Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go?

JonF has answered the question "Could it happen?" (no), but there's also the question, "Did it happen?" Frail, soft-bodied Ediacara fauna from a quiet sea a half a billion years ago somehow managed to leave behind evidence of their existence, but hundreds of fissures in the earth spouting cubic kilometers of water in the form of white-hot steam at high velocity a mere 5000 years ago somehow managed to leave no evidence behind at all? Think about this.This question of evidence is ignored over and over and over again by Creationists. Events leave evidence. Events cause change. Whatever was before the event is now different. Seek these differences.A site where a fissure opened, spouted steam, and then somehow closed, would be very different from a site where no fissure ever existed. If these fissures were real then they can still be found today.This isn't the only line of evidence, only the most obvious. For example, perhaps water from within the mantle has a different isotopic profile than water on the surface. A sudden change in the isotopic profile of water 5000 years ago should be detectable in some way, probably in sediments and ice layers and so forth.Another possibility: the mineral content of this much water from the mantle would make a major and sudden contribution to the sediments deposited during the flood. It should be readily obvious from sedimentary layers laid down by the flood.Of course, nothing about Walt Brown's idea does anything to address radiometric dating or sedimentary layers or fossil distribution, all of which are incompatible with his proposals.--Percy

Great, then he knows just where to look for evidence that the mid-oceanic ridges once spouted cubic kilometers of water in the form of superheated steam. For example, in the Atlantic the portion of the seafloor that was adjacent to the ridge 5000 years ago is now about 700 feet distant from it. There should be a significant discontinuity there. Has one been found? No.Another example: superhot steam would probably have some detectable effect on the material of the surrounding sea floor. Has anything like this been found? No.One wishes that Creationists would as confidently and frequently send out expeditions to seek evidence of the flood as they do to seek the remains of Noah's Ark. One might conclude that the dearth of Creationist research acvitivity reflects an at least subconscious understanding that such efforts are unlikely to be rewarded.My main point is that too much of the Creationist approach, nearly all of it, in fact, consists of saying, "This might have happened," or "That might have happened." Frequently the scenarios they propose aren't possible, but it mustn't be overlooked that whether they're possible or not, there's no evidence for them.--Percy

I was just making a side comment, not trying to change the subject. If you'd like to discuss the funding of Creationist research, propose a thread over at [forum=-25].--Percy

The water is not a problem for geology since geology does not believe water ever covered or mostly covered all land on earth. This view is not accepted within geology, and it seems probable that van Andel never even proposed this in his scientific papers. We don't even know if this brief quote accurately captures what van Andel was trying to say in his book. It seems doubtful that van Andel would propose a scenario that required more water than is present on earth.There was a discussion a while back about how much sea level would rise if all polar ice melted. It's not sufficient to cover most land: Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea levelYou're welcome to present evidence for this view.--Percy

You're communicating a false impression of current geological views of the water covering of the early Palaeozoic. While I haven't seen any attempts to quantify the amount of water covering during this period, there seems to be evidence that a higher proportion of the globe was covered by water during the early Palaeoloic than is the case today. Moose's post said that increased tectontic activity during this period may have raised the sea floors. You could probably reasonably argue that water covered 4/5 or 5/6 or whatever of the globe at that time, unlike the current 3/4, but it wasn't a flood, and the evidence does not support your statement that, "Mainstream science already agrees that the earth was almost completely flooded."Here's an attempted reconstruction of the Cambrian, which is what I assume you're referring to when you say "early Palaeozoic". Doesn't look like a global flood, does it: Returning to the thread's topic, modern geology does not have a water problem because modern geology does not postulate a global flood during the early Palaeozoic. Or ever, for that matter. This thread is asking those who believe there was once a global flood for explanations of where the water came from during the flood and where it went afterwards. If you'd like to continue arguing that mainstream geology actually shares your view of a global flood then you should propose a new thread.--Percy

About this diagram: You call this the "famous stratigraphically determined sea-level curves." The diagram comes from the paper The Age of the Earth: Geology and the Deluge by Paul Garner as posted at the Amen.org.uk website. The paper says the diagram was derived by estimating the area of continental flooding, and that it was "adapted from Hallam" from a paper called Pre-Quartenrnary sea-level changes in the Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Science Letters.The diagram is bunk, and I'll explain why.Assuming a constant volume of water (if you don't want to make that assumption then you can address the thread's topic and tell us where the water came from and where it went to), then the most straightforward way to affect sea levels is to remove or add water. One of the most common ways that this happens is for water to be held on land in the form of ice as glaciers (ice in water cannot affect sea levels). But we know that even if all the glaciers in the world melted that sea levels wouldn't rise more than 100 meters at most, yet your diagram has sea levels rising by as much as 600 meters. How could this be?One way we know that the diagram is bunk is because the area of continental flooding does not correlate with sea level, primarily because how much land is flooded is a function of the elevation of all the earth's surface, which isn't known. With both sea levels and the earth's surface rising and falling, there is also no fixed point against which to measure sea levels. The only valid approach is to measure sea level with respect to the earth's center.Using distance from the earth's center as a measure, and leaving the impoundment of ice in glaciers out of the equation, and assuming a constant volume of water, and assuming a constant volume for the earth, how can the water level be made to rise? The only way is to change the topography of the earth's surface so as to cause the water's surface to be further from the earth's center.The simplest way to accomplish this is to reduce the depth of the ocean basins. Since we've assumed a constant volume for the earth, this would require the mountains on land to diminish, and for land levels in general to decrease. It's a little hard to envision, but I think the highest sea levels would occur when all land was underwater.The reasoning behind this conclusion is that starting with a completely submerged earth, any part of the earth's surface that pokes above sea level has only risen because elsewhere another part has fallen (this is required because of constant volume). Any further rise of the land above sea level can only cause sea level to drop, because another part of the earth's surface beneath the sea is falling in order to contribute to the part that is rising.Obvious problems with what I've just presented is that the volume of water on earth is not necessarily a constant, and the volume of the earth can change, due to things like temperature and compressibility.Anyway, this is all a digression. Unless you believe that early Palaeozoic sea levels rose because water was added from somewhere, this is all off-topic.--Percy

