Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth Age Correlations


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#81 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 21 March 2011 - 03:12 PM

First of all, an age of 60 million years would be very old coming from a YEC point of view that usually only accepts a maximum of 10,000 years for the age of anything in the universe.

There is some empirical data noted in the article you have linked from Steve Austin and Russell Humphreys but many assumptions have been made regarding its use in making conclusions. A letter written by Glenn Morton goes through calculations of his own, using many of the same sources of empirical data but reaches conclusions that are quite different. He also makes assumptions. Quite frankly I don't think the actual evidence cited gives a clear indication of the age of the oceans in either article, and there is no evidence at all given for a "massive erosion event during a global flood" even in the paper by Austin and Humphreys.....

View Post

I think that 60.000.000 years has been intended as a maximum figure. It assumes oceans void of any salt. I don't think such models can give you an exact age of the earth, they are rather benchmarks of maximums and minimums.

If erosion, inflow and evaporation increase the salt content in oceans, then those advocating old oceans have to come up with mechanisms how the salt content of ocean water is decreased again.

#82 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 April 2011 - 01:44 PM

Topographies are evidence of a global flood and a relatively young geologic column.


Topographies occur at the current geologic layer and the precambriam, but they are completely absent from any other geologic formation. If uniformatairian principles resulted in the geologic column, then every geologic strata should have an equivalent topography.

Posted Image

The above cross section of the Grand Canyon illustrates the point being made. We observe a massive topography and broke up strata in the precambrian, but every layer formed above it is layered flat with no evidence of long term erosion between the layers. The layers are consistent with the predictions of a global flood and cast serious doubt that these layers could represent long term geologic time.

Posted Image

Posted Image



Enjoy.

#83 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 April 2011 - 02:14 PM

Global chalk cliffs are evidence of catastrophe and a young geologic column.


Chalk cliffs pose a problem for uniformitairians for two reasons. 1) They are all the same age according to the fossils they contain (cretaceous). 2) The distribution on a global scale is massive. A devout atheist geologist D. Ager had this to say about them:

"I was taken by a Turkish friend to visit a cliff section in Upper Cretaceous sediments near Sile on the Black Sea coast. ...what I in fact saw was the familiar white chalk of north-west Europe with black flints and old fossil friends such as Micraster and Echinocorys. What I was looking at was identical with the ‘White Cliffs of Dover’ in England and the rolling plateau of Picardy in France, the quarries of southern Sweden and the cliffs of eastern Denmark. …We have long known, of course, that the White Chalk facies of late Cretaceous times extended all the way from Antrim in Northern Ireland, via England and northern France, through the Low Countries, northern Germany and southern Scandinavia to Poland, Bulgaria and eventually to Georgia in the south of the Soviet Union. We also knew of the same facies in Egypt and Israel. My record was merely an extension of that vast range to the south side of the Black Sea. …Nevertheless, there is even worse to come, for on the other side of the Atlantic in Texas, we find the Augstin Chalk of the same age and character, and...found in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. And most surprising of all, much farther away still in Western Australia, we have the Gingin Chalk of late Cretaceous age, with the same black flints and the same familiar fossils, resting – as in north-west Europe – on glauconitic sands." …Some general explanation is surely needed for such a wide distribution of such a unique facies pp.1-2 "...in north-west Bulgaria, again the basal conglomerate is largely composed of exactly similar purple quartzite pebbles (resting on Permian breccias also like those of midland England) Even if one postulates continent-wide uplift to produce the conglomerate in such widely separated places, it is very difficult to explain why the source rock is also so remarkably similar from one end of Europe to the other. …It is well known that the Newark Group of the eastern seaboard of the United States is exactly like the Trias of north-west Europe.. The similarities are almost laughable.. ...we still have to account for a general facies development in late Carboniferous times that extends in essentially the same form all the way from Texas to the Donetz coal basin, north of the Caspian Sea in the U.S.S.R. This amounts to some 170º of longitude, and closing up the Atlantic by a mere 40º does not really help all that much in explaining the remarkable phenomenon." The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, pp.6-7.


If these chalk cliffs formed slowly over millions of years, then we would expect to see chalk cliffs of every geologic age. There are no cambrian, ordivician, devonian, triassic or any other age chalk cliffs. Surely, that must mean that they were all formed in one sudden and catastrophic event.





Enjoy.

#84 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 April 2011 - 03:36 PM

Interbedded layers are evidence of a catastrophic origin of the geologic column.

In the Grand Canyon the cambriam muav and the mississippian redwall limestone is interbedded.

Posted Image

Nicolas Steno first proposed that interbedding can only occur during contemporaneous deposition, so a 200 million year time gap between the cambrian and mississippian is impossible according to this principle of geology.

A QUESTIONABLE 200-MILLION-YEAR HIATUS

Hiking down into the Grand Canyon of the Colorado is a geological education. As one descends past the beautifully exposed horizontal strata, one also turns back the geological clock in welldefined ticks. That is what the signs along the way say, and that is what all the textbooks proclaim! But when the juncture between the Redwall Limestone and Muav Limestone is reached, a 200million-year gap appears. The sign posted here by the National Park Service reads:


An unconformity
"Rocks of the Ordovician and Silurian Periods are missing in Grand Canyon. Temple Butte Limestone of Devonian age occurs in scattered pockets. Redwall Limestone rests on these Devonian rocks or on Muav Limestone of much earlier Cambrian Age."

This supposed unconformity is puzling for several reasons:


1)The two limestone strata "seem" conformable in most places. Both are nicely horizontal, and there is basically no evidence that 200 million years of erosion and tectonic disturbances separate them.

2)In some places, the two limestone strata intertongue or interfinger, such that by moving vertically one flashed back and forth in 200-million-year jumps.

3)In both limestone strata, one finds layers of the same micaceous shale containing the same fossil tubeworms, suggesting near-simultaneous deposition.

4)In one place, the two limestones clearly grade into one another, with no separation at all.

