# Chalk

103 replies to this topic

### #41 wibble

wibble

Member

• Veteran Member
• 750 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 45
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Dorset

Posted 04 May 2015 - 12:42 AM

>>To get the 2 tonne cubic metre of chalk rock you need, even at the implausible 10 billion per litre figure (=10 thousand billion per m3), all the cells from over 3000 blooms (2000 kg rock divided by 0.6 kg live cells) at that density to all contribute to coccolith ooze on the sea floor. And that would be just for one metre of rock.>>>>

I still believe this is an error. The 10 billion figure was CELLS for one liter of water. You must multiply that by number of liths per cell (I'll use 20) and then weight per lith and then take that times 1000 (liters per meter3 of water). THEN you need to multiply by however many meters deep each bloom is. We differ about what that number should be. But if indeed it is 100 m then that means, for ONE BLOOM in 100 meters of water you would have 10e10 x 20 x 1000 x 60×10-12 g per coccolith (per Roth) x 100m. Or 2e14 x 6e-12 x 100 or 1.2e5g or 120kg per bloom. So 16.67 blooms make one m of chalk rock (@ 2000kg). Not 3000.

I think you've added a zero again. Using Roth's lith weight the figure is 600g per cubic metre as I said. I explained why I didn't factor in 20 coccoliths per cell. I think this is reasonable because I have recently looked at chalk coccoliths with my own eyes (I picked up a piece of chalk locally and I have a high magnification microscope I use at work) and they are very similar in size and shape to E. huxleyi liths).

It’s funny, where you wrote ‘So 16.67’ it’s linked to a Bible verse, a very touching passage, I didn’t realise you were so fond of me !

This says that the maximum density for ehux is 4 billion cells per liter. (Not too far from 10 billion).

I looked through the paper about 3 times and can't find this 4 billion reference, could you point me to the page this is stated please.

>>You’re assuming they will continue at two divisions a day but at this rate after 10 days you’re up to a population of 10.24 million million cells per litre, which is silly. They won’t settle out quickly, due to Stokes Law. A paper I read (sorry, lost the link) suggests a settling rate of 10cm/day for coccoliths, 1m/day for cells>>

This surely seems contradicted by the quote above. And my link was not lost. This also contradicts you. It says it uses Stokes Law and although it is not as high as what the other source said (750m/day) it gets (for a 6micrometer object...in the caption for fig. 1) a settling rate of 6cm in 30 min....or 288cm/day. 28.8 times what you say.

Ok, I will accept they could fall out more rapidly with aggregation.

### #42 wibble

wibble

Member

• Veteran Member
• 750 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 45
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Dorset

Posted 04 May 2015 - 01:09 AM

>>You’ve added a zero here, should be 1560 kg and therefore 0.78 m.>>

I do appreciate that you caught this error of mine.  I don't LIKE it, but it was a good thing anyway!

No probs !

>>you are taking a maximum bloom density (not withstanding the unlikelihood of the 10 billion figure in the first place) and assuming this maximum density is extended all the way down to 100m (not going to happen, the max will be in the upper few metres where the greatest light intensity is, and the higher the coccolith density, the more light is restricted further down.>>

This is merely your ASSUMPTION that the reason blooms happen in and today are limited to the upper levels is due to LIGHT.  You don't know that.  It could be due to that being where there would be a great influx of nutrients, and so if the same level of nutrients were to be available at lower depths, the blooms would also continue to those depths.  I have shown you that MANY species are best able to thrive with only 1% of the light at the surface (at 200m).  If there is a bloom happening above, it is IMO very doubtful that you would have greatly less light than that at 100m or even 200m...so if there were plenty of nutrients that deep, we could indeed see big blooms go that low.  No reason to think otherwise.  You just don't know what would happen in Flood conditions if there were ideal amounts of bio matter for them to feed on, large amts of Ca ions, low alkalinity, enough light (though perhaps low) and warmer temps.  There could indeed be EXPONENTIAL growth compared to the less than ideal conditions...which it seems these creatures are certainly capable of.

All today's big blooms occur in the upper surface waters. I don't know why you think light wouldn't become more restricted lower down as blooms intensify above, surely that's common sense, I've already given you a link that shows this effect. Blooms are always restricted in duration because at some point, a particular nutrient will become limiting, these continuous repeated blooms aren't going to happen as you say.

