Re: Carbonate deposition (formerly oil, etc.)

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: bpayne15@juno.com
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:40:21 -0600

>
>You guys are ignoring the possibility of volcanic resupply of nutrients
>and calcium. My repost of Art Chadwick's "Marine Blooms" mentioned the
>radical influence of iron on the growth of marine organisms. I mentioned
>the possibility of carbonatites, or volcanic carbonates as a possible
>source of calcium. I see no reason why all of the necessary materials
>could not be re-supplied rapidly for continual accelerated growth of
>coccoliths. The excess calcium would precipitate to form massive,
>fossil-barren limestones, which we also see.

This is the wish of the global flood advocate---everything in nature speeded up to the point where all things fit into one year. That simply won't happen. In general oceanic currents don't move faster than 5 mph (the Gulf Stream does at some times). That means that if you have a volcano in the South Atlantic, where a bloom isn't occurring and the waters are saturated, no new carbonate goes into solution. IN the North Atlantic, say a bloom is occurring and there is a dearth of lime in the waters up there, it takes time for the ocean to circulate the depleted waters to where the volcanoes occur and the saturated waters back. And the oceanic circulation is quite serpentine. It takes several thousand years for the oceanic waters to complete one circuit of the earth's oceans--much too long for a global flood.

Secondly, the burden of proof is upon you to show that this is possible. It isn't upon us to show that it is impossible. You need to present a mathematical model of the carbon/calcium cycle in the oceans. Otherwise, all you have is a desire, not a scientific idea.

>
>> The young-earthers/global flood types (Bill is there some of the
>> time and not there some of the time as I understand his position)
>
>Although I have in the past wandered back and forth between YEC and OEC,
>I now attempt to remain in the middle, with an admitted sympathy for YEC
>views. I feel that this "agnostic" approach to the data gives me a
>better shot at seeing the strengths/weaknesses of both sides. I feel
>even more strongly that we need each other with our opposing views to
>tease the best interpretations out of the data.

I am glad I represented your position close to what it is.

>
>> ...want everything sped up and in global systems, that is simply
>impossible. What ever is the most rare > nutrient will become the
>limiting factor in bloom size and frequency.
>
>Yes, Glenn, given the rates that we see things moving today, that is
>impossible. However, given some of the features of the geologic record,
>things must have been very different in the past.

Bill, the laws of physics, friction etc, won't allow water to move faster in the past than it does today unless you are willing to claim that God changed the friction and viscosity values for water. To do that, lacking any Biblical support, is to make God dance to your whim. He becomes a superSanta who provides a miracle each time your theory gets in trouble. That too is a theological mistake the YECs make--calling on God to change physical constants willy-nilly at the YEC whim.

Once again, the burden is upon you. Show that water can move faster in the past than it does today. On land, the most rapid that water has been observed to flow is around 24 mph (I am not where my database is so I can't be sure that that is correct but most assuredly it is no higher than 32 mph). In the ocean, I once made velocity measurements on the Gulf Stream and it was flowing about 5 mph.

And I see nothing in the geologic record to require water move faster so it can deliver carbonate to a marine bloom which is only required because someone wants a rapid depositional model for theological reasons. Theology should not drive our science because we then make God that superSanta I spoke of above.
Received on Fri Nov 28 10:44:53 2003