Jump to content


Photo

Geology Problems For Young Earth Creationists?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
299 replies to this topic

#241 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 August 2009 - 08:48 AM

I found this link:

http://www.discoveri.../peacehaven.htm

The place is a fossil hunters paradise. Those giant ammonites are really cool.

#242 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 August 2009 - 09:44 AM

Rex,

You're asking all these questions as if you think you have the perfect answer. You and I both know that either of our conjecture would be speculative. You think you have the added benefit of winning the popularity contest but I'll take honesty over popularity any day. We don't know how those cliffs formed and neither do you.


I'm asking questions because that's how we figure out what theory works best; whichever one can explain the most stuff wins. Were you expecting that no one would ask questions about how YE geology explains things in a thread titled "Geology Problems for Young Earth Creationists"?

Doesn't it perplex you one bit to look at something unusual like the shift from the Hermit Shale to Coconino Sandstone:

Posted Image

What kind of anecdote can you supply for us, and then declare science has so proven, by a show of hands?

View Post


For starters, the Coconino Sandstone is not your friend. It bears all the hallmarks of having been laid down in a desert environment including reptile and scorpion tracks, sand particles that show evidence of wind weathering (something you expect to find in deserts and not so much in floods), a complete dirth of marine fossils, and crossbedding entirely consistent with wind blown sand dunes.

Posted Image
http://3dparks.wr.us...on/coconino.htm

The photo you provided is pretty zoomed out so it's hard to make out too much detail, but I don't see anything earth shatteringly controversial there. The cracks you mentioned are most likely dessication cracks in the Hermit formation, sand from the desert environment which followed filled up the cracks. What's the problem?

Coconino Sandstone (Lower Permian)—Tan to white, cliff-forming, fine-grained, wellsorted, cross-bedded quartz sandstone. Contains large-scale, high-angle, planar cross-bedded sandstone sets that average about 35 ft (11 m) thick. Locally includes poorly preserved fossil tracks and low-relief wind ripple marks on crossbedded planar sandstone surfaces. Lower 5–20 ft (2–6 m) is intertongued, thinbedded, partly calcareous, flat-bedded sandstone of Seligman Member of Toroweap Formation. Unconformable contact with underlying Hermit Formation is sharp planar, with relief generally less than 3 ft (1 m) but locally as much as 8 ft (2.5 m). Desiccation cracks in the Hermit, as much as 2 ft (0.05 m) wide and 12 ft (4 m) deep, are filled with tan sandstone of the Toroweap or Coconino, mainly in eastern third of map area.
http://3dparks.wr.us...on/coconino.htm


How would a global flood explain this same formation? If all these layers were water-saturated sediment during the flood how did such cracks form and why were they filled with sand from the overlying layer?

#243 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 August 2009 - 10:14 AM

Hi Instructorous,

You say it is basically a result of sedimentation of plankton.  Why then is it so pure?  Why is there nothing else in these cliffs?  This would have had to have laboratory conditions for supposed eons to produce.


Not at all, we find other things in the cliffs all the time (as Adam's subsequent posts show), all of which are consistent with a calm marine environment. Notice what we don't find?

It is a 300 meter cliff--true. You are using the of the grandeur as an argument.


Well. . .the grandeur is a product of a massive amount of raw materials that would have needed to be present to build the chalk. Additionally, with nothing on top of the chalk I'm interested to know how YE geology posits all this raw material turned into sedimentary rock.

The earth is much much larger and complex--yet modern scientists would say it "collapsed" together by gravitation from a nebula, to give us banding of common elements and compounds, the plates--all in perfect rotation and orbit.  Which sounds more impossible?

View Post


What are my options? Am I supposed to be choosing between the likelihood of the earth's formation due to gravity vs. the formation of the Chalk Group over long period of time?

#244 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 22 August 2009 - 09:12 PM

Not at all, we find other things in the cliffs all the time (as Adam's subsequent posts show), all of which are consistent with a calm marine environment.  Notice what we don't find?

View Post

1) Percentage wise they are very pure--very little silicate or mud mixed in.

2)Fossils are a result of rapid burial. I saw your picture of a well preserved crab. This did not occur by laying on the bottom and waiting years for sedimentation to cover it, as the uniformintarian animations on the discovery channel show. Catastrophe is a much more realistic explanation for many fossils.

3)In either model you're going to have to have an area where there are continuous resources in order for the plankton to be attracted to the area. In your scenario it is for billions of years. But according to uni geologists plate tectonics have moved the earth so much the environment would have changed many times.

Well. . .the grandeur is a product of a massive amount of raw materials that would have needed to be present to build the chalk.  Additionally, with nothing on top of the chalk I'm interested to know how YE geology posits all this raw material turned into sedimentary rock.

View Post


Plankton eat bacteria, other plankton and detritus--which is non-living organic material. Is there anyway to measure how many dead things there were in the flood--the entire animal (except water dwellers), plant and human population wiped out? Sounds like a feeding frenzy to me.

