Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 5:45 PM
164 online now:
AZPaul3, RAZD, Tangle, Theodoric (4 members, 160 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,698 Year: 2,735/19,786 Month: 817/1,918 Week: 104/301 Day: 22/54 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Limestone Layers and the Flood
Percy
Member
Posts: 18257
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 16 of 128 (294818)
03-13-2006 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Minnemooseus
03-13-2006 7:41 AM


Re: Carbonate limestones???
moose writes:

All limestones are carbonate rocks, although not all carbonate rocks are limestones. The principle mineral of limestone is Calcium carbonate (CaCO3).

I was looking for the term for limestone that precipitates out of groundwater such as is found in caves. I thought I found a preference for referring to such limestone as carbonate limestone, but maybe I was mistaken. So what's the proper term?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-13-2006 7:41 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by roxrkool, posted 03-13-2006 3:54 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-13-2006 6:05 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 17 of 128 (294955)
03-13-2006 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
03-13-2006 8:00 AM


Re: Carbonate limestones???
I'll have to look it up, but I know those types of carbonates as freshwater carbonates - deposited in lakes, caves, springs, etc.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 03-13-2006 8:00 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3698
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 18 of 128 (294986)
03-13-2006 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
03-13-2006 8:00 AM


Other calcite deposits
Source for quoted material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestones

There are special names for some calcite rocks formed by non-biogenic precipitation of CaCO3.

Secondary calcite may also be deposited by supersaturated meteoric waters (groundwater that precipitates the material in caves). This produces speleothems such as stalagmites and stalactites. Another form taken by calcite is that of oolites (oolitic limestone) which can be recognised by its granular appearance.

and

Travertine is a banded, compact variety of limestone formed along streams, particularly where there are waterfalls and around hot or cold springs. Calcium carbonate is deposited where evaporation of the water leaves a solution that is supersaturated with chemical constituents of calcite. Tufa, a porous or cellular variety of travertine, is found near waterfalls.

Of course, vein calcite is also very common. I would regard such an not so much as being a rock (even though it is) as to being a secondary mineral deposit.

I think that a rock description with mode of formation is more important than putting a specialized name on it.

BTW, the same Wika source contained:

Limestone makes up about 10 percent of the total volume of all sedimentary rocks.

I bring this up, because somewhere earlier a much higher figure was used. While is some areas the limestone percentage may indeed be quite high, I suspect that overall the 10 percent figure is pretty good. After all, limestones are pretty minor in the preCambrian, which is a big chunk of sedimentary rocks.

Another NAPOTM brought to you by...

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 03-13-2006 8:00 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by roxrkool, posted 03-13-2006 8:50 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 19 of 128 (295021)
03-13-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Minnemooseus
03-13-2006 6:05 PM


Re: Other calcite deposits
I think Faith quoted me as stating 80% of sed rocks were limestone. I don't remember stating such a thing. I did state limestone makes up a significant portion of marine sed rocks, and 10% hardly qualifies as significant. I'll have to look that up, my source may be old. Ten percent sounds low to me, however, although if we're talking terrestrial + marine, that could be correct.

I'll see if I can find a breakdown. It's in one of my books.

Abe: I found a number of 15%. Limestone + dolomite accounts for 15% of the entire sedimentary rock package - terrestrial and marine - of which 66% is sedimentary and 34% is igneous + metamorphic. I'm interested in the total percentage of carbonate in marine rocks.

This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-13-2006 09:56 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-13-2006 6:05 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4301 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 20 of 128 (295074)
03-14-2006 1:42 AM


gonna be busy
I will definitely reply here probably within the next week, but just wanted to let you know that you won't be hearing from me over the next few days as I will be busy. Looking forward to continuing this conversation ...

Christian


    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4301 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 21 of 128 (295315)
03-14-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
03-13-2006 7:12 AM


Turns out I'm not as busy as I thought I would be, I have a bit of time, so here goes:

Percy writes:

I have no more direct evidence than you do for the composition of limestone. I've never dug through limestone layers, I've never sliced off micro-thin portions and viewed them under a microscope. I'm accepting the findings of science, which are unequivocal about the organic origin of most limestone (in a later post you mention carbonate limestone (limestone of inorganic origin), and I mentioned them briefly under point 3 of Message 6 - the Chalk Formation of Europe and all the limestone layers of the Grand Canyon and most other limestone geologic layers are not carbonate limestones). If you read the Wikipedia site about limestone layers (there are literally hundreds of other sites that include the same information) and aren't convinced then I can't do any better than they do.


