Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 12:29 AM
21 online now:
edge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,783 Year: 8,819/19,786 Month: 1,241/2,119 Week: 1/576 Day: 1/50 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Limestone Layers and the Flood
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1 of 128 (294097)
03-10-2006 5:19 PM


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 1:06 AM Percy has responded

    
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 128 (294101)
03-10-2006 5:22 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Christian
Member (Idle past 4418 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:http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Limestone2.html

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 responded

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

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 128 (294400)
03-12-2006 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Christian
03-12-2006 1:06 AM


Source of Limestone
Perhaps, but most of the earth's limestone appears to be "inorganic" in nature.

Do you have a geological source for this?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 1:06 AM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 3:05 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 3:54 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 4418 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 yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 6 of 128 (294439)
03-12-2006 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Christian
03-12-2006 1:06 AM


Christian writes:

Percy writes:

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.

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.

Christian writes:

Percy writes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Christian writes:

Percy writes:

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?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 1:06 AM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 10:53 AM Percy has responded

    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4418 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 responded

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

    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4418 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 parts:(1)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 responded

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

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 9 of 128 (294571)
03-12-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Christian
03-12-2006 3:54 PM


Nutty IDs
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.

Fair enough.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 3:54 PM Christian has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3723
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 10 of 128 (294573)
03-12-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Christian
03-12-2006 10:53 AM


Larger fossils vs. smaller fossils in chalk
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.

In this context, they are talking about fossils of life forms much larger than the tiny fossils and fossil fragments that make up the bulk of the chalk. In other words, within the matrix of microfossils, larger fossils are found, but the are generally sparce.

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.

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.

Moose

ps. My cat Hiss sends your cat a meow!


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 10:53 AM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 5:48 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 6:48 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4418 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 yet responded

    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4418 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 yet responded

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

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30979
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 13 of 128 (294645)
03-12-2006 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Christian
03-12-2006 6:48 PM


how small is small.
You need to remember that most of the creatures that produce limestone start off really, really small; diatoms. These things are microscopic to begin with, although sometimes you can see colonies of them with the unaided eye.

You can get an idea of just how small these suckers are here.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 6:48 PM Christian has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 14 of 128 (294812)
03-13-2006 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Christian
03-12-2006 10:53 AM


Christian writes:

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 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.

Christian writes:

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.

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Christian, posted 03-12-2006 10:53 AM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-13-2006 7:41 AM Percy has responded
 Message 21 by Christian, posted 03-14-2006 5:53 PM Percy has responded
 Message 22 by AdminChristian, posted 03-14-2006 5:57 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3723
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 15 of 128 (294816)
03-13-2006 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
03-13-2006 7:12 AM


Carbonate limestones???
All limestones are carbonate rocks, although not all carbonate rocks are limestones. The principle mineral of limestone is Calcium carbonate (CaCO3).

Saying carbonate limestone is like saying muddy mudstone or sandy sandstone.

Moose


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 03-13-2006 8:00 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
1
23456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019