When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?

[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?

EdgeYes, 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.It's as if you're treating this like a court case or something. 'Oh - you thought it was relevant that I was holding a machine gun? You never asked.'

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-08-2002]

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....

Our units don't sit around forming for 50 million years like yours. It was softest sediment much of which would have been washed away during the abating. Even in your scenario there are huge sections of missing geological time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Peter

​

The flood waters innundated the land b the same mechanism that it did for mainstream science. Tectonic shaping of the ocean basins and continent levels. It's a mainstream fact that our continents have been largely covered by water. No miracuous water tricks by either of us. Can you imagine continents moving around the planet and the creation of large swags of ocean floors without sea-level changes?

---

So before the mountains rose, and the sea basins dropped, the world
would have been much flatter and shouldn't have had
any dry land then ?

PeterIn our scenario we have, yes, a flatter landscape that comes up out of the sea during creation day 3 (read Gen 1). During the flood continental drift, sea-floor spreading and the flood is tectonically instigated. At the end of this dynamic, presumably due to crustal cooling, the land is again above the sea.I don't claim for a minute that I can deterministically show you a computer model doing this without fudging it. But (a) I believe it did happen dynamically like this, (b) my main point is that the empirical data supports this at the gross level and (c) our scenario is actually consistent with the mainstream sequence of events.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-09-2002]

To cause the flooding the sea floor had to rise.Wouldn't a rise in one area cause a depression elsewhere,
like a gel-filled football ?

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.

---

You are completely missing the point, as edge has already pointed out.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

PeterRegardless 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.One mainstream view (which I subscibe to) is that the sea-floor spreading that generated the mid-oceanic ridges, caused the rise due to new mateial at the ocean ridges. This is undoubtedly part, if not all of the answer (for the large scale sea level rises).The five drops are probably due to what I call 'delayed subduction'.http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/smile.gif[/IMG] This is my personal theory which may totally parallel a published mainstream theory - I just can't find the info. The sea floor spreading generates new sea floor that pushes the exisitng sea-floor horizontally as it cools. This exterts pressure right up to the continents. When the huge frictional threshold is overcome the oceanic plate suddenly slips under the continent leading to a drop in water level. The sea-level curves look just like this is what happened. You get an initially rapid sea level rise that settles down and then a sudden sea level drop. I almost feel like publishing this model but it seems too obvious and I don't have the time/experince to search for empirical support other than the sea-level curves.Anyway, regardless of the time scale mainstream scientists and creaitonists ultimately believe it happened essentially the same way.

JohnIf 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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John

​

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.

---

Well... sort of....You need to correlate a significant amount of flood data to the same time period and to the same level relative to one another. Demonstrate that all of your flood data is, in other words, representative of the same global average sea level. And also show that the lands surrounding these flood strata is lower than that average sea level. You DO need to prove a global flood, or at least infer it strongly. Otherwise you don't have a flood of Biblical proportions. You don't have to find strata per se to do this-- erosion would presumably eliminate some of it as you rightly pointed out. However, in only a few thousand years, there should be more than enough uneroded strata.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

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.

EdgeSo becasue we can't prove that the marine innundations were ever complete then we can't study the remaining consequences of our model?The mulitple 1000 foot rises of course are in a sense cumalitive so that is not quite right but I'll concede that our model might require this sort of low relief. On the other hand in our scenario, and the mainstream scenario, the continents, or at least large parts of then have sunk 1000s of feet as well.I am not an expert on Precambrian topgraphy and I have a day time job. I simply make a claim that has quite good evidence. I am not claiming it would stand up to peer review without some work put into it! This is a web BBS site isn't it?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-09-2002]

JohnThe 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. I am personally quite comfortable with evidence that about 50% of the land surface was covered. I will look into it more to get a better figure. The fact that many mountain ranges have marine strata. The only barrier in the way of our theory is finding what the highest mountain range was in the Precambrian. Anyone got data on that? Joe or Edge claims Himalayan proportions but I'd be interested in seeing data on that.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-09-2002]