So I'm just supposed to accept that the limestone in these areas is organic, even though you can't tell me how they know it's organic?

Percy writes:

Faith had expressed doubt that sedimentation is gradual over long period of time, and so I addressed that doubt. The paragraph is about the progressively increasing depth of sedimentary layers with increasing distance from mid-oceanic ridges. The youngest sea floor is at the ridge where it forms and has almost no sediment at all. The oldest sea floor nearer the continents has the deepest sediments. The change in depth of sediments is continuous and gradual. There is no point between the ridge and continents where the depth suddenly increases due to a global flood.


I believe this has to do with the sediments sliding down as the mid-oceanic ridge formed. I don't see why there would need to be a point where the depth suddenly increases.

Percy writes:

You also said at one point that processes in the past may have been different than today. It is true that this is possible, science certainly can't rule it out, but a possibility is not evidence. Science, since it is tentative, can probably rule out very little, if anything, as impossible. In other words, saying that processes may have been different in the past can be said about literally anything in any scientific field, but it's a non-starter unless you have evidence.


I can't seem to find where I said that. Maybe you could find the quote for me and we could discuss it. I don't think my point was to simply say that processes could have been different and then use that as my proof. I think I was saying "processes could have been different, and here's what I think is a plausible scenerio" which, I believe, is what you asked for in the first place.

Percy writes:

The creationist approach to explaining sedimentary layers is repeated across almost all YEC claims. They say radiometric dating is explained by very rapid decay rates during the flood. Magnetic sea floor reversals are explained by rapid reverals of the earth's magnetic field. The continents moved much more quickly during the flood. In essence, billions of years of earth's history happened in a single year, the flood year, but leaving no evidence at all of any rapid activity.


I think there IS evidence, and that's why we're having this discussion.

Percy writes:

Sorry to go off on this diversion. There are lots of perfectly good questions to ask and mysteries to pose, but "Processes could have been different in the past" without providing evidence is not one of them.

You asked for a plausible scenerio. I think I gave you one. Tell me why it's not plausible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 03-13-2006 7:12 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AdminNosy, posted 03-14-2006 6:07 PM Christian has responded
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 03-14-2006 8:15 PM Christian has responded

    
AdminChristian
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 128 (295317)
03-14-2006 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
03-13-2006 7:12 AM


Percy writes:

ID replaced YECism because of the lack of evidence for any YEC claim. Creationists failed failed over and over again to gain representation for YEC views in public schools for the simple fact that there are no non-religious sources for them. In school districts across this country, school boards asked teacher groups to put together trial curiculums that included creationism but did not reference religious sources, and it just couldn't be done. People aren't stupid. You can't just take references to God out of Genesis and say, "This is science" and expect people to say, "Oh, okay."

This is completely off topic, Percy. Shame on you!

Really I just wanted to do that for fun. I know you already apologized, I wanted to see my Tiger.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 03-13-2006 7:12 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 23 of 128 (295319)
03-14-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Christian
03-14-2006 5:53 PM


Totally off topic!!
You asked for a plausible scenerio. I think I gave you one. Tell me why it's not plausible.

This is completely off topic, Percy Christian. Shame on you! :rolleyes:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Christian, posted 03-14-2006 5:53 PM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Christian, posted 03-14-2006 7:14 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Christian, posted 03-16-2006 4:44 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14716
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 24 of 128 (295323)
03-14-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Christian
03-12-2006 1:06 AM


Doesn't Brown's scenario just shift the problem around ? All he's doing is moving calcium carbonate out of the hypothetical caverns, without explaining where it came form in the first place.

And surely he isn't going to get more CO2 out of the caverns than was there already unless some of the Calcium combines with other chemicals, instead of precipitating out as carbonate. So how does "some CO2" in the caverns turn into "considerable CO2' in the atmosphere ?

e


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 1:06 AM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Christian, posted 03-14-2006 7:11 PM PaulK has responded

    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4301 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 25 of 128 (295336)
03-14-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
03-14-2006 6:20 PM


PaulK writes:

Doesn't Brown's scenario just shift the problem around ? All he's doing is moving calcium carbonate out of the hypothetical caverns, without explaining where it came form in the first place.


