Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dinosaurs 4500 years ago
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 46 of 87 (126600)
07-22-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by roxrkool
07-22-2004 3:22 AM


Thank you for your reply.
errrr... I've never heard of diatomaceous limestone/chalk.
I'm not saying limestone can't have diatoms, but generally diatoms do not occur in limestone in large enough amounts to warrant the descriptor "diatomaceous." At least not to my knowledge.
Limestone and chalk are predominantly composed of carbonate (CaCO3), while diatomaceous earth or diatoms are composed of silica (SiO2).
What exactly are you attempting to propose?
Perhaps I used the wrong word? Yes... I had the wrong word. Limestone formations like the cliffs of Dover is believed to have formed from enormous amounts of crushed up corals and shells that were compressed and cemented together. However, I think silica Is the second most common cementing agent, but it could never form from diatoms anyways because silica must be dissolved into water under great heat.
But anyways, what I was asking is why many layers of limestone are not made up of ground-up sea shells or corals? And where did all the limestone and silica cementing agent come from to uniformly cement all of these sediments together between layers? In other words, why is most of the world's limestone inorganic in origin?
Also, how did such immensly thick limestone formations occur? The Bahama's formation may be as deep as 6 miles.
As a side note: if limestone was precipitated by the waters of the flood, the seas would have been richer in dissolved limestone in the past perhaps allowing corals to grow much faster than they do today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by roxrkool, posted 07-22-2004 3:22 AM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Loudmouth, posted 07-22-2004 1:14 PM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 07-22-2004 1:42 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 47 of 87 (126601)
07-22-2004 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
07-22-2004 1:19 AM


Thanks for the site. I'm reading it now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 07-22-2004 1:19 AM jar has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 87 (126603)
07-22-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hangdawg13
07-22-2004 1:02 PM


quote:
In other words, why is most of the world's limestone inorganic in origin?
It precipitated out of the sea water. It may have originally been organic in origin, but precipitates are often thought of as inorganic.
quote:
if limestone was precipitated by the waters of the flood, the seas would have been richer in dissolved limestone in the past perhaps allowing corals to grow much faster than they do today.
First, you have to have evidence that the carbonate levels were higher. Second, you have to explain why there are bands of concentrated limestone interspersed with layers of soil which can only form when sediments are exposed to air (paleosols). You would also have to explain why we see algae interspersed in the limestone. The algae don't settle at the same rate or by the same mechanisms as carbonate precipitation. There are quite a few red and green limestones that derive their color from dead algae.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-22-2004 1:02 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-23-2004 2:22 AM Loudmouth has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 49 of 87 (126616)
07-22-2004 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hangdawg13
07-22-2004 1:02 PM


In other words, why is most of the world's limestone inorganic in origin?
It isn't. By far the majority of limestone and dolomite started out as shells or tests of organisms - a lot of it has been reworked chemically since deposition. There was some inorganic precipitation, apparently, in the Cambrian and before, but the chemical makeup of the oceans since then doesn't let that happen.
Also, how did such immensly thick limestone formations occur? The Bahama's formation may be as deep as 6 miles.
Corals, etc. merely kept growing there as the seafloor slowly subsided. That's a much larger problem for a Flood scenario than for reality - how do you get six miles of coral to grow, and six miles of subsidence to occur, in a year?
This message has been edited by Coragyps, 07-22-2004 12:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-22-2004 1:02 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-23-2004 2:15 AM Coragyps has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 50 of 87 (126623)
07-22-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Cthulhu
07-20-2004 4:41 PM


Re: What...the...****
Actually the word dinosaur was just a word to describe large creatures found in the 1800's that they also concluded were lizards. In our times this defination didn't work so they changed it to be more specific. Then they changed it again and have argued about it since. Croc's and turtles are the same creatures as dinosaurs. The present distinction is just to keep some credibility to thier being another kind of creatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Cthulhu, posted 07-20-2004 4:41 PM Cthulhu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 07-22-2004 2:09 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 55 by Loudmouth, posted 07-22-2004 2:14 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 51 of 87 (126624)
07-22-2004 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Loudmouth
07-20-2004 5:20 PM


