Also, wrong is your answer. If there is continental crust at the bottom of the oceans it is an exceedingly small piece.
You give me too much credit for my imagination. I don't make this stuff up. I read it where scientest with Phd's have said there is continental crust underwater in the Atlantic and Indian ocean. And no they are not talking about a little bit. They talk about a lot.
Question: I live in central Florida we are at 49 feet above sea level. If the water in the oceans was to rise 100 feet would land mass that is Florida cease to be continental crust just because it was under water at that time? Science tells me it was covered at one time with water.
There seems to be a terminology problem here. When you mentioned continental crust at the bottom of the ocean, I don't think Edge interpreted this as referring to coastal continental crust. If by "bottom of the ocean" you only mean"submerged along coastal boundaries", then sure, there's continental crust at the "bottom of the ocean" all around the globe.
Continental crust is thought to form by the accumulation of the lighter portions of oceanic crust at subduction zones. Mid-ocean subduction zones definitely exist, and the relatively lighter continental crust does form in these areas. Looking at the Wikipedia article on subduction I see that island arcs frequently form at subduction zones between two oceanic plates.
What does continental crust at the bottom of the ocean have to do with where the water came from before the flood and where it went after?
Continental crust (material that has been weathered)...
Continental crust is not seabed material that has been exposed to the elements. Continental crust is defined by the manner in which it is produced. It forms at subduction zones where the lighter portions of seafloor material are trimmed off and remain above instead of subducting down into the mantle.
Continental crust is significantly less dense than oceanic crust and is unlikely to exist on the seafloor to any significant extent. Its lesser density would make it very likely to rise up above sea level. If you can provide a reference to where "scientest with Phd's have said there is continental crust underwater in the Atlantic and Indian ocean" I think we'll discover that either you misunderstood or that they were referring to very tiny pieces of continental crust.
I have asked several times for someone to present a mechanism for the materials required to produce the oil, natural gas, and coal that is in the Earth to be able to get to where it is at, with no response.
Whoever you were asking is to be congratulated for staying on topic. Why don't you ask your question in a thread where it would be on topic? This thread is for creationists to describe where the water came from during the flood and where it went to after.
As near as I can gather, your model is that the Earth used to be much smaller. It was bombarded over long periods of time by asteroids and comets, and much water, vegetation and living creatures became deeply buried, providing the source for deeply buried oil and water and fossils. The water emerged during the flood, then returned to its burial points after the flood.
I'm just trying to get an idea of what the complete story is. Please correct as you see fit.
Let me incorporate your correction into the model:
The Earth used to be much smaller. It was bombarded over long periods of time by asteroids and comets, and much water, vegetation and living creatures became deeply buried, providing the source for deeply buried oil and water and fossils. The water emerged during the flood, then became superheated steam that turned into hydrous minerals and disappeared into the mantle.
Trixie, the proposer of this thread, was asking for models like this to be proposed so that they could be "examined for plausibility with regard to current science," rather than for evidence that the model describes what actually happened.
I won't get specific, Edge has done that already, but in general the problem with your model is that it attempts to reconcile Biblical accounts with what you know about science, instead of with what is actually known by science. None of us here knows everything, but the larger the gap between what one knows and what is known then the larger the problems will be with any model one proposes, a fact evident in your model.
We haven't drilled into the lithosphere yet so what do we really know about it?
We haven't drilled into the asthenosphere yet so what do we really know about it?
The relevant issue is that your model only incorporates the scientific knowledge of which you are aware or which you're willing to accept, which is only a tiny subset of which is actually known.
Before we could convince you that your model doesn't work scientifically we'd have to persuade you to accept what is already known scientifically. This hasn't proven possible over the years.
But I don't see any reason why the goal of this thread should be persuading you. Once you've clearly stated your model (did I get it right last time?) we can figure out what's wrong with it ourselves. Convincing you that it's wrong seems a fool's errand, and given its obvious problems the danger of you making any headway with it seems negligible. I think the kind of attention you'd get giving your ideas significant public exposure would be a wonderful boon for the science side in the creation/evolution controversy. Maybe the Texas State Board of Education can call you to testify the next time they review science textbooks, there's always cameras at those events. Who knows, maybe you're the next Bill Buckingham!
But this thread isn't about the scientific model, and you don't care about scientific explanations anyway. This thread asks creationists to describe their model, so if it really does have anything to do with where the water came from before the flood and where it went after, please describe your model for how the crust got down there.
Your visualization of what happens in very high speed collisions, say around 10km/sec, is incorrect. All the energy in a meteor striking the Earth's surface is behind the point of contact. The material at the contact point nearly instantaneously vaporizes causing a massive explosion, and the rest of the material vaporizes as it enters the region of contact. Much or even all of the meteor can vaporize.
The energy of the explosion overwhelms the mere velocity components of the meteor. This is why nearly all craters are round no matter how oblique the original angle of attack. The approximately 10 trillion joules would produce an explosion equivalent in energy to approximately 2500 tons of TNT.
