Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


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 3 of 128 (294396)
03-12-2006 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-10-2006 5:19 PM


Limestone is composed of the skeletons of microorganisms which live in the top 10 meters or so of shallow seas.
Perhaps, but most of the earth's limestone appears to be "inorganic" in nature.
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.
I don't understand radiometric dating, so I'll have to skip this part for now.
Second, limestone layers can only be deposited in quiet seas. Turbulent seas would keep the microscopic skeletons suspended in the water.
Well, the waters would've been calm after the flood.
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.
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.
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.
Not exactly sure what you're saying here. Are you talking about all sediments? Or limestone in particular?
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.
Not sure why this is a problem, but you say that's another thread so I guess it'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.
Ok, this whole idea comes from Walt Brown, so I'll quote him:In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Limestone
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.4
A Scenario. Let’s suppose that before the flood the subterranean chamber contained some CO2 and a large amount of limestone, perhaps lining the chamber’s walls. Any gaseous CO2 was quickly “squeezed” into solution by the great pressure from the weight of the crust above the chamber. The subterranean water therefore was acidic, and some of the solid limestone dissolved until the available CO2 was consumed in the reaction written above.
As this subterranean water escaped to the earth’s surface during the flood, the water’s pressure dropped drastically, so CO2 gas and microscopic, milky-white particles of limestone came out of solution. The escaping water scoured out the relatively soft limestone. Considerable CO2 entered the atmosphere, and tiny limestone particles spread throughout the flood waters.
Superimposed on this general pressure decrease were extreme pressure fluctuations from waves and water-hammer action. [See page 222.] Within each tiny volume of liquid, limestone could precipitate as the pressure dropped. An instant later, a nearby pressure jump dissolved even solid chunks of limestone brought up from the subterranean chamber. The turbulent conditions caused carbon to jump back and forth from one side of the above equation to the other. Therefore, fine particles of limestone were precipitated throughout the escaping flood waters.
Limestone’s solubility in the escaping water also decreased, because the water’s pressure dropped enormously. Therefore, some limestone precipitated without releasing CO2. Later, liquefaction sorted all precipitated particles into more uniform layers of limestone.
That's all for now. Have a nice day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-10-2006 5:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 03-12-2006 1:49 AM Christian has replied
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 03-12-2006 8:44 AM Christian has replied
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2006 6:20 PM Christian has replied
 Message 63 by Coragyps, posted 03-19-2006 2:10 PM Christian has replied

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


Message 5 of 128 (294405)
03-12-2006 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
03-12-2006 1:49 AM


Re: Source of Limestone
Yes, Walt Brown says it. He says that limestone produced by organisms is structurally different and more intricate than inorganic limestone. He also sites W.A Tarr:
“Most of the recognizable materials composing the Chalk have not been proved to be of organic origin by those who have studied it, and [the few organic] portions are, moreover, distinctly subordinate in amount to the amorphous matrix and spheres, save for some local exceptions. The number of these exceptions are so few as to make the scarcity of organic remains a remarkable feature, for one would expect more of them.
“The lack of mechanical wear; the evident absence of currents, as shown by massiveness and lack of stratification; the perfectly preserved minute spheres and cells; and the absolute lack of any evidence of an organic origin of the dense material, all favor the view that the Chalk was inorganic in origin.” W. A. Tarr, “Is the Chalk a Chemical Deposit?” Geological Magazine, Vol. 62, No. 6, June 1925, p. 259.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 03-12-2006 1:49 AM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 7 of 128 (294477)
03-12-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
03-12-2006 8:44 AM


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.
What I'm trying to figure out is whether you're saying that it's inescapably organic because ALL the microscopic particles appear organic. Or whether you say it's inescapably orgainic because the layers CONTAIN fossils.
I suspect it is the latter because of this paragraph from the site you linked me to:
The Middle Chalk averages about 200 feet (60 m) in thickness. Fossils found in the Middle Chalk include the brachiopod Terebratulina and the echinoid Conulus. However, though fossils have been found, they are generally sparce.
Mr. Brown says:Some limestone must also have come from shallow, preflood sea bottoms, because today limestone deposits often contain abundant fossils of corals, crinoids, bryozoans, and foraminifers. These shallow-water animals must have lived before the flood in the presence of limestone. During the flood, that limestone was eroded, transported, and deposited with those animals entombed.
He also says:Finally, organic limestone is structurally different and more intricate than inorganic limestone. Organic limestone crystals are more uniformly sized, oriented, and packaged”characteristics now detectable with high magnification.8
and he sites
8. Michael Rubner, “Synthetic Sea Shell,” Nature, Vol. 423, 26 June 2003, pp. 925-926.

