limestone deposits

TexasSky · Apr 20, 2006

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/lessons/Slideshow/Serocks/Sedrock6.html

Limestone is the most abundant of the non-clastic sedimentary rocks. Limestone is produced from the mineral calcite (calcium carbonate) and sediment. The main source of limestone is the limy ooze formed in the ocean. The calcium carbonate can be precipitated from ocean water or it can be formed from sea creatures that secrete lime such as algae and coral.

(I never thought of the ocean as shallow.)

urbanxy · Apr 20, 2006

My apologies, I was talking specifically about the chalk mentioned in the "White Cliffs" post.

.

Baggins · Apr 20, 2006

TexasSky said:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/lessons/Slideshow/Serocks/Sedrock6.html

(I never thought of the ocean as shallow.)

shallow oceans are those that are on continental shelfs. deep oceans - those above oceanic plates range from about 2000m to 8000m deep. So as you can see shallow - meaning between 200 and 0m deep is a relative term.

Baggins · Apr 20, 2006

TexasSky said:
Well, I guess my science professors and teachers and grandfather (who worked for a river authority) all lied to me, because they said the reason for the limestone all around where I grew up was "flooding from the river".

Yep they surely did. They must have had something against you. Or they didn't understand the geology of the area. Let's be charitable, your grandfarther didn't know about the local geology and your science professors either lied to you or you misunderstood them.

shinbits · Apr 20, 2006

Baggins said:
I'm not exactly sure what your problem is. Do you have a problem with the chalks of southern england on the limestones of the Morrison formation.

You mentiioned that plate tectonics could explain what limestone is doing so high above sea-level. I was asking if there's any explination how.

btw....I'm currently reading your link on plate tectonic, and it is a good read. (I put it on my favs!) If I don't answer this thread for a while, it's because it'll take me a few times to really have this sink in, and to cross reference stuff with google.

But in the mean time (Goes back into fierce debate mode)----how would plate tectonics explain limestone so high above sea-level? Only a flood would make sense.

Baggins · Apr 20, 2006

shinbits said:
You mentiioned that plate tectonics could explain what limestone is doing so high above sea-level. I was asking if there's any explination how.

btw....I'm currently reading your link on plate tectonic, and it is a good read. (I put it on my favs!) If I don't answer this thread for a while, it's because it'll take me a few times to really have this sink in, and to cross reference stuff with google.

But in the mean time (Goes back into fierce debate mode)----how would plate tectonics explain limestone so high above sea-level? Only a flood would make sense.

The limestones started off on the bottom of a shallow sea, they were buried under 100s of meters of other sediment and lithified then the whole area was uplifted a mile into the sky, the layers of rock above the limestones were eroded away and voila, limestones a mile up, that's nothing, there are limestones on top of Everest 5 miles up, they got there through a massive plate collision between the Indian and the Asian plates.

Once you've read the links and understood the massive forces involved it doesn't seem incredulous any more.

shinbits · Apr 20, 2006

Baggins said:
The limestones started off on the bottom of a shallow sea, they were buried under 100s of meters of other sediment and lithified then the whole area was uplifted a mile into the sky, the layers of rock above the limestones were eroded away and voila, limestones a mile up, that's nothing, there are limestones on top of Everest 5 miles up, they got there through a massive plate collision between the Indian and the Asian plates.

Well.....that does seem like sort of a long shot.

One thing: For it to happen this way, that would mean that the layer of limestone existed before the rest of the rock below it; this would disprove geologic rock layers, because the oldest layer is on the top.

Either geologic rock layers are wrong, or this theory is wrong, but both can't coincide.

A flood seems easier to believe.

JohnR7 · Apr 20, 2006

urbanxy said:
Every reference I find says that limestone is made of sedimentary rock and calcite from the shells of marine organisms; nothing about limestone and skeletons.

That still makes lime an organism, something that was alive at one time. Even if it was the shell of marine organisms.

Asimov · Apr 20, 2006

shinbits said:
One thing: For it to happen this way, that would mean that the layer of limestone existed before the rest of the rock below it; this would disprove geologic rock layers, because the oldest layer is on the top.

