In message 65, Hangdawg13 wrote:
>Again, I'm hopelessly ignorant of the process,
If you are "hopelessly ignorant of the process", it is impossible for you judge if what you propose has any basis in reality or simply nothing more than scientifically bankrupt fiction. If you don't understand anything about limestones and dolomites, it is impossible for you know what is and isn't possible in terms of how they were created.
"but the 'evidence' is in the fact that there is
"so much layered limestone deposits worldwide (15-20%
of all sedimentary deposits), the fact that dolomite
is so commonly found with limestone,
These two arguments are not only factually bankrupt but show a remarkable ignorant Walt Brown is of what has been published by geologists on how limestones and dolomites form. The vast amount of limestone and dolomite in the world just means there are numerous documented and observed processes, both organic and inorganic, by which limestone can be formed and deposited and that there has been long periods of time over which it has accumulated. Also, there are numerous ways, by which the association of dolomite with limestone can be explain using proven and, even observed, processes. The fact of the matter, it is quite easy for geologists explain **all** of the vast volume of limestone and dolomite, how they are interbedded, what fossils they may or may not contain, and **specific** sedimentary structures and layering that they exhibit using conventional models of carbonate accumulation. Interested lurkers can find proof of this statement demonstrated in great detail by the models of limestone and dolomite formation discussed in the any of the following books:
Boggs, Sam, Jr., 2001, Principles of Sedimentology and
Stratigraphy. 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, New York.
Walker, R. G. and James, N. P., eds., 1992, Facies models-
response to sea level change. Geological Association of
Canada, St. John's, Newfoundland.
Scholle, P. A., Bebout, D. G. & Moore, C. H., eds., 1983,
Carbonate depositional environments. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir no. 33.
Tucker, M. E. & Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate sedimentology.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Wilson, J. L., 1975, Carbonate facies in geologic history.
Springer, New York.
"and the fact that many limestone formations are
incredibly thick like the Bahamas formation (6 miles)
and it is unlikely that the sea floor would subside at
exactly this rate for hundreds of millions of years."
This another completely bankrupt argument because geologists have known for a long time that the sea floor doesn't have to subside exactly at the same rate for thick sequences of limestone to accumulate. Contrary, to what Mr. Hangdawg13 falsely proposed above, thick sequences of limestone can accumulate despite changes in the rate at which the sea floor subsides and eustatic sea level rises or falls. Changes in water in water depth, due to changes in the rate of bottom subsidence or eustatic sea level, often only effects the type of limestone (and/or dolomite) that accumulates instead determining whether it accumulates or not. If a person would look at both ancient and modern limestones deposits, he or she would often find cyclic / rhythmic variations in sedimentary structures, fossils, and types of limestone (and/or dolomite) within limestone deposits demonstrating frequent changes in water depth during the accumulation of thick limestone deposits. The water depth varied as the result of variations in the rate at which either bottom subsided, eustatic sea level rose of fell, or some combination of both within the area the limestone accumulated.
Examples of how changes in water depths during the deposition of a thick sequence of limestone resulted only in changes in the types of limestone, characterized by specific sedimentary structures and textures, that accumulated to form it are discussed by:
Keorschner, W. F., III, and Read, J. F., 1989, Field and
Modelling Studies of Cambrian Carbonate Cycles, Virginia
Appalachians. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. vol. 59,
no. 5, pp. 654-687.
DeMicco, R. M., 1983, Wavy and Lenticular Bedded Carbonate
Ribbon Rocks of the Upper Cambrian Conococheague
Limestone, Central Appalachians. Journal of Sedimentary
Geology. vol. 53, pp. 1121 - 1132.
In contrast to the above articles, the hydroplate theory is utterly useless and helpless in explaining the origin of the different types of limestone found within the Conococheague Limestone, whose origin are explained in great detail by the above articles. When it comes to explaining in detail specific variations in the types, sedimentary structures, fossil content, and layering that characterize specific accumulations of limestone and dolomite, the hydroplate theory is completely helpless in contrast to the depositional models of conventional geologists, which can consistency do it with great ease and credibility.
