|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Limestone Layers and the Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6255 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
Percy writes:
Thanks Percy. My husband and I were actually discussing finding out where the nearest limestone beds were and getting some samples to look at for ourselves. I'll let you know what we find (assuming we will find the time to do that) I think it would be a good science field trip for my children as well!
Hi Christian,Over the Internet I doubt I could even prove that manure comes from cows. Were we in front of a good microscope with prepared slices of samples from limestone layers we could examine them together and observe the coccolith microfossils, but we're not. If you're sufficiently motivated you could seek out the level of evidence you seem to require, and I wish you good luck in your explorations. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6255 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
Thanks for your support Jar. So far I haven't been confronted with data that conflicts with my beliefs, what I'm being confronted with is a bunch of technical stuff that takes some time for me to figure out as I am not a scientist. But yes, were I confronted with undeniable facts which countered what I believe, I would have to abandon my beliefs, which would be very difficult for me. So no matter what, it's going to take awhile to get me to say, "Your right, I'm wrong"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
But yes, were I confronted with undeniable facts which countered what I believe, I would have to abandon my beliefs, which would be very difficult for me. This is what my Christian friends dislike so much about YECy fundamentalism. Why should you have to abandon your really important beliefs? Who cares how old the earth is and how life changes on it? Who cares about the size of a flood? Are these important? Not to most Christians who have very strong beliefs. The insistance of fundamentalists that it is all or nothing seems to me, as an outsider, to do much more harm than good. The people here are not a good sample but we see how many have been driven from faith by their dogmatic insistance on the indefensible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6255 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
This is a nice picture, but it would be helpful if there were some text along with it. Is it limestone from the Dover cliffs? What are Crinoid fragments? Fragments of some kind of marine animal?
The Radiolarians from your second link are absolutely beautiful, and in the third site, 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. What Mr.Brown claims is that they are wrong and that if you look at it under a high powered microscope, it appears to be inorganic in nature. So what I need are statements or pictures which prove that to be false. I can understand the point, though, of the burden of proof being more on me, since I'm the one arguing what the majority of scientists say. Brown does discuss several reasons that the limestone is more likely inorganic. So I will go into some of those in my next post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
This needs clarifying:
(Note that I agree with Percy that the composition of limestone might need to be off this thread but... ) (Note 2: It appears that there is no arguement from AIG(at least) about the composition of limestone. They agree it is micro fossils in large part.
Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Beds?
| Answers in Genesis
The argument now becomes, in part, with the calculations presented there.)
much limestone is also comprised of recrystalized (during diagenesis) calcite, micritic calcite, sparry calcite, and broken shells too small to see. Micrite is so minute it appears black in thin-section, sparry calcite is coarser grained calcite. In addition, the algae itself precipitates carbonate as mud, so not all carbonate or calcite will look like little shell When you say "much limestone" -- do you mean much of a particular sample (that is it is microfossils in a recrystalized matrix) or do you mean that some limestones have few or no microfossils and are, in bulk, made up as you describe with no clear sign of their orgainic origins. Does that mean that they may not be organic in origin? What is diagenesis?
In addition, the algae itself precipitates carbonate as mud, so not all carbonate or calcite will look like little shell Can you describe this in more detail please?
calcite, micritic calcite, sparry calcite, and broken shells too small to see Can you still, with a microscope, determine the origin of that particular limestone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
When you say "much limestone" -- do you mean much of a particular sample (that is it is microfossils in a recrystalized matrix) or do you mean that some limestones have few or no microfossils and are, in bulk, made up as you describe with no clear sign of their orgainic origins. Jumping in for Rox here, I'm pretty sure she means the latter.
Does that mean that they may not be organic in origin? Unlikely. There are other ways of determining organic vs inorganic origins of carbonates.
What is diagenesis? Diagenesis consists of the chemical/mineralogical changes that accompany the process of deposition and lithification of a sediment.
Can you describe this in more detail please? Not sure what Rox means here.
