So what about SILT and dating????

Did you do any research on this at all?There is of course silt on the ocean floors. However it is not uniform.Do you know about plate tectonics?Do you have a source for the measurements and calculations that came up with this result.We will discuss this for a bit if you want. However, you're going to find out that it is nonsense. It is one of a set of about 2 dozen such arguements for a young earth that have been around for years and have been shown to be junk over and over.The source that gave you this is deliberately misleading you.

Do you think he'll be back? It's beginning to look a bit hit and run.It's been awhile since we've had one of those who thinks this is all so easy. A simple house of cards to kick over.

OMG, I am very confused. You're right.

Could you describe the state of the earth's crust and the continents before the flood, please?The continents, you understand, float in the underlying crust. The aren't uplifted (that is held or pushed up), you'd have to push them down somehow like a cork floating in a bathtub. Could you describe how that was done?

I'm not a geologist so what I say has to be taken with a grain of salt.Let's look at this:
7 miles is about 35,000 feet in (being generous) 5,000 years. That's 7 feet per year.The higher crust is somewhat plastic, but since it's not as hot as deep rock it isn't very plastic. What happens to it when you deform it this quickly? It cracks!That rate of the San Andreas fault is about 45 mm per year (something like 2 inches). You know what happens when it cracks due to the strain, right?There would therefore be a record of the earthquakes like we have on the pacific coast (but very very frequent and very very much larger). There aren't there ( I am aware of the geologic record of the quakes on the coast - perhaps you can give a reference for the many, many huge quakes around New Orleans) so it didn't happen over the longest possible time frame.So the warping did NOT (unless you produce evidence) over the long time frame.Do you now suggest that it happened immediately?You see, if creationists really thought they had an explanation this sort of very simple calculation would have been done and the evidence looked for. The fact that it hasn't been done shows us that there is no creation "science". There is, instead, a lot of wild-eyed speculation that doesn't stand up to a bit of thinking.

Congratulations for at least starting to suggest what might have happened. It isn't enough detail of course, but it is a beginning.Some of this has been discussed elsewhere but one thing that you have a problem with isn't gettting enough heat to soften the floor of the gulf of Mexico; it is that you might have enough melt the crust of the earth and boil the ocean off.Remember, all this scrambling of rock takes energy and if you release too much too quickly things get really, really hot.You ideas only have validity if you actually do some of the calculations on what is involved. I don't think either of us are qualified to do it. But if these ideas had any validity I would think the the various creation "scientists" would have run them down to more detail complete with calculations.However, they don't, if they dare to get the models too detailed the flaws start to show up very clearly. Therefore your suggestions above are about as good as any of produced by the fancy scientists at ICR and the like.However, you description is probably good enough that if the smarter folks here think about it a bit they will be able to point out predictions that it would make that don't bear out. I'll see if I can think that through but not for most of a day. Busy tonight.

Differential heavy? Heavier some places than others? Hard to fathom! he he heWater heavier than rock? To push down the rock and push up rock other places.

The predictions of Walt BrownThis might be an interesting read for you.Some of it was discusses in:
Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.but the YEC posters were a bit nuts.and perhaps better:
Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-13-2004 10:02 PM

Something you might want to think about is that there has been some decades for the "flooders" to think up a scenario for the flood that actually works. However, no one has come up with one. You will find as you keep making up new speculations that there are always serious problems with them.As an example, we get the galloping tectonics that some of put forward. When the energy involved is considered we end up with a molten earth and no explanation for what we actually see today. However, they ignore such little problems and keep right on making things up.What one might begin to suspect is that no one has come up with a plausible, workable scenario because there isn't one. The conclusion is what the believers in a literal Genesis of a couple of centuries ago reached: there was no global flood.