Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?

Where?And no, you did not say 'underwater'. You said under the bottom of the ocean. Most of the ocean bottom is abyssal plain. It would not be the 'bottom of the ocean'. How many years ago? When the water you are talking about, the FOD, was not seawater in the first place. You are saying it was primitive water, locked up in the mantle.Actually, this is interesting since the magmas erupted at the mid-ocean ridges are some of the driest on earth. Irrelevant. Hardly necessary, but already alluded to. You claims are so outlandish and geologically ignorant that I feel they must be refuted. In due time, I will consider my job done.

I believe that IC is saying that the water for the biblical flood came from the same rocks that oil is developed from. Hence all of the points about oil field depths and pressures.I'm not sure of this because the posts are a bit incoherrent.On the other hand, this does not conform to the fact that the mantle is the largest reservoir of 'water' on the planet, which is another argument he alludes to.He seems to confuse lithosphere with crust and continental crust with supracrustal deposits. IC is also extremely confused as to the source of pressure in oil fields and likens it to pressures on the 'fountains of the deep'. And 'fountains of the deep themselves' seem to be equated with the spring that I have in my back yard.

What do you mean by 'weathering'? If I see weathering of rock in Iceland, does that mean that it is continental?And what portion of the oceans have been drilled? Did they find continental crust on the DSDP project? I must have interpreted this to be your statement. However, the point still stands. The largest part of the earth covered by oceans is abyssal plains. There is no continental crust there, nor is there any at the mid-ocean ridges, nor at oceanic island arcs.Do you still want to get your global flood water from continental rocks? You didn't. Which is kind of odd, actually. Most YECs latch on to the idea that the matle is a huge source of water. Then you are saying it was primitive water. No problem there. However, why would all of this water stay in the ground for so long after formation of the earth? The point being? Irrelevant as far as I can see. The point is that they were buried, the gas and oil were generated and started to migrate toward the surface. Why wouldn't the water do that? Why would that happen? Why would water flow against the pressure? Again, silliness. Water would not flow from low to high pressure. And were do you think that pressure came from? Did it just magically appear?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

That is not the definition of continental crust. How does that follow? Why is that exclusive of plate tectonics? And you have a record of this bombardment somewhere? Then you must have massive layers of impact ejecta separating coal seams, right? So, you don't believe that these piles of sediments were dewatered during burial? I do not recall such a request. However, it would involve rather huge undertaking to cover all of these bases. You may have heard of petroleum geology courses that are given at universities, along with classes on coal formation and the development, migration and accumulation of oil. Have you ever tried one or two of these?Really, please answer this question. It is not rhetorical.I don't suppose you would accept the idea that there were huge swamps and forests that were buried (and dewatered, actually) to form extensive coal beds at several locations and times in the history of the earth. So you really don't think that dewatering is part of the lithification of sedimentary rocks. Do you know that this is going on in the Gulf of Mexico? It is not a matter of how it got there. It is a matter of when water is expelled from the sedimentary pile compared to hydrocarbons. Since oil takes time, heat and pressure to form under natural conditions, it is easy to assume that most of the water is gone from these rocks before oil and gas are generated. Now, where it migrates is something else.However, the whole point here is that there is a huge amount of the ocean basins that does not generate oil or gas and would not trap significant water as per your model. And yet, you must raise the sea level of the entire earth, including that which was previously emergent. There is no way you can do this just using supracrustal oil-bearing rocks. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Not necessarily. In fact, most sea-floor rocks are weathered to some degree. And no, there are plenty of oceanic crustal rocks that are weathered and eroded.You are way out of your expertise here, IC. I know that it doesn't embarrass you to be so wrong about things, but maybe you could show some respect and learn a little bit more about earth sciences. It is not wrong.In general.However, there are important exceptions and, frankly, I'm pretty sure you don't understand the dynamics of why these boundaries are the way the are. Possibly something is wrong, but we probably know why there are exceptions. Except that the water does not spread out into the mantle. Most of it returns to the surface quickly. That is why island arc volanoes have a lot more water associated with them. Do you have a point here? This is news to me. Please document. Maybe if you could show us where PT says this, we could help you. To me it sounds like you've got some professional YEC's message and then garbled it beyond recognition. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What water? What hydrous minerals? Where does this happen?Do you have any evidence for 'instantaneous parting'? Why would water 'disappear into the mantle' where there are higher pressures and higher temperatures? I understand this model, but it doesn't do what you think it does. Nothing surprising here. They drilled stable, cold and old continental crust. They were nowhere near the asthenosphere. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The only thing I will agree to is that you really don't know what continental crust is. It would be off topic and I prefer not to teach on message boards. The addition of water causes partial melting of the mantle and lower crust, this results in a magamatic diapir which rises up through the crust and commonly on to the surface. These are known as island arcs. When you have a volcano in your back yard let me know. The analogy has merit, but it's kind of a contrived comparison. That is one way. But subduction also creates a mechanism for water to then reach the surface again. What age do you want?Subduction complexes in California are a good argument for subduction in the Cretaceous.Island arc rocks with back-arc basins in the Jura-Triassic in Oregona and Idaho are examples of older subduction.How many do you need? "Cold" is a relative term when discussing geodynamics. Basically, most continental rocks are 'cold', which is one reason that their crust is so thick. In general.Besides, there are a lot of reasons a borehole needs to be shut down. Well, if you don't expect any and you find a little, that could be a surprise. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me. Of course. That is because the thick sedimentary wedge that is the Mississippi clastic delta is dewatering and subsiding. I would expect problems with drilling in that environment. A couple of things come immediately to mind. First there are lots of rifted microcontinents, if you will, in the Caribbean. In another instance Japan has continental crust that has rifted away from the main continent of Asia. Madagascar has rifted away from Africa, IIRC. East Africa is in the process of rifting away from Africal also. This is not difficult stuff.Further, some of the statements in you link refer more to evidence of continental crust rather than the crust itself. Just look for words like conglomerates, arkoses, red beds, flysch. Those are not continental crust themselves but indicate the presence of continental masses nearby. And, well, looking at the region, I don't see this as a problem...Further yet, there is a process that we call 'cratonization' in which oceanic or island arc materials become more continetal, at least chemically, but repeated episodes of partial melting and magmatism.So, there is no problem finding small fragments of continental crust and supracrustal deposits from continents in a oceanic setting. The problem is that there is not enough of it to make a difference as a source of water for a biblical flood, no matter how you spin it.