Anyone who walks down the Canyon trails can see that the evidence for a 200-million-year hiatus between the Mississippian and Cambrian limestones is shaky at best. With the accuracy of geological dating through the use of contained fossils at risk, one would expect many professional papers dealing with this situation. Instead, the geological literature says little. One of the few papers mentioning the "unconformity" states that the contact between the two limestones displays ripples 2 feet from crest to trough, as one might expect with a true unconformity. Such ripples do not seem to exist. (Waisgerber, William, et al; "Mississippian and Cambrian Strata Interbedding: 200 Million Years Hiatus in Question," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 23: 160,


The catastrophic origin of these layers is further corroborated by billions of orthocone nautiloids found by Steve Austin.


REGIONALLY EXTENSIVE MASS KILL OF LARGE ORTHOCONE NAUTILOIDS, REDWALL LIMESTONE (LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN), GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONA

AUSTIN, Steven A., Geology Department, Institute for Creation Rsch, Santee, CA 92071-2833, saustin@icr.edu and WISE, Kurt P., Bryan College, Box 7585, Dayton, TN 37321-7000

Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.

Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.

Discovery of the extent of the packstone bed, inventory of nautiloid fossils, and interpretation of depositional process were made possible within Grand Canyon National Park by special use permits allowing motorized raft operations with geologists on the Colorado River. Float boulders with nautiloids directed our attention to the source bed within the Redwall cliff. Because of the Antiquities Act, we chose to collect nautiloids for research from outside the national park. Our investigations provide an interesting example of how paleontological discoveries can be made in remote areas of national parks.


http://gsa.confex.co...tract_45610.htm

#85 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 April 2011 - 09:32 PM

Jason,
You are hitting the target well. Thanks for the posts above. I don't think there's a whole lot anyone who doubts the flood can say to the contrary. Lack of topographies, that is the lack of evidence for long term erosion is one of the strongest evidences for the testimony of scripture. It is not not science but actual history, so one is justified in attacking the false predictions of what the Bible calls "man's wisdom." The world by wisdom knew not God. The natural man receives not the things of God. The preaching of the cross is to them who perish foolishness, but to us who believe it is the the power of God.

#86 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 11 April 2011 - 01:31 AM

I heard something about paleo-currents during a presentation. Those paleocurrents apparently indicate a flood as well.

#87 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 April 2011 - 08:55 AM

I heard something about paleo-currents during a presentation. Those paleocurrents apparently indicate a flood as well.

View Post


Here is a thread with a video and paper.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=52935


Enjoy.

#88 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 04 May 2011 - 02:23 AM

Global chalk cliffs are evidence of catastrophe and a young geologic column.

Chalk cliffs pose a problem for uniformitairians for two reasons. 1) They are all the same age according to the fossils they contain (cretaceous). 2) The distribution on a global scale is massive. A devout atheist geologist D. Ager had this to say about them:

"I was taken by a Turkish friend to visit a cliff section in Upper Cretaceous sediments near Sile on the Black Sea coast. ...what I in fact saw was the familiar white chalk of north-west Europe with black flints and old fossil friends such as Micraster and Echinocorys. What I was looking at was identical with the ‘White Cliffs of Dover’ in England and the rolling plateau of Picardy in France, the quarries of southern Sweden and the cliffs of eastern Denmark. …We have long known, of course, that the White Chalk facies of late Cretaceous times extended all the way from Antrim in Northern Ireland, via England and northern France, through the Low Countries, northern Germany and southern Scandinavia to Poland, Bulgaria and eventually to Georgia in the south of the Soviet Union. We also knew of the same facies in Egypt and Israel. My record was merely an extension of that vast range to the south side of the Black Sea. …Nevertheless, there is even worse to come, for on the other side of the Atlantic in Texas, we find the Augstin Chalk of the same age and character, and...found in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. And most surprising of all, much farther away still in Western Australia, we have the Gingin Chalk of late Cretaceous age, with the same black flints and the same familiar fossils, resting – as in north-west Europe – on glauconitic sands." …Some general explanation is surely needed for such a wide distribution of such a unique facies pp.1-2 "...in north-west Bulgaria, again the basal conglomerate is largely composed of exactly similar purple quartzite pebbles (resting on Permian breccias also like those of midland England) Even if one postulates continent-wide uplift to produce the conglomerate in such widely separated places, it is very difficult to explain why the source rock is also so remarkably similar from one end of Europe to the other. …It is well known that the Newark Group of the eastern seaboard of the United States is exactly like the Trias of north-west Europe.. The similarities are almost laughable.. ...we still have to account for a general facies development in late Carboniferous times that extends in essentially the same form all the way from Texas to the Donetz coal basin, north of the Caspian Sea in the U.S.S.R. This amounts to some 170º of longitude, and closing up the Atlantic by a mere 40º does not really help all that much in explaining the remarkable phenomenon." The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, pp.6-7.


The occurrence of chalk, in cliffs or not, in various parts of the world is some of the best geological evidence against a young geologic column. It also is not indicative of a catastrophic form of sedimentation. But on the other hand it poses severe problems for a flood model. I have yet to see a creationist argument consistent with their model of the flood that would allow the deposition of chalk, which would require calm conditions and not the major currents that would accompany the flood. Chalk cliffs pose no problem for “uniformitarians” and the widespread occurrence of chalk does not go against the concept. The form of deposition speaks against any sort of catastrophe and although Ager is keen about promoting the identification of catastrophic processes being responsible for much of the rock record, he most certainly does not make that case for chalk. either in the comments included here or the chapter of the book from which they were taken. Actually he makes the opposite conclusion. In the chapter in question, “The Persistence of Facies” he says after giving several other examples not involving chalk of various geologic ages:

“So as one goes down the stratigraphical column, if one leaves behind the spectacle of the specialist and looks about one with the wondering eyes of a child, one never ceases to be amazed at the diversity and yet the uniformity of it all. No doubt my readers will have bigger and better examples of the persistence of facies which so fascinates me in this chapter.” (page 12)

The conclusion he actually was heading towards was, “AT CERTAIN TIMES IN EARTH HISTORY, PARTICULAR TYPES OF SEDIMENTATARY ENVIRONMENT WERE PREEVALENT OVER VAST AREAS OF THE EARTH”S SURFACE. This may be called the Phenomenon of the Persistence of Facies.” (page 14). The fossil content is not all of the same age, even in Cretaceous rocks, allowing subdivision by the part of the period the assemblage indicates. Perhaps Sir Charles Lyell would not totally agree with this, but I think most all modern geologists would not have a problem with agreeing with Dr. Ager’s conclusion whether they are atheists or not.