It is simple creationist reasoning to understand before the flood it was a non-raining dry warm world everywhere. Also it is accepted that that continental drift took place. Except we creationistsw would call it continental red eye.
There have not been hundreds of thousands of geologists. In fact very few historical geologists have ever been pain 9 to 5. These are very small circles and few men have seriously put thier minds to these matters. They,like you, simply rely on authority for thier conclusions about these matters. Not independent thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Loudmouth, posted 07-20-2004 5:20 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by CK, posted 07-22-2004 2:01 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 60 by Loudmouth, posted 07-23-2004 1:53 PM Robert Byers has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 52 of 87 (126627)
07-22-2004 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Robert Byers
07-22-2004 1:57 PM


anyone able to translate that into english?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Robert Byers, posted 07-22-2004 1:57 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 53 of 87 (126628)
07-22-2004 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mike_King
07-20-2004 6:46 PM


The Bible is the guide but if there is a critism then we can reson thru the answer. Thats all our opponents do to say the Bible is a false witness. Mike all things can be answered by what we know now or by, if nessesary, a little faith.
However the flood is a cornerstone of Scripture and thus evangelical Christianity. And it has been seen that way by the great majority of us in the past and the present. We've never been proven wrong about anything and the English-speaking world is a product of our striving. Puritan (our old name) and Evangelical thought has advanced the world for it is rooted in the faith the Bible is true. And so the Bible has the better ideas for society.
Regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mike_King, posted 07-20-2004 6:46 PM Mike_King has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 54 of 87 (126630)
07-22-2004 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Robert Byers
07-22-2004 1:52 PM


Re: What...the...****
Actually the word dinosaur was just a word to describe large creatures found in the 1800's that they also concluded were lizards.
Sorta, but as often the case, not quite right.
Many of the fossils found were big, many small. And at first, folk did not know where to assign these finds.
But we have learned much over the next 200 years. Now, we have enough samples to assign most finds. There are still fuzzy areas, particularly with those strongest of findings, the transitionals. That is one of the strongest evidences that the TOE is correct. We are finding more and more examples of critters that are steps between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds.
Croc's and turtles are the same creatures as dinosaurs.
Well, again, kinda sorta. Both are animals. But the evidence is that they are distinct and different families of animals. But a Croc is not a dinosaur.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Robert Byers, posted 07-22-2004 1:52 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 87 (126632)
07-22-2004 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Robert Byers
07-22-2004 1:52 PM


Re: What...the...****
quote:
Actually the word dinosaur was just a word to describe large creatures found in the 1800's that they also concluded were lizards.
And taxonomy has made great strides since then. Lizards are quite distinct, given that they support their weight by sprawling legs (there legs leave their body parallel with the ground). Dinosaurs had pillar like legs, legs that left the body at a right angle to the ground. This allowed their body weight to greatly increase. From http://carbon.cudenver.edu/...hat%20makes%20a%20dinosaur.htm:
Ankles are very important in archosaur classification. Ankle (and wrist) joints are made up of several small bones which glide over one another as the foot flexes. Crocodiles and thecodonts had a bent hinge line (crurotarsal) at the ankle whereas dinosaurs (and their immediate ancestors such as Lagosuchus) had a straight hinge (mesotarsal). This simple hinge made it easier for dinosaurs to run more quickly and to walk on their toes (digitigrade) rather than on flat feet (plantigrade) as more primitive archosaurs did.
There are also other differences between lizards and dinosaurs:
a fully erect stance - like mammals and unlike lizards
the presence of a perforate acetabulum
and from http://www.gpc.edu/~janderso/historic/dinoch.htm:
1. Three (3) or more sacral vertebrae
2. Rear-facing shoulder joint
3. Asymmetric hand with two small outer digits
4. Open hip socket
5. Cnemial crest on tibia
6. Ascending process on the Astragalus bone
7. Sigmoidal third metatarsal bone
These are objective characteristics that are used to separate dinosaurs from crocodiles and birds, the two groups that bracket dinosaurs in evolution (crocodiles before dinosaurs, birds after).
Here is a cladogram of how reptiles are classified and how they speciated into different groups:
All of which is supported by fossil finds and objective evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Robert Byers, posted 07-22-2004 1:52 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 56 of 87 (126857)
07-23-2004 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coragyps
07-22-2004 1:42 PM