I'm hard-pressed to find anything in the three pages where it's said that the limestone existed before the rest of the rock below it....

shinbits · Apr 20, 2006

Asimov said:
I'm hard-pressed to find anything in the three pages where it's said that the limestone existed before the rest of the rock below it....

I never said the limestone existed before the rest of the rock; but this would be the case if Baggin's explination for how limestone got up that high above see level on a rock formation, in ways other then a flood. So either this explination is correct, or geologic rock ages are wrong.

A flood is the best explination.

Asimov · Apr 20, 2006

shinbits said:
I never said the limestone existed before the rest of the rock; but this would be the case if Baggin's explination for how limestone got up that high above see level on a rock formation, in ways other then a flood. So either this explination is correct, or geologic rock ages are wrong.

A flood is the best explination.

We are aware of your viewpoint, repeating it ad nauseum isn't needed shinbits, unless you're trying to affirm to yourself your own belief. In that case, could you kindly just say it aloud to yourself?

Thanks.

Could you possibly explain how you got that from Baggin's explanation?

Jet Black · Apr 21, 2006

TexasSky said:
The problem I see with the OP is that it wrongly assumes that Shinbits stated the flood was the "only" force acting on such things as the "White Cliffs of Dover."

No one who supports the flood of Genesis claims that all natural phenonmenon today was caused in that "one flood."

Could the flood account for part of the White Cliffs of Dover? Of course it could.

what a load of vacuous adhoccery and "because I say so". Come on, if you are going to claim that a turbid flood could account for parts of the white cliffs, tell us about it. Actually address what I said rather than ignoring it all and making empty claims.

Jet Black · Apr 21, 2006

shinbits said:
I didn't see the UK mentioned, I only noticed Colorado.

I don't recall a time ever when colorado was in the UK. I suppose you could argue that it was once a part of the British empire, but that doesn't really count.

O.K.......How could this NOT be proof of a flood? How else would limestone reach that high?

Please shinbits, actually deal with the OP rather than coming back with stuff like this. Actually deal with the things that I have talked about. I have already pointed out a large number of reasons, even with mathematical backing that already answer your question.

Jet Black · Apr 21, 2006

TexasSky said:
Well, I guess my science professors and teachers and grandfather (who worked for a river authority) all lied to me, because they said the reason for the limestone all around where I grew up was "flooding from the river".

(1) we don't know where you grew up
(2) we don't know exactly what these people said to you
(3) you have provided no data

so all in all, the contribution you have made to the discussion is essentially zero - nothing more than a pointless appeal to unnamed authorities. and sorry, but since you used to work for a DNA lab, judging from your knowledge of DNA, I am going to be rather cynical when you say that "A" used to work for company "B" and is therefore an expert in all things that company does.

Do me a favour and actually address the OP, something that none of the creationists have yet done in anything other than a completely cursory manner.

Jet Black · Apr 21, 2006

shinbits said:
You mentiioned that plate tectonics could explain what limestone is doing so high above sea-level. I was asking if there's any explination how.

btw....I'm currently reading your link on plate tectonic, and it is a good read. (I put it on my favs!) If I don't answer this thread for a while, it's because it'll take me a few times to really have this sink in, and to cross reference stuff with google.

But in the mean time (Goes back into fierce debate mode)----how would plate tectonics explain limestone so high above sea-level? Only a flood would make sense.

take a piece of paper, place it on a table. in the middle of the paper draw several big blue blobs over the paper. those are lakes now press the ends of the paper towards each other. see how some of the lakes end up well above the table? That's plate tectonics. anything in the lakes will also end up well above the table.

if you want, I can provide a diagram. if you really push me, I can make a video.

Baggins · Apr 21, 2006

shinbits said:
Well.....that does seem like sort of a long shot.

One thing: For it to happen this way, that would mean that the layer of limestone existed before the rest of the rock below it; this would disprove geologic rock layers, because the oldest layer is on the top.

Either geologic rock layers are wrong, or this theory is wrong, but both can't coincide.

A flood seems easier to believe.

