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

Tranquility Base, nice to see you again! I have recently been on a significant hiatus as well. Maybe I can find some time to participate in some evcforum discussions, althought I am also a bit hesitant as im afraid I have grown rather rusty from my absense(no real rigorous (relative to my previous level of activity years ago) study in over a year now..).-ChrisThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 01:00 AM

quote:

---

Deerbreh, it sounds like you are unaware that there exist creationist computer models built by *mainstream* tectonic simulators that demonstrate catastrophic plate tectonics involving 'runaway subduction'.

Yes, provided that ludicrous parameters (e.g. mantle viscosity 10⁹ lower than our best values) are provided as input...

---

If memory serves me right, not necessarily. Baumgardner ran 2D and 3D simulations of the runaway process. The 'ludicrous' viscosity parameter was only inserted into the 3D simulations so that runaway would unfold the way it did in the 2D simulations. This was considered acceptable because the purpose of the 3D simulations was just to observe the style of tectonics and changing surface topography and gain insite on general mantle behaviour in 3 dimensions. The 2D simulations, however, did not require scaling of the relevant parameters (including thermal conductivity)--(edit: the high viscosity unfolded in the 2D simulations on itself and is why runaway results in the first place). So which parameters are ludicrous? And are they so because of improper scaling or something else?edit (incomplete response):

quote:

---

...the model's predictions that are incompatible with observations (e.g. seafloor spreading) are ignored

---

How in the world is seafloor spreading incompatible with CPT theory?

quote:

---

and release of enough heat to sterilize the Earth many times over is regarded as a minor issue. See, of course, Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!.

---

The large amount of heat released as a direct result of the subducting lithosphere, ie the gravitational potential energy released by the subduction of this lithosphere, which amounts to 10^28 J should NOT result in hazardous surface conditions. Case closed. However, heat release from the new cooling oceanic lithosphere is an issue. Radiogenic heat from accelerated decay of the worlds radioisotopes (especially the major heat producing isotopes of, if i recall correctly--U, Th, and Pb) is a far more damning source of this "excess" heat, but I think it is fair to isolate this problem from that directly pertinent to CPT via runaway subduction.

quote:

---

Baumgardner is unarguably a major contributer to the mainstream field of tectonic simulation.

​

He's made significant contributions in numerical simulations of mantle dynamics. "Major" is arguable.

---

I consider baumgardner a major contributor as well. Indeed even if runaway subduction never occured on earth, it may have significant application to planets like venus. Maybe in 1000 years when exploring extraterrestrial planetary systems it will have further application. The phenomena of runaway and baumgardners extrapolations and research on possible geodynamic behavior during such an event is amazing.-ChrisThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 01:55 AMThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 01:58 AM

quote:

---

The diagram is bunk, and I'll explain why.

---

I really don't think you supported your claim that it is 'bunk' anywhere in your rant--correct me if I am wrong. In fact, the curve looks EXACTLY like that used in Shubert and Turcotte's heat flow diagram (see Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets [2001], pg. 61)--which is a direct derivative of the eustatic data.These eustatic changes have been attributed (along with glacial coverage) largely to the rate of seafloor spreading throughout geologic time, hence higher heat flows at around ridges, hence the bathymetry of mid ocean ridges. Other factors in global heat distribution have influenced eustasy as well, such as cretaceous volcanism.Therefore, I don't know what you are talking about.-ChrisThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 02:17 AM

quote:

---

Sure, YECs believe there was some 'fountains of the deep' source but after that the comings and goings (innundations and retreats) are tectonically controlled.

---

Actually genesis doesn't really say that the fountains of the deep were a 'source of flood water', it just notes that such a phenomena existed concurrently with (or at least at the initiation of) the flood.During CPT, seafloor is being created at a rapid rate at spreading centers. This newly forming lithosphere is losing heat almost instantaneously as it reaches the surface. You'd better believe there would be 'foundains of the deep' when you have square miles of of molten rock coming in contact with water.-Chris

quote:

---

TC, I usually argue that too, but even I admit that the text itself seems to speak of underground water, especailly given the firmament of ch 1. Nevertheless, I agree that the fountains of the deep may indeed be the sea-floor spreading rifts.

