Fossil Fish

[dad]

hehhehehe, is dad suggesting that metallic sodium and gaseous chlorine came together underwater to form trillions of tonnes of salt deposits?

No, I suggest that pre flood the Great Chemist, and nuclear expert, could have made salt. I mentioned how a mist came up, and could have carried things to the surface. If there were a lot of salt produced, would it not stand to reason that some accumulation zones may have existed where salt might gather?
For examplle in the area in question, we know was a low lying area, how else could it be perceived as being a sea? If it was prone to flooding, or indeed was a pre flood shallow sea even, then the salts collected might be builtr up in some areas!
Later, as the flood came, it might ne natural also for the same low areas to be last to go down as the waters of the flood receeded!

 

[dad]

Hey, you guys help me to come up with some good ones. Looking at Jet's pics, gave rise to another possible bomb.
1) The salt did not need to be produced on the surface!!!!! What if it was cooked up deep beneath the surface inside the earth! Then, we simply have the daily mist bring it up in as many trillions of tons as required! Presto! All salt present and accounted for, leaving a pre flood scenario a splendid explanation!!!!!
Bing and a bang an a boom.

Now here's the bomb--I could be wrong here and am just raising this as a possibility, but why not....this...???
2) Could it be that as Jet illustrated so well, producing salt produced heat? Could this be the real source of heat under the earth? Ha. A mechanism for melting rock, and hence, the seperation of the continents? Possibly going on all along since creation, or, even, gasp, a result of the split!?

 

[dlamberth]

For examplle in the area in question, we know was a low lying area, how else could it be perceived as being a sea?

Sea
n.

1. The continuous body of salt water covering most of the earth's surface, especially this body regarded as a geophysical entity distinct from earth and sky.
2. Abbr. S.
   1. <LI type=a>A tract of water within an ocean.
   2. A relatively large body of salt water completely or partially enclosed by land.
   3. A relatively large landlocked body of fresh water.

The Cretaceous Inland Seaway is called a sea because it was a relatively large body of salt water partially enclosed by land. It's depth has nothing to do with why it is called a sea. The inland seaway lasted roughly 100 million years.

.

 

[dad]

...

The Cretaceous Inland Seaway is called a sea because it was a relatively large body of salt water partially enclosed by land. It's depth has nothing to do with why it is called a sea. The inland seaway lasted roughly 100 million years. .

Well, I just explained where the salt may have come from, which challenges the belief that where salt is found was a sea. You assume the salt, being put there by the sea took a long time, the reasons for your claimed ages are wrong. It was recent!!

 

[TheNewAge]

Well, I just explained where the salt may have come from, which challenges the belief that where salt is found was a sea. You assume the salt, being put there by the sea took a long time, the reasons for your claimed ages are wrong. It was recent!!

As usual, you refer to your outlandish myths as if they were fact. There was no "mist" rising up out of the ocean nor was there a "split", nor is there any evidence of either.

 

[dlamberth]

Well, I just explained where the salt may have come from, which challenges the belief that where salt is found was a sea. You assume the salt, being put there by the sea took a long time, the reasons for your claimed ages are wrong. It was recent!!

Wrong. You did not explain where the salt came from. You gave a bunch of "could of's" followed by zero evidence that any of what you said actually took place.

Out side of the salt picture, there is a host of other evidence completely outside of this salt thing that shows that the inland seaway lasted roughly 100 million years. Thus far, as far as evidence is concerned, as usual you have provided absolutely nothing.



.

 

[dad]

As usual, you refer to your outlandish myths as if they were fact. There was no "mist" rising up out of the ocean nor was there a "split", nor is there any evidence of either.

Funny you should make such an outlandish statement. We all know you have no evidence to back up your assertion no mist came up. Your indignation is merely a defense mechanism for your beliefs.

 

[dad]

Wrong. You did not explain where the salt came from. You gave a bunch of "could of's" followed by zero evidence that any of what you said actually took place.

Your assumption it must have been produced by evaporation over time is really just that, an assumption. Based on what? This is how salt is now produced. Well, what evidence do you have that is what produced this salt back then? Stop spitting nails, and try to make a point that is supported.

Out side of the salt picture, there is a host of other evidence completely outside of this salt thing that shows that the inland seaway lasted roughly 100 million years.

Ha. Well, we know you have assumptions about other things as well, but it was the salt I saw as not yet explained by YEC pre flood ideas. Seems like it now may be. Anything else you could raise fits well into the YEC scenario, that I could see. No sense making claims you can't back up.

Thus far, as far as evidence is concerned, as usual you have provided absolutely nothing.

Thus far, we don't have evidence as to how that salt came to be, that I have heard. Maybe someone like Fumy has an ace up his sleeve? Just belief and assumption there, and that field is open to a bible shot at it as well.

 

[dlamberth]

Funny you should make such an outlandish statement. We all know you have no evidence to back up your assertion no mist came up. Your indignation is merely a defense mechanism for your beliefs.

Because you made the statement first, you need to back up with evidence your outlandish statement that mist did in fact come up as you explained.

Like everything else you claim, you have no evidence.

.

 

[dad]

Because you made the statement first, you need to back up with evidence your outlandish statement that mist did in fact come up as you explained.

Like everything else you claim, you have no evidence.

.

I will take that as a tacit admission from you that the scenario I gave of salt coming up pre flood is a solid one. You have nothing to say against it. The old evidence game of prove there was no mist, or was a mist won't work here. We have the evidence of the salt!

 

[dlamberth]

So far it looks like the time of the receeding flood, if the map was accurate.

To me, it looks like a sea. Science has shown that the sea depicted in the map existed for about 100 million years.

You have shown nothing.

.

 

[dad]

To me, it looks like a sea. Science has shown that the sea depicted in the map existed for about 100 million years.

You have shown nothing.

.

No, science has not shown any such thing. So called science has hazarded some guesses and a map produced upon the assumptions involved! If science had something to say why salt couldn't come up with the mist, we might hear about it. Apparenty, it is silent on the issue. Looking at the explanation of evaporation versus up with the mist, I don't think you have thought it through enough to make a bonifide comment! Just hollow echoes of faith in the hunches of so called science, and it's dating estimates based on faith.

 

[RightWingGirl]

regarding this, I am going to defer to OC1's excellent links.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20054519&postcount=221

The Ordovician limestone is a Dolomite and Limestone formation which covers a significant area of texas and consists of a number of features that cannot be deposited rapidly. For example, the dolomite is formed from the limestone, but this does not occur rapidly and occured over massive areas of texas. there are many caves in the texan formation which have formed by fresh water runningthrough them (salt water cannot dissolve caves since it is saturated already) and these caves could not have formed underwater, because stalagmites don't form underwater. Also the limestone has to lithify before these caves can form, since you can't dig an underground hole in loose sediment. now sometimes these caves get so large that they fall in, forming sinkholes, and we see this in texas. But before these sinkholes formed, there had to be enough time to deposit another few thousand feet of sediment and allow that sediment to lithify also. there are a number of other features such as things found in the limestone and so on which do not form rapidly, but what we need for all of this is:

extremely rapid formation of limestone (a marine deposit), extremely rapid lithification, exposure to freshwater in order to carve out the caves and additional time for further sediments to be laid on top and lithify before the cave collapses.

If limestone is a deposit if marine life (is that correct?) Then what precludes it being formed by a worldwide flood, which would have created many deposits of marine life?

 

[HairlessSimian]

Hey, you guys help me to come up with some good ones. Looking at Jet's pics, gave rise to another possible bomb.
1) The salt did not need to be produced on the surface!!!!! What if it was cooked up deep beneath the surface inside the earth! Then, we simply have the daily mist bring it up in as many trillions of tons as required! Presto! All salt present and accounted for, leaving a pre flood scenario a splendid explanation!!!!!

Everyone knows that the real origin of all that salt is the Neanderthals using it to melt the glaciers so that they could get their SUVs over to the mall.

2) Could it be that as Jet illustrated so well, producing salt produced heat? Could this be the real source of heat under the earth? Ha. A mechanism for melting rock, and hence, the seperation of the continents? Possibly going on all along since creation, or, even, gasp, a result of the split!?

Everyone knows that geothermal heat is because hell is underground!

 

[dlamberth]

If limestone is a deposit if marine life (is that correct?) Then what precludes it being formed by a worldwide flood, which would have created many deposits of marine life?

Limestone makes up about 10% of the total volume of all sedimentary rocks. There could not have been enough sea life alive in a single year of the Biblical flood to account for all of the limestone that exist through out the world today.

If there were, we would certainly be awash in marine fossils as well.


.

 

[dad]

Limestone makes up about 10% of the total volume of all sedimentary rocks. There could not have been enough sea life alive in a single year of the Biblical flood to account for all of the limestone that exist through out the world today.

If there were, we would certainly be awash in marine fossils as well.


.

With carbon available from aboveand/or below not all limestone need be made as it is today, with marine creatures. This explains why we are not awash in marine fossils as well.

 

[dad]

Everyone knows that the real origin of all that salt is the Neanderthals using it to melt the glaciers so that they could get their SUVs over to the mall.



