Igneous History of British Isles won't Fit Global Flood

[grmorton]

One of the things which shows time in the record is the volcanism which occurred around the British Isles at the time of the continental breakup. The volcanism occurred as the earth’s crust between North America/Greenland and England/Ireland was ripped apart when continental drift split Pangea. This volcanism also shows that Baumgardner’s runaway subduction is false since it is unable to account for the timing of the volcanism.



This is a seismic line from the northern Irish Sea and shows several igneous dykes which have intruded into the strata. A dyke is an finger or sheet of igneous material which is forced through the sedimentary column but is not parallel with the sediments. The blue arrows mark the dykes which are basically at an angle of 8 degrees. (It doesn’t look like it on the seismic line but rough calculations show that this is the true angle. The The sedimentary material was deposited basically horizontal and then a dome formed. The reason we know that the sediments were originally laid down flat is because the sedimentary boundaries are parallel. If there had been an anticline (a hill) in the middle of the seismic when the sediments were deposited, the sediments on top of the anticline would be thinner. Since they aren’t we know that the formation of the anticline (hill) occurred after the deposition.

But we also know that the dyke intrusion occurred after the sediments were deposited. The marked intrusions are thin sheets of igneous material. This material could not have been there prior to the sedimentary material. Mechanically it would be impossible to support a sheet of basalt at a 8 degree angle over a horizontal distance of 4800 meters and a height of 700 meters. This is known because at the top of the section are shotpoint numbers. Each 100 numbers is about 1200 meters and the vertical climb is from about 1.2 seconds deep to .5 seconds deep. Velocities in seas around England yield about 1 meter per millisecond height, so that means about 700 meters vertical height separates the top of the dyke from its base.

One thing to notice is that the dykes intrude almost the entire sedimentary column. Since as we noted, the dykes can’t be emplaced prior to the emplacement of the sedimentary material (for mechanical reasons), it means that the volcanism occurred after the deposition of the sediments. That observation destroys Baumgardner’s runaway subduction theory. Why? Because Baumgardner has the runaway subduction act at the start of the flood, indeed, it is the cause of the flood. But when the continents split, volcanism would be expected along with intrusions such as dykes. But the data shows that the intrusions associated with continental breakup occurred at the end of the flood, when nearly all the sedimentary material was already deposited. Thus runaway subduction postulates the intrusions at the wrong time for the observational data.

Another thing, the volcanism both on Greenland and Scotland, date around 55 million years old. The Skaergaard Intrusive complex yields K/Ar dates of that age (Hirschmann 1997) . But that is also the age of the intrusion on the Isle of Mull (Musset, A.E., 1986), the Giant’s Causeway on Eire, and the Balder Tuffs of the North Sea (Jager et al, 1993, p. 60). More on the Balder Tuffs later.

The early Tertiary dyke system is quite extensive. The picture below shows the extent of onshore Tertiary dykes.



The picture above misses the dykes which exist in the Irish Sea between England and Eire.



The dark NW-SE linear features are the magnetic signature of the Tertiary Dykes. Remember, from the seismic line, all this volcanism occurred AFTER the deposition of most of the sediments.

One other interesting item in the 2nd picture above. In rocks which contain uranium, the radioactive decay produces fission tracks, which can be observed under the microscope. These fission tracks are the record of how much radioactivity has occurred. The more tracks (or rather more correctly) the more dense the tracks are, the older the rock is. Fission tracks represent damage to the crystals in the rock. Fission tracks can be destroyed if the rocks are reheated. All over the Scottish highlands, most fission track ages yield ages of 300 million years or so.

Note the dark circles on the Isles off the coast of Scotland in the 2nd picture above. The northernmost one is on the beautiful Isle of Skye, a place worth visiting. Those black circles are batholiths which were intruded into the sediment 55 million years ago during the opening of the Atlantic Ocean. Like the Giant’s Causeway in Eire and the Skaergaard intrusive in Greenland and the Balder Tuffs, everything dates to around 55 million years. The dates just mentioned are due to K-Ar ages mostly.. The intrusive there as elsewhere, heated the local rocks which surround the batholith. In the case of the Isle of Skye intrusion, the heating zone extended 12 kilometers away from the batholith. The heating destroyed the fission tracks which had been in the rocks. And very interestingly, when one fission track dates the rocks within 12 km of the Isle of Skye batholith, the fission track yields an age of 55 million years or so. Below is a picture showing the fission track ages around Scotland. The upper picture is of all of Scotland and the lower is focused in on the Skye batholith.



In the lower picture you can see on the Isle of Raasay the 293 million year fission track date which is outside of the 12 km annealing area.

One other thing about the volcanics is that it is known that 1-2 kilometers of rock have been eroded off the Scottish Highlands since the emplacement of the batholith. This is not inconsistent with the dykes mentioned earlier which are emplaced after most of the sedimentation took place. The Scottish Highlands of the Western Isles have very little sediment cover. Most of the rocks are igneous, being older than the Tertiary Period.