According to my past reading there are three main layers and they are very thick. So in your model there is inactivity between layers. The plankton left and returned. Why would they keep coming back to the same place (where their dead ancestors were) when the earth kept changing?

What are my options?  Am I supposed to be choosing between the likelihood of the earth's formation due to gravity vs. the formation of the Chalk Group over  long period of time?

View Post


You have already chosen evolution and it's model. My point is that you are "marveling" over the fact that a cliff can be made comparatively fast because of it's size. And yet you do not "marvel"over the organization and order of the earth by the proper elements banding together and separating themselves to become a functional planet.

#245 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 August 2009 - 07:49 PM

2)Fossils are a result of rapid burial.  I saw your picture of a well preserved crab.  This did not occur by laying on the bottom and waiting years for sedimentation to cover it, as the uniformintarian animations on the discovery channel show.  Catastrophe is a much more realistic explanation for many fossils.


Catastrophic rapid burial is one way to preserve organic remains for potential fossilization, so is deposition in an anoxic environment. . .like at the bottom of a deep, stable body of water. Interestingly enough the kinds of fossils found in the Chalk Group changes corresponding with it's age.

3)In either model you're going to have to have an area where there are continuous resources in order for the plankton to be attracted to the area. In your scenario it is for billions of years.  But according to uni geologists plate tectonics have moved the earth so much the environment would have changed many times.


The Chalk Group was formed in about 35 million years, which is a far cry from "billions of years". I don't see how plate tectonics would prevent this or is inconsistent with the data.

Plankton eat bacteria, other plankton and detritus--which is non-living organic material.  Is there anyway to measure how many dead things there were in the flood--the entire animal (except water dwellers), plant and human population wiped out? Sounds like a feeding frenzy to me. 


While this is true of some plankton, the chalk we are talking about is primarily composed from the remains of Coccolithophores, which are phytoplankton.

Posted Image

The "phtyo" there refers to the fact that Coccolithophores are photosynthetic. Since these critters rely on sunlight proposing that enough of them lived in a small area to provide the raw materials for a 300 meter cliff of chalk over the course of a single year proves exceedingly problematic. Only a tiny portion of them would have actually been able to get any sunlight and would have blocked light from reaching their trillion-fold brethren down below. Just how are phytoplankton supposed to thrive without sunlight?

According to my past reading there are three main layers and they are very thick.  So in your model there is inactivity between layers.  The plankton left and returned. Why would they keep coming back to the same place (where their dead ancestors were) when the earth kept changing?


I'm not sure I'm quite getting what you're trying to say, I'll come back to this later.

You have already chosen evolution and it's model. 


Uh. . .we're talking about geology, not evolution. Long ages had been proposed to explain the geological column long before Darwin was even born.

My point is that you are "marveling" over the fact that a cliff can be made comparatively fast because of it's size.  And yet you do not "marvel"over the organization and order of the earth by the proper elements banding together and separating themselves to become a functional planet.

View Post


The key difference is that the current theory of the solar systems' formation has a way to account for the accumulation of raw materials and a mechanism for the gradual amalgamation of those raw materials into celestial bodies (gravity), whilst the YE geology model has no way to explain the accumulation of raw materials within the given time frame (<1 year), and no mechanism to transform this raw material into chalk.

#246 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 August 2009 - 03:11 AM

Since these critters rely on sunlight proposing that enough of them lived in a small area to provide the raw materials for a 300 meter cliff of chalk over the course of a single year proves exceedingly problematic.

View Post

Where you see small area we see transport.

#247 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 24 August 2009 - 07:33 AM

Here's probably the most promising overall description I've found so far. Have to decipher the evospeak, of course.

http://www.chalk.dis...Chalk Group.htm

#248 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2009 - 05:29 AM

Where you see small area we see transport.

View Post


Transport brings with it it's own problematic questions such as how does YE geology using the mechanism of a global flood, explain the transport of only things that should live in a relatively calm marine environment to this one spot? Why aren't there other things mixed in there like, oh I don't know, pollen? Seems like pollen grains would be of comparable size to phytoplankton and should drift to the seafloor with them. How did only phytoplankton and marine creatures that live on the bottom of oceans get transported to this one spot?

Additionally, transport of enough marine creatures to build chalk formations of this size does not address the mechanism for transforming that raw material into chalk.

#249 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 August 2009 - 06:08 AM

Rex,

I don't think you get it. You give us a general description of how old earth geology would form those cliff while ignoring major hurdles and issues, in an effort to just stick with the status quo.

I'm not saying we have all the answers but there are several obvious problems that are solved through understood and demonstrable principles of rapid sedimentation. Does that mean we can recreate and confirm how large quantities of phytoplankton and some flint get isolated to pull this off? Well, we can speculate and draw conjecture but we'll never do a scale test and neither will you.

Why don't you tell us something? If that sediment accumulated over millions of years and is normal, why don't we find those cliffs everywhere rather than isolated? Why would flint be the main sediment for a season and then turned off to make chalk the main sediment for thousands and thousands of years? How did these layers get so consistent?

