|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dinosaurs 4500 years ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: And Brown claims this because it fits his model, not because there is evidence for it. Remember, observations first then conclusion. Brown ran into the problem of large limestone deposits world wide that grew slowly, very slowly. He had to come up with a way that deposited limestone quickly. Did he look for evidence of anything. Nope, he just assumed that the "fountains of the deep" were lined with limestone. He continually does this, adding in pieces of the puzzle that he has no evidence for. If he was doing science, he would search for large underground resevoirs of limestone/carbonate that could not have possibly formed by sedimentation from organic sources. To my knowledge, he has not. Instead, he relies on his audience (YEC's) to swallow the story whole. And they do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 780 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Sorry to have dragged this off of dinosaurs. Maybe I can get back to there again somehow.
We've been going over how limestone is formed and that it is formed through pretty normal biological action. There is relatively little evidence of this. As Coragyps said, he thinks the corals have been chemically recombined, which is why limestone deposits are not made up of crushed up corals and clams. I'm arguing (though not very persuasively because I'm still ignorant and learning of the process) that limestone can and does form quickly through chemical not biological processes. Large limestone formations can and do occur when water chemistry and conditions are right. Such conditions might have been highly favorable during the flood.
How did this product of living organisims get down there to become filled with water? Again, this is an assumption that all limestone is the product of corals n such. BTW corals have to get their calcium from somewhere. It is possible that water, which was burned off of hydrates in the crust, picked up calcium carbonate in the crust and deposited it along the walls of the chamber as it seeped into the chamber.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 780 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
And where is the evidence of this? Coal deposits and the large amount of fossils worldwide. Though I don't think the ENTIRE earth was 72 degrees. There would have been varying environments and niches for different organisms to fill. If the earth was covered with vegetation and had smaller seas scattered throughout this would affect a lot of things. I have no idea what continental red-eye is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
but I'd like to explore this point just a little further.
For these chambers that held the fountains of the deep to exists, several processes have to happen and in order. First, you need the container for the void. You need to explain how the granite or basalt got there, and how it left the big holes. Next you need to make the limestone and somehow line the chambers with it. Finally, you need to gather the water (where from????) and get into the limestone lined chambers. Only then can you begin to look for the procedures and processes that could support the HP theory. And you need to do all this in a short period of time. Remember, HP is the theory that results in the flood so you can't use the flood to create the conditions for HP. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 780 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thank you for your reply. This will be my last post on limestone since it has nothing much to do with dinosaurs.
And Brown claims this because it fits his model, not because there is evidence for it. Again, I'm hopelessly ignorant of the process, but the 'evidence' is in the fact that there is so much layered limestone deposits worldwide (15-20% of all sedimentary deposits), the fact that dolomite is so commonly found with limestone, and the fact that many limestone formations are incredibly thick like the Bahamas formation (6 miles) and it is unlikely that the sea floor would subside at exactly this rate for hundreds of millions of years. It makes sense that such a large deposit would be found at the edge of a hydroplate too. Also, the composition of volcanic gases supports the fact that limestone may exist deep down in the earth's upper crust. As I said in my previous post, it may be possible that water burned off of hydrates in the crust picked up calcium carbonate and deposited limestone on the edges of the underground chamber as it seeped in.
If he was doing science, he would search for large underground resevoirs of limestone/carbonate that could not have possibly formed by sedimentation from organic sources. To my knowledge, he has not. Instead, he relies on his audience (YEC's) to swallow the story whole. And they do. In most places it is not possible or feasible to drill down this deep. This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-23-2004 09:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 780 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thank you for your reply.
You're progressing and we'll get back to the critters Alright.
