Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chalk takes millions of years to form
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 57 (713280)
12-11-2013 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tangle
12-11-2013 1:44 PM


I can't get that page to come up for some reason. Found it at Google and still can't get it to open. Another reference on the subject refers to creationist Snelling saying that conditions of the Flood would have caused the coccoliths to "bloom," which is an explanation I've run across before, but what those conditions were wasn't part of that article.
Perhaps I'm just impatient but my computer is very slow these days and I'm back here to ask you if it's easy enough to put the idea into words yourself. Or maybe give me another link I can actually open. Thanks.
But meanwhile I can go on speculating. Creatures could be expected to proliferate under ideal conditions so I'd speculate that perhaps those conditions were ideal for coccoliths in the pre-Flood era, when creationists usually suppose a much more fecund world in general anyway. One thing that is often hypothesized is shallower warmer ocean water. Would coccoliths like that? Maybe also the conditions during the Flood were also advantageous as Snelling proposes but I don't have a guess as to what he thinks those conditions are supposed to have been.
As for the problem with transporting existing coccoliths that you expressed, because they would have been hardened into rock as they are in the cliffs, I keep seeing them described as "calcareous ooze" which doesn't sound like rock.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tangle, posted 12-11-2013 1:44 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tangle, posted 12-11-2013 4:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 5:04 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 57 (713292)
12-11-2013 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tangle
12-11-2013 4:40 PM


No, I'm not suggesting that chalk of the hardness of the cliffs could have been transported. I'm considering that perhaps where they collect at the bottom of the ocean that they are in that condition of "ooze" and might be transportable. Can you answer THAT thought?
Never mind, I think Dr. A did and it suggests that yes, they may have been in a transportable condition at the time of the Flood or some great number might have been.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tangle, posted 12-11-2013 4:40 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 12-12-2013 5:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 57 (713293)
12-11-2013 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
12-11-2013 5:04 PM


The amount of sunlight available should depend on the size of the area they cover. What area of sea floor would they need to cover to produce an amount that could build the chalk cliffs or all the chalk formations on earth?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 5:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-11-2013 6:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 7:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 57 (713302)
12-11-2013 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tanypteryx
12-11-2013 6:54 PM


Good point, the effect of sunlight isn't an issue after they've died and fallen to the sea floor. The depth of that accumulation isn't a problem then, and the more the better.
\
So the question really is how much of the water where the sunlight penetrates would they need to occupy without putting each other in the shade, in order to produce enough to build the cliffs and other formations? And another question occurs whether they move around enough so that a great depth of them could receive sunlight in their turn.
As for currents at the bottom of the ocean during the Flood, the event is described as beginning with the release of the "fountains of the deep," which is not exactly clearly understood but it suggests some activity deep in the ocean that could have created currents to bring deeply lying things to the surface.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-11-2013 6:54 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Theodoric, posted 12-12-2013 9:15 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 29 of 57 (713312)
12-11-2013 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
12-11-2013 9:36 PM


Re: evolution in chalk bed
Of course I do not accept that interpretation of the ordering of fossils as proving evolution up some fantasy time scale. There has to be a mechanical principle of sorting that explains it.
As for
The world is OLD Faith, very OLD, get used to it. No different, really, than going around the sun ... open your eyes and join the real world.
If you're going to lecture me like that I can lecture right back: The world is YOUNG, RAZD, very YOUNG, because the God who made even you said so. Consider it because eventually the fact is going to bite you in the butt and draw blood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2013 9:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2013 11:22 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 57 (713324)
12-12-2013 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
12-11-2013 11:22 PM


Re: evolution in chalk bed
...evolution. It's all around you.
MICROevolution is all around me, species-to-species evolution is a delusion.
Curiously, My god said "Look at the universe and see the wonders that I have wrought"
Yeah, well you made up your god, he says what you want him to say. Mine inspired 66 written testimonies of Him by at least forty men over 1500 years and He says the earth is young. He also said His Creation was "good."
But after the Fall and the increasing wickedness of humanity He destroyed the entire earth with water. I take a lot of abuse for believing Him but I believe Him and I'm not going to stop believing Him. Since I know what He has said is true I know there has to be physical evidence of the Flood and it's an interesting challenge to try to find it. Some of it is really quite obvious, but that doesn't make it easy to get across to someone who refuses to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2013 11:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Pressie, posted 12-12-2013 4:25 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2013 8:43 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 37 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2013 10:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 57 (713387)
12-12-2013 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coragyps
12-12-2013 6:52 PM