In other words, why is most of the world's limestone inorganic in origin?
It isn't. By far the majority of limestone and dolomite started out as shells or tests of organisms - a lot of it has been reworked chemically since deposition.
So since it's been chemically reworked, the only way you know that it was deposited by corals is because there's no other known way it could have been deposited? I've read that the origin of such large amounts of dolomite is still a mystery? I assume its not a mystery to you? The HP theory section on limestone talks about this, but I haven't fully understood it yet.
Corals, etc. merely kept growing there as the seafloor slowly subsided.
But the sea floor doesn't merely subside I don't think. The material under it either has to become more dense or spread out else where.
Why would a six mile thick section of sea floor material spread out or condense at exactly the right rate to keep coral 30 m below the surface for hundreds and hundreds of millions of years perhaps even a billion? Is there any evidence that the sea floor has spread in such a manner around the bahamas?
That's a much larger problem for a Flood scenario than for reality - how do you get six miles of coral to grow, and six miles of subsidence to occur, in a year?
The hydroplate theory supposes that the water chamber was lined with limestone and that much of this was eroded away and deposited worldwide. As it was being eroded away it would go back and forth between CaCO3 + CO2 + H20 and Ca+ + HCO3+ with pressure and temperature changes. I don't fully understand all of it as I just read the section on it today though, so my understanding is limited.
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-23-2004 01:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 07-22-2004 1:42 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 07-23-2004 1:21 PM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 61 by Loudmouth, posted 07-23-2004 2:02 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 57 of 87 (126862)
07-23-2004 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Loudmouth
07-22-2004 1:14 PM


First, you have to have evidence that the carbonate levels were higher. Second, you have to explain why there are bands of concentrated limestone interspersed with layers of soil which can only form when sediments are exposed to air (paleosols). You would also have to explain why we see algae interspersed in the limestone. The algae don't settle at the same rate or by the same mechanisms as carbonate precipitation. There are quite a few red and green limestones that derive their color from dead algae.
Sigh... I think I just need to go to the library and check out a geology book instead of getting free tutoring by ya'll.
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-23-2004 01:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Loudmouth, posted 07-22-2004 1:14 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 07-23-2004 2:53 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 58 of 87 (126870)
07-23-2004 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Hangdawg13
07-23-2004 2:22 AM


probably a good idea. geology is fun, too, no matter what the rest of my earth science class thinks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-23-2004 2:22 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 59 of 87 (126989)
07-23-2004 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Hangdawg13
07-23-2004 2:15 AM


Small question for you.
The hydroplate theory supposes that the water chamber was lined with limestone
We've been going over how limestone is formed and that it is formed through pretty normal biological action.
The water chamber in your theory is down beneath lots of granite and basalt, IIRC. How did this product of living organisims get down there to become filled with water? If it was limestone, at one time it was at the surface. That's where it formed. But there then has to be some method, some process, that moved it down to become the chamber, and yet another process to hollow it out and fill it with water.
Does that get covered? How long did that take?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-23-2004 2:15 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-23-2004 3:00 PM jar has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 87 (127004)
07-23-2004 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Robert Byers
07-22-2004 1:57 PM


quote:
It is simple creationist reasoning to understand before the flood it was a non-raining dry warm world everywhere. Also it is accepted that that continental drift took place. Except we creationistsw would call it continental red eye.
And where is the evidence of this? Am I just supposed to believe that you are honest and take it on authority? How can I test these assumptions on my own? You seem to take this on faith, but expect geology and evolution to be based on evidence (and it is). Why do you swallow theories with no evidence but refuse to accept theories that are supported by evidence?
quote:
There have not been hundreds of thousands of geologists.
That is a guesstimate, but the number of geologists who base their work on an old earth far outweigh (perhaps a 1,000:1) the number of scientists who claim that the earth is young.
quote:
These are very small circles and few men have seriously put thier minds to these matters. They,like you, simply rely on authority for thier conclusions about these matters. Not independent thought.
Maybe in your dreams, but not in the real world. Just as I do in my field of science, geologists continually challenge each other's theories. This is what science is about, presenting new research. Their life blood IS independent thought. How do you think that we came to the conclusion of an old earth to begin with, because of independent thought. It was creationists who studied the geologic record more than 150 years ago that finally had to come to the conclusion that the earth was old. Geologists were some of the first people to think outside of the box, outside the box of dogmatic young earth creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Robert Byers, posted 07-22-2004 1:57 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-23-2004 3:05 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 69 by Robert Byers, posted 07-24-2004 3:29 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024