..................lie......you dare to call matha  lie.

 

lemi outline if for you again.

you have given numbers. in this cas 20 grams of calcium carbonate per square CM per year, produced from the top 200 metres of the ocean (photic zone).

now a wierd thing is that you manage to conver 20 grams per square Cm to 2 GRAMS PER CUBIC CM!! which just cant happen... for well.. obvious volume reasons.

 

so theres 2 thing:

1) we have the all the information to check your statement: 100 mtres in 1000 years.

since we know the density of chalk. which is 2499 kg per cubic metre

 

2) in nature, not only is the saturation point of algea really hard to reach (due to the massive amounts of parametres), but a maximuj saturation WILL block out the light after a couple of metres...or have you never seen an algea infested pool.this is where i found

"But anyway it still leaves to much speculation and NO solid evidence"

so hypocrit.

oooooh buRRRRNNNed. ^^

 

what your creation scientist did was take a lab situation, where they optimalized the envorement, and then extrapolated, as if the ocean was, for a long time, and optimal environment. now every biologist will tell you THATS being scientifically dishonest.

 

but again, i checked the math, and depending on wheter i took the cubic cm numbers (in which caese i came up at 80 cubic Metres per 1000 years) or the square cm number (in which case i came up with 800 cubic metres in 1000 years). both of which..as you will nhotice ARENT 100 METRES PER 1000 YEARS!!? i fact i could already tell that from the numbers given. if they wanted that exact amoun they should have given 2.5 grams per square cm.

 

of course they go along an dicredit themselves too, by suddenly stating, a paragraph further,  that 100 metres per 1000 years ACTUALLY means 100 PER 200 YEARS!!

and dude...i quoted THAT from your source, so no, you are lying again when i got that from an old earth site, or perhaps did YOU quote from there?

 

But lets make this even better on you. you claim to have seen it on a site that you consider completely biased, and then you reason: "therefore its a LIE!!" which is

SO INTELECTUALLY DISHONEST, ITS LIKE YOU SHOT URSELF IN THE FOOT WITH A SHOTGUN!!!!!

 

at least check the math BEFORE you say an equation is wrong. something you didn't do with your source.

bottom line, just because it doesn't confom with your wolrdview or current level of knowledge DOESN'T mean its NOT TRUE/....

doing that would be...wel VERY CLOSEMINDED AND INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.....

 

and that was you first arguemnts crushed. wierd you didn't post in on the actual topic but rather here where no one sees the math i did???

(people check the link to that topic i posted in and earlier response to bigdogs . you'll see how he can't wriggle his way out of that.

 

on to the next.

 

so called colomns ???!?! DUDE, LOOK AT ROCK FORMATIONS ALREADY. do you WANT to appear this ignorant?

radiometric dating junk science? hihi you are serious? you have no idea how constantradioactive decay is do you?

 

"Because we've already proven other layers WITHOUT A DOUBT can form within a few years."

soo other mean ALL in your universe?

i already explained that SOME layers will form in a few years, or even days. but they are very specific layers, like volcanic ones. but you take that fact and go apply it to all the strata layers ^^ how silly of you...

 

"so don't put all your eggs in the basket of the chalk layer to prove an old earth"

 

w8 what? when did i say that the SOME reason i had for assuming the earth to be old was the chalk layer? i just pointed out that that alone WILL discredit a young (6000 year old) earth. its to disprove, NOT to prove. that how science works btw, hope you might understand that one day.

 

"Are you perhaps, a lying gay man? Sounds like it"

well i wasn't lying. and you failed to prove that, or at least i rebuttaled it back to extreme doubt.

 

SINCE WHEN was my sexuality important? and does that even matter?

like, being gay makes my any less intelligent, kind, honest or passionate?

thats just trolling you troll! ^^

FROM BIGDOGS SITE:

 

Creationist Responses
Two creationists have done much to provide a
satisfactory response to these objections against Flood
geology—geologists Dr. Ariel Roth of the Geoscience
Research Institute (Loma Linda, California) and John
Woodmorappe. Both agree that biological productivity
does not appear to be the limiting factor. Roth (1985)
suggests that in the surface layers of the ocean these
carbonate-secreting organisms at optimum production
rates could produce all the calcareous ooze on the ocean
floor today in probably less than 1,000 or 2,000 years.
He argues that, if a high concentration of foraminifera
of 100 per liter of ocean water were assumed (Berger,
1969), a doubling time of 3.65 days, and an average of
10,000 foraminifera per gram of carbonate (Berger,
1976), the top 200 m of the ocean would produce 20 g
of calcium carbonate per square centimeter per year,
or at an average sediment density of 2 g/cm3, 100 m in
1,000 years. Some of this calcium carbonate would be
dissolved at depth so the time factor would probably
need to be increased to compensate for this, but if
there was increased carbonate input to the ocean

