Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Limestone Layers and the Flood
Christian
Member (Idle past 6255 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 31 of 128 (296026)
03-16-2006 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Percy
03-14-2006 8:15 PM


Percy writes:
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:
I agree with Nosey that this photo isn't very convincing. He posted some others that seem pretty good. Will have to look into those.
Percy writes:
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.
Ok so I said that, but I wasn't tryig to say that was my proof. I was saying that there may have been another method in which limestone was laid down, then went on to present a possible scenerio.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 03-14-2006 8:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 03-16-2006 5:03 PM Christian has replied

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 6255 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 32 of 128 (296027)
03-16-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by AdminNosy
03-14-2006 6:07 PM


Re: Totally off topic!!
Just wanted to see your nose?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AdminNosy, posted 03-14-2006 6:07 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 33 of 128 (296032)
03-16-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Christian
03-16-2006 4:43 PM


Christian writes:
I agree with Nosey that this photo isn't very convincing. He posted some others that seem pretty good. Will have to look into those.
I'm more curious about why you're so skeptical. If it's that you're the type of person who likes to see the evidence for himself, then more power to you! But if it's just that you believe all the many, many references are wrong then this is a level of skepticism that can never be satisfied and I think I'll just move on. That sedimentary limestone layers are marine and organic in origin is not something worth spending much time debating. If you don't believe it then don't believe it and good luck to you.
Ok so I said that, but I wasn't tryig to say that was my proof. I was saying that there may have been another method in which limestone was laid down, then went on to present a possible scenerio.
If you'd like to argue Brown's limestone scenario in your own words then you may find some takers.
--Percy
{Baumgardner => Brown. --Percy}
This message has been edited by Percy, 03-16-2006 07:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Christian, posted 03-16-2006 4:43 PM Christian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Christian, posted 03-17-2006 6:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 6255 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 34 of 128 (296034)
03-16-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by PaulK
03-15-2006 2:53 AM


PaulK writes:
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.
No, but perhaps he has a good explanation for how the limestone ended up where it is now.
PaulK writes:
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
First of all, I don't think "caverns" is an accurate descrioption of the subterranean chamber. It was more like a layer of water between the ground and the ground all over the earth. Secondly the word, "some" can refer to any amount. It doesnt have to indicate a small amount.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2006 2:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 03-16-2006 5:57 PM Christian has not replied
 Message 38 by edge, posted 03-17-2006 10:09 PM Christian has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 35 of 128 (296051)
03-16-2006 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Christian
03-16-2006 5:08 PM


If Brown can't explain why limestone exists then he hasn't solved the major problem. And his explanation of how it got to where it is is at present just vague speculation which seesm to be contrary to the evidence that much of the limestone found is biogenic.
On the other point, "cavenrs" seems a fair description sicne we are talking about subterranean cavities. And "some" does not imply a vey large quantity. But so far as I can see it would have to be a large quantity in the context of the caverns to be significant in terms of the atmosphere. Certainly this claim is in need of further explanation..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Christian, posted 03-16-2006 5:08 PM Christian has not replied

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 6255 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 36 of 128 (296363)
03-17-2006 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
03-16-2006 5:03 PM


Percy writes:
I'm more curious about why you're so skeptical. If it's that you're the type of person who likes to see the evidence for himself, then more power to you! But if it's just that you believe all the many, many references are wrong then this is a level of skepticism that can never be satisfied and I think I'll just move on. That sedimentary limestone layers are marine and organic in origin is not something worth spending much time debating. If you don't believe it then don't believe it and good luck to you.
It seems to me that if it is so obviously true that the layers are marine and organic, than it shouldn't be much trouble for you to provide the proof, and this debate will be over. Here's where I stand, so you can decide if you would like to continue this debate: Many sources stating, "the limestone layers are organic in nature" will not be considered proof in my opinion. One source with convincing evidence will. Nosey may have already provided that proof but I still haven't completely read the info. he sited. Of course I'm going to argue this as far as I can because I want to know for sure whether Walt's theory is feasable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 03-16-2006 5:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by edge, posted 03-17-2006 10:03 PM Christian has not replied
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 03-18-2006 7:29 AM Christian has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 37 of 128 (296397)
03-17-2006 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Christian
03-17-2006 6:27 PM