CHALK.jpg

I can show you a process that confirms the pattern and the mechanics behind it...



...but doing a scale test would take some serious cash.


Edited by Bonedigger, 14 December 2013 - 02:00 PM.
Fixed Youtube embed


#250 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2009 - 08:29 AM

I'm not saying we have all the answers but there are several obvious problems that are solved through understood and demonstrable principles of rapid sedimentation.


Really? What are they? As far as I can see modeling these formations as having been deposited in a matter of months during a global flood does nothing but raise problems instead of solving them. I certainly haven't seen anything demonstrated here showing that YE geology explains these formations better or more consistently than standard geology.

Does that mean we can recreate and confirm how large quantities of phytoplankton and some flint get isolated to pull this off? Well, we can speculate and draw conjecture but we'll never do a scale test and neither will you.


I'm certainly not expecting you to pull off a scale test. . .but at the same time you should have at least some idea about how this happened if you expect it to be taken seriously. What is it about this argument that should convince skeptics? If nothing can be brought to the table we shouldn't be at all surprised that it is rejected by geologists.

Why don't you tell us something? If that sediment accumulated over millions of years and is normal, why don't we find those cliffs everywhere rather than isolated?


Because formations like this only occur under certain conditions which are not present everywhere at the same time. The nature of the strata and the fossils in the area all confirm that these conditions existed at the time the chalk group was formed. If we were finding mostly land-animals and plants mixed in with the chalk there's no way the standard geology model could defend it's conclusions, but the facts of the matter are that the fossil record contained within the chalk is associated with a relatively calm marine environment spanning long periods of time.

Why would flint be the main sediment for a season and then turned off to make chalk the main sediment for thousands and thousands of years?


The flint horizons in the chalk group is formed from silica (remains of sponges and siliceous plankton) and indicate a temporary change in the conditions of the area.

How did these layers get so consistent?

Posted Image


There are significant variations in the layering of the chalk group, all of which are described and explained on the same page that image comes from.
http://www.chalk.dis.....nodular flint

Can YE geology answer these same questions with more explanatory power?

#251 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 25 August 2009 - 07:03 PM

Really?  What are they?  As far as I can see modeling these formations as having been deposited in a matter of months during a global flood does nothing but raise problems instead of solving them.  I certainly haven't seen anything demonstrated here showing that YE geology explains these formations better or more consistently than standard geology.

View Post

But standard geology has no example of the concentration of this chalk now. Oozes contain only a 30% concentration of shells.

How does standard geology explain the continual concentration over millions of years. Calcium from the shells is all over the ocean. Something enabled these plankton to proliferate more than in other areas for alleged "MILLIONS" of years (sorry I did not check the uni age before).

By the way I know the difference between evolution and uniformintarianism. By one of your comments you seemed to imply I didn't. Do you know any evo's that are not uniform's?


I'm certainly not expecting you to pull off a scale test. . .but at the same time you should have at least some idea about how this happened if you expect it to be taken seriously.  What is it about this argument that should convince skeptics?  If nothing can be brought to the table we shouldn't be at all surprised that it is rejected by geologists.

View Post


Actually there is a yec model, and many do take it seriously. You will not always be able to wave us away, especially as more evidence and research comes in. One model is a bloom model. Blooms take place now.

"The situation has been known where pollution in coastal areas has contributed to the explosive multiplication of microorganisms in the ocean waters to peak concentrations of more than 10 billion per litre.26 Woodmorappe has calculated that in chalk there could be as many as 3 x 1013 coccoliths per cubic metre if densely packed (which usually isn’t the case), yet in the known bloom just mentioned, 10 billion microorganisms per litre of ocean water equates to 1013 microorganisms per cubic metre." Andrew Snelling Ph.D Geology

Because formations like this only occur under certain conditions which are not present everywhere at the same time.  The nature of the strata and the fossils in the area all confirm that these conditions existed at the time the chalk group was formed.  If we were finding  mostly land-animals and plants mixed in with the chalk there's no way the standard geology model could defend it's conclusions, but the facts of the matter are that the fossil record contained within the chalk is associated with a relatively calm marine environment spanning long periods of time.

View Post


Instructorous, the bottom line is that there had to be a greater abundance of resources in this area. The plankton are the world over. Something kept them in this spot and they STAYED there, no matter how much time it took.

You keep talking about calm conditions. After the flood there would have been areas of calm, depending on the geography.

Can YE geology answer these same questions with more explanatory power?

View Post

Let me leave you with this in response to your objection in another post about lack of sunlight in a bloom.

"Lest it be argued that a concentration of 1013 microorganisms per cubic metre would extinguish all light within a few metres of the surface, it should be noted that phytoflagellates such as these are able to feed on bacteria, that is, planktonic species are capable of heterotrophism (they are ‘mixotrophic’).27 Such bacteria would have been in abundance, breaking down the masses of floating and submerged organic debris (dead fish, plants, animals, etc.) generated by the flood. Thus production of coccolithophores and foraminifera is not dependent on sunlight, the supply of organic material potentially supporting a dense concentration." Andrew Snelling Ph.D Geology

#252 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 August 2009 - 05:26 AM

How does standard geology explain the continual concentration over millions of years.  Calcium from the shells is all over the ocean.  Something enabled these plankton to proliferate more than in other areas for alleged "MILLIONS" of years (sorry I did not check the uni age before). 


