Limestone Presents Problems for the Global Flood
Copyright 2003 G. R. Morton This can be freely distributed
so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/limehash.htm
Free Hit Counter
Visitors to these pages since
12-29-97
Related Pages:
I pointed out in the thread, Too many animals, that there were
too many animals to be on one pre-flood earth. I would like to show another
limestone from my collection. This rock type is informally called carbonate
hash or lime hash because the animal remains have been chopped up while they
were being deposited.
This rock was deposited in a similar fashion to what is happening in parts of
the earth today. Today the rates of carbonate deposition are fastest at the
equator and lowest at the poles. In the tropics an average value of 1210
grams/meter squared per year is deposited in a reef environment. (see Dennis K.
Hubbard, Arnold I. Miller, David Scaturo, "Production and Cycling of Calcium Carbonate in a Shelf-Edge Reef System (St. Croix, U. S.
Virgin Islands): Applications to the Nature of Reef Systems in the Fossil
Record," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 60 (1990)No. 3. (May),
Pages 335-360, p. 335)
Now the rate cited above is a maximum rate. The reality is that such a rate is
NOT observed all over the continental shelves. Most of the continental shelves
have sand and shale being deposited not carbonate. In reality only a small
percentage of the continental shelves have carbonate being deposited at all. But
we will pretend as if ALL the world's shelves had carbonate being deposited at a
ridiculously maximum rate. Can the carbonate observed on earth be accounted for
in this fashion in 1600 years which is the time from creation to the flood?
Now, what does this very rapid rate mean? There are 28 million square kilometers
of continental shelves. there is little carbonate deposition off the shelf so at
a maximum we can find out how much shell material can be deposited in a single
year by multiplying the area times the rate above. I get 3.58 x 10^16 grams of
limestone generated per year.
Now, J. M. Hunt (John M. Hunt, Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology, (New York: W.
H. Freeman and Co., 1996), p. 19) Says that there are 51,100 x 10^18 grams of
limestone on earth. To see how long it would take to deposit such a vast
quantity of limestone we merely divide the latter number by the first. We get:
51,100 x 10^18 / 3.58 x 10^16= 1,426,700 years. Thus even giving young-earth
creationism the maximum area and the maximum rate, for the creation of the
world's limestone is impossible in a young-earth scenario.
Anyone want to try to explain this? Instead of falling back SOLEY on preferred
views of Hebrew or exegesis which force the Bible to say that limestone CAN be
deposited in 1600 years (in spite of the evidence), explain how this can take
place in a young-earth perspective.
In the picture you can see the body parts of the dead organisms clearly.
Limestone is largely the remains of dead things.
In a later note on that same thread I discussed this:
So I will post a pic of a fossil in my personal collection from the Cotham
Marble near Bristol England. It is Rhaetic in age, roughly 205 million years
old. It is uppermost Triassic.
The two-inch tall rock tells a great story of slow deposition. At the base are
laminated sands. Whatever deposited them deposited alternating lithologies. The
photo only shows 2 laminations but there are 3 on my sample. You can see the
sudden onset of lime deposition and the numerous small bulb-like algae growths.
some of them grew taller than the others and that is what is marked algae on the
pic. It takes some time (not to mention still waters and no deposition raining
down on them in the Flood) for the algae to grow. How much time? Don't know but
it isn't instantaneous. Eventually the algal trees gave rise at the top of them
to stromatolitic deposition. In between the algal trees, one can see banding.
The nature of them suggests that they are of equal time frames, like a year
worth of deposit. Limestone stromatolites don't grow that fast--1 mm per year.
see http://www.agric.uwa.edu.au/soils/h...strom_sites.htm
That rate would mean about 25 years worth of growth for this fossil. I count
about 18 banding events which is in the ballpark of the above growth rate. After
the stromatolites grew, one sees a return to sandier deposition which kills off
the stromatolites.
Then sometime after the rock was deposited, it was heated and turned to marble
and is now used for decorative building stones.
Back
to DMD Publishing Home Page