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

I thought that diagram looked odd. It certainly did not look like the diagram I remembered from Vail et al. 1977, which IS the landmark paper for relative sea level variations.Important mainstream papers on relative sea level changes are:Vail, P. R., R. M. Mitchum, Jr., R. G. Todd, et al. 1977. Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 26:49—212.Haq, B. U., J. Hardenbol, and P. R. Vail. 1987. The chronology of fluctuating sea level since the Triassic. Science 235:1156—1167.Haq, B. U., J. Hardenbol, and P. R. Vail. 1988. Mesozoic and Cenozoic chronostratigraphy and cycles of sea-level change. SEPM Special Publication 42:71—108.Although the Vail and Haq curves are well-accepted, they are not without contention. There are several/many things that need to be taken into account such as growth/melting of ice caps, tectonics/tectonism, subsidence/uplift, rate/amount of continental erosion and redepsotion into ocean basins, glacio-isostasy, etc.Did Hallam, Vail, and Haq all take these into account appropriately? Maybe, maybe not.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-22-2005 06:32 PM

Some massages are better than others. The flood was supposed to have been the result of a global deluge of massive proportions and therefore YECs need to explain the source of that unusual amount of precipitation. In addition, the water levels later fell, where did all that extra water go?The fact that relative sea levels have in the past 'flooded' continents does not support the YEC position in the least because those are explained by something other than rain.Finding these 'fountains of the deep' would certainly help your position as would finding massive deposits of continent-sourced sediment in the ocean basins.In fact, that's one of the ways to get ocean levels to rise - displace the water in the ocean basins with sediment. YECs need to find that sediment... and then figure out where the water went...Mainstream geology doesn't have a water problem.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-23-2005 11:21 AM

I know this is a bit OT, but as Percy pointed out, I think it should be addressed. First of all, Baumgardner is a Creationist working for a mainstream science lab. Just because he did what he was paid to do and then used his product to test some of his own ideas does not equate to mainstream science supporting his theories. Just to make that clear.Second of all... Searching GeoRef, the most comprehensive geoscience literature database available, I found, for the years between 1985 - 2005, that Baumgardner has been primary author on 14 articles of which all but one were ABSTRACTS.The lone paper appears to be in a conference proceedings:Baumgardner, 1988, John R, "Application of supercomputers to 3-D mantle convection," in The physics of the planets; their origin, evolution, and structure, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, Apr. 9-20, 1985.Of those remaining 13 abstracts, 11 are in Eos.During the same period of time, Baumgardner is second author 13 times, although two of them I am not able to verify. Of those 13 references, two were actual papers (one unverified) and the other 11 are abstracts. Again, mostly in Eos.I leave it up to others to determine whether Baumgardner is a "major contributor to the mainstream field of tectonic simulation."Personally, I believe that assertion is arguable. A few too many abstracts and not enough research papers, in my opinion.That's not to say I think Baumgardner's contribution is minor because it's entirely possibly his contribution is one we - those of us not involved in tectonophysics research - can't see.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-24-2005 09:01 PM

If the volume of the oceans remained constant, where did the rain water come from?Or are you suggesting the rains were nothing more than what we'd see today and most of the inundation was actually the result of tectonism?This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-24-2005 09:25 PM

My understanding of TB's position is that the 'Biblical Flood' occurred prior to the uplift of Mt. Everest - sometime between the Precambrian and the Silurian or Devonian - when apparently there were no high mountains (an unsupported assumption as far as I can tell).That is to say, the topography we see today, is not yesterday's (read: pre- and syn-flood) topography.Topography and geometry of the continents as it exists today is the result of tectonism after the flood.

Yes, I have no doubt Baumgardner wrote a wonderful simulation program, but that's about it as far as I can see.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-27-2005 10:54 AM

In mainstream plate tectonics, convection moves the plates and radioactivity (and residual heat) provides the heat required to drive convection.The mechanism that propels and maintains movement is subduction (or slab-pull), and seafloor spreading to a lesser degree.What drives CPT?This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-27-2005 10:04 PM

I find it hard to imagine god needing water from deep within the earth when he/she had oceans of it on the surface.