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

[Gordon]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

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?

[Gordon]

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?
 

[Spud]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Gordon]

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?
 

[Spud]

Do the experts feel that your concerns are justified?

I haven't checked with them.

[Gordon]

I haven't checked with them.

Might be a good idea to do so, Spud, else you could be barking up the wrong tree.

[Steve H]

Can someone please edit the title of this thread, so that it makes sense?

[Anchorman]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

Why couldn't that happen?

Because many of the animals found fossilized would only live near a solid sea floor.

[Roses]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Roses]

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!

[jeremyp]

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.

[Roses]

My ammonite is sitting on my TV table.