General Flood Topic

I'm creating this thread to deviate discussions in the 'Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic' and be concentrated here.Edge:"Why is that? You have made a statement, so how about supporting it? You have never responded to this argument by evolutionists except to mutter some vaguely worded statement including 'hydrologic sorting', 'ecological domains' or some such nonsense. You have never explained any of these processes nor rebutted this argument against the flood. You can assert that it is wrong all you want, but that will not make it so."
--Wow there edge, slow down. I think I must say again that you've apparently been talking to TB quite a bit seeing as you confuse us regularly. Regarding this segment:

quote:

---

Why is that? You have made a statement, so how about supporting it? You have never responded to this argument by evolutionists except to mutter some vaguely worded statement including 'hydrologic sorting', 'ecological domains' or some such nonsense. You have never explained any of these processes nor rebutted this argument against the flood. You can assert that it is wrong all you want, but that will not make it so.

---

--Unlike TB, unless he has veered from it, I don't agree that hydrologic sorting explains much anything in regards to the general geologic column. And if I read you right, 'ecological domains' would only explain the deposition of a certain area on the earths surface, not an explanation for vertical linear fossil correlations. I don't think that to give a general explanation for fossil stratigraphy would be possible unless it was a vague enough generalization of a process involved. Also, I would partially withdraw my comment that his argument is a fallacious one. I thought he was speaking of fossils in general, not directly toward index fossils. Before I hit the sack, while off-line and reading my post, I was pretty sure this would be addressed without much hesitation.Joz:"I know bud it was merely a (not so) cunning ploy to get TC to tell us which bits of evidence we missed so that we on the EEC DTBC (Disprove the bible committee) could polish things off...I mean surely he must have some.... "
--What could possibly be found that would be in support of a worldwide flood occurring at ~4,500 years ago? This is analogous to the notion that the earth is 4.6Ga. The notion relies almost completely on the consensus involving the nebulae hypothesis for solar cosmogeny, and isotopic geochemical evolution constraints in coherence with the nebulae hypothesis only beginning to be touched on and some which have yet to be grasped. Strictly, I don't think that there will or can be found direct evidence of such a global event or even a successful suggestion as to a method of determining whether there are or aren't direct evidences able to be scrutinized. That is to say, evidence of this scenario would be indirect in that a consensus can be attributed in explanation the worlds remnant and vestige formations.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-18-2002]

--Thought I would respond to this to put to use my books on carbonate diagenesis and porosity."What is quite thoroughly impossible is that a formation such as the chalk that makes up the White Cliffs of Dover, or the Austin Chalk here in Texas, could be deposited in a year, or a decade, or a millenium. You cannot grow enough of the calcium carbonate-shelled organisms fast enough to do it: you can't get enough sunlight, enough nutrients, enough bicarbonate. You can't get rid of the metabolic wastes. For example, just one immediately quantifiable waste, carbon dioxide"
--What data have you considered in deducing that I have to have enough organisms grow during their deposition? Have you analyzed the carbonate content and effects of compaction in their deposition? Where have you gotten your values for this part of your post:

quote:

---

The mass of carbonate rocks in the crust is about 3.5 x 10^20 kilograms: let's pretend that about half, 2 x 10^20 of this, was deposited in the Big Flood. The reaction for this is (Ca+2) + 2(HCO3-) = CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O. Along with the calcium carbonate, you'll form 8.8 x 10^19 kg of CO2, carbon dioxide. This is 53 times what the Earth's entire atmosphere weighs now, and about 160,000 times as much CO2 as our modern atmosphere now has. So Noah's atmospheric pressure would have been 800 psi, the oxygen content would have been below 0.5%, and the CO2 content over 98%.

---

--Have you assumed that the carbonate content are pure remnants of carbonate-shelled organisms?
--Elaborate on these points please.-------------------

Yes, M_cr = 2.36 x 10^22 kg--I would have to account only for the carbonates which are in Phanerozoic sediments since those are Flood deposits, so using the mass of the CaCO₃ content the crust wouldn't be right. Also, porosity effects density and carbonate porosities could be in the realm of 40-85%. Also, CaCO₃ compositions in limestones are not pure and can vary significantly."This latter site says, "The source for carbonate sediments is almost exclusively biological," as do most geology books."
--I can't find this quote. Though my sources say that it is around the realm of 90% being biologically induced, but that is a current estimate and we would be in post-flood times."Compaction and rock purity are of no consequence in this calculation"
--Why is that? It is volumetric.
--I would also be interested in seeing how the value of 1.5% and .5% was found as a calcite function rather than the limestone/carbonate rock itself. After-all, these factors may vary significantly from formation to formation.--Just some observations.------------------

Forthcoming! I'm currently having some difficulties with my PC and am typing on a laptop (which by the way, is very tedious!). Apparently it can't read drive C which, of course, has my operating system on it so it doesn't boot up. I'll try to fix the problem it as soon as possible. Until then, I can do more reading on the relevant subjects. Should be responses this weekend.
--For what its worth, in your post #24, you misunderstood the intent of my statement. I understand your logic illustrated, however I was more aiming toward what the compositions of limestones and dolomites are in Cambrian+ sediments. Exactly how biogenic are they? Current deposition is about 90% biogenic deposition. Coragyps equations and mathematical representation of the problem apparently assumes that the composition of all limestone and dolomite is purely biogenous as well as other guesstimated variables. Your post, however, was not futile.-------------------

"Aw, c'mon guys!! Humor me! Tell me to buzz off, or tell me any reply would be beyond the edge of the Creationist worldview! Heck, attempt an answer, even!"
--Buzz off! *grr* . I'll to respond to WeHappyFew's response in message #27.------------------

"Thanks, TC.
Been there, done that with the computer OS crashes...Biogenic or not, the precipitation of limestone still releases the same amount of heat and CO2 and still requires the same inputs of carbonate and calcium ions. Coragyps equations are valid either way, and eliminate the Flood as a scientific theory all by themselves. Did you notice how TB is violently avoiding the subject in other threads? He knows the chemistry of the limestone is a myth-killer.Anyway, only kooks like Walt Brown are willing to argue that the Dover Cliff chalks are inorganic. Really now, don't you think microscopic animal shells are good enough evidence of biogenesis? Same goes for the corals, crinoids, molluscs, etc. Many widespread layers of limestone are formed almost exclusively of crinoid fragments, for example. After metazoan life got the urge to calcify in the Cambrian, limestone is almost all biogenic. It's a simple, observable fact of the geologic record. Only by ignoring the details can professional Creationists like Hovind, Humphreys and Brown weave a plausible sounding pseudo-babble for their gullible flocks."
--I see the logic, It seems that if we must produce such quantities [assuming the values for concentration were to be just as significant in considering only Cambrian+ strata] of calcite we have a problem. One thing I have recently considered is that they were (just like almost every other organic specimen) created pre-flood and then sorted by whatever process. What also interests me is what the compositions of the deposits are. Beds of corals, for instance would be explained relatively easily.
--You wouldn't happen to know where I can get a hold of some good textbooks which explain this in depth, as well as for their distributions across the globe would be nice as well.--Until further notice, this is a serious difficulty for us YEC's.------------------