Ice Age?

[A4C]

That isn't the case at all.

You made a postulation that limestones were formed in caves and washed down to be redeposited in the Grand Canyon. You were asked to provide some evidence of that and the links which you posted described how caves form, not how limestone forms.

Given that the presence of limestones within the Grand Canyon, and in many other locations, provides important evidence refuting a global flood, then your understanding of the mode of formation of limestone is quite important in terms of your frequent assertions that the geological record provides evidence FOR a global flood. If you don't know how limestones form, which would appear to be the case, then you cannot evaluate the evidence which they provide refuting a global flood in the manner which you propose.

That's the problem with making confident assertions about things which you know nothing about- it isn't that knowing nothing about them that is the problem (that can easily be resolved with some reading and learning). It is the making of unfounded, ill considered and incorrect assertions about them and using those in support of a model which they actually disprove.

The geological methodology involved in the formation of the Grand Canyon and other similar sites by a the Noahian Flood is not dependant on the knowledge that i do or do not have. Now if I do not fully understand how the limestone deposits were laid down between other sediments during the Flood I am sure the Bible isn't going to be re written as a result. In the meantime as you dont like the idea of calcite eminating from limestone caves as the source for the formation of the limestone layers, be patient and perhaps a little less vitriolic as you wait for a forthcoming update .

 

[Jet Black]

I see an attempt here is to say Ah ha You dont know something - therefore you must know nothing.
You want to give the impression that because I think that the Flood formed the Grand Canyon and because there might be something I don't know well obviously the flood didn't form the Grand Canyon
Well I dont think anybody is going to fall for that sort of nonsense

hey, you missed the rest of my post:

ok, different question. you were asked several times how limestone forms, and every time you supplied information on how limesone caves form. Why did you give that information as if it was an answer to the question being posed to you?

 

[Jet Black]

In the meantime as you dont like the idea of calcite eminating from limestone caves as the source for the formation of the limestone layers.

so do you know how limestone is formed then?

 

[A4C]

hey, you missed the rest of my post:

ok, different question. you were asked several times how limestone forms, and every time you supplied information on how limesone caves form. Why did you give that information as if it was an answer to the question being posed to you?

Because it answers the question. Are you saying it is not limestone formed in limestone caves?

 

[Jet Black]

Because it answers the question. Are you saying it is not limestone formed in limestone caves?

it doesn't answer the question. ok, I am going to tell you now. limestone caves are caves carved from limestone deposits - take limestone, carve out hole in limestone, limestone cave, see?

so telling us how limestone caves are formed does not tell us how limestone is formed which is what you have been repeatedly asked. you do not even seem to know what limestone is.

It's like us asking "how do we build roads" and then you posting an article on the effectiveness of pneumatic drills on tarmac.

 

[leccy]

The geological methodology involved in the formation of the Grand Canyon and other similar sites by a the Noahian Flood is not dependant on the knowledge that i do or do not have. Now if I do not fully understand how the limestone deposits were laid down between other sediments during the Flood I am sure the Bible isn't going to be re written as a result.

Clearly not. AFAIK there is no reference in the Bible to the sediments laid down by the flood, nor any other of the YEC postulations about the flood, such as those mountains surrounded by soil, limestones forming in caves and being washed away, sinkholes, fossils being hydrodynamically sorted or sorted by differential success in evading the oncoming flood waters, the origin of all of the earth's coal, oil and gas deposits in a single event, plates whizzing around the globe etc etc. None of those things are in the Bible and none of those things can be related by virtue of any geological evidence to a single global flood a few thousand years ago.

In the meantime as you dont like the idea of calcite eminating from limestone caves as the source for the formation of the limestone layers, be patient and perhaps a little less vitriolic as you wait for a forthcoming update .

I'm sorry that you consider my posts as vitriolic, I can assure you that they are not intended to be.

FWIW the textures and fauna of the limestones within the Grand Canyon, as in your specific example, are incompatible with them being the products of any simple reprecipitation of dissolved calcium carbonate. The rock type that forms from the dissolution and reprecipitation of calcite is called travertine and is quite different to those limestones associated with the Grand Canyon.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Because it answers the question. Are you saying it is not limestone formed in limestone caves?

Correct. Limestone that had dissolved and washed out as calcite would hardly resolidify in the shape of all the fossils from which it was originally made. It would be just evaporated calcite.

