When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Go have a look at the Grand Canyon. The majority of the rocks were laid by marine transgressions. There were huge epeiric seas that covered much of North America. Many mountain ranges have sea shell fossils in them.

---

Yes, I know. I live of ground composed of these deposits.

quote:

---

If XX% of North America was covered then the chances are that XX% of Asia was too. Water maintains a level.

---

But land doesn't. Percentage of landmass flooded on one continent doesn't imply that the same percentage on another would be flooded. Showing a flood over fifty percent of North America is not the same as showing a flood over fifty percent of the Tibetan Highlands for ex.

quote:

---

You are simply trying to say you know the exact 3D topography of the pre-flood world!

---

Not at all.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John

​

Go have a look at the Grand Canyon. The majority of the rocks were laid by marine transgressions. There were huge epeiric seas that covered much of North America. Many mountain ranges have sea shell fossils in them.

​

If XX% of North America was covered then the chances are that XX% of Asia was too. Water maintains a level.

​

So it is a non-issue. Whether 90% or 100% of the earth was covered does not change the method used to do it. You are simply trying to say you know the exact 3D topography of the pre-flood world!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-07-2002]

---

JM: Over-generalization. Much of interior Gondwana remained largely emergent during the Paleozoic. Where are these flood surges represented in Gondwana strata? What you are doing, as can be seen by your posts, is defining a global tempest on a local scale. So, the question then becomes why not concede that there were simply a number of local 'flooding' events? If you disagree, then show the global strata marking the peak flood. Baumgardner's rapid decay does not alter my criticisms one bit. In fact, the speed of radioactive decay is irrelevant. As for your knowledge of the Precambrian, it is important. Remember, Barry Setterfield claims that's when the flood occurred! So, why can't creationists agree on this global-changing event and the evidence. It's features are so nebulous that one wonders why you cling so closely to the adaptation of a Sumerian myth!CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-07-2002]

JoeI'm quite happy to concede that the data is compatible with local flooding. However that doens't explain the lack of birds in the palezoic etc. To explain that data we need globality. Of course the data is compatible with the mainstream view too. The question is which view is the total data most compartible with?Your points do not address my point that the ultimate covering strata would be the most heavily eroded. And what does Setterfield put the mesozoic/cenozoic down to?I explain the alck of Gondwana Paleozic marine strata the same way you do - it was more elevated than North America etc! How about the Gondwana Mesozoic (at least the continents that used to be Gondwana)?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-07-2002]

JohnWhatever the final analysis, there is plenty of water to cover most of the earth as empirically observed. It is only highlands where there will be diffuiculty and many of these do have marine strata! The ones that don't could have had theirs washed away. None of us knows the exact % becasue it's probably not an issue considered most of the time. Andor cited a Spanish example earlier toady. If you don't think I've argued plausibly that's fine with me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
'Mountain ranges in various stages of erosion' could easily be due to the varying 3D topology. We got erosion of soft sediments. On top of that is 4500 years of non-flood erosion.

---

Nonsense. We know that the Rocky Mtns., for instance have been uplifted at least three times. There is evidence for this in syntectonic conglomerates. If there is no or little relief, you will not get such deposits. By the way, one of those uplifts was during your surges in the Pennsylvanian of the east coast, where water was flowing off a mountain range that rose much earlier. Why is it that creationists have such problems with sequential events?

quote:

---

My matter of fact pronouncement that the earth could be covered by the current amounts of water essentially comes from the fact that mainstream science has much of the earth covered at various times.

---

However, there is absolutely no evidence that all of the earth was completely covered at one time. This is not a global flood. I checked some columns earlier today. It is virtually impossible to find a time when there was no erosion somewhere in the world giving rise to coarse grained sediments.

quote:

---

If you want to quible over the last 10 or 20% that discussion will anount to predicting the exact 3D topography of the past. You can embark on that futile task if you wish.

---

Actually, this can be done. What do you think the paleogeographic reconstructions are based on? Unconformities.

quote:

---

If most of the earth's surface has been covered I will simply argue the plausibility of all of it being coverable.

---

You may argue it all you want, but there is no evidence for this.

quote:

---

I suspect that most vulcanism occurred during the flood but I am very uneducated on the Precambrian.

---

In that case you have constant "nuclear winter" for most of the 4000 years since the flood. There is no way to pack all of that volcanic ejecta into 4000 years without dramatic changes in the climate. Just look at what the eruption of Laki did in 1783, and imagine that times a thousand for 4000 years. Not a pretty site. The heat flows would be pretty destructive as well. Please give me some evidence for you hypothesis other than your suspicions.

quote:

---

Why don't you tell us which parts of the earth have no marine strata (I think someone else below has given some examples)?

---

This is irrelevant. I don't care if every location has 100% marine strata. The presence of coarse terrigenous clastics and unconformities tell me that you are sadly misinformed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Whatever the final analysis, there is plenty of water to cover most of the earth as empirically observed.