Indy>>If true, that duck ranch surely seems to settle the question of whether they are heterotrophs, eh?>>
Wibble>>That's an extremely big ‘if’>>

NOT true.  The only unique condition reported (to cause the high numbers) was the effluent from a duck ranch...which means the nutrients feeding them were BIOLOGICAL.  To me, that means nothing else than "heterotroph."  That is, they feed on organic matter.  Can you not admit to that OBVIOUS fact?

No because the nutrients that cause phytoplankton to proliferate is not 'organic matter', its inorganic nutrients, primarily Nitrogen and phosphorus. That doesn't make them heterotrophs.

>>It would only become calm and start to clear once the waters had drained off the land, even after that I would think it would take a long time for the waters to become anything approaching calm and clear enough to allow coccolithophore blooms, >>

If you had (say) 3000 m of Flood water, covering the pre-flood mountains and then the water level dropped by (say) 1000m, there could be much sediment clouding the bottom 1500m with very little in the upper 500m...allowing clear water for blooms.

All that water in a rapidly receding flood wouldn't suspend sediment in the upper layers ? Think of the current velocities that would be an inevitable consequence of such an event.

>>which brings us back to the question as to why we observe sediment layers above the chalk ?>>>>

If you look at the Grand Canyon, the TOP layer is PERMIAN (way earlier than the chalk layer's "age").  I'm not prepared to discuss all the geology of depositional formations, but it seems that YOUR model has some accounting to do also for where all the more RECENT layers went.  I have very little doubt that expert YECs have a way to explain deposits that happened after Cretaceous chalk layers were laid.  In the scenario I just described, there could be MUCH deposition after the chalk blooms were in place as flood waters subsided further.  I'm not sure I want to research that to answer your question better just now.

So what if the top layer is Permian at the Grand Canyon. No one says that deposition has to be continuous everwhere around the world and without checking right now there could have been later layers there that were subsequently eroded. What is important is the order of layers not whether any are missing. I would like to see these explanations from 'expert YECs'.

>>Do you really believe these global subterranean chambers existed ? After all there is no evidence they ever did. It’s just pure fantasy.>>

You mean like dark matter or dark energy or the Oort Cloud?...which are considered to be very scientific postulations.  In attempting to explain the past by what we see today there is HYPOTHESIZING that happens and then the observed facts are tested against that "imaginary" or "fantasized" idea.  There may be no direct evidence of what is hypothesized, but if it can explain observations better than other ideas, then it is treated as a good scientific model to be tested further against more facts.  Are you wanting there to be a time machine we could all use to go back to LOOK AT IT?  And BTW, there are quite a few pieces of evidence (including salt water found in the deepest drill hole...far below the ocean or water table...and upwelling supercritical water from seafloor vents) to support the SWC of the HP theory.  I doubt however, that you've read much about any of that.  Yet that doesn't stop you from declaring "no evidence!"...does it?

We already have a very good explanation for chalk beds, we don't have to postulate something mysterious a la dark energy or whatever. The only reason something crazy like these subterranean chambers are invented is to crowbar the bible account into nature. If the Bible never existed you would happily accept the mainstream explanation.

### #43 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,801 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 04 May 2015 - 01:20 PM

>>The only reason something crazy like these subterranean chambers are invented is to crowbar the bible account into nature. If the Bible never existed you would happily accept the mainstream explanation.>>

Could be...or maybe I'd think some ET did it all, including dumping the nutrients for the creatures to eat.  Who knows what I might think with a non-Biblical mindset?  Who know what YOU might think WITH a Bible mindset?  But w/o the Bible I still would probably choke on all the fanciful stuff we are asked to believe in to make everything "just so."  It is NOT as orderly and intuitive as you'd like to make us believe it is.  There are a LOT of things that have to be "tweaked" to make it fit with Big Bang or whatever other non-Bible model you want to suggest.  And if the Bible is wrong, there could be some other deity doing things to cause there to be evidence of actual design...and not just apparent design caused by accident.  Which IS "crazy."

### #44 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,801 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 04 May 2015 - 03:17 PM

>>I looked through the paper about 3 times and can't find this 4 billion reference, could you point me to the page this is stated please.>>

In Table 1 there are two of their runs that were at 3.3 billion/L  (3.3 million per mL).  In the paragraph just under that there is this:

>>The cultures were harvested by centrifugation (10 min at 3000 g) during early exponential growth phase when cell density was approximately 8 × 105 cells mL−1 (for this strain under these culture conditions the maximum cell density at the end of the growth phase was ∼4 × 106 cells mL−1).>>

That translates to 4 billion per L.  This says "early exponential growth"...not sure if that is a bloom.  I couldn't find page numbers.  Notice there is a ONE THOUSAND FOLD increase, from the beginning of a growth to the maximum.  Who could say that in MORE favorable conditions there couldn't be (not a thousand-fold) but a 10 or 100-fold increase?  Can you say that?  Has there ever been any experimentation to show this?  Nope.  Not in conditions like the Flood.

