Feedback archive → Feedback 2022

Challenging chalk-talk—Round 2!

Trev K. from the UK brings a second round of challenges for CMI’s Gavin Cox regarding his Creation magazine article “Chalk challenges deep-time dogma.” Trev’s challenge is below in full, then Gavin responds to each point in turn.

www.dreamstime.com

Hello again Trev. I see you’ve opted for a second round of challenges to my original Creation magazine chalk article. That’s quite the shopping-list of objections you’ve brought with you. For interested readers, who may not be aware, we’ve already gone one round previously, my responses can be found here. But as you’re up for a second round—here goes. I’ll answer each of your points in turn. You state:

Yes, our feed-back rules don’t allow for a running Q&A on articles, primarily because CMI staff are busy people, and are out and about speaking and writing on many other topics. But, yes, having considered your challenge, I will publish it in full—but of course, with my answers!

Oh really? Where might that be stated? I can’t see it in the first part, maybe someone would be kind enough to point it out to me, it can be read here: Challenging chalk-talk.

Yes, that’s what you said last time, but as I pointed out before, such ideas don’t fly. Land remains in the same place, no matter what the water level, or are you thinking of another land mass further away? Even that being the case, don’t you know that sandstorms in the Sahara can travel half-way across the world, depositing their contaminants far and wide?¹ Furthermore, such ideas require that the land (whether far or near) eroded to produce the contaminations in the grey chalk, but then stopped eroding—for some unknown reason, for presumed millions of years—while the white chalk was laid down.

As I pointed out in my first feedback article to your original challenge, geology professor Derek V. Ager suggested this idea of low-lying land somehow not providing contaminants to the white chalk, so it’s not an original idea to you anyway. But these kinds of conditions only occur in ‘imaginary evolution land’. Land erodes period—and if it eroded for millions of years, then the chalk would have millions of years-worth of contaminants, and so would not be white. The purity of the white chalk really is the knock-out blow to deep-time dogma.

I will disappoint you then Trev, because you weren’t there to observe how the chalk was formed either. But it is true, I wasn’t there to observe Noah’s Flood. However, Noah did personally observe the Flood as an eye-witness, and recorded what he saw, which became incorporated into Genesis 6–9, via an inspired process of Moses’s writing.

It is possible the pre-Flood world was polar ice free, however, Scripture doesn’t comment on this, but, obviously during the global Flood, there would have been no ice. However, we wouldn’t appeal to the Cretaceous to establish a lack of polar ice caps in the pre-Flood world, so, we’re not really talking about the same issue. The Flood was the cause of the higher sea level, obviously. In-fact, geologists admit, most, if not all the world’s land surface was underwater at some point, including during the so-called Cretaceous period, which also included the entire UK—hmmm, sounds a lot like Noah’s Flood? Tas Walker, CMI’s staff geologist, developed a biblical geology model, his specific Flood model can be seen here. When it comes to animal distribution (biogeography) during the Cretaceous I suggest we are wandering off-topic (chalk formation), so I will defer you to this article. It shows how animal distribution follows patterns of global water currents (rafting). Also, land bridges, due to lower ocean levels during the post-Flood Ice Age, would have facilitated animal and plant distribution. As you will see in these articles, animal re-distribution during continental drift within the evolutionary scenario has fundamental problems, and evolutionists have great difficulties explaining the global distributions of plants and animals.

Glad you see sense Trev, point conceded then.

Firstly, it’s not ‘my flood’, it is Noah’s Flood—the global, historic event described in the Bible, without error. So, yes, lots of suspended material was available in the ocean water to feed the explosive coccolith growth, until it had all settled out. Obviously this organic matter (doesn’t matter what colour it was) was digested via a food chain. Bacteria would have broken the organics down, the coccoliths then digested this bacterial ‘soup’, which enabled them to absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere to produce their exoskeletal calcium carbonate coverings. These coccoliths were then eaten by zooplankton, fish, and other small organisms, which then excreted the coccoliths in fecal pellets, which sank quickly to the shallow ocean floor. Their settling rates were also sped up by the various mechanisms I explored in my Creation magazine article, including flocculation (see comment below). Bacterial agents then worked to harden the coccolith detritus into chalk. This is the same process that is happening in today’s oceans.² The difference being in the Flood, such processes would have been much greater in scope, with much more energy available to do geologic work. Such energy would have produced fast moving water currents which would have sorted this material into layers, including the previously mentioned flints, and other large fossils. If you care to watch the videos³ of Guy Berthault’s Experiments in Stratigraphy you will see that fine laminations do indeed form instantaneously. It is not about time, but conditions. Fast flowing water currents by the laws of physics sort particles into layers according to their particle size and density.