That "something" was generally calm conditions and sunlight over long periods of time. That's pretty much what the standard explanation requires.

By the way I know the difference between evolution and uniformintarianism.  By one of your comments you seemed to imply I didn't.  Do you know any evo's that are not uniform's?


One of my comments implied that we are talking about geology and not evolution.

Actually there is a yec model, and many do take it seriously.  You will not always be able to wave us away, especially as more evidence and research comes in.  One model is a bloom model.  Blooms take place now. 

"The situation has been known where pollution in coastal areas has contributed to the explosive multiplication of microorganisms in the ocean waters to peak concentrations of more than 10 billion per litre.26 Woodmorappe has calculated that in chalk there could be as many as 3 x 1013 coccoliths per cubic metre if densely packed (which usually isn’t the case), yet in the known bloom just mentioned, 10 billion microorganisms per litre of ocean water equates to 1013 microorganisms per cubic metre." Andrew Snelling Ph.D Geology

"Lest it be argued that a concentration of 1013 microorganisms per cubic metre would extinguish all light within a few metres of the surface, it should be noted that phytoflagellates such as these are able to feed on bacteria, that is, planktonic species are capable of heterotrophism (they are ‘mixotrophic’).27 Such bacteria would have been in abundance, breaking down the masses of floating and submerged organic debris (dead fish, plants, animals, etc.) generated by the flood. Thus production of coccolithophores and foraminifera is not dependent on sunlight, the supply of organic material potentially supporting a dense concentration." Andrew Snelling  Ph.D Geology

View Post

http://www.answersin...v8/i1/chalk.asp


So let's say I go ahead and grant every single thing Snelling claims (I don't, by the way, but there's no need to go into tedious detail just yet). . .what kind of time frame does his phytoplankton-on-marine-steroids model give us for the formation of the Chalk Group? I'm getting around 75 years. These are supposed to be flood formations occurring very very late in the flood after deposition of other sediments have stopped. That gives you what, a couple of months? There's no need to bother going into some of the problems with Snelling's rates of phytoplankton generation because even his rates don't get you to where you need to be.

There's also the problem of having an area of calm in a world that's completely flooded. Not only do you need all those phytoplankton to bloom and die, you need them to drift to the sea floor. In that same article Snelling notes that,

It has been estimated that a large 150 micron (0.15mm or 0.006 inch) wide shell of a foraminifer may take as long as 10 days to sink to the bottom of the ocean, whereas smaller ones would probably take much longer. At the same time, many such shells may dissolve before they even reach the ocean floor.


You only have a few months to work with here, and the above estimate was given for water that's moving at a mere 1.5 centimeters per second. What flood model gives us calm areas like this? The models I am aware of that look at water currents during the flood such as Baumgardner and Barnette's Patterns of Ocean Circulation Over the Continents During Noah's Flood show just the opposite effect taking place:

Numerical solution of the shallow water equations on a rotating sphere with parameters appropriate to the earth and flooded continental topography yields closed patterns of flow with velocities of 40 to 80 m/s and length scales typically 2500-5000 km above the flooded continental regions. Such currents would be expected to arise in the context of a global Flood as described in Scripture when "all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered" with water (Gen. 7:19).


Forget about even trying to explain how their remains would manage to drift to the sea floor in currents moving at 40 to 80 meters per second, now you've got to figure out how to explain algal blooms in fast moving water which is something that doesn't actually happen. The instances of blooms mentioned by Snelling occur in nice peaceful waters, not strong flowing currents.

Doing away with these strong currents only raises more problems because they are necessary to explain other features of the geological column.

The ability of such currents, combined with cavitation, to erode huge volumes of rock and also to transport the resulting sediment and distribute it over extensive areas in a short span of time not only helps to satisfy the Biblical time constraints for the Flood but also appears to be able, in a general sense, to account for the continent-scale extent of many Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary formations as well as evidence in many of these rocks for high energy water transport


Without strong currents we can't explain the massive amounts of observable erosion and sediment transport but with strong currents we can't explain chalk formations over a thousand feet thick.

Further problems for YE geology to overcome here is to provide a mechanism for turning all this raw material into chalk after the flood had stopped laying down sediments, as well as to explain clear evidence of prolonged activity within the chalk layers themselves like fossilized remains of pretty much only marine organisms and worm burrows, which show that they were, in fact, marine environments for a really long time.

#253 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 27 August 2009 - 04:29 PM

Further problems for YE geology to overcome here is to provide a mechanism for turning all this raw material into chalk after the flood had stopped laying down sediments, as well as to explain clear evidence of prolonged activity within the chalk layers themselves like fossilized remains of pretty much only marine organisms and worm burrows, which show that they were, in fact, marine environments for a really long time.