The GC limestone is virgin limestone, as laid down originally, made up of tiny discrete calcium carbonate fossils. When limestone dissolves, it's like sugar. If you sculpted a shape out of sugar, dissolved it, and then recrystallised it, you wouldn't get your sculpture back, would you? Recrystallised calcite is called Tufa, and it's quite different to virgin limestone, even though chemically it's the same, it is not made up of tiny fossils as limestone is.

This is what we mean. If you knew this, you'd know that your scenario is impossible.

 

[Loke]

My point is that they were eroded not as hardened rock but as semi hardened sediment. ie within 12 months of being laid down

How would you explain the sediments being hardened after the erosion? And what coursed the erosion?

Loke

 

[A4C]

How would you explain the sediments being hardened after the erosion? And what coursed the erosion?

Loke

The receeding waters of the Flood

 

[A4C]

The point I was making in suggesting the limestone layers may have been sourced from limestone caves is because I wanted to avoid the PRATT that there was not enough time in the Flood scenario for fish and shell to form the layer (this I agree) Another alternative -maybe but a long shot perhaps - what about if all the animals that floated because of flow current al ended up in certain places so their bodies decayed -their bones forming the source of calcium (Only a suggestion of course ) I also believe that there are certain plants rich in calcium which may have got washed out only at certain times or perhaps floated as well

 

[notto]

The point I was making in suggesting the limestone layers may have been sourced from limestone caves is because I wanted to avoid the PRATT that there was not enough time in the Flood scenario for fish and shell to form the layer (this I agree) Another alternative -maybe but a long shot perhaps - what about if all the animals that floated because of flow current al ended up in certain places so their bodies decayed -their bones forming the source of calcium (Only a suggestion of course ) I also believe that there are certain plants rich in calcium which may have got washed out only at certain times or perhaps floated as well

Do you realize just how much limestone we find in the ground? These 'certain areas' are everywhere. Your floating plant idea is your best ad-hoc explanation yet. It doesn't even come close to a realistic mechanism or description for the limestone formations we find because when we look at the limestone we can see the microfossils of just what type of creatures formed it and it wasn't floating plants rich in calcium.

 

[leccy]

The point I was making in suggesting the limestone layers may have been sourced from limestone caves is because I wanted to avoid the PRATT that there was not enough time in the Flood scenario for fish and shell to form the layer (this I agree) Another alternative -maybe but a long shot perhaps - what about if all the animals that floated because of flow current al ended up in certain places so their bodies decayed -their bones forming the source of calcium (Only a suggestion of course ) I also believe that there are certain plants rich in calcium which may have got washed out only at certain times or perhaps floated as well

These are just more ad hoc explanations with no evidence for them.

There isn't enough time in the flood scenario to deposit all those sediments or to explain the variety of environments produced. There also couldn't have been the biomass available all at the same time to deposit those limestones all at the same time on a global scale.

You need to get away from this fixation on the Grand Canyon and the area around it. It isn't just THE layer of limestone in the Grand Canyon that your model has to explain, there are lots of layers of limestone and more than that it is ALL the limestones within the sedimentary rocks throughout the stratigraphic column around the world that you would attribute to the flood.

The usual YEC assertion is that the fossils were deposited during the flood. That means that the rocks they occur in would have to have been deposited during the flood. That is a big enough problem volume-wise if you were just talking about the odd fossil scattered around in sandstones and shales, but when you are dealing with bioclastic limestones, where most of the rock is made up of calcareous fossils, then the volumes and numbers of fossils involved are enormous.

I doubt you will read it, but there is a fascinating essay on a piece of chalk by Thomas Huxley, which describes the importance of these microscopic creatures in making up the great expanses of Chalk deposits in Europe and beyond.

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE8/Chalk.html

 

[A4C]

Do you realize just how much limestone we find in the ground? These 'certain areas' are everywhere. Your floating plant idea is your best ad-hoc explanation yet. It doesn't even come close to a realistic mechanism or description for the limestone formations we find because when we look at the limestone we can see the microfossils of just what type of creatures formed it and it wasn't floating plants rich in calcium.

So would you like to share with us. Are you saying that it was a form of floating plankton which of course would support a global Flood -right?

 

[notto]

So would you like to share with us. Are you saying that it was a form of floating plankton which of course would support a global Flood -right?

