Fossil Fish

[Mikecpking]

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.

This is right on my doorstep! To make this assumption that the chalk beds were laid down in 6 days is nonsense! What the writers also forget there are bands of flints at irregular intervals and one kind find ammonites at the bottom of the chalk layer, but not at the top. Also underneath the chalk layer, you will find the green sand layer and underneath that the portland stone limestone rock and so on. Hardly time enough for 40 days nor any eveidence of volcanism anywhere..
What amazes me with all the recent creation arguments is that they do not take into consideration the topography. You can see all the valleys which are completely dry. This is an ice age feature not from glaciers, but from permafrost that was preventing water to soak in due to the natural porosity of chalk. Erosion is such a slow process, that even the ditches around Stonehenge (Also sits on chalk) are clearly visible even after more than 3,000 years. So with all the processes that happen, Answersingenesis are clutching at straws just to defend an easily refuttable claim.
I would welcome anyone to come to England just to show anyone that Answersingenesis have no answer for simple geological facts..

 

[nasigoreng]

The picture is cool.

 

[Jet Black]

Hardly time enough for 40 days nor any eveidence of volcanism anywhere.

Not to ignore the rest of what you said, which I agree with, but this issue of volcanism is also important. If the conditions were such that they allowed settling of limestone and chalk, then the large amounts of material ejected into the atmosphere through volcanism would also be observable in layers like this. Single eruptions such as the toba catastrophe reduced global temperatures by up to five degrees and released massive amounts of debris into the atmosphere. We know of many such eruptions having occured through time, the Aira Caldera, the Yellowstone Caldera and the biggest one, La Garita Caldera (5000km wide) and these produced massive quantities of detritus - toba for example left sediments in india up to five metres deep. similarly disasterous for the environment are the massive basaltic flows, such as the Deccan Traps and Siberian Traps. Now these things produce massive cooling. After an explosion the size of toba for instance there would have been some six years without what you could call a summer. These are not ideal conditions for forming limestone.

See the AIG explanations are all rather handwavy. They simply claim "well these things could happen" but they never show they can. they never show that volcanism fed the formation of these limestone deposits, they never show that the water was full of rotting fish, they never show that limestone can settle that quickly and with that level of purity while suspended in acidic water (acid from the massive volcanism that they are talking about) full of rotting fish. The formation of these things are not a problem on geological scales, but they are making the extraordinary claim that all these features occured in the space of a few months. Extraordinary claims require extraordainary evidence.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I seem to recall someone suggesting that one reason creationism can't get a hold in the UK is that, unlike many parts of the US, the geology is in your face ancient. Most Brits can drive five miles and find a formation that is so obviously old that all you can do is drive home laughing at the idea of YEC.

I live on the edge of the Peak District. I'd like to see any YEC explain the shape of it. It's a plateau of limestone surrounded on three sides by gritstone moors. Conventional geology says that these gritstone edges are the remains of a 3000 metre high dome which was eroded in the middle to expose the much older limestone White Peak. YEC geology? Bugger all, as far as I know. Any takers? A YEC history of the Peak District? It's there for the taking.

Except it won't happen.

 

[Jet Black]

I seem to recall someone suggesting that one reason creationism can't get a hold in the UK is that, unlike many parts of the US, the geology is in your face ancient. Most Brits can drive five miles and find a formation that is so obviously old that all you can do is drive home laughing at the idea of YEC.

I live on the edge of the Peak District. I'd like to see any YEC explain the shape of it. It's a plateau of limestone surrounded on three sides by gritstone moors. Conventional geology says that these gritstone edges are the remains of a 3000 metre high dome which was eroded in the middle to expose the much older limestone White Peak. YEC geology? Bugger all, as far as I know. Any takers? A YEC history of the Peak District? It's there for the taking.

Except it won't happen.

then there is the old adage. To an Englishman, a hundred miles is a long way, To an American, a hundred years is a long time.

 

[dad]

I seem to recall someone suggesting that one reason creationism can't get a hold in the UK is that, unlike many parts of the US, the geology is in your face ancient. Most Brits can drive five miles and find a formation that is so obviously old that all you can do is drive home laughing at the idea of YEC.

I live on the edge of the Peak District. I'd like to see any YEC explain the shape of it. It's a plateau of limestone surrounded on three sides by gritstone moors. Conventional geology says that these gritstone edges are the remains of a 3000 metre high dome which was eroded in the middle to expose the much older limestone White Peak. YEC geology? Bugger all, as far as I know. Any takers? A YEC history of the Peak District? It's there for the taking.

Except it won't happen.

