Re: Chemistry Problem

David Campbell (bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu)
Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:08:28 -0400

>Glen, the following discusses the heat released by the precipitation of
>Calcite. However, flood catastrophists do not propose that
>precipitation is the cause of any of the limestones, dolomites etc in
>sediments considered to be Flood deposits (which is usually proposed to
>be near 90% of the sediments). It is proposed that the limestones were
>depositied as lime mud and ooze and not precipitated in shallow, quiet
>seas. Austin discusses this. So, your concern about cramming all that
>precipitation (and excessive heat fantasy) into a years time is simply
>irrelevent. No flood catastrophist proposes such an idea.

Lime mud and ooze form by precipitation (mostly induced by living things).
Your arguement doesn't avoid the problem. The microscopic texture of many
limestones reveals that they consist of myriad tiny fossils, and many
tropical warm-water algae produce lime mud (with no distinctive
fossilizable features) as their skeletons break down. Oxygen and carbon
isotopes of any carbonate may also reveal biological influence on their
formation, but I don't know how widely this has been tested.

>Also, I know of no FLood catastrophist who proposes that all Calcite and
>related minerals had to form within the 1200 or so years between the
>Creation week and the catastrophe. Much related minerals was probably
>part of the original creation.
Almost all limestone and much dolomite is fossiliferous; I think this is
considered an indication of post-creation formation by most YECs. In many
cases, there are traces of predation preserved on fossils in the limestone;
I think some YEC models claim that this does not appear until late.

David C.