When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What's really happening is that we're chatting on the web and you can't go on the record as stating that what we are saying is a good starting point for trying to justify the Biblical flood.

---

Well... yes. It isn't a good starting point. That is a large part of the problem. A good starting point would not require radically modifying, or outright ditching, the major theories of all the relevant sciences.

quote:

---

I refuse to talk details when people can't agree on gross issues.

---

Interesting. It seems to me that the logical starting point for an analysis is an investigation of the premises-- the gross issues, as you say. This is not OK?

quote:

---

You haven't agreed with our empirical, qualitative starting point so let's not bother with the details. You already proved me wrong in your eyes. No point going on.

---

You could always demonstrate the validity of your starting point.

quote:

---

Tryin to paint me as ignoring your and others comments here is not helpful. It is simply not true - I have modified my synthesis on the basis of comments here on numerous occasions.

---

Do you want me to list objections?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Everyone laughs at the idea of a recent Noahic global flood. But it is rather interesting for believers in the Bible that the geological column does record major marine transgression on land sufficient to cover all land below say 1000 feet. If such a transgression happened today about 50% of the earth's land surface would be covered.

​

So if we look at the geological data and ask - what if the Bible is accurate - what if the marine innundations recorded in the geological column are recent events of the Genesis flood?

​

The marine transgressions make up the majority of the geolgoical reocrd on land - they are not a side-issue. In between the main global innundations we have smaller (but 1000s of feet) of fresh water formations. These marine innundations go back until the time that there was a single continent Pangea.

​

Piecing this all together we are forced to conclude that if the Bible is correct then the tectonics of mainstream scinece simply occurred very quickly

---

Ok. This is where the details start to be important.What mechanisms drive these rapid techtonic processes? Or, first off, what evidence is there that the process was rapid rather than sluggish?

quote:

---

and the 1000s of feet of sediment were rapidly dumped by surges of marine innundaitons and fresh water flooding.

---

How are the marine and freshwater floods seperated? In other words, over the time frame, why aren't the fresh and salt waters mixed even if just by the rapid switching of one to the other?How do you account for the order of fossils in the sediments?And assuming Noah is afloat on this surging ocean, what keeps him from smashing into the ground between these surges? Or pounding his brains out against the hull of the ark as it rushes back and forth in the sea? The forces generated in such an ocean could easily sink anything mere mortals could build. [QUOTE][b]The continetnal drift also occurred during this time and the associated sea-floor spreading would have caused the sea-level changes.[/QUOTE][/b]Again, what drives this rapid continental drift?

quote:

---

The tectonic events also generated the modern mountain chains

---

Mechanism?It seems to me that to accomplish what you propose you would have to postulate the release of energy comparable to an asteroid the size of the moon crashing into the Earth. The effects would be catastrophic in the extreme, resulting in far more than a year long flood. We'd still be in the midst of the chaos ( in spirit anyway, because the flesh wouldn't have made it)I can guess at some of your responses based upon your past posts in other threads, but humor me.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]The basic evidence of tectonics does not particularly argue for rapid or slow. [/QUOTE][/b]It seems to me that it does. The mechanisms of plate techtonics are moving massive lumps of rock around the planet. Accelerate them quickly, as you would have to do, and those big lumps will be pulverized. We do not observe this.Once you get them moving you have to stop them. More pulverizing. Try putting the brakes on a few zillion tons.Essentially, any pre-flood sediments would be scrambled. This is bad for the hypothesis.Then there is the temperature of the semi-liquid mantle upon which the continents float. Heating that rock to a temperature high enough for the continents to move across it/through it at these accellerated rates would perhaps heat it to a high enough temperature that the continents would sink into it and disappear. If I am not mistaken, the continents float on the mantle because of density differences. Increase the heat of the mantle, decrease the density. Also, increase the heat, melt the continents.Then there is the problem of cooling it all down.

quote:

---

The actual data itself - lava flows, cross-matching biogeography, sea-floor magnetic anomolies do not argue for slow except if we do not accept accelerated radiodecay.