No. Even a global flood for a year doesn't give enough water or time to support the reproduction and precipitation all of these organism living at the same time. You said it yourself: that there was not enough time in the Flood scenario for fish and shell to form the layer (this I agree)

 

[A4C]

No. Even a global flood for a year doesn't give enough water or time to support the reproduction and precipitation all of these organism living at the same time. You said it yourself: that there was not enough time in the Flood scenario for fish and shell to form the layer (this I agree)

So could it be a combination of the calcium contained in plankton, fish, shells, animal bones and plants (containing calcium)
It appears that you know what the scientific analysis of the limestone gives its origin source but that you dont want to tell us -is that a fair deduction?

 

[notto]

So could it be a combination of the calcium contained in plankton, fish, shells, animal bones and plants (containing calcium)
It appears that you know what the scientific analysis of the limestone gives its origin source but that you dont want to tell us -is that a fair deduction?

The rock is made up of fossils. We can tell where the calcium came from. There are layers of limestone over 10,000 feet thick.

1) Where did the calcium come from that these animals made their shells out of if they were all alive at the same time?
2) How deep would the water need to be to support dissolved calcium of these levels if these animals were all alive at the same time?

You are missing the important point that in order for these shells to be created, the calcium needs to be extracted from water by them in the first place. Water can only hold a certain amount of dissolved calcium and carbonate. How did the water hold this for these animals that all died at the same time? It is an impossibility for the flood water to support the animals represented in a layer of water 10,000 feet thick due to simple biomass and chemisty. Now add to that other trace fossils and other evidence and the flood explanation for formation of limestone simply is not credible.

 

[A4C]

The rock is made up of fossils. We can tell where the calcium came from. There are layers of limestone over 10,000 feet thick. .

Can you tell what the fossils are and if so what are they? (just an overview will do)

1) Where did the calcium come from that these animals made their shells out of if they were all alive at the same time?.

Well does that same amount of calcium exist now or not Why not pre flood in a different form

2) How deep would the water need to be to support dissolved calcium of these levels if these animals were all alive at the same time?.

Well I would say that a level that would cover MT Everest would leave a lot of depth over the Grand Canyon

You are missing the important point that in order for these shells to be created, the calcium needs to be extracted from water by them in the first place. Water can only hold a certain amount of dissolved calcium and carbonate. How did the water hold this for these animals that all died at the same time? It is an impossibility for the flood water to support the animals represented in a layer of water 10,000 feet thick due to simple biomass and chemisty. Now add to that other trace fossils and other evidence and the flood explanation for formation of limestone simply is not credible.

Actually as I look into this it begins to look more credible and any alternative -ie long periods (millions of years) for deposition look a lot more incredible

 

[notto]

Can you tell what the fossils are and if so what are they? (just an overview will do)

do a google search on limestone microfossils. You can find out a lot on the subject

Well does that same amount of calcium exist now or not Why not pre flood in a different form

This doesn't matter. We are talking about how it was dissolved in the water while these animals made shells out of it, and then they were buried - all within a year.

Well I would say that a level that would cover MT Everest would leave a lot of depth over the Grand Canyon

But that water wasn't there before the flood when these animals would need to be forming their shells, was it. Water also takes time to dissolve calcium. This new water couldn't just pick it up from somewhere.

It takes around 2 KG (or 2 liters) of sea water to dissolve 1 g of calcium. That is 2000g of water to dissolve 1g of calcium. based on the density of calcium, it would take 3000 g of water or 3000 cm^3 of water to disolve 1 cm^3 of calcium.

That means that for every square measure of calcium, it takes 3000 times that of water if we are simply going to get as much calcium dissoved in the water as we can..

We have limestone beds up to 10,000 feet thick (1/3 the height of everest from current sealevel) over hundreds of square miles. These beds are composed of animals that extracted their calcium from water, built shells and died. To suggest that this happened in a year and with the water proposed for the flood doesnt' work.

Do the math, it doesn't add up.

The mechanisms, chemistry, and your continued ad-hoc explanations won't explain it. Understanding real geology and chemistry will.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I don't think that A4C has actually got this crucial fact yet, so I'm going to spell it out.

Limestone is made up of billions of tiny fossils of mostly very small creatures like coral polyps.

It is not simply solid calcium carbonate.

 

[Numenor]

Actually as I look into this it begins to look more credible and any alternative -ie long periods (millions of years) for deposition look a lot more incredible

Rather, what is incredible, is your refusal to admit you have it completely wrong.