I dunno how it was formed, Cor-Cor, I was trying out some questions and I don't have a clear opinion about how it got there yet. But as for dirt in the mix, most of the strata sediments are pretty homogenous too and you'd have to get up very close to see other sediments mixed in. HOWEVER, I don't have an opinion yet, as I said.
I'm enjoying that article by Huxley though. I like that kind of writing and thinking. It's too long to read all at once right now so if he says anything that casts light on my question I'll come back later and let you know.
I am, however, VERY intrigued by his revelation of the extent of the chalk formations, from England across Europe to the Aral Sea, north to Denmark, south to North Africa. Very intrigued.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coragyps, posted 12-12-2013 6:52 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 46 of 57 (713405)
12-13-2013 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Pollux
12-13-2013 12:20 AM


Re: For the lurkers
For those lurkers who are not bots, and perhaps members who do not know of him, Daniel Wonderly was a christian geologist whose book "Neglect of data" was written to set out many lines of evidence to show that the Earth is at least hundreds of thousands of years old with no evidence of a Noachian Flood in that time period. It is an easily understood book and available free by googling it. He doesn't need RM dating to prove his case. It is something Faith should read.
Unfortunately Faith, like ICR et al., says any evidence that contradicts the Bible is false.
Wouldn't it depend on what a Christian actually is? And if a Christian is a person who believes that the Bible was inspired by God Himself and is therefore all true, and therefore believes what the Bible shows about the age of the earth, and the Bible clearly indicates a young earth, wouldn't a Christian be required to believe that any evidence that "proves" the earth is ancient is false?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 12:20 AM Pollux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Coyote, posted 12-13-2013 1:31 AM Faith has replied
 Message 49 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 3:32 AM Faith has replied
 Message 52 by AZPaul3, posted 12-13-2013 3:57 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 48 of 57 (713408)
12-13-2013 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Coyote
12-13-2013 1:31 AM


Re: For the lurkers
The fallacy is that ridiculous "fallacy" itself as you apply it. I gave an if-then logical proposition. What's false about it?
Would it make you happy if I remembered to call myself a Bible-believing Christian instead of just "Christian?" Or is that a fallacy too?
Would it be a fallacy to say that archaeologists dig in the dirt? If not, then why is it a fallacy to say Bible believing Christians believe the Bible?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Coyote, posted 12-13-2013 1:31 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 50 of 57 (713413)
12-13-2013 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Pollux
12-13-2013 3:32 AM


Re: For the lurkers
But you recommended him to me, but I believe God inspired the Bible and that God Himself shows us that His earth is young; therefore I'm not going to be persuaded by someone who says otherwise, whether he calls himself a Christian or not. Yet you think I should consider it? You even seemed to suggest that BECAUSE he calls himself a Christian I'm supposed to be interested. That makes no sense if you understand what I'm telling you here.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 3:32 AM Pollux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 3:55 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 53 of 57 (713421)
12-13-2013 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Pollux
12-13-2013 3:55 AM


Re: For the lurkers
But I've read a ton of stuff from people who don't agree with me, you are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. You were specifically recommending that book to me BECAUSE he calls himself a "Christian," and I explained why that is no recommendation from my point of view. Surely you ought to be able to acknowledge that much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 3:55 AM Pollux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 4:45 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 54 of 57 (713425)
12-13-2013 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by AZPaul3
12-13-2013 3:57 AM


Re: Idol Worshiper
I wasn't going to answer your amazingly nasty post but I guess I will say a few words. I would ask you, as I just asked Pollux on the other thread, why the snarkiness? I gave a very straightforward polite description of my beliefs. I could probably also show you that "Bible believer" is the traditional term for a Christian down the centuries too. We are Bible BELIEVERS, AZ, not Bible worshipers and the name itself ought to convey that. Why this need to say nasty things in a nasty tone of voice?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by AZPaul3, posted 12-13-2013 3:57 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by AZPaul3, posted 12-13-2013 9:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 56 of 57 (713430)
12-13-2013 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Pollux
12-13-2013 4:45 AM


Re: For the lurkers
I may read science books if they are really good so I can think about reading this one. Yes, of course because I am a Bible believer I'll be looking for alternative explanations for the Old Earth argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 4:45 AM Pollux 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