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

quote:

---

Fluctuations in sea level do add water onto the continents, but not the total volume of water of the oceans/seas.

​

Catastropic Plate Tectonics could supply the water for a great flood, but not a "cover the earth 15 cubits above the mountains" flood.

---

Yes, I guess there is a little confusion in this thread. So I guess Randy would have to retract applicability of his question to CPT because CPT does not have such an issue?

quote:

---

All in all, we have the muddled mess of using old Earth evidence to try to support a young Earth "vision". The root of the problem goes back to the simple question "How old is the Earth?". Until a YEC can support there being a young Earth, there is no real rational debate possible per a young Earth "great flood". Or are TC and TB arguing an old Earth and a young flood?

---

CPT is an underdeveloped theory. Ultimately all these questions will lead back to 'how old is the earth'. But that does not mean subsidiary potentially falsifiable questions cannot be formulated and answered.-Chris Grose

---

"...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.

quote:

---

Your interpretation is inconsistent with Randy's post, you may want to read Message 1 again. Every scenario Randy raised, including Baumgardner whom he associated with "fountains of the deep", included added water. Right up front he asks, "The question is, what was the source of sufficient water to cover the earth 15 cubits above the mountains and where did these water go after the flood?"

​

I wish you'd cut the obfuscation. You've been here a long time, and I know you're aware that Randy's question would never have been asked of a scenario that is just the rising and subsiding of the earth's surface. There's no mysterious appearing and disappearing water in this scenario. Randy was posing a question that most mainstream Creationist viewpoints have a problem with: they have no source for the water.

---

So I guess the topic of the thread is not derived only from the "thread topic" field, but from the first thread post as well? I guess that when read correctly, you are right that it is clear that Randy wants the question answered "what was the source of sufficient water to cover the earth 15 cubits above the mountains and where did these water go after the flood?"I am just saying that it appears unfair that Randy can make assertions in his first post that are not on his own topic and let them go unrefuted because it would be off topic to refute them.-Chris Grose

quote:

---

If the volume of the oceans remained constant, where did the rain water come from?

​

Or are you suggesting the rains were nothing more than what we'd see today and most of the inundation was actually the result of tectonism?

---

Yes indeed. However I would guess that that 'rain' would be a little more intense depending on your location. But that isn't really relevant to this thread.

deerbreh,Assuming TB argues in favor of CPT ("recolonization model" or not); If you understand what is geodynamically implicit in CPT, you probably should be hesitant to say that the waters would have to reach the height of Mt. Everest.However I will leave it to TB to clarify what he means by "We're not claiming to be able to inundate today's world." Because indeed it does seem to imply that the earths current topography (or at least hypsography) has been essentially unaltered throughout "the flood".

quote:

---

As for Baumgartner, I am sorry but I can't take "creationist computer models" seriously. As has been said, "garbage in, garbage out." If one feels free to ignore inconvenient physical laws anything is possible

---

I don't want to derail this topic anymore by entertaining this topic here, but perhaps you could open a new thread in an attempt to support your assertions and address some of the responses I gave to these criticisms in post 64..? Or open a new thread and formulate your own thought-out criticisms of Baumgardner's modeling as to how it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" methodology and "ignores inconvenient physical laws"..Thanks.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 11:18 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.

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.

I was suspended before I could edit my post 106. However since it remains in the open and has received replies, I wont be editing it. Instead I would like to apologize about my hasty, relatively prejudicial comment regarding 'having dealt with your type' before. Nevertheless, my invitation remains open for you to support your assertions in a new thread.-Chris Grose

---

"...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.

quote:

---

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.

​

... and the rate of tectonic motion is not a physical law.

---

Accelerated decay is about as relevant to CPT as abiogenesis is to Evolutionary Theory. The mechanism for CPT is runaway subduction. I do not adhear to CPT and have not for quite a long time, however it deserves more credit than has been given.

quote:

---

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.

---

The problem is that rates of tectonic motion in the past are based on a method whose scale is desputed in the competing theory--that method being radioisotopic dating.I am glad that Percy understands that CPT really does not need to answer this question (whatever its veracity in other contexts), and I hope that you do too--I am presuming that you do.

quote:

---

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.

---

What would you expect to find?

quote:

---

In fact, I would guess that the amount of heat released and the toxic gases would render the earth quite sterile.

---

I have not looked into an answer to there being excess toxic gases so I cannot give a good response to that. However, radiogenic heat aside, the heat from CPT is potentially managable.-Chris Grose

quote:

---

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.

---

You can do this with virtually any computer model with manually controlled parameters. The question is whether the parameters used are correct or not. Baumgardner did not use any outlandish parameters as far as I am aware. I explained some of this in the first paragraph of post 64.-Chris Grose

quote:

---

There was no intention to claim it was.

