Er.....we haven't had a flood thread for a while..... ....so, let' .....so, let

[Spud]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Spud]

Do you think an average rate means a constant rate?

That is what 'per 1000 years' seems to imply, yes.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Spud]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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!

[jeremyp]

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?

[Spud]

Shall we call it a day? I don't think we will agree on this.

[Steve H]

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.

[Spud]

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).

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Robbie]

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  ).