I don’t know where you got the idea that chalk is all of the same age, but this is incorrect. It is predominantly found in the Cretaceous (which was named after the latin name for chalk), but not exclusively as you have posted. But even limiting the scope to Cretaceous chalk, it was deposited within a window taken to be dozens of millions of years. I don’t see why having a widespread facies of any lithology (and age) would be a problem for “uniformitarians” and neither did Dr. Ager.

On the last day of my first geology class in college (some years before Dr. Ager wrote his book), the instructor told us that he hoped that we had all learned some geology, but even more importantly that we had learned to be skeptical in our studies, to not accept something just because in was taught and most importantly not to accept something just because it was in print, I have seen several posts on this board saying that mainstream science is all about conformity and accepting a viewpoint because in is in vogue and resisting considering a different viewpoint. Yes, there is a dangerous dogmatism that can affect workers in science. However, other are like the first instructor. I have seen peer-reviewed technical articles with which I disagreed. That is one of the goals of such publications, to allow others to question what is there. On the other hand I find that most creationists accept just about anything written down if it is in a=favor of a young earth and against evolution. Dr. Ager wrote his book to challenge some paradigms. I was looking at my bookshelf and noticed my old copy of Derek Ager’s book there which reminded me that I had seen something posted from it with the frequent use of dots to indicate portions where something had been left out. In looking at your quotes, some of the omissions are probably because of a simple leaving out words that are not so relevant. But other omissions appear to have been made to make it sound as if Ager is making a case that fits in with a flood model to a much higher degree than can actually be made out from his thoughts there. In his preface he outright states his intent to be provocative. He says, “This is not a textbook or a research treatise. It is-I like to think- and ‘idea book’. It is a commentary on the general pattern of earth history which I hope will be stimulating, if provocatively so, to all those concerned with geology as a whole rather than as a loose agglomeration of separated specialties.” On the next page he continues, “The one great hope I have for this book is that it will stimulate thought and argument, even rage. I think our science would be a lot healthier if we took less for granted. “

But here is what Dr. Ager wrote without the words edited out, which I include here in bold letters:

I was taken by a Turkish friend to visit a cliff section in Upper Cretaceous sediments near Sile on the Black Sea coast. In the Turkish literature these were described as white limestones with chert nodules and a strange-sounding list of fossils. But what I in fact saw was the familiar white chalk of north-west Europe with black flints and old fossil friends such as Micraster and Echinocorys. What I was looking at was identical with the ‘White Cliffs of Dover’ in England and the rolling plateau of Picardy in France, the quarries of southern Sweden and the cliffs of eastern Denmark. This set me thinking on the themes that are expressed in this book.

Though I thought the above observation worthy of a mini-publication, it might be said that it was not all that surprising. We have long known, of course, that the White Chalk facies of late Cretaceous times extended all the way from Antrim in Northern Ireland, via England and northern France, through the Low Countries, northern Germany and southern Scandinavia to Poland, Bulgaria and eventually to Georgia in the south of the Soviet Union. We also knew of the same facies in Egypt and Israel. My record was merely an extension of that vast range to the south side of the Black Sea.

Similarly, at the other end of the belt, Chalk was later discovered in south-west Ireland (where it must have been noticed by the early surveyors, but they had evidently been too scared of their autocratic director to record such an unlikely phenomenon). Later on it was found covering extensive areas of the sea floor south of Ireland.

Now this spread of a uniform facies is remarkable enough, but it must also be remembered that chalk is a very unusual sediment: an extremely pure coccolith limestone which is almost unique in the stratigraphic column. Nevertheless, there is even worse to come, for on the other side of the Atlantic in Texas, we find the Austin Chalk of the same age and character, and later Cretaceous chalks (still contemporaneous with the European development) are found in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. And most surprising of all, much farther away still in Western Australia, we have the Gingin Chalk of late Cretaceous age, with the same black flints and the same familiar fossils, resting – as in north-west Europe – on glauconitic sands.

Some general explanation is surely needed for such a wide distribution of such a unique facies during a comparatively short period of geological time. What is more. There has been no other deposit quite like it either before or since, except perhaps some Miocene chalks which themselves are remarkably widespread in the western approaches to the English Channel, in Malta, Cyprus and the Middle East and all the way to New Zealand. (pages 1-2)


Notice the omission of only 10 words “later Cretaceous chalks (still contemporaneous with the European development) are” that indicated that there are chalks in Arkansas. Mississippi and Alabama? This changes the meaning of what was quoted to make it all seem one continuous thought. I guess it was left out because it goes against the points made in your post. Notice also that the comment about the nature of chalk, which does not support a creationist model is also omitted. Then examples of other widespread facies are given and not quoted until another quote is taken from a discussion of Triassic clastics.

‘Urgonian limestones
Tithonian limestones
The Germanic Trias

The basal conglomerate in England is full of boulders of a distinctive purple, ‘ liver-coloured’ and white quartzites that have been matched with the Gres de May and the Gres Armorican right across the other side of the English Channel in Brittany (though I regard with some skepticism the notion that the boulders here travlled so far). Along the Rio Cabriel in Spain, it is the same, but there the source quartzite outcrops immediately below. Near Belogradchik, in north-west Bulgaria, again the basal conglomerate is largely composed of exactly similar purple quartzite pebbles (resting on Permian breccias also like those of midland England) Even if one postulates continent-wide uplift to produce the conglomerate in such widely separated places, it is very difficult to explain why the source rock is also so remarkably similar from one end of Europe to the other.

But again, we can go further afield. It is well known that the Newark Group of the eastern seaboard of the United States is exactly like the Trias of north-west Europe, and both are now known to have been deposited in fault-controlled basins. The similarities are almost laughable, even to the extent of the ‘Building Stones’ of the basal Keuper near Birmingham, England, being remarkably like the sandstone which provided the “brownstone’ houses of much of New York City. If we go to the High Atlas of Morocco, we find even closer similarities, with basic intrusions and extrusions within the familiar red sandstone.

