Dinosaurs 4500 years ago

In message 65, Hangdawg13 wrote:>Again, I'm hopelessly ignorant of the process,If you are "hopelessly ignorant of the process", it is impossible for you judge if what you propose has any basis in reality or simply nothing more than scientifically bankrupt fiction. If you don't understand anything about limestones and dolomites, it is impossible for you know what is and isn't possible in terms of how they were created."but the 'evidence' is in the fact that there is
"so much layered limestone deposits worldwide (15-20%
of all sedimentary deposits), the fact that dolomite
is so commonly found with limestone,These two arguments are not only factually bankrupt but show a remarkable ignorant Walt Brown is of what has been published by geologists on how limestones and dolomites form. The vast amount of limestone and dolomite in the world just means there are numerous documented and observed processes, both organic and inorganic, by which limestone can be formed and deposited and that there has been long periods of time over which it has accumulated. Also, there are numerous ways, by which the association of dolomite with limestone can be explain using proven and, even observed, processes. The fact of the matter, it is quite easy for geologists explain **all** of the vast volume of limestone and dolomite, how they are interbedded, what fossils they may or may not contain, and **specific** sedimentary structures and layering that they exhibit using conventional models of carbonate accumulation. Interested lurkers can find proof of this statement demonstrated in great detail by the models of limestone and dolomite formation discussed in the any of the following books:Boggs, Sam, Jr., 2001, Principles of Sedimentology and
Stratigraphy. 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, New York.Walker, R. G. and James, N. P., eds., 1992, Facies models-
response to sea level change. Geological Association of
Canada, St. John's, Newfoundland.Scholle, P. A., Bebout, D. G. & Moore, C. H., eds., 1983,
Carbonate depositional environments. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir no. 33.Tucker, M. E. & Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate sedimentology.
Blackwell, Oxford.Wilson, J. L., 1975, Carbonate facies in geologic history.
Springer, New York."and the fact that many limestone formations are
incredibly thick like the Bahamas formation (6 miles)
and it is unlikely that the sea floor would subside at
exactly this rate for hundreds of millions of years."This another completely bankrupt argument because geologists have known for a long time that the sea floor doesn't have to subside exactly at the same rate for thick sequences of limestone to accumulate. Contrary, to what Mr. Hangdawg13 falsely proposed above, thick sequences of limestone can accumulate despite changes in the rate at which the sea floor subsides and eustatic sea level rises or falls. Changes in water in water depth, due to changes in the rate of bottom subsidence or eustatic sea level, often only effects the type of limestone (and/or dolomite) that accumulates instead determining whether it accumulates or not. If a person would look at both ancient and modern limestones deposits, he or she would often find cyclic / rhythmic variations in sedimentary structures, fossils, and types of limestone (and/or dolomite) within limestone deposits demonstrating frequent changes in water depth during the accumulation of thick limestone deposits. The water depth varied as the result of variations in the rate at which either bottom subsided, eustatic sea level rose of fell, or some combination of both within the area the limestone accumulated.Examples of how changes in water depths during the deposition of a thick sequence of limestone resulted only in changes in the types of limestone, characterized by specific sedimentary structures and textures, that accumulated to form it are discussed by:Keorschner, W. F., III, and Read, J. F., 1989, Field and
Modelling Studies of Cambrian Carbonate Cycles, Virginia
Appalachians. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. vol. 59,
no. 5, pp. 654-687.DeMicco, R. M., 1983, Wavy and Lenticular Bedded Carbonate
Ribbon Rocks of the Upper Cambrian Conococheague
Limestone, Central Appalachians. Journal of Sedimentary
Geology. vol. 53, pp. 1121 - 1132.In contrast to the above articles, the hydroplate theory is utterly useless and helpless in explaining the origin of the different types of limestone found within the Conococheague Limestone, whose origin are explained in great detail by the above articles. When it comes to explaining in detail specific variations in the types, sedimentary structures, fossil content, and layering that characterize specific accumulations of limestone and dolomite, the hydroplate theory is completely helpless in contrast to the depositional models of conventional geologists, which can consistency do it with great ease and credibility.In some cases, the limestone accumulated either faster than the sea floor subsided or sea level fell and created dry land until either subsidence or rising sea level submerged the area again. During this time, the exposed limestone was weathered, forming a well-defined soil. When either subsidence or rising eustatic sea level flooded the area again, the accumulation of limestone resumed, which buried and preserved the soil as a fossil soil called a "paleosol" within the accumulating sequence of limestone. Many thick limestone sequences contains numerous paleosols showing that extreme variations in water depth occurred during their accumulation.Examples of fossil soils, "paleosols", which have been found within thick sequences of limestone, are documented in:James, N. P. and Choquette, P. W., eds., 1988. Paleokarst,
