Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8779 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2017 4:16 PM
359 online now:
Faith, Joe T, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq, whYibelieve, xongsmith (9 members, 350 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: BruceR.Fenton
Post Volume:
Total: 816,356 Year: 20,962/21,208 Month: 1,395/2,326 Week: 731/345 Day: 93/161 Hour: 2/7

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Chalk takes millions of years to form
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4965
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 1 of 57 (713262)
12-11-2013 11:10 AM


If you were new here and didn't know any better you could be forgiven for thinking that all of the earth's geology is contained in the Grand Canyon.

This is the geology of my home town on the south coast of England:

The White Cliffs of Dover - and those of my home town - are chalk. Chalk, according to wiki is:

The cliffs are composed mainly of soft, white chalk with a very fine-grained texture, composed primarily of coccoliths, plates of calcium carbonate formed by coccolithophores, single-celled planktonic algae whose skeletal remains sank to the bottom of the ocean during the Cretaceous and, together with the remains of bottom-living creatures, formed sediments. Flint and quartz are also found in the chalk

Chalk is useful stuff, you can cut the turf and make naughty pictures:


2. Cerne Abbas Giant 180 ft tall

Also known as the Rude Man, the Cerne Abbas Giant in Dorset is carved into the side of a steep hill and formed by a 12-inch wide trench. The Giant with an erect penis wields a 120-ft knobbled club, and probably formerly held a cloak or animal skin in its left arm while standing over a disembodied head.

But chalk is also very old. My lot - and apparently most of the world's chalk - was formed in the late cretaceous period (66-100mya).

The chalk beds around here are about 400m deep and the highest is about 110m above sea level.

It takes about 1,000 years to build 1-10 cm of chalk (depending on type and condition). So if we started today, and use the fastest rate, it would take 4 million years to build my chalk cliffs.

I'm no geologist, but it seems to me that this single piece of geology is enough to prove that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Anyone care to put me right?

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Stile, posted 12-11-2013 11:43 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 12-11-2013 11:54 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2013 12:28 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 12:29 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2013 9:56 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4753
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 57 (713264)
12-11-2013 11:25 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Chalk takes millions of years to form thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2941
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 3 of 57 (713265)
12-11-2013 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
12-11-2013 11:10 AM


Chalkland Islands
Tangle writes:

Anyone care to put me right?

No.

But I do have a chalk-question, and you are now the appointed chalk-expert. So here it is:

This geological chalk you're talking about. Is it the same as colloquial chalk? Like the stuff used by teachers in classrooms on chalkboards?
If so, is there any "chalk shortage" coming about from all the teachers using it up... what with it taking so long to make more, anyway.

Just wondering.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 12-11-2013 11:10 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 12-11-2013 11:52 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 12:33 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4965
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 4 of 57 (713266)
12-11-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Stile
12-11-2013 11:43 AM


Re: Chalkland Islands
Stile writes:

This geological chalk you're talking about. Is it the same as colloquial chalk? Like the stuff used by teachers in classrooms on chalkboards?

I reckon they would have been originally - the kids here take great fallen chunks of it and scrawl everywhere, of course - but apparently now they're :

" often made not from chalk rock but from calcium sulfate in its dihydrate form, gypsum. Chalk sticks containing calcium carbonate typically contain 40-60% of CaCO3"

If so, is there any "chalk shortage" coming about from all the teachers using it up... what with it taking so long to make more, anyway.

Nope. And anyway, pretty much all schools now use whiteboards with marker pens. Pity really, I suspect having a teacher throw a marker pen at you will cause more damage than chalk.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Stile, posted 12-11-2013 11:43 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 12-11-2013 5:24 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 12-11-2013 9:45 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13435
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 5 of 57 (713267)
12-11-2013 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
12-11-2013 11:10 AM


Tangle writes:

It takes about 1,000 years to build 1-10 cm of chalk (depending on type and condition). So if we started today, and use the fastest rate, it would take 4 million years to build my chalk cliffs.


As I understand it, the reason it takes so long is because the smaller the particle size, the longer it takes to settle to the bottom (Stokes' Law). Since we know the particle size today, we can calculate the time.