However, when I make these comparisons across the Atlantic, I can almost hear my readers saying: “plate tectonics”. Obviously if we close up the ocean again, the resemblances would not be so startling. (page 6)


And then the quote jumps to a discussion of Carboniferous rocks on the next page:

Whatever the vertical and lateral changes in the Coal Measures, we still have to account for a general facies development in late Carboniferous times that extends in essentially the same form all the way from Texas to the Donetz coal basin, north of the Caspian Sea in the U.S.S.R. This amounts to some 170º of longitude, and closing up the Atlantic by a mere 40º does not really help all that much in explaining the remarkable phenomenon. One looks in vain for a similar geographical situation at the present day. The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, p. 7


The reason “and both are now known to have been deposited in fault-controlled basins” was omitted from the quote appears to have been to make it appear that the deposition of laterally continuous sediments was involved when the actual situation involved separate basins according to Ager.

He then cites exampled of Lower Carboniferous limestone.
Frasnian reefs
The Old Red Sandstone
Mid Silurian limestones
Arenig Quartzites
The basal Cambrian Quartzite
The late Precambrian glaciations
And…Special cases

If these chalk cliffs formed slowly over millions of years, then we would expect to see chalk cliffs of every geologic age. There are no cambrian, ordivician, devonian, triassic or any other age chalk cliffs. Surely, that must mean that they were all formed in one sudden and catastrophic event.


How does your conclusion of finding chalk throughout the geologic column come from the premise that chalks formed slowly over millions of years? Ager and other geologists would differ with you about other than Cretaceous chalks being found. If more than quote-mining had been employed, chalks from the Miocene would have been noted in what he wrote. How can one possibly take the occurrence of chalk he noted and jump to the conclusion you make here? Having all chalks formed in a sudden and catastrophic event is not at all consistent with their nature. It would not follow even if there was only one sequence of chalk in lateral continuity that was all the same exact age. But we do not even have to accept that, since there are chalks not in lateral continuity or of the same age.

One last thing. How do the flints noted as being in the limestone fit into a flood origin model?

#89 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 04 May 2011 - 03:24 AM

The occurrence of chalk, in cliffs or not, in various parts of the world is some of the best geological evidence against a young geologic column. It also is not indicative of a catastrophic form of sedimentation. But on the other hand it poses severe problems for a flood model. I have yet to see a creationist argument consistent with their model of the flood that would allow the deposition of chalk, which would require calm conditions and not the major currents that would accompany the flood. Chalk cliffs pose no problem for “uniformitarians” and the widespread occurrence of chalk does not go against the concept....

View Post

I think I already pointed out elsewhere that the homogenity of layers and deposits is a problem for uniformitarianism (I'd would expect mixtures and heterogenity of substances over long periods of time). To that you replied that there are some instances where relatively homogenous layers have formed over longer periods of time and that this has been observed.
Now how do you think large chalk layers would have formed over long periods of time and then end up as huge chalk deposits like at the cliffs of dover?
I note that according to you chalk layer formation "would require calm conditions" and I suppose that also has to apply over a long period of time. Is there no possibility that chalk layers may have accumulated rapidly via some geologic process like sorting for the materials involved?
To my knowledge chalk layers also contain dinosaurus fossils. How would you explain them?
To hear your actual arguments that chalk layers can't form in a catastrophic flood event would also be interesting, since also a global flood may involve instances of calmer areas and periods and perhaps also the mass death of the organism whose shells give the substance to those deposits.
Here is an article on the "chalk problems" from a YEC perspective:
http://www.answersin...v8/i1/chalk.asp

#90 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 May 2011 - 04:08 PM

More Primary Soft Tissue Preservation Discovered



The scientists have used synchrotron radiation-based infrared microspectroscopy at MAX-lab in Lund, southern Sweden, to show that amino acid containing matter remains in fibrous tissues obtained from a mosasaur bone.

Previously, other research teams have identified collagen-derived peptides in dinosaur fossils based on, for example, mass spectrometric analyses of whole bone extracts.

The present study provides compelling evidence to suggest that the biomolecules recovered are primary and not contaminants from recent bacterial biofilms or collagen-like proteins.

Moreover, the discovery demonstrates that the preservation of primary soft tissues and endogenous biomolecules is not limited to large-sized bones buried in fluvial sandstone environments, but also occurs in relatively small-sized skeletal elements deposited in marine sediments.

A paper reporting the discovery, 'Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins' is now available in the scientific journal PLoS ONE.




http://www.google.co...6KyMLTA&cad=rja


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=71994



Enjoy.

#91 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 May 2011 - 04:33 PM

Notice the omission of only 10 words “later Cretaceous chalks (still contemporaneous with the European development) are” that indicated that there are chalks in Arkansas. Mississippi and Alabama?


Smaller catastrophes after the flood are noted by creationists. The point was that no uniform formation can be found in earlier geological strata and certainly not on such a global scale. For instance: I find tons of flint laying around on Paleozoic strata here in AR, but I haven't seen any chalk. Although chalk is reported to be in this state, it is all dated to the upper cretaceous according to the fossils it contains. LOL

#92 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 08 May 2011 - 07:05 PM

The scientists have used synchrotron radiation-based infrared microspectroscopy at MAX-lab in Lund, southern Sweden, to show that amino acid containing matter remains in fibrous tissues obtained from a mosasaur bone.

Previously, other research teams have identified collagen-derived peptides in dinosaur fossils based on, for example, mass spectrometric analyses of whole bone extracts.

The present study provides compelling evidence to suggest that the biomolecules recovered are primary and not contaminants from recent bacterial biofilms or collagen-like proteins.

Moreover, the discovery demonstrates that the preservation of primary soft tissues and endogenous biomolecules is not limited to large-sized bones buried in fluvial sandstone environments, but also occurs in relatively small-sized skeletal elements deposited in marine sediments.

A paper reporting the discovery, 'Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins' is now available in the scientific journal PLoS ONE.


Hey Jason,
I'm sorry I don't have time to look it up, but I did a post here awhile back on half lives of peptide bonds. I had a link to paper with actual half lives calculated, based on lab research. They are only in the hundreds of years.