“Fission track data from thc Scottish Highlands (Hurford 19776), Skye area (Lewis C I ul. 1992) and the onshore margins of the Moray Firth have ages c. 200-300 Ma. suggesting that these areas could not have been uplifted more than 2km during the Tertiary. Mass balance calculations suggest that the entire volume of Paleogene submarine fan sediments in the North Sea could be accounted for by uplift of the East Shetland Platform and the Scottish Highlands of less than I km. The Caledonides of the Highlands provided a persistent sand source of the North Sea submarine fans. Further south. in northern England. the main eroded intervals were probably Chalk. Jurassic shales and Carboniferous Limestone. The lack of sand in these sections explains. in part. why there are no Tertiary submarine fans in the Southern North Sea.
“The Thulean Volcanism was a result of 'hot spot' activity related to the opening of the North Atlantic. The 'hot spot' was responsible for the creation of the Greenland-Faeroe Ridge and is presently situated under Iceland (White 1988). K-Ar datings from Evens et al. (1973) indicate that the Thulean volcanism lasted from 47-70 Ma. However, Mussell et al. (1988) suggest a rather shorter time span, from 52- 63 Ma, based on more recent datings including Ar-Ar ages. However, both authors agree that the peak of activity occurred around 59-60 Ma. There is a second clear peak in volcanic activity around 54-55 Ma, close to the age suggested for the tuffs of the Balder Formation (Knox and Morton 1988). By this time. it is likely that volcanic activity had become markedly more explosive, as most of the younger ages are derived from acid bodies such as the Red Hills of Skye (Mussett et al. 1988). Peaks in volcanic activity correlate well with the relative sea-level curve derived from this study. “ Jager et al, 1993, p. 60)


Now, with all this volcanism, one might expect that there would be volcanic ash deposited over a wide area. There was. In the North Sea, I used to drill wells through the Balder Tuffs. A Tuff is a volcanic ash that has been turned into lithified rock. Anderton writes:

“The Balder Formation is also important in that it records the most intense phase of volcanic activity seen in the North Sea. In the lower part of the unit there are hundreds of individual ash layers, mostly only millimeters to centimetres thick but forming a total thickness of over 8 m at the northern end of the North Sea Basin, and known informally as the Balder Tuff. This ash unit is an important marker throughout the North Sea as it produces a distinctive gamma or sonic bow on well logs. The total ash thickness declines toward the south-east, but ashes are found as far away as southern England, Germany and Denmark. The ashes are of Theoleiitic-basalt composition and were probably erupted from a large volcano, somewhere along the North Atlantic rift, north-west of Britain.” R. Anderton, “Tertiary Events: The North Atlantic Plume and Alpine Pulses,” in Nigel Woodcock and Rob Strachan, editors, Geological History of Britain and Ireland, (London: Blackwell Science, 2000), p.383

The problem all this presents to the YEC is:

1.The radioactive dates are in agreement
2.Runaway Subduction can’t be the cause of the flood
3.the intrusives are after most of the sediment has been deposited, and thus the opening of the Atlantic can not have occurred during the flood in most flood models
4.The YEC must explain how hundreds of individual ash falls occurred in such a short time frame
5.The erosion of 1-2 kilometers of sediment from the very hard Scottish Highland rocks must have occurred after the flood and within the past 4000 years, but there are archaeological sites from that age in Scotland on the present land surface.

This data simply doesn’t fit into a YEC scenario.


References

Hirschmann, M.M.; P.R. Renne; and A.R. McBirney, 1997,
"40Ar/39Ar Dating of the Skaergaard Intrusion,"
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 146, p. 645-658.)

Jager, D. Den Hartog ' M. R. Giles' and G. R. Griffiths, “Evolution of Paleogene submarine fans of the North Sea in space and time,” From Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of The 4th Conference (edited by J. R. Parker) 1993 Petroleum Geology '86 Ltd. Published by The Geological Society. London, pp. 59-71., p. 60)

Musset, A.E., 1986, 40Ar-39Ar step-heating ages of the Tertiary igneous rocks of Mull, Scotland: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 143, p. 887-896.

[dtyler]

One of the things which shows time in the record is the volcanism which occurred around the British Isles at the time of the continental breakup. ...

It does indeed show time, but how much? This topic has been addressed by myself in a published article and in a workshop presentation. Regarding the latter, there is a web report at:
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/s...es/bcs133.html

Since the report is an overview, it bears repeating here:
"The North Atlantic Igneous Province provided the theme of a presentation by David Tyler. This started by looking at flood basalts in general, and the mechanisms proposed to account for their vast effusions of lavas (of the order of a million times greater than volcanic activity today). Decompression melting does appear to be a necessary part of the picture, but there are problems finding ways of achieving the reductions in pressure adequate for initiating an avalanche process of melting. Catastrophic mechanisms, although not well defined, appear to be far more suitable to act as a trigger. The 1800 metres thickness of Mull basalts were presented as a minor subset of the North Atlantic Igneous Province. Plant remains are found only at the lowest levels, and field evidences from excursions to the Ardtun plant beds and the Fossil Tree of Burgh were reviewed. In the latter case, it was proposed that the tree was part of a mature forest that was overwhelmed initially by volcanic ash and then the first lava flow of the succession., There are no subsequent horizons indicating that trees regrew, where weathering created an eroded topography, or where there are any significant evidences of time. Finally, the data was synthesised as a historical narrative. It was noted that there is a very good fit with the Recolonisation Model of Earth history. (A popular-level version of David’s work was published in Origins 34)."

The points you raise in your post form part of this scenario and do not warrant your conclusions.

The problem all this presents to the YEC is:

1.The radioactive dates are in agreement
2.Runaway Subduction can’t be the cause of the flood
3.the intrusives are after most of the sediment has been deposited, and thus the opening of the Atlantic can not have occurred during the flood in most flood models
4.The YEC must explain how hundreds of individual ash falls occurred in such a short time frame
5.The erosion of 1-2 kilometers of sediment from the very hard Scottish Highland rocks must have occurred after the flood and within the past 4000 years, but there are archaeological sites from that age in Scotland on the present land surface.

This data simply doesn’t fit into a YEC scenario.

