When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?

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

"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'?------------------

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.------------------

"Well, there is the Juan de Fuca plate being subducted beneath Oregon and Washington. That's where we get active volcanos such as Lassen, Rainier and Baker. There's also the Aleutian trench which extends from the Alaska Peninsula to Kamchatka with active volcanos such as Redoubt.The other close ones would be off southern Mexico and various subduction zones in the Caribbean"
--Ah yes, the latter ones were what I recalled at the time. I guess the exact surface area of the North American plate is a bit larger than I thought I could have remembered. Oh well, I learn and relearn something everyday.
--Meert made mention to obduction, I've heard the expression before but never payed too much attention I guess. I'm not quite positive but since obduction would make reference to a 'layering over', wouldn't the accreted sediment from descending lithospere during subduction be referred to obducted material?
--and John, no problem, I get things mixed up and get things wrong or a bit not quite right quite frequently at times. Happens to everyone and the only thing to worry about is exactly what edge pointed out and that you realize that what you said is just that. Unfortunately the majority of the participants which will turn up on this board will be that way but we still have a handful of good roots here. Also, one thing I have learned which would help anyone who carries out these types of debates and discussions is to watch the amount of confidence you put into your assertions. I try to make mine seem as open to new data and ideas as much as I can most of the time, it helps in relaxing things and making things flow less viscous, that is, more fluid if you know what I mean.-Cheers------------------

​

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

"Drier? Its a FLOOD, TB. I believe you postulate surges. So, I know from experience that wet ground takes awhile to dry once thoroughly saturated. This will significantly reduce the number of surges possible in the timeframe, allowing for drying. But wait, don't you also postulate that volcanism saturated the atmosphere with water? That will slow the drying process. Hmmm.... a connumdrum....."
--I think you missed the point about TB's assertion that lower strata would be 'drier', etc. He even gives a rough draft of the mechenism involved. See my comments toward the end of post #89 on the process of lithification. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=23&m=89#89------------------

​

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

​

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

"And the particle size of the deposit was?
I think that fine particles can only deposit when the flow slows down.
Chalk, for example, only can deposit in very quite water, and very very slowly."
--If I'm not mistaken, this also happens via evaporation and/or ground water transport.------------------

​

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

"Chalk is a very fine grained and almost pure limestone, composed of coccoliths: skeletal elements of plantonik foraminifera.
The mean size of a coccolith is about 100 microns, and it has been estimated that it could take 100.000 years to form 1 meter of chalk. Now consider the 500 meters of Dover cliffs."
--Yes I did take a couple seconds to look at some books on chalk deposits after my H. Simpson episode . There are some things you've missed, however. What are your environmental conditions for deposition and nutrient availability for your 100,000 year depositional rate? IT is also interesting to note that some deposits of chalk are almost devoid of organic material. The bulk of its composition is a matrix of finely crystalline calcite. Something interesting about the precipitation of calcite is that it is highly favored by increased temperature. Most especially when there is a surplus of calcite and thus, solubility would be minute.Also, I highly doubt that this is solid chalk in any of the known deposits. Sandstone is a usual constituent in such deposits. The chalk deposits encircling paris are characteristic of such as well as crowded potato-shaped nodules of black flint. In between the black flit layers there is, however, 15-20 feet thick chalk beds containing no flint. The lower chalk deposits cheifly contain glauconite rich sandstone and upper chalk layers are dominated by the flint nodule inclusions. The upper chalk beds, which spand across the english channel as the white cliffs of Dover. [after Gilluly et al. Principles of Geology]------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-11-2002]

