When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?

Here's one of those 'details'. http://gondwanaresearch.com/oceans.htmCheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

---

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.CheersJoe MEert

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
There is, of course, a geological term. But I forgot it.

---

JM: It's called obduction. The San Francisco Mint is built on some of this material.CheersJoe MEert

Indeed edge the terms have withstood the test of time! Much of the NW coast of North America is accreted terranes. The largest of these, Wrangellia, stretches from extreme SW Canada into Alaska. However, most of the marine strata in the mid-continent resulted from the incursion (and the fluctuations) of the sea during Paleozoic times.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John

​

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!

---

JM: But you've no evidence to support this scenario. It is a 'what if this happened, then this might have happened'. You need data not mindless conjecture.

quote:

---

Mainstream sceince does have the continents flat before the flood (for us Precambiran).

---

JM: This is baloney! The Precambrian had mountains on a Himalayan scale.

quote:

---

The mainstream global sea-level curves over geological time show 1000 feet of rises.

---

JM: You mean total? Or over 300 meters at times? Sea-level fluctuated. By the way, are you going to tell us which strata represent the TOTALLY covered earth?

quote:

---

Tectonic events caused the innundations and regressions - this is the mainstream view. We just have the whole thing as quicker.

---

JM: No, it is not the complete mainstream view. Why don't you stop inventing the mainstream view and actually learn about it? [QUOTE]What is your point about the mid-ocean ridges? I see that TC addresses the issue.[/B][/QUOTE]JM: Well, here's mine that nobody has answered. This is a very serious problem for your 'tectonically induced' Gilgameshian flood story.CheersJoe Meert

​

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

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]

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe

​

The ark may have been sealed for more reason than one.

​

Water and fire represent the washing and refining of the Holy Spirit. The flood itself represents baptism. It all has a purpose. The volcanic ash provides minerals for future growth just as the action of the Holy Spirit is one of fruitfullnes in the life of a Christian. What a wonderful picture of God's redeptive actions you have painted for us Joe. Our God truly is one that 'fleshes' things out in us and our land which is a picture of the 'holy ground'.

---

JM: But Setterfield said the ark had windows that were open so that Noah could record the effects of people being scalded to death by the activity. Basically, your answer is 'When pressed for details, respond with a miracle!". That's particularly poor theology and even worse science! I'll add this to the list of items creationists dodge.CheersJoe Meert

EdgeAs you know, creationists are fond of the Gishian gallop. It requires the debater to launch a series of unrelated (and unsupported) claims. When challenged on the details, claim a miracle and then change the topic. This modus operandi has worked well so don't expect to see it abandonded.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe

​

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

---

The correct term is 'threads'. If you are talking specifically about this thread then look at your comment about why the ark is sealed. No science, just miracles.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge

​

Much, 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.

---

JM: But it's not 100% and that is what you require. Anything less is not global. Or are you willing to compromise scripture? Most other creationists are willing to compromise scripture (like Setterfiled, Austin, Baumgardner). Are you joining the pack.CheersJoe MeertCheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I think the problem I am having with this issue is::

​

For the waters to flood the whole earth, without adding
new water mass to the earth, the sea floors had to rise
(by whatever mechanism ... I'm not up on geology which
doesn't help in Flood debates ... but please bear
with me ). If the sea floors didn't rise, then we cannot
the water in the seas to cover the land.

​

This being the case, the land had to sink too, because
you can't push up one part of the crust without another
part sinking.

​

Then to get rid of the water again, you have to do the reverse
i.e. sea floors drop and land rises back up.

​

All in one year.

​

Wouldn't this sort of extreme, and presently unknown, geoligical
activity leave distinct evidences ? I don't know, I'm just
asking.

---

JM: This answers your ocean part. There is nothing in the creationist flood models that is consistent. I hate to keep harping on this point, but creationists cannot agree on the most basic point of their model which is when the flood started, peaked and ended! Setterfield has it all in the Precambrian, TB has it picking up where Setterfield says it stopped and WMScott has it following where TB and TC place it! TB's model produces a dense cloud of silicate particulate that would surely kill everything on earth by suffocation or cancer---at least those who weren't already boiled in the initial evaporation of the ocean. Baumgardner's model produces modern oceans that are only a few meters deep (so the whole deep-sea diving stuff is faked). When I see claims of TB "our models explain all the geological observations that yours does", I have to pick myself off the floor every time. Such a claim is as absurd as saying 'my dissertation made it through without a single correction' (except for 20 red marks and a missing graph)!CheersJoe Meert