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

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.--Percy

Billions of years worth of heat from radioactive decay being released in a single year would melt the tectonic plates. There wouldn't be anything left to runaway and subduct. For this reason alone, among many, many others, accelerated decay would seem relevant to any reasonable person. Off-topic for this thread, sure, but certainly extremely relevant to CPT. There was no intention to claim it was. 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. I was at first taking you at your word that CPT proposed no added water. That's why I originally thought the question of this thread was irrelevant to your preferred scenario. Obviously no one would ask, "When a continent sinks below sea level, where does the water that flows over it come from?" Well, duh!But I looked up Baumgardner just a little, and it turns out he believes that jets of water exploded out into space from the oceanic ridges, and that some of this water returned to earth to rain for 40 days and 40 nights. So it turns out there *is* added water in the Baumgardner scenario. I wasn't able to tell whether he felt it made a significant contribution to eustasy or not.--Percy

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?--Percy

This bothered me, too, for more than just the reasons you cite. Not only is it an extraordinary claim, but TC is being much less than forthright because he knows precisely what the problems are with known physics because they've been pointed out to him here many times. Rather than jumping right in and saying, "Here's how the energy problem is addressed, here's how the acceleration/deceleration issues are addressed, here's how the heat problem is addressed," and so forth, he stonewalls.But I have another reason for replying, and that's because there may be an aspect of TC's preferred scenario that's relevant to this thread. It depends upon his position about the 40 days and 40 nights of rain. TB believes there needs to be a source for the rain (once again the Bible invades TB's science, since there's no possible way any evidence could indicate the number of days of consecutive rain 4000 years ago). If TC also believes this 40 day rain occurred, then both he and TB need at least these two things:

1. Evidence of 40 days and nights of rain.
2. An explanation for where the water for 40 consecutive days and nights of rain world-wide could come from.

--Percy

I think they've provided an explanation for this. They believe that tectonic forces, particularly around oceanic ridges, caused the sea floors to rise up, causing much of the sea to become far shallower than before, and forcing the water up onto the land. Tectonic forces could also have caused subsidence of continental land, but I don't believe they've mentioned this possibility. TC *has* said that mountains formed during the flood period, so I assume he believes that there were no high mountain ranges pre-flood.Of course, there's no evidence for any of this. No evidence of a global flood, no evidence of recent rising up of the sea flood, no evidence of repeated recent inundations, no evidence of recent formation of mountain ranges, no evidence of accelerated decay, no evidence of accelerated magnetic reversals, no evidence of recent motion of the continents.--Percy

There's a thread proposal on CPT, stay tuned. But this does bring your scenario into the thread's topic. While revelatory evidence like the Bible isn't permitted in the science forums, we can at least acknowledge that it is the Bible that is the source of the idea that the flood was caused by rain and by waters from the deep. So even though you believe the contribution of rain to the flood wasn't significant, it still seems to have a degree of relevance to this thread. Is there any scientific evidence that leads you to believe there was rain during CPT?--Percy

Why don't we hold off discussing this aspect until the CPT thread proposal is approved.--Percy

I didn't say that the Bible assigned rain and fountains from the deep as the cause of the flood. I said it was the source of the idea.This brings to mind a point not mentioned thus far, primarily because it's off-topic, but it's at least worth noting because it contains a heavy dose of irony. The idea that the earth is young and that there was rain during the flood stems from a literal reading of the Bible, but while you CPT guys have used the Bible story as a launching point, you've gone so far outside what's in the Bible that true literalists wouldn't recognize it anymore. You've now turned one of the most prominent features of the Biblical flood, namely the 40 days and 40 nights of rain, into a mere incidental feature. For you guys, what the Bible actually talks about had little to no effect, while continents steaming through the water like ocean liners and mountain ranges rising up and all the earthquakes and tidal waves that would have occurred, not to mention boiling off the oceans, melting the earth's surface and turning Noah to a cinder, these all go unmentioned in the Bible. So, what are you saying? That there was rain during CPT just like there is rain during any other time? That there was nothing unusual about the rain? If there was nothing unusual about it, why even mention it? The source of your idea for the rain seems to think it was pretty unusual, 40 days and 40 nights worth of rain. Is this yet another deviation from the source of your inspiration?Like I said, it will be very ironic if you CPT guys eventually come up with a viable theory only to have it rejected by the Biblical literalists.--Percy