Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go?

Great, then he knows just where to look for evidence that the mid-oceanic ridges once spouted cubic kilometers of water in the form of superheated steam. For example, in the Atlantic the portion of the seafloor that was adjacent to the ridge 5000 years ago is now about 700 feet distant from it. There should be a significant discontinuity there. Has one been found? No.Another example: superhot steam would probably have some detectable effect on the material of the surrounding sea floor. Has anything like this been found? No.One wishes that Creationists would as confidently and frequently send out expeditions to seek evidence of the flood as they do to seek the remains of Noah's Ark. One might conclude that the dearth of Creationist research acvitivity reflects an at least subconscious understanding that such efforts are unlikely to be rewarded.My main point is that too much of the Creationist approach, nearly all of it, in fact, consists of saying, "This might have happened," or "That might have happened." Frequently the scenarios they propose aren't possible, but it mustn't be overlooked that whether they're possible or not, there's no evidence for them.--Percy

I find a lot of this discussion very fascinating. Two things jump out at me from a theological point of view, and then from more of science point of view.First the theological: Any God who can stop the rotation of the earth without destroying the earth, could also bring up steam and water from the mantle without destroying the earth. That however, is probably not anything science could really deal with. The excuse of: Well He's God and can do what He wants... while it certainly could be true if God exists, is not really a scientific answer. Nevertheless, if God exists as the Bible portrays Him, then He is absolutely capable of defying physical laws as we understand them.Second science: We have a lot to learn as of yet about the mantle, crust, water, forces, etc... Maybe if some of these drilling projects can break through the crust, or as scientists determine how water formed below the earth's surface, or could rise above it, we'll know a lot more. Until then, it sure is interesting to read I must admit. And I personally believe there is room for Christians, atheists, agnostics, et al in this field of study.

But you, and many others, have already decided what you believe about these "Creationists" and therefore would not support one dollar toward funding any research in that particular direction since it would be fruitless of course. Therefore, the charge "they" aren't sending expeditions out to do such research doesn't really work. Very few expeditions are self funded are they? The scientist friend I spoke to, a team leader from Los Alamos, bemoans the fact that any research that might be used toward anything considered "creationist" will not receive funding. Period. In fact, he told me that most of his friends who would like to do such research, do it with projects directed "officially" in other directions.

I was just making a side comment, not trying to change the subject. If you'd like to discuss the funding of Creationist research, propose a thread over at [forum=-25].--Percy

This was news to me when I started my mainstream geology reading, but its true! The early Paleozoic saw the almost complete covering of the earth as determined by the mapping of marine Silurian (early Paleozoic) sediments.You don't believe me? Then maybe you'll believe mainstream Cambridge University geologist van Andel in New Views on an Old Planet (1994) :"Regarding the early Palaeozoic in this bright light, we find a wet world, its continents inundated far more than they have ever been since then, and the rise of the sea continuing. Before this
rise ended, very little land remained above water." (p 179)The Recolonization Flood model in particular equates these strata with the Flood maximum.The point is that where this water came from and went is a problem for both evolutionists and creationists!It's an emperical fact that the world was flooded - whether 95% or 100% is immaterial. This point is ignored time after time after time on this site and is never pointed out by non-young earthers.We know that a large proportion of sea-level changes is well understood as plate tectonic/sea-floor spreading ocean-basin rearrangements and continenetal verticle movements. Of course this is not completely quantitative (especially in the Pre-Permian) and so leaves plenty of room early in the record for water from below (Fountains of the Deep) ala hydro-plate-like theories or some mysterious input from above (Windows of Heaven).But post-Permian we understand the lesser sea-level changes pretty well (which nevertheless inundated the world by 50%) - it's due to the ocean-basin rearrangements that constituted the break-up of Pangea.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-21-2005 06:35 AM

The water is not a problem for geology since geology does not believe water ever covered or mostly covered all land on earth. This view is not accepted within geology, and it seems probable that van Andel never even proposed this in his scientific papers. We don't even know if this brief quote accurately captures what van Andel was trying to say in his book. It seems doubtful that van Andel would propose a scenario that required more water than is present on earth.There was a discussion a while back about how much sea level would rise if all polar ice melted. It's not sufficient to cover most land: Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea levelYou're welcome to present evidence for this view.--Percy