View Post



Just going to give a short answer since there seems to be a standoff here. I'm just going to say that no one knows the exact timing of every marine condition on earth after the flood and as the water diminished. No one knows at what point (except it would have been after the flood) this happened or how long a duration it lasted.

The obvious variable is more dead things than have ever been. All one would need is some stagnation within a separated salt lake and you have a mega multitude of bacteria and blooming plankton. Why do you insist it only had a few months. It could have been that way for years--maybe a decade --or more. It would be hard to research since we have no present example.

I just remember how surprised scientists were when grass started to grow out of the ash of Mt. St. Helens, and how they were surprised when rats heads began to change shape showing speciation in less than a hundred years. They are always surprised when things happen alot faster "than originally thought."

You must not have understood my point when I said plankton shells are dispersed all over the ocean floor--UNCONCENTRATED. Why are these cliffs suddenly different? It's supposed to be "uniform."

You have no mechanism either---for the same reason we have none. WE WEREN'T THERE. It is historical science so speculation will certainly enter in.

So how could a millions-of-years model offer an explanation of such concentration in contrast to the rest of the diluted oozes in the rest of the ocean?

A bloom which would have had unparalleled resources over a shorter time makes more sense than chalk being so concentrated with only a very low percentage of other sediments occurring over millions of years. There should be much more silicate and mud mixed in with the uni model.

#254 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 August 2009 - 06:11 PM

Just going to give a short answer since there seems to be a standoff here.  I'm just going to say that no one knows the exact timing of every marine condition on earth after the flood and as the water diminished.  No one knows at what point (except it would have been after the flood) this happened or how long a duration  it lasted.


So. . .basically the flood was a supernatural event with unpredictable results, therefore all problems that YE geology can neither accurately predict or explain are thus explained?

The obvious variable is more dead things than have ever been.  All one would need is some stagnation within a separated salt lake and you have a mega multitude of bacteria and blooming plankton.  Why do you insist it only had a few months.  It could have been that way for years--maybe a decade --or more.  It would be hard to research since we have no present example.


Certainly it wouldn't be that hard. I have a hard time swallowing that the UK was a post-flood lake given it's relative geography. Additionally, if the chalk formations did result from a low lying lake we should have, at best, some dirty limestone. . .not chalk. A lake should have runoff dumping sediment into it that will settle to the lake bed below, a lake will have terrestrial remains dumped into it periodically mixing with marine fossils, and a lake will not display the same kind of fossils that an ocean environment will display. Additionally, this chalk was a lake formation reduces the amount of time you have to transform the raw materials into chalk. . .which is still something I'm interesting in seeing done.

You must not have understood my point when I said plankton shells are dispersed all over the ocean floor--UNCONCENTRATED.  Why are these cliffs suddenly different? It's supposed to be "uniform." 


Are you saying that we have no place on earth where plankton shells are known to be accumulating? What a strange thing to say. . .perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

You have no mechanism either---for the same reason we have none.  WE WEREN'T THERE.  It is historical science so speculation will certainly enter in.


Actually I do. When calcium carbonate ions meet each other in solutions like sea water they clump together into nice stable clusters of around 70 calcium and carbonate ions. This crystallized calcium carbonate is the raw material from which chalk forms. As successive layers of this raw material is produced previous layers are piled up, the weight of the above layers eventually begins to compress the layers below squeezing out the water and cementing these clusters into sedimentary rock: chalk. You can actually see limestone being produced not too far from where I live in off the coast of Florida.

Today Earth has many limestone-forming environments. Most of them are found in shallow water areas between 30 degrees north latitude and 30 degrees south latitude. Limestone is forming in the Caribbean Sea, Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Mexico, around Pacific Ocean islands and within the Indonesian archipelago.

One of these areas is the Bahamas Platform, located in the Atlantic Ocean about 100 miles southeast of southern Florida (see satellite image at right). There abundant corals, shellfish, algae and other organisms produce vast amounts of calcium carbonate skeletal debris that completely blankets the platform. This is producing an extensive limestone deposit.

Posted Image
http://geology.com/r...limestone.shtml


So, here we have two models. Mine explains the consistent radiometric dates, the fossil distributions including the absence of non-marine organisms and the presence of things like worm burrows, the formations relation to the surround strata, the mechanism by which the raw materials were accumulated (which matches up with the radiometric dates & modern day observations), and has a plausible mechanism whereby that raw material has been turned into sedimentary rock. Can YE geology provide a workable model that explains these same observations? If so what would that be? If not why are we surprised that mainstream geologists rejects YE geology?

So how could a millions-of-years model offer an explanation of such concentration in contrast to the rest of the diluted oozes in the rest of the ocean?


Most limestones form in shallow marine environments close to land, runoff from erosion will wash things like clay and other sediments to the sea floor. However, during the Cretaceous, when the chalk group was being formed, all of the UK except for parts of Scotland were underwater (think "interglacial period") so there wasn't any land nearby to wash junk into the ocean. Again, this model is consistent with the wider areas fossil record, radiometric dates, and composition.