Responding briefly to each point:
1. Yes, there is a pattern in the radiometric dates. By and large, I am supportive of the work of the RATE group. They do not set out to dismiss the dates as a conspiracy, but recognise that there is real data here needing analysis and explanation. This work is ongoing. I am also of the view that there is a "reinforcement" aspect to the publication of "good" dates - but that is not to minimise the importance of addressing the observed trends.

2. Runaway Subduction can’t be the cause of the flood. I agree with this conclusion - and always have done since I first heard the CPT model presented.

3.the intrusives are after most of the sediment has been deposited, and thus the opening of the Atlantic can not have occurred during the flood in most flood models. Yes - this is the view of the Recolonisation Model of the Flood, which I hold.

4.The YEC must explain how hundreds of individual ash falls occurred in such a short time frame. This is not so difficult a task. If you look at the many basalt horizons (a pile of 1800 metres) exposed in Mull, you find evidences of *short* time at the base, but thereafter there is time just enough for the flow to cool and to develop a significant crust. There are no evidences of horizons weathering to soils on which vegetation could grow. The field evidences are on the side of short timescales.

5.The erosion of 1-2 kilometers of sediment from the very hard Scottish Highland rocks must have occurred after the flood and within the past 4000 years, but there are archaeological sites from that age in Scotland on the present land surface. Catastrophist mechanisms of erosion do exist. This objection is a more general one and does not have a particular focus for the Tertiary rocks of NW Scotland.

You say: "This data simply doesn’t fit into a YEC scenario." You could make this a rebuttal of some YEC thinking, but the data do not conflict with, for example, the Recolonisation Model of earth history. Indeed, I have argued in my article and in the Workshop that the field data point towards a YEC approach and conflicts with the advocates of "deep time".

[grmorton]

It does indeed show time, but how much? This topic has been addressed by myself in a published article and in a workshop presentation. Regarding the latter, there is a web report at:
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/s...es/bcs133.html

Since the report is an overview, it bears repeating here:
"The North Atlantic Igneous Province provided the theme of a presentation by David Tyler. This started by looking at flood basalts in general, and the mechanisms proposed to account for their vast effusions of lavas (of the order of a million times greater than volcanic activity today). Decompression melting does appear to be a necessary part of the picture, but there are problems finding ways of achieving the reductions in pressure adequate for initiating an avalanche process of melting. Catastrophic mechanisms, although not well defined, appear to be far more suitable to act as a trigger. The 1800 metres thickness of Mull basalts were presented as a minor subset of the North Atlantic Igneous Province. Plant remains are found only at the lowest levels, and field evidences from excursions to the Ardtun plant beds and the Fossil Tree of Burgh were reviewed. In the latter case, it was proposed that the tree was part of a mature forest that was overwhelmed initially by volcanic ash and then the first lava flow of the succession., There are no subsequent horizons indicating that trees regrew, where weathering created an eroded topography, or where there are any significant evidences of time. Finally, the data was synthesised as a historical narrative. It was noted that there is a very good fit with the Recolonisation Model of Earth history. (A popular-level version of David’s work was published in Origins 34)."

The points you raise in your post form part of this scenario and do not warrant your conclusions.

There are such evidences in the Faeroes which is also part of the North Atlantic Igneous provice.

"The Lopra-1 well was drilled vertically in the Lower basalt series, near the culmination of a dome structure on Suduroy, starting c. 750 m below the top of the Lower basalt series and c. 100 m above the oldest exposed lava sequence. The basalt flows dip 3-7o to the northeast, and the area is characterized by two sets of master joints. The master joints strike NW-SE and NE-SW, are nearly vertical with only a slight offset and are heavily brecciated. A few joints, all striking NE, are intruded by dykes.
"A total of 120 lava flows with an average thickness of 20 m were drilled. One third of the lava flows are capped by a thin (0.5-2 m) sediment layer. The upper part of each lava flow is very rich in vesicles due to the rapid cooling; thin lava flows are thus vesicular throughout, whereas thicker lava flows contain only few vesicles in the lower part." L Kiorboe and S. A. Petersen, "Seismic Investigation of the Faeroe Basalts and their Substratum," in R. A. Scrutton, M. S. Stoker, G. B. Shimmield and A. W. Tudhope, editors, The Tectonics, Sedimentation and Palaeoceanography of the North Atlantic Region, (London: The Geological Society, 1995), p. 111-122, p. 112

Responding briefly to each point:
1. Yes, there is a pattern in the radiometric dates. By and large, I am supportive of the work of the RATE group. They do not set out to dismiss the dates as a conspiracy, but recognise that there is real data here needing analysis and explanation. This work is ongoing. I am also of the view that there is a "reinforcement" aspect to the publication of "good" dates - but that is not to minimise the importance of addressing the observed trends.

2. Runaway Subduction can’t be the cause of the flood. I agree with this conclusion - and always have done since I first heard the CPT model presented.

I know you have opposed that since 1986. That was a great question you asked Baumgardner about where was the Permian on the East Coast of the US. Of course they sputtered and danced around.

3.the intrusives are after most of the sediment has been deposited, and thus the opening of the Atlantic can not have occurred during the flood in most flood models. Yes - this is the view of the Recolonisation Model of the Flood, which I hold.

