Limestone Layers and the Flood

This is a follow on from the Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some thread.Limestone is composed of the skeletons of microorganisms which live in the top 10 meters or so of shallow seas. When these tiny creatures die their calcium rich skeletons sink to the sea floor, and over long periods of time the depths of limestone accumulation can become substantial. The limestone layers of the White Cliffs of Dover are 200 to 300 meters thick and are thought to have accumulated over a period of around 10 million years.A flood scenario that would have laid down the limestone layers in less than a single year just a few thousand years ago presents several problems.First, the radiometric age of all limestone layers is much older than a few thousand years. For example, the limestone layers of the White Cliffs of Dover are thought to range from 84 to 94 million years old.Second, limestone layers can only be deposited in quiet seas. Turbulent seas would keep the microscopic skeletons suspended in the water.Third, there is far more limestone on the earth than could have been deposited in a single year. Limestone in modern oceans accumulates at the rate of about 5 inches per thousand years. It would have taken at least a million times more microscopic life to deposit the limestone layers of the White Cliffs of Dover in only a single year. Naturally, this much more life would have required a million times the amount of food, generated a million times more waste and heat, and required a millions times more volume. In effect, the entire solid 200 meters of the White Cliffs of Dover would have had to have been alive at roughly the same time. Even aside from these problems, with the organisms packed so tightly together only the top millimeter could have received any light at all (these organisms live by photosynthesis), so only a tiny fraction could live under such circumstances.It should be added that modern sea floors represent a record of continual very slow deposition over very long time periods, a couple hundred million years in some places. For example, the depth of sediment at the mid-oceanic ridge of the Atlantic Ocean is almost non-existent, while furthest away from the ridge near the continental coasts (but not too near because the sedimentation there is largely affected by continental runoff and river deltas) it is at its deepest. At no point in this hundred million year record is there a sudden discontinuity with hundreds of extra meters of sediment.And this isn't the end of the problems. As if accounting for limestone layers weren't difficult enough, in many parts of the world beneath the limestone layers lies, not bedrock, but more sedimentary layers!!! Creationists have to figure out how that got there, too, but that's another thread.Creationists who believe in a global flood have to overcome all these problems and show that a global flood creating deep limestone layers in short periods of time is a real possibility.--Percy

You elaborated on this in your reply to NosyNed, quoting Walt Brown quoting W. A. Tarr from a June, 1925, article in Geological Magazine where he claims an inorganic origin for limestone. The questions you must ask yourself (and my answers) are:

1. Who is Walt Brown?
   ​
   Walt Brown is the author of the book In the Beginning and director of the Center for Scientific Creation.
   ​
2. Who is W. A. Tarr?
   ​
   A famous American geologist who died in 1939. There are many geology awards given out in his name by universities, but there is very little information about the man himself on the web.
   ​
3. How has W. A. Tarr's proposal fared over the the past 80 years since he proposed it?
   ​
   Walt Brown's excerpt isn't specific, but one must presume that by Chalk Tarr is referring to the limestone formations of Europe. While there are some limestone deposits of inorganic origin (cave deposits resulting from water seepage is an example), the Chalk is not one of them. There is no evidence that Tarr's idea for the origin of the Chalk was ever seriously entertained by the field of geology. There is no sign of any such ideas today.
   ​
4. Why is Walt Brown citing an article from over 80 years ago?
   ​
   Because this is the most recent technical article Walt Brown could find that casts doubt on how limestone forms.