>>All today's big blooms occur in the upper surface waters. I don't know why you think light wouldn't become more restricted lower down as blooms intensify above, surely that's common sense, I've already given you a link that shows this effect.>>

Neither of us knows if species that like it in upper waters would not also like it lower down if there were enough nutrients of the type they like down there.  And we don't know if those that like it down low (1% light) would also like it if there were less light and more nutrients.  When you get down to 1% I would have doubts that more blocking of light above would have a lot of effect....taking it down from 1% to what?  .5%?  .25%  Maybe that's not such a big deal to them.

Me>>NOT true.  The only unique condition reported (to cause the high numbers) was the effluent from a duck ranch...which means the nutrients feeding them were BIOLOGICAL.  To me, that means nothing else than "heterotroph."  That is, they feed on organic matter.  Can you not admit to that OBVIOUS fact?
Wibble>>No because the nutrients that cause phytoplankton to proliferate is not 'organic matter', its inorganic nutrients, primarily Nitrogen and phosphorus. That doesn't make them heterotrophs.>>

Ok..so I guess you mean that the high growth near the duck ranch was NOT them eating duck crap or waste but the INorganic molecules?  I'm not really buying that at all...but maybe so.  So why couldn't that also be true in a big flood with lots of dead bodies in the water?  Isn't it 6 of one half a dozen of the other?

>>All that water in a rapidly receding flood wouldn't suspend sediment in the upper layers ? Think of the current velocities that would be an inevitable consequence of such an event.>>

Water upwelling from a mile or more below and 1000's of miles away 5 months previously would not nec. cause "currents" locally "today."  The upwelling STOPS at some point (after 150 days) and then in the 10th month it begins to lower...not a violent event and not nec. involving much erosion.  Indeed the mountains may have been pushed upward.

>>So what if the top layer is Permian at the Grand Canyon. No one says that deposition has to be continuous everwhere around the world and without checking right now there could have been later layers there that were subsequently eroded.>>

Sounds to me that is pretty "crazy" and a "fantasy."  You want to believe that something like 300 million years of deposition that supposedly forms the layers above the Permian elsewhere just got SKIPPED near the GC?  Or that it all (many many more recent ages) just disappeared without ANY signs of erosion or places where the erosion was ineffective in that locale?  Thousands of square miles...maybe millions...without any sign of where it could have gone?

>>What is important is the order of layers not whether any are missing. I would like to see these explanations from 'expert YECs'.>>

The order is just circular reasoning.  The "youngest" are deemed so just because those are the top layers.  Of course they are younger...and often AEs will agree they were laid down very rapidly, by water.  But how much time is BETWEEN the layers?  And why is there absolutely NO sign of erosion between any of the layers (those shown in the GC...below the Permian)?  And why would you have INTERBEDDING of the layers sometimes...when supposedly millions of years passed between the two layers which are interbedded?  This could be a new topic of course.

>The only reason something crazy like these subterranean chambers are invented is to crowbar the bible account into nature.>

As I told you (but you ignored) there are indeed direct indicators that there are WATER chambers (residual pockets left over after the chambers were mostly emptied during the Flood)...found by drilling, by hot water vents below deep seabeds, and even by seismic signals from under mountains.  These are FAR below the water table or ocean floors.  Brown lists many of his predictions about this which have been found to be verified later.  Will you at least concede that sometimes "crazy crowbars" are used by non-YECs?  I mean COME ON.  Life comes from life...EXCEPT if an AE needs to "crowbar" some wacky idea to explain how it came from NON-life long ago...and only ONCE!  Puh-LEEZE.  And I could list a bunch more "crowbarring" the AEs do.  Will you concede that, Wibble?

