When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The top most marine strata would have been the softest strata and would have eroded significantly during the rapid regression of waters not to mention 4500 years of erosion in highlands.

---

All of the strata were deposited within one year, yes?All of that strata should be reasonably close to the same density.Even so, if you erode the top 50% of the strata, you still should have flood strata. And this layer should be thick given the magnitude of the catastrophe and the mud that must have been kicked up, etc.You ought to see 4000 years or so of post-flood strata, then a really thick chaotic flood layer, then pre-flood strata. Such isn't the case.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

​

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The top most marine strata would have been the softest strata and would have eroded significantly during the rapid regression of waters not to mention 4500 years of erosion in highlands.

---

You know, you've really got to wonder how these rapidly receding flood waters left any cyclothems behind at all, if they were able to wipe the Grand Canyon area free of everything younger than Permian.You also have to wonder how the remnant, post-Perm rocks got lithified if they were left standing as small islands on top of the older lithified rocks.Frankly, I have called it a victory just to get TB to admit that the rocks of the Grand Canyon were lithified and that only the post-Perm rocks were soft/washed away. A small victory, but nontheless a victory.

EdgeIt's pretty clear in anybodys model that the strata that we see today are the strata that didn't get eroded! Probably in basins and shelves. The strata in the highlands got eroded. What is there to debate?The issues you raise are issues explainable in either your or my model.How did I say that 'the rocks of the Grand Canyon were lithified and that only the post-Perm rocks were soft/washed away'? All I said was that the last laid rocks were the softest!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-09-2002]

JohnFor the purposes of discussion, yes, we can assume that the Paleozoic and Mesozoic were formed in one year. The lower strata would be denser, drier and harder due to compaction and longer duration.Yes, even the top 50% being eroded will leave new strata - but it wont cover the entire globe - it will cover the parts that weren't eroded! Parts of the Cenozic and/or Mesozoic may represent this sediment possibly - so yes it is thick!We do see 4000 years or so of post-flood strata, then a really thick (not necesarily chaotic - rapid currents have been shown to produce very nice layering) flood layer, then pre-flood strata! 4000 years of post-flood time leaves nothing other than the current top soil and local flood plains! Then we see the Phanezoic geological colukmn which is glacial and flood and then the Precambrian which is probably pre-flood!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-09-2002]

I think the problem I am having with this issue is::For the waters to flood the whole earth, without adding
new water mass to the earth, the sea floors had to rise
(by whatever mechanism ... I'm not up on geology which
doesn't help in Flood debates ... but please bear
with me ). If the sea floors didn't rise, then we cannot
the water in the seas to cover the land.This being the case, the land had to sink too, because
you can't push up one part of the crust without another
part sinking.Then to get rid of the water again, you have to do the reverse
i.e. sea floors drop and land rises back up.All in one year.Wouldn't this sort of extreme, and presently unknown, geoligical
activity leave distinct evidences ? I don't know, I'm just
asking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I think the problem I am having with this issue is::

​

For the waters to flood the whole earth, without adding
new water mass to the earth, the sea floors had to rise
(by whatever mechanism ... I'm not up on geology which
doesn't help in Flood debates ... but please bear
with me ). If the sea floors didn't rise, then we cannot
the water in the seas to cover the land.

​

This being the case, the land had to sink too, because
you can't push up one part of the crust without another
part sinking.

​

Then to get rid of the water again, you have to do the reverse
i.e. sea floors drop and land rises back up.

​

All in one year.

​

Wouldn't this sort of extreme, and presently unknown, geoligical
activity leave distinct evidences ? I don't know, I'm just
asking.

---

JM: This answers your ocean part. There is nothing in the creationist flood models that is consistent. I hate to keep harping on this point, but creationists cannot agree on the most basic point of their model which is when the flood started, peaked and ended! Setterfield has it all in the Precambrian, TB has it picking up where Setterfield says it stopped and WMScott has it following where TB and TC place it! TB's model produces a dense cloud of silicate particulate that would surely kill everything on earth by suffocation or cancer---at least those who weren't already boiled in the initial evaporation of the ocean. Baumgardner's model produces modern oceans that are only a few meters deep (so the whole deep-sea diving stuff is faked). When I see claims of TB "our models explain all the geological observations that yours does", I have to pick myself off the floor every time. Such a claim is as absurd as saying 'my dissertation made it through without a single correction' (except for 20 red marks and a missing graph)!CheersJoe Meert

Joe & PeterFirstly, about 90% of flood creationists subscribe to a flood generating at least the Paleozoic/Mesozoic. WmScott & Setterfield are outliers whether they are right or not.Secondly, at the moment the discussion is about gross mechanisms and empirical evidences. I am trying to show that the flood is consistent with the gross sequence of events described in the rocks. That is a good way to start. You can jump to the last page and miss the way the framework works if you want but that is not a good way to llok at a model so different to the one you are used to.I am essentially going right back to the start and saying, let's forget the last 200 years and start fresh.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The lower strata would be denser, drier and harder due to compaction and longer duration.