It seems to me that if it is so obviously true that the layers are marine and organic, than it shouldn't be much trouble for you to provide the proof, and this debate will be over.
Sorry, but all we can do is provide evidence, not proof. That is your department. You require 'proof' of us, but blindly accept what YEC charlatans will tell you. I have just checked several websites with definitions of limestone. Virtually all say that most limestones are the result of biogenic activity. This is 'proven' (in your parlance) by the fact that virtually all limestones are formed by the accretion of skeletal remains of organisms.
The fact that such deposits today only form in warm seas, usually along paleocontinental margins is evidence that limestones are marine. The fact that coral reefs only form in marine environments is further evidence of marine origins.
This is the understanding of centuries of geological work. Now, if you dispute that, it is incumbent upon you and Walt to make your case. That you will never be convinced of anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions is not evidence. Your continued questioning only belies a stubbornness and denial that cannot be penetrated by facts.
Here's where I stand, so you can decide if you would like to continue this debate: Many sources stating, "the limestone layers are organic in nature" will not be considered proof in my opinion.
Actually, nothing resembling science would constitute 'proof' to you or Walt. Fortunately, you are not the arbiters of science. The preponderance of evidence and opinion are against you. The fact that you deny this, is not evidence, nor is it science.
One source with convincing evidence will.
Nonsense. Nothing will convince you.
Nosey may have already provided that proof but I still haven't completely read the info. he sited.
Of course not. It might upset your little preconceived world where wishful thinking makes up for actual science.
Of course I'm going to argue this as far as I can because I want to know for sure whether Walt's theory is feasable.
In my humble opinion, Walt is a quack. He has no geologic expertise and ignores large tracts of scientific understanding within and outside of geology. You have been given several examples of gaping wounds in his theory, and yet dismiss them as 'off topic' or insignificant. Walt conducts no critical analysis of his own ideas, but freely criticizes those outside of his own field. So silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Christian, posted 03-17-2006 6:27 PM Christian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AdminJar, posted 03-17-2006 10:12 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 38 of 128 (296398)
03-17-2006 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Christian
03-16-2006 5:08 PM


First of all, I don't think "caverns" is an accurate descrioption of the subterranean chamber.
Not only would they be caverns, they would have to be interconnected caverns. HOw else would you transport those huge amounts of water to the 'fountains of the deep' from all over the world? The transmissivities would have to be truly astronomical. There are thousands of hydrologists who want to talk to you and Walt about this...
It was more like a layer of water between the ground and the ground all over the earth.
"Between the ground and the ground"? WhatEVER are you talking about? Do you realize that, in Walt's scenario, the 'ground' would effectively be floating?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Christian, posted 03-16-2006 5:08 PM Christian has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 128 (296400)
03-17-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by edge
03-17-2006 10:03 PM


Time to step back edge.
Having talked both on the forum and in chat to Christian, she has shown a willingness to actually stop and examine her strongly held beliefs. She is being presented with lots of new data that conflicts with both things she has long held as true, and also in opposition to really slick speakers like Walt Brown and Steven Austen.
Give her time and please acknowledge that whan she says something like
Nosey may have already provided that proof but I still haven't completely read the info. he sited.
she actually means what she says.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 37 by edge, posted 03-17-2006 10:03 PM edge has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 40 by edge, posted 03-17-2006 10:19 PM AdminJar has not replied
     Message 47 by Christian, posted 03-18-2006 5:25 PM AdminJar has not replied

      
    edge
    Member (Idle past 1705 days)
    Posts: 4696
    From: Colorado, USA
    Joined: 01-09-2002