"I must rectify my previous post. Coccolitophores are not foraminifera, but golden-brown, single-celled algae (Prymnesiophyta).
Actually the intention of my first post was only to emphasize that a very fine grained sediment need a very slow and quite water to deposit, hardly compatible with the Flood."
--Not exactly, apparently this has the approach of saying that is incompatible with Flood waters because of vigorous wake structure of the sea surfaces on the earth. But this really doesn't effect deposition as at very shallow increasing depths, this activity ceases to be active. I won't argue that deposition is relatively slow of the fossil constituents of chalk limestones.An addition to the mainstream POV for chalk depositional environment:
"The Chalk of NW Europe was deposited on the continental shelf during the earliest stages of the opening of the Atlantic Ocean (Biscay to Labradore opening at the beginning of Chalk deposition) . The sea level was much higher than the present day with the Chalk of Kent typically being deposited in a depth range of 100-300m. The sea levels varied through its deposition. However, not all Chalk was deposited at this depth with some marginal (shallow) marine deposits being recorded both in Devon and NW France."
-- http://www.geologyshop.co.uk/chalk.htm[/URL]"But now I'm going to quote D.R. Prothero (Bringing fossils to life):
",i>...These algae form spherical cells about 15 to 100 microns in diameter, enclosed in a ball of calcareous plates called coccoliths, which are about 2 to 25 microns in diameter. Are so tiny that can fit into the pores of the foraminifera...,/i>
...Are also subject to significant post-morten transport, since they sink in the water column at a rate of only about 1 to 2 microns per second. At this rate, an individual coccolith would take 50 to 150 years to reach the bottom at 5000 m...However most coccoliths sink inside fecal pellets of zooplankton, and sinks to 5000 m in 22 to 100 days, while protecting the coccoliths from dissolution..."
--It is difficult to pinpoint the correct context with your quotes, in the most part due to the snips, characteristic of "...". The latter segment is interesting also. As for the former quote in italics, I am struggling to see exactly what it is he is saying. How could the enclosed section (spherical cells) be larger in diameter relative to the outer(?) "ball of calcareous plates".
--What text is written in between "[...]pores of the foraminifera..., ...Are also subject to[...]"------------------

Thanks for the link information, I'll have to read through them, they look considerably short so that won't be a problem. I don't read very much Creationist material, though the AiG citing may be interesting. I'll post my comments in a few.------------------

Sorry about the summarization, this is my 3rd attempt at posting."It seems to me that it does. The mechanisms of plate techtonics are moving massive lumps of rock around the planet. Accelerate them quickly, as you would have to do, and those big lumps will be pulverized. We do not observe this.
--pulverized? Also, we aren't supposed to to be observing this anyways. Its kinda like the big bang, only happens once."Once you get them moving you have to stop them. More pulverizing. Try putting the brakes on a few zillion tons."
--'More pulverizing', see above, I don't understand your word usage. And 'putting the brakes on a few zillion tons' of MORB is not difficult at such a velocity."Essentially, any pre-flood sediments would be scrambled. This is bad for the hypothesis.
--Scrambled? If you mean to imply a reference toward metamorphism, we find more than enough of this globally correlated. I'm not sure the Himalayan orogenic construction will satisfy you, but that's a pretty big one ."Then there is the temperature of the semi-liquid mantle upon which the continents float. Heating that rock to a temperature high enough for the continents to move across it/through it at these accellerated rates would perhaps heat it to a high enough temperature that the continents would sink into it and disappear. If I am not mistaken, the continents float on the mantle because of density differences. Increase the heat of the mantle, decrease the density. Also, increase the heat, melt the continents. "
--Mantle-surface heat flow isn't going to 'melt the continents'. And your correct that the continents 'float' (ie, are buoyant) because of density differences. I'm sure you remember my breif explanation for chemical fractionation of the earths early crust. Forming crust didn't sink into the mantle because it cooled while the mantle was still extremely hot. Your statement, 'Increase the heat of the mantle, decrease the density', it just isn't that simple. Chemical differentiation gave the forming continental crust buoyancy (see: principal of isostacy)."Then there is the problem of cooling it all down.
--To be honest, when I make assertions of this likeness, I get picked at for details. ie, the mathematics."I imagine that you have studied Joe Meert's web-page concerning the effects of accelerated radio-decay. It isn't pretty."
--That would be a good idea. Do you fully understand the theoretical geodynamic applications in his reasoning?
--You just can't have the mind-set that I 'just know enough to know it is a problem', thats where Hovind messed up."If you are postulating that this vulcanism corresponds to the flood, where is the lava now?"
--Buried."And what about the air quality? "
--And what about? Volcanic ashes and meteoric impact dusts would make perfect cloud condensation nuclei for precipitation. Assuming of course that volcanic activity were not submarine, the majority of which were."The sheer volume of the ocean should wash out the freshwater contributions, yes?"
--washout of freshwater contributions? What problem has this detail stemmed from?"And shouldn't you see a global band of salty sediment?"
--This is one detail taken into consideration when identifying sea/fresh water marine deposition. And the majority of salt depositions are found within evaporital deposits. You don't think that the extraneous salt pouring into the ocean comes from nowhere do you?"Again you have an atmospheric temperature problem."
--How do you know? What have you taken into consideration in coming to this conclusion?"A question about surging? When the ocean surges onto land and then retreats, where does it go until the next surge?
--Back into the main body ocean, unless it is a globally correlated sea-level increase. If not it is also possible that it would have left a 'puddle' behind if hypsography allowed.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-15-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-15-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-15-2002]