Springer-Verlag, New York.Wright, V. P., 1994. Paleosols in shallow marine
sequences. Earth-Science Reviews. vol. 37. pp. 367-395.As above, the hydroplate model to helpless to explain the presence of numerous fossil soils (paleosols) and paleokarst that are often found interbedded **within** layers that form thick accumulations of limestone and dolomite.Hangdawg13 also wrote:"It makes sense that such a large deposit would be
found at the edge of a hydroplate too."The problem here is that the Bahamas is only one of many large accumulations of limestone and dolomite. The fact of the matter there are many, many more equally large or larger accumulations of carbonates, i.e. in the Willingston Basin, that aren't associated with the so-called "edges" of hydroplate. If one considers all of these limestone accumulations, there is absolutely no correlation between the so-called "edges" of the hydroplate and the occurrence of large accumulation of limestone and dolomite. This fact readily demonstrates what Mr. Hangdawg13 calls "sense" is in fact utter nonsense.In addition, the hydroplate theory is completely unable to explain in any detail, variations in the specific physical characteristics of limestone deposits, i.e. the sedimentary structures they exhibit; their fossil content; the distribution of different types of chalks, limestone, and dolomite; and how they are interlayered. In contrast, all of these features can be readily explained by models of conventional geologists discussed in:Boggs, Sam, Jr., 2001, Principles of Sedimentology and
Stratigraphy. 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, New York.Walker, R. G. and James, N. P., eds., 1992, Facies models-
response to sea level change. Geological Association of
Canada, St. John's, Newfoundland.Scholle, P. A., Bebout, D. G. & Moore, C. H., eds., 1983,
Carbonate depositional environments. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir no. 33.Tucker, M. E. & Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate sedimentology.
Blackwell, Oxford.Wilson, J. L., 1975, Carbonate facies in geologic history.
Springer, New York.Hangdawg13 also wrote:"Also, the composition of volcanic gases supports
the fact that limestone may exist deep down in
the earth's upper crust."Specifically, how does the composition of volcanic gases support the existence of limestone deposits deep in the crust? I ask this because I suspect he is indulging in the Gish Gallop by making statements for which he lacks any credible evidence, known processes, and arguments to support any coherent manner. From what I seen published about the composition volcanic gases, this is nothing more than empty arm-waving, lacking any scientific basis.For example, Mr. Hangdawg13's so-called "fact" is readily proved to be pure "fiction" by the documented fact that limestone decomposes at moderate temperatures into calcium and carbon dioxide. In case of dolomite, it would readily decompose into calcium, magnesium, and carbon dioxide. The parts of the "deep" crust, where it is argued that limestone exists is far too hot for limestone to exist without decomposing into its constituent components. What Mr. Hangdawg13 proposes above as a "fact" is physically impossible. In addition, this so-called "fact" is readily demonstrated to be nothing more than "pure" fiction, by seismic and gravity data that clearly demonstrate that the rocks, which compose the lower and middle parts of the lower crust are far too dense to composed of limestone.Hangdawg13 also wrote:"As I said in my previous post, it may be possible that
water burned off of hydrates in the crust picked up
calcium carbonate and deposited limestone on the edges
of the underground chamber as it seeped in."This is nothing more than geopoetry lacking any basis in geochemistry and rock mechanics. If Hangdawg13, would bother to learn something about the geochemistry of limestones, he would find that the only way this could happen would be if God directly changed the laws of chemistry and physics during the period of time that the Noachian Flood happened.Best Regards,Bill Birkland.This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 07-24-2004 03:10 AM

First, an interesting set of lectures notes that be downloaded is:Non-Terrigenous Sediments and Rocks 2.5 MBIn message 62, Hangdawg13 wrote:"Sorry to have dragged this off of dinosaurs. Maybe
I can get back to there again somehow."Getting "off topic" of the stated discussion is always a problem with any exchange of posts on a message board. But this is an interesting type.jar stated:"We've been going over how limestone is formed
and that it is formed through pretty normal biological