---

Geologically speaking, a year ain't much duration. Density would increase as you got deeper but not significantly, and my point about everything being flood strata still stands.Drier? Its a FLOOD, TB. I believe you postulate surges. So, I know from experience that wet ground takes awhile to dry once thoroughly saturated. This will significantly reduce the number of surges possible in the timeframe, allowing for drying. But wait, don't you also postulate that volcanism saturated the atmosphere with water? That will slow the drying process. Hmmm.... a connumdrum..... [QUOTE][b]Yes, even the top 50% being eroded will leave new strata - but it wont cover the entire globe - it will cover the parts that weren't eroded![/QUOTE][/b]I don't think you got my point. You should have such a massive layer of flood strata that virtually any strata post-flood should be flood layer. So erosion or not, you should have a very nearly global flood layer, and very close to the top of the column at that.

quote:

---

(not necesarily chaotic - rapid currents have been shown to produce very nice layering) flood layer, then pre-flood strata!

---

This is the clincher though. In other posts you've argued the possibility of the flood layering and sorting sediment. I am thoroughly unconvinced.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

JohnI don't make a big deal about the difference between upper and lower flood strata - I only denied that they would be the same. There is no reason to particularly require it anyway.I think I understand why we're missing each other here. All of the Palezoic/Mesozoic is flood strata in our opinions - marine, non-marine and mixed. But I admitt that there should have been one final marine covering world wide. It does not have to be particularly thick everywhere. It is no surprise that it is not visible everywhere due to erosion. Which of the marine beds it is worldwide is a very good quesiton - perhaps a Cretaceous or Cenozoic innundation?Layering under rapid flow. I have posted refs from several mainstream texts such as Pettijohn and Blatt et al deomsntrating that mainstreamers admit neat layering under rapid flow. One quote even states 'many layers' were generated in 'hours, minutes and seconds'. Mt St Helen's deomnstrate hundred foot deep layered mud flows and experiments in artifical channels (which I have a video of) show clear neat layering. The paleocurrent data demonstrates that much of the geo-column occurred under rapid flow.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

Layering under rapid flow. I have posted refs from several mainstream texts such as Pettijohn and Blatt et al deomsntrating that mainstreamers admit neat layering under rapid flow. One quote even states 'many layers' were generated in 'hours, minutes and seconds'.

---

And the particle size of the deposit was?
I think that fine particles can only deposit when the flow slows down.
Chalk, for example, only can deposit in very quite water, and very very slowly.

​

[This message has been edited by Andor, 07-10-2002]

"Drier? Its a FLOOD, TB. I believe you postulate surges. So, I know from experience that wet ground takes awhile to dry once thoroughly saturated. This will significantly reduce the number of surges possible in the timeframe, allowing for drying. But wait, don't you also postulate that volcanism saturated the atmosphere with water? That will slow the drying process. Hmmm.... a connumdrum....."
--I think you missed the point about TB's assertion that lower strata would be 'drier', etc. He even gives a rough draft of the mechenism involved. See my comments toward the end of post #89 on the process of lithification. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=23&m=89#89------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-10-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-10-2002]

"And the particle size of the deposit was?
I think that fine particles can only deposit when the flow slows down.
Chalk, for example, only can deposit in very quite water, and very very slowly."
--If I'm not mistaken, this also happens via evaporation and/or ground water transport.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It's pretty clear in anybodys model that the strata that we see today are the strata that didn't get eroded! Probably in basins and shelves. The strata in the highlands got eroded. What is there to debate?

---

Your problem is that there was erosion going on at all times in the earth's history. Hence, no global flood.

quote:

---

The issues you raise are issues explainable in either your or my model.

---

Sorry, but my model explains why there are evaporites in the middle of the flood, why flowering plants only occur in the youngest sediments and why there are no human fossils found with dino fossils. Among other things. Your model does not. [quote]How did I say that 'the rocks of the Grand Canyon were lithified and that only the post-Perm rocks were soft/washed away'? All I said was that the last laid rocks were the softest!Or the older rocks were the hardest... Are you still maintaining that the rocks of the GC were soft when eroded?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"And the particle size of the deposit was?
I think that fine particles can only deposit when the flow slows down.
Chalk, for example, only can deposit in very quite water, and very very slowly."
--If I'm not mistaken, this also happens via evaporation and/or ground water transport.

​

---

You are mistaken.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Secondly, at the moment the discussion is about gross mechanisms and empirical evidences.

---

But it is not. You have not told us how coral reefs can develop in one year. Why flowering plants are found only in the Cretaceous and younger sediments. Why there are eolian sand dunes in the middle of a flood. Why there are raindrop impressions on a sea floor bottom. How dinosaurs made and populated nests in between surges that happened up to 50 times in one year. And on and on...

quote:

---

I am trying to show that the flood is consistent with the gross sequence of events described in the rocks. That is a good way to start. You can jump to the last page and miss the way the framework works if you want but that is not a good way to llok at a model so different to the one you are used to.

---

Then you have failed.

quote:

---

I am essentially going right back to the start and saying, let's forget the last 200 years and start fresh.

---

LOL! Why would we do that when the evidence has led us to this point? Care to undo the last 200 years of medicine or physics, too? This is silliness. I thought you had more respect for Lyell and others.