---

Am I mistaken in thinking that accelerated radio-decay is otherwise known as a thermonuclear explosion? I imagine that you have studied Joe Meert's web-page concerning the effects of accelerated radio-decay. It isn't pretty.

quote:

---

All of the non-radioisopotic data is consistent with both fast or slow.

---

No it isn't. I am not the first to point out that there are full grown forests represented in the sediments between your flood surges.

quote:

---

There is good evidence of incredibly intense periods of vulcanism - that would cover the enitre earth in X feet of magma - the Siberian traps.

---

If you are postulating that this vulcanism corresponds to the flood, where is the lava now? A few thousand years is not enough to erode it away and/or cover it with what 30 feet to a few hundred feet of sediment?And what about the air quality?

quote:

---

In our model the fresh water flood was happening all of the time (at least for the first 40 days obviously). So it was a fresh water flood with tectonically induced marine inuundations.

---

The sheer volume of the ocean should wash out the freshwater contributions, yes?And shouldn't you see a global band of salty sediment? [QUOTE][b](The 40 days of rain were also tectonically hgerneated - condensed steam from vast trenches of hot magma).[/QUOTE][/b]Again you have an atmospheric temperature problem.

quote:

---

So the alterations must be due to the flood occurring as multiple marine surges.

---

A question about surging? When the ocean surges onto land and then retreats, where does it go until the next surge? [QUOTE][b]The order of fossils we put down to biogeography, differential mobility and hydrodynamic sorting.[/QUOTE][/b]But the fossil records don't support this. I have seen this debated before on hte forums and I am unconviced. [QUOTE][b]The ark was big.[/QUOTE][/b]Not that big.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]How can you say so confidently that 'The mechanisms of plate tectonics are moving massive lumps of rock around the planet. Accelerate them quickly, as you would have to do, and those big lumps will be pulverized. We do not observe this.'In our scenario we are probably talking about a much hotter, and therefore less viscous, mantle as well as perhaps a more pliable crust. [/QUOTE][/b]Still, you have to accelerate huge masses of rock.I didn't intend any hubris in making the comments I did. It seems pretty obvious to me, but let me try again.A continental mass is, well, a very big mass and prior the flood (correct me if this isn't what you postulate) if would have been more or less at rest. It would take a tremendous amount of energy to get this mass moving and then to accelerate it to speeds enough to get the continents into their current positions from thier pre-flood positions. You mentioned pangea. I'm not sure if you meant this to be your start. Assuming we have the energy and apply it to the continents, I postulate that the forces generated would be greater than the forces that hold the rock together. Every rock, or composite of rock, has a breaking point. I don't have the background to calculate what those forces would be exactly. Nonetheless, I think it is a problem worth considering.

quote:

---

Do you really think geologists can always look at rocks and tell how they formed?

---

No, I do not believe this, but I do believe the origins of most rock can be deduced.

quote:

---

The continents would of course automatically gradually slow down by friction once the cooling began winning over the heating.

---

How do you cool a superheated planetary mantle in a matter of months? That energy has to go somewhere-- into the atmosphere? Then you superheat the atmosphere. Very bad for living organisms. Back into the mantle? Not quick enough? Into the continental crust? Serious melting issues.

quote:

---

There is no way I could make such pronouncements in my field about someone else’s model that is so different. Any paradigm fro complex phenomena is essentially a fitted model. Half of what you say about it is because you fitted the data and taught yourself to associate X with Y.

---

So I can't comment on your model? Seems to be the gist of this paragraph.Yeah, I fitted the data. So did you. Is there something irrational about what I've said that would lead you to dismiss it? [QUOTE][b]And the continents did sink! It is known by mainstream science that vast areas of continents sank at the same time[/QUOTE][/b]This is confusing as mainstream science doesn't have a 'same time as when the flood occurred' [QUOTE][b]Without performing any detailed calculations passive cooling may have been sufficient.[/QUOTE][/b]This I doubt seriously, but the burden is on you to do the calculations. [QUOTE][b]What do you mean by 'accelerated radio-decay is otherwise known as a thermonuclear explosion'.[/QUOTE][/b]Well, this was mostly a joke. Note the smiley face. [QUOTE][b]The decay constants are linked to parameters that are known to be changing at the ppm level.[/QUOTE][/b]It took me fifteen seconds to find an article stating that evidence suggests that the constants have changed at most 1 percent over the lifetime of the universe. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/constant_evidence.html

quote:

---

If certain combinations of such universal constants changed in the correct way one could easily get accelerated decay.

