|
Author
|
Topic: Limestone Layers and the Flood
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
Message 60 of 128 (296605)
03-19-2006 1:35 PM
|
|
|
I've been on vacation, so I haven't been following this, but here's a nice essay from 138 years back: Publications | Human Nature In it, a Mr Huxley says:
Let us try another method of making the chalk tell us its own history. To the unassisted eye chalk looks simply like a very loose and open kind of stone. But it is possible to grind a slice of chalk down so thin that you can see through it”until it is thin enough, in fact, to be examined with any magnifying power that may be thought desirable. A thin slice of the fur of a kettle might be made in the same way. If it were examined microscopically, it would show itself to be a more or less distinctly laminated mineral substance and nothing more. But the slice of chalk presents a totally different appearance when placed under the microscope. The general mass of it is made up of very minute granules; but, imbedded in this matrix, are innumerable bodies, some smaller and some larger, but, on a rough average, not more than a hundredth of an inch in diameter, having a well-defined shape and structure. A cubic inch of some specimens of chalk may contain hundreds of thousands of these bodies, compacted together with incalculable millions of the granules. It's a very nice read: most folks don't write that nicely these days.
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 61 of 128 (296606)
03-19-2006 1:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by Christian
03-18-2006 10:04 PM
|
|
Re: Questions for you
and since today, organic limestone is primarily produced within 30 miles of the equator Thirty degrees, perhaps?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by Christian, posted 03-18-2006 10:04 PM | | Christian has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 62 by edge, posted 03-19-2006 2:01 PM | | Coragyps has not replied | | | Message 67 by Christian, posted 03-20-2006 6:10 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 63 of 128 (296616)
03-19-2006 2:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by Christian
03-12-2006 1:06 AM
|
|
To summarize, when liquid water [H2O (l)] containing dissolved (or aqueous) CO2 [CO2(aq)] comes in contact with solid limestone [CaCO3(s)], the limestone dissolves and the chemical reaction moves to the right. Conversely, for every 44 grams of CO2 that escape the solution, 100 grams of limestone precipitate and the reaction moves back to the left. Little temperature change occurs with either reaction.
Ol' Walt doesn't follow through too well on the implications here, though. From various web sources, I once did some calculations on exactly this "Flood carbonates" scenario: About 1.5% of the total of the Earth's crust is carbonates. That's about 3.9 x 10^20 kilograms of limestone. Walt's reaction above then calls for 44% of this, or 1.7 X 10^20 kg, of carbon dioxide to hold all that limestone in solution - carbon dioxide that will end up in Noah's atmosphere. All of today's atmosphere weighs 5.1 X 10^18 kilograms, so this would have caused Noah to breathe an atmosphere of over 97% carbon dioxide and about 0.5% oxygen. Let's be generous to Walt, though, and say that only 10% of all limestones came from his Flood. That would help, but maybe not quite enough: 77% carbon dioxide and less than 5% oxygen would still kill all the mammals on the Ark in a couple of minutes. Nearly all of Dr. Brown's arguments stand up to scrutiny about as well as this one, Christian. He's either a flim-flam man or he's delusional.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 1:06 AM | | Christian has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 64 by jar, posted 03-19-2006 2:18 PM | | Coragyps has replied | | | Message 68 by Christian, posted 03-20-2006 7:15 PM | | Coragyps has replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 65 of 128 (296623)
03-19-2006 2:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
03-19-2006 2:18 PM
|
|
Re: Death and Carbon dioxide.
Possibly, though, the low oxygen level is what actually did the dirty deed. In "confined space entry" training they said < 17% O2 can kill you, IIRC.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by jar, posted 03-19-2006 2:18 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 70 of 128 (296955)
03-20-2006 9:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by Christian
03-20-2006 7:15 PM
|
|
Read my post above, Christian:
Let's be generous to Walt, though, and say that only 10% of all limestones came from his Flood. That would help, but maybe not quite enough: 77% carbon dioxide and less than 5% oxygen would still kill all the mammals on the Ark in a couple of minutes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by Christian, posted 03-20-2006 7:15 PM | | Christian has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 87 of 128 (298775)
03-27-2006 4:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by Christian
03-27-2006 4:25 PM
|
|
Re: Magnesium Concentrations
Could you please explain to me how magnesium gets into the seawater.
Magnesium, as well as sodium, is very common in minerals as well as pretty soluble in water when in the compounds that exist in many of those minerals. Water eroding rocks in streams and rivers, or water circulating through "black smokers" and the like in the ocean floor, will pick up these (and other) elements and then hold them in solution. Calcium also dissolves, but a lot of it comes back out of solution, mostly as the calcium carbonate shells of many different kinds of marine creatures.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by Christian, posted 03-27-2006 4:25 PM | | Christian has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 92 of 128 (298797)
03-27-2006 5:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by Christian
03-27-2006 5:29 PM
|
|
Re: Does it matter?
why is it that dolomite isn't being formed today?
It is - it's just not very dramatic. I'd imagine there's some forming in, say, Michigan this very minute. There's lots of limestone, and there's grounwater that would pick up a little magnesium from near-surface soil and rocks. All these geological processes are SLOW! We humans have a hard time just with thousands of years. Geology has no problem at all with millions.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by Christian, posted 03-27-2006 5:29 PM | | Christian has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 95 by Christian, posted 03-28-2006 11:56 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 100 of 128 (299023)
03-28-2006 2:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by roxrkool
03-28-2006 12:26 PM
|
|
Re: The Dolomite Problem
Laboratory experiments using sulphate reducers cultured from the lake sediments and simulating the anoxic microbiogeochemical environment of the lakes, have resulted in the precipitation of dolomite... Hmmm. And here 3000 feet below me sits the San Andres formation, a mostly-dolomite reservoir many thousands of square miles in extent, and just chock-full of stinky rotton-egg smelling oil because of those sulfate-reducing bacteria. Probably not a coincidence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by roxrkool, posted 03-28-2006 12:26 PM | | roxrkool has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 122 of 128 (299712)
03-30-2006 11:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 119 by Percy
03-30-2006 9:17 PM
|
|
Re: One small question.
And I assume they find that cold, deep seas produce much less in the way of limestone deposits.
Partly because, IIRC, calcium carbonate snowing down from the photosynthetic zone near-surface largely redissolves before it ever gets to a cold. deep ocean floor. Calcium carbonate is a bit odd in that respect - it's less soluble in cold water than warm. That's why it's the hot-water heater and pipes in your house that scale up if you have hard water.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 119 by Percy, posted 03-30-2006 9:17 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 123 by Percy, posted 03-31-2006 8:54 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 126 of 128 (299784)
03-31-2006 10:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 125 by Percy
03-31-2006 9:37 AM
|
|
Re: FYI
A quick Google Scholar look indicates that maybe the Wiki author is oversimplifying - carbon dioxide levels fell dramatically in the late Eocene, which both deepened the CCD and also contributed to Antartica cooling off. You are correct, though, that just colder water would mean shallower CCD.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by Percy, posted 03-31-2006 9:37 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 127 by Percy, posted 03-31-2006 11:43 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2