Regarding chalk (or calcium carbonate/ lime) coming out of suspension quickly, the water industry is expert at this, as water treatment works need to take calcium carbonate out of the system so as to avoid damaging build-up of cabonate material in pipes etc. This is done by adding bentonite clay, which causes calcium carbonate to clump and immediately come out of suspension via gravity (flocculation).⁴ You can see a video of the process on YouTube.⁵ Fast water currents will also do this, because it can make very fine particles (for instance the size of silt and mud) come out of suspension quickly to form fine laminations.⁶ So, no, CMI doesn’t need to do an experiment to prove what is already commonly known in industry, and what Guy Berthault has ably demonstrated to sedimentologists the world over.

I did mention these in my original response. Sea urchins in chalk are found at multiple levels. For instance, echinoderms from the groups Spatangoida, Holasteroida, Echinoneoida, Phymosomatoida I have personally collected over the years. Yes, similar species live on the ocean floor today, but their positions in the chalk layers only demonstrate where they were deposited, not necessarily where they lived. They could just have well been deposited in layers according to the differential sorting of fast flowing water currents. These currents built up the layers sequentially along with any organism trapped in the sediments. It is purely down to one’s world-view that will determine how one interprets these benthic organisms’ positions as either that of representing an ancient sea floor environment, or a sequential sedimentary layer that was emplaced by fast flowing water currents. I would go for the latter, because there is no evidence of a sea floor in these layers, rather, just a layer of chalk that might contain fossils like echinoids or bivalves (clams) (or flints, see later).

By the way, when it comes to bivalves (two opposing shell halves), such fossils are evidence of rapid burial. David Catchpoole stated of bivalve biology and preservation:

“The two valves of each shell are hinged together by an elastic ligament, with a large central muscle serving to close the valve against the pull of the ligament. The fact that the fossilized [bivalves] are closed suggests they were buried alive. Ordinarily, when the central muscle relaxes after death, the ligament pulls the shells open—but in this case the weight of overlying sediment (evidence of Flood deposit) prevented this.”⁷

Many fossil bivalves found in the chalk (and throughout the rock record) have both halves closed. In other words, they were buried quickly, while still alive, and preserved in mineral. This is strong testament to the fact that they didn’t die of natural causes on the sea floor, but were swept into place in sediment.

Wow, what an accusation! I’ve read them also, and I see intellectual integrity and the ability to robustly weigh and analyse large amounts of complex data and draw conclusions unfettered from uniformitarian presuppositions.

Pardon? Another massive blunder I fear! Neither chlorophytes or cyanobacteria appear in any citations for Snelling, or Woodmorappe! Chlorophytes are green algae, Cyanobacteria are blue-green algae, neither of which produce calcareous exoskeletons. Both Snelling⁸ and Woodmorappe⁹ cite many earlier studies done on coccolithophore reproduction (more generally foraminifera), which even in today’s oceans cause massive, seasonal blooming, which are so massive that they can be seen from space by satellites!¹⁰ Your assertion is flat-out wrong I’m afraid! You told me you had read Snelling and Woodmorappe, you should know they only refer to sources of information discussing coccolithophore reproduction rates. I think it is you who needs to “rely on intellectual dishonesty” to prop up your objections. (See later discussion on moral foundations).

Not so, because ‘competition’ pre-supposes limited resources. There would be a mega-abundance of organic material available in the global Flood waters, so no, I don’t think coccolithophores would be outcompeted during the Flood. However, we would expect all manner of algae to bloom during the Flood, but the main point is that coccolithophores left calcareous exoskeletons to be fossilised as chalk, the other photosynthetic algae you mention don’t leave hard exoskeletons, so would end up as part of the food chain, leaving little, if any, fossil evidence.