---

Are you sure? You must have experience with this poster outside of the forum to understand his level of understanding here?

quote:

---

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.

---

Do you want to elaborate on what you mean by, 'and then there's the associated friction' and why you think it produces too much heat?-Chris Grose

---

"...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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Indeed. TB seems to basically agree with me except he also adds the possibility that there was water both originating from beneath the earth and from above/in the atmosphere (such as the vapor canopy, or some other undefined extraterrestrial origin).When I referred to there being rain, I think that this rain was both a result of the normal atmospheric water cycle and from a small percentage of the water falling back to earth from the said 'steam jets'.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).What are your thoughts, TB?-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-27-2005 09:27 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.

quote:

---

In mainstream plate tectonics, convection moves the plates and radioactivity (and residual heat) provides the heat required to drive convection.
What drives CPT? Gravity?

---

Pretty much yes, that is my understanding. As the oceanic lithosphere sinks into the mantle it releases gravitational potential energy in the form of heat. High stresses develop in the mechanical boundary layer surrounding the slab as a result of those gravitational body forces causing the silicate mantle rock to weaken. The weakening arising from heating can lead to an increased sinking rate, an increased heating rate, and greater weakening. This progressively increasing thermal weakening results in runaway. Therefore runaway subduction drives CPT.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-27-2005 10:26 PM

quote:

---

TC

Accelerated decay is about as relevant to CPT as abiogenesis is to Evolutionary Theory. The mechanism for CPT is runaway subduction. I do not adhear to CPT and have not for quite a long time, however it deserves more credit than has been given.

​

How do you account for plate tectonics on a YEC timescale in that case?

---

What I am implying when I say that 'I do not adhear to CPT' is that I am not a convinced YEC or OEC. I mean that I do not believe CPT happened or that it didn't happen. It is merely a theory I am interested in that I think is a possible alternative to conventional geodynamics.-Chris Grose

quote:

---

Yes thats a good point. I agree that it is hard to imagine chambers surviving that but I'll still keep it as a possiblity t oconsider when we have a quantiotative account of sea-level/tectonics tracking.

​

By pre-Flood tectonics I guess you mean the origin and clustering of continental crust?

---

Right the early crustal evolution by fractionation of the lithophile component of early mantle composition is a process that I am convinced happened. In this framework I can't consider large collections of water beneath or within the continents as plausible. They would have vented very early in the earths initial evolution. Indeed there would have been some water left over form initial fractionation as well as water subducted with the hydrated oceanic crust, but nothing of significant magnitude.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-29-2005 02:29 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.

Chris does not believe there was added water, so he has nothing to add to this thread. This message is off-topic, please do not reply. If someone would like to propose a CPT thread that would be fine. Or you can resume discussion in a pre-existing CPT thread, there are probably a few still open. --Admin

quote:

---

Well, that is parsing the definition rather narrowly, isn't it? In order to have rapid plate movement, one has to have a mechanism that makes sense in light of accepted scientific laws and theories about how such movement could occur.

---

The mechanism is runaway subduction. Can you show me that runaway subduction is inconsistent with known physics?

quote:

---

Also, one would have to explain the effect on life of such rapid movement and why we see no geological evidence of rapid movement.

---

What kind of geological evidence would you expect to find?

quote:

---

Baumgardner fails to do this on all counts so his hypothesis fails, regardless of what he can get a computer simulation model to do. Garbage in, garbage out.

---

I am assuming you know what the term, 'garbage in, garbage out' means. So can you show me that this is the case with Baumgardner's simulations? Is he using faulty parameters?

quote:

---

This is relevent to the discussion because rapid plate movement is being postulated as a reason why there is no need for "extra" water and thus no need to explain where it went.

---

I'll agree it is relevant to the topic and therefore am happy to discuss it, however it still remains that because of the nature of CPT the ultimate problem posed by this thread is not an issue (whatever CPT's scientific credibility).

quote:

---

But I am saying that rapid plate tectonics is nonsense, therefore, one does have to explain enough water to cover Mt. Everest, because every reputable geologist accepts that Mt. Everest was in place 4,000 years ago even if YECers don't.

---

I think you have a strong misunderstanding of CPT. Within the framework of CPT, the himalayas did not exist early in the process and were formed through it.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by Admin, 06-29-2005 02:42 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.

I never made a claim that there was such a paper. The onus is always on the person who has made the positive assertion. You have made such assertions against CPT. If you would like to support them open your thread doing so, otherwise your assertions are bare. I am not about to argue against vague assertions whose support is unknown.This will be my last reply to you on this topic until you or I (unlikely) open a new thread or continue in another thread.-Chris Grose

---

"...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.