Proposal: Flood Geology - Disproved by biogenic sediments?

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by synthesizer-patel, Nov 9, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    In a now locked thread mynameisDan posted the following in an attempt to explain large discrete accumulations of biogenic sediments.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2082476&postcount=173

    As Dan never got the chance to expand upon this with any meaningful detail, and as I never got a chance to respond to this comment before the thread was locked, I would like to invite Dan to present and discuss the evidence he has that supports this assumption.

    To keep the discussion from wandering off track to other areas of flood geology, the discussion will be confined to the realm of biogenic marrine sediments such as chalk cliffs and diatomaceous earths.

    Over to you Dan.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    what will happen when the mods lock this thread too? you'll start another?
    over riding mod edits like this has gotten posters banned in the past.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    The thread was locked because the mods determined that the topic that Dan had started was primarily a trolling exercise (it was titled "The Lies Atheists Tell") - however the comment that Dan made which I quoted was a side comment and not related to the overall topic, neither was it a blatant troll or flame - so to me it seems like a valid thread to discuss - if the mods do not feel this would make an appropriate topic for debate they can say so themselves
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    Dan has responded to my invitation to particiapte in this debate however he has unfortunately declined due to the fact that he is not confident that I will present scientific evidence to support my side of the debate and that he feels I treated him unfairly when I accused him of mis-representing quotations.

    In order to allay Dans concerns I propose 2 new rules to the debate:

    Only genuine scientific evidence can be provided - full journal articles are preferrable, abstracts acceptable, books less so but if they are relevant that's ok - links must be provided to source.

    Direct quotations are discouraged - participants must present the findings from the evidence in their own words but provide a link to the source. Likewise a link without any explanation is also discouraged.
    If quotations are unavoidable then the full passage must be quoted - not cherry picked lines from the passage that may serve to distort context.

    sound fair?
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2008
  8. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Fundamentalist apologists *do* hate it when their ability to rely on rhetoric is impeded. I'm sure his reluctance about presentation of scientific evidence is, in reality, quite the opposite from what he says. He's likely quite put off by having to deal with science instead of rhetoric.
     
  9. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    There is only one way to find out skin - in the meantime lets not prejudge the outcome
     
  10. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    It seems that mynameisDan lived up to any reasoned expectations. Rather than actually debate you on the merits of science, where his trolling rhetoric would be restricted, he chose to avoid the issue and worked hard to get a ban instead.

    I actually attempted to ignore his trolling and personally insulting and abusive PMs until today.

    Guys like this are too afraid to deal with the science and he probably enjoys the the fact that he now has the excuse of being 'banned' -this was his plan; his escape mechanism all along, I'm afraid.

    Sorry, s-patel. Maybe he'll be up to it when/if he returns. I doubt it. He'll make some unrealistic demands or find unreasoned excuses to avoid a debate with you since he already knows the outcome: you'll make him look stupid.
     
  11. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Is no-one prepared to take up this challenge?
    Dan won't do it. Won't even make a reply by the looks of things.
    Seems to me that creationists like to pick and choose their arenas.

    I won't be contributing, because I know nothing about it, but I'd be interested in the discussion.
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Perhaps we could encourage s-p to provide an argument opposed to the premise that, "Coccolith accumulation is not steady-state but highly episodic. Under the right conditions significant increases in the concentrations of these marine microorganisms can occur and conditions brought about by the flood could have been ideal for their formation".

    Aside from the implied assumption that there was in fact a "flood", presumably of biblical proportions, I'm not sure what is wrong with the premise :shrug:.
     
  13. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    I invited the original poster to debate because he was actualy right about a couple of details - but very wrong in the application of them.

    So for example coccolith blooms can be very episodic, and the biomass they produce can be significant enough for the blooms to be seen from space - no argument from me on that one.

    However at the present day, coccolith deposition on the seabed takes place at around 1-2m per 1000 years in the areas of their highest production- the highest rate of deposition takes place in so-called "drift" deposits - where deposition is concentrated in small areas (think snow drift) - this is around 30m per 1000 years.

    Bear in mind that the famous white cliffs of dover ( a very large coccolith fossil bed) is around 300-400m deep - several 10s of Km wide, and around 5000km long - according to fundaligionists, coccoliths would have to have repoduce to create sufficient biomass, die, sink a minimum of 8000m to the sea bed (this takes a few months in itself), be buried, compressed, lithified, uplifted, and exposed, in only 12 months. Back of a cigarette packet calculations suggest that they would need to grow at a rate of around 100,000 times their maximum growth rate.

    Growth rates of plankton are not linear in relation to nutrients and sunlight - growth rate curves are rectangular hyperbole - basically you reach a point where no matter how strong the sunlight, or how high a concentration of nutrients are available, the cells simply cannot assimilate them any faster - indeed if you keep on adding nutrients and increase the sunlight strength, you actually damage the cells and slow their reproduction rates

    Finally - all coccoliths are marine - rain isnt salty
     
  14. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I have a feeling he would find this unanswerable.
    Hence the silence.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    Terms and participants for this debate must be agreed within 24 hours or the thread will be closed.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    No takers. Closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page