When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Ok. I got it now. Been readin' up on it. I hate to be wrong but... oh well, it happens.

​

---

Hey, no problem. Never be afraid to be wrong. You should only avoid being willfully wrong.The problem is that geology is not quite the soft science that many people think you can pick up by reading some articles or a few creationist websites.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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?

---

I do not have up to date references, but I am quite certain that obducted material refers to parts of the downgoing slab (usually oceanic) that have locally overiden the upper plate due to some structural complexity or inhomogeneity. Sort of like an overthrust. Though my texts are even more dated than my education, I believe that the Troodos massif of Cyprus is an obducted fragment of the oceanic crust.Accreted terranes are material that has been added to the leading edge of an upper plate. Accreted terranes are quite common, this being on of the ways in which continents have grown throughout the earth's history. An example would be the melange terrane (Fransiscan Formation) in California or some of the Permian to Jurassic island arcs all along the western edge of North/South America. Perhaps there is some more recent terminology used to make greater distinctions nowadays, but this is what I remember. Been away from it for a long time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe 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.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

Based on a strictly metallogenic interpretation, I might extend Wrangellia into the western US and even into South America, thought it is certainly not continuous from the basic terrane in Alaska/Canada.But why do we discuss this? I guess my only real point is that geology is perhaps a bit more complex and broad a subject than some of our creattionist friends here might think.

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
'Mountain ranges in various stages of erosion' could easily be due to the varying 3D topology. We got erosion of soft sediments. On top of that is 4500 years of non-flood erosion.

---

Nonsense. We know that the Rocky Mtns., for instance have been uplifted at least three times. There is evidence for this in syntectonic conglomerates. If there is no or little relief, you will not get such deposits. By the way, one of those uplifts was during your surges in the Pennsylvanian of the east coast, where water was flowing off a mountain range that rose much earlier. Why is it that creationists have such problems with sequential events?

quote:

---

My matter of fact pronouncement that the earth could be covered by the current amounts of water essentially comes from the fact that mainstream science has much of the earth covered at various times.

---

However, there is absolutely no evidence that all of the earth was completely covered at one time. This is not a global flood. I checked some columns earlier today. It is virtually impossible to find a time when there was no erosion somewhere in the world giving rise to coarse grained sediments.

quote:

---

If you want to quible over the last 10 or 20% that discussion will anount to predicting the exact 3D topography of the past. You can embark on that futile task if you wish.

---

Actually, this can be done. What do you think the paleogeographic reconstructions are based on? Unconformities.

quote:

---

If most of the earth's surface has been covered I will simply argue the plausibility of all of it being coverable.

---

You may argue it all you want, but there is no evidence for this.

quote:

---

I suspect that most vulcanism occurred during the flood but I am very uneducated on the Precambrian.

---

In that case you have constant "nuclear winter" for most of the 4000 years since the flood. There is no way to pack all of that volcanic ejecta into 4000 years without dramatic changes in the climate. Just look at what the eruption of Laki did in 1783, and imagine that times a thousand for 4000 years. Not a pretty site. The heat flows would be pretty destructive as well. Please give me some evidence for you hypothesis other than your suspicions.

quote:

---

Why don't you tell us which parts of the earth have no marine strata (I think someone else below has given some examples)?

---

This is irrelevant. I don't care if every location has 100% marine strata. The presence of coarse terrigenous clastics and unconformities tell me that you are sadly misinformed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Whatever the final analysis, there is plenty of water to cover most of the earth as empirically observed.

---

Silliness again. There is water to cover most of the earth right now. Does this mean that we are in a state of flood? After all, if it is most of the world, it could be all the world!

quote:

---

It is only highlands where there will be diffuiculty and many of these do have marine strata!

---

Sure, it's called plate tectonics. Why is it that you only want all the benefits of plate tectonics but expect to do only your bidding?

quote:

---

The ones that don't could have had theirs washed away. None of us knows the exact % becasue it's probably not an issue considered most of the time.

---

Actually, as stated above, this can be done. Tedious and really not of any values, so it probably won't be done. Just look at any paleogeographic map and calculate the percentages of emergent land through time.

quote:

---

Andor cited a Spanish example earlier toady. If you don't think I've argued plausibly that's fine with me.

---

I don't and that is fine with me, too.

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

​

The exact amount of land depends on the depth of the ocean basins and the heights of the continents given the amount of water. This amount of land has been variable due to tectonics. Why argue on the subset of issues we actually agree on?

---

Plate tectonics explains why there are marine sedimentary rocks at most locations.

quote:

---

You'll have to tell me about syntectonic conglomerates.