The Wikipedia article on Chalk Formation explains the composition of the Chalk. The presence of fossils of microscopic creatures and in some layers of much larger fossils cannot be missed. Perhaps microscope technology wasn't very advanced in 1925. Or perhaps Walt Brown was quoting W. A. Tarr out of context and he was actually saying something else? Or perhaps by Chalk he meant something other than the Chalk Formation of Europe. I can only make guesses about why Brown was able to quote Tarr appearing to say such a thing, but the evidence that the Chalk Formation of Europe is organic in origin is inescapable. I raised this point because my understanding of what Faith believes is that the waters were turbulent all during the flood. I can't promise to reproduce her logic, but I think she believes that because of the alternating layers seen everywhere, such as the example of the Grand Canyon where shale and sandstone layers alternate with limestone. She needs turbulent waters to transport the suspended sediment from other locations, which is why it is then pointed out that the sediment won't drop out of suspension if the waters remain turbulent. I guess you could propose alternating turbulent and quiet periods, but now things are getting a bit contrived, not that they weren't already. Except for compression due to the pressing weight of the sediments and water above, the deeper sedimentary layers found in the ocean pretty much resemble the shallow layers. They look like sea bottom on which creatures lived and upon which the debris from life living in the waters above fell. 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.--Percy

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. I was talking about all ocean sediments everywhere, which includes limestone. Since for the most part ocean sedimentation is gradual, and since limestone sediments are ocean sediments, limestone sedimentation occurs gradually.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.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.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."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.--Percy

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

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: 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. It was in your Message 3: --Percy

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. 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

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

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

What you need to do is explain how the alternating geologic layers and the record of transgressing and regressing shorelines are consistent with a flood. It may be obvious to you how a single global flood is consistent with the evidence, but it isn't obvious to anyone else, and that's why you have to explain it.The reason no one else can see how a global flood could have produced the evidence we find is that Genesis tells us that the floods of the great deep rushed out and that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The water rose steadily until it was twenty feet above the highest mountains and flooded the earth for 150 days. And then God closed the floodgates of the heavens and the springs of the deep and sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. There was only one transgression and one regression.If we could focus on just a single mystery, how could a flood produce alternating types of sedimentary deposits? If we use the Grand Canyon as an example, from the top down we have layers in this order: How would a flood deposit these alternating layers?--Percy

Erosive forces on land, such as weathering and rivers, cause erosion, the gradual but perpetual whittling away of the continents. The eventual destination of most eroded land is the oceans. Magnesium is contained in many minerals (it represents about 2.1% by weight of all minerals), and so it is carried to the sea with everything else that's eroded away.Any material found on land should also be found in oceans. Magnesium is very common in both minerals and oceans.--Percy

Looking back in the discussion to see where Christian's concern with magnesium comes from, I see that in Message 53 she said this, first quoting Walt Brown, then asking a question: The answer for Christian is that magnesium is a very common element on both land and sea. It is so common that some highway departments use magnesium chloride as a substitute for sodium chloride (ordinary salt) which can contaminate water tables.I'm not sure why this matters to her. Is she still questioning that most sedimenatary limestone layers are organic in origin?--Percy

One of the key principles of geology is that the same processes we see happening today have been happening throughout much of earth's history. The answer to your question is that dolomite *is* being formed today. Very slowly.The principle I mentioned above was in its early days summarized as the present is the key to the past. As a general principle this has been highly successful, but we're also aware of exceptions. For example, we're pretty sure pollution from automobiles is an exclusively modern phenomena. Asteroid strikes have not occurred during recorded human history, but we're very certain they have happened in the past and will happen again in the future.But in general the principle that the present is the key to the past has proved extremely successful. The same processes we see at work on the landscape today have been working on landscapes since the earth first formed.Science is a huge field, so huge that no one person can hope to know more than a tiny portion in any detail. Scientists make advances by building on what came before, not by duplicating what came before. You have a different goal, though, which is to demonstrate to your own satisfaction that what scientists are telling you is actually true. You'll only be able to do this for a tiny, tiny portion of scientific knowledge. You're only one person, and you only have so much time.I think it would be better if you set some kind of threshold for what information you're willing to trust from scientists. Question conclusions on topics on which there is actual scientific disagreement, like global warming or whether we should resume investing in nuclear power. But when every scientific source is in agreement, such as about the organic origin of most sedimentary limestone, then it would be best to move on and spend your time and effort on things more open to question.--Percy

