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

quote:

---

Nope, I am not going to bite. There is nothing to debate about. Baumgardner assumes speeded up radioactive decay rates and rapid plate tectonic movement, does he not? That is "ignoring inconvenient physical laws" imo. If someone takes that position they are basically saying "God did it." So from a scientific standpoint there is nothing to discuss. It is time to cut to the chase on this topic.

---

Accelerated decay is not directly relevant to the CPT and runaway subduction (and baumgardner's computer models of the process), and the rate of tectonic motion is not a physical law.. You need to open another thread if you want to support your assertions. Of course I have dealt with your type many times before and the likelyhood of you actually doing so is slim to none, and yet you will go on making those same unsupported assertions. I would like to see you prove me wrong here. But as people say on the board, "put up or shut up".

quote:

---

How did we get enough water to cover Mt. Everest and where did the water go? Either answer that or concede the point. It is as simple as that.

---

If you have been reading the thread and understand what has been discussed, you would not be asking me this question.. this problem does not exist with CPT.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-26-2005 02:25 PM

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

So, you are saying that Baumgardner does not rely upon accelerated decay? What then is the mechanism for CPT? Why did it start, and why did it stop? I am assuming that you still adhere to CPT as you always did before. It appears that your education has not yet taken effect on your core belief system. Correct. There is no law regarding the rate of tectonic motion. However, there is also no evidence that it was ever significantly different in the past. Chris, if you are going to espouse fringe theories, you need to accept the fact that you will continually run into people 'of our type'. On the other hand, if you come back with a boatload of evidence and can present it coherrently, you will find a willing, if still reluctant, audience. You need to face it, Baumgardner may be a fabulous modeler, but he has no clue about the field realities of geology. Perhaps you will be the one who puts a dose of reality into Baumgardner's model. However, I see little to be optimistic about in that regard: Baumgardner's ultimate defense is 'because God said so!' Correct, as far as you go. However, in order to have the rates of spreading that you are talking about, in such a short period of time, there should be abundant, diagnostic evidence in the geological record. In fact, I would guess that the amount of heat released and the toxic gases would render the earth quite sterile. The stratigraphy of such a deposit would not resemble what we see as normal epeiric seas or pelagic sedimentation. The system would be much more volcanic in composition and in structure. You see, Chris, you have to look at all of the evidence at one time to make a coherrent theory as to the presence or absence of a flood. Just saying that high tectonic rates could do it is not sufficient to make CPT viable.

I don't know what moved you to reply like this, but I'm seeking a more constructive approach to discusion. This is from the Forum Guidelines:

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

I'm also disappointed that you're not taking a more forthright approach. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that something is off-topic, but for the on-topic portions, all that's necessary is to dispassionately describe your points and the evidence supporting them.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Billions of years worth of heat from radioactive decay being released in a single year would melt the tectonic plates. There wouldn't be anything left to runaway and subduct. For this reason alone, among many, many others, accelerated decay would seem relevant to any reasonable person. Off-topic for this thread, sure, but certainly extremely relevant to CPT. There was no intention to claim it was. Certainly any object, including a tectonic plate, is permitted to attain speeds up to the speed of light without violating physical laws. What violates physical laws is requiring that the earth remain cool while the energies necessary to accelerate and decelerate continent sized objects are exerted, and then there's the associated friction. I was at first taking you at your word that CPT proposed no added water. That's why I originally thought the question of this thread was irrelevant to your preferred scenario. Obviously no one would ask, "When a continent sinks below sea level, where does the water that flows over it come from?" Well, duh!But I looked up Baumgardner just a little, and it turns out he believes that jets of water exploded out into space from the oceanic ridges, and that some of this water returned to earth to rain for 40 days and 40 nights. So it turns out there *is* added water in the Baumgardner scenario. I wasn't able to tell whether he felt it made a significant contribution to eustasy or not.--Percy

TC I agree it could be either.I've posted a response to your Recolonization Model comments in THAT thread (newly opened).This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-26-2005 11:51 PM

I agree Percy. I'm actaully a cataloging nut (seriously) and like everything in its pigeon hole as much as possible. The quote we gave was of mainstream Hager cited by ICR in a mainstream publication (by Chandler Burr, 16 June 1997, U.S. News & World Report 55-58.): From http://globalflood.org/papers/geophysicsofgod.htmlBaumgardner is a well respected tectonics expert who built one of the most useful mainstream tectonics simulation engines. He is nevertheless disliked for his creationist views. There is no other possible characterization of Baumgardner than these two sentecnes.

roxrkoolSee post above. It is a mainstream researcher (Hager) that acknowledged Baumgardner's 'leader in the field' tectonic simulation engine.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-26-2005 11:51 PM

JarI alrgely agree with TC. The rain itself may or may not have contributed huge volumes of water. The key point is that you can tectoinically inundate the earth and this has support both scientifically (geolgocially we KNOW the earth was almsot completely inundated tectoncially) and biblically (possible the fountains of the great deep reference). Yes the flood waters are largely of tectonic origin in the non-kindergarten flood models.However, I also will allow for a hydro-plate-like underground supply of Flood waters additionally (and continue to use tectonics as a sink , ie ocean basin rearrangement, afterward).So what we are talking about here is very relevant to the thread at hand.

Sorry but your reply is not intelligible. How can rain contribute volumes of water?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Percy True. However, if someone asks (like in this thread) 'where did the water go' and we say into the new enlarged ocean basins it's a perfectly sensible answer (and it's true mainstream as well). No, I go along with the face-level sea-level curves (at least tentatively until a better study comes out). So we have cyclical inundations occuring throughout the Phanerozoic. But at a gross level there is a peak in the Ordovician (early Paleozoic) and a lesser one during the Cretaceous (late Mesozoic). Not quite Percy. I mentioned it becaue it is critical to our answer of where the Flood waters went! AS a side point I poited out that you guys have almost the same problem. And it's not a huge problem anyway.The only caveat for all of this is that I'll go aong with some sort of hydro-plate theory origin of some of the Flood waters *as well* as a tectonic origin for sea-level falls and rises. True, but that doesn't take away from the relevance of our points to this thread, that for example, the rains may be of tectonic origin. I will also here allow for a genuine non-tectonic origin for an above souce of water too.None of this detracts from the relevance or plausability of a tectonic origin of Flood water 'removal' (retreat).This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-26-2005 11:49 PM

Good point. If it came from a presently non-existent 'above' source. I wont argue with you on that.If we assume a tectonic origin for the waters above then I of course agree that the rain from above does not add water! And with that assumption the water rising is due to tectonic rearrangements of the ocean basins (sea-floor spreading etc) PLUS a possible below source of water (see my posts above).This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-27-2005 12:00 AM

So was there an increase in the volume of water or not?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I will say: not necessarily.However, I personally suspect there was genuine increase in water content form sources that no longer exsit above and below but it is not important to the model becasue we know *empircally* that the earth was inundated tectonically anyway.If one day we can all (ie from either mainstream or YEC point of view) play this out *quantitatively* then sources of water will become an important issue.

Well,when you can answer the question come on back.Bye.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OK.For the record, we answer where the Flood waters *went* in the same way you do: tectonic ocean basin rearrangements.