### #45 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,801 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 04 May 2015 - 08:46 PM

I wrote>>>>The cultures were harvested by centrifugation (10 min at 3000 g) during early exponential growth phase when cell density was approximately 8 × 105 cells mL−1 (for this strain under these culture conditions the maximum cell density at the end of the growth phase was ∼4 × 106 cells mL−1).>>       Notice there is a ONE THOUSAND FOLD increase, from the beginning of a growth to the maximum.  Who could say that in MORE favorable conditions there couldn't be (not a thousand-fold) but a 10 or 100-fold increase? >>

Sorry I did a brain flatulation on that one...it is only 5x more from early to end of the growth phase.  I believe it is still 4 billion per liter though.  I think I was thinking "one thousand" by translating mL to L.

### #46 wibble

wibble

Member

• Veteran Member
• 750 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 45
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Dorset

Posted 05 May 2015 - 03:51 PM

I think you've added a zero again. Using Roth's lith weight the figure is 600g per cubic metre as I said. I explained why I didn't factor in 20 coccoliths per cell.

Before I respond to anything else do you agree that my calculation for number of blooms would be (approx.) 3000 at the (unverified) 10 billion cells per litre density to produce one metre depth of chalk rock (with my caveat regarding the number of liths per cell) ?

I guess in reality, at the stationary phase at maximum bloom density, there will be a balance between cells reproducing and cells dying, so the maximum measured density wouldn't be the total number of cells for an entire bloom.

Even so, considering how much rock you need to be produced, do you foresee that there could be a problem with running out of available dissolved calcium ? (imagine the equivalent column of water you would need to dissolve a 500m column of chalk)

### #47 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,801 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 05 May 2015 - 06:14 PM

Before I respond to anything else do you agree that my calculation for number of blooms would be (approx.) 3000 at the (unverified) 10 billion cells per litre density to produce one metre depth of chalk rock (with my caveat regarding the number of liths per cell) ?

I don't see any error in what I wrote before:

Indy:>>The 10 billion figure was CELLS for one liter of water. You must multiply that by number of liths per cell (I'll use 20) and then weight per lith and then take that times 1000 (liters per meter3 of water). THEN you need to multiply by however many meters deep each bloom is. We differ about what that number should be. But if indeed it is 100 m then that means, for ONE BLOOM in 100 meters of water you would have 10e10 x 20 x 1000 x 60×10-12 g per coccolith (per Roth) x 100m. Or 2e14 x 6e-12 x 100 or 1.2e5g or 120kg per bloom. Therefore 16.67 blooms make one m of chalk rock (@ 2000kg). Not 3000.

If you still think there is an error, then paste this paragraph in again and make the error BOLD.  Then explain why it is wrong.

>>Even so, considering how much rock you need to be produced, do you foresee that there could be a problem with running out of available dissolved calcium ? (imagine the equivalent column of water you would need to dissolve a 500m column of chalk)>>

I believe in Brown's model there would be massive influx of Calcium.  Very UNlike the levels of today.  Why do you keep using today, AS IF that would be relevant to the time just after or during the Flood year?  It isn't the same!

### #48 wibble

wibble

Member

• Veteran Member
• 750 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 45
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Dorset

Posted 06 May 2015 - 04:17 PM

I don't see any error in what I wrote before:

Indy:>>The 10 billion figure was CELLS for one liter of water. You must multiply that by number of liths per cell (I'll use 20) and then weight per lith and then take that times 1000 (liters per meter3 of water). THEN you need to multiply by however many meters deep each bloom is. We differ about what that number should be. But if indeed it is 100 m then that means, for ONE BLOOM in 100 meters of water you would have 10e10 x 20 x 1000 x 60×10-12 g per coccolith (per Roth) x 100m. Or 2e14 x 6e-12 x 100 or 1.2e5g or 120kg per bloom. Therefore 16.67 blooms make one m of chalk rock (@ 2000kg). Not 3000.

If you still think there is an error, then paste this paragraph in again and make the error BOLD.  Then explain why it is wrong.

Ok, I can see where we've differed. My 3000 figure was based on the number of blooms that would need to occur per cubic metre of seawater to produce a cubic metre of rock. You've used a 100m column of seawater to produce that 1 metre of rock. My apologies. Obviously I still doubt that such an extreme density is feasible even in one surface water bloom, let alone multiple blooms all maintaining that density down to such a depth.

>>Even so, considering how much rock you need to be produced, do you foresee that there could be a problem with running out of available dissolved calcium ? (imagine the equivalent column of water you would need to dissolve a 500m column of chalk)>>

I believe in Brown's model there would be massive influx of Calcium.  Very UNlike the levels of today.  Why do you keep using today, AS IF that would be relevant to the time just after or during the Flood year?  It isn't the same!