I don't see how you can possibly do this in the 2000 years you claim was post flood activity. The environmental disaster would out do anything global warming could accomplish. The Deccan traps had to have been extruded just slightly before this time and they produced about a million cubic kilometers of basalt. Here is what is known about the North Atlantic:

“It is not well appreciated that the amounts of basalt expelled during the latest Paleocene and earliest Eocene in the northern North Atlantic region are comparable to the amounts expelled in the formation of the Deccan Traps during the K/T boundary transition. Most of the volume of these basalts are in the sub-sea parts of Greenland and Norway continental shelves as well as the Rockall and Faero plateaus. The northern North Atlantic flood basalt activity rivaled that of the Deccan Traps in volume, perhaps only about 30% smaller. Furthermore, like the Deccan Traps, indications are the bulk of the northern North Atlantic flood basalts erupted in a narrow span of time, certainly less than a few million years and maybe less than 1 million years.. Thus, the Balder Formation tuffs are likely to represent basaltic volcanism from the deep mantle of the type most likely capable of transporting high amounts of Ir to the surface.” W. Crawford Elliott, James L. Aronson and Hugh T. Millard, Jr., “Iridium Content of Basaltic Tuffs and enclosing Black Shales of the Balder Formation, North Sea,” Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, 56(1992):2955-2961, p. 2956-2957

Basalt at Iceland goes down 25,000 feet!

4.The YEC must explain how hundreds of individual ash falls occurred in such a short time frame. This is not so difficult a task. If you look at the many basalt horizons (a pile of 1800 metres) exposed in Mull, you find evidences of *short* time at the base, but thereafter there is time just enough for the flow to cool and to develop a significant crust. There are no evidences of horizons weathering to soils on which vegetation could grow. The field evidences are on the side of short timescales.

Mull was not the only place that was spewing volcanics at that time. Most of the material probably came from closer to the Faero Islands. And, there is an even more important part. If there was no time between the basalt flows, then there would not be 500 individual ashflows in the Balder. The Balder has 500 separate ash falls separated by sediment. One must settle, then some sediment is deposited then another ash fall.

“Nielsen and Heilmann-Clausen indicate the Balder Formation is correlative with the Fur Formation and that the main phase of the volcanism took place during the Paleocene-Eocene transition. The 16-meter-long core between 1952-1968 meters deep is from the 47-meter-thick main tuff zone of the Balder Formation. Malm et al estimate the main tuff zone has approximately 500 tuffs, all basaltic, ranging in thickness from 0.01 to 10’s of centimeters. The tuffs comprise 44% of the sediment volume. These tuffs are now chlorite/smectite bentonites containing plagioclase phenocrysts.” W. Crawford Elliott, James L. Aronson and Hugh T. Millard, Jr., “Iridium Content of Basaltic Tuffs and enclosing Black Shales of the Balder Formation, North Sea,” Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, 56(1992):2955-2961, p. 2958

5.The erosion of 1-2 kilometers of sediment from the very hard Scottish Highland rocks must have occurred after the flood and within the past 4000 years, but there are archaeological sites from that age in Scotland on the present land surface. Catastrophist mechanisms of erosion do exist. This objection is a more general one and does not have a particular focus for the Tertiary rocks of NW Scotland.

As we say here in Texas, that dog won't hunt. If you look at the geomorphology of the Scottish Highlands, you can find waterfalls which are practically continuous which have not even notched the hard rocks, which, by the way, were formed 35 kilometers down. throughout geologic time there has been 35-50 kilometers of erosion and you are trying to explain how to erode 1 kim during the post-flood time. I think you are looking at the nit in the hair while a tiger sneaks up on you.

Much of the sedimentary cover in the highlands has been eroded off. Igneous rock is all that remains--granite, granitic batholiths, etc. But how much has been eroded off? It is possible to tell by looking at the mineral which are found in the granites. Some minerals require high temperature and pressures in order to form. We find this to be the situation when looking at the igneous rocks of the Scottish Highlands. On the west coast, Near Scourie, Scotland the minerals observed formed between 35 and 50 kilometers deep! ( see R. A. Strachan, “Early Earth History and Development of the Archaean Crust,” in Nigel Woodcock and Rob Strachan, editors, Geological History of Britain and Ireland, (London: Blackwell Science, 2000), p. 49)

You say: "This data simply doesn’t fit into a YEC scenario." You could make this a rebuttal of some YEC thinking, but the data do not conflict with, for example, the Recolonisation Model of earth history. Indeed, I have argued in my article and in the Workshop that the field data point towards a YEC approach and conflicts with the advocates of "deep time".

OK, explain how you erode 35-50 km of solid Scottish basement when you admit that you are having trouble getting 1-2 km eroded off in 2000 years!

Fit that into your theory.

[dtyler]

There are such evidences in the Faeroes which is also part of the North Atlantic Igneous provice.

"The Lopra-1 well was drilled vertically in the Lower basalt series, near the culmination of a dome structure on Suduroy, starting c. 750 m below the top of the Lower basalt series and c. 100 m above the oldest exposed lava sequence. [snip] "A total of 120 lava flows with an average thickness of 20 m were drilled. One third of the lava flows are capped by a thin (0.5-2 m) sediment layer. The upper part of each lava flow is very rich in vesicles due to the rapid cooling; thin lava flows are thus vesicular throughout, whereas thicker lava flows contain only few vesicles in the lower part."

If 33% of lava flows have a "thin" sediment cover, 66% have a cover less than 0.5 m thick. Do we know what this sediment is? Is it fragmented basalt? Whatever the answer, we are still talking about thin horizons of sediment in an eruptive environment. The upper parts have vesicules - again indicating rapid cooling. The evidence here is the same as for the Mull basalts: short timescales.

I don't see how you can possibly do this in the 2000 years you claim was post flood activity. The environmental disaster would out do anything global warming could accomplish. The Deccan traps had to have been extruded just slightly before this time and they produced about a million cubic kilometers of basalt.

