Can you point out where this subduction has happened and what used to be soil and rock is now gone?
http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_5.asp
India is subducting under the Himalayan plateau, for example. As India (the geological formation, not the political entity) moves north, the northernmost edge is forced down towards the center of the earth by the mass of the overlying plate - which is itself forced up, forming the Himalayan plateau. That's one example. Here's a map that shows more, the subduction zones are indicated by a red bar with arrows attached.:
I am not denying new formation, when was the last new formation and narrow it down to just the North American continent. Has any of that continent been moved from new growth to now it has "remelted" back into the mantle?
Do you mean the last new formation of virgin crust related to North America? This is going to be a bit complicated, I apologize:
The mountains of western North America are a lot more complex than the Andes for a variety of reasons. The Andes are about as close as one can hope to get to a "theoretical" subduction zone. Terrane accretion in the Andes has been relatively unimportant, whereas half or more of the North American Cordillera has been accreted. Indeed, there is some evidence for tectonic erosion along the Andean subduction zone; South American crust may have been scraped off and carried into the subdution zone (probably to be remelted and added to the igneous arc of the Andes). There are rocks two billion years old near the coast of Peru.
In contrast to the Andes, the Rockies contain numerous block-faulted complexes, especially the ranges of Wyoming like the Wind River, Laramie, and Medicine Bow Ranges. The most widely accepted explanation for why tectonic activity extended so far inland in North America is that
the subduction zone that once extended along the entire West Coast had a very flat-dipping slab.
The map at left is a reconstruction of the Western U.S. about 30 m.y. ago, before the extension of the Basin and Range Province and the opening of the Gulf of California. The Great Basin has been reduced in width by half and Baja California and California west of the San Andreas Fault have been moved southeast to close the Gulf of California.
Mountain building has been going on for more than 50 million years in the Rockys. I don't know if you'd call this 'new growth', as it's primarily uplift of formerly low-lying material. But that happens due to subduction. If you're asking where the subducted material next arises, I don't know if that's a question that can be answered at this point.[/quote]
When was the last time North America was recycled?
Do you mean "How old is the oldest crust of North America?", or do you mean "when is the most recent time that North American Crust was subducted?"[/quote]
There is only one small part of the North American Plate that is now being subducted - and that's happening in a trench off Puerto Rico.
The central core of present-day North America is its craton, the oldest, thickest part of the continent. While parts of the craton peek out in Greenland and Canada, in the U.S., thick layers of sedimentary rocks keep most of these ancient assemblages under wraps in the center of the continent. The rocks here are more than two billion years old in places, andwere assembled through time as smaller microcontinents and terranes, or fragments of crustal material, crashed together.
http://www.livescience.com/31910-north-america-geology-through-time.html
The land would not subside. The water level would rise, because there would be no where else to go. As the ocean floor spread out pushing the continents further apart, the oceans would lower and eventually large inland seas with one weak boundary would allow their contents to drain out, thus leaving the land dry again, probably higher, but not necessarily. Or because there may have been a disruption in the earths angle of rotation, the water turned into glaciers perhaps rapidly and after a while melted or receded northward.
As far as we know, no continents sink into the earth, and oceans only rise when huge amounts of ice melts at the poles.
No, Oceans can also form when rifts split continental plates in two. Water spills into the resulting basin. This is happening right now in Baja California, the Red Sea, Lake Baikal, et alia.
How much sediment would occur after a few months? Do we not find layers of what would be considered oceanic material at higher elevations than normal? Would not thousands of years of local floods and new growth cover the tracks of a flood that did not last thousands of years?
yes, we indeed find sediments that were underwater on the peaks of the highest mountains - but in order to support a Global Flood Hypothesis all of these sediments would necessarily be from the same geological event. That's not the case.
The bar that the GFH needs to attain for acceptance is very high, but all that it takes to disprove the hypothesis is a single example of a place that wasn't recently flooded. For that matter, I'd say that all it takes to disprove it is the simple math about the energies and orbital effects, but the doubters here don't seem to want to discuss that aspect, as it's not compatible with a 'simple reading' of the relevant passages.
Would that be your expert analysis from years of study, or reliance on educated guesses? It would seem to me that even experts do not have the resources to take samples from every inch of the known surfaces and declare such a thing. I understand that we can dig down at random and predict that everywhere is the same. Who would even want to expend the resources to verify that every single square mile would yield the same results?
As I mentioned above, we don't need samples from every square inch of the surface of the planet to throw doubt into the GFHypothesis - all it takes is one square inch of counter-factual. Be that as it may, I am not an expert. I'm a guy who finds nature fascinating and spent all his extra credits in college taking courses on earth sciences. But that was a long time ago. All you really need these days is the Internet & Interest.
That's the beauty of science - you don't have to believe me because I'm not an expert, and you don't have to believe any expert, for that matter. But you do have to believe the preponderance of evidence. In the same way that the preponderance of evidence supports the standard model of atomic dynamics that results in microscopic transistors working as designed in the computers we're using right now, you should also trust the preponderance of evidence that geologists and oceanographers use to discount the Global Flood Hypothesis.
I could even say that if God knew when he got the ball rolling, that in a known amount of time such a catastophe was going to happen any way, why was the imagination of humans to blame. We all have our own questions, that have mind numbing answers. IMO, the seasons did start after the flood and that there was a drastic change in the way the earth maneuvered it's way through space. I don't think that the flood was the cause, but was just something that happened naturally at a given time.
If that's your stance then you're placing the GF back around the time of the formation of the Moon - that was likely the last major event that impacted our orbital characteristics. If life was present on the earth at all at that time, we have no evidence for it, and it was almost certainly nothing more than cellular scum. Certainly not Eukaryotic.
Actually, we have tree ring records that show seasonality going back at least through 350,000,000 years ago. So we can place a confident lower bound on the beginning of seasonality based just on this one line of evidence. There are others, though. And none of them are compatible with the GFH as outlined in the bible.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3515368?uid=3739864&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102388292017
You can find more about the scientific acheivements of most of the people there 