A quick stab, then. "There are 6 basic ideas to be taken on board in order to understand the geology of the Peak District:


*1. the whole of Britain was once south of the equator, and has slowly drifted north for the last 300 million years;
*2. the Peak was under tropical seas when the rocks we see today were laid down - in flat layers;
*3. the rocks have then been domed up along a line running roughly north from Uttoxeter;
*4 the rocks have been steeply folded on the west side of the Peak as an irresistible force has pushed the Peak against the immovable basement rocks of the Cheshire plain;
*5 the whole of Britain was buried under an immense thickness of rock for most of the last 300 million years;
*6. the Peak has had that cover stripped during the last 30 million years by erosion, revealing in it's centre limestone laid down at the bottom of an equatorial sea 300 million years ago."
http://www.peakscan.freeuk.com/geology.htm
Could it be, basically that pre flood the area was built up over the what was it, 1600 years or so? An area that was apparently flooded then with water for quite a while. (They say also flooded by the sea, but I'd have to see what evidence that was based on-salt, which may have come up with the mists, or 'sea life' fossils, or ?) The climate was nice then, and warm.
Now, to finish it all up here, we add the flood, hyper continental drift, and ice age. All in fairly comparitive short order. ..??

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Could it be, basically that pre flood the area was built up over the what was it, 1600 years or so? An area that was apparently flooded then with water for quite a while. (They say also flooded by the sea, but I'd have to see what evidence that was based on-salt, which may have come up with the mists, or 'sea life' fossils, or ?) The climate was nice then, and warm.
Now, to finish it all up here, we add the flood, hyper continental drift, and ice age. All in fairly comparitive short order. ..??

Is that it?

The flooding is based on the evidence of marine sediments that are laid down. I'm not aware of particularly large scale salt deposits.

How could hundreds of feet of limestone, which consists of (note, consists of, not "contains") tiny fossils of dead tiny marine creatures have been laid down over just 1600 years? That's around six inches a year, after they dry out and compress! And when did this limestone become dolomitised, as is the case with some Peak limestone? The process of dolomitisation is not well understood, but does appear to require ground water rich in magnesium and salt (http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/carbonat/dolomite/dolomite.htm)

Your penultimate sentence is unbelievably glib. How did these supposed events lead to the Peak that we know today? How did a short ice age reduce a 3000m millstone grit (extremely hard!) dome to fragments around 500-600m high around the edge, and nothing at all in the middle? Where did all this material, eroded in such a short time, go?

 

[dlamberth]

Is that it?

The flooding is based on the evidence of marine sediments that are laid down. I'm not aware of particularly large scale salt deposits.

How could hundreds of feet of limestone, which consists of (note, consists of, not "contains") tiny fossils of dead tiny marine creatures have been laid down over just 1600 years? That's around six inches a year, after they dry out and compress! And when did this limestone become dolomitised, as is the case with some Peak limestone? The process of dolomitisation is not well understood, but does appear to require ground water rich in magnesium and salt (http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/carbonat/dolomite/dolomite.htm)

Your penultimate sentence is unbelievably glib. How did these supposed events lead to the Peak that we know today? How did a short ice age reduce a 3000m millstone grit (extremely hard!) dome to fragments around 500-600m high around the edge, and nothing at all in the middle? Where did all this material, eroded in such a short time, go?

There's also two other facters that need to be over come. The first is that very little Calcium Carbonate (CaC03) can exist in salt water before the water becomes saturated with it. The second is how much limestone actually exists today...which is 10% of the total volume of all sedimentary rocks.

.

 

[dad]

Is that it?

The flooding is based on the evidence of marine sediments that are laid down. I'm not aware of particularly large scale salt deposits.

OK, so why is it strange that if there was pre flood water there, there would be water creatures? Seems about right to me!

How could hundreds of feet of limestone, which consists of (note, consists of, not "contains") tiny fossils of dead tiny marine creatures have been laid down over just 1600 years?

First, I would need to see if there was some piling up involved, as we know, the whole area they admit came from an area to stsrt with, that had a warm climate! Did this squeeze up, or pile some areas of laid down limestone here, or was it undisturbed by moving the continental plates?

If not, then the few hundred feet was laid down indeed in that area pre flood according to this idea! This is where assumptions of present conditions leave one in the lurch! Just like todays tree growth rates might, if we assumed only present rates. In this deposit, I'll take your word that it was formed by creatures, but in all the world, it was apparently not so. A source of carbon existed, apparently, that no loner exists!

