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

Yet Hager has only respect for Baumgardner's computer program. Indeed, there is universal agreement that Terra, created to prove the Bible literally true, is one of the most useful and powerful geological tools in existence. "Baumgardner is seen as one of the world leaders in numerical models of mantle convection," says Hager.

There are good physical reasons for believing that subduction can occur in a catastrophic fashion because of the potential for thermal runaway in silicate rock. This mechanism was first proposed by Gruntfest [6] in 1963 and was considered by several in the geophysics community in the early 1970's [1]. Previous ICC papers [2,3] have discussed the process by which a large cold, relatively more dense, volume of rock in the mantle generates deformational heating in an envelope surrounding it, which in turn reduces the viscosity in the envelope because of the sensitivity of the viscosity to temperature. This decrease in viscosity in turn allows the deformation rate in the envelope to increase, which leads to more intense deformational heating, and finally, because of the positive feedback, results in a sinking rate orders of magnitude higher than would occur otherwise. It was pointed out that thermal diffusion, or conduction of heat out of the zone of high deformation, competes with this tendency toward thermal runaway. It was argued there is a threshold beyond which the deformational heating is strong enough to overwhelm the thermal diffusion, and some effort was made to characterize this threshold.The important new aspect addressed in this paper is the dependence of the viscosity on the deformation rate itself. Although this deformation rate dependence of viscosity has been observed experimentally in the laboratory for several decades, the difficulty of treating it in numerical models has deterred most investigators from exploring many of its implications. Results reported in the previous ICC papers did not include this highly nonlinear phenomenon. Significant improvements in the numerical techniques that permit large variations in viscosity over small distances in the computational domain, however, now make such calculations practical. The result of including this behavior in the analysis of the thermal runaway mechanism is to discover a much stronger tendency for instability in the earth's mantle. Moreover, deformation rates orders of magnitude higher than before throughout large volumes of the mantle now can be credibly accounted for in terms of this more realistic deformation law. This piece of physics therefore represents a major advance in understanding how a global tectonic catastrophe could transform the face of the earth on a time scale of a few weeks in the manner that Genesis describes Noah's Flood.Recent papers by several different investigators [10,13,18,19] have also shown that the mineral phase changes which occur as the pressure in the mantle increases with depth also leads to episodic dynamics. The spinel to perovskite plus magnesiowustite transition at about 660 km depth is endothermic and acts as a barrier to flow at this interface between the upper and lower mantle. It therefore tends to trap cold material from the mantle's upper boundary layer as it peels away from the surface and sinks. Numerical studies show that, with this phase transition present, flow in the mantle becomes very episodic in character and punctuated with brief avalanche events that dump the cold material that has accumulated in the upper mantle into the lower mantle. The episodic behavior occurs without the inclusion of the physics that leads to thermal runaway. This paper argues that when temperature and strain rate dependence of the rheology is included, the time scale for these catastrophic episodes is further reduced by orders of magnitude. In this light, the Flood of the Bible with its accompanying tectonic expressions is a phenomenon that is seems to be leaping out of the recent numerical simulations.

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

In a completely literal sense, it would appear that it is speaking of an underground source of water, however I think that such a dogmatic approach to literal reading is uncalled for and even potentially dangerous (as it leads to using genesis as a conclusive precursory control on the direction of young earth geological research). The phenomena were described in such a fashion so that it could be understood. No one would have any idea what genesis is talking about if it said anything about large amounts of molten rock coming in contact with water and producing 'fountains' of water via shock hydrodynamic reactions.

There are two problems with this. The first is administrative. I'm becoming increasingly concerned about this thread staying on-topic. There are no hard and fast rules about how on-topic a thread should be, but this one seems to be dropping below a reasonable threshold. Please, I would appreciate it if you and TC wouldn't make it necessary for me to drop into administrative mode again.

The second is my rising concern about the incorrect impressions you're giving of mainstream geologic views. If those at EvC Forum interested in geology have somehow missed recent developments and Baumgardner's views are now finding acceptance in mainstream circles then by all means educate these misanthropes, but you provided links to articles at ICR, and this organization is as far removed from mainstream science as one can get.

Yet Hager has only respect for Baumgardner's computer program. Indeed, there is universal agreement that Terra, created to prove the Bible literally true, is one of the most useful and powerful geological tools in existence. "Baumgardner is seen as one of the world leaders in numerical models of mantle convection," says Hager.

Well, the subject is " Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go?"So from what you said, the volume didn't change and it rained. So based on that, the water in the atmosphere had to come from the water on the ground.That wouold seem to indicate the answer is "that there was no additional water and any increase in water for rain would result in lowering the water level on the ground by an equal volume."Together so far?

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".

How can rain contribute volumes of water?

This is nonsense. A model is not reality and, in fact, Baumgardner's model has no resemblance to the real world. I'm not sure what you know about numerical models, but I assure you that with Baumgardner's program, I could get the tectonic plates to fly through the air, if you would like. Being able to write a simulation and knowing what to put into it are completely different things.

I also choke a bit on the statement that Terra is the most powerful geological tool availble to geoscientists. This is hyperbolic nonsense, also. There are many tools in geosciences and I seriously doubt that the author of the statement has surveyed many of them. To say that a simulation program has such eminence is over the top.

You are once again misrepresenting the views of mainstream geology. The origin of the water is not a problem for mainstream geology because it does not postulate the addition of any water.

Mainstream geology believes that the water already present on the earth is responsible for covering any land with water, regardless of whether the cause was rising sea floor or sinking continents or some combination. And mainstream geology believes that when land emerged from the sea that the water formerly covering the land returned to the ocean basins.

To the extent that you accept this view, you also have no problem with the source of water. But you also appear to believe that water was added, both from below and from above, which differs from what TC was arguing. TC did not believe any added water was necessary, that the cause of the flood was simply tectonically induced rising sea floor causing shallower oceans, so his view doesn't need to answer the question of this thread. But your view does.So, where did the water from above and below come from, and what evidence do you have supporting your view?

Furthermore geochemical fractionation of water (among other volatiles) out of mantle rock through surface vents (including seafloor spreading centers) is about the extent of what I believe could have been the source of 'extra water' from under the earth. This water, however, is an insignificant addition and is not going to effect sea level. However TB seems to allow for large "chambers" of water at least underneath or within the oceanic lithosphere similar to that proposed by Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory. I see little reason to believe this, and in fact I think that pre-cambrian tectonics would have caused this source to rupture far before cambrian tectonics (the onset of CPT).