Knowing that the body is majority water, and at death it still contains the enzymes that accelrate hydrolysis, and of course the bacterial putrification that will produce open cellular material (which also is alot of water)--and that peptide bonds break through hydrolysis, and the acids brought forth in putrification--it is hard to believe much would be left after natural processes. But even if they do, these peptide bonds still have half lives.

Not only that, but it seems to me that after 70 million years, enough groundwater should have passed through, that everything should be mineralized. By the way, do you think a lab would store protein in liquid water for a year? Do you think they could sell it on the market? :)

#93 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 May 2011 - 07:17 PM

Hey Jason,
I'm sorry I don't have time to look it up, but I did a post here awhile back on half lives of peptide bonds. I had a link to paper with actual half lives calculated, based on lab research. They are only in the hundreds of years.

Knowing that the body is majority water, and at death it still contains the enzymes that accelrate hydrolysis, and of course the bacterial putrification that will produce open cellular material (which also is alot of water)--and that peptide bonds break through hydrolysis, and the acids brought forth in putrification--it is hard to believe much would be left after natural processes. But even if they do, these peptide bonds still have half lives.

Not only that, but it seems to me that after 70 million years, enough groundwater should have passed through, that everything should be mineralized. By the way, do you think a lab would store protein in liquid water for a year? Do you think they could sell it on the market? Posted Image

View Post


Great. I'd love to actually post the calculations.

Edit: Here are the degradation rates.

Amide Bond Cleavage: The Acceleration Due to a 1,3-Diaxial Interaction with a Carboxylic Acid

"At neutral pH and 25 ºC, the hydrolysis of an unactivated peptide bond has a half-life of roughly 500 years.2,3"

2. Smith RM, Hansen DE. J Am Chem Soc. 1998;120(35):8910–8913.
3. Radzicka A, Wolfenden R. J Am Chem Soc. 1996;118:6105–6109.



http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17221991

Rates of Uncatalyzed Peptide Bond Hydrolysis in Neutral Solution and the Transition State Affinities of Proteases

Abstract

To assess the relative proficiencies of enzymes that catalyze the hydrolysis of internal and C-terminal peptide bonds, the rates of the corresponding nonenzymatic reactions were examined at elevated temperatures in sealed quartz tubes, yielding linear Arrhenius plots. The results indicate that in neutral solution at 25 °C, peptide bonds are hydrolyzed with half-times of approximately 500 years for the C-terminal bond of acetylglycylglycine, 600 years for the internal peptide bond of acetylglycylglycine N-methylamide, and 350 years for the dipeptide glycylglycine. These reactions, insensitive to changing pH or ionic strength, appear to represent uncatalyzed attack by water on the peptide bond. Comparison of rate constants indicates very strong binding of the altered substrate in the transition states for the corresponding enzyme reactions....


http://pubs.acs.org/....1021/ja954077c





Thanks.

#94 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 May 2011 - 07:28 PM

The Magnetic Fields Of Uranus And Neptune Were Predicted In A Young Earth Model

Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted the magnetic fields of both Uranus and Neptune two years before evolutionists were stunned to find out by the Voyager spacecraft that they had one.

In my opinion, science doesn't get better than predicting a model well before it's confirmed and this is just another instance of creation never having to change theories to accommodate data.

The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields



Enjoy.

#95 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 May 2011 - 10:06 PM

I think I already pointed out elsewhere that the homogenity of layers and deposits is a problem for uniformitarianism (I'd would expect mixtures and heterogenity of substances over long periods of time). To that you replied that there are some instances where relatively homogenous layers have formed over longer periods of time and that this has been observed.
Now how do you think large chalk layers would have formed over long periods of time and then end up as huge chalk deposits like at the cliffs of dover?


From Answers Research Journal:

"Chalk, as a sedimentary rock, is not even mentioned in some books on the petrology of rocks, for example, Tucker (1981). Gallois and Edmunds (1965) explain the lack of a uniformitarian explanation for chalk thus":

"Modern precipitated oozes such as those forming in the Bahama Banks are composed almost entirely of minute aragonite crystals with a negligible proportion of coccolith material and relatively little shell debris (in contrast to) ordinary white chalk (which consists of) a course fraction of shell debris and foraminifera embedded in a fine matrix of coccoliths . . . and their disintegration products."

“Upper Cretaceous” Deposits are Part of the Noachian Flood - Answers Research Journal Vol.2 P29-51 June 2009


There is no uniformitairian process currently producing "almost" pure chalk as found in the cretaceous. It formed faster than aragonite could be deposited in it.

#96 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 May 2011 - 06:05 PM

Accelerated Nuclear Decay Is Evidence Of A Young Earth



Accelerated decay is in direct opposition to the main assumption of radiometric dating within the evolutionary scientific establishment which is that the radioactive decay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay within the evolutionary context is worthless.

A scientific research group called RATE ( Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth ) was formed by the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society to study this issue from a creationist perspective. They have determined that the most likely times for accelerated decay were the first 2.5 days of the creation week, and during the flood and shortly thereafter.


Evidence


If radioactive decay has been going on for millions and billions of years, there has been insufficient argon diffusion and insufficient lead diffusion, there is insufficient Helium in the air, and too much Helium in rocks.

Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE group indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay have taken place, but in one or more short periods 4000 - 8000 years ago. This would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years.

This was done by extracting hard, dense, microscopic crystals called zircons. Much of the uranium and thorium in the earth's continental crust is in zircons and it is often embedded in flakes of biotite; a black mica. Helium is made by the decay of uranium to lead; as a uranium atom decays, it emits eight alpha particles (helium nuclei) per atom. These helium nuclei quickly gather two electrons from the crystal and thus become complete helium atoms.

Los Alamos measurements of uranium, thorium, and lead showed "1.5 billion" years worth of nuclear decay at today's rates. After calculating how much helium had been deposited by decay, they then measured how much helium was still in the zircons. It turned out that up to 58% of the helium had not diffused out of the zircons; the percentages decreased with depth and temperature. At the time that the RATE group began its work, the diffusion rates had not been measured for the zircons and biotite. On the basis of the helium found in zircons, Dr. Russell Humphreys calculated the diffusion rates for both the Creation and the Uniformitarian models. He found that the diffusion rates for the two models differ by a factor of 100,000.