For these chambers that held the fountains of the deep to exists, several processes have to happen and in order. First, you need the container for the void. You need to explain how the granite or basalt got there, and how it left the big holes. Next you need to make the limestone and somehow line the chambers with it. Finally, you need to gather the water (where from????) and get into the limestone lined chambers. I don't know enough of the physics and chemistry to know exactly how it could happen. The crust contains many hydrates, molecules with attached water molecules, that give them up when heated. Perhaps when the decaying radioactive elements heated the crust, the water was squeezed off. This water had to go somewhere. Above a certain level (5-10 mi?) the pressure was low enough that water went up and formed springs on the surface all over the earth like the black smokers we see today. Below this level water was squeezed down and ran into a wall at the basalt floor causing the water chamber to form. As the water seeped through the crust it would have picked up minerals including CaCO3 and may have deposited limestone on the roof of this chamber or may have just stayed in solution in the water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2560 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
In message 65, Hangdawg13 wrote:
>Again, I'm hopelessly ignorant of the process, If you are "hopelessly ignorant of the process", it is impossible for you judge if what you propose has any basis in reality or simply nothing more than scientifically bankrupt fiction. If you don't understand anything about limestones and dolomites, it is impossible for you know what is and isn't possible in terms of how they were created. "but the 'evidence' is in the fact that there is"so much layered limestone deposits worldwide (15-20% of all sedimentary deposits), the fact that dolomite is so commonly found with limestone, These two arguments are not only factually bankrupt but show a remarkable ignorant Walt Brown is of what has been published by geologists on how limestones and dolomites form. The vast amount of limestone and dolomite in the world just means there are numerous documented and observed processes, both organic and inorganic, by which limestone can be formed and deposited and that there has been long periods of time over which it has accumulated. Also, there are numerous ways, by which the association of dolomite with limestone can be explain using proven and, even observed, processes. The fact of the matter, it is quite easy for geologists explain **all** of the vast volume of limestone and dolomite, how they are interbedded, what fossils they may or may not contain, and **specific** sedimentary structures and layering that they exhibit using conventional models of carbonate accumulation. Interested lurkers can find proof of this statement demonstrated in great detail by the models of limestone and dolomite formation discussed in the any of the following books: Boggs, Sam, Jr., 2001, Principles of Sedimentology andStratigraphy. 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, New York. Walker, R. G. and James, N. P., eds., 1992, Facies models-response to sea level change. Geological Association of Canada, St. John's, Newfoundland. Scholle, P. A., Bebout, D. G. & Moore, C. H., eds., 1983,Carbonate depositional environments. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir no. 33. Tucker, M. E. & Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate sedimentology.Blackwell, Oxford. Wilson, J. L., 1975, Carbonate facies in geologic history.Springer, New York. "and the fact that many limestone formations areincredibly thick like the Bahamas formation (6 miles) and it is unlikely that the sea floor would subside at exactly this rate for hundreds of millions of years." This another completely bankrupt argument because geologists have known for a long time that the sea floor doesn't have to subside exactly at the same rate for thick sequences of limestone to accumulate. Contrary, to what Mr. Hangdawg13 falsely proposed above, thick sequences of limestone can accumulate despite changes in the rate at which the sea floor subsides and eustatic sea level rises or falls. Changes in water in water depth, due to changes in the rate of bottom subsidence or eustatic sea level, often only effects the type of limestone (and/or dolomite) that accumulates instead determining whether it accumulates or not. If a person would look at both ancient and modern limestones deposits, he or she would often find cyclic / rhythmic variations in sedimentary structures, fossils, and types of limestone (and/or dolomite) within limestone deposits demonstrating frequent changes in water depth during the accumulation of thick limestone deposits. The water depth varied as the result of variations in the rate at which either bottom subsided, eustatic sea level rose of fell, or some combination of both within the area the limestone accumulated. Examples of how changes in water depths during the deposition of a thick sequence of limestone resulted only in changes in the types of limestone, characterized by specific sedimentary structures and textures, that accumulated to form it are discussed by: Keorschner, W. F., III, and Read, J. F., 1989, Field andModelling Studies of Cambrian Carbonate Cycles, Virginia Appalachians. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 654-687. DeMicco, R. M., 1983, Wavy and Lenticular Bedded CarbonateRibbon Rocks of the Upper Cambrian Conococheague Limestone, Central Appalachians. Journal of Sedimentary Geology. vol. 53, pp. 1121 - 1132. In contrast to the above articles, the hydroplate theory is utterly useless and helpless in explaining the origin of the different types of limestone found within the Conococheague Limestone, whose origin are explained in great detail by the above articles. When it comes to explaining in detail specific variations in the types, sedimentary structures, fossil content, and layering that characterize specific accumulations of limestone and dolomite, the hydroplate theory is completely helpless in contrast to the depositional models of conventional geologists, which can consistency do it with great ease and credibility. In some cases, the limestone accumulated either faster than the sea floor subsided or sea level fell and created dry land until either subsidence or rising sea level submerged the area again. During this time, the exposed limestone was weathered, forming a well-defined soil. When either subsidence or rising eustatic sea level flooded the area again, the accumulation of limestone resumed, which buried and preserved the soil as a fossil soil called a "paleosol" within the accumulating sequence of limestone. Many thick limestone sequences contains numerous paleosols showing that extreme variations in water depth occurred during their accumulation. Examples of fossil soils, "paleosols", which have been found within thick sequences of limestone, are documented in: James, N. P. and Choquette, P. W., eds., 1988. Paleokarst,Springer-Verlag, New York. Wright, V. P., 1994. Paleosols in shallow marinesequences. Earth-Science Reviews. vol. 37. pp. 367-395. As above, the hydroplate model to helpless to explain the presence of numerous fossil soils (paleosols) and paleokarst that are often found interbedded **within** layers that form thick accumulations of limestone and dolomite. Hangdawg13 also wrote: "It makes sense that such a large deposit would befound at the edge of a hydroplate too." The problem here is that the Bahamas is only one of many large accumulations of limestone and dolomite. The fact of the matter there are many, many more equally large or larger accumulations of carbonates, i.e. in the Willingston Basin, that aren't associated with the so-called "edges" of hydroplate. If one considers all of these limestone accumulations, there is absolutely no correlation between the so-called "edges" of the hydroplate and the occurrence of large accumulation of limestone and dolomite. This fact readily demonstrates what Mr. Hangdawg13 calls "sense" is in fact utter nonsense. In addition, the hydroplate theory is completely unable to explain in any detail, variations in the specific physical characteristics of limestone deposits, i.e. the sedimentary structures they exhibit; their fossil content; the distribution of different types of chalks, limestone, and dolomite; and how they are interlayered. In contrast, all of these features can be readily explained by models of conventional geologists discussed in: Boggs, Sam, Jr., 2001, Principles of Sedimentology andStratigraphy. 