Jump to content


Photo

Chalk


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#81 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 07 February 2016 - 12:04 PM

 

 

Wibble: What a naïve and very odd statement 

 

so all I mean is that sandstone or limestone or chalk or charcoal, is usually pretty similar in it's characteristics spreading globally or for great distance so the layers of different rock are expected from catastrophe if we find the cause of each rock. When we find great depositions of chalk stretched across the world, I think that doesn't really express any millions-of-years accumulation, if we look at today's processes. All you need to explain it is the cause that would make such rock.

 

With coal, log-mats have been shown to cause the strange nature of coal but the swamp-theory isn't born out when we examine charcoal, as we see different effects, but log-mats have shown to cause the exact same effect, which was proved at Mt St Helens. In coal we see bark, shredded bark to a massive degree, which happens when you get log mats and the friction from the logs literally tares of great masses of bark. You don't see that in the evo-swamp theory but rather the creation of root-infested peat with different type of texture. We also see in coal, the depositions WITHIN coal, of shale rock (mud), which can't be explained by the peat-swamp story as where would inundations of different rock come from? They had to be deposited.

 

What you really need to get these rock types, is tremendous pressure. Water pressure will do it. And it was a lush world, pre-flood. Our world today is basically a desert compared to the pre-flood super continent.

 

 

 

The speed with which suspensions not only of sand, but also of argillaceous materials, could settle during formation of the coal measures is exemplified by the casts of lycopod tree trunks that occur in an erect position. Examples are known with lengths of up to 12 m (about 40 ft).28,29 The authors describing them admit that it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that the rate of sedimentation around these stems must have been high indeed. Considering the relatively flimsy anatomy of these hollow stems it can hardly be assumed that dead specimens stood out in a ‘drowning forest’ through years or decades. Their burial in mud or sand is more likely to have been accomplished in hours or perhaps days.

http://creation.com/...orest-ecosystem



#82 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 08 February 2016 - 03:16 PM

Paul79, you bumped up this thread but have disappeared again, have you no response to my last reply ?

 

You bring up some good points but there are too many unknowns to definitively say how it could have (or could not have) happened with respect to the formation of chalk. (ie, how long it took for the chalk to form, how fast or slow was the water moving during that time or in-between that time, etc.) And since I am not an expert on this and more of laymen I thought I would drop off this thread. Sorry if that bothers you but my main point I wanted to bring up from my first post here was the calm water reference found in the Genesis 8:1. The reference to "became still" is found on BibleHub under the comments page. See here: http://biblehub.com/...genesis/8-1.htm

 

There is also another word in Scripture listed as asswage which also means to lessen, or hinder...something to that effect though it is a different Hebrew word. Job 16:5 says the following: "But I would strengthen you with my mouth, and the moving of my lips should asswage your grief."

 

I understand that the Scriptures do not mean to you what it means to me but I do hold a view that the Bible is always correct and that man is always incorrect when he differs from it and chooses his own interpretation or ignores it. I do believe that there is a God and that He is able to accomplish everything written in the Bible. I am getting off topic here so I will stop.



#83 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 February 2016 - 06:45 AM

Paul I think the most important point in all of these discussions, is that we have to focus on how fast rock can form. It is nearly always scientifically demonstrable that you can get rock quickly. We can form coal and we can form limestone, etc..quickly. Another thing to bare in mind is that there are some things in rock which favour fast-occurrence, for example if you read that above quote, where it says, "hollow stems".  There is no conceivable way such fragile stems that were hollow, would not rot away long before preservation.

 

additionally, "Sandstones frequently contain conglomerates. These usually have associated with them large stem fragments of lycopods or giant horsetails. Conglomerates indicate extreme high-energy conditions during their formation"

 

There is sandstone in the coal seems, and also shale (mud), between layers of coal.  "Due to its weight sand is deposited invariably under a blanket of fast-moving water." So then we can see that there is an array of reasons to believe it is reasonable to believe all of these things happened quickly. 

 

This is not just so with coal. For example the inter-mingling of marine and terrestrial organisms at Fossil Bluff for example, show a violent mixing caused by watery inundation. There is also a mixing of rocks which can only happen when the sand is not yet stone. 

 

Is it fair for evolutionists to use "water" when it suits them, in regards to the rocks, yet tell us a flood could in no way form the rocks? (water)



#84 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 09 February 2016 - 11:53 AM

In response to your previous comment about coal I present to you this article about coal formation and why it's time to rewrite the books again. What will it be replaced with if they ignore the best possible solution to the problem?

 

http://crev.info/201...coal-formation/

 

 

PNAS:

 

The Carboniferous−Permian marks the greatest coal-forming interval in Earth’s history, contributing to glaciation and uniquely high oxygen concentrations at the time and fueling the modern Industrial Revolution. This peak in coal deposition is frequently attributed to an evolutionary lag between plant synthesis of the recalcitrant biopolymer lignin and fungal capacities for lignin degradation, resulting in massive accumulation of plant debris. Here, we demonstrate that lignin was of secondary importance in many floras and that shifts in lignin abundance had no obvious impact on coal formation. Evidence for lignin degradation—including fungal—was ubiquitous, and absence of lignin decay would have profoundly disrupted the carbon cycle.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users