    Message 40 of 128 (296404)
    03-17-2006 10:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 39 by AdminJar
    03-17-2006 10:12 PM


    Re: Time to step back edge.
    Just going on previous experience with 'reasonable YECs'. She can prove me wrong, but a willingness to accept Walt Brown's nonsense is not a good sign.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 39 by AdminJar, posted 03-17-2006 10:12 PM AdminJar has not replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22388
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 41 of 128 (296436)
    03-18-2006 7:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 36 by Christian
    03-17-2006 6:27 PM


    Hi Christian,
    Over the Internet I doubt I could even prove that manure comes from cows. Were we in front of a good microscope with prepared slices of samples from limestone layers we could examine them together and observe the coccolith microfossils, but we're not. If you're sufficiently motivated you could seek out the level of evidence you seem to require, and I wish you good luck in your explorations.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 36 by Christian, posted 03-17-2006 6:27 PM Christian has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2006 10:28 AM Percy has replied
     Message 46 by Christian, posted 03-18-2006 5:10 PM Percy has not replied

      
    NosyNed
    Member
    Posts: 8996
    From: Canada
    Joined: 04-04-2003


    Message 42 of 128 (296455)
    03-18-2006 10:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 41 by Percy
    03-18-2006 7:29 AM


    The micrographs
    Percy, what I'd like to see are the microscopic pictures. The ones I found were in the right direction but not what you describe.
    If I was shown such pictures (of the White Cliffs) and told that most of the chalk was made up like that my only choice to disagree would be that I was being lied to.
    ABE
    It seems that AIG agrees that the chalks are formed of micro fossils. (including a picture) perhaps we can all agree that they are. AIG then supplies some calculations to suggest that the deposition rate can be much, much higher.
    This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-18-2006 10:45 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 41 by Percy, posted 03-18-2006 7:29 AM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 43 by jar, posted 03-18-2006 11:00 AM NosyNed has not replied
     Message 44 by Percy, posted 03-18-2006 11:12 AM NosyNed has not replied
     Message 45 by roxrkool, posted 03-18-2006 1:13 PM NosyNed has replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 393 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 43 of 128 (296462)
    03-18-2006 11:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 42 by NosyNed
    03-18-2006 10:28 AM


    Re: The micrographs
    Ned, not sure this will help but here are a couple I found.
    Photomicrographs of Limestone.
    And another from the Miami Limestone Formation.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2006 10:28 AM NosyNed has not replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22388
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 44 of 128 (296464)
    03-18-2006 11:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 42 by NosyNed
    03-18-2006 10:28 AM


    Re: The micrographs
    Hi Nosy,
    I think discussion of whether sedimentary limestone layers are really organic in origin should take place in another thread. This position to me seems analogous to arguing that fossils in geologic layers aren't really a record of changing life over time because they aren't really from once living creatures but are geologic in origin. It would probably provide a good example for discussion in the Scientific Fact versus Interpretation thread.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2006 10:28 AM NosyNed has not replied

      
    roxrkool
    Member (Idle past 988 days)
    Posts: 1497
    From: Nevada
    Joined: 03-23-2003


    Message 45 of 128 (296480)
    03-18-2006 1:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 42 by NosyNed
    03-18-2006 10:28 AM


    Re: The micrographs
    The problem, nosy, is that while thin-sections of limestone will undoubtedly show microfossils, much limestone is also comprised of recrystalized (during diagenesis) calcite, micritic calcite, sparry calcite, and broken shells too small to see. Micrite is so minute it appears black in thin-section, sparry calcite is coarser grained calcite. In addition, the algae itself precipitates carbonate as mud, so not all carbonate or calcite will look like little shells.
    So if Christian is expecting thin-sections or other photos to convince her that limestone is primarily organic, it's not going to happen.
    However, THIS LINK has some excellent images of carbonate rocks (click on all the carbonate image links) and THIS SITE has a pretty good description of limestone.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2006 10:28 AM NosyNed has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 50 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2006 5:48 PM roxrkool has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024