If somebody can elaborate on this, it might help to short-circuit any claims that, "it happened in the past so we can't possibly know anything about it."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 12-11-2013 11:10 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 12:27 PM ringo has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 6 of 57 (713268)
12-11-2013 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ringo
12-11-2013 11:54 AM


Well, not really. It takes a few decades to get to the ocean floor. The reason accumulation is so slow is that coccolithophores aren't very big and there aren't that many of them. Nor could there be, since they photosynthesize and so need to be near the surface and not overshadowed by loads of other coccolithophores.

http://en.wikibooks.org/...istorical_Geology/Calcareous_ooze

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 12-11-2013 11:54 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 12-12-2013 10:35 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11665
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 7 of 57 (713269)
12-11-2013 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
12-11-2013 11:10 AM


Chalk takes millions of years to form

If chalk is calcium carbonate, and calcium carbonate is hard water scale, then the fact that I can get hard water scale on my showerhead in the order of weeks seems to suggest that it does not take millions of years for chalk to form.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 12-11-2013 11:10 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 12:40 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25823
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 57 (713270)
12-11-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
12-11-2013 11:10 AM


A Floodist like me would hypothesize that the cliffs were like any of the thick strata anywhere on the earth, the result of the transportation by water of already-formed already-existent particles to their current location, and that before the Flood conditions were such that it didn't take so long for them to accumulate anyway. Any reason why this isn't possible?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 12-11-2013 11:10 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 12:31 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 12-11-2013 1:03 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Tangle, posted 12-11-2013 1:44 PM Faith has responded
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2013 9:36 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 9 of 57 (713271)
12-11-2013 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
12-11-2013 12:29 PM


A Floodist like me would hypothesize that the cliffs were like any of the thick strata anywhere on the earth, the result of the transportation by water of already-formed already-existent particles to their current location, and that before the Flood conditions were such that it didn't take so long for them to accumulate anyway. Any reason why this isn't possible?

So millions of years' worth of calcareous ooze formed in the two thousand years before the Flood?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 12:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 10 of 57 (713272)
12-11-2013 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Stile
12-11-2013 11:43 AM


Re: Chalkland Islands
No.

But I do have a chalk-question, and you are now the appointed chalk-expert. So here it is:

This geological chalk you're talking about. Is it the same as colloquial chalk? Like the stuff used by teachers in classrooms on chalkboards?
If so, is there any "chalk shortage" coming about from all the teachers using it up... what with it taking so long to make more, anyway.

Just wondering.

Blackboard chalk, French chalk, billiard chalk, tailors' chalk and the chalk used by weightlifters are not chalk. It's like the Great Granite Swindle all over again.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Stile, posted 12-11-2013 11:43 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 11 of 57 (713275)
12-11-2013 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2013 12:28 PM


If chalk is calcium carbonate, and calcium carbonate is hard water scale, then the fact that I can get hard water scale on my showerhead in the order of weeks seems to suggest that it does not take millions of years for chalk to form.

Chalk isn't just any old calcium carbonate, it's calcium carbonate made out of coccoliths.

IIRC, this was first discovered by Thomas Henry Huxley ("Darwin's Bulldog").


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2013 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2013 12:46 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11665
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 12 of 57 (713276)
12-11-2013 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
12-11-2013 12:40 PM


Ah, okay. That makes sense. You couldn't write on a chalkboard with a hunk of hard water scale from your showerhead like you can with a piece of chalk.

Given that coccoliths are individual plates of calcium carbonate:

You can envision how the plates would slide off each other and leave behind that nice sheet of chalk that makes it such a good writing utensil.

ABE:

So yeah, given this:

Holy shit that a whole lotta Coccolithophores (single celled algae)!

Yeah, that's gonna take a while...

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 12:40 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4965
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 13 of 57 (713277)
12-11-2013 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
12-11-2013 12:29 PM


Faith writes:

A Floodist like me would hypothesize that the cliffs were like any of the thick strata anywhere on the earth, the result of the transportation by water of already-formed already-existent particles to their current location, and that before the Flood conditions were such that it didn't take so long for them to accumulate anyway. Any reason why this isn't possible?

Well, as Dr a says, even supposing that was possible, you still have to have many millions of years before your flood to manufacture the plankton and have it die and sink to the bottom.

But even if you had the coccoliths all there and ready before the flood, they had been geologically formed into ROCK, not dandruff, and wouldn't be going anywhere. (And btw, my cliffs are only 100 meters above sea level, but the chalk under the North sea is 1km thick.)


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 12:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4965
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 14 of 57 (713278)
12-11-2013 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
12-11-2013 12:29 PM


This is apparently the correct creationist response:

http://creation.com/...lood-geology-explain-thick-chalk-beds


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 12:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 1:56 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 3:07 PM Tangle has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 15 of 57 (713279)
12-11-2013 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tangle
12-11-2013 1:44 PM


There's no such thing as the creationist response to any given fact they need to explain away. We'll have to see what Faith has to say about it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tangle, posted 12-11-2013 1:44 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017