Then he [Snelling] uses this figure and applies it to for (sic) an unrealistic depth of 500m and wrongly implies coccolithophore[s] can just switch to eating bacteria in the dark.

Why is 500m an unrealistic depth? In my Creation magazine article, I cited a study done by the American Geophysical Union on massive coccolithophore blooms occurring in water depths up to 200m. Snelling gets the 500m depth from Woodmorappe, he derives this perfectly reasonable figure from a secular source stating the following:

“Coccolithophorids … might also occur in considerable densities at deeper levels—200, 400, 500m, or even deeper [in contrast to diatoms and dinoflagellates being restricted to the upper 100m layer].”¹¹

Besides, 500m is shallow, compared to many of today’s sea floors, but in the Cretaceous period, the ocean floor was also believed to be shallow.¹² CMI understands this was a period during the Flood, towards the end of the rising waters, which would also mean the ocean floor was higher than today’s, due to the isostatic readjustment of earth’s topography that creation models predict.

Snelling correctly understands (to use your objection) that “coccolithophore[s] can just switch to eating bacteria in the dark.” And yes, so they can! My first reply to you cited a recent study that demonstrates just this fact! Coccolithophores can and do metabolise their food with or without the aid of sunlight. Senior Research Scientist William Balch stated in a report:

“Coccolithophores are integrated into global cycles in ways that we never imagined. This research really changes my thinking about food webs in dark regions where photosynthesis clearly isn’t happening. It changes the paradigm”¹³ (emphasis added).

So, Trev, you need to get with the program, and change your paradigm also! In other words, you can have lots of other plankton blooms in shallower layers of water, and coccoliths metabolizing quite happily in dark, deeper waters.

True, but I don’t rely on a post-asteroid impact scenario, the new research I cited here and in my magazine article, demonstrates coccoliths can metabolize their food in the dark in today’s oceans. The post-asteroid scenario is merely analogous to a ‘nuclear winter’ type scenario that likely persisted during the Flood year, whereby coccoliths may have experienced less sunlight.

Wrong again Trev! While it is true that the purest and most extensive chalk formations are Upper Cretaceous, there are chalk formations in the later Cenozoic. For instance, the Ekofisk formation¹⁴ in the North Sea. It is the uppermost portion of the Chalk Group, but it is ‘dated’ to the Danian, the oldest stage in the Paleogene. In other words, the Chalk Group itself certainly does cross the K/T boundary. Much of the Ekofisk Formation is interpreted as reworked, but some of it isn’t. At any rate, there are plenty of chalk deposits around the world not connected to the Chalk Group that didn’t form during the Cretaceous, for instance in the Miocene.¹⁵

Furthermore, as already stated, chalk is forming in today’s oceans also, if you had read my Creation magazine article you should have picked up on that. Regarding the K/T boundary (referring to a Cretaceous Tertiary boundary layer) and its relation to Flood geology see these three in-depth Journal articles by Mike Oard, part 1, part 2, part 3.

But Trev, you originally stated:

So now I understand what you are actually referring to, your objection can quickly be dismissed. I already addressed the usual skeptic’s objection that the carbon dioxide budget is a limiting factor to coccolith reproduction, so I won’t repeat it here (both Snelling and Woodmorappe addressed it thoroughly). However, your new objection that calcium ions are somehow a limiting factor to coccolith reproduction belies a basic lack of understanding of sea water chemistry. You see Trev, seawater is super-saturated with calcium ions, and precipitates solid calcium carbonate easily. During the Flood the available calcium in the sea water would have been dramatically greater, 20–25% of sedimentary rocks are carbonates anyway. The calcium could also be transferred upward with the other nutrients. I see three sources of calcium are readily identifiable 1) through all the Flood deposited organics present, 2) from increased global volcanic activity, and 3) hydrothermal waters from the earth’s interior (Genesis 7:11).