Do you understand the point I'm trying to get across here ? Your model is claiming that a 500m depth of chalk (calcium carbonate) rock was laid down in a couple of months or so. That means that gazillions of coccolithophores have to extract enough Calcium from the water to produce that enormous amount of rock. Think of it in reverse. Imagine trying to dissolve a 500m x 1 sq metre column of rock into a square metre column of water above. How high would that column have to be ?

You can't just claim a massive influx of calcium could allow for astronomical coccolith production. There has to be a limit to how much calcium can be dissolved in a unit volume of water, and enormous blooms would quickly strip it out preventing further blooms.

### #49 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,801 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 06 May 2015 - 07:29 PM

Do you understand the point I'm trying to get across here ? Your model is claiming that a 500m depth of chalk (calcium carbonate) rock was laid down in a couple of months or so. That means that gazillions of coccolithophores have to extract enough Calcium from the water to produce that enormous amount of rock. Think of it in reverse. Imagine trying to dissolve a 500m x 1 sq metre column of rock into a square metre column of water above. How high would that column have to be ?

You can't just claim a massive influx of calcium could allow for astronomical coccolith production. There has to be a limit to how much calcium can be dissolved in a unit volume of water, and enormous blooms would quickly strip it out preventing further blooms.

I guess I don't follow you.  Are you saying that no matter how fast you added Ca, the water could not hold it in solution?  Why so?  I realize at some point it would become saturated and maybe precipitate out...but if the cc's were using it to make their liths, then that removes the Ca so that the water is no longer saturated.  It's added, they use it, they shed liths or die, and then the Ca falls downward to pile up into chalk rock.  I mean, you can question IF there was such a massive source of added Ca...and we can discuss that if you like.  But assuming plenty of Ca was available, I can't see the problem you are trying to show here.

### #50 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,801 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 07 May 2015 - 01:37 PM

This  says (80% down)

>>These authors discussed several lines of evidence that would suggest that as much as 60–80% of the carbonates are dissolved in the upper 1000 m of the ocean. In fact they first discussed the rapid decrease of Ca concentration in the upper part of the water column. This decrease occurs in the upper 200 m>>

So it makes sense to me that LIGHT might not be the reason these creatures prefer to live higher up.  It is where the NUTRIENTS are concentrated.  Give them much more of the stuff they feed upon, and THAT would likely be why they bloom.  They don't bloom more often or deeper down on sunny days vs cloudy days.  It is all about the NUTRIENTS...I think.

### #51 wibble

wibble

Member

• Veteran Member
• 750 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 45
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Dorset

Posted 07 May 2015 - 03:54 PM

I guess I don't follow you.  Are you saying that no matter how fast you added Ca, the water could not hold it in solution?  Why so?  I realize at some point it would become saturated and maybe precipitate out...but if the cc's were using it to make their liths, then that removes the Ca so that the water is no longer saturated.  It's added, they use it, they shed liths or die, and then the Ca falls downward to pile up into chalk rock.  I mean, you can question IF there was such a massive source of added Ca...and we can discuss that if you like.  But assuming plenty of Ca was available, I can't see the problem you are trying to show here.

Yes, there obviously has to be a limit to how much calcium carbonate can be held in solution. Wiki states that the maximum solubility of Ca ions is 47mg/l  (= 0.047 kg/m3). On that basis dissolving that 500m column of rock I mentioned would require a 21276 km high column of water (2000/0.047*500m). I'm no chemist however, so I may have misunderstood this. Today's oceans are about six times supersaturated in respect to calcite and I'm not sure if that means six times the 'maximum' solubility. But I can't imagine seawater could be supersaturated enough to convert that chalk rock into an equivalent reasonable depth of ocean, can you ?

If the coccoliths are removing Ca from the water column, how is it replaced ? Or if they dissolve back into solution, then you get no pile up of sediment.

### #52 wibble

wibble

Member

• Veteran Member
• 750 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 45
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Dorset

Posted 07 May 2015 - 04:15 PM

This  says (80% down)

>>These authors discussed several lines of evidence that would suggest that as much as 60–80% of the carbonates are dissolved in the upper 1000 m of the ocean. In fact they first discussed the rapid decrease of Ca concentration in the upper part of the water column. This decrease occurs in the upper 200 m>>

So it makes sense to me that LIGHT might not be the reason these creatures prefer to live higher up.  It is where the NUTRIENTS are concentrated.  Give them much more of the stuff they feed upon, and THAT would likely be why they bloom.  They don't bloom more often or deeper down on sunny days vs cloudy days.  It is all about the NUTRIENTS...I think.

