Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood

"The present bathymetry of the ocean floor isn’t compatible with a catastrophic event a few thousand years ago. The present bathymetry matches remarkably well the bathymetry expected as a result of conductive cooling of basalt erupted at ridges and the conventional age of the ocean floor.
THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS"
--The vary geophysical processes Meert uses are the ones which the Global Flood harnesses as the reason the continents became inundated. Tell me, what do you think is going to be the effect of a ~150m ocean basin?------------------

"The effects of a collision between a planetissimal and the Earth is very much a factor of the approach direction and velocity. Obviously a head on collision would completely destroy the offending planettisimal but if the approach direction is almost tangential the planetissimal will inflict a galancing blow at first and then skim on the earths surface breaking up as it did so to form a near circular deposit of its contents. The precise nature of the contents we can now determine but it is also predictable from the theory I have used to explain how the Solar System was formed and why the planets have the structure and composition that they do."
--You should take up a thorough study in the field of geochemistry, you will then find that your hypothesis for the creation of the continents is a bit ridiculous. The geochemical compositions of the continents, Ocean Basalts, and hot-spot volcanics are indicative of a fractionation process which defiantly isn't likened to or required that there be any impact event. I have also been studying solar cosmogenesis for the past couple months and your planetismal hypothesis is flawed in this area as well.-------------------

"Why does it matter?"
--With such an ocean bathymetry, you get continental inundation. This also means that Meerts analysis is relatively correct, but his conclusions are not (ie, that the resultant bathymetry is a 'problem').------------------

"Nowhere in Joe's article does he state that the ocean floor was shallow. His point is that if the ocean floor is 6,000 years old then it ought to be a uniform 15 meters deep."
--And you don't call that shallow?"Quite clearly the ocean floor isn't 15 meters deep, and so the present bathymetry can't be reconciled with the idea that the ocean floor is 6,000 years old."
--You should read Meerts source T & S - Geodynamics and find the sections where it explains the principle of isostatic balance. After that, you will see that ocean bathymetry will not stay in such condition.--To make this clearer for you, a mainstream analogy: Eustatic levels in the Cretaceous (80 Ma) were 300m higher than it is today, and water flooded about 40% of the present area of the continents. Such eustatic changes are due to this same process directly associated with Meerts calculations. And Sea levels in the past imply larger values of the mean oceanic heat flux. Were not at that present level are we, bathymetry rebounded.------------------

"Yes, I'd call 15 meters shallow, but what I'd call it is irrelevant. The point is that the ocean floor should be 15 meters deep if it formed a few thousand years ago, and since the ocean floor isn't 15 meters deep that's a good indication it didn't form a few thousand years ago. "
--No, it would have been like that for a time, the will rebound without the increased heat flux. This is something you have missed."I'm familiar with isostasy, and it doesn't eliminate the problem that the ocean floor should presently be 15 meters deep if it formed a few thousand years ago. "
--I don't think you are, because if you were, you would see that it doesn't stay like that. Its either that or the relationship between density and temperature in this scenario which you are missing."This will displace water on to the continents, but that's still irrelvent to the issue of the present bathymetry of the oceans. If all of the ocean floor was composed of hot,young crust (say a few thousand years old), then it should be riding high on the mantle, and the ocean should be correspondingly shallow, and it isn't. "
--Thats because it doesn't stay that hot."How do you account for the present bathymetry of the ocean floor?"
--The fact that it has cooled for the past couple thousand years.------------------

"Of course the depth of the ocean floor changes as the crust cools, that was the point of Joe Meert's article, and I've explained that myself several times in this thread. Of course the ocean floor doesn't stay as hot as it was when it form, I've been over that too. However, if the ocean floor has only been cooling for a few thousand years, then it should only have cooled enough to have a depth of 15 meters. Nothing you've written to this point has addressed this problem.Letting the ocean cool for a couple thousand years won't do it; you'll wind up with an ocean that 15 meters deep. Appealing to isostasy won't do it; you'll wind up with ocean floor that rides on the mantle at a level that results in an ocean that's 15 meters deep. Nothing you've written has explained why this shouldn't be the case.To this point, your answers have been frustratingly low on information. I'd appreciate it if you take the time to write a longer more detailed post explaining your idea."
--These things I know, but I was slightly out of boundaries with my attempted resolutions... I had even written a paper not long ago on this vary thing. I showed that continental inundation isn't the problem but there is still work to be done for latter cooling. So I think my preliminary conclusion right now would have to be just that, theres work to do. I would guess that what would need to be looked at more (on our part) is the cooling of the oceanic lithosphere over time. Only 20% of the earth's heat flux is due to secular cooling and the rest is directly related to radioisotopic heat generation mostly originating in the mantle so that may be a hint.--Its difficult to do these things without hundreds of other scientists even having the interest, things don't get done for us as fast as the mainstream.Edge: "So, don't you think someone would have notice that sea level has dropped thousands of feet in the last 2k years?"
--No they wouldn't because whatever the mechanism, such a rapid deceleration in heat flow hasn't been observed.------------------