In the early Paleozoic and at other times in the Earth's history, water coverage of the continents has been very extensive. Many times the seas have extended into Minnesota, to elevations that are currently in the area of 1500 feet about the current sea level. This coverage includes areas that have been tectonically stable for 1 billion plus years.Of course, the geography and topography of the Earth has changed vastly in the past 600 million years, and as such, considerations of what the current topography is is irrelevant.So, there is a history of great sea level rises and falls. The primary causes of these are thought to be increases and decreases in the rates of oceanic sea floor spreading - Fast spreading results in the oceanic floors rising, which displaces water onto the continents.Explaining these sea level changes in the context of it happening over million year time spans is no problem to mainstream science. Explaining how it could happen in a year or so is vastly more difficult.Moose

I'll keep an eye out for more details but I'm not claiming I can *prove* a complete covering. Mainstream science is consistent with 'very little land' not being flooded in the early Paleozoic.Mainstream science already agrees that the earth was almost completely flooded. The last little bit might require some haggle work on our part but I simply don't claim to be able to prove that at present.The point is that we can get close enough wihtout any haggling. If you want to haggle about the last details feel free but for me it's sufficent that we already understand how *most* of the earth was flooded.

I completely agree Moose. I completely agree and stated as much. We explain it via runaway subduction as you know. We don't claim any of this is bullet-proof. It is suggestive and works together as a consistent, parsimonious framework.

While I find the definitieve peer-reviewed statement, here's a mainstream website's quote for now as an example"In the Early Ordovician, North America roughly straddled the equator and almost all of that continent lay underwater."http://www.science501.com/PTOrdovician.html

quote:

---

They dropped, dramatically (about 50 m), in connection with the ice age, but it is hard to tell whether this was cause, effect, or both.

---

from:Palaeos: Page not foundI think you are jumping to conclusions without enough information.For one thing what is "most of North America"? There was a large shallow inland sea up the middle of NA during, IIRC, the cretaceous too. I would not call that transgression "most" but it was a lot of NA.Also, at this time, there were a lot of other areas that were not mostly underwater so how much extra water is required (beyond 150 m)?If if we removed the tectonic uplift from current NA and raised sea levels 150m how much transgression would there be?After you have these details then we can see if the water problem is equivalent for the two models. Not until then can you make any statements.ABE
from: OrdovicianIt appears, eyeballing only, that perhaps 2/3 of NA was wet. Since the current NA (as shown on this map) did NOT EXIST (part of it was added from Europe later. It is hard to calculate "most" under these circustances.It is my understanding that the basic creton of NA is about the part shown on the above referenced map. Where do we draw the boundaries of NA when it was in bits and pieces at the time.I do know that the north pacific coast (to 100's of kms inland from the current coast) was added 100's of millions of years after the Oldevician. The picture shows it as underwater and part of NA but that is incorrect.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-21-2005 09:09 PM

The mainstream statement globally I quoted was "very little land remained above water." (p 179) I'm as interested as you all are in quantitating that.NosyNed, although your image is very handy the truth of it is that no-one is sure exactly how much was covered.Why? Because it's based on the extent of Ordovician strata globally. But does anyone think that none of this sediment was eroded? Of course everyone knows that higher period sediment included material eorded from Ordovician beds. So we simply don't know precisely how much of the earth was covered.Secondly, if highlands were covered by Ordovician sediment this would have been the thinnest part of it of course and most rapidly eroded to non-existence.

Umm, last time I checked, most of the earth is flooded right now. So, are we in the middle of a global flood? By your logic we are. The mainstream position has always been that there has never been a global flood in the bibical sense. If you have statments to the contrary, this would be a good time to present them.

Bullet proof? This idea is not giggle proof.Are you holding out on us? Do you really have any evidence that CPG actually occurred other than the fact that you need it in order to fit the entire geological record into a teacup?

That subduction itself occurs has plenty of sesmic and other geophysical evidence as you know. AS far as its rate is concerned we would cite the RATE helium retention results together with Baumgardner's theoretical studies.