I think you may have misunderstood what they are saying. They are citing a paper that reported a high level of dissolution of particulate calcium carbonate in the upper part of the water column (which clearly doesn't help your required sedimentation rates). The "rapid decrease of Ca concentration" is referring to particulate CaCO3 rather than dissolved, which is what coccolithophores use.

Also interesting is that the paper you cite mentions that one of the reasons for aggregation of coccoliths (which allows for the greatly increased falling rate which you suggested would allow for continued high density of blooms) is due to consumption by predators, which would surely limit the duration and intensity of blooms.

### #53 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,801 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 07 May 2015 - 07:56 PM

>>

Also interesting is that the paper you cite mentions that one of the reasons for aggregation of coccoliths (which allows for the greatly increased falling rate which you suggested would allow for continued high density of blooms) is due to consumption by predators, which would surely limit the duration and intensity of blooms.>>

Can you show where that is?  I don't want to have to hunt through the rather large paper.

### #54 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,801 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 07 May 2015 - 11:49 PM

The paper you cited gives this about sinking rate.  I am not sure if that is for coccolithophores or some other creature:

Second, assuming an average sinking speed of 150 m/day for either pellets or aggregates (see discussion

by Honjo, 1996), the 1000-m trap sampled events six days after they were sampled bythe 150-m trap.

### #55 wibble

wibble

Member

• Veteran Member
• 750 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 45
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Dorset

Posted 08 May 2015 - 02:29 AM

>>
Also interesting is that the paper you cite mentions that one of the reasons for aggregation of coccoliths (which allows for the greatly increased falling rate which you suggested would allow for continued high density of blooms) is due to consumption by predators, which would surely limit the duration and intensity of blooms.>>

Can you show where that is?  I don't want to have to hunt through the rather large paper.

It's in the same paragraph you pasted, in section 3.3.1: (bold mine)

"The absence of dissolution between 250 and 2500 m is at first sight in contradiction with Milliman et al. [1999] who proposed that calcium carbonate is dissolved well above the chemical lysocline. These authors discussed several lines of evidence that would suggest that as much as 60–80% of the carbonates are dissolved in the upper 1000 m of the ocean. In fact they first discussed the rapid decrease of Ca concentration in the upper part of the water column. This decrease occurs in the upper 200 m [Sherrell et al., 1998], which is above the shallowest EUMELI trap. Milliman et al. [1999] also used the change in species composition of coccolith assemblages recovered in a surface and a deep trap. In agreement with these authors, the absence of holococcoliths (a fragile type of coccoliths) in the trap samples is remarkable. Holococcoliths are, however, abundant in the ocean. If holococcolith-bearing coccospheres were present in the EUMELI production zone, they were not present in the aggregates in which the heterococcoliths were found. This would suggest that dissolution of coccoliths takes place while aggregates form (e.g., in the guts of grazers) rather than during their sedimentation."

### #56 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,801 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 08 May 2015 - 09:44 AM

Thank you.  I guess it is no surprise that CC's get preyed upon.  I don't know if that would be a factor to limit a bloom.  My guess is that if the nutrients are there, then the bloom continues and there could be a lot of feasting by predators.  Then the predators defecate and THAT becomes part of the chalk rock too.  I have trouble understanding what the paper was saying.  I am not sure if "dissolution" is about the liths being dissolved or if it is about there being dissolved Ca in the water for CC's to feed upon.

I think you need to ask yourself...IF there were some source of influx of nutrients (including Ca) such that CC's could eat all they wanted, make liths, die, and the next generation keep doing the same over and over...wouldn't that be very different than any bloom seen today where nutrients are limited?  And couldn't that make lots and lots of sediment...to later become chalk rock?  I believe Brown's model of the flood does add very very much Ca to the water.  (Did you read his Limestone chapter?)  And there are other factors that help blooms, which also would be more favorable.  It could mean exponential increased growth.

### #57 wibble

wibble

Member

• Veteran Member
• 750 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 45
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Dorset

Posted 09 May 2015 - 05:05 PM

Thank you.  I guess it is no surprise that CC's get preyed upon.  I don't know if that would be a factor to limit a bloom.

What do you think ??