---

Or I could pull a Fred... Syntectonic conglomerates are formed by erosion of mountains undergoing rapid uplift.

quote:

---

With a catastrophic flood I wouldn't be surprised if we don't need your relief and if we still get conglomerates.

---

You cannot get them if there are no strongly positive land elements. No land, no terrigenous clastics.

quote:

---

Who is arguing that the volcanic activity occurred in the last 4000 years? I put it primarily during the flood itself. It wasn't pretty. The nuclear winter cuased the ice ages post flood in our scenario.

---

This is even more fantastic. We know there is some volcanic activity now. We know that there was volcanism in the Precambrian. How can you assign all of it to the flood period? Do you realize what the output of ash and heat would do to the planet? Sterilization, ark and all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Your syntectonic conglomerates could quite easily be tectonic pre-flood phenomena - we had truly rapid uplift.

---

And that is one reason there was never a global flood.

quote:

---

The flood occurred in stages, the early ones of course with the land out of water.

---

That is interesting since these uplifts occur throughout the geological column.

quote:

---

We know that the flood if it occurred was a tectonic event. We know that the lava flows intersperse with the water laid strata.

---

TB, you are simply bouncing from one fact and off another like a ping pong ball. Never studying them, never taking in the big picture, never realizing that one of your stories negates the previous. None of this requires, or even indicates the possibility of a global flood.

quote:

---

Of course most of the earth's vulcanism happened during the flood for us. It wasn't pretty.

---

No, and it isn't very pretty for you argument either. You simply ignore those facts that are inconvenient. You have been given an indication of the degree of sterilization that would have cleaned the earth of every living thing and yet you forge on. Your model has cooked the earth and you walk away oblivious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The data tells a story of marine innundations - whetehr it covered 80% or 100% of the land surface. After that it is an issue of when.

---

Hunh? What's this 80% business? I hate to tell you, but 80% isn't a global flood. And actually, if I had to guess it was probably more like 30-40%, since that is an estimate of the maximum Cretaceous transgression in North America. I suppose that's as good a guess as any, without getting into measuring unconformities.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Much, much more than 40% of the area of the earth has paleozoic and/or mesozoic marine deposits.That is not the point. There is no point in time when 100% of globe was covered by water. While the Paleozoic sediments were being deposited in one place, they were being eroded in another. It's really quite simple.

quote:

---

Neither of you have even agreed with me that we don't even expect to see this final covering due to erosion.

---

Wrong. I agree that the structurally uppermost units, those above sea level, were being eroded. This is true for all times in the history of the earth.

quote:

---

If this was a logical discussion surely you would make that concession.

---

Fine, but it is not a concession. I have said all along that erosion occurs above sea level. I have also said that there has always been some land above sea level.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
As 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.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

I feel like I'm playing 'Whack-a-mole'....They keep coming back for more, don't they?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Yes, you'll agree that erosion happens on land as some sort of dead obvious miscellaneous statement but linking it to the fact that flood geologists don't expect to see a single marine stratum world-wide is like pulling teeth.

---

They don't? But they must. A one-year global flood should have left behind some correlatable, marine, time-stratigraphic unit. Unfortunately that doesn't happen, but never mind....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
If you have patience why not utterly unambiguously state what that point is that I have missed?

​

So far all I can see from Edge is that becasue I can't prove the entire earth was covered you think our POV has no basis at all.

---

What I'm saying is that there is no evidence for a global flood. In fact there is ample evidence against it.

quote:

---

Regardless of whetherh what you're saying is true we all know that the sea-level did rise about 1000 feet on about 5 occasions during the Phanezoic. This is utter fact from mainstream textbooks. We believe it happened within the flood year. That is the only difference.

---

Now you have to provide evidence that the higest point of land at the time was less than 1000 feet in elevation above sea level otherwise you belief is totally unfounded. In fact, you have studiously avoided providing any such evidence. This is a characteristic that you have in common with wmscott.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

​

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The top most marine strata would have been the softest strata and would have eroded significantly during the rapid regression of waters not to mention 4500 years of erosion in highlands.

---

You know, you've really got to wonder how these rapidly receding flood waters left any cyclothems behind at all, if they were able to wipe the Grand Canyon area free of everything younger than Permian.You also have to wonder how the remnant, post-Perm rocks got lithified if they were left standing as small islands on top of the older lithified rocks.Frankly, I have called it a victory just to get TB to admit that the rocks of the Grand Canyon were lithified and that only the post-Perm rocks were soft/washed away. A small victory, but nontheless a victory.