What has this to do with limestone layers, or with science at all? When you read in the newspaper about the latest scientific advance, say the latest unmanned mission to Mars or a new development in gene therapy, do you really think about Matthew 7:13?The Bible has nothing to say about limestone layers, and it isn't a science book. Your skeptical stance about limestone has nothing to do with scientific validity and everything to do with whether or not you think you see a conflict with your beliefs. Why Walt Brown is wrong is simple: he's not doing science.What he's doing is creating fanciful scenarios and passing them off as science to the credulous.The next question should be, "How does one tell the difference between someone doing science and someone creating fanciful scenarios?"That's a tough question to answer because the answer is different for every individual. It's a function of how much you already know. If I explained quantum entanglement to you and told that it makes faster-than-light communication possible, I expect I could convince you. But most of the evolutionists here know enough quantum theory to reject the notion out-of-hand. Faster-than-light communication is ruled out as we currently understand things.The more you know the better you'll get at separating the wheat from the chaff, the gems from the flim-flam. But it isn't necessary to do things like personally seek out limestone and conduct your own investigations, not because it isn't a good idea, but because it would take forever to acquire any meaningful amount of scientific knowledge. As an exercise to become acquainted with scientific approaches to acquiring knowledge, carrying out some investigations yourself is a great idea. But only accepting that which you have personally verified will limit the amount of knowledge you can acquire to a pittance.--Percy

I see Roxrkool already replied, conceding that dolomite has been a problem for geologists for quite some time, but I suspect that you're using the word "problem" in a different way than she is.When Rox calls it a problem, she only means we don't fully understand the process of dolomite formation. When you call it a problem you mean it calls into question fundmental principles of geology. I don't think any geologist sees in dolomite any fundamental problems.Since demand for scientists remains high, I assume you'll agree that we have not yet learned all there is to know. The dolomite problem, to the extent that it still isn't resolved, fits in this category of things we do not know. It is a process we have yet to fully understand, but it isn't some mystery that calls into question substantial portions of modern geology.Up until very recently, Creationists used to cite the solar neutrino shortage as evidence that we really didn't understand stellar processes, and that therefore the sun could be much younger than the estimated 4.6 billion years. The details are unimportant, but the fusion processes thought to power the sun must generate neutrinos in certain amounts. Neutrino detectors detected only 1/3 the amount of required neutrinos, and Creationists claimed this meant we really didn't understand how the sun worked.Scientists had a much different position. To them it did not appear as a great mystery or contradiction, but rather just something we did not yet know. There is more that we don't know than we know in science, and so there was nothing unusual about this particular unsolved problem, except for the fact that Creationists had latched onto it as evidence that stellar scientists didn't really know what powered stars.And then in 2001 the missing neutrinos were found. It turned out that the neutrinos weren't really missing, but that we were using the wrong type of detector. Our detectors were built for one type of neutrino, the type thought to be generated by the sun's fusion processes, but on their way to earth many of them changed into a different type of neutrino, one the detectors were not designed to detect. Once particle theory had advanced to the point where the possibility of neutrinos changing from one type to another was better understood, detectors were modified to detect the other type of neutrino and they were found.Your "dolomite problem" is of the same nature. It isn't at all something that calls into question what we already know. Physical processes outside the laboratory can be massively complex, and it's just one more thing we don't yet know. Add it to the already long list.--Percy

Hi Christian,I appreciate that you have lots of questions, and I encourage you to seek answers to those questions just as you're doing here, but in the appropriate thread.This thread was opened for the purpose of discussing a question raised in another thread about how so much organic matter could accumulate in so short a period of time, namely the flood year. That's why the topic of this thread assumes that sedimentary limestone layers are organic in origin, i.e., that they consist of the skeletal remains of microscopic creatures that live in the water above. If you don't believe sedimentary limestone deposits are organic then that discussion belongs elsewhere. If you want to explore Walt Brown's ideas then that, too, belongs elsewhere.The last close-to-sort-of-being-on-topic post was Message 83.--Percy