Shinbits it is not a difficult concept, just think about it before you come up with stupid statements like the above.

For one it is not a long shot, it is happening world wide at theis very moment, in some places crust is sinking ( or not ) and deposition is taking place, in others crust is rising and rock is being eroded off the top and older rock layers beneath are being exposed. It is observable and measurable and going on worldwide at this very moment as it has been throughout the worlds recorded ( in the rocks ) history.

Please just try and understand the basic concepts of plate tectonics

How on earth could what I have written above be read to suggest that the limestone was older than the rocks beneath it, if you are having trouble understanding what is written ask, don't just come back with idiotic statements.

The flood seems easier to believe, because it is easier to believe, there is no evidence for it there is no mechanism to learn as to how it worked, you just make it up as you go along, that is extremely easy. Science isn't easy because you have to understand the evidence and then understand the theory and see if they match.

You prove the flood is easy to believe on a daily basis, a simpleton could believe it. You also prove that geology is not easy as easy to understand as I thought it was because you seem unable to grasp basic concepts even when they are presented to you on school web sites.

shinbits · Apr 21, 2006

Jet Black said:
take a piece of paper, place it on a table. in the middle of the paper draw several big blue blobs over the paper. those are lakes now press the ends of the paper towards each other. see how some of the lakes end up well above the table? That's plate tectonics. anything in the lakes will also end up well above the table.

if you want, I can provide a diagram. if you really push me, I can make a video.

I believe you about plates pushing up on lakes and mountains. But this would falsify geologic rock ages, because the layer that first existed on the bottom rises to the top, with younger layers at the bottom.

Make sense?

Baggins · Apr 21, 2006

shinbits said:
I believe you about plates pushing up on lakes and mountains. But this would falsify geologic rock ages, because the layer that first existed on the bottom rises to the top, with younger layers at the bottom.

Make sense?

Absolutely not, it just proves that you can't even grasp this simple concept. The whole area is uplifted with the oldest rocks at the bottom and th eyoungest at the top, this is a simple, pancake ( analagous to a stack of pancakes ) geology case, the easiest to grasp. To push a bit further:

Think of it in terms of a telephone directory, bend it into an arch - mimicing plate collision, then slice off the top to a flat plane - mimicing erosion. The center of the plane now has the first pages of the telephone directory - analogous to the oldest rocks, the outside of this plane has the back pages of the directory - nalagous to the youngest rocks.

A similar pattern can be seen in southern England except in reverse the yougest rocks are at the center - around London, and the oldest rocks are reveal ed further away in sequence.

The difference is because in th efirst case we were creating an anticline - bowing the rocks up, whereas in the real case around London we are looking at a syncline .

Now I know these concepts are difficult without pictures, but google anticline and syncline and then see if you can find other pictures in the resources. Until you can grasp these very easy fundamental points you are arguing from a point of zero knowledge and your points are therefore quite worthless

http://www.arc.losrios.edu/~borougt/GeologicStructuresDiagrams.htm

This is the best I could come up with at short notice, and there must be better diagram resources out there but there are pictures showing the above cases.

There are even pictures showing cases where you can get older rocks above younger rocks ( recumbant folding ) so I am reluctant to postthe site for fear that you will grasp this special ( rare ) case like a drowning man grasps a straw, and try and make it a general case.

But we have to start somewhere.

shinbits · Apr 21, 2006

In a rock formation, layers are said to build when new sediment forms on top of an already existing layer. As a result, the higher up the layer, the younger the sediment.

What you describes reverses the supposed age of layers. Already existing layers are replaced as new layers push up under it.

New layers......form under older ones.

This can't be explained any simpler.

From a logical standpoint, what you describe falsifies geologic rock ages.

Again, a flood is not only simpler, but more logically sound.

TheInstant · Apr 21, 2006

shinbits said:
What you describes reverses the supposed age of layers. Already existing layers are replaced as new layers push up under it.

New layers......form under older ones.

Did you even read what Baggins wrote?

limestone deposits

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Objectivist

Well-Known Member

Objectivist

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Hooraytheist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency