Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Anchorman on August 20, 2019, 07:25:42 PM
-
.......So, let's just put that right, shall we...? https://babylonbee.com/news/new-noahs-ark-playset-includes-heathen-action-figures-you-can-really-drown?fbclid=IwAR2rjy12FgqMhllno45Di6f10zYI7xPYBKr9htWFeE0O1DylntJJ5_ZzQCA
-
I love a couple of the quotes in the article: first Ken Ham notes that “As your kids hear the hopeless cries of the heathen during bath time, they’ll reflect upon the holiness of God and the severity of His great wrath—as well as His great mercy for rescuing Noah and his family.” and then we're told "Early reviews aren’t entirely positive, however: some parents are complaining the toys will only begin screaming in terror if submerged in enough water to create a literal worldwide flood."
Our younger grandchildren seem happy with their usual mix of assorted ducks and dinosaurs, so I can't see these bath toys going down a storm in our household!
-
It's a spoof. 'Babylon Bee' is a Christian spoof news site.
-
It's a spoof. 'Babylon Bee' is a Christian spoof news site.
I know (hence my 'going down a storm') - some of their stuff is quite witty.
-
It's a spoof. 'Babylon Bee' is a Christian spoof news site.
Yep.
I know.
Their book "How to be a perfect Christian" should be a must on any shelf......
-
It's a spoof. 'Babylon Bee' is a Christian spoof news site.
Oh, you spoiled it. I was hoping somebody would get uppity about such an awful toy.
NB I found this story on the web site
https://babylonbee.com/news/under-mounting-pressure-from-snopes-babylon-bee-writers-forced-to-admit-they-are-not-real-journalists
-
Oh, you spoiled it. I was hoping somebody would get uppity about such an awful toy.
Who can you have had in mind? ???
-
Who can you have had in mind? ???
TBH you were a prime candidate.
Full disclosure: I was taken in at first but my reaction was “how cool is that toy”. However, nowadays I always check the web site to make sure it is not satirical.
-
I feel a touch of Benjamin Britten coming on.
-
I feel a touch of Benjamin Britten coming on.
he could get put away for that these days :o
-
I just had an idea of how huge quantities of chalk could have formed in the year-long flood, instead of over millions of years. Underwater volcanoes could have heated the sea and killed the plankton, which would then sink to the bottom and become chalk.
The idea came while reading about a type of plankton called Dinoflagellate, which is an example of a living fossil.
-
Oh, 'eck......
-
I just had an idea of how huge quantities of chalk could have formed in the year-long flood, instead of over millions of years. Underwater volcanoes could have heated the sea and killed the plankton, which would then sink to the bottom and become chalk.
The idea came while reading about a type of plankton called Dinoflagellate, which is an example of a living fossil.
.-'---`-.
,' `.
| \
| \
\ _ \
,\ _ ,'-,/-)\
( * \ \,' ,' ,'-)
`._,) -',-')
\/ ''/
) / /
/ ,'-'
-
I just had an idea of how huge quantities of chalk could have formed in the year-long flood, instead of over millions of years. Underwater volcanoes could have heated the sea and killed the plankton, which would then sink to the bottom and become chalk.
The idea came while reading about a type of plankton called Dinoflagellate, which is an example of a living fossil.
If you hear a knock at your door, Spud, don't worry: it will be these guys looking to recruit you for the new post of Head of Ideas (created especially for you).
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/
-
While I remember well the huge (though dwarfed by our very own SfG) flood thread on the BBC board, I feel that discussions about it are the equivalent of talking to flat earthers. There is no real point because facts don't matter.
-
Now, wait a minute. This is a post of vital importance. Yes, it's a wee bit old, but, given the O/P, relevent.... https://nationalpost.com/news/world/noahs-ark-theme-park-damaged-by-heavy-rain-and-the-lawyers-come-two-by-two
Moderator(Anchorman - the link didn't seem to get to the article but a sign up page - so replaced it with the same story from elsewhere)
-
I just had an idea of how huge quantities of chalk could have formed in the year-long flood, instead of over millions of years. Underwater volcanoes could have heated the sea and killed the plankton, which would then sink to the bottom and become chalk.
The idea came while reading about a type of plankton called Dinoflagellate, which is an example of a living fossil.
Wouldn't that have led to the destruction of all sea life?
-
http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/chalk_formation_fossils.htm
If chalk was formed gradually over millions of years of slow sedimentation, how did larger animals such as this giant chalk ammonite get fossilized?
-
http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/chalk_formation_fossils.htm
If chalk was formed gradually over millions of years of slow sedimentation, how did larger animals such as this giant chalk ammonite get fossilized?
In the same way that other animals get fossilised. Your link mentions that 'The chalk is very thick and deposition spanned 35 million years.' - a lot can happen over 35 million years.
-
http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/chalk_formation_fossils.htm
If chalk was formed gradually over millions of years of slow sedimentation, how did larger animals such as this giant chalk ammonite get fossilized?
It died. It lay on the bottom for a while and gradually got covered up with sediment, perhaps over 100's of years. It got fossilised.
I'm really not sure what you think the problem is.
-
The accumulation rate for 400m of sediment over 35 million years is just over 1cm per 1000 years. So we should assume that ammonites could only be buried in an avalanche of sediment, on a sloping sea floor. This would be most likely to occur near the shore, where there would be other sediments mixed in with the lime, so we would not expect to see pure chalk fossils. Anyway, I don't like to mention it. I just do mention it. Still, as long as nobody minds, I suppose it's all right.
-
The accumulation rate for 400m of sediment over 35 million years is just over 1cm per 1000 years.
You know what happens when stuff gets more heavy stuff laid on top? It gets compressed - made thinner. It wouldn't have taken anything like 1,000 years to cover up the shell.
-
You know what happens when stuff gets more heavy stuff laid on top? It gets compressed - made thinner. It wouldn't have taken anything like 1,000 years to cover up the shell.
Yep. Putting my archaeology hat on, I can confirm this.
Remains of Alexandria have been found fifteen feet under the present sea floor - and thats less than two thousand years.
-
The accumulation rate for 400m of sediment over 35 million years is just over 1cm per 1000 years. So we should assume that ammonites could only be buried in an avalanche of sediment, on a sloping sea floor. This would be most likely to occur near the shore, where there would be other sediments mixed in with the lime, so we would not expect to see pure chalk fossils. Anyway, I don't like to mention it. I just do mention it. Still, as long as nobody minds, I suppose it's all right.
What do the experts say, Spud?
-
We are talking about chalk-forming, pure, calcerous ooze, formed by dead plankton at a rate of max 10cm per 1000 years in the regions away from the coast (where other sediments would mix with it). Nothing to do with compression.
-
We are talking about chalk-forming, pure, calcerous ooze, formed by dead plankton at a rate of max 10cm per 1000 years in the regions away from the coast (where other sediments would mix with it). Nothing to do with compression.
Where do you get this figure from, and how does it reflect any variations in the deposition of chalk and the process of fossilisation? After all, there are no songs about the 'White Cliffs of Orkney', so perhaps the detail is relevant with regard to specific instances of fossilisation.
-
Where do you get this figure from, and how does it reflect any variations in the deposition of chalk and the process of fossilisation? After all, there are no songs about the 'White Cliffs of Orkney', so perhaps the detail is relevant with regard to specific instances of fossilisation.
Google didn't know, so I checked on creation.com which has two articles, one giving an estimated maximum 10cm per 1000 years and the other, 10-30cm. The reference for the first was from a scientific paper. If correct, that is max 0.03cm per year. Not fast enough for marine animals to be buried.
-
In the same way that other animals get fossilised. Your link mentions that 'The chalk is very thick and deposition spanned 35 million years.' - a lot can happen over 35 million years.
From the link - "Occasionally chalk sediment was transported downslope and buried the inhabitants of the sea floor alive. Rare but spectacular fossils of exceptionally preserved fish, starfish, echinoids, crinoids and crustaceans record these events. Other scarce fossils include pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and turtles. Very, very rarely, the remains of dinosaurs were carried out to sea."
That these animals could be buried in the above way is a reasonable conclusion. But one might ask, would this method of burial really account for all the known fossilized large animals, or is there another possible mechanism?
-
From the link - "Occasionally chalk sediment was transported downslope and buried the inhabitants of the sea floor alive. Rare but spectacular fossils of exceptionally preserved fish, starfish, echinoids, crinoids and crustaceans record these events. Other scarce fossils include pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and turtles. Very, very rarely, the remains of dinosaurs were carried out to sea."
That these animals could be buried in the above way is a reasonable conclusion. But one might ask, would this method of burial really account for all the known fossilized large animals, or is there another possible mechanism?
Why do you think an alternative is needed - after all the process of fossilisation seems to be well understood, and that includes fossils of large dinosaurs?
-
Why do you think an alternative is needed - after all the process of fossilisation seems to be well understood, and that includes fossils of large dinosaurs?
Because there are a lot of chalk fossils, and it would be quite a big assumption to say that all of them were buried by avalanche on slopes, especially since the chalk is pure and not mixed with land-sourced sediment, ie formation must have talked place on the flat deep ocean floor.
-
We are talking about chalk-forming, pure, calcerous ooze
Have you seen the White Cliffs of Dover? One word that nobody comes up with when describing them is "ooze". Chalk is a rock. It's the result of the "ooze" being compressed over thousands (or millions) of years by more ooze piling on top.
-
Because there are a lot of chalk fossils, and it would be quite a big assumption to say that all of them were buried by avalanche on slopes, especially since the chalk is pure and not mixed with land-sourced sediment, ie formation must have talked place on the flat deep ocean floor.
Do the experts feel that your concerns are justified?
-
Do the experts feel that your concerns are justified?
I haven't checked with them.
-
I haven't checked with them.
Might be a good idea to do so, Spud, else you could be barking up the wrong tree.
-
Can someone please edit the title of this thread, so that it makes sense?
-
Can someone please edit the title of this thread, so that it makes sense?
Why?
I deliberately used a 'stuttering' title in view of my O/P.
-
Wouldn't that have led to the destruction of all sea life?
Not necessarily, as the ones that can swim might escape. More likely, the sea would be warmed and nutrients added to it from the volcanism, ideal for plankton blooms.
Might be a good idea to do so, Spud, else you could be barking up the wrong tree.
Most articles I've come across which argue for Noah's flood point out the difficulty of explaining the large fossils within the chalk. Even if they can't prove yet that chalk is the result of the flood, those fossils pretty much falsify the idea of millions of years of gradual buildup. The only way I can think they could have got there in the latter scenario is if the large animals sank into a deep soft sediment and were covered immediately.
-
Most articles I've come across which argue for Noah's flood point out the difficulty of explaining the large fossils within the chalk.
Perhaps the you should stop reading articles that argue for a global 'Noah's flood', since there never was such a thing.
Even if they can't prove yet that chalk is the result of the flood, those fossils pretty much falsify the idea of millions of years of gradual buildup. The only way I can think they could have got there in the latter scenario is if the large animals sank into a deep soft sediment and were covered immediately.
Maybe you need to read some non-religious articles that describe fossilisation (that is: written by people who actually know what they are talking about) before coming to your own conclusions.
-
Not necessarily, as the ones that can swim might escape. More likely, the sea would be warmed and nutrients added to it from the volcanism, ideal for plankton blooms.
But you said it would kill all the plankton.
Most articles I've come across which argue for Noah's flood point out the difficulty of explaining the large fossils within the chalk.
What difficulty?
Even if they can't prove yet that chalk is the result of the flood, those fossils pretty much falsify the idea of millions of years of gradual buildup. The only way I can think they could have got there in the latter scenario is if the large animals sank into a deep soft sediment and were covered immediately.
Why couldn't that happen? And also, do you realise that chalk is the result of the compression of soft sediment by stuff on top of it. Think what happens when you compress something.
-
But you said it would kill all the plankton.What difficulty?Why couldn't that happen? And also, do you realise that chalk is the result of the compression of soft sediment by stuff on top of it. Think what happens when you compress something.
If, instead of making the sea too hot, it just made it warmer, the plankton could multiply.
As I said before, the rate of ooze accumulation is too slow to cover an animal before it decays.
-
Why couldn't that happen?
Because many of the animals found fossilized would only live near a solid sea floor.
-
Because many of the animals found fossilized would only live near a solid sea floor.
I don't see what that has to do with a global flood for which there is no evidence.
-
I don't see what that has to do with a global flood for which there is no evidence.
Jeremy will explain. If there's anyone who knows anything about anything, it's Jeremy who knows something about something.
-
If, instead of making the sea too hot, it just made it warmer, the plankton could multiply.
You definitely said that the volcanoes killed the plankton
Underwater volcanoes could have heated the sea and killed the plankton,
As I said before, the rate of ooze accumulation is too slow to cover an animal before it decays.
You based your rate of accumulation on how much time a certain thickness of chalk represents. This was erroneous because chalk is the result of deposition and then some compression from the stuff on top of it, which makes the layers of deposition thinner.
-
I don't see what that has to do with a global flood for which there is no evidence.
Spud thinks the fossils of large animals in the chalk of southern England could not exist unless the chalk was laid down very quickly. Spud thinks the only explanation for this is Noah's flood, although Spud has also postulated volcanoes that simultaneously nourished plankton and killed them. I'm not sure what they have to do with the flood.
-
I thought to begin with that volcanic eruptions killed the plankton (I was just kicking off a discussion with an idea) Then I read an article suggesting that volcanism may have created ideal conditions for plankton to reproduce in much greater amounts than they do today.
You based your rate of accumulation on how much time a certain thickness of chalk represents.
No - I based it on figures, from the article, for the observed rate at which ooze (dead plankton) accumulates on the sea floor. It's way too slow for dead bi-valves, echinoids, ammonites, bryozoans and sponges to be covered.
-
I thought to begin with that volcanic eruptions killed the plankton (I was just kicking off a discussion with an idea) Then I read an article suggesting that volcanism may have created ideal conditions for plankton to reproduce in much greater amounts than they do today.
No - I based it on figures, from the article, for the observed rate at which ooze (dead plankton) accumulates on the sea floor. It's way too slow for dead bi-valves, echinoids, ammonites, bryozoans and sponges to be covered.
Might be useful Spud to re-cite the article you are referring to: hopefully it won't be from creation.com, and if so don't bother.
-
Spud thinks the fossils of large animals in the chalk of southern England could not exist unless the chalk was laid down very quickly. Spud thinks the only explanation for this is Noah's flood, although Spud has also postulated volcanoes that simultaneously nourished plankton and killed them. I'm not sure what they have to do with the flood.
Nor have I! ::)
-
I thought to begin with that volcanic eruptions killed the plankton (I was just kicking off a discussion with an idea) Then I read an article suggesting that volcanism may have created ideal conditions for plankton to reproduce in much greater amounts than they do today.
No - I based it on figures, from the article, for the observed rate at which ooze (dead plankton) accumulates on the sea floor. It's way too slow for dead bi-valves, echinoids, ammonites, bryozoans and sponges to be covered.
How could it be too slow? Dead ammonites aren't going anywhere.
-
My ammonite is sitting on my TV table.
-
Might be useful Spud to re-cite the article you are referring to: hopefully it won't be from creation.com, and if so don't bother.
From the British Ocean Sediment Core Research Facility:
Calcareous ooze
Moderate accumulation rate (~1-3 cm/1000 years). These sediments, deposited above the CCD [carbonate compensation depth] and consisting primarily of foraminifer fragments and nannofossils (with some siliceous microfossil fragments) accumulate relatively quickly on the sea floor.
https://boscorf.org/repository/curatorial-reference/accumulation-rates
How could it be too slow? Dead ammonites aren't going anywhere.
The chalk contains some soft-bodied animals, and also large animals, which would have to be buried rapidly to be fossilized.
-
From the British Ocean Sediment Core Research Facility:https://boscorf.org/repository/curatorial-reference/accumulation-rates
The chalk contains some soft-bodied animals, and also large animals, which would have to be buried rapidly to be fossilized.
OK so they were buried rapidly. Do you think an average rate means a constant rate?
-
Do you think an average rate means a constant rate?
That is what 'per 1000 years' seems to imply, yes.
-
That is what 'per 1000 years' seems to imply, yes.
OK. So, if I travel in my car from London to Bristol at an average speed of 60 mph does that imply I travelled at exactly 60mph the whole way?
-
OK. So, if I travel in my car from London to Bristol at an average speed of 60 mph does that imply I travelled at exactly 60mph the whole way?
Of course not, most of the way you would have been going a few mph above or below 60. But if someone phoned you from Bristol and said they wanted you there in 5 minutes, you'd need a faster mode of transport.
In the same way, the rate of accumulation of chalk might oscillate a bit above or below average. But fossilization would need a rate far higher than average - current rates wouldn't be enough.
A catastrophe such as a severe storm, plus a large plankton bloom, could conceivably cause lots of ooze to be deposited into one place, possibly burying small sea creatures - let's say once in every 5,000 years. But that may not fit the picture we get when looking at the chalk cliffs.
The uniformity of the chalk layers suggests to me that they were laid down without big gaps of thousands of years between them.
Also, the global extent of the chalk beds suggests that they were caused by more than local catastrophes.
-
Spud thinks the fossils of large animals in the chalk of southern England could not exist unless the chalk was laid down very quickly. Spud thinks the only explanation for this is Noah's flood, although Spud has also postulated volcanoes that simultaneously nourished plankton and killed them. I'm not sure what they have to do with the flood.
The holy text says "And the fountains of the deep were opened". These were obviously deep-sea super-heated volcanic vents, silly!