I won't speculate about what material might remain behind after so violent an explosion, but one common signature of a meteor impact is tektites, which are small glass rocks formed from molten rock created in the explosion and blasted into the air, where it cools. Unfortunately for your conjecture about "hydrated silica tetrahedrals", they're notable for their unusually low water content, and as the Wikipedia article on Tektites says, the evidence suggests that "tektites were formed under phenomenal temperature and pressure not normally found on the surface of the Earth." Another common signature is the presence of elements more common in meteors than in the Earth's crust, such as iridium.
Meteors around 750,000 kg (maybe about 300 meters in diameter at most) strike the Earth relatively rarely, maybe once every 10 or 20 thousand years (see the Wikipedia article on Impact Events). Depending upon structure and composition meteors break up upon entering the atmosphere, and how much actually reaches the ground still traveling at significant speeds isn't predictable. Smaller pieces are subjected to much more drag relative to the original meteor. Naturally the larger the meteor the more likely some portion of it will strike the ground, and for very large meteors, say 1 km or larger, the likelihood of a significant portion striking the ground at something close to its original speed is high. Metallic meteors can be much smaller and still strike the ground without breaking up. For example, the original size of the meteor responsible for the Barringer crater in Arizona is thought to be about 50 meters (see the Wikipedia article on the Barringer crater).
Your described scenario isn't consistent with anything we know about impact events or meteors, and the physics and chemistry seem doubtful, too.
What we're seeing demonstrated in this thread is the willingness of creationists to make up that which they do not know, and to not care whether what they're making up is contradicted by current knowledge.
I think the discussion has gotten a bit off track. All this thread is asking is for creationists to provide their explanations of where the flood waters came from, and where they receded to.
Some in this thread keep asking for evidence, but evidence isn't what this thread is about. The purpose is instead to explore the reasonableness of the explanations from a scientific standpoint without regard to whether there is any evidence that the particulars of the explanations are things that ever happened.
So what is *your* explanation for where the flood waters came from and where they went afterwards?
Assuming you would like evidence for where the water came from and where it went, I don't think this would be off-topic for the Evidence for a recent flood thread.
Trixie replied like this and I promoted the thread:
Trixie in Message 3 writes:
It's not so much asking for evidence as asking for the "models" proposed to be examined for plausibility with regard to current science.
As I explained in Message 200, "The purpose is instead to explore the reasonableness of the explanations from a scientific standpoint without regard to whether there is any evidence that the particulars of the explanations are things that ever happened."
So the creationists are under no obligation to provide evidence that there was ever a global flood or fountains of the deep or massive meteor strikes or whatever else they want to claim happened. The question being addressed is whether the proposals are scientifically possible, and for that purpose evidence may be employed as much as desired.
No one thinks we should ignore any scientific evidence. Jon presented his seismic evidence of subduction in Message 164. If you would like to present other scientific evidence from whatever source then please go ahead.
What you actually appear to be doing is inventing reasons for ignoring scientific evidence. That's why it's pointless to try to discuss this with you. When you're through presenting your flood waters explanation then the rest of us can proceed to analyze it for consistency with known scientific principles.
Are you saying that the continental crust at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico was formed from the same process that creates sinkholes? I'm not disputing this, I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying. I think you're saying that continental crust at the bottom of oceans was once above sea level, but because it was underlain by massive amounts of water that later provided the source of water for the fountains of the deep that this crust sank during the global flood. Is that right?
From what you say, my earlier summary of your model still seems correct, but I can add a few details now:
The Earth used to be much smaller. It was bombarded over long periods of time by asteroids and comets, and much water, vegetation and living creatures became deeply buried, providing the source for deeply buried oil and water and fossils. The water emerged during the flood, and perhaps was augmented by more comets. After the flood, some of the water became superheated steam that turned into hydrous minerals and disappeared into the mantle, and some of the water remained on the surface and depressed regions downward into the subterranean caverns previously occupied by the fountains of the deep.
I'm not trying to tell you what your model is. You're supposed to be telling us what your model is, but you are revealing it in dribs and drabs. All I'm trying to do is collect those dribs and drabs into a single paragraph describing your model. I'd prefer that you do this yourself, but you're apparently reluctant, so let me try again:
The Earth used to be much smaller. It was bombarded over long periods of time by asteroids and comets, and much water, vegetation and living creatures became deeply buried, providing the source for deeply buried oil and water and fossils. The water emerged during the flood, and perhaps was augmented by more comets. The water remained on the surface and depressed regions downward into the subterranean caverns previously occupied by the fountains of the deep.
If this is wrong and doesn't represent your views then there is no need to build arguments about how it is wrong. If it is an incorrect representation of your views then just say so and I will believe you. There is no reason to misrepresent your views, because then we would end up criticizing the wrong views.
Just correct the mistakes, that's all that's needed.