Chalk is the microscope remains of untold billions of once living creatures compressed into a soft sedimentary rock.
In places it can be in the hundreds of feet thick.
Surely it wasn't created in the short time of the flood.
Doesn't this show that death reigned supreme long before Adam sinned?
Did God create chalk deposits?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
[Replying to post 28 by EarthScienceguy]
Doesn't matter if the plants could utilize another source of food. The environment must be the correct temperature for all of it to function.
You do realize that the solar energy that the earth receives in a year is a large but finite amount?
There isn't enough in the tank for the miles you want to drive.
Doesn't matter if the plants could utilize another source of food. The environment must be the correct temperature for all of it to function.
You do realize that the solar energy that the earth receives in a year is a large but finite amount?
There isn't enough in the tank for the miles you want to drive.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #32
[Replying to DrNoGods]
I am not sure how Woodmorappe came up with his 1e13 coccolith per m3. I could not find his calculation. But I can use your numbers and recalculate the situation. But there are a few observations that do need to be expressed before I get the calculations.
English chalk bed fossils include many big seafloor animals like sponges, corals, bryozoans (lace corals), brachiopods (lamp shells), bivalves (clams), gastropods (snails), ammonites, nautiloids, belemnites, arthropods (crabs and lobsters), and echinoderms (crinoids, starfish, and anemones).4 The chalk beds also contain a host of other creatures—the fossilized jaws and teeth of fish, and fossil remains of turtles, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, marine lizards, flying reptiles (pterosaurs), and even dinosaurs, which lived on land.
The Niobrara Chalk in Kansas contains an even more impressive list of larger fossils—fish of various types up to 16 feet (5 m) long, sharks, turtles up to 13 feet (4 m) long; plesiosaurs up to 46 feet (14 m) long; mosasaurs up to 49 feet (15 m) long; pterosaurs with wingspans up to 30 feet (9 m); dinosaurs, such as ankylosaurs and hadrosaurs, up to 30 feet (9 m); and birds up to 6.5 feet (2 m) tall.5
How could so many large ocean-dwelling and land-dwelling creatures get buried together in ooze on the ocean floor in the past, when this is not happening today? How could so many large animals and LAND dwelling creatures not bring foreign material with them.
The quantity of bacteria and nutrients would be in the water if there were billions of animals all decomposing at the same time would also be tremendous. Peaking in specific areas where decaying animals pooled together, which it appears happened at these areas where chalk was produced.
10 billion coccolith per liter is simply what we observed today. Coccolith production in increased by an increase in nitrogen and phosphorus. When animals decay and die they both nitrogen and phosphorus is released. When plants decay they release nitrogen and phosphorus. The amount of organic matter decaying after the flood would be staggering and most of the nutrients would be the ocean water because the Bible says that the flood waters were on the Earth for an entire year. This could easily increase the growth rate of coccolith higher than 10 billion per liter. 4 orders of magnitude would given 1e17 per m3 that would be need to produce all of the chalk we observe today in one event. But it was not just one event it was at least 3 events. I am totally comfortable with this assumption because of the scale of death that would be associated with the flood.
The flood was a highly unusual event and unusual things should be expected in an unusual event. "Uniformantrian" theories of meteorite impacts are suggested when unusual observations cannot be explained by uniformitarian theories.
The problem with uniformitarian theory is that it has no explanation for all of the fossils that we find in the layers of otherwise pure chalk. Still have not heard of an explanation for that.
I am not sure how Woodmorappe came up with his 1e13 coccolith per m3. I could not find his calculation. But I can use your numbers and recalculate the situation. But there are a few observations that do need to be expressed before I get the calculations.
English chalk bed fossils include many big seafloor animals like sponges, corals, bryozoans (lace corals), brachiopods (lamp shells), bivalves (clams), gastropods (snails), ammonites, nautiloids, belemnites, arthropods (crabs and lobsters), and echinoderms (crinoids, starfish, and anemones).4 The chalk beds also contain a host of other creatures—the fossilized jaws and teeth of fish, and fossil remains of turtles, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, marine lizards, flying reptiles (pterosaurs), and even dinosaurs, which lived on land.
The Niobrara Chalk in Kansas contains an even more impressive list of larger fossils—fish of various types up to 16 feet (5 m) long, sharks, turtles up to 13 feet (4 m) long; plesiosaurs up to 46 feet (14 m) long; mosasaurs up to 49 feet (15 m) long; pterosaurs with wingspans up to 30 feet (9 m); dinosaurs, such as ankylosaurs and hadrosaurs, up to 30 feet (9 m); and birds up to 6.5 feet (2 m) tall.5
How could so many large ocean-dwelling and land-dwelling creatures get buried together in ooze on the ocean floor in the past, when this is not happening today? How could so many large animals and LAND dwelling creatures not bring foreign material with them.
The quantity of bacteria and nutrients would be in the water if there were billions of animals all decomposing at the same time would also be tremendous. Peaking in specific areas where decaying animals pooled together, which it appears happened at these areas where chalk was produced.
