I wasn't very studious, and lost the book and my notes.
The lithospheric plates are thought to have been one supercontinent at least once if not a couple of times. Pangaea was the last incidence.
But the key is
plate tectonics have nothing to do with "global flooding". The plates are rigid chunks of the earth's surface that move around on a "play-doh"-like consistency material in the upper mantle called the Asthenosphere.
however, there is a lot of land underneath the water.
Well, to be fair, one would expect "land" to be under the oceans. There has to be something at the bottom of the oceans.
But interestingly enough the "land" under the oceans is often dominated by
basaltic or
mafic rocks. The differences in the density of "oceanic" and "continental" crust explains why the continents usually ride up over the ocean crust when they meet. This is "subduction". Sometimes we see oceanic crust that rides up over continental crust and these are called
ophiolites and tell us a great deal about what kind of rocks are in the mantle.
In addition we know from the geologic record sea levels have risen and land has dropped (isostacy) which resulted in cases where oceans have washed up on the countinents and shallow seas have developed on top of continental crust. The middle part of the U.S. used to be one massive shallow "epieric" sea in the distant past in the Paleozoic.
And there is an old sea level in some mountain ranges, that many scientists are confused by since lakes are too far away and too far down the mountains for it to make sense.
Again, there are instances where the oceans were over continental land. In addition marine rocks can be uplifted (as in the Himalayas where we see the same process still ongoing that produced the Himalayas and explains why shells are found in the rocks near the tops of some of these mountains).
In general the scientists really aren't
that confused. In detail maybe specific instances have some confusing or interesting aspects, but plate tectonics has resulted in extremely complex terrain and it does help explain a lot of the "stranger" aspects.
This is not to say that there aren't "mysteries" in geology, but it isn't that hard to explain using plate tectonics.
you'd have to do some internet searches for it.
Well, if you could point us to a specific case of the mystery sea levels I might be able to assist in finding an article that has some insight into it. I have no doubt that there may be some instances in geology where the rocks are confusing and the scientists are still puzzling them out. It is a very interesting topic.
side note: if I can find the article, somebody found a petrified rain forest in a cave. which would only make sense if a bunch of rocks covered it due to water carrying them or a simple landslide.
Well, not really. Geology is really far more complex than that. Remember, if you find a "petrified forest" what you are seeing is that mineralized fluids moved through and replaced the organic material. IF those organics were themselves in a limey mud that later became a limestone (we often find chert nodules in limestones in different places indicating a silica-rich fluid moved through a limestone) you might wind up with a cave that contains silicified organics (trees).
Again, I'd have to see a specific case. I am dubious that the
only explanation was what you described here. But again, I'd have to see the specific case.
Keep in mind also, that even if you find a case where a "flood" or landslide etc was the only explanation, the key is that floods and landslides are
known to have happened in geologic history, but so far we have no indication of a catastrophic flood of the Biblical variety.
These are all very interesting examples you have suggested. If you find the specifics, please forward them onto this forum.
