|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Limestone Layers and the Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
and since today, organic limestone is primarily produced within 30 miles of the equator Thirty degrees, perhaps?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Thirty degrees, perhaps? Heh, much better, thank you...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
To summarize, when liquid water [H2O (l)] containing dissolved (or aqueous) CO2 [CO2(aq)] comes in contact with solid limestone [CaCO3(s)], the limestone dissolves and the chemical reaction moves to the right. Conversely, for every 44 grams of CO2 that escape the solution, 100 grams of limestone precipitate and the reaction moves back to the left. Little temperature change occurs with either reaction.
Ol' Walt doesn't follow through too well on the implications here, though. From various web sources, I once did some calculations on exactly this "Flood carbonates" scenario: About 1.5% of the total of the Earth's crust is carbonates. That's about 3.9 x 10^20 kilograms of limestone. Walt's reaction above then calls for 44% of this, or 1.7 X 10^20 kg, of carbon dioxide to hold all that limestone in solution - carbon dioxide that will end up in Noah's atmosphere. All of today's atmosphere weighs 5.1 X 10^18 kilograms, so this would have caused Noah to breathe an atmosphere of over 97% carbon dioxide and about 0.5% oxygen. Let's be generous to Walt, though, and say that only 10% of all limestones came from his Flood. That would help, but maybe not quite enough: 77% carbon dioxide and less than 5% oxygen would still kill all the mammals on the Ark in a couple of minutes. Nearly all of Dr. Brown's arguments stand up to scrutiny about as well as this one, Christian. He's either a flim-flam man or he's delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
IIRC, CO2 levels above 20% are enough to lead to fatality.
Found where I saw it. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Possibly, though, the low oxygen level is what actually did the dirty deed. In "confined space entry" training they said < 17% O2 can kill you, IIRC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I think you have asked some questions that do have answers, but the science behind the answers is fairly specialized and complex. Others seem to have covered your questions fairly well, without going so far as to write out the vast details of the processes.
The one item seemingly not covered was:
1. Volcanic gasses are composed of CO2 and steam. Since carbon is rarely found in basement or igneous rocks, what could be the source of the CO2 found in the gas? Now, this is getting into mantle chemistry considerations, which is a complex item in itself. My far from expert comments: That may or may not be an accurate statement about what volcanic gasses are. Some types of volcanos are not very "gassy" - Example, the basaltic volcanos of Hawaii. Others may be more "gassy" - Example, the more silica rich volcanos such as Vesuvius and Mt. Saint Helens. To get into this further would be to get rather heavily into magmatic evolution theory, which is very off-topic here. Anyhow, there is a CO2 component in the mantle. It tends to get concentrated in the residual magma as the various minerals crystalize out because Carbon (C) does not fit into the crystal structures of common minerals (or even uncommon minerals?). Again, all this is getting pretty deep into igneous rock formation theory (igneous petrology), so I will go no further (expecially since I'm already working the fringes of my personal knowledge). Critiques from the other geologists welcome, although igneous petrology considerations probably should go to a new topic. Moose To all - See terminology you don't understand? Let me remind you of the existence of the forums Geology Glossary. This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-19-2006 02:56 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6286 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
yes, it says degrees, not miles. Sorry about that. I'll go edit that.
{I have added an edit note at the message in question. - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-20-2006 07:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6286 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
Coragyps writes:
I think you misunderstood his scenerio. Not all of the limestone was liquified. Here's what he says :
About 1.5% of the total of the Earth's crust is carbonates. That's about 3.9 x 10^20 kilograms of limestone. Walt's reaction above then calls for 44% of this, or 1.7 X 10^20 kg, of carbon dioxide to hold all that limestone in solution - carbon dioxide that will end up in Noah's atmosphere. All of today's atmosphere weighs 5.1 X 10^18 kilograms, so this would have caused Noah to breathe an atmosphere of over 97% carbon dioxide and about 0.5% oxygen. Any gaseous CO2 was quickly “squeezed” into solution by the great pressure from the weight of the crust above the chamber. The subterranean water therefore was acidic, and some of the solid limestone dissolved until the available CO2 was consumed in the reaction written above. As this subterranean water escaped to the earth’s surface during the flood, the water’s pressure dropped drastically, so CO2 gas and microscopic, milky-white particles of limestone came out of solution. The escaping water scoured out the relatively soft limestone. Considerable CO2 entered the atmosphere, and tiny limestone particles spread throughout the flood waters. In other words, what escaped was not pure liquified limestone, but rather a mixture of liquid limestone and microscopic particles of solid limestone. At least that's my take on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I think you misunderstood his scenerio. Actually, I think we understand it all too well. THere is absolutely no evidence that Walt's scenario ever happened and it may violate several basic chemical principles.