out. Also, reproduction of foraminifera below the top
200 m of ocean water would likewise tend to shorten
the time required.
Coccolithophores on the other hand reproduce
faster than foraminifera and are amongst the fastest
growing planktonic algæ (Paasche, 1968), sometimes
multiplying at the rate of 2.25 divisions per day.
Roth suggests that if we assume an average coccolith
has a volume of 22 × 10–12 cm3, an average weight of
60 × 10-12 g per coccolith (Honjo, 1976), 20 coccoliths
produced per coccolithophore, 13 × 106 coccolithophores
per liter of ocean water (Black & Bukry, 1979), a
dividing rate of two times per day and a density of
2 g/cm3 for the sediments produced, one gets a potential
production rate of 54 cm (over 21 inches) of calcium
carbonate per year from the top 100 m (305 feet) of the
ocean. At this rate it is possible to produce an average
100 m (305 feet) thickness of coccoliths as calcareous
ooze on the ocean floor in less than 200 years. Again,
other factors could be brought into the calculations
to either lengthen or shorten the time, including
dissolving of the carbonate, light reduction due to the
heavy concentration of these microorganisms, and
reproducing coccoliths below the top 100 m of ocean
surface, but the net result again is to essentially
affirm the rate just calculated.
Woodmorappe (1986) approached the matter in
a different way. Assuming that all limestones in
the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary divisions of the
geological column are all chalks, he found that these
accounted for 17.5 million km3 of rock. (Of course,
not all these limestones are chalks, but he used
this figure to make the “problem” more difficult, so
as to get the most conservative calculation results.)
Then using Roth’s calculation of a 100 m thickness of
coccoliths produced every 200 years, Woodmorappe
found that one would only need 21.1 million km2 or
4.1% of the earth’s surface to be coccolith-producing
seas to supply the 17.5 million km3 of coccoliths in
1,600–1,700 years, that is, in the pre-Flood era. He
also made further calculations by starting again from
the basic parameters required, and found that he
could reduce that figure to only 12.5 million km2 of
ocean area or 2.5% of the earth’s surface to produce
the necessary exaggerated estimate of 17.5 million km3
of coccoliths.

 

 

this all looks so reasonable, but when you read it you see that they make some big assumptions and that their math sucks. not to mention their understaning of the actual ocean environment.

 

 

 

That's the sort of comment I would expect from a middle-schooler, not an (ostensible) adult.

I have grown so weary of hearing the same worn out nonsense over and over again.  I generally try not to blatantly attack others…you know…like creationist often do…however there is a time when you simply must call someone out on their pigheadedness.

Bigdog...you are an idiot.  Simply stating that radiometric dating is an ineffective method in a repetitive fashion DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!  The MANY methods of radiometric dating are VERY well understood and have been highly scrutinized.  You provide NO evidence to cast doubt on the validity of these methods.  You consistently display an utter lack of understanding regarding the limitations of these methods or the mechanisms upon which they are developed.  In short, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND YOU SOUND LIKE A DAMN FOOL TO ANYONE EDUCATED IN THE FIELD.  Do yourself a favor...you see there are physicist and likely other scientist on this forum....stay away from topics you do not understand.

apology accepted. but still i never called u gay. just a troll, which isnt all that bad. i mean i could have called you a 14 year old boy.. or a 16 year old girl. hell o could even have called you goatse! but i didn't.

 

Childish backhand apology accepted - not that it was directed at me, but since you believe we're all the same person anyway...

"both of you have made yourselves sound so immature and offensive that I doubt either of you belief in this monkey to man myth."

 

ok NOW YOU WENT AND DUNNIT!!

 

for the hundreth time:
WE DON"T !!! THAT "myth" IS A CREATIONIST CREATION. it's ....a ...

 

STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT!!!!!!!!!

 

again bigdog, you have COMPLETELY ignored ALL of our previous rebuttals on that remark. you just blatantly repeated yourself and yet again shown that you are so goddamned dishonest.

 

this IS unacceptable behaviour for ANYONE who want's to have

" because I don't like it when we're trying to have a scientific debate"

 

YOU SIR, aren't having a SCIENTIFIC debate. in fact you've shown multiple times that you aren't even having a debate, ur just blatantly stating something, not supporting it OR supporting it with false or minimal arguements. and when it starts to get to rough and we've exposed your arguements and wilfull ignorance, you just up and leave for the nexxt topic. that sir is not debating. THAT SIR, is trolling, imo.

 

i've bunked your math. and you called it a lie, not even pointign out WHERE i made a miscalculation.

not scientific.

 

we've told you what are strawman arguements and so cannot be used in an honest discussion. you just kept repeating them.

not honest debating.

 

and i could go on, but i have class...

 

 

Bigdog, if you want these, "kids" to stop picking on you then I would suggest you display some level of maturity yourself.  You say you are trying to have a "scientific" debate yet you refuse to acknowledge any criticism or rebuttal to your horribly misinformed opinions.  You just stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "NU UH!!!! MY DADDY SAID THAT THE DINOSAURS DIED CAUSE THEY TOCHED THEMSELVES AT NIGHT AND MY DADDY ISNT A LIAR!!!!"  Honestly we treat you as a child because that is the level at which you approach a "debate".  You have no interest in learning about the subject at hand.  You seem to believe that an academically credible rhetorical style can be comprised of nothing more than bull headedness and repetitious assertions of long dismissed ideas.  If you want to be taken seriously, you need to at least show some evidence that you are making an effort to educate yourself with regards to the material at hand.

So, in other words, you can dish it out but you can't take it - so you're taking your ball and going home.