When the diffusion rates in zircons were measured, they matched the Creation model but were found to be totally incompatible with the Uniformitarian model. These results, along with the helium actually observed in zircons, show that diffusion has been occurring for 6000 ± 2000 years. These rates are about 250,000 times too high for the Uniformitarian model. This demonstrates that the observed decay of uranium cannot have taken 1.5 billion years.

http://creationwiki....celerated_decay



Experiments



Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory


Experimental demonstration of the actual existence of bb decay, however, did not occur until the 1990s. 163Dy, a stable nuclide under normal-Earth conditions, was found to decay to 163Ho, with t½ = 47 days, under the bare-nucleus conditions of the completely ionized state. More recently, bb decay has been experimentally demonstrated in the rhenium-osmium (187Re-187Os) system. (The Re-Os method is one of the isotopic ‘clocks’ used by uniformitarian geologists to supposedly date rocks.) The experiment involved the circulation of fully-ionized 187Re in a storage ring. The 187Re ions were found to decay to a measurable extent in only several hours, amounting to a half-life of only 33 years. This represents a staggering billion-fold increase over the conventional half-life, which is 42 Ga! (Ga = giga-annum = a billion (109) years).

http://www.answersin...cceleration.asp


Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids

F. Cardone, A. Carpinteri, G. Lacidogna
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009)

Abstract: Neutron emission measurements by means of helium-3 neutron detectors were performed on solid test specimens during crushing failure. The materials used were marble and granite, selected in that they present a different behaviour in compression failure (i.e., a different brittleness index) and a different iron content. All the test specimens were of the same size and shape. Neutron emissions from the granite test specimens were found to be of about one order of magnitude higher than the natural background level at the time of failure.



Speeding-up Thorium decay

F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci
(Submitted on 26 Oct 2007)

Abstract: We show that cavitation of a solution of thorium-228 in water induces its transformation at a rate 10000 times faster than the natural radioactive decay would do. This result agrees with the alteration of the secular equilibrium of thorium-234 obtained by a Russian team via explosion of titanium foils in water and solutions. These evidences further support some preliminary clues for the possibility of piezonuclear reactions (namely nuclear reactions induced by pressure waves) obtained in the last ten years.


Theory


A Mechanism for Accelerated Radioactive Decay

CRSQ Vol 7 No1 (pp3 - 9) June 2000


Abstract: Kaluza-Klein theory, originally proposed in 1921 to 1926, has been described as a miraculous synthesis of Einstein’s gravitation theory with Maxwell’s equations of electricity and magnetism. In an approach which anticipated modern string theory, Kaluza and Klein added a fifth dimension of space to the three familiar spatial dimensions and one time dimension. The extension of Einstein’s theory to this fifth dimension then led naturally to Maxwell’s equations. The theory also naturally leads to a relation between the constant G of Newton’s law of gravitation and the fine structure constant a = e2/hc. This relation depends on the circumference of the compactified fifth dimension, so that variation in this circumference over the history of the universe could be viewed as variation in physical constants, such as the fine structure constant. If, during early creation week, say before the creation of man, such variations were to occur, they could lead to accelerated nuclear decay, thus adjusting isotopic abundances, without giving humans an unacceptable dose of radiation.


http://http://www.go...1_icz8Q&cad=rja



Accelerated nuclear decay was predicted by creationists well before laboratory experiments verified it. It is clear that radiometric dating is meaningless and that high parent to daughter ratios is actually evidence of a young earth.



Enjoy.

#97 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 May 2011 - 08:16 PM

Sedimentation Experiments Are Evidence Of A Young Earth


There are several problems associated with a uniformitairian extrapolation of the geologic column. Most have already been covered in this thread (i.e. No Homogeneous mixtures, No erosion between layers, and the erosion rates themselves). Now I present experimental evidence to test the catastrophic hypothesis of the creationists model. IMO, without testing, a hypothesis can never be considered a scientific theory. So, lets cast out long held assumptions and actually test the hypothesis.

The Law of superposition has been an axiom of geology since it's proposal by Nicolas Steno. The assumption is logical, but what if it was tested and found not to be true in all circumstances?






Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures



This experiment has not only changed our understanding of sedimentation and geologic principles, but is a conformation of a young earth model directly testing the geologic column and the mechanisms that produced successive layers sorted by particle size and density (Sandstone is always found below dolomite or shale and limestone is always found above); that pattern repeats itself throughout the entire world "almost" always.


In his preamble, Hoskin states that our

    ‘experimentation is now recognised as a valuable and necessary contribution to our understanding of the petrology of sedimentary rocks and their structures.


Sedimentation experiments: is extrapolation appropriate? A reply

#98 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 May 2011 - 11:00 PM

Empirical Fossilization Rates Are Evidence Of A Young Earth



Completeness of the Fossil Record

by Kurt Wise
November 23, 2009


If the Bible’s account of the Flood is true (and it is), then creationists predict that we have a nearly complete record of all species that ever lived. Recent scientific findings support that prediction.

So far, scientists have named more than 1.3 million species of living animals, and they have named only about 250,000 in the fossil record. But how many other species existed in the past without leaving any fossil remains? Have we found only a small fraction of all the species that ever walked the earth, or do we have a fairly complete record of every species that ever existed?

Since we weren’t eyewitnesses of every species that ever lived and because the Bible doesn’t directly answer this question, we will never be certain of the complete answer. But God has given us some valuable clues in the Bible and in the fossil record.

It turns out that our best guesses depend on our beliefs about earth history. Depending on our starting assumptions, we can draw very different conclusions. Let’s look at three assumptions and what they would predict about the completeness of the fossil record:

# The rock layers were deposited separately over millions of years.
# Species evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years.
# The Bible’s account of creation about six thousand years ago, followed by a global Flood.



The Conventional Prediction: 2% of Species Preserved



The logic of those who hold the conventional “old age” view would predict that only a small percentage of species has been preserved in the fossil record. Below are the steps in their logic.