"Yes. squashed pounded twisted crushed powdered broken warped mashed
--We then find more than enough of this."and like the big bang, it should leave a trail"
--It did, were looking at it now."ummmm..... mass times (velocity squared)"
--Which was driven by mantle convection at somewhere within the proximity of .0004 m/s."No, TC. I meant mud. I believe this was a comment on the layering of sediments."
--Whatever material, metamorphism applies. And I gave the example of Himalayan orogenesis."This is not a weird as you seem to think. If the mantle were hot enough this is exactly what would happen. Of course, no one has yet to risk giving an actual postulated temperature for the mantle during this time.Interesting, but that doesn't seem the mesh with this very well. Also reference this link for the continental crust melting argument above."
--I found nothing of challenging merit included in the article. What did you find?"I am not making the iconoclastic claims."
--Sorry, I have not made iconoclastic claims in this forum. Also, see Edge's posts, he does exactly what I have written with TB, you aren't exempt."ad hominem thanks... "
--Sorry, I don't make ad hominem attacks until they are fired at me with ignorant intention. You haven't done this and I have not done it back toward you. It is essential that you understand your argument before it is argued. Evo's grow tedious of Creationist parroting, it is the other way around as well in my experience."It doesn't matter if I fully understand it. What matters is that it is a problem for this theory."
--Whether you understand it or not plays a founding role in whether assertions in the realm of 'something is a problemy' has any merit. I have used Hovind as an example because his lack of understanding gives his reasoning no credibility. If you wish to be technical, rather than 'full' understanding, sufficient understanding is needed."Sounds like a formula for acid rain."
--While there would be little explosive volcanism, yup this is a great formula for acid rain.".... from the problem of having alternating fresh and salt water deposits in rapid succession."
--IC, then what do you mean by 'The sheer volume of the ocean should wash [or mix] out the freshwater contributions'."hmmm...... This was a response to the idea that the mantle convected its extra heat into the atmosphere as it cooled. So, the mantle is very hot and very large-- orders of magnitude larger than the atmosphere. It stands to reason that the atmosphere under this scenario would have to absorb a lot of heat. Ergo, the it gets really really hot.
--Sorta, though heat escapes from the atmosphere, I believe the polar regions are where some would attribute the heat loss. Haven't done too much study in this arena though regarding the atmosphere and heat transfer through it. Vardiman did some precipitation modeling you may want to take a look at though: http://www.icr.org/research/lv/lv-r04.htm"Am I right in thinking that there is never a 100% global flood? Seems like we always have a bit of dry land somewhere.
--Just about, though I don't have a problem with there being a short period of complete global inundation.------------------