A bloom which would have had unparalleled resources over a shorter time makes more sense than chalk being so concentrated with only a very low percentage of other sediments occurring over millions of years.  There should be much more silicate and mud mixed in with the uni model.

View Post


So. . .there should be a lot of junk mixed in if the chalk formed over long periods of time in a calm ocean but there shouldn't be anything at all mixed in if the chalk was formed during a cataclysmic global flood that washed over the entire earth? I'm having a hard time understanding your reasoning here. . .how on earth does a global flood deposit ONLY calcium carbonate and marine remains in one place, then sandstone in another, then some other sedimentary rock in another. . .all the while making sure that marine and non-marine fossils don't mix?

#255 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 30 August 2009 - 05:42 PM

Instructorous wroteSo. . .basically the flood was a supernatural event with unpredictable results, therefore all problems that YE geology can neither accurately predict or explain are thus explained?

You speak as if you were in the Hadean period yourself 4.5 ga ago to tell us exactly what happened in every part of the globe from then until now. We are speaking history here.

Certainly it wouldn't be that hard. I have a hard time swallowing that the UK was a post-flood lake given it's relative geography. Additionally, if the chalk formations did result from a low lying lake we should have, at best, some dirty limestone. . .not chalk.

Yes the same with your model. Slow sedimentation brings in lots of different sediments in layers as the environment changes. Lyell and Darwin believed the boundaries between layers were "periods of inactivity." That means the plankton stopped and then came back many times according to uniform interpretation.

Even if you don't credit tectonics in geographical and environment change as much as other uniforms which I have debated. There are earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and other catastophes which can change environment even slightly and bring new sediment.

A lake should have runoff dumping sediment into it that will settle to the lake bed below, a lake will have terrestrial remains dumped into it periodically mixing with marine fossils, and a lake will not display the same kind of fossils that an ocean environment will display. Additionally, this chalk was a lake formation reduces the amount of time you have to transform the raw materials into chalk. . .which is still something I'm interesting in seeing done.

Just like I would like to see a planet form by itself. I wonder if you see the inequity here. You demand accounting for the cliffs but accept a planet without question. This is not a goal post shift attempt, but attention brought to "choking on a gnat and swallowing a camel."

You're insisting that a geography could not have facilitated this formation--the resources would have been there though. It comes down to the purity--90 to 95% that causes me to buy the rapid bloom model--especially in light of the fact that record resources would have been there.

Are you saying that we have no place on earth where plankton shells are known to be accumulating? What a strange thing to say. . .perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

You are because I spoke of oozes all over the world which do not show the purity of this chalk.

Actually I do [have a model]. When calcium carbonate ions meet each other in solutions like sea water they clump together into nice stable clusters of around 70 calcium and carbonate ions. This crystallized calcium carbonate is the raw material from which chalk forms. As successive layers of this raw material is produced previous layers are piled up, the weight of the above layers eventually begins to compress the layers below squeezing out the water and cementing these clusters into sedimentary rock: chalk. You can actually see limestone being produced not too far from where I live in off the coast of Florida.

Yes, speaking of layers there are many mollusks found in the hard thin layers, some up to 3 feet across--fully preserved. Since you have already insisted on calm marine conditions then tectonics would not be a reason for bringing this deposit far from the bottom of the ocean where there are anoxic waters. This leaves rapid burial as a means of preservation--NOT anoxic waters.


So, here we have two models. Mine explains the consistent radiometric dates,

Really--what type of dating, since these are biological remains and not radioactive isotopes? That leaves C-14 with a half life of 5730 years. It has been shown that readings past 80,000 to 100000 years are negligible and therefore completely unreliable. There is radioactive calcium (i believe 41) but I have never heard of it being used for dating.

If they found an igneous rock, did they remove all the helium out of it before they dated it?


Most limestones form in shallow marine environments close to land, runoff from erosion will wash things like clay and other sediments to the sea floor.


"Limestone is by definition a rock that contains at least 50% calcium carbonate in the form of calcite by weight. All limestones contain at least a few percent other materials. These can be small particles of quartz, feldspar, clay minerals, pyrite, siderite and other minerals. It can also contain large nodules of chert, pyrite or siderite. "

The chalk at Dover is 90% to 95%.


How on earth does a global flood deposit ONLY calcium carbonate and marine remains in one place, then sandstone in another, then some other sedimentary rock in another. . .all the while making sure that marine and non-marine fossils don't mix?

Nice question--how does a nebulae do the same thing but only organizing a planet?

The flood deposited an abundance dead plants and animals in this area which caused untold bacterial accumulation in a calm area facilitated by probably a now unseen geography, where the plankton bloomed. Forminefera, which have a symbiotic relationship with phytoplankton are abundant in the deposit and they both feed on bacteria and dead organic material.

Anoxic water is ruled out leaving rapid sedimentation cover as cause for the fossils. C-14 ages especially are rejected by YEC's because of short half life.