You may be aware that this objection has been thrown regularly at the Rcolonisation model of earth history. We have felt that the objection rests too much on uniformitarian thinking, and that an earth with much higher precipitation and weather patterns would have efficient ways of removing dust from the atmosphere and maintaining equilibrium. Some recent research into the Toba eruptions provides evidence that the "environmental disaster" argument is not soundly based. The volume of magma in the particular eruption studied is thought to be 800-1000 cubic kilometres. Here is an abstract relevant to this research:

First Toba supereruption revival
Lee, M.-Y., Chen, C.-H., Wei, K.-Y., Iizuka, Y. & Carey, S.
Geology: 2004, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 61–64.

ABSTRACT: Little has been known about the earliest Toba eruptive episodes that created the largest-known caldera complex of Quaternary age. Here we report evidence for the eastward dispersal of the oldest Toba tuff in South China Sea sediments to 2500 km away from the source. [snip] The eruption expelled at least 800–1000 km3 dense-rock-equivalent of rhyolitic magma on the basis of the widespread tephra-fall deposit in the basins of the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. In spite of its exceptional magnitude, the timing of this major eruption does not indicate a causal linkage between this event and a long-term global climatic deterioration.

A comment on this was provided by Philip Ball:
Volcanic impact not so chilling
Super-eruptions might not be as environmentally devastating as we thought.
Nature Science Update, 19 January 2004
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040112/040112-17.html

Immense volcanic eruptions are not necessarily triggers for catastrophic global cooling, say researchers in China and the United States. [snip] It has long been known that giant volcanic eruptions leave an imprint on the climate. When Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blew in 1991, for example, it lowered average global temperatures by about 0.25 °C for a few years, as the dust it spewed into the atmosphere shielded the surface from the Sun. Super-eruptions, which are much bigger, are widely expected to be able to trigger an effect similar to a 'nuclear winter', killing off life world-wide.
But Meng-Yang Lee of the Academia Sinica in Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues now find that one super-eruption in Indonesia coincided with the opposite climate switch: from an ice age to a warmer 'interglacial' period. This doesn't rule out the possibility that dust from the eruption blocked out sunlight and cooled the Earth, but it does show that the effect wasn't sufficient to induce long-term climate cooling and glaciation.
When Toba in Indonesia exploded some 74,000 years ago, it released about 2,800 cubic kilometres of magma - enough to fill a quarter of all the world's lakes. In 1992, geologists Michael Rampino and Stephen Self proposed that dust from this event may have killed off vegetation worldwide and induced a drastic decline in the population of humans - an effect much the same as when a giant meteorite slams into the planet. The climate was already shifting to ice-age conditions, but Rampino and Self proposed that the Toba super-eruption probably sped this up.
Lee's team looked at a volcanic deposit from an earlier super-eruption at Toba. Sediments from the bottom of the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean contain layers of ash that rained down from the sky after that ancient volcanic eruption, which they deduce happened about 788,000 years ago.
Although it seems to have been slightly smaller than the eruption studied by Rampino and Self, producing a mere 800-1,000 cubic kilometres of magma, it was still immense by the standards of most volcanic eruptions. Yet it didn't produce a switch to a cold climate. On the contrary, this early super-eruption coincides with a period of global warming.
Lee and colleagues conclude that these huge volcanic outbursts might not be as environmentally devastating as we thought.

My comment: the Earth is an amazing planet and we are continually surprised by all the feedback mechanisms that maintain the environment. I would not want to dismiss the "environmental disaster" argument, but I do want to suggest it has only part of the story.

Mull was not the only place that was spewing volcanics at that time. Most of the material probably came from closer to the Faero Islands. And, there is an even more important part. If there was no time between the basalt flows, then there would not be 500 individual ashflows in the Balder. The Balder has 500 separate ash falls separated by sediment. One must settle, then some sediment is deposited then another ash fall.

Of course, I am not saying there was "no time" between lava eruptions and ash falls. There was some time - but it is measured in weeks, months and years, not thousands of years.

As we say here in Texas, that dog won't hunt. If you look at the geomorphology of the Scottish Highlands, you can find waterfalls which are practically continuous which have not even notched the hard rocks, which, by the way, were formed 35 kilometers down. throughout geologic time there has been 35-50 kilometers of erosion and you are trying to explain how to erode 1 kim during the post-flood time. I think you are looking at the nit in the hair while a tiger sneaks up on you. [snip]

OK, explain how you erode 35-50 km of solid Scottish basement when you admit that you are having trouble getting 1-2 km eroded off in 2000 years!

Fit that into your theory.

OK - that's got to be part of any YE catastrophist model. My view is that there are mechanisms for catastrophic erosion - but my major response in this thread has to be addressing your primary point: "One of the things which shows time in the record is the volcanism which occurred around the British Isles at the time of the continental breakup." I am arguing that you can have a few decades, perhaps 100 years, but the argument for deep time is not from the physical evidence of the rocks, but from theory.

[grmorton]

If 33% of lava flows have a "thin" sediment cover, 66% have a cover less than 0.5 m thick. Do we know what this sediment is? Is it fragmented basalt? Whatever the answer, we are still talking about thin horizons of sediment in an eruptive environment. The upper parts have vesicules - again indicating rapid cooling. The evidence here is the same as for the Mull basalts: short timescales.

David, a good lawyer will never ask a question he does not know the answer to. You have just violated that rule. Some of the sediments are lacustrine rocks and coal!