action."Actually there are a variety processes, both organic and inorganic that can create carbonates. An important point is that each of these processes, because of the specific (chemical and physical) environmental conditions associated with them creates limestone that contains a characteristic set of sedimentary structures; fossils; mineralogy (calcite, aragonite, and/or dolomite); stable isotope; i.e. carbon and oxygen; composition; interlayering; and physical features. For example, limestone created either from the reworking from pre-existing deposit of limestone or the abrupt precipitation of carbonate would be completely different in these features from a limestone which accumulated in the tidal zone of a arid coastal plain called a "Sabkha". Because of different processes forming them, a layer of limestone, which accumulated in intertidal zone of a Sabkha differs from a layer of limestone, which accumulated in the subtidal zone of a Sabkha. By looking in detail at the mineralogy, sedimentary structures, fossils present, stable isotopes, and other features of a limestone bed, a person can, with great confidence, deduce the processes by which created it and physical environment in which a bed of limestone accumulated. Each process, organic and inorganic creates different types of particles and modifies, sorts, and deposits these particles of calcium carbonate in its own specific way. As a result, each of the different processes that create limestone leaves its own particular signature in the type of limestone produced. After determining the process involved in creating a set of limestone beds, they can be used to deduce with great certainty the environment, in which it accumulated.This is very much like determining the cause of an airplane crash. By carefully examining and piecing together the wreckage and studying the black boxes, a trained investigator can determine the way a plane came apart and features, i.e. burn patterns, explosive residue, burn patterns, fatigue breaks, impact patterns on engine, etc. These features will indicate the process, i.e. explosive device, missle, engine failure, structural failure, and so forth, which resulted in the plane crashing. As in case of interpreting the origin of limestone, the interpretation of process is based on the concept that a specific process acting a specific material yields a specific result. Thus, knowing the result and the material, the type and intensity of process can be inferred. From there, the ultimate cause, terrorist bomb, metal fatigue, empty fuel tank, pilot error, and so forth that caused the crash can be deduced. Of course if the wreckage is too badly mangled, analogous to limestone highly metamorphosed into marble, insufficient evidence might prevent an investigator coming to any firm conclusion as to what happend.jar stated:"There is relatively little evidence of this. As
Coragyps said, he thinks the corals have been
chemically recombined, which is why limestone
deposits are not made up of crushed up corals
and clams."First, there wide variety of organisms, which produce calcium carbonate, either aragonite or calcite, shells in addition to clams and corals. These vary from large shells, i.e. mollusca (including clams), corals, bryozoans, brachipods, and so forth to microscopic animals; i.e. foraminifera, ostracods, coccoliths, pteropods, and so forth; algae; and bacteria (stromatolites). Depending on environmental conditions, i.e. water depth and salinity, any of these organisms can be abundant enough to form beds of shells that will eventually create beds of limestone. For example, the chalk, which is form of limestone, of the White Cliffs of Dover consist entirely of the trillions of pieces of the microscopic shells of coccoliths. (Contrary to what has been previously suggested this chalk doesn't have any silica cement in it. The only silica in it is concentrated in chert nodules).Finally, because of the chemical reactivity of calcium and magnesium carbonate, limestone and dolomite are subject to recrystallization of the original grains, which can very effectively mask, even obliterate, the original grains. The dolomitization of a limestone can also erase its primary features, i.e. sedimentary structures, fossils, clast types, and so forth. Also, aragonite is especially unstable and, thus, fossils composed of it are prone to being readily dissolved or recrystallized and making their presence difficult, often impossible to recognize. Recrystallization and metamorphism of limestone can erase the evidence needed to inferred its origin. However, the processes, which can cause this, create distinctive features of their own and it is quite clear from the mineralogy, texture, and other characteristics of the bed of limestone or dolomite that has happened.Hangdawg13 further wrote:"I'm arguing (though not very persuasively because
I'm still ignorant and learning of the process)
that limestone can and does form quickly through
chemical not biological processes. Large
limestone formations can and do occur when water
chemistry and conditions are right. Such
conditions might have been highly favorable
