General Flood Topic

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Why predominantly in one point in time and why so abrruptly at both interfaces? Why so incredibly enriched?

---

This is more cartoon geology from the kindergarten class you had, apparently. The real world is more complicated.Sharp contacts are often the result of induration of erosional surfaces at unconformities. This might be one here:"The base of the Plenus Marls is a major erosion surface and sequence boundary, with Plenus Marls sediments piped down in burrows for up to 0.5 m into the underlying chalk of the White Bed. "
From http://www.geologyshop.co.uk/chalk1.htm#fig1While gradational contacts are common:"While the Cretaceous strata, within which the whole tunnel route is situated, includes sequences that differ greatly both in their characteristics and in their properties (overconsolidated clays, glauconitic marls, flinty chalks etc) and are therefore easy to distinguish from each other, they also include sequences whose boundaries are difficult to establish, as their changes in nature or properties are very gradual. Such is the case with the boundary between the Chalk Marl (Craie Bleue) and the overlying Grey Chalk and the boundaries between the flinty chalks of the Senonian and the flintless Turonian."
From Geology of the Channel Tunnel

quote:

---

Our explanation?

​

Same as yours, but the abruptness and enrichment are explained by catastrophic sorting. Fast currents can sort materials to high purity. It represented a stage in the flood and hence explains why we get this primarily at only a few points in the geo-col.

---

Hmmm... it seems the chalks at Dover extend well past the age you have assigned to the Flood, and the CaCO3 content INCREASES after the end of your Flood... Would you or TC like to address the topic of this thread - specific falsifications of Flood Geology? I've already made my first point... all the creatures from your chalk formations could not be alive at the same time without shading each other to death, poisoning each other with CO2, consuming all available food many times over, etc, etc.

Reposted from the thread about the dodo, where I first stuck it: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:
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%.
Now you have all that flood water to dispose of, and over fifty atmospheres' worth of carbon dioxide to get rid of besides. That'll make a trainload of Coca-Cola, and a bunch of fire extinguishers besides.
Comments? Do you want to limit the Flood carbonates to only a tenth of what I assumed above? Do you want to know what the heat liberated by all that deposition amounts to, before we even start on the greenhouse effect?

bump![This message has been edited by Coragyps, 11-27-2002]

--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.-------------------

TC: I haven't been able to find the exact source of the total mass of the earth's crust, but Monroe & Wicanders Physical Geology claims 2.5 x 10^22 kg; I had originally used 2.37 x 10^22.
This site claims 2.6 x 10^22 kg.
About 2% of the crust, by volume, is carbonate rocks (calcite + dolomite) according to http://www.agu.org/reference/rock/4_best.pdf in his Table 4. As carbonate rocks are less dense than granite, I assumed this to equate to 1.5% by weight, or about 3.5 x 10^20 kg. The balanced reaction indicates that 100 kg of calcite will coproduce 44 kg of carbon dioxide as it precipitates.
This latter site says, "The source for carbonate sediments is almost exclusively biological," as do most geology books.
The present atmosphere weighs 5.1 x 10^18 kg, as given by the first link above.Run through the numbers. Errors will be cheerfully corrected.Compaction and rock purity are of no consequence in this calculation, and purely chemical precipitation of calcium carbonate, though geologically rare, uses the same reaction as I gave before anyway.[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 11-29-2002]

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.------------------

"Also, porosity effects density and carbonate porosities could be in the realm of 40-85%."
Errr... where? North Sea Chalk might get as high as 40% - other than chalk the very best, at least in oil reservoirs, are 15 to 20%, and typical around 10%. And that's just reservoirs, ignoring all the non-porous, non-permeable carbonates - marble, for instance, is around 0%."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.----"Huh? Clarify."--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.--"The reference estimates thse fractions for calcite and dolomite, not whole rock.
Tell ya what, TC: Run the numbers for carbon dioxide production for 5% of that mass of limestone. Then propose a mechanism to cycle it all through the atmosphere/hydrosphere in one year.

TB, I read your last post or two on the "catch cries" thread. Start with my post #17 on this thread, please, and run through the calculations I presented to TC.

Coragyps has addressed the chemical reactions that you have to explain, TC... I will chime in to clarify this question you raised:

quote:

---

--What data have you considered in deducing that I have to have enough organisms grow during their deposition?

---

This follows from simple logic. Consider your model, TC, either:
(1). the creatures in the geologic record were deposited by normal non-Flood sedimentation before the Flood, or
(2). were all killed at the same time (and thus were all alive at the same time) and deposited DURING the Flood, or
(3). grew very rapidly in the midst of the raging Flood, or
(4). lived and died AFTER the Flood in normal non-Flood sedimentation.If you really want to cram all the Paleozoic and Mesozoic into the Flood, that means (1) and (4) are fairly small contributors to the fossil record. Limestone and dolomite are, in fact, quite rare in preCambrian sediments.You are left with having almost all limestone suspended in the pre-Flood water column, either as (2) living creatures, or else (3) as dissolved ions followed by some really incredible growth DURING the Flood.Option (2) fails for opacity, lack of surface area for bottom dwellers, lack of oxygen, food, and CO2 poisoning from the respiration of all those animals.
Option (3) fails for the obvious reason of insufficient light to support the required amount of growth in only one year, as well as insufficient solubility for Ca and Mg (cold water can't hold much dissolved ions), insufficient solubility for carbonate (hot water can't hold much dissolved CO2), the heat and CO2 generated by the reaction, etc.It's time to open your eyes, TC. The only options left that can explain the gelogic record are options (1) and (4) - normal sedimentary processes operating over very long time scales. The Flood must shrink into it's proper place with all the other myths - rising sea-levels from melting Ice Age glaciation left a profound impact on prehistoric cultures, which were undoudtedly mostly coastal and forced out of their prime ocean front real estate. Think about how tough it will be on your kids and grand-kids when most of Florida is under water. The survivors will not be all that welcome, I suspect, here in the hills of Virginia (no offense intended, just the harsh realities of global warming).Consider the real world and how poorly your myth explains its features. This paradigm shift must be even harder than replacing Santa Claus as the gift-giving mechanism is for little kids, but easier than the Tooth Fairy (that one always seemed a little strange... to me, anyway).I think you can do it, you're still young, still able to learn and expand your world-view.

^bump for TC... any response?

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.-------------------

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wehappyfew:
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?

---

Since TC is acquainted with Blatt and others, I would recommend reading the section on limestones if he wants some background in the origin of these rocks. The modern distribution of calcareous sediment alone is more than suggestive of biological origins. Non-biogenic carbonate rocks are an extremely minor amount of the geological record and virtually all limestones are know to be biogenic. I suppose one might question the origin of calcite cement in some limestone, but you would have to overlook the most obvious source.Anyway, check it out. There are some good photographs as well.

I'm back in town, and itchin' for an answer.

I'm actually quite interested in this issue Wehappy. I simply have nothing to contribute. It seems to me so far that there is sufficeint room to suggest that much of the calcium could have an inorganic origin. I agree that current limestone depositon is primarily biogenic but the flood was a little different than curent processes. I await further clarification (as opposed to simply your expectation vs ours) on these issues from all of you.