"I think you are missing or avoiding the point I am trying to make. Perhaps this is due to my highly technical language. "
--It surely must be "I don't see the continents remaining intact under these stresses. It seems they would have been destroyed. Is this an argument from incredulity? Well, sort-of. But it is less of an argument than it is a challenge. Explain to me why this would not happen."
--Well the fact of the matter is, that the continents didn't remain intact per se, enormous orogenic constructions resulted form the Flexure stresses and strains on the continental crusts."I also don't see the oceanic crusts sinking quietly into the deep. Shouldn't this crust buckle and break from the movements? Pile up in some areas and rip open in others? Do we have any oceanic crust mountains?"
--This did happen in Himalayan orogenesis, this is why we find this massive folded mountain range which includes a large folded slab of the ancient tethy's sea. There is also detailed discussion on both this and the above topics in a geophysical sense. Elasticity and Flexure, stresses and strains in solids, Geothermal heat flow, flux transfer and cooling, etc. I had taken a couple hours of these readings and pondering on the information until I realized that it were not necessarily needed for this particular dispute . Geodynamics - Second Edition; Donald L. Turcotte & Gerald Schubert. I reference this book frequently, it is highly recommended for its level of depth in this subject."How about filling in some details? I am guessing at most of your logic."
--I was making my point that at such a velocity, just the friction of this huge mass simply isn't going to keep budging after its underlying mechanism of mantle convection has slowed."The article primarily concerns the formation of the Earth's crust. Seems to have not been so simplistic as you implied. Perhaps you were talking down to me. If you notice, in the early days of the planet the crust was unstable as the TEMPERATURE WAS TOO HIGH. Recall: the crust wouldn't melt."
--Right, the 'forming crust' would not melt. So there is no contradiction here."The crust solidified later, as things cooled. Recall: the crust floats because it solidified when the mantle was very hot."
--Your quotes are not in context and do not qualify as being 'quotes'. This is not what I had said. The crust does not float because it 'solidified when the mantle was very hot'. It floats because it is composed of incompatible elements which were differentiated out of the mantle through partial melting. The article also has a very brief reference toward partial melting."You think creationism and flood geology isn't iconoclastic?"
--Creationism most certainly is not iconoclastic, as there are wide variations in belief associated with the word, it is not direct enough to make this type of attribute. And really, iconoclastic would not be a very appropriate word to use for flood geology. Flood Geology does not attack or seek to overthrow traditional or popular ideas. Maybe the person, but not Flood Geology in itself. Flood Geology is simply Geology within a different framework."Oh come on, TC. Do you fully understand anything? Your best subject, do you fully understand it? If someone asked me this question, I'd say no. There is no other answer. Hiding behind your assessment of another's understanding is an ad hominem tactic. The person doesn't matter. The argument does. If I don't know what I'm talking about, it should be easy enough to demonstrate that."
--This is why I clarified by imputing that 'If you wish to be technical, rather than 'full' understanding, sufficient understanding is needed.'. If someone doesn't know what they are talking about when phrasing an argument or give their opinion on something which they do not understand, the credibility of their ability to interpret the merit of what they are giving their opinion on is then under great doubt. If you give the average 16 year old a Graduate level geophysics paper and they read it and he/she tells you that they agree with the conclusions of the paper, knowing that 16 year olds experience in physics (and of course the absence of its application toward geodynamics) is no higher than High School Physics 101 your not going to give that decision very much merit. Again I gave Hovind as an example. If this is an ad hominem tactic, it is a necessary one which is reasonable to follow rather than to discriminate its usage. Either that or it was just getting late last night when I had written this."So doesn't this have negative effects on the ecology and hence on the flood survivors (who, I suppose would pretty much be the ecology)"
--This has an effect in controlling per se the extinction level events which contributed toward the survivability of existing animals at the time on the earth. Of course this is only one cause of mass deaths on the earth and may be relatively minute in most cases. We don't have a problem with killing off the majority of the earths population when that is what is desired."This perhaps stems from a difficulty understanding, or misunderstandign of how this flood model works. We have the oceans surging inland and then receeding. Then surging. It is raining all the while. While the ocean has receeded, this rain results in freshwater deposits of sediment. The problem I see is that the surges and the freshwater deposits will have to be so close together in time that they should be practically indistinguishable--- blurred.
--Not exactly, though such deposits in most cases are going to be quite thin. These surges may have rushed in various areas considerably afar in distance inland to considerable depths. And I don't think that your assertion that 'rain results in freshwater deposits of sediment' is all that correct for the most part. It is possible that this could happen, but may be extremely rare. Requiring that condensation nuclei be included in significant quantities in precipitation with relatively long durations of time. These deposits may also likely not be attributed as non-eolian because of the possibilities for constituent inclusions in precipitation. I do not see any reason to believe that such deposits would be so thinly deposited that they may represent homologous sediments."Ok, but much of this model creates conditions that would trap heat in the atmosphere-- volcanic dust, large amounts of water vapor...."
--I once argued that this impact dust could either not make it into the high atmospheric vicinity, or that precipitation could make it up there to clean it out within the year or very shortly after the catastrophe. I researched into this specific topic in meteorology over a couple weeks provoked by discussion with Gene90 and was disappointed that this simply would not have happened. Later pondering revealed the fact that actually, there is the very appealing effect of meteoric impacts which I have cited here:Originally located - http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=17&p=13

quote:

---

"What do you mean by 'volcanic and meteoric impact particle nuclei shielded the earth from becoming a global pressure cooker as water vapor is a greenhouse gas'. Did these particles trigger nucleation and condensation?"
--Yes they did, these particles acted as cloud condensation nuclei in the surrounding lower atmosphere though the 'cleaning' ability by this mechanism wouldn't have occurred with as much rigour in the higher atmosphere. This is appealing because we not only have a latter ice age, but we also do not have a global pressure cooker, as it blocked many cosmogenic rays which would have been absorbed by the water vapor below, making an ice age and a nuclear winter a bit of a problem.

---

------------------

""You don't have a problem with complete innudation?" Pardon me, but isn't this central to your whole thesis? You make it sound like you are simply a proponent of incomplete, shallow, epeiric seas!I seems we are redefining 'global flood' here. Care to explain?"
--I personally think it is surprising that as long as when compiling a model that works, it is still quite coherent with the description written in scripture. Though the point is somewhere along the line that complete inundation may have taken place, but it was not an event which spanned any greatly significant length of time.------------------