---

Ok. What changes? What combinations? What experimental evidence have you?

quote:

---

Your full grown forests have in some cases been shown to be explainable by burial of log debris. Such floating log mats automatically insert vertically into sludge.

---

Do you have mainstream links to support this?

quote:

---

The air quality would have been pretty ordinary during the flood.

---

But are you not depending upon massive volcanism? Volcanism and bad air go hand in hand. [QUOTE][b]If catastrophic rains deposit a 100o feet of non-marine sediments from the highlands into a basin in between marine surges then why would a marine surge wash it all away?[/QUOTE][/b]I didn't mean wash away, more like mix.Have you actually calculated how much water you are talking about? There is a limit to how much can be suspended in the air. A thousand feet of sediment? You are washing whole mountains away in a matter days or weeks.

quote:

---

A global band of salty sediment? We see about five near global bands of salty sediment!

---

You've missed the point I made of all the sediments mixing due to the incredible forces involved in the flood.

quote:

---

The surges were probably tectonically driven causing ocean basin size changes just as you yourselves believe. ... So the water goes back into the ocean because of a tectonic event that made the ocean bigger again - probably a plate subduction slippage.

---

Back to moving masses chunks of continent very rapidly. Once you clear that up, I'll consider this.

quote:

---

I am very happy to tell you about how your scenario works but the point is why pretend the question is unique to us - it is an issue for both of us equally.

---

Timeframe is critical. It isn't the same model if you change the timeframe from one year to 500 million.

quote:

---

The fossils are something that would ultimately need to be explained in detail. I am personally satisfied that our 3-point explanation could achieve the known ordering and that the gross ordering is already consistent with qualitative expectations.

---

If you can model this, I'll consider it. [QUOTE][b]Since this is a such a different paradigm your statements primarily amount to 'I don't think it would work'.[/QUOTE][/b]Please, TB. What I've said is far beyond 'I don't think it would work.'

quote:

---

Your other main argument is based on whether the conditions would have killed the occupants of the ark in which case we would agree that the conditions would have made it difficult but we would say not impossible.

---

Just a thought really, not exactly an arguement. I had a flash of being in a boat on those chaotic seas.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--pulverized?

---

Yes. squashed pounded twisted crushed powdered broken warped mashed

quote:

---

Also, we aren't supposed to to be observing this anyways. Its kinda like the big bang, only happens once.

---

and like the big bang, it should leave a trail

quote:

---

'More pulverizing', see above, I don't understand your word usage. And 'putting the brakes on a few zillion tons' of MORB is not difficult at such a velocity.

---

ummmm..... mass times (velocity squared)

quote:

---

If you mean to imply a reference toward metamorphism

---

No, TC. I meant mud. I believe this was a comment on the layering of sediments.

quote:

---

--Mantle-surface heat flow isn't going to 'melt the continents'.

---

This is not a weird as you seem to think. If the mantle were hot enough this is exactly what would happen. Of course, no one has yet to risk giving an actual postulated temperature for the mantle during this time.

quote:

---

I'm sure you remember my breif explanation for chemical fractionation of the earths early crust.

---

Correct. That and some research. I hate being wrong-- makes me look things up.

quote:

---

Forming crust didn't sink into the mantle because it cooled while the mantle was still extremely hot.