He doesn't go into first causes. Presumably, God created the subterranean chambers with limestone in them. His book is about evidence for the flood, not a discription of how God created everything.

PaulK writes:

And surely he isn't going to get more CO2 out of the caverns than was there already unless some of the Calcium combines with other chemicals, instead of precipitating out as carbonate. So how does "some CO2" in the caverns turn into "considerable CO2' in the atmosphere ?


Not sure I understand what the problem is here. I think the same amount of carbon that was in the subterranean chambers was initially realeased into the atmosphere. Additional carbon was available in the limestone that was "scoured" out by the escaping water. Is your problem the use of the word "some" and then "considerable" to refer to the same amount?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2006 6:20 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2006 2:53 AM Christian has responded

    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4301 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 26 of 128 (295340)
03-14-2006 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by AdminNosy
03-14-2006 6:07 PM


Re: Totally off topic!!
But that wasn't off topic Nosey.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AdminNosy, posted 03-14-2006 6:07 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18257
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 27 of 128 (295350)
03-14-2006 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Christian
03-14-2006 5:53 PM


Christian writes:

So I'm just supposed to accept that the limestone in these areas is organic, even though you can't tell me how they know it's organic?

Limestone is made up of the skeletons of microscopic organisms. Scientists aren't just guessing its composed of what used to be microscopic organisms. You can put limestone under a microscope and see them. Here's one photo I found on the web:


Click to enlarge

I believe this has to do with the sediments sliding down as the mid-oceanic ridge formed. I don't see why there would need to be a point where the depth suddenly increases.

Pursuing this would require trying to explain what Faith believes, which I don't think is the same as what you believe, so we can safely skip this point.

Christian writes:

Percy writes:

You also said at one point that processes in the past may have been different than today.

I can't seem to find where I said that.

It was in your Message 3:

Christian in Message 3 writes:

This is assuming that all the limestone was laid down in the same manner we see happening today, and assuming it all came from organisms, which may not have been the case.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Christian, posted 03-14-2006 5:53 PM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 03-14-2006 8:39 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Christian, posted 03-16-2006 4:43 PM Percy has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8829
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 28 of 128 (295355)
03-14-2006 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Percy
03-14-2006 8:15 PM


Some slightly better pictures
I don't find that picture all that convincing Percy. Here are 3 other sites:

Thie first two are images. The third is a pretty detailed decription of chalk and the white cliffs of Dover in particular.

http://cc.usu.edu/~sharohl/tsecls2.jpg

Microscopic Limestone

http://www.geologyshop.co.uk/chalk.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 03-14-2006 8:15 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Chuckdarwin1809, posted 03-15-2006 12:56 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Christian, posted 03-18-2006 5:47 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Chuckdarwin1809
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 128 (295413)
03-15-2006 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
03-14-2006 8:39 PM


Re: Some slightly better pictures
I've probed around in probably 50 quarries and banged on a couple of hundred road cuts across the United States in my life. Most limestone i've run across contain fossils to some extent. Some are solid fossil and some have sparse marine fauna, but there are always a few exceptions. You may want to read up on cold water "tufas" and hot water "travertines" (2 non-biogenic limestones). In fact, Brown's description of the waters depressurizing as they were expelled from the depths sounds alot like the scenario we see occurring at Yellowstones Mammoth Springs Travertine Deposits..


"All gods were immortal" Zina G.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 03-14-2006 8:39 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14716
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 30 of 128 (295422)
03-15-2006 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Christian
03-14-2006 7:11 PM


We're not looking at utimate origins here, just how limestone formed. If Brown has to rely on assuming that God put a lot of limestone in these hypothetical caverns for some reason we don't know then he hasn't got a good explanation for the presence of limestone.

The problem with the CO2 is that Brown describes it as a small quantity in the context of the caverns and then makes it sound as if it were a far larger quantity when it is released into the atmosphere. But he gives no mechanism for producing more. You can't just take "extra" CO2 out of the solution without dealing with the calcium ions.g


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Christian, posted 03-14-2006 7:11 PM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Christian, posted 03-16-2006 5:08 PM PaulK has responded

    
Prev1
2
3456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019