I have trouble understanding what the paper was saying.  I am not sure if "dissolution" is about the liths being dissolved or if it is about there being dissolved Ca in the water for CC's to feed upon.

It's about the coccoliths being dissolved.

I think you need to ask yourself...IF there were some source of influx of nutrients (including Ca) such that CC's could eat all they wanted, make liths, die, and the next generation keep doing the same over and over...wouldn't that be very different than any bloom seen today where nutrients are limited?

Actually, coccolithophores tend to bloom when nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates are limited, because they are poor competitors with other phytoplankton. Which goes against what you've previously suggested with lots of dead animals boosting nutrient levels. With calcium, once this has been stripped out of solution by an intense bloom, how do you propose it is replaced in order to maintain ridiculously high density blooms of long duration ?

I believe Brown's model of the flood does add very very much Ca to the water.  (Did you read his Limestone chapter?)

Yes I told you I read it, and its completely conjectural. Have you got any reasons to counter the data/calculations I provided that shows a limit to the concentration of Ca in seawater ?

That limestone chapter insinuates that soft body fossils are commonplace in chalk, suggesting rapid burial. This simply isn't true (that abundant such fossils are found). Also says that the underground chambers would have provided "abundant limestone and silica (sic)" Well coccolithophores don't bloom in high silica waters, because diatoms do instead.

It also mentions scouring, transport and dumping of chalk sediments into thick layers. This is completely refuted by the fossil sequence seen in chalk and hardground facies, which I've touched upon previously.

You must have read quite a bit about this topic now. From the information you've learned, does it least make you question whether the view you hold, that 500m of chalk rock was laid down quickly during/shortly after the Flood, could be wrong ?

### #58 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,801 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 10 May 2015 - 07:01 AM

>>Indy:

I have trouble understanding what the paper was saying.  I am not sure if "dissolution" is about the liths being dissolved or if it is about there being dissolved Ca in the water for CC's to feed upon.

W:It's about the coccoliths being dissolved.

Well, I think I read that they get dissolved somewhere around 5000 feet...and this says it is WAY higher up...200m.  If that is so, then why do they set "traps" at 250 and 2500 feet to determine the amount?

>>Actually, coccolithophores tend to bloom when nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates are limited, because they are poor competitors with other phytoplankton.>>

I think you got that wrong.  They do well when nutrients are low, but when they bloom it is because of a large influx of nutrients.  It isn't on a sunny day vs a cloudy day.  Do you remember that duck ranch?

>>With calcium, once this has been stripped out of solution by an intense bloom, how do you propose it is replaced in order to maintain ridiculously high density blooms of long duration ?>>

I would guess that in the Flood, the Ca that gets eaten is replaced...because the source is not the same as today.  Why is that puzzling to you?

>>Yes I told you I read it, and its completely conjectural.>>

That's pretty much what all theories about past events are.

>>Have you got any reasons to counter the data/calculations I provided that shows a limit to the concentration of Ca in seawater ?>>

You may have to repeat that point.  I just believe that if there is a source, external to the bloom, to replace the Ca that is taken in by the CC's, then the Ca level could be maintained high.

>>That limestone chapter insinuates that soft body fossils are commonplace in chalk, suggesting rapid burial. This simply isn't true (that abundant such fossils are found).>>

What I read indicates there are.  I don't know how "commonplace" or "abundant" they are, but even if there are only a few, you need some way to explain them.  Having 100 whales die and then sink into the mud so quickly and COMPLETELY that none of their parts are consumed, is not a good explanation.  Yeah, those were not coccolithophores but the point is the same.  I just found this quote: "Fossils are generally sparse in the Austin Chalk. A shark and a few mosasaur skeletons have been found. "  A shark doesn't even HAVE bones (I think) so preserving one for the million years you say it would take to cover it, is pretty hard to imagine.  Also, I think I've read that finding ANY soft body fossils is very rare anywhere...compared to shelled creatures.

>>You must have read quite a bit about this topic now. From the information you've learned, does it least make you question whether the view you hold, that 500m of chalk rock was laid down quickly during/shortly after the Flood, could be wrong ?>>

Not really.  Have I made you to question if your view is wrong?

### #59 wibble

wibble

Member

• Veteran Member
• 750 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 45
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Dorset

Posted 11 May 2015 - 03:41 PM

>>Indy:

W:It's about the coccoliths being dissolved.

Well, I think I read that they get dissolved somewhere around 5000 feet...and this says it is WAY higher up...200m.  If that is so, then why do they set "traps" at 250 and 2500 feet to determine the amount?