That's a bit more modern, but doesn't contain the nice quote.
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.
Oh, I haven't read the previous thread where you were discussing these things with Faith, maybe I should do that. This just sounded like a good chance for me to compare what you people are saying with Walt Brown's ideas, so I jumped in. Was Faith promoting Walt Browns scenerio?
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.
This doesn't answer my question. I asked if you were talking about limestone, or other sediments. If you're talking about other sediments, then I would prefer if we kept this specific discussion about limestone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 03-12-2006 8:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-12-2006 4:09 PM Christian has replied
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 03-13-2006 7:12 AM Christian has replied

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


Message 8 of 128 (294569)
03-12-2006 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
03-12-2006 1:49 AM


Re: Source of Limestone
Ok, just found another source. This isn't a direct source for "most of the earth's limestone appears inorganic" But it does illustrate that there are non-organic sources for limestone. This is from "Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies" by G. Brent Dalrymple. He is discussing the studies of Charles D. Walcott who dated the earth based on the study of stratified sedimentary rocks. Here's the quote:
Walcott divided the problem into two parts1)the time required for deposition of the detrital sedimentary rocks, such as sandstones and shales, which are composed of particulate debris; and (2)the time required to form the carbonate rocks or limestones, which are formed primarily by chemical and organic precipitation from sea water.
btw -- you should be careful using Walt Brown. While he might happen to be right about something it would be a surprise given the utterly nutty things he propounds.
My whole purpose in answering this thread is to compare Walt Brown's ideas to evolutionist ideas and see which make more sense. So if Walt Brown's ideas are "nutty" I guess I'll find that out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 03-12-2006 1:49 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 03-12-2006 4:03 PM Christian has not replied

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


Message 11 of 128 (294621)
03-12-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Minnemooseus
03-12-2006 4:09 PM


Re: Larger fossils vs. smaller fossils in chalk
ps. My cat Hiss sends your cat a meow!
Your cat's meow doesn't look very friendly. This thread seems to be the place for cats.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-12-2006 4:09 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 12 of 128 (294642)
03-12-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Minnemooseus
03-12-2006 4:09 PM


Re: Larger fossils vs. smaller fossils in chalk
It is my understanding, that most limestone is directly or indirectly of biogenic origin, even though much of it may not be recognisable as being fossils or fossil fragments. Much is larger carbonate fragments broken down to become mud.
You mean, even with the high powered microscopes we have today they can't recognize it as fossil fragments?
Another Walt Brown quote:
Wave action and predators can fragment shells and other hard parts of marine organisms. However, as fragments become smaller, it is more difficult to break them into smaller pieces. With increasingly smaller pieces, the forces required to break them again become unreasonably large before the pieces reach the size of typical limestone grains.
What is your explanation for such small grains of limestone?
Re: Walt Brown - He may have some scraps of good info to offer up, but I have also seen a fair amount of his "science" that is more in the category of being "bad science fiction". You may wish to do a forum search for "Walt Brown", if you wish a place to specificly discuss his thoughts. If you have Microsoft Excel, you may wish to consult and search the forum topic database I post online.
Thanks, I will do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-12-2006 4:09 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-12-2006 6:58 PM Christian has not replied

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


Message 20 of 128 (295074)
03-14-2006 1:42 AM


gonna be busy
I will definitely reply here probably within the next week, but just wanted to let you know that you won't be hearing from me over the next few days as I will be busy. Looking forward to continuing this conversation ...
Christian

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


Message 21 of 128 (295315)
03-14-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
03-13-2006 7:12 AM


Turns out I'm not as busy as I thought I would be, I have a bit of time, so here goes:
Percy writes:
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.
So I'm just supposed to accept that the limestone in these areas is organic, even though you can't tell me how they know it's organic?
Percy writes:
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.
I believe this has to do with the sediments sliding down as the mid-oceanic ridge formed. I don't see why there would need to be a point where the depth suddenly increases.
Percy writes:
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.
I can't seem to find where I said that. Maybe you could find the quote for me and we could discuss it. I don't think my point was to simply say that processes could have been different and then use that as my proof. I think I was saying "processes could have been different, and here's what I think is a plausible scenerio" which, I believe, is what you asked for in the first place.
Percy writes:
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.
I think there IS evidence, and that's why we're having this discussion.
Percy writes:
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.
You asked for a plausible scenerio. I think I gave you one. Tell me why it's not plausible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 03-13-2006 7:12 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AdminNosy, posted 03-14-2006 6:07 PM Christian has replied
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 03-14-2006 8:15 PM Christian has replied

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


Message 25 of 128 (295336)
03-14-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
03-14-2006 6:20 PM


PaulK writes:
Doesn't Brown's scenario just shift the problem around ? All he's doing is moving calcium carbonate out of the hypothetical caverns, without explaining where it came form in the first place.
He doesn't go into first causes. Presumably, God created the subterranean chambers with limestone in them. His book is about evidence for the flood, not a discription of how God created everything.
PaulK writes:
And surely he isn't going to get more CO2 out of the caverns than was there already unless some of the Calcium combines with other chemicals, instead of precipitating out as carbonate. So how does "some CO2" in the caverns turn into "considerable CO2' in the atmosphere ?
Not sure I understand what the problem is here. I think the same amount of carbon that was in the subterranean chambers was initially realeased into the atmosphere. Additional carbon was available in the limestone that was "scoured" out by the escaping water. Is your problem the use of the word "some" and then "considerable" to refer to the same amount?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2006 6:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2006 2:53 AM Christian has replied

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


Message 26 of 128 (295340)
03-14-2006 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by AdminNosy
03-14-2006 6:07 PM


Re: Totally off topic!!
But that wasn't off topic Nosey.

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

  
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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 46 of 128 (296510)
03-18-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Percy
03-18-2006 7:29 AM


Percy writes:
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
Thanks Percy. My husband and I were actually discussing finding out where the nearest limestone beds were and getting some samples to look at for ourselves. I'll let you know what we find (assuming we will find the time to do that) I think it would be a good science field trip for my children as well!

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