"The Lower series is separated from the Middle Series by a marked unconformity overlain by a 10 m thick sequence of lacustrine shales and coals. Lund recovered an Eocene spore and pollen assemblage from the Faeroese coals which was roughly equivalent to the upermost Sele Formation of Knox and Holloway in the North Sea." J. D. Ritchie et al, "Early Tertiary Magmatism in the Offshore NW UK Margin and Surrounds," in A. J. Fleet and S. A. R. Boldy, Eds. Petroleum Geolgoy of NOrthwest Europe: Proceedings of the 5th Conference, (London, Geological Society of London,, 1999), p. 573-584, p. 575

Coal takes time for the plants to grow. Remember the Faeroes are very isolated. If you try to have all the erupting volcanoes happen quickly, it will kill off all the plants and it will take many yeas for the recolonization to the point where coals can form.

[quote]You may be aware that this objection has been thrown regularly at the Rcolonisation model of earth history. We have felt that the objection rests too much on uniformitarian thinking, and that an earth with much higher precipitation and weather patterns would have efficient ways of removing dust from the atmosphere and maintaining equilibrium. [quote]

David, this is just the waving of a magic wand. The Faeroe god-mother simply goes poof and all your problems disappear magically. This isn't science, it is play-science.


Some recent research into the Toba eruptions provides evidence that the "environmental disaster" argument is not soundly based. The volume of magma in the particular eruption studied is thought to be 800-1000 cubic kilometres. Here is an abstract relevant to this research:

My comment: the Earth is an amazing planet and we are continually surprised by all the feedback mechanisms that maintain the environment. I would not want to dismiss the "environmental disaster" argument, but I do want to suggest it has only part of the story.

The devastation was so great that it caused a deep genetic divide which is still seen in humanity.

“The Toba explosion was that disaster, the biggest bang in 2 million years. Carried by the wind, the plume of ash from the volcano fanned out to the north-west and covered the whole of the Indian subcontinent. Even today, a metres-thick ash layer is found throughout the region, and is associated in two Indian locations with Middle and Upper Palaeolithic tools. An important prediction of this conjunction of tools and ash is that a deep and wide genetically sterile furrow would have split East from West; India would eventually recover by recolonization from either side. Such a furrow does exist in the genetic map of Asia, as we shall see.” Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve, (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), p. 168-169

What is amazing is that the dating of Toba explosion by radiometric means yields 74,000 years ago and the dating of gentic lines which re-entered the devastated part of India date to 73,000 years. Why would two such diverse methods of dating yield similar answers?

“Now, if Toba really did blow its top after India was first colonized, we would expect a mass extinction event on the Indian Peninsula which affected the eastern side more than the west. This is certainly one interpretation of the paradox of the Indian genetic picture, in which the genetic trail of the beachcombers can be detected, but the bulk of Indian subgroups of Manju and Rohani are unique to the subcontinent, especially, among the tribes of the south-east. This is what we would expect for a recovery from a great disaster. The oldest of these local lines have been dated to around 73,000 years ago.” Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve, (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), p.193

Of course, I am not saying there was "no time" between lava eruptions and ash falls. There was some time - but it is measured in weeks, months and years, not thousands of years.

so we are saying that coal took weeks to form between the Lower and Middle series of Faeroe basalts? Give me a break David, nothing fits your theory.

OK - that's got to be part of any YE catastrophist model. My view is that there are mechanisms for catastrophic erosion - but my major response in this thread has to be addressing your primary point: "One of the things which shows time in the record is the volcanism which occurred around the British Isles at the time of the continental breakup." I am arguing that you can have a few decades, perhaps 100 years, but the argument for deep time is not from the physical evidence of the rocks, but from theory.

You say that because you haven't really put all the evidence together. You look at one tiny part in isolation from all other data, think you have a solution to that problem, then you go look at another tiny part of the data in isolation to the first problem and in isolation to the rest of the data and then think you have a solution to this second problem. and so on. That is a lousy way to do science.

[aniso]

You may be aware that this objection has been thrown regularly at the Rcolonisation model of earth history. We have felt that the objection rests too much on uniformitarian thinking, and that an earth with much higher precipitation and weather patterns would have efficient ways of removing dust from the atmosphere and maintaining equilibrium. Some recent research into the Toba eruptions provides evidence that the "environmental disaster" argument is not soundly based. The volume of magma in the particular eruption studied is thought to be 800-1000 cubic kilometres. Here is an abstract relevant to this research:

First Toba supereruption revival
Lee, M.-Y., Chen, C.-H., Wei, K.-Y., Iizuka, Y. & Carey, S.
Geology: 2004, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 61–64.
(abstract, etc. snipped)

So, David, you have shown that (maybe) one volcanic eruption had a different effect than most of the volcanic 'winters' that we might have seen in recent history. Could it b that the effects of this ONE eruption were apparently overwhelmed by some other environmental effects? Do you really understand how many volcanos you have to fit into 2ky? Do you really think that they would have net zero effect on the viability of the natural environment to sustain life? Do you understand that Toba, while immense, represents only the tiniest fraction of the total of Phanerozoic volcanic rocks?

Sorry, but you cannot explain away this one by using a dubious anecdote. Do you really expect us to be able to resolve that the eruption was 788,000 years ago and that a warming trend also started at exactly the same time?

[Monkey Boy]

This whole thread is starting to sound like a debate between three physicists and a child trying to explain how Santa delivers all the toys in such a short period of time. The child will always be able to invoke an ad-hoc miracle or "special power" for Santa to counter anything the physicists throw at him.

The fact is, until David can establish the reality of his Santa Claus (the Global Flood), this whole "Recolonisation Model" is just like the child's explanation -- a fantasy.

[dtyler]

David, a good lawyer will never ask a question he does not know the answer to. You have just violated that rule. Some of the sediments are lacustrine rocks and coal!

WEll, I'm not a lawyer - my profession is science. I'm quite happy asking questions even when I do not know the answer.