All coccoliths get dissolved at depths below about 4000m. Some do higher up as well. Some types of lith dissolve more quickly if they are more fragile forms.

>>Actually, coccolithophores tend to bloom when nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates are limited, because they are poor competitors with other phytoplankton.>>

I think you got that wrong.  They do well when nutrients are low, but when they bloom it is because of a large influx of nutrients.  It isn't on a sunny day vs a cloudy day.  Do you remember that duck ranch?

I haven't got that wrong. In high nutrient situations they are outcompeted by other phytoplankton. This is widely accepted in the scientific literature. I've found out about that duck ranch, see here (in section titled Effect of nutrients) the bloom consisted of chlorophytes and cyanobacteria, which do bloom at high nutrient levels. Not coccolithophores. Can you now stop referring to that duck ranch as if it does ?

>>With calcium, once this has been stripped out of solution by an intense bloom, how do you propose it is replaced in order to maintain ridiculously high density blooms of long duration ?>>

I would guess that in the Flood, the Ca that gets eaten is replaced...because the source is not the same as today.  Why is that puzzling to you?

Because you haven't explained how the Ca is imported in to the bloom to replace it, particularly considering how vast in extent they are. You can't use water currents because intense blooms occur in calm seas.

>>Yes I told you I read it, and its completely conjectural.>>

That's pretty much what all theories about past events are.

Some are based on the preponderance of evidence given by the world around us. Others ignore that evidence.

>>Have you got any reasons to counter the data/calculations I provided that shows a limit to the concentration of Ca in seawater ?>>

You may have to repeat that point.  I just believe that if there is a source, external to the bloom, to replace the Ca that is taken in by the CC's, then the Ca level could be maintained high.

I think I've shown why you can't dissolve anything like the amount of CaCO3 into water to produce the amount of sediment you require. And I don't see how vast amounts could rush in to replace it.

>>That limestone chapter insinuates that soft body fossils are commonplace in chalk, suggesting rapid burial. This simply isn't true (that abundant such fossils are found).>>

What I read indicates there are.  I don't know how "commonplace" or "abundant" they are, but even if there are only a few, you need some way to explain them.  Having 100 whales die and then sink into the mud so quickly and COMPLETELY that none of their parts are consumed, is not a good explanation.  Yeah, those were not coccolithophores but the point is the same. I just found this quote: "Fossils are generally sparse in the Austin Chalk. A shark and a few mosasaur skeletons have been found. "  A shark doesn't even HAVE bones (I think) so preserving one for the million years you say it would take to cover it, is pretty hard to imagine.

I don't think anyone would say a shark (they have a cartilage skeleton by the way)would be slowly buried over a million years. Such fossils are extremely rare in chalk and the few examples are probably as a result of areas of sediment slippage quickly covering a dead specimen.

I have to ask at this point, if you think all this chalk sediment was dumped over a couple of months (would need to be a rate of 5 -10 metres a day), there shouldn't be any macrofossils in chalk apart from at the base. Almost all the fossils are benthic taxa such as sea urchins, bivalves and brachiopods, yet they occur (exhibiting slow evolutionary change) all the way up to the top of the formation. How is this ?

>>You must have read quite a bit about this topic now. From the information you've learned, does it least make you question whether the view you hold, that 500m of chalk rock was laid down quickly during/shortly after the Flood, could be wrong ?>>

Not really.  Have I made you to question if your view is wrong?

I have found this discussion of value as it has prompted me to learn more about the subject. Coccolithophores are fascinating organisms. There is nothing that supports Snelling's assertion of rapid chalk formation. At the very least I think we're in agreement that his 500m deep 10 billion/cells per litre story is completely without merit.

### #60 wibble

wibble

Member

• Veteran Member
• 750 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 45
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Dorset

Posted 16 May 2015 - 03:40 PM

You've gone very quiet Indy, have you finished with this thread ? I was wondering if you had any response to what I said here

I have to ask at this point, if you think all this chalk sediment was dumped over a couple of months (would need to be a rate of 5 -10 metres a day), there shouldn't be any macrofossils in chalk apart from at the base. Almost all the fossils are benthic taxa such as sea urchins, bivalves and brachiopods, yet they occur (exhibiting slow evolutionary change) all the way up to the top of the formation. How is this ?

If you've lost interest, that's fine, but if you have no response to this then perhaps someone else has ?

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users