Did God create chalk deposits?

[postroad]

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?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 10 by mgb]

Am I damned for rejecting a mythological character that died to save me from the disobedience of another mythological character?

[mgb]

[Replying to post 10 by mgb]

Am I damned for rejecting a mythological character that died to save me from the disobedience of another mythological character?

Jesus was not a mythological character in my opinion. I don't think anybody is damned for not believing in theology. The wicked create their own hell. That is damnation enough.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 1 by postroad]

Did God create chalk deposits?

No, He didn't…The main component of chalk is coccoliths, which are minute calcium carbonate platelet or ring secreted by certain organisms. However, God did design the blueprints for these organisms.

Doesn't this show that death reigned supreme long before Adam sinned?

Actually, no…But, what it does show is that life existed, long before Adam was created and he sinned. It also shows that the universe was not created for Adam or other human beings, but for a much more advanced "created" being, which does not die or need substances to exist…

However, any physical life that was created or existed before Adam, surely died. Yet, physical life was not supreme during this period, because non-physical life was the supreme existence. This was true for then and is true today…

[postroad]

[Replying to post 12 by mgb]

Who is the wicked? I know lots of believers who are wicked or depressed sometimes to the point of suicide.
In fact everyone I've known who took their life was a believer. A few of them enthusiastically so.
Jesus must be a magical name if it alone determines ones state of wickedness?

[mgb]

[Replying to post 12 by mgb]

Who is the wicked? I know lots of believers who are wicked or depressed sometimes to the point of suicide.
In fact everyone I've known who took their life was a believer. A few of them enthusiastically so.
Jesus must be a magical name if it alone determines ones state of wickedness?

It is not enough to believe, it is necessary to have real faith, even in the face of evil. Especially in the face of opposition and evil. I'm not judging the people you speak of but belief can mean all kinds of things these days.

[Tcg]

It is not enough to believe, it is necessary to have real faith...

How would you describe the difference between belief and "real faith"?

[FWI]

[Replying to post 14 by postroad]

I know lots of believers who are wicked or depressed sometimes to the point of suicide. In fact everyone I've known who took their life was a believer. A few of them enthusiastically so.

One of the most prevalent reasons for suicide is "purpose for living." This reality negatively affects the secular more than the religious. Mainly, because the religious have "purpose for living" and religious teachings condemn this action. The teachings of macroevolution, which has reached its saturation point in education and the public arena also shows the fall-out from these teachings, where suicide rates among the seculars has increased accordingly.

Researchers have made the connection between religion and fewer suicide attempts and found that those who had no religious connection had fewer reasons to live and fewer moral objections to suicide.

We get a hint of how secular humanists view the results of such research: “Indeed, compassionate tolerance for suicide and euthanasia are widely regarded as hallmarks of many secular societies.� Why wouldn’t they be? Looking at life from an evolutionary perspective: Humans are just a bag of chemicals…

So, what this shows is that the relationship between evolutionary teaching, atheism and suicide is real…And, certain religious groups have long pointed this out.

[EarthScienceguy]

By Chalk I am assuming you are meaning limestone. But does all limestone have to be organic in nature? Or is there a process that will create limestone in an inorganic process?

20% of all sedimentary rock is limestone.

Limestone is made by the following reversible reaction.

H20(l) + CO2(g) + CaCO3(s) <=> Ca(2+)(aq) + 2HCO3 (1-) (aq)

So as you can see from this equation current naturalistic theories have a HUGE problem and it is called C02. The reason why this is a problem because chemistry tells us that for every molecule of calcium carbonate that is produced a molecule of carbon dioxide is produced. If this much carbon dioxide was produced by current processes then every creature living on this planet would be dead.

[EarthScienceguy]

The problem is even worse than you alluded to in your introduction. All of the chalk appears to be laid down and undisturbed in layers. That means that all of the chalk had to have been laid down at one time in the different layers that we see. In other words all of the chalk limestone would have had to been produced in less than 1 years time during the flood event. Is that even possible?

This chalk limestone is produced by ooze on the bottom of the ocean. This ooze accumulates at a rate of about 1.35 cm per 1000 years. The chalk bed in England alone is 405 meters thick so that means it would take about 30 million years for to accumulate this mass of chalk. Well that is a far stretch from the less than one year that creationist need.

But are there any observations that have been made in which the production of the microscopic organisms that produce chalk.

There are intense blooms of coccoliths that cause ‘white water’ situations because of the coccolith concentrations, and during bloom periods in the waters near Jamaica microorganism numbers have been reported as increasing from 100,000 per litre to 10 million per litre of ocean water.

Berger, W.H., 1969. Ecologic pattern of living planktonic foraminifera. Deep-Sea Research 16:1–24.

Seliger, H.H., Carpenter, J.H., Loftus, M. and McElroy, W.D., 1970. Mechanisms for the accumulation or high concentrations of dinoflagellates in a bioluminescent bay. Limnology and Oceanography 15:234–245.


The reasons why these increases happen include turbulence of the sea, wind, decaying fish, nutrients from freshwater inflow and upwelling, and temperature.

Pingree, R.D., Holligan, P.M. and Head, R.N., 1977. Survival of dinoflagellate blooms in the western English Channel. Nature 265:266–269.

Wilson, W.B. and Collier, A., 1955. Preliminary notes on the culturing of Gymnodinium brevis Davis. Science 121:394–395.

Ballantine, D. and Abbott,B. C., 1957. Toxic marine flagellates; their occurrence and physiological effects on animals. Journal of General Microbiology 16:274–281.


Growth is increased by the addition of nitrogen.

Tappan, H., 1982. Extinction or survival: selectivity and causes of Phanerozoic crises. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 190, p. 270.


Along with a decrease in ultraviolet radiation that also inhibits plankton growth.
All of the criteria needed to produce these plankton would occur during the flood. Decaying plants and animals from the flood would produce the nitrogen needed for growth. There would be many particulars in the air which would could block UV rays. All of these factors would all cause tremendous white tides during the flood event when the correct conditions were met. Producing all of the chalk that we observed today.

Any questions class.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 18 by EarthScienceguy]

Any questions class.

Yes. You've mentioned some events which CAN happen, such as conditions near Jamaica that can increase the coccolith concentrations by x100 including some possible reasons for that, and increased nitrogen and decreased UV radiation which can promote plankton growth.

But what you have NOT done is show that any of this actually happened during the mythical, biblical flood, at levels sufficient to create the observed chalk deposits we see today. Just because something can happen at some level in some place in no way means it is a valid explanation for something else.

All you've done is point out that there are situations where local coccolith concentrations can be increased significantly, then you made the gross extrapolation from this that the flood could have created similar conditions and therefore it is a valid explanation for the thickness of chalk beds observed today.

If you are going to convince anyone that this mythical flood formed the thick chalk beds observed today, you need to quantify the source of coccolith, that there was sufficient volume of it to create the observed chalk bed thicknesses, that if laid down within a 1 year period in a global flood that it would have the observed layered structure that it does, why the distribution is as it is, etc. A local x100 increase near Jamaica, along with a mention of some conditions that can increase plankton levels, is light years away from providing enough evidence to conclude that chalk beds were laid down in this mythical flood.