​

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.Furthermore, one reason I would be hesitant to delve into this 'recollonization model' is because this intense (potentially highly effective) method of heat transfer probably will not work with seafloor spreading so slow. So then the question could be raised--does distributing the heat released from the cooling lithosphere since pangea throughout about 500 years provide sufficient time for the heat to be distributed in a fashion where livable conditions can persist on earth? I doubt it.Also I also see a problem with the rate of accelerated decay just happening to decelerate concurrently with decelerating geodynamic activity:The rate of radioisotopic decay using uniformitarian time scales is essentially constant. Therefore in the case of accelerated decay (which we require) decay has been essentially constant with the rate of seafloor spreading. The "recolonization model" seems to propose that after pangea formed, tectonics slowed down. Therefore the accelerated decay rate must have slowed down proportionally with tectonics. Therefore, unless there is some direct link between the accelerated decay rate and the rate of tectonic activity, it would appear somewhat ad hoc to me.I think that the only real benefit to the recolonization model is that it allows us to space things out, therefore 'seemingly'(disregarding the heat transfer criticism I layed out above) getting rid of enormous problems like that with excess heat.possible--maybe. But likely--IMO very much no.-Chris Grose

I don't want to derail this topic. Maybe my previous post in reply to TB would have been better situated in his recolonization model thread?edit - {rant} Evidently the recolonization model thread has not been released. I found AdminJar's comment particularly halarious. Kind of reminded me of the debate between Pouchet and Pasteur and The French Academy of Science. But obviously CPT is bunk until not proven bunk... The debate occuring in that thread is what should be occuring subsequent to its approval anyway.. {end rant}-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 03:32 AM

quote:

---

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.

---

TB and I would agree that baumgardner's simulations of the runaway subduction process and CPT theory in general have DIRECT pertenance to the question of 'where the floodwaters came from and where they went' because the controllers of eustasy are tectonic in nature as has been previously asserted by TB.

quote:

---

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.

​

So please stay on topic, and please follow rule 8 of the Forum Guidelines:

​

8. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

---

A little harsh I think if it is in response to TB's assertion quoted (which according to your beginning your response with, "There are two problems with this..." it is). TB's assertion is hardly a breach of misrepresentation. The assertion is clearly made with the intention to inform Deerbreh that the computer models are relevant. It is a good hearted beneficial tactic to direct attention to something relevant.However you are right about one thing and that is that we need to be wearing of the topic at hand. The brief exchanges earlier on other related topics could be continued in other threads.As far as the topic at hand, 'where did the flood waters come from and where did they go', there exist many 'explanations' as randy referred to in his first post such as the 'vapor canopy', Brown's Hydroplate, and CPT via runaway subduction (argued in some favour by myself and TB).Randy says in post 1,

quote:

---

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics ala Baumgardner cooks the earth death as I show on post 96 of the Geomagnetism and Seafloor Spreading thread and Bill Birkland's post 97 on that thread shows that sedimentation patterns on the ocean floor and not consistent with CPT.

---

JonF expounds a bit in this regard as well as making other criticisms in post 61. I responded to his post (see post 64), so I think that is where we are.Is it fair to discuss some of the criticisms of CPT as it has been forwarded as an explanation for where the water came from and went? If so, I would refer attention to post 64. If not, this thread can be considered closed as it has been asserted that the answer is that it is due to tectonics during CPT--the veracity of that answer would then not be a matter to be discussed in this thread.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 07:07 PM

quote:

---

How does CPT add or subtract water?

---

Well think about what would occur with seafloor spreading and subduction occuring at the rates proposed by CPT via runaway. Variations in eustasy can be attributed to variations in the bathymetry of the ocean floor. The bathymetry of the ocean floor is thereby due to variations in the thickness of the oceanic lithosphere (where thickness is determined by a differentiation from the lower mantle by some isotherm). The high rates of spreading implied by CPT would cause lithosphere near the spreading ridge to be extremely thin. Because the lithosphere would be very thin it would well upwards, causing eustasy to rise relative to the continents. As seafloor spreading decreased from runaway rates towards current rates, mean lithospheric thickness would increase causing eustasy to return towards current levels.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 08:19 PM

quote:

---

How does that add or subtract water?
Are you saying the volume of water remains constant?

