Fossil Fish

[dad]

Here are some definitions of mist.
...

Mist could not bring up anything from under the ground. The idea that enormous salt deposits (if that is what dad is talking about) could be "brought up by mist" is ludicrousF.B.

Well, as always, you get fooled by the present, and present terms, etc.

Translation of several Hebrew and Greek terms with a combined range of meaning including subterranean water, fog, and clouds. The KJV frequently has vapor(s) where modern translations have mist. The mist of Genesis 2:6 refers to subterranean waters welling up and watering the ground.
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T4353
Others have claimed there still is water down there, I don't know, but there was.
"Frost says that solidified lava that has erupted at mid-ocean ridges contains glass that can be analysed for water content. His research team has calculated how much water the lava's parent material in the mantle must have contained. "It ends up being between 100 and 500 parts per million," he says. And if the whole mantle contained 500 parts per million of water, Frost calculates that would be the equivalent of 30 oceans of water.
....
Buoyed up
Meanwhile, water locked deep inside the Earth may be having significant effects on the surface through spectacular events such as the creation of island chains and massive outpourings of volcanic lava. Both features are examples of "hot spot" volcanism, which researchers believe is caused when a massive plume of hot material wells up from the mantle, melting rock which erupts through the crust.
For island chains like those around Hawaii, the hot spot is thought to be stationary while the tectonic plate slowly moves over it, producing one volcanic island after another. But some researchers believe that such plumes of material may not be primarily temperature driven. As Mark Richards at the University of California at Berkeley says, "hot spot volcanism could be triggered not by blobs of material that are anomalously hot rising through the mantle, but blobs of material that are anomalously wet". http://www.ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html
Also, helium rises up, who knows what it may have helped bring to the surface back then? They find helieum in petro deposits, yet can't really figure out why it would be there. Even in places like faults, as we see below here in the article.
"The fluid chemistry was in equilibrium with the local geology, as we'd expected, but in the course of this work, we found a helium-three signature in all the samples, which we did not expect."
He found variable but comparatively high ratios of rare helium three (helium with only one neutron in its nucleus) to more common helium four (whose nucleus consists of two neutrons and two protons) in the San Andreas fluids, which proved to be telling clues to their origin.

"Some of this fluid could have come only from the mantle," says Kennedy. "The Rice model is at least partially correct."
One, the Byerlee-Sleep and Blanpied model, or "closed box" model, suggests that local crustal fluids, including groundwater, are drawn into the fault zone in response to fault rupture and become trapped by mineral reactions; when the sealed fault zone compacts, the high fluid pressures required to weaken it are reestablished.
In the Rice model, by contrast, high fluid pressure in the fault is only the tip of a vertical "tongue" of high-pressure fluids originating in the mantle, 30 kilometers deep and deeper
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/mantle-water.html
I think just you minimizing what the 'mist' was, and saying it can't be so is fairly shallow. Salt does dilute in water, and water came up, so why not?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, as always, you get fooled by the present, and present terms, etc.

Translation of several Hebrew and Greek terms with a combined range of meaning including subterranean water, fog, and clouds. The KJV frequently has vapor(s) where modern translations have mist. The mist of Genesis 2:6 refers to subterranean waters welling up and watering the ground.
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T4353
Others have claimed there still is water down there, I don't know, but there was.
"Frost says that solidified lava that has erupted at mid-ocean ridges contains glass that can be analysed for water content. His research team has calculated how much water the lava's parent material in the mantle must have contained. "It ends up being between 100 and 500 parts per million," he says. And if the whole mantle contained 500 parts per million of water, Frost calculates that would be the equivalent of 30 oceans of water.
....
Buoyed up
Meanwhile, water locked deep inside the Earth may be having significant effects on the surface through spectacular events such as the creation of island chains and massive outpourings of volcanic lava. Both features are examples of "hot spot" volcanism, which researchers believe is caused when a massive plume of hot material wells up from the mantle, melting rock which erupts through the crust.
For island chains like those around Hawaii, the hot spot is thought to be stationary while the tectonic plate slowly moves over it, producing one volcanic island after another. But some researchers believe that such plumes of material may not be primarily temperature driven. As Mark Richards at the University of California at Berkeley says, "hot spot volcanism could be triggered not by blobs of material that are anomalously hot rising through the mantle, but blobs of material that are anomalously wet". http://www.ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html
Also, helium rises up, who knows what it may have helped bring to the surface back then? They find helieum in petro deposits, yet can't really figure out why it would be there. Even in places like faults, as we see below here in the article.
"The fluid chemistry was in equilibrium with the local geology, as we'd expected, but in the course of this work, we found a helium-three signature in all the samples, which we did not expect."
He found variable but comparatively high ratios of rare helium three (helium with only one neutron in its nucleus) to more common helium four (whose nucleus consists of two neutrons and two protons) in the San Andreas fluids, which proved to be telling clues to their origin.

"Some of this fluid could have come only from the mantle," says Kennedy. "The Rice model is at least partially correct."
One, the Byerlee-Sleep and Blanpied model, or "closed box" model, suggests that local crustal fluids, including groundwater, are drawn into the fault zone in response to fault rupture and become trapped by mineral reactions; when the sealed fault zone compacts, the high fluid pressures required to weaken it are reestablished.
In the Rice model, by contrast, high fluid pressure in the fault is only the tip of a vertical "tongue" of high-pressure fluids originating in the mantle, 30 kilometers deep and deeper
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/mantle-water.html
I think just you minimizing what the 'mist' was, and saying it can't be so is fairly shallow. Salt does dilute in water, and water came up, so why not?

So dadhoc shows once again that he can google up science that he doesn't understand. (Unless he really is parodying YEC as many suspect) The thread on salt deposits shows many reason why they weren't brought up by water from the mantle. Salt brought up this way would not be nearly pure and if hot blob of "anomolously wet" mantle rock brought up the trillions of tons of salt in Michigan it would have surely left some lava behind and destroyed the Silurian Reefs that surround the Michigan salt formations. I have bumped the Evaporites thread.

This was not as goofy as dad's implication in post 241 that the salt formed by direct chemical reaction but it still fails. It is also irrelevant to the White Cliffs of Dover discussed in post 281 and others on this thread.

F.B.

 

[dad]

... Salt brought up this way would not be nearly pure and if hot blob of "anomolously wet" mantle rock brought up the trillions of tons of salt in Michigan it would have surely left some lava behind and destroyed the Silurian Reefs that surround the Michigan salt formations. I have bumped the Evaporites thread.

I never said it was hot. All I asked was if the mists or subteranean water then (not now) may have brought salt up. The other links I gave to show how they know think things are brought up now, not as the pre flood method!

This was not as goofy as dad's implication in post 241 that the salt formed by direct chemical reaction but it still fails.

Again, I asked if they could be either pre split chemistry down there, brought up, or even creation leftover salts brought up, either one. Atomic pre split changes mean they did not occur as in the present, perhaps. By the way, what would happen if in the present salt was chemically made miles down? Do you think we would feel any effects on the surface here, if it stayed down there?

It is also irrelevant to the White Cliffs of Dover discussed in post 281 and others on this thread.

Since they are not salt, I wouldn't expect a great relevancy there! Except in the principle that some things were not made as they now are, such as all limestone.

F.B.[/QUOTE]