[daniel1212]

I can only repeat: Overwought interpretations of half-understood scientific papers providing weak support for or at least not outright opposing established Biblical doctrines are of little to no use to anyone - and they represent a snare for people of faith.

OK, not that we need it, but I will ask: How does this, in principle at least, oppose and exclude support for the Biblical account, if the water-rich mantle plumes can migrate upwards and break through the boundary to the upper mantle, so that water contained in the mantle plumes is released?

[alexander_busek]

[...] but I will ask: How does this, in principle at least, oppose and exclude support for the Biblical account, if [...]

Please re-read my post.

Overwrought interpretations of half-understood scientific papers providing weak support for or at least not outright opposing established Biblical doctrines are of little to no use...

I am saying that an article which seems to slightly support the Bible, or which - at best - doesn't contradict it, should be given only minimal attention.

It's not Earth-shaking. And it encourages a certain mode of thinking that can lead down dark paths.

Understand now?

Regards,

[Elsie]

Perhaps the 'water' coming upward accounts for the 'mist' that watered the plants.

---

Genesis 2:5-6 niv

 

⁵ Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth^[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground,

 ⁶ but streams^[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 

 

b: Genesis 2:6 Or mist