during the flood."Even if it was physically possible to produce large "limestone formations" by this process, which it isn't, the limestone produced by this process would because of the specific chemical reactions and physicals involved have physical features characteristic of the processes, which formed it. It would be impossible for this specific mode of limestone formation to replicate the physical characteristics of limestone formed by other processes.For example, limestone created by the massive precipitation of large volumes of carbonate spontaneously from water wouldn't have the same characteristics of limestone formed in sabkha tidal flats and mudbanks. Because of the processes depositing carbonate in a sabkha environment, the resulting limestone deposits consist of meter-scale beds consisting of an upper alagal-laminated limestone, a middle bed fossiliferous peloidal grain-supported limestome; and a lower burrowed pelloidal mud-supported limestone. It is absolute impossible for massive precipitation from waters could duplicate these features in a limestone bed. Thus, hundreds of meters thick units, which contain meter-scale with identical or very similar features couldn't have accumulated Mr. Hangdawg13 proposes above as very different processes formed these beds. If a person deduces the processes needed to form these meter-scale beds, they find that they are identical to the processes observed by geologists in modern sabkha, including dolomitization, which can be observed happening in these tidal flats.In a similar vein, the processes that Mr. Hangdawg13 propose for the formation of limestone are different from the processes needed to create the features of other types of limestone, including oolitic grainstone, crinoidal packstone, rudist boundstone, and so forth. They cannot explain how the specific physical characteristics of these and many other types of limestone are created. In contrast, geologists can observe processes in modern environments creating these types of carbonate sediments with the features seen in ancient limestone in modern environments.TheThe fundamental problem is that limestone formed by the massive precipitation of carbonate from water as suggested above or by carbonate material eroded from an imaginary underground reservoir would have very specific features. In ancient limestone, geologists have found features, which neither of these processes could possibly produce. Instead they find features that are produced by and characteristic of processes, which have been observed in modern environments. In case of certain Precambrian limestone, the features have been connected to specific processes using laboratory experiments.Jay asked:"How did this product of living organisims
get down there to become filled with water?"Hangdawg13 replied:"Again, this is an assumption that all limestone
is the product of corals n such. BTW corals have
to get their calcium from somewhere."Geologist make no such assumption. First, they know that both organic and inorganic processes can create carbonate sediments, which eventually are cemented into limestone. They know that **not** all limestone are biological in origin. Thus, this isn't an assumption of that conventional geologists make.This is a good point, because abrupt en mass precipitation of carbonate would create limestone that consists of homogeneous layer of carbonate mud. The mud would smother any organism and prevent their growth. Thus, such limestone would be devoid of any fossils. Also, the muddy water would prohibit the formation of microbial mats and stromatolites that are found in ancient limestones. In addition, a deep muddy bottom would preclude the formation of inorganic carbonate particles, i.e. oolites and grapestones, and they shouldn't be found in limestone created by the abrupt en mass precipitation of carbonates.It is true that various organisms get the calcium carbonate to make their shells from the water, in which they live. However, they can do it without the water containing enough calcium to be at the level it precipitate out.Hangdawg13 suggested:"It is possible that water, which was burned off of
hydrates in the crust, picked up calcium carbonate
in the crust and deposited it along the walls of the
chamber as it seeped into the chamber."If a person actually tried to construct a model of this using what is currently known about the structure and nature of the crust, they would find that such underground chambers belong to realm of popular fiction, i.e. "Journey to the Center of the Earth", not science. Basic rock mechanics would demonstrate that the existence of such chambers at depth within the Earth's crust is impossible.Water circulating through the crust does extract calcium from it. A lot of it is vented into the ocean where either organisms use it to build shells or inorganic processes precipitate carbonate particle that accumulate form carbonate deposits either identical or very similar in character to ancient limestones.Again, the intersted lurker, for more information can look at:Walker, R. G. and James, N. P., eds., 1992, Facies models-
response to sea level change. Geological Association of
Canada, St. John's, Newfoundland.Scholle, P. A., Bebout, D. G. & Moore, C. H., eds., 1983,
Carbonate depositional environments. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir no. 33.Tucker, M. E. & Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate sedimentology.
Blackwell, Oxford.Wilson, J. L., 1975, Carbonate facies in geologic history.
Springer, New York.Yours,Bill