#256 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2009 - 06:56 PM

Yes the same with your model. Slow sedimentation brings in lots of different sediments in layers as the environment changes. Lyell and Darwin believed the boundaries between layers were "periods of inactivity."  That means the plankton stopped and then came back many times according to uniform interpretation.

Not at all, sediment has to come from somewhere - it doesn't just magically appear. Without any nearby land from which to erode where should it have come from? As stated before, since the entire UK except for the moutains of Scotland were underwater during this period there was no nearby land and thus no major influx of other sediments. Additionally, a change in deposition doesn't need to be near as drastic as "all phytoplankton died" or "trillions suddenly spawned". Keep in mind these phytoplankton are passively mobile and highly sensitive to their environment, a relatively small change could reduce populations or affect their remains' ability to drift to the seafloor without wiping out the entire population.

Even if you don't credit tectonics  in geographical and environment change as much as other uniforms which I have debated.  There are earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and other catastophes which can change environment even slightly and bring new sediment.

So. . .now catastrophic events DO bring in new sediment? Which is going to plop down more junk that doesn't belong there, a global flood or an earthquake?

Just like I would like to see a planet form by itself.  I wonder if you see the inequity here.  You demand accounting for the cliffs but accept a planet without question.  This is not a goal post shift attempt, but attention brought to "choking on a gnat and swallowing a camel."

Wow, it's great that you have your mind reading device up and running thereby allowing you to know that I accept the current model of planetary formation "without question". I hope you remember me when those royalty checks start rolling in.

You're insisting that a geography could not have facilitated this formation--the resources would have been there though.  It comes down to the purity--90 to 95% that causes me to buy the rapid bloom model--especially in light of the fact that record resources would have been there.

You are because I spoke of oozes all over the world which do not show the purity of this chalk.

We find calcareous ooze in a lot of places and, contrary to what you indicated in a previous post, by definition they consist of MORE than 30% calcium carbonate.

http://www.encyclope...areousooze.html

Again, I am in awe of this flood that can sort out plankton food from everything that doesn't belong in a marine environment and drop it into one spot. Do we have a mechanism for this fantastic sorting property of the flood yet?

Yes, speaking of layers there are many mollusks found in the hard thin layers, some up to 3 feet across--fully preserved.  Since you have already insisted on calm marine conditions then tectonics would not be a reason for bringing this deposit far from the bottom of the ocean where there are anoxic waters. [color=red]This leaves rapid burial as a means of preservation--NOT anoxic waters.

Think about it, what are the fossils encased in? Chalk right? The chalk whose raw materials could only have formed in calm water. Earlier you were saying the chalk formations began as an isolated lake, now you're saying that fossils embedded in the chalk itself are the result of rapid burial? Burial in what? Calcareous ooze?

Really--what type of dating, since these are biological remains and not radioactive isotopes? That leaves C-14 with a half life  of 5730 years.  It has been shown that readings past 80,000 to 100000 years are negligible and therefore completely unreliable.  There is radioactive calcium (i believe 41) but I have never heard of it being used for dating.

While we do have some overlying basalts that can be directly dated, what I'm talking about has more to do with comparing fossils we find in the chalk group to fossils we find elsewhere. If a certain fossil is found everywhere else within a certain time frame we can make a good assumption that the chalk layer in which it is found was formed during that time frame.

Biostratigraphy - vertical changes in fauna.  The types of fossil found within the Chalk can vary greatly from one horizon to another.  This reflects the way the fauna in any one region varied with time; by evolutionary processes and / or due to changes in environment.  It is also influenced by changes in preservation style, e.g. though ammonites are commonly found in the  Grey Chalk they are rarely preserved in the White Chalk.  Certain fossils are present for distinct intervals within the chalk and can be used as zone fossils.  In general terms this is a global scheme (e.g. chalks containing Uintacrinus socialis can be found in both Europe and America), but a zone fossil need not necessarily be present worldwide or in all sedimentary rock types.

Chronostratigraphy - true or relative time.  The Late Cretaceous Period is divided into various stages, whose age and duration can be accurately estimated in millions of years.  By intergrating chronostratigraphy with biostratigraphy, zone fossils in effect become ways of dating the rocks (e.g. a rock containing Marsupites testudinarius will be the same age as all other rocks containing that fossil; around 84 million years old).  Though lithostratigraphy is broadly related to time (e.g. Late Cretaceous rocks from around the world often contain chalks) this is not necessarily the case on a localised scale.  Nevertheless, the various marl and flint seams of the Chalk Group form effective 'time-lines' of equal age across the British Isles.
http://www.chalk.dis...Chalk Group.htm

Using these techniques to date layers of chalk gives us a consistent description of their formation. If the radiometric dating of these same kinds of fossils from other local formations weren't consistent we wouldn't find them in the same succession in the Chalk Group. All you would need to do to falsify this would be to find a non-Cretaceous fossil in there. . .which shouldn't be too hard unless this formation was actually formed during the Cretaceous.

