When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?

Someone, somewhere has probably already put forward
an answer to this ... but I just wondered ... if the
whole Earth was covered by water, so that there was NO
land ... where did all the water go ?Is there enough water in the ice caps to cover ALL land
... I'm asking genuinely here not trying to make a point
of any kind ... I'd just like to know.

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.The scenario is of course designed to match mainstream observations. Before the flood the mountains were much lower so the water in the oceans/ice-caps today would have been sufficient.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! So we explain the coming and goings of the waters the same way you do. We just claim it happened much, much more quickly than you giuys predict.In detail neither mainstream or flood geolgoists have the complete answer but it is essentially due to the plate movings and sea-floor spreading that changed the ocean basin sizes etc and the continental plate heights.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-05-2002]

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.

---

Hmm, I wonder why we see mountain ranges in various stages of erosion if they all occurred 4000 years ago. Care to address this? I also would like to know about mounatain ranges that have evidence of several stages of orogeny followed by nearly complete erosion. How could this happen in 4000 years without us noticing?

quote:

---

The scenario is of course designed to match mainstream observations.

---

Well, some of them anyway. The rest you have to ignore.

quote:

---

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

---

You make a rather matter-of-fact assertion here. Do you have any evidence for this? It would seem that the presence of eroded moutain ranges would militate against this hypothesis. What about the terrestrial volcanos in the geological record? Were they all flat before the flood? I have asked you this before and never received an answer.

quote:

---

It is evident from mainstream science that most of the land surface of the earth (if not all of it) has been underwater!

---

But there is absolutely no evidence that it has all been underwater at one time.

quote:

---

The geological column on land is primarily marine!

---

And geologists have never noticed this before TB came along. I am not sure what the significance of this observation is.

quote:

---

So we explain the coming and goings of the waters the same way you do.

---

You just haven't got a clue as to how much water there was, where it came from or where it went.

quote:

---

We just claim it happened much, much more quickly than you giuys predict.

---

Yes, you just have to suspend your credulity an wish really hard.

quote:

---

In detail neither mainstream or flood geolgoists have the complete answer but it is essentially due to the plate movings and sea-floor spreading that changed the ocean basin sizes etc and the continental plate heights.

---

You are a fine one to even mention details considering that you have ignored most of them. I think I'll stay with the mainstream answer.

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

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

"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?------------------

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 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 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 Tranquility Base:
It is evident from mainstream science that most of the land surface of the earth (if not all of it) has been underwater!

---

Possibly. But not all at the same time!TB, The Sierra de Guadarrama (50Km NW Madrid), is of Precambrian and Cambrian materials uplifted in the Hercynian orogeny. Since then, it has never again been covered by sea waters. It was fully eroded and lifted again in the Alpine orogeny. Now it is a crystalline mass, with its higher peak 2.400m. (Mt. Penalara): Gneiss, slate, quartzite, and intrusive granitic plutons.

quote:

---

The geological column on land is primarily marine!

---

All the perforations NW Madrid to the crystalline block, give the same result: unconsolidated argillaceous material, of continental origin, derived from erosion of Sierra de Guadarrama mountains.

[QUOTE][b]However, most material that is deposited on the ocean floor is subducted back into the mantle.[/QUOTE][/b]Aren't there pockets of it in North America?

"Interesting. What then is the origin of the primary continental crust(s)? I mean, if you have a minute or two..."
--I think Meert gave the necessary information I would have given in that last bit. 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. Thats pretty much how it goes, Dr. Meert could give you more but I'll just leave it with a recommendation that he gave to me a bit ago for a good reading. Geodynamics: Turcotte & Schubert - Second Edition. The text-book's last chapter is a nice segment on some of the basics of Geochemistry.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-06-2002]

"Aren't there pockets of it in North America? "
--'Pockets'?------------------

There is, of course, a geological term. But I forgot it.

From the context of the conversation, the only thing I can think of is Accreted sediment from decending lithosphere during subduction. But if mind serves me right, the only subduction zone near the North American Plate is the trench directly above South America. Forgot what that one was called.------------------