Too many to enumerate. And I'm certain that it would be a waste of time, anyway. That is debateable. I would say that the Canadian Shield is part of the lithosphere. Well, when you come up with a better interpretation, let us know. I don't remember saying that. There is plenty of crust under the continetal shelves. So what? Nothing to refute. They do not show large amounts of continental crust in the Caribbean.See my previous post. That's part of the problem. Your fragmentary understanding of geology makes you quite certain of yourself.Do you really believe that no one has thought about these things before? Do you think that geologists have spent the last 200 years just making stuff up the way YECs do? What flood?Once you start off with a fairy tale, it's easy to embellish it with more made up stories. Actually dealing with the evidence and gathering more data is hard work. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Yes, magic is more realistic.

Ummm, actually, yes. You are looking at raw data.Do you have an explanation? I didn't know that they had seismic tomography in those days.Sounds fascinating. Do you have some data we could look at? I suppose then that you are not going to use the old same-data-different-interpretation argument on this thread...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Can you document this. I'm not sure how this was calculated. You understand that they are completely different from a kinematic standpoint. Why is that? Please explain. Documentation, please. Sorry, but I do not take your post a face value. In what year did they say this? I can think of a few reasons. Well, for one, the Pacific Plate is not diving beneath the NA Plate where the San Andreas Fault exists. If you could give us some more info, I might be able to sleuth this out for you. Probably taken from where? I doubt you have this information tucked away inside your own brain. The bible does not infer. You do.And it would be irrelevant anyway. Yes some millions of years ago. You have asserted so. There is no evidence that it was smaller at any time in the past hundreds of million years. Yes, millions of years ago. Or billions... Irrelevant. During such a bombardment?Millions of years ago? Yes, these are continental shelves. Please rephrase. This is word salad. Yes, insignificantly smaller and a very large land mass.Millions of years ago.And at multiple points in the history of the earth. Nonsense. Why would water stay under the surface? Even today we see clastic deposits dewatering, so why would that not happen with bombardment by water-bearing comets? The life forms were trapped by sedimentary processes not cosmic bombardment. Please provide evidence to the contrary. Not possible. Having the quantities of water you require stored for just the right moment is unrealistic. Again this does not make sense. Why would water flow into a collapsed cavern? Where are these collapse caverns? There should be a robust geologic record of this event. A few. See above.Maybe it would be good for you to think this through a little bit, maybe draw some diagrams.In any case, it appears to everyone here that you are simply making stuff up.