"The Lower series is separated from the Middle Series by a marked unconformity overlain by a 10 m thick sequence of lacustrine shales and coals. [snip]"

Coal takes time for the plants to grow. Remember the Faeroes are very isolated. If you try to have all the erupting volcanoes happen quickly, it will kill off all the plants and it will take many yeas for the recolonization to the point where coals can form.

Are you assuming that the coal grew in situ? Is there any evidence for this? If it grew elsewhere and was washed in, the time implications do not require the "many years" that you write about.

"You may be aware that this objection has been thrown regularly at the Rcolonisation model of earth history. We have felt that the objection rests too much on uniformitarian thinking, and that an earth with much higher precipitation and weather patterns would have efficient ways of removing dust from the atmosphere and maintaining equilibrium."

David, this is just the waving of a magic wand. The Faeroe god-mother simply goes poof and all your problems disappear magically. This isn't science, it is play-science.

Sorry Glenn, I can't discern anything but rhetoric in this response.

I wrote: "Some recent research into the Toba eruptions provides evidence that the "environmental disaster" argument is not soundly based. The volume of magma in the particular eruption studied is thought to be 800-1000 cubic kilometres. Here is an abstract relevant to this research: [snip]"

The devastation was so great that it caused a deep genetic divide which is still seen in humanity.

“The Toba explosion was that disaster, the biggest bang in 2 million years. Carried by the wind, the plume of ash from the volcano fanned out to the north-west and covered the whole of the Indian subcontinent. ... India would eventually recover by recolonization from either side. Such a furrow does exist in the genetic map of Asia, as we shall see.” Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve, (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), p. 168-169

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. Very interesting. But it does not negate anything I wrote in my last post. The Toba activity was enormous, but it did not result in global disaster. Assuming Oppenheimer is right, there were local areas where life was severely disrupted, which I have always accepted. The global environmental disaster was just not there - and this ought to make us a bit more cautious about dogmatic pronouncements as to what mega-volcanism will or will not do.

... you haven't really put all the evidence together. You look at one tiny part in isolation from all other data, think you have a solution to that problem, then you go look at another tiny part of the data in isolation to the first problem and in isolation to the rest of the data and then think you have a solution to this second problem. and so on. That is a lousy way to do science.

Again, I find this rhetorical rather than substantial. My role in this forum has largely been to respond to challenges. I have not been able to respond to everything, because there are time constraints. My objective is little more than to demonstrate the doctrinaire nature of the challenge and to point to geological data that shows earth history to have been significantly different from the "establishment" view. I am not using this forum as a vehicle for presenting the Recolonisation Flood model - although I am not hiding it either. My main concern is that the reign of theory over field data, without the systematic testing of multiple hypotheses, is being confused with science. It is, to quote a respected contributor to this forum, a "lousy way to do science".

[grmorton]

WEll, I'm not a lawyer - my profession is science. I'm quite happy asking questions even when I do not know the answer.

I should have said, you shouldn't conclude something before you know the data. And you assumed it was all basaltic, which it isn't

Are you assuming that the coal grew in situ? Is there any evidence for this? If it grew elsewhere and was washed in, the time implications do not require the "many years" that you write about.

David, coal isn't 'washed' in from other places. There is so little evidence of that. I assume you are speaking of the vegetation mat theory young-earthers talk about. I once worked a coal bearing strata--the Wilcox of Texas. I collected the depth and thickness of the coals in every well in a 3 county area. I was a YEC when I collected it and it surprised me by the fact that this coal was not bedded like the Pennsylvanian coals. The coal consisted of pockets of coal, some as thick as 60 feet but with very tiny areal extent. I have this data. I will post it to show why it doesn't support the veggie mat theory.

Sorry Glenn, I can't discern anything but rhetoric in this response.

Agreed that there was a bit of rhetoric, but it was not entirely without content. When you say "...that an earth with much higher precipitation and weather patterns would have efficient ways of removing dust from the atmosphere and maintaining equilibrium", without given a single specific examples of weather patterns which would do this, you are merely arm waving. Today, when a volcano explodes, it takes years for the dust to settle, yet you don't specify exactly what was different in the recolonization weather patterns. Thus you are having a fairy godmother (I still like the Faeroe Godmother) magically fix your problems. That isn't science, David, it is ad hoc, make it up as you go, change the rules of the game at half-time, nonsense.

I wrote: "Some recent research into the Toba eruptions provides evidence that the "environmental disaster" argument is not soundly based. The volume of magma in the particular eruption studied is thought to be 800-1000 cubic kilometres. Here is an abstract relevant to this research: [snip]"

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. Very interesting. But it does not negate anything I wrote in my last post. The Toba activity was enormous, but it did not result in global disaster. Assuming Oppenheimer is right, there were local areas where life was severely disrupted, which I have always accepted. The global environmental disaster was just not there - and this ought to make us a bit more cautious about dogmatic pronouncements as to what mega-volcanism will or will not do.

You really do need to do some more study on Toba. Toba erupted 2800 cubic km of magma. Tambora only 100 cubic kilometers of magma. (see http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/toba.html; and http://www.volcanolive.com/tambora.html)


Yet you claim that Toba wouldn't cause a global catastrophe. That is plainly contradicted by the evidence with Tambora.

When Tambora erupted in 1815, it caused the world temperature to cool for several years--globally. The New England Farmers, called 1816 '18 hundred and starve to death' or 'Eighteen hundred and Froze to death' because it snowed every single month of the year in 1816. You need to read the June 1979 article, "The Year without a Summer" by Henry and Elizabeth Stommel. The temperature record kept by the president of Yale shows that the ummer after Tambora's eruption was truly cold. The picture below is the average June temperature at New Haven, Conn..