---

Interesting, but that doesn't seem the mesh with this very well. Also reference this link for the continental crust melting argument above. [QUOTE][b] Your statement, 'Increase the heat of the mantle, decrease the density', it just isn't that simple. Chemical differentiation gave the forming continental crust buoyancy (see: principal of isostacy).[quote][b]Yes, I realize this. Still you do decrease density as the temperature goes up. The bouyancy is partially dependent upon temperature. Is this a problem? Could be. This has to be taken into account. [quote][b]"Then there is the problem of cooling it all down.
--To be honest, when I make assertions of this likeness, I get picked at for details. ie, the mathematics.[/QUOTE][/b]I am not making the iconoclastic claims. [QUOTE][b]"I imagine that you have studied Joe Meert's web-page concerning the effects of accelerated radio-decay. It isn't pretty."
--That would be a good idea. Do you fully understand the theoretical geodynamic applications in his reasoning?
--You just can't have the mind-set that I 'just know enough to know it is a problem', thats where Hovind messed up.[/QUOTE][/b]ad hominem thanks... If I said I do fully understand it, I'd be lying.It doesn't matter if I fully understand it. What matters is that it is a problem for this theory.

quote:

---

"And what about the air quality? "
--And what about? Volcanic ashes and meteoric impact dusts would make perfect cloud condensation nuclei for precipitation.

---

Sounds like a formula for acid rain.

quote:

---

"The sheer volume of the ocean should wash out the freshwater contributions, yes?"
--washout of freshwater contributions? What problem has this detail stemmed from?

---

.... from the problem of having alternating fresh and salt water deposits in rapid succession.

quote:

---

"Again you have an atmospheric temperature problem."
--How do you know? What have you taken into consideration in coming to this conclusion?

---

hmmm...... This was a response to the idea that the mantle convected its extra heat into the atmosphere as it cooled. So, the mantle is very hot and very large-- orders of magnitude larger than the atmosphere. It stands to reason that the atmosphere under this scenario would have to absorb a lot of heat. Ergo, the it gets really really hot.

quote:

---

"A question about surging? When the ocean surges onto land and then retreats, where does it go until the next surge?
--Back into the main body ocean, unless it is a globally correlated sea-level increase. If not it is also possible that it would have left a 'puddle' behind if hypsography allowed.

---

Am I right in thinking that there is never a 100% global flood? Seems like we always have a bit of dry land somewhere.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Yes. squashed pounded twisted crushed powdered broken warped mashed
--We then find more than enough of this.

---

I think you are missing or avoiding the point I am trying to make. Perhaps this is due to my highly technical language.I don't see the continents remaining intact under these stresses. It seems they would have been destroyed. Is this an argument from incredulity? Well, sort-of. But it is less of an argument than it is a challenge. Explain to me why this would not happen.I also don't see the oceanic crusts sinking quietly into the deep. Shouldn't this crust buckle and break from the movements? Pile up in some areas and rip open in others? Do we have any oceanic crust mountains?

quote:

---

"ummmm..... mass times (velocity squared)"
--Which was driven by mantle convection at somewhere within the proximity of .0004 m/s.

---

How about filling in some details? I am guessing at most of your logic.

quote:

---

I found nothing of challenging merit included in the article. What did you find?

---

The article primarily concerns the formation of the Earth's crust. Seems to have not been so simplistic as you implied. Perhaps you were talking down to me. If you notice, in the early days of the planet the crust was unstable as the TEMPERATURE WAS TOO HIGH. Recall: the crust wouldn't melt. The crust solidified later, as things cooled. Recall: the crust floats because it solidified when the mantle was very hot.

quote:

---

Sorry, I have not made iconoclastic claims in this forum.

---

You think creationism and flood geology isn't iconoclastic?

quote:

---

Whether you understand it or not plays a founding role in whether assertions in the realm of 'something is a problemy' has any merit.

---

Oh come on, TC. Do you fully understand anything? Your best subject, do you fully understand it? If someone asked me this question, I'd say no. There is no other answer. Hiding behind your assessment of another's understanding is an ad hominem tactic. The person doesn't matter. The argument does. If I don't know what I'm talking about, it should be easy enough to demonstrate that.

quote:

---

"Sounds like a formula for acid rain."
--While there would be little explosive volcanism, yup this is a great formula for acid rain.

---

So doesn't this have negative effects on the ecology and hence on the flood survivors (who, I suppose would pretty much be the ecology)

quote:

---

".... from the problem of having alternating fresh and salt water deposits in rapid succession."
--IC, then what do you mean by 'The sheer volume of the ocean should wash [or mix] out the freshwater contributions'.