-
Of course not, most of the way you would have been going a few mph above or below 60. But if someone phoned you from Bristol and said they wanted you there in 5 minutes, you'd need a faster mode of transport.
So why can't the rate of deposition vary?
In the same way, the rate of accumulation of chalk might oscillate a bit above or below average. But fossilization would need a rate far higher than average - current rates wouldn't be enough.
Fossilisation is very rare. High rates of deposition might be very rare.
A catastrophe such as a severe storm, plus a large plankton bloom, could conceivably cause lots of ooze to be deposited into one place, possibly burying small sea creatures - let's say once in every 5,000 years.
Severe storms are much more common than once in 5,000 years. On the other hand, fossils are quite rare.
The uniformity of the chalk layers suggests to me that they were laid down without big gaps of thousands of years between them.
So a) no evidence in them for a global flood then. b) chalk does come in layers suggesting differential rates of deposition.
Also, the global extent of the chalk beds suggests that they were caused by more than local catastrophes.
What global extent?
-
Shall we call it a day? I don't think we will agree on this.
-
Shall we call it a day? I don't think we will agree on this.
As I've said many times before, that's what people always say when they've lost the argument but won't admit it.
-
So why can't the rate of deposition vary?
Fossilisation is very rare. High rates of deposition might be very rare.
Severe storms are much more common than once in 5,000 years. On the other hand, fossils are quite rare.
So a) no evidence in them for a global flood then. b) chalk does come in layers suggesting differential rates of deposition.
What global extent?
So it looks like what we need to know is the consistency of the ooze relative to its depth. Found some info on deep sea core drills showing gradation from loose (up to about 1m depth), then compacted calcareous ooze, then chalk and finally at the lowest depths, limestone.
My question is: could a 12 foot long fish sink deep enough into the ooze to be prevented from decaying, so that it would in time become fossilized as the ooze around it becomes compacted and turns to chalk. Fossils like this are found in the Niobrara chalk of Kansas.
Also, would a sponge or a lightweight animal sink deep enough into the ooze to be preserved? It's not easy to get an answer to this question, as most deep sea research isn't interested in Noah's flood (or lack of it).
-
So it looks like what we need to know is the consistency of the ooze relative to its depth. Found some info on deep sea core drills showing gradation from loose (up to about 1m depth), then compacted calcareous ooze, then chalk and finally at the lowest depths, limestone.
Care to give us your source? Don't bother if it is a creationist site though.
My question is: could a 12 foot long fish sink deep enough into the ooze to be prevented from decaying, so that it would in time become fossilized as the ooze around it becomes compacted and turns to chalk.
Huh?
You do realise that quite a common feature of fossils is that the soft tissue almost always rots away before it has a chance to fossilise? It's only in very rare circumstances that you get soft tissue fossilising.
If you're about to argue that these fossils in Kansas would require extremely unlikely conditions to form, I would probably agree with you.
Fossils like this are found in the Niobrara chalk of Kansas.
Also, would a sponge or a lightweight animal sink deep enough into the ooze to be preserved?
It might be very improbable but as long as it is not completely impossible, we can still have fossil sponges.
most deep sea research isn't interested in Noah's flood (or lack of it).
Correct. It's an undisputed fact amongst people who understand geology that Noah's flood did not happen.
-
Care to give us your source? Don't bother if it is a creationist site though.
Huh?
You do realise that quite a common feature of fossils is that the soft tissue almost always rots away before it has a chance to fossilise? It's only in very rare circumstances that you get soft tissue fossilising.
If you're about to argue that these fossils in Kansas would require extremely unlikely conditions to form, I would probably agree with you.
Fossils like this are found in the Niobrara chalk of Kansas.
It might be very improbable but as long as it is not completely impossible, we can still have fossil sponges.
Correct. It's an undisputed fact amongst people who understand geology that Noah's flood did not happen.
Hi jeremy,
One AIG article asks, "Even more important is the existence of so many larger fossils found mixed in the chalk beds. How did all these large, diverse creatures get buried in the ooze, unlike what we find on the ocean floor today?" ("Chalk it up to a global flood", by Andrew Snelling)
I must say this seemed like a convincing argument at first, but it looks like they haven't considered the possibility that the creatures sank into pre-existing sediment. I've e-mailed AIG to ask if Mr. Snelling has considered this.
-
As I've said many times before, that's what people always say when they've lost the argument but won't admit it.
Not always SteveH. When people go round and round in circles saaying the same things in different words,sometimes it's best to call it a day (not that that would happen here of course ;)).