According to one readily available internet source:

“Calcium is one of the major ions in seawater. It is present in seawater at about 410 ppm the world over, so it comprises just under 1.2% by weight of the solids.”¹⁶

For the chemistry nerds amongst us, here are the chemical equations involved:

“The equilibrium constant expression for the dissolution of calcium carbonate is shown below:

(1) K = [Ca⁺⁺][CO₃^—]

When K = Ksp* (the solubility product constant in seawater at any given temperature, pressure, and salinity), then the solution is said to be exactly saturated (equation 2).

(2) Ksp* = [Ca⁺⁺][CO₃^—] (saturation)

When the product of the concentration of calcium and carbonate exceeds the Ksp*, the solution is said to be supersaturated, and there is “too much” calcium and carbonate in solution (equation 3).

(3) Ksp* < [Ca⁺⁺][CO₃^—] (supersaturation)

When the product of the concentration of calcium and carbonate is less than the Ksp*, the solution is said to be undersaturated, and calcium carbonate can dissolve if put into the solution (equation 4).

(4) Ksp* > [Ca⁺⁺][CO₃^—] (undersaturation)

In normal seawater, equation 3 holds (supersaturation). The product of calcium and carbonate is about 3 times the Ksp* of aragonite and 5 times that of calcite (aragonite and calcite are different crystal forms of calcium carbonate … Consequently, calcium carbonate is poised to precipitate from seawater, given the opportunity.”¹¹

Calcium therefore would not be quickly depleted, as it is super abundant in the Flood waters as available calcium ions for the cocolithophores to produce their exoskeletons.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Unrealistic mega bloom? By what biological or physical standards is this bloom unrealistic? Mega, yes (likely an order of magnitude or so above what we observe in modern oceans)—unrealistic, certainly not.

Trev, you continue your “huge blunder” by insisting the chalk is not laminated, when geologists regularly describe chalk as “laminated” in the secular geological literature all the time. Geologists regularly take core samples of chalk in the North Sea and regularly see laminations. To suggest otherwise, really is a huge blunder. For instance, a paper published in the Journal of the International Association of Sedimentologists is titled: “Formation and diagenesis of bedding cycles in uppermost Cretaceous chalks of the Dan Field, Danish North Sea.” The term ‘bedding cycles’ rather gives it away. The abstract states:

“Metre-scale lithologic cycles, visible in core and on logs from Maastrichtian chalks of the Dan Field, were examined to determine their mechanisms of deposition and relation to hydrocarbon production. The lower parts of cycles consist of porous, cream-coloured, largely non-stylolitic, commonly laminated chalk with limited bioturbation (mainly escape burrows). Cycles are capped by thinner intervals of white to grey, hard, stylolitic chalk with concentrations of bioclastic material”.¹⁷

(The oil staining aids the visibility of the chalk laminations and is of course, not the cause of the laminations themselves). The term “lamination” occurs over a dozen times alone in this one paper to describe chalk core samples from the North Sea.

Another paper I quickly found by doing a search for “laminated chalk” (easily done) has 78 references to “lamination” to describe chalk from the North Sea. See an image to prove it:

www.geus.dk

(No oil staining in this case). In case you think buried burrows and bioturbation is somehow a problem for Flood geology please see Sediment bioturbation experiments and the actual rock record. You can also do a search on creation.com for “hardgrounds” “burrows” or “bioturbation” to find other articles which show how buried burrows and supposed evidences for multiple ‘sea bed levels’ are in fact best explained in terms of rapid burial and layers (see also, later comment on silicified burrows in flint).

Your objection that flints present in the layers somehow dismisses these clear bedding features as laminations is sheer nonsense. The North Sea core samples pictured above (others available) don’t have flints in them, but are clearly laminated. There are many photos of chalk cliffs on England’s east coast which do have flints incorporated into the laminations, and some without. Just do a Google Image search for “chalk strata” “chalk laminations” “chalk layers” etc. you will see multiple examples along the English east coast and from other locations. Pictured below is a lovely example from Cyprus of bent chalk layers:

commons.wikimedia.org, Bayreuth2009

It is entirely possible that Flood currents deposited flints in these layers, by differential sorting of different densities, just see the Experiments in Stratigraphy flume tank videos to see how this can easily be explained in terms of strata build-up in fast moving water currents. However, another explanation is that the flints are ‘diagenetic’—meaning that they are the result of the physical and chemical changes occurring during the conversion of sediment to sedimentary rock, which is both a chemical and bacterially driven process.

But Trev, what about the presence of the flint itself? This again, begs for a Flood explanation! There is no consensus amongst geologists about how flint/chert could form. It isn’t forming in today’s oceans, therefore the uniformitarian dogma of “the present is the key to the past” does not account for flint. However, chemistry points to the flint/chert being a hydrothermal product. Mike Oard cites secular geologists who recognize this, he states:

“Pettijohn [see ref] remarked that many scientists believe bedded chert was directly precipitated from silica-supersaturated water and that the radiolarians in the chert are incidental. Moreover, Racki and Cordey [see ref] suggest that volcanic and hydrothermal processes may have quickly increased the silica content of the water. The silica concentration of hydrothermal water can be over a thousand times that of ambient seawater.”¹⁹

Oard puts flint/chert chemistry in the context of the Flood and states:

“… a Flood scenario can be envisioned in which volcanic/hydrothermal processes added great quantities of hot, silica-rich fluid to the water. The additional silica would sometimes cause a huge radiolarian bloom, depending upon whether live radiolaria were floating above the silica-rich waters.”

“Changes in temperature or chemistry of the water could force the rapid precipitation of silica over a local or regional scale, sometimes with radiolarian organisms within the precipitate.”¹⁴

So Oard gives very reasonable evidence from chemistry that flint is a Flood deposit. Furthermore, there are other anomalies within the flint that cannot be accounted for within uniformitarian thinking. For instance, fossil burrows of buried organisms are replaced by silicon. This means the watery sediment that filled these burrows was rich in dissolved silica.²⁰ Such unique chemical conditions are readily expected during the Flood, which was a tectonic event, and would have quickly buried the benthic organisms trying to escape the newly deposited sedimentary layers of the Flood. Such conditions are not (normally) observed in today’s oceans.

So Trev, I have now answered all your objections, but let’s put all this in a spiritual context. Why does it matter at all?

Why get choked-up about chalk?

Why Trev, have you got so exercised about chalk formation? Why, if we are but mere evolved animals, does it matter what you or I believe about something we were not there to directly witness? Is it because you know, in your heart, that chalk formation has fundamental philosophical implications for your worldview when it comes to origins? You accept a no-God, uniformitarian, evolutionary, millions-of-years story of origins, and I accept the biblical Flood account of chalk’s formation. There is a lot at stake here, and we both know it, but for you, I suggest, it is inconsistent for you to care about it. Indeed, how can you know what ultimate truth and reality are, when your brain has supposedly evolved over millions of years—a mere lump of meat? Conversely, the Flood means God judges sin, and your sin (and mine) also Trev. It also means God as Creator, created us in His image, and we are therefore accountable to Him. Despite this, evolutionary thinking doesn’t let you off the hook, when it comes to your sin, rather, it divests you of the possibility of knowing ultimate truth, meaning, morality, or reality.

You accuse Snelling and Woodmorappe (without evidence) of “relying on intellectual dishonesty.” But in an evolutionary worldview, what’s wrong with relying on intellectual dishonesty? My worldview rightly condemns dishonesty, of any sort, intellectual or otherwise. We have a commandment for it: Exodus 20:16 “You shall not bear false witness”. So what’s your commandment? In your worldview, by what standard and from what ethical basis do you determine why dishonesty (or any moral practice) is wrong, or right?

I have now, on two occasions, patiently worked through your very sizeable shopping list of objections to my original article on the formation of chalk during the biblical Flood. I hope that you will take time to consider the evidence and reasoning I have presented and ask yourself why it really matters? It’s not about chalk formation at the end of the day, but it is about your response to your Creator, who became your Saviour and died for your sins. How do you respond to Him? I have presented science and evidence that is consistent with the Bible’s account of the Flood, now will you consider the implications, and what it means for you?

Sincerely yours,
Gavin Cox

Related Media

Sedimentary blankets - evidence for Noah's Flood

Evidence for the Global Flood of Noah (Creation Magazine LIVE! 8-03)