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/TamboraTemperatureNewHavenConntw.jpg[/img]

It snowed on the 7th of June, and in July 5-9, in Maine, the corn crop was frozen. People trying to dry their clothes in June and July would bring them in frozen, even with the sun shining strongly. Even in Europe the crops were poor in 1816 because of the cold weather.

Now, Tambora was a mere 100 cubic km of magma. Toba was 28 times bigger, and you want to have all the world's volcanic eruptions occur in 2000 years which means 858,000 times more volcanism than Toba which is 28 time bigger than Tambora which had significant global impact. Given that there are 8.5 x 10^7 cubic kilometers of igneous rock which must be accounted for in your recolonization model if we spread that over 2000 years, we get 42,500 cubic kilometers per year must be emitted. That is 425 Tamboras each year, for 2000 years, David. And you say this wouldn't have a global impact???? You simply can't be serious. How can you, with a straight face, claim that 425 Tamboras each year for 2000 years, won't impact the weather. Get real.

Again, I find this rhetorical rather than substantial.

It is a critique of your method. That is substantial. You operate exactly as I described it. You are not different from other young-earthers in that regard. Until you deal with the flaws in your methods, you won't ever sell very many on your ideas.

My role in this forum has largely been to respond to challenges. I have not been able to respond to everything, because there are time constraints. My objective is little more than to demonstrate the doctrinaire nature of the challenge and to point to geological data that shows earth history to have been significantly different from the "establishment" view. I am not using this forum as a vehicle for presenting the Recolonisation Flood model - although I am not hiding it either. My main concern is that the reign of theory over field data, without the systematic testing of multiple hypotheses, is being confused with science. It is, to quote a respected contributor to this forum, a "lousy way to do science".

David, I can't beleive you are saying this. You haven't dealt with the data we have presented. You use the Faeroe God-mother to solve your problems and then claim that others who don't do this are doing lousy science.

[aniso]

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. Very interesting. But it does not negate anything I wrote in my last post. The Toba activity was enormous, but it did not result in global disaster.

PLease explain. I read your reference to show that an earlier eruption of Toba was not as catastrophic and that it was mitigated by a general warming trend in effect at the time.

Assuming Oppenheimer is right, there were local areas where life was severely disrupted, which I have always accepted. The global environmental disaster was just not there - and this ought to make us a bit more cautious about dogmatic pronouncements as to what mega-volcanism will or will not do.

YOu will have to explain this to the tens if not hundreds of thousands of victims of Tambora 1815 (a much smaller eruption) then. Somehow, a 10 degree celsius cooling of the other side of the world from the eruption consitutes a pretty global catastrophe to me.

I don't get this. When confronted with a genuine catastrophe, David denies that it happened! Who are the catastophists now?

... My main concern is that the reign of theory over field data, without the systematic testing of multiple hypotheses, is being confused with science. It is, to quote a respected contributor to this forum, a "lousy way to do science".

But that is the point. They have been tested and you are unhappy because your preconceived scenario has been refuted and abandoned. At the same time, you close your own eyes to that mainstream viewpoints and refuse to consider them. You deny your own philosophy of science.

[kuboes1831]

Nordic myths are better than Tyler's myths

[geochron]

Responding briefly to each point:
1. Yes, there is a pattern in the radiometric dates. By and large, I am supportive of the work of the RATE group. They do not set out to dismiss the dates as a conspiracy, but recognise that there is real data here needing analysis and explanation. This work is ongoing. I am also of the view that there is a "reinforcement" aspect to the publication of "good" dates - but that is not to minimise the importance of addressing the observed trends.

Regarding reinforcement, do you have any evidence or is it just wishful thinking? As an active research geochronologist I can assure you that in my lab a dataset with a good isochron and an age that does not agree with what's accepted is fascinating. Like most scientists, overturning an accepted model is what we dream of. These are the things we publish most rapidly.

I had this same discussion with Socrates some time back. Musing more widely, I think it's very revealing how creationists imagine other scientists work. They think we would work that way because that's the way they react to data that disproves their model. That's the community you should seek your reinforcement in.

As I understand it, the creationist view is that geochronology is affected by a period of rapid decay during creation week. So how do rocks implanted after the flood come to have erroneous ages? Is it your view that radioactive decay was still speeded up after the flood, and if so how was the energy dissipated and when did it stop changing? Are radioactive decay constants still changing, for instance?

[aniso]

As I understand it, the creationist view is that geochronology is affected by a period of rapid decay during creation week. So how do rocks implanted after the flood come to have erroneous ages? Is it your view that radioactive decay was still speeded up after the flood, and if so how was the energy dissipated and when did it stop changing? Are radioactive decay constants still changing, for instance?

Oh, it gets worse than that. YOu see, there was a period of accelerated decay during the flood year, also. So, not only was there deceleration after the creation week, but re-acceleration followed by another deceleration after the flood. Never mind how complex this gets, it all is very logical...

[geochron]

Oh, it gets worse than that. YOu see, there was a period of accelerated decay during the flood year, also. So, not only was there deceleration after the creation week, but re-acceleration followed by another deceleration after the flood. Never mind how complex this gets, it all is very logical...

Seriously?

Is this another one of those "satire is dead, real life overtook it" moments?

[JonF]

Seriously?

Is this another one of those "satire is dead, real life overtook it" moments?

Wel, they're hoping for it at least. From RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!:

"Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay process was wrong. There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood. "

See also RADIOHALOS - SIGNIFICANT AND EXCITING RESEARCH RESULTS