---

Silliness again. There is water to cover most of the earth right now. Does this mean that we are in a state of flood? After all, if it is most of the world, it could be all the world!

quote:

---

It is only highlands where there will be diffuiculty and many of these do have marine strata!

---

Sure, it's called plate tectonics. Why is it that you only want all the benefits of plate tectonics but expect to do only your bidding?

quote:

---

The ones that don't could have had theirs washed away. None of us knows the exact % becasue it's probably not an issue considered most of the time.

---

Actually, as stated above, this can be done. Tedious and really not of any values, so it probably won't be done. Just look at any paleogeographic map and calculate the percentages of emergent land through time.

quote:

---

Andor cited a Spanish example earlier toady. If you don't think I've argued plausibly that's fine with me.

---

I don't and that is fine with me, too.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 07-07-2002]

EdgeThe exact amount of land depends on the depth of the ocean basins and the heights of the continents given the amount of water. This amount of land has been variable due to tectonics. Why argue on the subset of issues we actually agree on?

EdgeYou'll have to tell me about syntectonic conglomerates.With a catastrophic flood I wouldn't be surprised if we don't need your relief and if we still get conglomerates.Who is arguing that the volcanic activity occurred in the last 4000 years? I put it primarily during the flood itself. It wasn't pretty. The nuclear winter cuased the ice ages post flood in our scenario.

So was there much less water on earth prior to the flood ?That is God created the excess waters ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Whatever the final analysis, there is plenty of water to cover most of the earth as empirically observed.

---

Of course there is, and you could flood the entire planet with that water if you squished the continents enough. Herein lies your problem. 'Continental squishing' is a young field and there is much to learn.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Who is arguing that the volcanic activity occurred in the last 4000 years? I put it primarily during the flood itself.

---

Where are you putting the flood?The nuclear winter cuased the ice ages post flood in our scenario.[/B][/QUOTE]And the ice ages where when?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

​

The exact amount of land depends on the depth of the ocean basins and the heights of the continents given the amount of water. This amount of land has been variable due to tectonics. Why argue on the subset of issues we actually agree on?

---

Plate tectonics explains why there are marine sedimentary rocks at most locations.

quote:

---

You'll have to tell me about syntectonic conglomerates.

---

Or I could pull a Fred... Syntectonic conglomerates are formed by erosion of mountains undergoing rapid uplift.

quote:

---

With a catastrophic flood I wouldn't be surprised if we don't need your relief and if we still get conglomerates.

---

You cannot get them if there are no strongly positive land elements. No land, no terrigenous clastics.

quote:

---

Who is arguing that the volcanic activity occurred in the last 4000 years? I put it primarily during the flood itself. It wasn't pretty. The nuclear winter cuased the ice ages post flood in our scenario.

---

This is even more fantastic. We know there is some volcanic activity now. We know that there was volcanism in the Precambrian. How can you assign all of it to the flood period? Do you realize what the output of ash and heat would do to the planet? Sterilization, ark and all.

Indeed! Let's take some of the Large igneous provinces and erupt them all in a years time:Siberian traps: 4 x 10^6 km^3
Karoo: 2.5 x 10^6 km^3
Parana: 2.0 x 10^6 km^3
Deccan: 8.2 x 10^6 km^3
Columbia River: 2 x 10^5 km^3Total (non-eroded material)=1.7 x 10^7 km^3 of volcanic material erupted in one year.That is 0.5 km^3/sec! or 46,301 km^3/dayLet's imagine that 1% of the material makes it into the atmosphere. That puts ~1.7 x 10^5 km^3 of dust into the atmosphere. If we assume a density of this particulate of ~1000000 kg/km^3 (very conservative=.001 kg/m^3), then 1.7 x 10^11 kg of dust enters the atmosphere! Since 99% of the volume of the earth's atmosphere is contained in the first 40 km or so---that means that the volume occupied by the atmosphere is 5.1 x 10^8 km^2. In the year of the flood, the atmosphere contained 333 kg of volcanic dust in every square kilometer of air. Someone else can calculate the heat released into the water by all this volcanic activity. I want to know if God provided oxygen masks to Noah and how did the boat survive? If one assumes more realistic densities for the particulate well....
CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-08-2002]

Somewhere amidst all that volcanic devastation we need to fit in at a least a few caldera collapses and schedule 130 crater-forming terrestrial impacts.Shall we arrange them for before, during, or after the Flood?

PeterThe flood waters innundated the land b the same mechanism that it did for mainstream science. Tectonic shaping of the ocean basins and continent levels. It's a mainstream fact that our continents have been largely covered by water. No miracuous water tricks by either of us. Can you imagine continents moving around the planet and the creation of large swags of ocean floors without sea-level changes?