When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
In the YEC flood model plate tectonic events instigated the flood, set the continents moving, generated much of the mountain ranges and caused the cessation of the flood.

---

So where was the water which flooded the world duu to techtonic events?

quote:

---

Before the flood the mountains were much lower so the water in the oceans/ice-caps today would have been sufficient.

---

Wouldn't you not only have to flatten the mountains, but the continents as well? There is a lot of water in that ice but it wouldn't flood the entire planet. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/scienceshack/backcat/experiments/mafloatingice.shtmlHere is an interesting one--- evidence suggesting that the cap has already lost 40% of its volume. That should be good for a good flood eh? http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/11/17/fp2s1-csm.shtmlAll in all, the best rise I found was twenty feet due to Antartic ice melting. http://whyfiles.org/091beach/5.htmlSo I say again, you'd have to squish the continents too. But then everything would be under water UNTIL the flood.... wait, that'snot right either.... Where is the dry land?

quote:

---

It is evident from mainstream science that most of the land surface of the earth (if not all of it) has been underwater! The geological column on land is primarily marine!

---

Yeah, no kidding. Ever heard of the mid-ocean ridges?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Yeah, no kidding. Ever heard of the mid-ocean ridges?"
--Mid-ocean ridge basalt is relatively new, and current sedimentary transport all the way over there is unmeasurable. Why would that be considered a piece of the Geologic column John?

​

---

TC, this is basic plate tectonics. New crust bubbles up at the ridges, older crust gets pushed away. Eventually that crust crashes into another bit of crust and goes either up or down. If it goes up it carries with it millions of years of ocean floor. Hence, most of the land mass on Earth has been underwater. This layer will appear in the geologic record.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Actually, this is technically incorrect. Oceanic crust is compositionally different from continental. Most of the continental oceanic deposits were due to sea-level changes which caused inundation of the lower lying areas of the continent. Ask people in Terrebone Parish Louisiana! When two continents collide some of the oceanic material may get trapped between them and pushed up. For example, near the top of Mt. Everest is a limestone bed from the Tethyan Ocean. However, most material that is deposited on the ocean floor is subducted back into the mantle.

---

Interesting. What then is the origin of the primary continental crust(s)? I mean, if you have a minute or two...Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Conventional theory in the mainstream (Which I agree in a YECists scenario) is by chemical fractionation of incompatible elements (majority being lithophilic & atmophilic(?)) in the early stages of the earths formation as the hot mantle convected.

---

Ok. I got it now. Been readin' up on it. I hate to be wrong but... oh well, it happens.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The water came from the same place it did for the mainstream transgressions - the ocean! The 40 days of rain was presumably tectonically heated condensed steam. Your scenario has the same water problem and almost the same soluiton!

---

But mainstream geology never has to account for enough water to flood the entire Earth all at the same time. Major floods I can understand, but everything at once is very different.Oh... I live in Texas. Hot water vapor is very very bad!

quote:

---

What is your point about the mid-ocean ridges? I see that TC addresses the issue.

---

Yes he did, among others. I concede.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

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:
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:
We all know empirically (ie fromthe strata) what happened. It's just an issue of when.

---

No 'we' don't. You know a flood engulfed the planet. Others know differently.I don't see how the strata can tell both tales. This post just doesn't make sense. Sorry ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The data tells a story of marine innundations - whetehr it covered 80% or 100% of the land surface. After that it is an issue of when.

---

You are completely missing the point, as edge has already pointed out.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John

​

If you have patience why not utterly unambiguously state what that point is that I have missed?

​

So far all I can see from Edge is that becasue I can't prove the entire earth was covered you think our POV has no basis at all.

---

Well... sort of....You need to correlate a significant amount of flood data to the same time period and to the same level relative to one another. Demonstrate that all of your flood data is, in other words, representative of the same global average sea level. And also show that the lands surrounding these flood strata is lower than that average sea level. You DO need to prove a global flood, or at least infer it strongly. Otherwise you don't have a flood of Biblical proportions. You don't have to find strata per se to do this-- erosion would presumably eliminate some of it as you rightly pointed out. However, in only a few thousand years, there should be more than enough uneroded strata.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The top most marine strata would have been the softest strata and would have eroded significantly during the rapid regression of waters not to mention 4500 years of erosion in highlands.

---

All of the strata were deposited within one year, yes?All of that strata should be reasonably close to the same density.Even so, if you erode the top 50% of the strata, you still should have flood strata. And this layer should be thick given the magnitude of the catastrophe and the mud that must have been kicked up, etc.You ought to see 4000 years or so of post-flood strata, then a really thick chaotic flood layer, then pre-flood strata. Such isn't the case.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The lower strata would be denser, drier and harder due to compaction and longer duration.

---

Geologically speaking, a year ain't much duration. Density would increase as you got deeper but not significantly, and my point about everything being flood strata still stands.Drier? Its a FLOOD, TB. I believe you postulate surges. So, I know from experience that wet ground takes awhile to dry once thoroughly saturated. This will significantly reduce the number of surges possible in the timeframe, allowing for drying. But wait, don't you also postulate that volcanism saturated the atmosphere with water? That will slow the drying process. Hmmm.... a connumdrum..... [QUOTE][b]Yes, even the top 50% being eroded will leave new strata - but it wont cover the entire globe - it will cover the parts that weren't eroded![/QUOTE][/b]I don't think you got my point. You should have such a massive layer of flood strata that virtually any strata post-flood should be flood layer. So erosion or not, you should have a very nearly global flood layer, and very close to the top of the column at that.

quote:

---

(not necesarily chaotic - rapid currents have been shown to produce very nice layering) flood layer, then pre-flood strata!

---

This is the clincher though. In other posts you've argued the possibility of the flood layering and sorting sediment. I am thoroughly unconvinced.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]I think I understand why we're missing each other here. All of the Palezoic/Mesozoic is flood strata in our opinions - marine, non-marine and mixed.[/QUOTE][/b]I understand this part. What I don't understand is how you can get marine and non-marine strata from a flood, or series of floods within the given timeframe. I have read many of your and TC's post regarding this-- read far more than only the one I have commented upon-- and I can't see how it would work.

quote:

---

Layering under rapid flow. I have posted refs from several mainstream texts such as Pettijohn and Blatt et al deomsntrating that mainstreamers admit neat layering under rapid flow.

---

This much is reasonable enough, but rapid flow is not a particularly good model for a global flood. There is just too much coming and going. Too many hills and trees and what not in the way.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Our marine innundations come in surges (presumably becasue of plate slipping events). In between we have non-marine deposition due tothe 40 days of rain (due to tectonically heated steam). There is not much more to it than that if you want to explain alternting marine and non-marine layers is there?[/QUOTE][/b]hmmmm..... well, actually there is. But you are aware of and ignore the objections, so why bother?

quote:

---

Your trees etc are not going to effect layering. We are talking thousands of feet of sediment so hills are not going to effect it later on either. During rapid currents there will be layering of conglmerates and sandstones. During inbetween calms there will be silts and shales. Mt St Helen's is the closest model system for this we have so far and demonstrates rapid layering, rapid canyon formation and floating mats of vegetation.

---

Again, why bother? This forum is full of objection to your theories and you do nothing but ignore them.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com