Not all of the limestone was liquified. Do you mean 'dissolved'?
Here's what he says : Any gaseous CO2 was quickly “squeezed” into solution... 'Squeezed into solution', eh? Where did it come from?
...by the great pressure from the weight of the crust above the chamber. What is the evidence for a chamber? If the pressure was so high (lithostatic) why did it not escape to the surface instead? There are plenty of pathways and it occurs even today.
The subterranean water therefore was acidic, and some of the solid limestone dissolved until the available CO2 was consumed in the reaction written above. So where is this chamber and where was the limestone that was dissolved into its waters? What other chemicals would have been in solution. I would imagine a real witches brew that should have some signature in the limestones.
As this subterranean water escaped to the earth’s surface during the flood, ... Why did it suddenly decide to escape? Where did it come to the surface?
...the water’s pressure dropped drastically, so CO2 gas and microscopic, milky-white particles of limestone came out of solution. So where is the limestone deposit in the oceanic crust? If the pressure dropped suddenly, there should be continuous calcite deposits virtually everywhere there was a chamber.
The escaping water scoured out the relatively soft limestone. Good, there should be evidence of scouring, then. Where is it? Oh, I get it! Scouring removed the evidence! VERRRRRYY convenient.
Considerable CO2 entered the atmosphere, and tiny limestone particles spread throughout the flood waters. So how did life survive such an influx of CO2? And where is this pervasive limestone deposit? There should be evidence of this.
In other words, what escaped was not pure liquified limestone, but rather a mixture of liquid limestone and microscopic particles of solid limestone. At least that's my take on it. All the more reason there should be some universal, chemically deposited limestone at some level in the geologic record.... There isn't. I think you need to understand that this is just a fanciful scenario Walt has devised to fit his preconceived idea of a global flood. I am astounded that anyone would ignore centuries of geological data and put any credence in this story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Read my post above, Christian:
Let's be generous to Walt, though, and say that only 10% of all limestones came from his Flood. That would help, but maybe not quite enough: 77% carbon dioxide and less than 5% oxygen would still kill all the mammals on the Ark in a couple of minutes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3806 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
What are Crinoid fragments? Crinoids are echinoderms (related to starfish, sea cucumbers and such.) In fact if you get some especially good fossil criniod fragments you can see some that have the 5-starred shape in the stalk. There were many crinoids around during the paleozoic period and Crinoids are still around today in fact, though not as abundant.
...it clearly states that the "chalk" is made up of mostly coccolith biomicrites. What is lacking is a description of HOW THEY KNOW. It doesn't say, "If you look at the chalk under a high powered microscope, you can see the forms of the coccolith biomicrites it is made up of." I already knew that most modern scientist think the limestone was formed from organic material. Coccoliths are the calcified plates of Protists. If you look here you can see a nice picture of one of those calcified shells. How do they know? Of course scientists look through plates of the various chalks and limestones to distinguish what animals are there and are trained and through experience can distinguish the different types of animals. Though the Coccolithophorids went through a mass extinction there are still some genera around today. This message has been edited by DBlevins, 03-20-2006 11:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3806 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
3."If a microscopic limestone crystal grows in a magnesium-rich solution, magnesium ions will, under certain conditions, occupy or replace exactly half the calcium ion locations in limestone, forming a common mineral called dolomite" Since dolomite is not secreted by any known organism, where did the necessary magnesium come from to create the dolomite? The history of the earth is filled with transgressions and regressions of sea's over the continents. During high sea levels and long periods of time you can have a build up of limestone, expecially in warm shallow areas such as coral reefs. When sea level slowly drops it can leave behind shallow seas blocked from mixing with the main body of water and as the "inland" sea evaporates it becomes more briny. This briny sea can still percolate through the limestone and the Magnesium in this briny sea can start replacing some of the Calcium ions in the limestone. (as a side note, there is an area in Michigan iirc where such a large inland sea occured and we can see this in the rock record. Also in Texas, thus the high oil abundance there.) This chemical replacement of ions forms dolomite which is basically limestone, just that some of the calcium ions have been replaced with magnesium. Maybe this might help here. If you scroll through the powerpoints to page 12 to 17 you will see what I am talking about. Especially the scenario I talked about above a picture is on page 16.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6286 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
edge writes: Please document this statement. Carbon and oxygen are some of the most common elements in the earth. We see diamonds from apparent extreme depths at the base of the continental crust. We see all kinds of silicate minerals with oxygen in them from the deepest known deposits. I'm looking into this.
