we get? About 10 miles. At just that depth the temperatures and pressures were extreme enough that we couldn’t go deeper. Under high temperatures and extreme pressures, what we think of as solid rock actually begins to flow. Good luck on getting a 300 mile deep hole or crack in the earth that stays open just to let water spurt out.
Creationists are famous for grabbing something science has come up with, twisting it to suit their needs, and the proclaiming that it proves the Bible true. If 6days is willing to stand behind his assertion that this scientific study confirms the Biblical “fountains of the deep”, then he should be willing to ask the scientists themselves. The “Science Daily” precis includes this statement:
The study is a great example of a modern international collaboration with some of the top leaders from various fields, including the Geoscience Institute at Goethe University, University of Padova, Durham University, University of Vienna, Trigon GeoServices and Ghent University.
6days, there are listed 6 different universities or companies that are intimately familiar with this study. Can you provide, or will you get, an official statement from any one of them that concurs with you in thinking this water deep in the transition layer is a reasonable explanation for the Biblical ‘fountains of the deep”?As a side note, how about the explanation for the Biblical “fountains of the deep” that is the favorite of a number of long-time TOLers – Dr. Walt Brown’s hydroplate theory? Rev. Bob Enyart is the de-facto on-line pastor for many at TOL (and he is the real pastor for some TOL faithful that reside in the Denver area). Enyart has long championed Walt Brown’s ideas as expressed in some detail at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/. Walt Brown is no slouch academically or professionally, and for years has had a standing offer to debate the ideas he has in his on-line book. And those ideas, in presenting his explanation for the “fountains of the deep”, don’t jive with what you are trying to peddle now. 6days, you willing to take Walt on in a debate?