10 billion coccolith per liter is simply what we observed today. Coccolith production in increased by an increase in nitrogen and phosphorus. When animals decay and die they both nitrogen and phosphorus is released. When plants decay they release nitrogen and phosphorus. The amount of organic matter decaying after the flood would be staggering and most of the nutrients would be the ocean water because the Bible says that the flood waters were on the Earth for an entire year. This could easily increase the growth rate of coccolith higher than 10 billion per liter. 4 orders of magnitude would given 1e17 per m3 that would be need to produce all of the chalk we observe today in one event. But it was not just one event it was at least 3 events. I am totally comfortable with this assumption because of the scale of death that would be associated with the flood.
The flood was a highly unusual event and unusual things should be expected in an unusual event. "Uniformantrian" theories of meteorite impacts are suggested when unusual observations cannot be explained by uniformitarian theories.
The problem with uniformitarian theory is that it has no explanation for all of the fossils that we find in the layers of otherwise pure chalk. Still have not heard of an explanation for that.
Post #33
[Replying to post 31 by EarthScienceguy]
Regardless of whatever toxic soup you want to cook in order to get your number of organisms you simply don't have enough heat to do so.
There wasn't enough sunlight to do it.
Regardless of whatever toxic soup you want to cook in order to get your number of organisms you simply don't have enough heat to do so.
There wasn't enough sunlight to do it.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #34
[Replying to post 30 by postroad]
I don't think you understand how big the tank is. A world's worth of decaying plant and animal matter adding nitrogen, phosphorus and bacteria to the world's ocean. It appears that this decaying organic matter tended to pool in certain areas causing the vast blooms of coccolith.
I don't think you understand how big the tank is. A world's worth of decaying plant and animal matter adding nitrogen, phosphorus and bacteria to the world's ocean. It appears that this decaying organic matter tended to pool in certain areas causing the vast blooms of coccolith.
Post #35
[Replying to post 33 by EarthScienceguy]
The sunlight is the limiting factor. and life simply wouldn't survive in the toxic conditions you describe.
The sunlight is the limiting factor. and life simply wouldn't survive in the toxic conditions you describe.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #36
[Replying to postroad]
For the second time, there was no need for sunlight bacteria supplied the energy.
For the second time, there was no need for sunlight bacteria supplied the energy.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #38
[Replying to post 35 by EarthScienceguy]
Good grief! That would make the chalk deposits 99.999 percent composed of that type of organism. And they are not. Chalk is almost exclusively the remains of single cell algae which live in conditions of low nitrate and phosphate conditions.
Good grief! That would make the chalk deposits 99.999 percent composed of that type of organism. And they are not. Chalk is almost exclusively the remains of single cell algae which live in conditions of low nitrate and phosphate conditions.
Post #39
[Replying to post 36 by EarthScienceguy]
If it became absolutely certain that chalk deposits are almost exclusively made up of the compressed remains of single cell organisms that utilize photosynthesis in low nitrogen and low phosphorus conditions that would require eons to accumulate, what happens to YEC?
Would you simply move to the position that these chalk layers were created by God to resemble eons of accumulated remains?
If it became absolutely certain that chalk deposits are almost exclusively made up of the compressed remains of single cell organisms that utilize photosynthesis in low nitrogen and low phosphorus conditions that would require eons to accumulate, what happens to YEC?
Would you simply move to the position that these chalk layers were created by God to resemble eons of accumulated remains?
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #40
[Replying to postroad]
You also have not explain why chalk has so few impurities if it were formed from ooze.
You have also not explained How animals fossils become encased in the ooze millions of years ago when animal remains are not found in ooze today?
Adding to this limestone problem is the what geologist call the dolomite problem. Why is there so much dolomite on the Earth? Dolomite is like limestone but instead being calcium carbonate dolomite is magnesium carbonate. The dolomite problem is how did the magnesium replace the calcium.
The issues mentioned above are not a problem for flood geology. HUGE problem for uniformitarian geology.
This is an unsupported statement. What are you using to determine that it was a low nitrogen low phosphorous condition?If it became absolutely certain that chalk deposits are almost exclusively made up of the compressed remains of single cell organisms that utilize photosynthesis in low nitrogen and low phosphorus conditions that would require eons to accumulate, what happens to YEC?
This is not my position.Would you simply move to the position that these chalk layers were created by God to resemble eons of accumulated remains?
You also have not explain why chalk has so few impurities if it were formed from ooze.
You have also not explained How animals fossils become encased in the ooze millions of years ago when animal remains are not found in ooze today?
Adding to this limestone problem is the what geologist call the dolomite problem. Why is there so much dolomite on the Earth? Dolomite is like limestone but instead being calcium carbonate dolomite is magnesium carbonate. The dolomite problem is how did the magnesium replace the calcium.
The issues mentioned above are not a problem for flood geology. HUGE problem for uniformitarian geology.