Can you still, with a microscope, determine the origin of that particular limestone? A good petrographer, probably yes. But there are other ways of determining the origin of a carbonate rock. One of the most basic is mapping a limestone turning to marble as we approach an igneous pluton. Sometimes marble will exhibit some of its organic origin by containing carbonaceous styolites as described by Rox earlier. Just a factoid, but your average parrot fish will eat, digest and excrete tons of coral in its lifetime. I think this type of predation may account for a lot of limy muds. As another pertinent(?) point, I remember references to 'carbonate facies iron formations' in some of the exploration literature of the past. These were definitely NOT organic carbonate rocks (limestones). The point being that geologists do not assume that all carbonates are organic limestone and they have devised ways of telling them apart. In fact, the study of carbonate rocks is practically a independently recognized field of geology. Largely because of the oil business. I'm quite certain that we can't even scratch the surface of this topic here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Just remember that you certainly never have to give up Christianity or your beliefs in GOD, Jesus or any of the essentials to accept either an old earth or the Theory of Evolution. There is no conflict between Science and Christianity.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6255 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
Just going to post this because I've been trying to all day and it wasn't working for some reason. I'll have to respond to the new messages later.
For those of you who believe that the limestone deposits are mainly organic in nature, here are some questions (my source is again Walt Brown): 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? 2. If limestone formed organically, in shallow seas, why would the sea floor slowly subside almost 6 miles to allow these accumulations? 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? 4. If almost all limestone was produced organically in shallow seas, and since today, organic limestone is primarily produced within 30 degrees of the equator, why is it that limestone layers an cement are not concentrated near the equator, but found at all latitudes? This message has been edited by Christian, 03-20-2006 06:11 PM {As discussed later in this topic, Christian had mistakenly above written "30 miles" instead of "30 degrees". She has corrected that error, but did not make any edit note concerning that much later change in a significant point of content in this message. Thus I am inserting this comment. - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-20-2006 06:58 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 988 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Nosy: Can you describe this in more detail please?
I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that algae make/precipitate carbonate, which results in carbonate mud when 'released.' Later, this carbonate mud makes up a portion (all??) of the micritic component of limestone. edge: Not sure what Rox means here. Although this is not something I remember reading, I found this on the link I posted above: "The algae contain minute aragonite needles that are released on death and accumulate as carbonate mud." I always thought the carbonate ooze released by the algae was part of the digestion process, similar to fecal pellets, but the quote above states differently. And I agree with your last statement about carbonate petrology practically being it's own field. At grad school we had a carbonate petrologist (assoc. prof.) who worked closely with the oil people. There were entire classes devoted to carbonate petrology. This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-18-2006 10:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6255 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
NoseyNed writes:
Well, I think this is getting a bit off topic, but I'll answer anyway. What my really important beliefs are is that the Bible is true. If it isn't, than I will have to abandon my beliefs. No point in believing something that is not true. But we'll cross that bridge if we get to it. This is what my Christian friends dislike so much about YECy fundamentalism. Why should you have to abandon your really important beliefs?
I'm tempted to respond to the rest of your message, but it requires a lot of thought as in how to word things and seems like a completely different topic. I would be happy to discuss my beliefs with you. Maybe you can catch me in chat sometime, or maybe I'll participate in another thread about that later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that algae make/precipitate carbonate, which results in carbonate mud when 'released.' Later, this carbonate mud makes up a portion (all??) of the micritic component of limestone. Although this is not something I remember reading, I found this on the link I posted above: "The algae contain minute aragonite needles that are released on death and accumulate as carbonate mud." That does sound familiar...
I always thought the carbonate ooze released by the algae was part of the digestion process, similar to fecal pellets, but the quote above states differently. Sounds almost impossible to tell from chemical precip. Oxygen isotopes would probably do it, though.