edge writes: Christian writes:
2. If limestone formed organically, in shallow seas, ... What do you mean 'if'? We see limestones being deposited today in this manner. Do you deny this? No, guess I should've said, "if MOST limestone formed organically, in shallow seas,..."
edge writes:
I'm such a novice at this. You're going to have to help me. Are you saying that sea level changes cause the sea floor to subside? That sounds like "sea level changes cause sea level changes." What am I missing? There are numerous reasons, the main one being sea level changes on the continental shelves in tropical seas. We see this happening today also. Also, please document for us 6 mile thicknesses of limestone so that we can address it. Answering vague references like this is most unfruitful. Here's his quote and source for the 6 mile depth:
Scattered off the east coast of the United States are thick limestone deposits. Most dramatic is the Bahamas Bank, an area 250 by 800 miles, where “seismic evidence suggests that carbonate strata may extend down as far as 10 kilometers [6 miles].”9 9 . Arthur N. Strahler, Physical Geology (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1981), p. 247. edge writes:
Just want to say that I can't find an option to donate to Walt's ministry anywhere on his site. I know that Walt Brown likes to ignore these facts, but that only adds to your further deception. Walt RELIES upon your ignorance of these facts to spread his ideas and collect donations to his ministry. The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory All he basically has on there is his book, free for anyone to read over the internet. He also has an option to buy the book. It costs $25 and you get a good quality hardback book. I know it's good quality because I purchased it about 3 years ago, and my husband and I have both read it and refered back to it many times and it has held up very well. That seems like a pretty good deal to me. Perhaps he makes money on his speaking tours, but I've never seen them advertised so I really don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
No, guess I should've said, "if MOST limestone formed organically, in shallow seas,..." Or 'virtually all limestone that we know of forms in shallow seas.' I've got and idea. Why not tell us how much limestone is deposited on the abyssal plain of any major ocean?
I'm such a novice at this. I couldn't tell.
You're going to have to help me. Are you saying that sea level changes cause the sea floor to subside? That sounds like "sea level changes cause sea level changes." What am I missing? NOt sure where you got this from my statement, but basically accumulation of sediments can cause basins to subside.
Here's his quote and source for the 6 mile depth: Scattered off the east coast of the United States are thick limestone deposits. Most dramatic is the Bahamas Bank, an area 250 by 800 miles, where “seismic evidence suggests that carbonate strata may extend down as far as 10 kilometers [6 miles].”9 Okay. I might quibble a bit about the actual depth, but I agree, there is a huge thickness of limestone out there. Now, how did it get there? How is this limestone being deposited today? Is it organic? Does Brown explain where the inorganic limestone is in this limestone edifice? How deep is it? HOw thick is it? Why do we not have such huge thicknesses of limestone everywhere? Sorry, C, but evolution, old ages and plate tectonic explain all these things very precisely.
Just want to say that I can't find an option to donate to Walt's ministry anywhere on his site. Indeed. I was not being very careful. It's been a long time since I visited his website. The general point remains: Brown has a religious agenda and he tries to fit the facts to it. I'm sure that he would like you to buy his snake oil
All he basically has on there is his book, free for anyone to read over the internet. He also has an option to buy the book. It costs $25 and you get a good quality hardback book. I suppose it's a best-seller...
I know it's good quality because I purchased it about 3 years ago,... So, you have contributed to the Walt Brown quack ministry. I'm sorry to hear that.
... and my husband and I have both read it and refered back to it many times and it has held up very well. Well, it sure hasn't helped you here...
That seems like a pretty good deal to me. Perhaps he makes money on his speaking tours, but I've never seen them advertised so I really don't know. You mean that you REALLY haven't seen any shortcomings to the hydroplate business from your conversations here? I feel sorry for you, Christian. You have been deceived and fleeced for $25 (that we know of...). Have you EVER read any real scientific literature?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Christian will form her own opinion of Walt Brown. Let's try to stick to dealing with what he has actually has written. There is pleanty to do thaere. Comments on whether or not it's helped Christian or whether it was money well spent have nothing to do with the topic.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024