Everyone knows that geothermal heat is because hell is underground!

OK, so you have nothing to say against salt being formed as I said, fine with me.

 

[Jet Black]

If limestone is a deposit if marine life (is that correct?) Then what precludes it being formed by a worldwide flood, which would have created many deposits of marine life?

limestone consists of countless trillions of shells of very tiny organisms. these organisms have to grow, they need light and a food source and oxygen and so on. When they die, due to their small size, they fall only slowly to the bottom of the water. Chalk is a particular example of this. The numbers of microorganisms that can actually live in the water at any one time are limited quite significantly by available materials - note that an overabundance of sediments will stop the organisms from growing as there will be no light, and also any additional sediments would settle along with the shells - this has not happened, as we can see from the purity of the deposits.

The UK is a particularly good example of this, in which there are three primary chalk layers, each above the other. The Lower Chalk averages about 200 feet thick, and contains additionally fossils of ammonites and so on. The middle chalk averages about 200 feet in thickness, and is very sparse in additional fossils, and the upper layer averages about 300 feet thick. so what you need there is a single yearly event that can somehow deposit 700 feet of chalk (besides all the other layers) - which is deposited only in shallow waters. Remember also that this chalk is pretty pure stuff. The following feature, the White cliffs of Dover, is made of cocoliths: single celled algae.

This of course only shows a single cliffso far as we know, because of the conditions required for these cocoliths to grow, this sort of thickness of chalk would take millions of years to form. Your sources are making the claim that this feature developed in a few weeks to months, and that is a pretty extraordinary claim, and to be honest, requires extraordainary evidence that it can happen.

Answersingenesis attempt to answer this here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp

but of course they ignore many of the features of the chalk, but their flood scenario is rather thin on substance and constradicts itself; on one hand they comment on the high purity of the chalk and then on the other they claim the water is full of rotting fish and plant matter. They also ignore the oxygen and other chemical requirements which would be immense for this level of chalk production. they further make the claim that the additional fossils found in the lower chalk layer require rapid fossilization, however this is false. These are shell fossils, and shells can survive a long time. in the UK there are many beaches that consist almost purely of shells. I also have a paper somewhere about some whale skeletons that are partially embedded in currently settling chalk deposits. We can also actually see chalk beds of high purity in the process of deposition, which again goes against their claims, which in this case is just an argument from incredulity.

 

[bertie]

Any body ever hear of Emmanual Velikovski?Worlds in Collision?

 

[dad]

limestone consists of countless trillions of shells of very tiny organisms. these organisms have to grow, they need light and a food source and oxygen and so on. When they die, due to their small size, they fall only slowly to the bottom of the water. Chalk is a particular example of this. The numbers of microorganisms that can actually live in the water at any one time are limited quite significantly by available materials - note that an overabundance of sediments will stop the organisms from growing as there will be no light, and also any additional sediments would settle along with the shells - this has not happened, as we can see from the purity of the deposits.

The UK is a particularly good example of this, in which there are three primary chalk layers, each above the other. The Lower Chalk averages about 200 feet thick, and contains additionally fossils of ammonites and so on. The middle chalk averages about 200 feet in thickness, and is very sparse in additional fossils, and the upper layer averages about 300 feet thick. so what you need there is a single yearly event that can somehow deposit 700 feet of chalk (besides all the other layers) - which is deposited only in shallow waters. Remember also that this chalk is pretty pure stuff. The following feature, the White cliffs of Dover, is made of cocoliths: single celled algae.

This of course only shows a single cliffso far as we know, because of the conditions required for these cocoliths to grow, this sort of thickness of chalk would take millions of years to form. Your sources are making the claim that this feature developed in a few weeks to months, and that is a pretty extraordinary claim, and to be honest, requires extraordainary evidence that it can happen.

Answersingenesis attempt to answer this here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp

but of course they ignore many of the features of the chalk, but their flood scenario is rather thin on substance and constradicts itself; on one hand they comment on the high purity of the chalk and then on the other they claim the water is full of rotting fish and plant matter. They also ignore the oxygen and other chemical requirements which would be immense for this level of chalk production. they further make the claim that the additional fossils found in the lower chalk layer require rapid fossilization, however this is false. These are shell fossils, and shells can survive a long time. in the UK there are many beaches that consist almost purely of shells. I also have a paper somewhere about some whale skeletons that are partially embedded in currently settling chalk deposits. We can also actually see chalk beds of high purity in the process of deposition, which again goes against their claims, which in this case is just an argument from incredulity.

Seems to me, that the pre flood world would be a better explanation for these things, with the fantastic growth rate?