A global flood where there were "considerable areas of the continents that were not flooded?" Given that the hidden context is Noah's flood, I think your terminology invites confusion.Regardless of the words you chose to describe the situation in the early Palaeozoic, you definitely do not agree more with TB. He only entered this discussion to argue that mainstream geology has the same problem as Creationists of finding a source for the water of the flood. Whatever word choices you might share with TB, your definition of "flood" and his are definitely not the same. Of course, but that's not the topic of this thread. If his chosen scenario requires that water be added, then he should tell us where it came from.--Percy

I found this image of Vail's sea level changes at Mass Extinction events caused by a fluctuating sea level, but I don't know how to interpret it: Here's another from The Earth through Time: --Percy

Responding to most of your post would only draw the discussion further off-topic. I'll only respond to this on-topic portion: If you are a YEC who believes "fountains of the deep" contributed to the flood, then now is the time to offer your evidence.--Percy

Remember that in Message 20, TB said: That's why I don't think you and TB mean the same thing when you say flooding. When you say flooding you mean that changes in relative sea levels over long time periods caused large land areas to become submerged. When TB says flooding he means that an incursion of additional water from somewhere submerged the continents, though he also apparently grants that sea levels are tectonically influenced, leaving open the question of why he believes additional water is required, a question he probably won't address. And his diagram of sea levels is completely bogus, as I explained in Message 48. Roxrkool appeared to agree in Message 55 ("Some massages are better than others"), and he put "flooding" between quotation marks.Beyond that, the terminology is incorrect due to the different time frames. Use of the term flood in reference to a sudden event seems fine. But it seems incorrect, at least in a geological context, to apply the term flood to land that slowly sinks beneath the waves at rates even as great as a few feet per century.Moving on: This seems off-topic to me for this thread.In Message 53 TB said: TB apparently believes that "fountains of the deep" were in part responsible for the flooding of the early Palaeozoic. I'd like to hear about where he thinks the water came from, and where it eventually went.--Percy

The diagram is bunk because it shows specific heights above current sea level, claiming they were derived from the area of continental flooding. Given uplift and subsidence, it is impossible to make such estimates. The diagrams I provided in Message 52 show that what was actually shown in the original diagrams is the periods when sea levels were rising or falling, not actual sea level heights.But the topic of this thread is where the water came from and where it went. If you believe that additional water was required during the early Palaeozoic, as TB argues, then please answer the question that is the thread's topic.--Percy

Great! So where did the water come from, where did it go, and where's your evidence?--Percy

Am I correct to think this implies that the *thicker* the lithosphere at a given spot, the shallower the ocean at that spot? Am I correct to think this implies that the *thinner* the lithosphere at a given spot, the shallower the ocean at that spot?Anyway, whatever the explanation of this apparent contradiction, the question is, "Where did the water come from, and where did it go?" Your scenario does not require water to be added or subtracted, and so there's no reason for you to be addressing this question.--Percy

The topic of the thread is where did the water come from and where did it go. Fluctuations in sea level due to tectonic processes do not require the addition or subtraction of water.If you or TB would like to open another thread to discuss the magnitude of sea level fluctuations during the Phanerozoic (TB was only claiming this during the early Palaeozoic, but whatever way you want it is fine) then please open another thread. As I keep trying to point out, it's off-topic for this thread. TB only introduced it because he was trying to argue that mainstream geology has as much a problem with "where did the water come from?" as Creationism.By the way, Jar is trying to make a different but related point. He has already jumped ahead and assumed you're arguing that CPT does not require added water. He's raising the issue of the rains of the flood because it represents added water. I think he's trying to help you recognize that you've left out what is usually a key component of the traditional Creationist model, namely the rains from the "floodgates of the heavens".--Percy

I know what you said, I'm asking about what you didn't say, which was whether thicker lithosphere at a given point means shallower or deeper oceans at that point? So you're saying that the ocean is deeper when the lithosphere is thicker? Isn't that the opposite of what is normally the case? You've completely misunderstood the thread's topic. Many Creationist scenarios require the entire planet to be covered even over the highest mountains. This requires more water than exists on earth, hence the question where the water came from to create the flood, and where it went afterwards. If your scenario does not require additional water, then you shouldn't be addressing the question of this thread. It sounds like TB's scenario requires added water, since that's what he was arguing earlier in the thread, but he's so conveniently vague so much of the time that who really knows.--Percy