Limestone Layers and the Flood

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. 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. Nonsense. Nothing will convince you. Of course not. It might upset your little preconceived world where wishful thinking makes up for actual science. 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.

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... "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?

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.

Jumping in for Rox here, I'm pretty sure she means the latter. Unlikely. There are other ways of determining organic vs inorganic origins of carbonates. Diagenesis consists of the chemical/mineralogical changes that accompany the process of deposition and lithification of a sediment. Not sure what Rox means here. A good petrographer, probably yes. But there are other ways of determining the origin of a carbonate rock. One of the most basic is mapping a limestone turning to marble as we approach an igneous pluton. Sometimes marble will exhibit some of its organic origin by containing carbonaceous styolites as described by Rox earlier.Just a factoid, but your average parrot fish will eat, digest and excrete tons of coral in its lifetime. I think this type of predation may account for a lot of limy muds.As another pertinent(?) point, I remember references to 'carbonate facies iron formations' in some of the exploration literature of the past. These were definitely NOT organic carbonate rocks (limestones). The point being that geologists do not assume that all carbonates are organic limestone and they have devised ways of telling them apart.In fact, the study of carbonate rocks is practically a independently recognized field of geology. Largely because of the oil business. I'm quite certain that we can't even scratch the surface of this topic here.

That does sound familiar... Sounds almost impossible to tell from chemical precip. Oxygen isotopes would probably do it, though. Exactly. That is why the cries of YECs about chemical precipitation of limestone sound so amateurish. They, including Brown, don't even look at the volumes of literture behind carbonates.

Walt, eh? Not a very promising start... Sounds like a pretty gross oversimplification, but okay, we'll deal with that later if necessary. Please document this statement. Carbon and oxygen are some of the most common elements in the earth. We see diamonds from apparent extreme depths at the base of the continental crust. We see all kinds of silicate minerals with oxygen in them from the deepest known deposits. What do you mean 'if'? We see limestones being deposited today in this manner. Do you deny this? There are numerous reasons, the main one being sea level changes on the continental shelves in tropical seas. We see this happening today also. Also, please document for us 6 mile thicknesses of limestone so that we can address it. Answering vague references like this is most unfruitful. Limestone is not a mineral. Nor is it a crystal. This is called dolomitization. It is a very common secondary process that causes an increase in porosity. It is also common to have a certain percentage of magnesium in calcite anyway. That is because magnesium is also a very common mineral and has similar chemical properties as calcium. Seawater. Or other dewatering fluids. Again, this is the topic of very advanced study in oil field processes. First of all, ALL modern coral reef deposition is occuring in tropical to temperate climates. We know this. Second, there have been major climatic changes in the past that, combined with plate tectonics, have spread older limestones to virtually every continent and climatic zone.I know that Walt Brown likes to ignore these facts, but that only adds to your further deception. Walt RELIES upon your ignorance of these facts to spread his ideas and collect donations to his ministry.

Well, it is. But it is true in ways deeper than fundamentalist YEC sects can possibly fathom. Another hallmark of absolutism. All or nothing. No attempte at a deeper understanding.Sorry about the OT nature of this post. I'll move along.

Heh, much better, thank you...

Actually, I think we understand it all too well. THere is absolutely no evidence that Walt's scenario ever happened and it may violate several basic chemical principles. Do you mean 'dissolved'? 'Squeezed into solution', eh? Where did it come from? What is the evidence for a chamber? If the pressure was so high (lithostatic) why did it not escape to the surface instead? There are plenty of pathways and it occurs even today. So where is this chamber and where was the limestone that was dissolved into its waters? What other chemicals would have been in solution. I would imagine a real witches brew that should have some signature in the limestones. Why did it suddenly decide to escape? Where did it come to the surface? So where is the limestone deposit in the oceanic crust? If the pressure dropped suddenly, there should be continuous calcite deposits virtually everywhere there was a chamber. Good, there should be evidence of scouring, then. Where is it? Oh, I get it! Scouring removed the evidence! VERRRRRYY convenient. So how did life survive such an influx of CO2? And where is this pervasive limestone deposit? There should be evidence of this. All the more reason there should be some universal, chemically deposited limestone at some level in the geologic record.... There isn't. I think you need to understand that this is just a fanciful scenario Walt has devised to fit his preconceived idea of a global flood. I am astounded that anyone would ignore centuries of geological data and put any credence in this story.

Or 'virtually all limestone that we know of forms in shallow seas.' I've got and idea. Why not tell us how much limestone is deposited on the abyssal plain of any major ocean? I couldn't tell. NOt sure where you got this from my statement, but basically accumulation of sediments can cause basins to subside. Okay. I might quibble a bit about the actual depth, but I agree, there is a huge thickness of limestone out there. Now, how did it get there? How is this limestone being deposited today? Is it organic? Does Brown explain where the inorganic limestone is in this limestone edifice? How deep is it? HOw thick is it? Why do we not have such huge thicknesses of limestone everywhere? Sorry, C, but evolution, old ages and plate tectonic explain all these things very precisely. Indeed. I was not being very careful. It's been a long time since I visited his website. The general point remains: Brown has a religious agenda and he tries to fit the facts to it. I'm sure that he would like you to buy his snake oil I suppose it's a best-seller... So, you have contributed to the Walt Brown quack ministry. I'm sorry to hear that. Well, it sure hasn't helped you here... You mean that you REALLY haven't seen any shortcomings to the hydroplate business from your conversations here? I feel sorry for you, Christian. You have been deceived and fleeced for $25 (that we know of...). Have you EVER read any real scientific literature?

Will? Hey, I'm trying. But reading unsupported assertion after assertion is kind of boring. Good. Let's talk about the caverns... (crickets chirping)Want more examples? Just trying to elicit a response. All I hear about is how wonderful Walt's book is.

But creationist geologists won't come here will they? Why do you think that is? Could it be that there are extremely few of them? Why would that be?Or could it be that they know they can't hold their own? Don't you feel the least bit betrayed by these people who won't lift a finger to help you? I'd say that creationist geologists have abandoned the field. In fact, I'd also say that they are dependent upon the layman's ignorance of geology. THey WANT you to remain ignorant of the subject.And while we can't 'prove' anything in the sense that you seem to require, we can make an excellent case that there was no global flood. The creationists geologists know this. That is why they prefer to let non-geologists fight this battle.

Okay, how do large bodies of water, at a specific gravity of 1 become emplaced in an oceanic crust with an SG of about 4. How do the caverns form, and where does the water come from? Does this water somehow dissolve gabbro? So all mid-ocean ridges have caverns in them? WHat is the evidence for this? If you are going to be skeptical, these are the kinds of questions you need to start asking.

Then I am confused. Didn't you write this:

Perhaps interesting but not really a key point. Remember, all Christian had to judge by was the book itself. Let's see if we can stick to discussing content and individual evidences and not the medium

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-29-2006 09:59 PM

Then it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place.