All that has been done to this data is contouring by standard techniques.There is a pattern.Explain it. As far as I know, the bible does not explain seismic velocity profiles. Please provide a 'just as good' explanation of the seismci profiles JonF has posted. I'm glad to hear that you question the bible.

Just to clarify here, I am not necessarily saying that everything IC says is wrong (though that is the most likely case). It's just that there are different ways of measuring mid-ocean ridges and there are other complications like multiple subduction zones and indirect convergence.And frankly, I don't think there are any YECs that have a clue how plate tectonics work.

This is where you get your information? That explains a lot...I was going to write a long critique of Mr. Pratt (an interesting name in itself...), but will keep it short.There is a school of thought that likes to attribute most of what we see in the rock record as related to vertical tectnics. That would mean that horizontal movements are not as important in explaining where the continents are, etc. However, for the most part, this has been discredited.They are largely anomaly hunters who attempt to find the 'unexplainable', and thereby show that Plate Tectonics is wrong. They hand wave away any PT explanations as ad hoc or somehow too complex to be taken seriously.However, Pratt is not the typical VT guy who stubbornly clings to old ideas. He is motivated mainly by adherence to religious myth. He understands that Plate Tectonics is actually too powerful in explaining what has happened on earth and that it contradicts much of his mythology. To him that is not acceptable.By his own description, he is educated in the 'technical sciences'. What the heck does that mean? Why couldn't he say, 'Geology' and/or 'Biology', and/or 'Astronomy' or 'Physics'? I get the strongest impression that Mr. Pratt is actually hiding his lack of training from you...Maybe more later. Gotta run.

The compression of sediments. Just as we see happening in the Gulf of Mexico at present. This does not make sense. What is 'higher' and what is a 'lower place'? Why would water migrate to a lower place in the crust? You are really not making much sense here. Why would the water stay in place while being buried by impact events? And drove out the water. Just as we see today. And that is why it escapes to the surface.So you are moving water from the crust to the surface. How does that raise sea level? What takes the place of the water? And why would the water go back? Because it isn't.Gulf of Mexico - Wikipedia

quote:

---

"Initially, during the Late Jurassic, continued rifting widened the Gulf of Mexico and progressed to the point that sea-floor spreading and formation of oceanic crust occurred. At this point, sufficient circulation with the Atlantic Ocean was established that the deposition of Louann Salt ceased.[5][7][9][10]"

---

The history of the gulf did not begin until the Triassic when continental crust was uplifted, rifted, eroded and subsided, followed by seafloor spreading.This is exactly as Plate Tectonics would predict. The continental crust in the Gulf of Mexico thins and disappears toward the center of the basin.This is not an example of simple subsidence of a continental crustal block. Are you telling me that you have not read any of our posts on this? That is not available water.You cannot simply push it to the surface.And then, at the whim of a supernatural being, push it back. Only with your posts, it seems. If a hole was formed, why didn't the water simply flow into it? So you need to puncture this reservoir, global in extent (even though you only have continental shelves to work with), let the water rush out to destroy all life on earth. Then you have this void sitting there in the reservoir you just undermined for the water to go back into.Then you need to soak it all up into the mantle to form the asthenosphere.Right... So you take water out of these submerged continents which are really caverns. Then, it rolls, against gravity up onto the emergent continents, destroys all life and then goes back into the caverns (which are actually small compared to the surface area of the earth) and then disappears, so that you have no actual evidence of huge caverns... Well, finding us these caverns, which look like continental crust, would provide some evidence in your favor. What is your other evidence? In dream land, I suppose anything is possible. How about providing some kind of evidence for collapsed caverns or maybe a location for some fountains of the deep.By the way IC, do you believe in perpetual motion machines?

Well, it is pretty convoluted. Trying to make sense of it was probably a mistake. Do you read this as a world without oceans? Simple dewatering of buried sediments does not raise sea level.This is just one of the things that is confusing me. If his source of water is crustal (i.e. mostly below sea level) it should not raise sea level at all.Furthermore, his source seems to be continental. In that case there is hardly enough submergent continental rocks to supply a global flood. But that's kind of beside the point, I guess...