"Limestone is by definition a rock that contains at least 50% calcium carbonate in the form of calcite by weight. All limestones contain at least a few percent other materials. These can be small particles of quartz, feldspar, clay minerals, pyrite, siderite and other minerals. It can also contain large nodules of chert, pyrite or siderite. " 

The chalk at Dover is 90%  to 95%.

Chalk is a type of limestone. If you had a point for the above I missed it.

Nice question--how does a nebulae do the same thing but only organizing a planet?

We're talking about the geology of the chalk group, not planet formation.

The flood deposited an abundance  dead plants and animals in this area which caused untold bacterial accumulation in a calm area facilitated by probably a now unseen geography, where the plankton bloomed.  Forminefera,  which have a symbiotic relationship with phytoplankton are abundant in the deposit and they both feed on bacteria and dead organic material.

And yet, even with the most generous estimates of YEC's like Snelling the lowest estimate for the time needed to produce the raw materials is 75 years. Additionally, if this was originally a slurry of dead stuff why don't we find this represented in the composition of the chalk itself? Finally, what mechanism does YE geology use to transform thousands of feet of ooze into chalk?

#257 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 September 2009 - 05:55 AM

Since we're on the topic of Snelling, I recently came across a few of his slides from a presentation he gave last year at the Sixth International Conference on Creationism.

Posted Image

Posted Image

These alone display some of the problems with YE geology from YEC's themselves.

#258 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 September 2009 - 08:42 AM

These alone display some of the problems with YE geology from YEC's themselves.

View Post

I think the biggest problem has to do with public understanding, which kind of pulls the language and pronouncements of people even in authority.

Take the term 'creation science' for example. If science here is just used to mean knowledge, in its basal form, there are no problems even if you add to it the immediate evidences and their interpretations, you're fine. However, when people assume that that means that you can test and demonstrate creation via the scientific method then there is an effort of education that must take place, which prominent creationists do quite well even though it must certainly be a tiring task.

Why is this?

It's because the competition, through academia, somehow managed to get the scientific community at large, to adopt the ad hoc, anecdotal, and highly speculative interpretations of evolutionary biologists/paleontologists and uniformitarian geologists into the scientifically demonstrable 'science' column when they aren't.

I think Andrew Snelling making such a pronouncement is just his way of making it clear that he does not want creationists to fall into the same lazy mentality that evolutionists are in by mixing speculations and science philosophically. By calling creationists to a greater level of accountability, he is giving us the charge not to get lazy just because the public has already been conditioned, through evolutionary thinking, to mix speculations and the scientific method making the force of language a criteria for persuasion rather then being humble and recognizing your own step from the scientific method to speculation regardless of how reasonable it may seem.

#259 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 September 2009 - 01:57 PM

I think the biggest problem has to do with public understanding, which kind of pulls the language and pronouncements of people even in authority.

Take the term 'creation science' for example. If science here is just used to mean knowledge, in its basal form, there are no problems even if you add to it the immediate evidences and their interpretations, you're fine. However, when people assume that that means that you can test and demonstrate creation via the scientific method then there is an effort of education that must take place, which prominent creationists do quite well even though it must certainly be a tiring task.

Why is this?

It's because the competition, through academia, somehow managed to get the scientific community at large, to adopt the ad hoc, anecdotal, and highly speculative interpretations of evolutionary biologists/paleontologists and uniformitarian geologists into the scientifically demonstrable 'science' column when they aren't.

I think Andrew Snelling making such a pronouncement is just his way of making it clear that he does not want creationists to fall into the same lazy mentality that evolutionists are in by mixing speculations and science philosophically. By calling creationists to a greater level of accountability, he is giving us the charge not to get lazy just because the public has already been conditioned, through evolutionary thinking, to mix speculations and the scientific method making the force of language a criteria for persuasion rather then being humble and recognizing your own step from the scientific method to speculation regardless of how reasonable it may seem.

View Post


So. . .not having a comprehensive model of earth's history that can explain the geologic (fossil and strata) record as well as concordant and meteorite radiometric dates isn't a problem for YE geology? It seems like you're just saying while YEC's don't actually have comprehensive models for any of these things that's allright because no one else does either. This seems pretty contradictory to what's been demonstrated in this thread alone, notwithstanding the larger body of evidence which clearly supports standard geology. This seems to illustrate the biggest problem for YE geology - a lack of consistently accurate explanations.

#260 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 September 2009 - 02:51 PM

So. . .not having a comprehensive model of earth's history that can explain the geologic (fossil and strata) record as well as concordant and meteorite radiometric dates isn't a problem for YE geology?  It seems like you're just saying while YEC's don't actually have comprehensive models for any of these things that's allright because no one else does either.  This seems pretty contradictory to what's been demonstrated in this thread alone, notwithstanding the larger body of evidence which clearly supports standard geology.  This seems to illustrate the biggest problem for YE geology - a lack of consistently accurate explanations.

View Post

I think you totally misunderstood me and put words in my mouth. Fortunately, it's obvious enough that it doesn't need demonstrated by me because you made it painfully obvious. Thanks. ;)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)