And I agree with your last statement about carbonate petrology practically being it's own field. At grad school we had a carbonate petrologist (assoc. prof.) who worked closely with the oil people. There were entire classes devoted to carbonate petrology. Exactly. That is why the cries of YECs about chemical precipitation of limestone sound so amateurish. They, including Brown, don't even look at the volumes of literture behind carbonates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
For those of you who believe that the limestone deposits are mainly organic in nature, here are some questions (my source is again Walt Brown): Walt, eh? Not a very promising start...
1. Volcanic gasses are composed of CO2 and steam. Sounds like a pretty gross oversimplification, but okay, we'll deal with that later if necessary.
Since carbon is rarely found in basement or igneous rocks, what could be the source of the CO2 found in the gas? 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.
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?
...why would the sea floor slowly subside almost 6 miles to allow these accumulations? 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.
3."If a microscopic limestone crystal ... Limestone is not a mineral. Nor is it a 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" This is called dolomitization. It is a very common secondary process that causes an increase in porosity. It is also common to have a certain percentage of magnesium in calcite anyway. That is because magnesium is also a very common mineral and has similar chemical properties as calcium.
Since dolomite is not secreted by any known organism, where did the necessary magnesium come from to create the dolomite? Seawater. Or other dewatering fluids. Again, this is the topic of very advanced study in oil field processes.
4. If almost all limestone was produced organically in shallow seas, and since today, organic limestone is primarily produced within 30 miles of the equator, why is it that limestone layers an cement are not concentrated near the equator, but found at all latitudes? First of all, ALL modern coral reef deposition is occuring in tropical to temperate climates. We know this. Second, there have been major climatic changes in the past that, combined with plate tectonics, have spread older limestones to virtually every continent and climatic zone. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Well, I think this is getting a bit off topic, but I'll answer anyway. What my really important beliefs are is that the Bible is true. Well, it is. But it is true in ways deeper than fundamentalist YEC sects can possibly fathom.
If it isn't, than I will have to abandon my beliefs. No point in believing something that is not true. But we'll cross that bridge if we get to it. Another hallmark of absolutism. All or nothing. No attempte at a deeper understanding. Sorry about the OT nature of this post. I'll move along.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
4. If almost all limestone was produced organically in shallow seas, and since today, organic limestone is primarily produced within 30 miles of the equator, why is it that limestone layers an cement are not concentrated near the equator, but found at all latitudes? See, this is the kind of statement that Walt makes that should raise a red flag and get you to toss the book away. Are the Great Barrier Reefs within 30 miles of the equater? How about Gray's Reef off the coast of Georgia? How about those in Florida or Baha, those in the South Pacific or off South Africa? In addition, this ignores other sources that lead to limestone like the diatoms that live in waters all over the world.
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? Well, if you look at a periodic chart you will find that magnesium is in the same family as calcium, and higher in the family. It is a common part of sea water so it's not surprising at all. AbE: In addition, magnesium ions are found in almost all living organisms. This message has been edited by jar, 03-19-2006 12:09 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I've been on vacation, so I haven't been following this, but here's a nice essay from 138 years back:
Publications | Human Nature In it, a Mr Huxley says:
Let us try another method of making the chalk tell us its own history. To the unassisted eye chalk looks simply like a very loose and open kind of stone. But it is possible to grind a slice of chalk down so thin that you can see through it”until it is thin enough, in fact, to be examined with any magnifying power that may be thought desirable. A thin slice of the fur of a kettle might be made in the same way. If it were examined microscopically, it would show itself to be a more or less distinctly laminated mineral substance and nothing more. But the slice of chalk presents a totally different appearance when placed under the microscope. The general mass of it is made up of very minute granules; but, imbedded in this matrix, are innumerable bodies, some smaller and some larger, but, on a rough average, not more than a hundredth of an inch in diameter, having a well-defined shape and structure. A cubic inch of some specimens of chalk may contain hundreds of thousands of these bodies, compacted together with incalculable millions of the granules. It's a very nice read: most folks don't write that nicely these days.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024