Also, in pre flood zones where flooding did occur, is it possible that some things were collected by the fresh water sea, swamp, lagoon, or whatever they were? (Finding salt, though you say not applicible in this case, may simply mean in many places, that it was salt that came up under the earth with the mist, and gathered)

That's around six inches a year, after they dry out and compress! And when did this limestone become dolomitised, as is the case with some Peak limestone? The process of dolomitisation is not well understood, but does appear to require ground water rich in magnesium and salt (http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/carbonat/dolomite/dolomite.htm)[/QUOTE]
Hey, salt is no problem! But I have read another thing that some feel might also help do the trick. A great wind, and rapid evaporation of limestone, changing the chemical properties into dolomite!
Add to this that local flooding may have gathered creatures toward a central area, and the good old daily wind that may have been here pre flood as well! If you haven't heard of it, just look up a few bible commentaries, as to what the cool of the day in early genesis meant! (wind of the day)

Your penultimate sentence is unbelievably glib. How did these supposed events lead to the Peak that we know today?

I think I covered this now, if not, the question wasn't specific enough.

How did a short ice age reduce a 3000m millstone grit (extremely hard!) dome to fragments around 500-600m high around the edge, and nothing at all in the middle? Where did all this material, eroded in such a short time, go?

It is hard now, but can you demonstrate it was hard pre flood, to the same extent? If something whooshed by in the deep world flood, and knocked it's block off, would that do it? As for debris from that crash, why, it may have gotten pretty well washed clear of the area?

 

[dad]

There's also two other facters that need to be over come. The first is that very little Calcium Carbonate (CaC03) can exist in salt water before the water becomes saturated with it. The second is how much limestone actually exists today...which is 10% of the total volume of all sedimentary rocks.

.

A good reason to clue in that not all limestone was formed in the present way it is!

 

[dlamberth]

A good reason to clue in that not all limestone was formed in the present way it is!

do you mean over many millions of years? That's the only way we can have both a very low saturation point of Calcium Carbonate (CaC03) in salt water while at the same time producing so much Limestone.

.

 

[dad]

do you mean over many millions of years? That's the only way we can have both a very low saturation point of Calcium Carbonate (CaC03) in salt water while at the same time producing so much Limestone.

.

Well, the saturation point of water in salt water only goes so far. Was it salt water in the beginning, or get salt as time went by?
If I take a bathtub of water, and it it saturated with CaC03, salt water or otherwise, and dump a bunch of Carbon in, then it will be there, regardless of any previous amount in the water, no?
In this case the tub is the earth, and the dumped carbon from eithor/both under the earth, or above, from the heavens. Not the present only world where this no longer could be the case but in the world at the time!
No long ages.

 

[dlamberth]

Well, the saturation point of water in salt water only goes so far. Was it salt water in the beginning, or get salt as time went by?
If I take a bathtub of water, and it it saturated with CaC03, salt water or otherwise, and dump a bunch of Carbon in, then it will be there, regardless of any previous amount in the water, no?
In this case the tub is the earth, and the dumped carbon from eithor/both under the earth, or above, from the heavens. Not the present only world where this no longer could be the case but in the world at the time!
No long ages.

dad...you make me grin.

.

 

[HairlessSimian]

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

I have said plenty about your ideas on the origin of salt.

 

[HairlessSimian]

Dad has the ability to invent chemistry as needed.

 

[dad]

I have said plenty about your ideas on the origin of salt.

Nothing germain to it not having come up from deep in the earth!

 

[Dannager]

Since when is counteracting a natural explanation with a miracle an acceptable method of discerning truth?

 

[HairlessSimian]

Nothing germain to it not having come up from deep in the earth!

Only if you think that saying, in effect, something like "it can't happen that way and here's why" isn't germane.

 

[dad]

Since when is counteracting a natural explanation with a miracle an acceptable method of discerning truth?

I don't know. Do you have a natural explanation for why the salt could not have come up with the mist? I haven't heard one yet.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't know. Do you have a natural explanation for why the salt could not have come up with the mist? I haven't heard one yet.

Here are some definitions of mist.
http://www.answers.com/topic/mist

1. A mass of fine droplets of water in the atmosphere near or in contact with the earth.
2. Water vapor condensed on and clouding the appearance of a surface.
3. Fine drops of a liquid, such as water, perfume, or medication, sprayed into the air.
4. A suspension of fine drops of a liquid in a gas.
5. Something that dims or conceals.
6. A haze before the eyes that blurs the vision.
7. Something that produces or gives the impression of dimness or obscurity: the mists of the past.
8. A drink consisting of a liquor served over cracked ice.

Mist could not bring up anything from under the ground. The idea that enormous salt deposits (if that is what dad is talking about) could be "brought up by mist" is ludicrous. Or maybe dad means definition 8. Maybe the salt was brought up by Canadian Mist. Would the alcohol help the salt precipitate when it evaporated?

I am becoming more and more convinced that dad must be presenting a parody to try to make YEC look as totally stupid as he possibly can. He is succeeding admirably and I will admit that he even had me convinced at one time that he was serious.

F.B.