First, based on their interpretation of radioisotope dating of fossil-bearing rocks, they believe that animals have existed for the last 600 million “radiometric years.”

On average, individual animal species appear in only a few layers of the fossil record (covering about 30 million “radiometric years”), and then they disappear. So, according to this way of thinking, all the animal species on earth must have been completely replaced 20 times. (Divide 600 million years total by 30 million years per species group = 20 species groups).

This view would also expect that the number of species alive at any other time was, on average, much less than the 1.3 million alive today—probably around 650,000.

So by this old-age-based logic, the total number of animal species that have existed in all of earth history is roughly 13 million (650,000 x 20).4 That means only 10% of the species ever to appear on earth still have a living representative, and around 90% are extinct.

Since we have named only about 250,000 fossil species, this line of reasoning predicts that the fossil record has preserved less than 2% of all the species that have ever lived. Different assumptions yield different results, but all estimates agree that if the earth is millions of years old, very, very few of the species of the past have been preserved as fossils.



The Evolutionary Prediction



The evolutionary view leads to similar expectations but for a different reason. This view expects that a vast number of species must have formed in the past to arrive at the variety of species we see today.

Charles Darwin himself recognized that the fossil record did not contain anything like the myriad of transitional species expected in his theory. He suggested that the rarity of transitional species was because the fossil record was poor—that it preserved at the very most only a few percent of the species that lived in the past.



The Biblical Prediction: Nearly 100% of Species Preserved



A biblical perspective leads to quite different expectations. Since God ended His creation at the end of the Creation Week, we would conclude that no new animal kinds have arisen since then. On the contrary, the fact that most living species can interbreed with most other species in the same family suggests that they belong to the same biblical “kind.” Based on what we observe today, however, new species can arise within the original kinds.

The question is: when did new species arise and how many? To find the answer, we have to consider three periods of history: Creation Week, the period leading up to the Flood, and the post-Flood.



Which Prediction Is Supported by Scientific Data?



So, do we have any way to test these two predictions? Has the fossil record preserved most of the species of the past, as expected by young-age creationists, or has the fossil record preserved a very small percentage of past species, as expected by those who believe the earth is old?

One way to determine how good the fossil record is at preserving species is simply to count how many living species are also known as fossils, regardless of whether the fossils were made before, during, or after the Flood. At least two studies have done that. In one study Björn Kurtén determined that 88% of the mammal species living in Europe today are also present in the fossil record in Europe, and 99% are present in the fossil record somewhere on earth.

In another study, James W. Valentine, in his PhD dissertation, found that 76.8% of the marine mollusk species currently living along the southern California and Baja California coast are also found in the fossil record.

These studies suggest that the fossil record is good at preserving past species—much closer to the expectations of young-age creationists than the expectations of those who believe that the earth is old.

We can consider the first two periods together because almost all pre-Flood species—whether they appeared during Creation Week or some time afterward—would still be represented at the time of the Flood. (We don’t have much reason to expect that many species went extinct before the Flood.

Since Flood conditions were probably excellent for preserving fossils, a creationist might then expect that nearly all animal species that ever existed before the Flood were preserved as fossils in the Flood.

Yet of the land animals, only representatives of each kind were taken onto the Ark. The catastrophic nature of the Flood would have extinguished all the other species within each “kind” and probably most water-dwelling species as well. This would mean that a vast percentage of the animal species living today actually arose following the Flood.

In other words, there has been only one replacement of animal species in earth history, not twenty. Based on the ash and other materials found with post-Flood fossils, many creation scientists believe that supervolcanoes and other catastrophes in the tumultuous centuries immediately following the Flood preserved a good percentage of all the species that ever arose after the Flood.

So creationists, using this line of reasoning, expect that we have a nearly complete record of all species that ever lived, whether preserved as fossils or still breathing today. Link


References


# B. Kurtén, Pleistocene Mammals of Europe (Chicago: Aldine, 1968).

# J. W. Valentine, “How Good Was the Fossil Record? Clues from the California Pleistocene,” Paleobiology 15 no. 2 (1989): 83–94.



Enjoy.

#99 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 13 May 2011 - 02:44 AM

I think I already pointed out elsewhere that the homogenity of layers and deposits is a problem for uniformitarianism (I'd would expect mixtures and heterogenity of substances over long periods of time). To that you replied that there are some instances where relatively homogenous layers have formed over longer periods of time and that this has been observed. 


In general I don’t think that the stratigraphic record is typified by homogenous layers. Heterogeneity is the more common situation. In my last post I included a statement from Dr. Ager about how pure chalks are far from being a typical case. But uniformitarianism as held today can account for both homogenous and heterogeneous sediment deposits quite easily. For that matter Charles Lyell would have no problem accounting for both. We see modern envirnoments where the deposition of sediment fits into both of these types.

Dr. Ager said:

Now this spread of a uniform facies is remarkable enough, but it must also be remembered that chalk is a very unusual sediment: an extremely pure coccolith limestone which is almost unique in the stratigraphic column.


However, such pure chalks or limestones have formed over long periods of time as indicated by the fossil content, and sedimentary processes allowing for the deposition of homogenous sediments has been observed. But often chalk is not pure or homogenous. The flints that have been mentioned show this, as do hard-grounds and the presence of some chalk pebble conglomerates. Look at all the variation in the photomicrographs of the lithologies found in the Greenhorn Limestone found in Kansas:

Kansas Chalk

But perhaps it is a definition of uniformitarianism that is causing this problem for you. Dr. Ager writes:

'Methodological uniformitarianism', as it is sometimes called, makes the simple assumption (as in other sciences) of the invariance of natural laws. 'Substantive uniformitarianism' on the other hand (towards which Lyell also inclined) presumes uniform rates or conditions. It is this second concept which has caused all the trouble, certainly (for example) in view of what we now know about the very different world of early Precambian times. But what chiefly concerns me here is simply the amount of time needed for what we know to have happened in the geological past if we can only postulate 'normal processes'.  Thus that other great uniformitarian of the last century-Charles Darwin-estimated vastly longer periods than are accepted today. For example, he postulated 300 million years since the Cretaceous to allow for the scooping out of the Wealden anticline in south-east England. The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, page 44.


