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

This was news to me when I started my mainstream geology reading, but its true! The early Paleozoic saw the almost complete covering of the earth as determined by the mapping of marine Silurian (early Paleozoic) sediments.You don't believe me? Then maybe you'll believe mainstream Cambridge University geologist van Andel in New Views on an Old Planet (1994) :"Regarding the early Palaeozoic in this bright light, we find a wet world, its continents inundated far more than they have ever been since then, and the rise of the sea continuing. Before this
rise ended, very little land remained above water." (p 179)The Recolonization Flood model in particular equates these strata with the Flood maximum.The point is that where this water came from and went is a problem for both evolutionists and creationists!It's an emperical fact that the world was flooded - whether 95% or 100% is immaterial. This point is ignored time after time after time on this site and is never pointed out by non-young earthers.We know that a large proportion of sea-level changes is well understood as plate tectonic/sea-floor spreading ocean-basin rearrangements and continenetal verticle movements. Of course this is not completely quantitative (especially in the Pre-Permian) and so leaves plenty of room early in the record for water from below (Fountains of the Deep) ala hydro-plate-like theories or some mysterious input from above (Windows of Heaven).But post-Permian we understand the lesser sea-level changes pretty well (which nevertheless inundated the world by 50%) - it's due to the ocean-basin rearrangements that constituted the break-up of Pangea.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-21-2005 06:35 AM

I'll keep an eye out for more details but I'm not claiming I can *prove* a complete covering. Mainstream science is consistent with 'very little land' not being flooded in the early Paleozoic.Mainstream science already agrees that the earth was almost completely flooded. The last little bit might require some haggle work on our part but I simply don't claim to be able to prove that at present.The point is that we can get close enough wihtout any haggling. If you want to haggle about the last details feel free but for me it's sufficent that we already understand how *most* of the earth was flooded.

I completely agree Moose. I completely agree and stated as much. We explain it via runaway subduction as you know. We don't claim any of this is bullet-proof. It is suggestive and works together as a consistent, parsimonious framework.

While I find the definitieve peer-reviewed statement, here's a mainstream website's quote for now as an example"In the Early Ordovician, North America roughly straddled the equator and almost all of that continent lay underwater."http://www.science501.com/PTOrdovician.html

The mainstream statement globally I quoted was "very little land remained above water." (p 179) I'm as interested as you all are in quantitating that.NosyNed, although your image is very handy the truth of it is that no-one is sure exactly how much was covered.Why? Because it's based on the extent of Ordovician strata globally. But does anyone think that none of this sediment was eroded? Of course everyone knows that higher period sediment included material eorded from Ordovician beds. So we simply don't know precisely how much of the earth was covered.Secondly, if highlands were covered by Ordovician sediment this would have been the thinnest part of it of course and most rapidly eroded to non-existence.

That subduction itself occurs has plenty of sesmic and other geophysical evidence as you know. AS far as its rate is concerned we would cite the RATE helium retention results together with Baumgardner's theoretical studies.

NosyNedThe stratigraphically determined sea-level curves demonstrate that the Ordovician sea-level was at least 600m higher than now so your 'eye-balling' is way out.I stand by(i) the mainstream statement that 'most of the land was underwater' and
(ii) that it is an under-estimate because we don't know how much of the Ordovician was eroded.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-22-2005 12:24 AM

Great . .Now just so you know where I'm getting the 600m from, it's from the famous stratigraphically determined sea-level curves:

Yes, I'm well aware that the sea-level curves are dictated primarily tectonically.

Yes, good question. Back in 2002 I went so far as to track down the original monograph (found it in a tech bookshop). Although it's difficult to tease out, it seems that this work was an attempt to compare the ancient sea-level to today's level.Because the ocean basins have changed so much the ice-cap melting issues are sort of irrelevant. So when we're talking about flooding the world, it's not this one, it's THAT one.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-22-2005 01:06 AM

Dubious study! It's the landmark global stratigraphical study!

Whoops - sorry PaulK - I thought you were having a go at the mainstream sea-level curves!

In a general response to several posts above . .My main point in this thread was to show that even if there is a water problem it is not as big as everyone makes out. Mainstream there was 'little land left uncovered' during the Ordovician.Secondly, we can all agree that the 'comings and goings' were largely tectonically controlled. Sure, YECs believe there was some 'fountains of the deep' source but after that the comings and goings (innundations and retreats) are tectonically controlled.There's some good common ground here. An early Paleozoic Flood simply does not have a hugely different water problem than mainstream science does.PS And all of those differnt Vail curves are different massagings of the same data I'm pretty sure. They are not gospel but neither are they not relevant. And as I mentioned before they are lowere limits because no-one is sure how much of each bed was eroded by later activity.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-23-2005 02:18 AM

If mainstream science has no water problem then ours is not a very big problem either. We're not claiming to be able to inundate today's world. It's the early Paleozoic we - at least the Paleozoic Flooders - are claiming to Flood.Percy, If the fountains of the deep represent the magma of the mid-oceanic rifts then it's all purely tectonic. On the other hand maybe something like the hydro-plate model will gain further evidence. Where did the water go? You clearly have not even attempted to sit along side our view. We believe the water rearranged into the new tectonically created ocean basins - just like mainstream sceince believes.Are you under some false-impression that mainstream science - or anybody else - has a quantitative model of the Paleozoic world and the tectonic activity that has occurred between now and then *sufficient* to determine whether today's sea-levels are consistnet with a near (or total) Paleozoic covering? Of course there is no such model or data.For now, my point is that mainstream science has no problem almost covering the Paleozoic world.And Moose, you know very well that our claim to compress the geo-column into 500 years (in the Recolonization Model case) is based on numerous points of evidence, and is not just a baseless claim.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-23-2005 07:11 PM

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'.Baumgardner is unarguably a major contributer to the mainstream field of tectonic simulation.Error | The Institute for Creation Research
ICR Research | The Institute for Creation Research