In some cases, the limestone accumulated either faster than the sea floor subsided or sea level fell and created dry land until either subsidence or rising sea level submerged the area again. During this time, the exposed limestone was weathered, forming a well-defined soil. When either subsidence or rising eustatic sea level flooded the area again, the accumulation of limestone resumed, which buried and preserved the soil as a fossil soil called a "paleosol" within the accumulating sequence of limestone. Many thick limestone sequences contains numerous paleosols showing that extreme variations in water depth occurred during their accumulation.
Examples of fossil soils, "paleosols", which have been found within thick sequences of limestone, are documented in:
James, N. P. and Choquette, P. W., eds., 1988. Paleokarst,
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Wright, V. P., 1994. Paleosols in shallow marine
sequences. Earth-Science Reviews. vol. 37. pp. 367-395.
As above, the hydroplate model to helpless to explain the presence of numerous fossil soils (paleosols) and paleokarst that are often found interbedded **within** layers that form thick accumulations of limestone and dolomite.
Hangdawg13 also wrote:
"It makes sense that such a large deposit would be
found at the edge of a hydroplate too."
The problem here is that the Bahamas is only one of many large accumulations of limestone and dolomite. The fact of the matter there are many, many more equally large or larger accumulations of carbonates, i.e. in the Willingston Basin, that aren't associated with the so-called "edges" of hydroplate. If one considers all of these limestone accumulations, there is absolutely no correlation between the so-called "edges" of the hydroplate and the occurrence of large accumulation of limestone and dolomite. This fact readily demonstrates what Mr. Hangdawg13 calls "sense" is in fact utter nonsense.
In addition, the hydroplate theory is completely unable to explain in any detail, variations in the specific physical characteristics of limestone deposits, i.e. the sedimentary structures they exhibit; their fossil content; the distribution of different types of chalks, limestone, and dolomite; and how they are interlayered. In contrast, all of these features can be readily explained by models of conventional geologists discussed in:
Boggs, Sam, Jr., 2001, Principles of Sedimentology and
Stratigraphy. 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, New York.
Walker, R. G. and James, N. P., eds., 1992, Facies models-
response to sea level change. Geological Association of
Canada, St. John's, Newfoundland.
Scholle, P. A., Bebout, D. G. & Moore, C. H., eds., 1983,
Carbonate depositional environments. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir no. 33.
Tucker, M. E. & Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate sedimentology.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Wilson, J. L., 1975, Carbonate facies in geologic history.
Springer, New York.
Hangdawg13 also wrote:
"Also, the composition of volcanic gases supports
the fact that limestone may exist deep down in
the earth's upper crust."
Specifically, how does the composition of volcanic gases support the existence of limestone deposits deep in the crust? I ask this because I suspect he is indulging in the Gish Gallop by making statements for which he lacks any credible evidence, known processes, and arguments to support any coherent manner. From what I seen published about the composition volcanic gases, this is nothing more than empty arm-waving, lacking any scientific basis.
For example, Mr. Hangdawg13's so-called "fact" is readily proved to be pure "fiction" by the documented fact that limestone decomposes at moderate temperatures into calcium and carbon dioxide. In case of dolomite, it would readily decompose into calcium, magnesium, and carbon dioxide. The parts of the "deep" crust, where it is argued that limestone exists is far too hot for limestone to exist without decomposing into its constituent components. What Mr. Hangdawg13 proposes above as a "fact" is physically impossible. In addition, this so-called "fact" is readily demonstrated to be nothing more than "pure" fiction, by seismic and gravity data that clearly demonstrate that the rocks, which compose the lower and middle parts of the lower crust are far too dense to composed of limestone.
Hangdawg13 also wrote:
"As I said in my previous post, it may be possible that
water burned off of hydrates in the crust picked up
calcium carbonate and deposited limestone on the edges
of the underground chamber as it seeped in."
This is nothing more than geopoetry lacking any basis in geochemistry and rock mechanics. If Hangdawg13, would bother to learn something about the geochemistry of limestones, he would find that the only way this could happen would be if God directly changed the laws of chemistry and physics during the period of time that the Noachian Flood happened.
Best Regards,
Bill Birkland.
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 07-24-2004 03:10 AM
™ Version 4.2