Now how do you think large chalk layers would have formed over long periods of time and then end up as huge chalk deposits like at the cliffs of dover?


A maintaining of relatively constant conditions in terms of the paleoenvironment, consisting of warm and calm seas, for a relatively long period of time allowed for the accumulation of relatively thick chalk deposits. The existence of cliffs is due to erosion, with them forming on emergent coastlines. This results in those deposit now being above mean sea level.

I note that according to you chalk layer formation "would require calm conditions" and I suppose that also has to apply over a long period of time. Is there no possibility that chalk layers may have accumulated rapidly via some geologic process like sorting for the materials involved? 


I don’t see how a “pure” chalk, which seems to be the variety being discussed by those who quote-mine Dr. Ager, could accumulate rapidly. If they resulted from a sorting process, I think particles of similar size and density would be found with the coccolith particles. But to do this rapidly would require the coccoliths to already exist and be available for transport and sorting. The production of the volumes of coccoliths necessary to form a thick chalk takes a long time and most certainly vastly longer than a year.

To my knowledge chalk layers also contain dinosaurus fossils. How would you explain them?


I don’t think they are very common and I’ll bet that they are found disarticulated. I would explain them like in a similar fashion to what R.C. Selley states about fossils in Ancient Sedimentary Environments on page 17.

To use fossils to identify the depositional environment of the host sediment two assumptions must be made:

(1) That the fossil lived in the place where it was buried.
(2) That the habitat of the fossil can be deduced either from its morphology or from studying its living descendants (if there are any).

These are two very real problems which must always be kept in mind when using fossils as environmental indicators. It is not always eay to be sure that a creature lived in or on the sediment in which it was buried. Many fossils are preserved in a particular environment not because they lived in it but because they found their way into it and it was so hostile that it killed them. Think of all the dorened cats washed out to sea by the River Thames.


To hear your actual arguments that chalk layers can't form in a catastrophic flood event would also be interesting, since also a global flood may involve instances of calmer areas and periods and perhaps also the mass death of the organism whose shells give the substance to those deposits. 


What was the intent in quoting Ager about the widespread nature of chalk? Was it to imply localized areas that were calmer? I don’t think so. The deposition of the fine-grained material in the chalk is inconsistent with much current action. Stokes Law would indicate that it would stay in suspension. Not only does this not allow it to start building up in layers, keeping such material in suspension would facilitate its dissolution back into the water. You would have to postulate an huge number of mass deaths to accumulate chalk that is tens of meters in thickness. That in itself would take a lot of time, much, much, more than within a single year.

Here is an article on the "chalk problems" from a YEC perspective:
http://www.answersin...v8/i1/chalk.asp


In the reference you linked:

Since, for example, in southern England there are three main chalk beds stacked on top of one another, then this scenario of three successive, explosive, massive blooms coincides with the rock record. Given that the turnover rate for coccoliths is up to two days,28 then these chalk beds could thus have been produced in as little as six days, totally conceivable within the time framework of the flood. What is certain, is that the right set of conditions necessary for such blooms to occur had to have coincided in full measure to have explosively generated such enormous blooms, but the evidence that it did happen is there for all to plainly see in these chalk beds in the geological record. Indeed, the purity of these thick chalk beds worldwide also testifies to their catastrophic deposition from enormous explosively generated blooms, since during protracted deposition over supposed millions of years it is straining credulity to expect that such purity would be maintained without contaminating events depositing other types of sediments. There are variations in consistency (see Appendix) but not purity. The only additional material in the chalk is fossils of macroscopic organisms such as ammonites and other molluscs, whose fossilisation also requires rapid burial because of their size (see Appendix).


Here is an interesting rebuttal to this kind of thinking. He takes quite a while to get to the point, but he basically tells how the “enormous bloom” argument isn’t credible.

Suicide Blooms

After making a totally counter-intuitive case for the purity of chalk testifying to catastrophic deposition, how does a YEC then approach the many argillaceous limestones (including chalks) that are not even close to being pure? If this purity is evidence of flood geology, is the lack of purity also evidence of such. Look at flood deposits created in modern flooding events and see the mix of sediment.

That article first points out creationist explanations which make although making assumptions stretching credibility, would still require many hundreds of thousands of years to deposit the chalk in the cliffs at Dover. Then in a huge act of arm-waving backed by absolutely no evidence the claim is made that it could have been deposited within part of the year period in which "the flood" occcured.

#100 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 May 2011 - 01:47 PM

However, such pure chalks or limestones have formed over long periods of time as indicated by the fossil content, and sedimentary processes allowing for the deposition of homogenous sediments has been observed. But often chalk is not pure or homogenous. The flints that have been mentioned show this, as do hard-grounds and the presence of some chalk pebble conglomerates. Look at all the variation in the photomicrographs of the lithologies found in the Greenhorn Limestone found in Kansas:


1) What age is it?

2) How thick is it?

3) How wide is it's distribution?

4) How pure is it?

Then, I'm sure we'll see why Ager or nobody else has a real need to find an explanation.

After making a totally counter-intuitive case for the purity of chalk testifying to catastrophic deposition, how does a YEC then approach the many argillaceous limestones (including chalks) that are not even close to being pure? If this purity is evidence of flood geology, is the lack of purity also evidence of such.


Once again, your likely looking at a small local area of low flow or post flood deposition. All of the major flood limestones that i know of are hundreds of feet thick, heterogeneous, and sometimes leave behind mass kills of entire populations of organisms.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=70759


Then in a huge act of arm-waving backed by absolutely no evidence the claim is made that it could have been deposited within part of the year period in which "the flood" occcured.


Where is there any evidence that the cliffs of Dover are between flood layers? The chalk extends all the way to the surface.


Posted Image


In your uniformitairian model, where is pure chalk being formed today under normal rates that cover the area of three continents?


Here is an interesting rebuttal to this kind of thinking. He takes quite a while to get to the point, but he basically tells how the “enormous bloom” argument isn’t credible.



The models proposed are based on solid mathematical numbers. I doubt that this scoffer is doing anything, but trying to recruit scoffers.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users