---

This perhaps stems from a difficulty understanding, or misunderstandign of how this flood model works. We have the oceans surging inland and then receeding. Then surging. It is raining all the while. While the ocean has receeded, this rain results in freshwater deposits of sediment. The problem I see is that the surges and the freshwater deposits will have to be so close together in time that they should be practically indistinguishable--- blurred.

quote:

---

Sorta, though heat escapes from the atmosphere, I believe the polar regions are where some would attribute the heat loss.

---

Ok, but much of this model creates conditions that would trap heat in the atmosphere-- volcanic dust, large amounts of water vapor....------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
"You don't have a problem with complete innudation?" Pardon me, but isn't this central to your whole thesis? You make it sound like you are simply a proponent of incomplete, shallow, epeiric seas!

​

I seems we are redefining 'global flood' here. Care to explain?

​

---

I had this thought too actually. It does make the flood scenario easier to swallow, but also makes it substantially less Biblical.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Well the fact of the matter is, that the continents didn't remain intact per se, enormous orogenic constructions resulted form the Flexure stresses and strains on the continental crusts.

---

All of which are well explained by the formulas of plate tectonics using values for plate speed that are a fraction of the speeds necessary in your theory. Insert larger values and you should get different results.

quote:

---

This did happen in Himalayan orogenesis, this is why we find this massive folded mountain range which includes a large folded slab of the ancient tethy's sea. There is also detailed discussion on both this and the above topics in a geophysical sense. Elasticity and Flexure, stresses and strains in solids, Geothermal heat flow, flux transfer and cooling, etc. I had taken a couple hours of these readings and pondering on the information until I realized that it were not necessarily needed for this particular dispute . Geodynamics - Second Edition; Donald L. Turcotte & Gerald Schubert. I reference this book frequently, it is highly recommended for its level of depth in this subject.

---

Again, all explained by formulas using much smaller values for speed.

quote:

---

I was making my point that at such a velocity, just the friction of this huge mass simply isn't going to keep budging after its underlying mechanism of mantle convection has slowed.

---

Sure it would. This is called momentum, and a mass this size would have a lot of momentum.First, you haven't how the mantle could cool quickly.If you could cool it quickly, the friction you speak of would be where the continental crust touches the mantle. The lower bits would slow, the upper bits would slow more slowly. You should sheer the continents in half, among other effects. [QUOTE][b]Right, the 'forming crust' would not melt. So there is no contradiction here.[/QUOTE][/b]The point is that the forming crust did melt, several times. Remember that you are proposing that the mantle temperature goes up. If it goes up high enough, the plates would melt just like in the early Earth. Do you propose that the temperature goes up this high? I don't know. You haven't given me a mantle temperature.

quote:

---

John: "The crust solidified later, as things cooled. Recall: the crust floats because it solidified when the mantle was very hot."

​

--Your quotes are not in context and do not qualify as being 'quotes'. This is not what I had said. The crust does not float because it 'solidified when the mantle was very hot'.

---

This is a quote:

quote:

---

Forming crust didn't sink into the mantle because it cooled while the mantle was still extremely hot.

---

Maybe you can understand how I could make this mistake?

quote:

---

And I don't think that your assertion that 'rain results in freshwater deposits of sediment' is all that correct for the most part. It is possible that this could happen, but may be extremely rare. Requiring that condensation nuclei be included in significant quantities in precipitation with relatively long durations of time.

---

I didn't mean that the sediments rain down, but that rainwater is the source of the freshwater that deposits the sediment- presumably washed off of the highlands.

quote:

---

These deposits may also likely not be attributed as non-eolian

---

So they are attributed as eolian?

quote:

---

because of the possibilities for constituent inclusions in precipitation.

---

As they would be if the sediments were airborne?There seems to be a contradiction here. Care to clear that up?

quote:

---

I do not see any reason to believe that such deposits would be so thinly deposited that they may represent homologous sediments.

---

How many surges are you postulating?

quote:

---

Later pondering revealed the fact that actually, there is the very appealing effect of meteoric impacts which I have cited here:

---

Do you mean that the particles of dust seeded clouds and protected Earth?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com