"Sorry? No one would notice because you can't see the mechanism causing it? That makes no sense."
--No, that isn't what I meant. I meant that the mechanism for cooling wouldn't even be applicable if it didn't explain the fact that we don't see a rapid deceleration in mean surface heat flow. And therefor no one would notice that the sea level has dropped thousands of feet.------------------

"TC, the level would have dropped thousands of feet very rapidly. Drop the jargon. I don't really care about mean surface heat flow. Focus, man, focus."
--What are you talking about? The surface heat flow is directly proportional to the bathymetry of the ocean floor and hence, eustasy.
--What others have layed out and I have agreed with here is that that is exactly what I cannot show yet, that bathymetry & eustatic levels would drop rapidly after the flood."You are saying that whatever mechanism you cook up will explain why no one noticed that the sea levels dropped?"
--No, I'm saying that if the mechanism doesn't explain this, it isn't plausible."Whatever the mechanism, how can people not notice that the sea level dropped thousands of feet?"
--Well someone obviously would have observed it. Just not in recent times.-------------------

"Once again, perhaps this is a hint that you should heed."
--Heed to who or what?"Once again, you make no sense whatsoever. "
--Read my clarification for John."Could it be that since it hasn't been observed that it is impossible?"
--I don't see evolution taking place on macro scales, and I haven't seen any 'big bangs' lately either. Sure it could be so, any scientist will say this about unanswered questions.-------------------

"Well... maybe you need more than a hint."
--I still don't know what your talking about, heed to what?"You leave out the tiny fact that there is evidence for evolution and there is evidence of the big bang."
--I was being sarcastic, you missed my point. I didn't say there wasn't evidence for it, I said we arent observing it occuring today."And, no, not everything is possible."
--Never said everything was.------------------

"That there is a reason, no one is researching this. It makes no sense to do so."
--Not for you, why do you think I said there's work to be done? Because it hasn't been. Why work within a Young Earth framework when your premise is that it is old? Hence my assertion that, "Its difficult to do these things without hundreds of other scientists even having the interest, things don't get done for us as fast as the mainstream.""Let's see, could it be that is because it never happened? "
--Obviously any scientific initiative attempting to verify a hypothesis must accept this as a possibility."Why do you assume that because we cannot see it today that it must have happened and various laws of physics must have been violated before we could have seen them?"
--I never said that it therefore 'must have happened'."I am sorry, but if the oceans receded thousands of feet between 4000 and 2000 years ago, we would have some record of it, and possibly a verbal record."
--Maybe, we have a lot of flood stories out there, but I'm no archaeologist and haven't done any of this sort of research. But I think I will allow myself to work one step at a time.------------------

--In your scenario it seems more plausible that you would create a global magma ocean rather than new continents just from the impact itself. What might you presume existed prior the pangean continent? And how do you account for continental paleomagnetism?------------------

"The huge quantity of sediments now on the sea floor is most probably the remains of the sediments that did escape one way or other but other small planetissimals which had a more disastrous landing on
the earth can also account for the tremendous quantity of sediments in the ocean bed."
--How do you explain the distribution of sediments on the ocean floor? Sediments decrease in depth the closer you get to mid ocean ridges. And how do you explain the thickness of the oceanic lithosphere. Even discounting sedimentary load, the oceanic lithosphere thickens the further away form the mid-ocean ridge.-------------------

"True Creation asks how the sediment distribution near oceanic ridges can be explained.
Firstly this means that no substantial addition of sediments from
impacting bodies have been made since the ridges were formed."
--Clearly limestones & similar carbonates were not present on your meteorite? We find such sediments throughout the sedimentary load."Secondly the ridges (in my theory) represent lines where the ocean floor was once lifted and then subsided. During uplift any sediments would naturally thin out near the ridge and thicken the further you go away in mudflows and undersea landslides."
--What kind of incline are you talking about? There should also be some physics on this process. Or is this just speculative on your part?
--Also, in addition to your explanation on the distribution of sediments on the ocean floor, please explain:--The origin & evolution of the ocean floor in your scenario.
--What caused the ocean floor to uplift in the way that they did (mid-ocean ridges) and then subside.
--The origin of the continents."The lithosphere near ocean ridges is expected to be thiner for the same reason."
--How so?"Molten basalt has great flowing characteristics and because it would be flowing away from the raised ridge I would expect the ridge itself to hold back only sufficient material to seal the rift."
--What do you mean? and how does this apply?------------------

"Ofcourse the Geologists felt threatened by
the new interpretation but could not offer any facts in opposition either)"
--I question this.. maybe they just didn't offer you 'facts in opposition' because you didn't want to accept them as such?"And I am still waiting for some real facts-not reinstatement of existing theories which I am more than familiar with and can see
their weaknesses."
--You might find something relevant if you look back at post #96.-------------------