---

yes the volume of water remains essentially constant, but this volume of water is deflected upwards because of a mean rise of the ocean floor--resulting in continental inundation. If CPT ever occured, I don't think the globe was ever fully inundated as a literal interpretation of genesis would imply, however. However this process would have caused sealevel to fluctuate intensely.

quote:

---

Did it rain during the Flood?

---

Sure did.

quote:

---

Great! So where did the water come from, where did it go, and where's your evidence?

---

I think vail, et al's. charts were posted earlier. Also I think I understand what you were trying to get at with your criticisms of the graph you cited in post 43, and i'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the few little things I would look into quibbling about. However, the meat of the answer is in the fact that sealevel has clearly fluctuated by at least hundreds of meters throughout phanerozoic.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 08:35 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:

---

So let me get this straight.
The volume of water remains constant.

​

It rains during the flood.

​

Correct so far?

---

ok, sure, essentially constant (as other additions and subtractions of water I am arguing are quite insignificant to eustasy relative to eustatic shifts caused by tectonics as discussed), and it rained a bit during the process--although I really don't see how the fact that it rained is relevant here.I am guessing you are bringing this to a point--want to just spill it? =D-Chris Grose

quote:

---

Am I correct to think this implies that the *thicker* the lithosphere at a given spot, the shallower the ocean at that spot?

---

No I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I said:

quote:

---

The bathymetry of the ocean floor is thereby due to variations in the thickness of the oceanic lithosphere (where thickness is determined by a differentiation from the lower mantle by some isotherm).

---

That is to say, as the thickness of the oceanic lithosphere changes (where it be an increase or decrease in thickness) bathymetry does as well. The bit I put in parantheses I guess was an unnecessary point.

quote:

---

The high rates of spreading implied by CPT would cause lithosphere near the spreading ridge to be extremely thin. Because the lithosphere would be very thin it would well upwards...

​

Am I correct to think this implies that the *thinner* the lithosphere at a given spot, the shallower the ocean at that spot?

---

Yes, correct here.

quote:

---

Anyway, whatever the explanation of this apparent contradiction, the question is, "Where did the water come from, and where did it go?" Your scenario does not require water to be added or subtracted, and so there's no reason for you to be addressing this question.

---

What do you mean? It answeres it because it states that the water that inundated the continents came from and returned to the ocean basins. (edit Therefore the question is answered by CPT via runaway.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 08:44 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:

---

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.

---

The topic of the thread is "where did the flood waters come from and where did they go?" I would consider water in the ocean basins ocean water, and water deflected from the ocean basins and inundating the continents 'flood water'. Therefore, I've answered where the flood water came from--that it include a variation in the total volume of water on the earth isn't a prerequesite of this question.Nevertheless, Randy's first post included the following:

quote:

---

...Catastrophic Plate Tectonics ala Baumgardner cooks the earth death as I show on post 96 of the Geomagnetism and Seafloor Spreading thread.

---

Aside from the fact that half of Randy's post (including this segment) has nothing to do with 'where did the flood waters come from and where did they go', he brought up these other points that I had addressed in earlier posts.Now I am a bit confused as to how we decide what the topic of the thread is--is it derived from the "thread topic" or from the questions and various topics addressed in the initial post? -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:

---

I know what you said, I'm asking about what you didn't say, which was whether thicker lithosphere at a given point means shallower or deeper oceans at that point? So you're saying that the ocean is deeper when the lithosphere is thicker? Isn't that the opposite of what is normally the case?

---

--I would say that we should take this into another thread, but I guess I would consider this a sidelined point, but I don't see any point in doing that. Anyways, yes I am saying that thicker oceanic lithosphere results in lithosphere subsiding into the mantle. This results in increased ocean depth above that thicker lithosphere. It is not the opposite of what is normally the case--a locus of thicker lithosphere (assuming it is stable lithosphere and is not impregnated by upwelling plumes below or is being flexured by a nearby trench, etc.)is generally a locus of deeper ocean.