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, New York. Walker, R. G. and James, N. P., eds., 1992, Facies models-response to sea level change. Geological Association of Canada, St. John's, Newfoundland. Scholle, P. A., Bebout, D. G. & Moore, C. H., eds., 1983,Carbonate depositional environments. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir no. 33. Tucker, M. E. & Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate sedimentology.Blackwell, Oxford. Wilson, J. L., 1975, Carbonate facies in geologic history.Springer, New York. Hangdawg13 also wrote: "Also, the composition of volcanic gases supportsthe fact that limestone may exist deep down in the earth's upper crust." Specifically, how does the composition of volcanic gases support the existence of limestone deposits deep in the crust? I ask this because I suspect he is indulging in the Gish Gallop by making statements for which he lacks any credible evidence, known processes, and arguments to support any coherent manner. From what I seen published about the composition volcanic gases, this is nothing more than empty arm-waving, lacking any scientific basis. For example, Mr. Hangdawg13's so-called "fact" is readily proved to be pure "fiction" by the documented fact that limestone decomposes at moderate temperatures into calcium and carbon dioxide. In case of dolomite, it would readily decompose into calcium, magnesium, and carbon dioxide. The parts of the "deep" crust, where it is argued that limestone exists is far too hot for limestone to exist without decomposing into its constituent components. What Mr. Hangdawg13 proposes above as a "fact" is physically impossible. In addition, this so-called "fact" is readily demonstrated to be nothing more than "pure" fiction, by seismic and gravity data that clearly demonstrate that the rocks, which compose the lower and middle parts of the lower crust are far too dense to composed of limestone. Hangdawg13 also wrote: "As I said in my previous post, it may be possible thatwater burned off of hydrates in the crust picked up calcium carbonate and deposited limestone on the edges of the underground chamber as it seeped in." This is nothing more than geopoetry lacking any basis in geochemistry and rock mechanics. If Hangdawg13, would bother to learn something about the geochemistry of limestones, he would find that the only way this could happen would be if God directly changed the laws of chemistry and physics during the period of time that the Noachian Flood happened. Best Regards, Bill Birkland. This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 07-24-2004 03:10 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Dawg, you have been Birkelanded.
You know longer have any excuse for the "ignorant of the process". The minor fact that it might take you 4 years and a BSc in geology to absort the material that our boy Bill has given you isn't anyones problem but your own. The hydroplate theory is bunk. You will either have to learn enough to understand why or accept that Bill does know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Creationists accept, as is the history of the English-speaking people, the most intelligent people, the Bible has a legitamate source of truth of origins. And then we take on all comers who say it isn't. I challenge evolution and am not bound by its private club rules for proving ones assertion.
Also only a few geologists ever make new ideas mostly everyone just repeats what they read in books.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
And your actual rebuttal of what Bill had said is...........??
I challenge evolution and am not bound by its private club rules for proving ones assertion. Aren't you just saying? "I'm a troll and don't actually plan to debate anything?" This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-24-2004 02:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
NO_ i verified what the poster said before- why should this day be any different-?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Brad - I have no clue what you are on about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
NO worries, I just wanted Byers to not think the posts werent appreciated. Well get into it another time I suspect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cthulhu Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 273 From: Roe Dyelin Joined: |
Creationists accept, as is the history of the English-speaking people, the most intelligent people, the Bible has a legitamate source of truth of origins. And then we take on all comers who say it isn't. emphasis mine One, that is unbelievably predjudiced. Two, the bible wasn't written in English, so the people who wrote it weren't very intelligent according to you.
I challenge evolution and am not bound by its private club rules for proving ones assertion. Proving one's assertion is a rule of debate. You don't want to do that, then you don't want to debate. And since this is a debate forum, then get the hell out of here.
Also only a few geologists ever make new ideas mostly everyone just repeats what they read in books. Provide evidence of your assertion please. Oh, and in case you didn't realize, none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand, which involves dinosaurs living 4500 years ago. This message has been edited by Cthulhu, 07-24-2004 02:41 PM Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn! Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent "The Idiot" Hovind's website
Idiot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
When on Lake Eire last week , as most North American's know, there was a lot of rain. After the outflow and the water rise I NOTICED PARTICULARLY the hydrological sorting of shells of different kinds of mollusks. IT WAS OBVIOUS that if fossilized in this sort one might explain the invert thus taphonomic difference. I take it THIS is the process used to explain the bones in the rocks. I *tried* to think some more on it but lost the will but perhaps I didnt try hard enough. But in the same topic I see NO ONE explaining rocks and life like Aggaiz does and it requires nothing but a FREE will to see/think (the same) I SAW in Fredonia NY. A said that metamorphism ITSELF (far more destructive of bone than any taphonomic sedimentation) did not obscure the formal differences of organic orders (class-type via branck in a clade with grades). It is possible that while waiting the adjudication of ID this too is but a place holder for more and better science to come.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024