When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?

Gene90If these processes occurred between Cambiran to Cretaceous I would definitely say you should schedule them for the flood. Just as with coal the flood answer can end up explaining the data better. I know you don't agree.Creationists have speculated about marring of the solar system via various potential meteoric events at the time of the fall or the flood.

EdgeMuch, much more than 40% of the area of the earth has paleozoic and/or mesozoic marine deposits. Neither of you have even agreed with me that we don't even expect to see this final covering due to erosion. If this was a logical discussion surely you would make that concession.

JoeJust where exactly did I do these things in this thread?

JoeWe could only say empirically 100% if the top flood layer had remained everywhere. Of course no one could possibly expect that. The data is consistent with the expectations of our model.And exactly how do Austin and Baumgardner question scripture?

EdgeYes, you'll agree that erosion happens on land as some sort of dead obvious miscellaneous statement but linking it to the fact that flood geologists don't expect to see a single marine stratum world-wide is like pulling teeth.It's as if you're treating this like a court case or something. 'Oh - you thought it was relevant that I was holding a machine gun? You never asked.'

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-08-2002]

Our units don't sit around forming for 50 million years like yours. It was softest sediment much of which would have been washed away during the abating. Even in your scenario there are huge sections of missing geological time.

PeterIn our scenario we have, yes, a flatter landscape that comes up out of the sea during creation day 3 (read Gen 1). During the flood continental drift, sea-floor spreading and the flood is tectonically instigated. At the end of this dynamic, presumably due to crustal cooling, the land is again above the sea.I don't claim for a minute that I can deterministically show you a computer model doing this without fudging it. But (a) I believe it did happen dynamically like this, (b) my main point is that the empirical data supports this at the gross level and (c) our scenario is actually consistent with the mainstream sequence of events.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-09-2002]

PeterRegardless of whetherh what you're saying is true we all know that the sea-level did rise about 1000 feet on about 5 occasions during the Phanezoic. This is utter fact from mainstream textbooks. We believe it happened within the flood year. That is the only difference.One mainstream view (which I subscibe to) is that the sea-floor spreading that generated the mid-oceanic ridges, caused the rise due to new mateial at the ocean ridges. This is undoubtedly part, if not all of the answer (for the large scale sea level rises).The five drops are probably due to what I call 'delayed subduction'.http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/smile.gif[/IMG] This is my personal theory which may totally parallel a published mainstream theory - I just can't find the info. The sea floor spreading generates new sea floor that pushes the exisitng sea-floor horizontally as it cools. This exterts pressure right up to the continents. When the huge frictional threshold is overcome the oceanic plate suddenly slips under the continent leading to a drop in water level. The sea-level curves look just like this is what happened. You get an initially rapid sea level rise that settles down and then a sudden sea level drop. I almost feel like publishing this model but it seems too obvious and I don't have the time/experince to search for empirical support other than the sea-level curves.Anyway, regardless of the time scale mainstream scientists and creaitonists ultimately believe it happened essentially the same way.

JohnIf 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.

EdgeSo becasue we can't prove that the marine innundations were ever complete then we can't study the remaining consequences of our model?The mulitple 1000 foot rises of course are in a sense cumalitive so that is not quite right but I'll concede that our model might require this sort of low relief. On the other hand in our scenario, and the mainstream scenario, the continents, or at least large parts of then have sunk 1000s of feet as well.I am not an expert on Precambrian topgraphy and I have a day time job. I simply make a claim that has quite good evidence. I am not claiming it would stand up to peer review without some work put into it! This is a web BBS site isn't it?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-09-2002]

JohnThe 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. I am personally quite comfortable with evidence that about 50% of the land surface was covered. I will look into it more to get a better figure. The fact that many mountain ranges have marine strata. The only barrier in the way of our theory is finding what the highest mountain range was in the Precambrian. Anyone got data on that? Joe or Edge claims Himalayan proportions but I'd be interested in seeing data on that.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-09-2002]

EdgeIt's pretty clear in anybodys model that the strata that we see today are the strata that didn't get eroded! Probably in basins and shelves. The strata in the highlands got eroded. What is there to debate?The issues you raise are issues explainable in either your or my model.How did I say that 'the rocks of the Grand Canyon were lithified and that only the post-Perm rocks were soft/washed away'? All I said was that the last laid rocks were the softest!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-09-2002]

JohnFor the purposes of discussion, yes, we can assume that the Paleozoic and Mesozoic were formed in one year. The lower strata would be denser, drier and harder due to compaction and longer duration.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! Parts of the Cenozic and/or Mesozoic may represent this sediment possibly - so yes it is thick!We do see 4000 years or so of post-flood strata, then a really thick (not necesarily chaotic - rapid currents have been shown to produce very nice layering) flood layer, then pre-flood strata! 4000 years of post-flood time leaves nothing other than the current top soil and local flood plains! Then we see the Phanezoic geological colukmn which is glacial and flood and then the Precambrian which is probably pre-flood!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-09-2002]

Joe & PeterFirstly, about 90% of flood creationists subscribe to a flood generating at least the Paleozoic/Mesozoic. WmScott & Setterfield are outliers whether they are right or not.Secondly, at the moment the discussion is about gross mechanisms and empirical evidences. I am trying to show that the flood is consistent with the gross sequence of events described in the rocks. That is a good way to start. You can jump to the last page and miss the way the framework works if you want but that is not a good way to llok at a model so different to the one you are used to.I am essentially going right back to the start and saying, let's forget the last 200 years and start fresh.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-10-2002]

JohnI don't make a big deal about the difference between upper and lower flood strata - I only denied that they would be the same. There is no reason to particularly require it anyway.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. But I admitt that there should have been one final marine covering world wide. It does not have to be particularly thick everywhere. It is no surprise that it is not visible everywhere due to erosion. Which of the marine beds it is worldwide is a very good quesiton - perhaps a Cretaceous or Cenozoic innundation?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. One quote even states 'many layers' were generated in 'hours, minutes and seconds'. Mt St Helen's deomnstrate hundred foot deep layered mud flows and experiments in artifical channels (which I have a video of) show clear neat layering. The paleocurrent data demonstrates that much of the geo-column occurred under rapid flow.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-10-2002]