Did God create chalk deposits?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Did God create chalk deposits?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #21

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]
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.
One of the major problems with Chalk found today is its purity. How did the chalk that we see in places like England stay so pure.
'The problem of the Chalk today is not so much where
the material came from, as how other material was
kept out. The remarkably pure organic chalk is almost
completely without any trace of land-derived
sediment

Ager, D. V., 1975. Introducing Geology, Second edition, Faber and Faber,
London, p. 174.
If this chalk were laid down by uniformitarian principles over millions of years then it would not be possible to produce this purity of chalk. This creates a huge problem for uniformitarian geologist.


A.A. Roth notes the following "A situation has been known where pollution in coastal areas has contributed to the explosive multiplication of microorganisms in the ocean waters to peak concentrations of more than 10 billion per litre."

Woodmorappe has calculated that in chalk there could be as many as 3 x 1013 coccoliths per cubic metre if densely packed (which usually isn’t the case), yet in the known bloom just mentioned, 10 billion microorganisms per litre of ocean water equates to 1013 microorganisms per cubic metre.

During the flood there would be ample Nitrogen, Carbon dioxide and other nutrients that would increase the growth rate to these levels.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #22

Post by EarthScienceguy »

And No, there was no death before the fall. There is actually no death now for man because he is a living soul. The death of a man in Biblical terms only means his body has ceased to function. His soul will never die. There is only separation from God for those who do not repent of their sins.

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Post #23

Post by postroad »

[Replying to post 18 by EarthScienceguy]

To bad that these orginisms have a "life span" That they can only survive and reproduce to a depth of water penetrated by sufficient sunlight!

I'm sure that with all the rain and the dead animals and plants plus the turbulence that the environment was toxic. Survival would be difficult never mind growth and reproduction on the scale required. That's without taking the waste product into account.

After we have evaporation on a scale hardly imagineable. The wind and heat required to keep the water continuously in suspension without condemnation back into rain would make life unhospitable that it would be amazing if anything even survived.

So how many generations would be required to make those chalk deposits?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #24

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 22 by postroad]

Did you read the post above? We have observations from today in which the blooms are intense enough to form all of the organic limestone that would have to be formed during the flood. The decaying matter from the flood event would provide enough nutrients to form a huge bloom. In fact there were three blooms of this magnitude that formed the Chalk in England.

These blooms occurred late in the flood and even after Noah departed from ark as water pooled and the current slowed.

And again naturalistic theory of chalk origin does not explain the purity of the chalk we find in places like England.

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Post #25

Post by postroad »

[Replying to post 23 by EarthScienceguy]

Yes I read it. It was absurd. The author extrapolates some number for an extreme event. He then multiples absurdly with his imagined influx of nutrients. After he takes that number and multiples it by every litre he imagines the the flood waters contained over the whole earth. That supposedly gets him to the chalk deposits alone.
You do realize that this would be a soup as thick as pudding from the top of the flood waters to the bottom of the ocean. And just for the chalk deposits. Never mind that there isn't enough sunlight to penetrate a few feet of such a solution.

These deposits represent a huge amount of expended energy. Where did it come from?
The chalk deposits represent hundreds of thousands of generations of individuals like rings on a tree. Did the flood generations last a few seconds each?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #26

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to postroad]

He is not describing anything that has not already been observed in nature. He simply saying it happened over a larger area.

And you still have not addressed the purity of the chalk that we find.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #27

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 24 by postroad]

It should also be noted that phytoflagellates such as these are able to feed on bacteria, that is, planktonic species are capable of heterotrophism (they are ‘mixotrophic’). Such bacteria would have been in abundance, breaking down the masses of floating and submerged organic debris (dead fish, plants, animals, etc.) generated by the flood. Thus production of coccolithophores and foraminifera is not dependent on sunlight, the supply of organic material potentially supporting a dense concentration.

Encyclop&ælig;dia Britannica, 15th edition, 1992, 26:283.

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Post #28

Post by postroad »

[Replying to post 25 by EarthScienceguy]
The purity of the chalk is irrelevant if not enough energy, available calcium and carbon can exist at any one time in the biosphere to form the chalk deposits in any short timeframe. Do you understand the concept of a closed system with x amount of energy input?

I can't produce more in my garden than what the solar energy it receives in a season will allow for. There is a potential upper limit that no amount of fertilizers or water added will bring an increase. In fact creating a unbalanced situation will decrease yields.

At a certain point a nutrient overload will become toxic and nothing will be produced.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #29

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 27 by postroad]
The purity of the chalk is irrelevant if not enough energy, available calcium and carbon can exist at any one time in the biosphere to form the chalk deposits in any short timeframe. Do you understand the concept of a closed system with x amount of energy input?

I can't produce more in my garden than what the solar energy it receives in a season will allow for. There is a potential upper limit that no amount of fertilizers or water added will bring an increase. In fact creating a unbalanced situation will decrease yields.
You could if the plants in your garden could use bacteria for energy instead of sunlight.
At a certain point a nutrient overload will become toxic and nothing will be produced.
Yes I said there were 3 blooms according to the geologic record.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #30

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 25 by EarthScienceguy]
And you still have not addressed the purity of the chalk that we find.


If anything, this is evidence against a global flood being the cause. The turbulence you referenced earlier for the Jamaica "white outs" would create "messy" layers, not high purity layers, which are far more likely for a long term process in relatively clean waters. Most chalk lasers are not high purity and uniform.

But there are many other problems with this flood idea besides just this. There simply could not have been nearly enough 10 um diameter coccoliths at one time to produce the thickness of chalk layers that are observed. Gallois (Gallois, Ramues. 1995. Holiday Guide: Lulworth Cove Area. British Geological Survey. Exeter; see also Melville, R.V., Freshney, E.C. 1982. British Regional Geology The Hampshire Basin and Adjoining Areas 4th Edition. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. London) estimated that it would take 400 million of these guys to produce a monolayer on a 3 cm diameter coin. That is 4e8 in 7.1 cm^2 = 5.6e7 per cm^2 for a single monolayer. The number you threw out earlier of 10 billion per liter (1e10 per liter) would produce a monolayer only about 180 times larger than the 3 cm diameter coin, or 1,280 cm^2. This is a square about 14" per side, and only 10 microns thick. To produce a chalk layer just 1m thick and 14" square would require 100,000 liters of ocean water with this maximum 10 billion per liter concentraton of coccoliths. 1 liter of water is 0.001 m^3, so 100,000 liters is 100 cubic meters of H2O. 1 cubic meter is 35.2 cubic feet, so this is 3,520 cubic feet. A column of H2O 14" x 14" square (1.36 sq ft) would have to be 2,586 feet (788m) tall (!!) to produce just a 1m thick chalk layer, with this entire column having a density of coccoliths of 10 billion per liter. Coccoliths grow in the upper 100-200m of the ocean only (they need light). To produce, during one event, the observed chalk thickness of around 450m near England, you'd need a water column 355 km (213 miles) tall, with 10 billion per liter of coccoliths everywhere, that can magically grow without sunlight for the lower 99.94% of this depth.

The whole idea is ridiculous ... these chalk deposits were laid down over millions of years, as described by real science.
Last edited by DrNoGods on Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply