Stone Domes in the Pine Valley Mountains, Utah

[dtyler]

Driving through Highway 18 in southwestern Utah, the visitor sees forested terrain with few rock outcrops and may be tempted to think that Hutton’s cycle of uplift and erosion is just as applicable here as anywhere else.

However, detailed mapping of the area has revealed a remarkable story involving the rapid intrusion of laccoliths, with associated arching of overlying rocks, massive gravity sliding, and synchronous volcanic eruptions” (Willis, 2002). The dramatic nature of these past events, and the speed of formation of geological structures, should make us stop and think about our basic approach to geological interpretation.

The events took place in the Tertiary. Thick layers of Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks had been laid down, and covered by Eocene strata. Then came the igneous intrusion: the magma was a viscous combination of quartz monzonite and granodiorite. It moved up from deep within the Earth’s crust, but instead of breaking out at the surface, it found layers of weakness in the surface strata and moved laterally. It ponded and formed a dome-shaped structure called a laccolith. This uplifted the surface rocks and this is where the story really gets interesting.

A chain-reaction series of events followed the intrusions. “First, the doming magma fractured and oversteepened the overlying layered rocks. The elevated weakened layers then broke loose and slid down the flanks of the domes as massive gravity slides. The sudden removal of the slide masses produced an immediate large reduction in confining pressure. This then caused still-intruding magma to burst through the seal and erupt, first ejecting vapor-rich (high-volatile) tuffs, then vapor-poor lava flows, which draped across the new gravity slide masses.” (Willis, 2002) The whole cycle repeated itself several times, with new laccoliths being formed and then bursting their sediment seals.

Timescales for these events were comparatively short. “Ages and relationships of the outcrops throughout the area strongly indicate that each laccolith intruded and domed within just a few years, or less. The gravity slides probably occurred even faster. Most likely, they were catastrophic events that, once started, happened within minutes, similar to the massive landslide on Mount St. Helens in May 1980 that triggered the disastrous eruption that took 60 lives. It would have been an incredible sight to watch huge slabs of rock several hundred feet thick rush down a mountain slope and run out across the landscape several miles!” (Willis, 2002).

Some of these slides were huge: the largest is more than 60 square miles in area, 1800 feet thick and it traveled over 12 miles. When they moved, the laccolith was unroofed and pressure release led to the eruption of volcanic ash and some lava flows. The remains of all this activity has been identified in careful mapping work.

Some general thoughts follow.

1. Geologic processes in the past do not necessarily fit our preconceived ideas about rates of process or even types of process. Be prepared for some surprises when you investigate the Earth’s history. Some processes were very short – measured in hours, days or years.

2. Igneous processes tend to be stretched out over thousands or even millions of years, but this expectation needs to be revised. Whether we are considering magma segregation, magma transport to the surface, emplacement or cooling: all these processes can take place much faster than previous generations of geologists surmised.

3. In most cases, geological research has explored timescales in only a limited way – because “everybody knows” that the timescales are in millennia or longer. More rigorous work, that looks for clues about timescales, invariably finds that past estimates have been too long. A case in point was posted by Glenn Morton at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20334. The Great Stone Dome is known from seismics and boreholes, but is not accessible to field geologists. In such a case, a variety of scenarios could be proposed to explain the data – but testing these scenarios would be quite difficult. It is more useful to argue from geological structures where we do have the opportunities to test hypotheses more effectively.

4. A Flood Geology Understanding of the Pine Valley Mountains. Those who have followed previous threads to which I have contributed will know of my interest in developing and testing the Recolonisation model of earth history. This involves a global catastrophe (linked to the biblical history of Noah’s Flood) followed by an extended period of more local catastrophism as the Earth recovered from the destruction of the pre-Flood world. These particular events would then be part of the post-Flood catastrophism affecting the North American continent. The timescales indicated in my notes above are fully consistent with this scenario.

Reference
UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NOTES, September 2002, 34(3), 1-3.
http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/snt34-3.pdf

[SteveF]

So basically, some things happen fast. Thats fine, we know they do. They leave signatures in the rock record that show they happened quickly. On the other hand there are many processes that have led to the geology we see today that can not reasonably have happened quickly.

Just showing some examples of rapid events hardly strengthens your case. Furthermore, as the above example appears to show, geologists do not rule out rapid occurences. There is hardly a need for a complete rethink to incorporate catastrophism when it is incorporated into modern thinking anyway. Uniformitarianism vs catastrophism is old hat.

[Monkey Boy]

1. Geologic processes in the past do not necessarily fit our preconceived ideas about rates of process or even types of process. Be prepared for some surprises when you investigate the Earth’s history. Some processes were very short – measured in hours, days or years.

Why should this be surprising to anyone? We've all seen volcanic eruptions, landslides, and floods.

2. Igneous processes tend to be stretched out over thousands or even millions of years, but this expectation needs to be revised. Whether we are considering magma segregation, magma transport to the surface, emplacement or cooling: all these processes can take place much faster than previous generations of geologists surmised.

Geologists aren't stupid you know. There are ways to get a rough measure of the timescale of an event. As just one example, the speed of cooling of an igneous formation can be roughly gauged by looking at the size of the crystals in the rock. The larger the crystals, the slower the cooling.

3. In most cases, geological research has explored timescales in only a limited way – because “everybody knows” that the timescales are in millennia or longer.

Yes, David, this issue was settled 150 years ago. Just because you are in denial doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't move on to more productive questions.

More rigorous work, that looks for clues about timescales, invariably finds that past estimates have been too long.

I think "invariably" may be a bit of a hyperbole, don't you? The Grand Canyon has surely been the object of rigorous work, yet I don't hear of it getting any younger.

The timescales indicated in my notes above are fully consistent with this scenario.

Tell us again, David, how long ago did the article say these events happened? How in the world is that consistent with your young-earth scenario?

And need I remind you yet again that your whole model presumes a world-wide catastrophe for which you have provided zero physical evidence.

[Kulindrichnus]

Be prepared for some surprises when you investigate the Earth’s history

like the biodiversity of filey brigg, for instance. Seemed a surprise to you.

K

[dtyler]

So basically, some things happen fast. Thats fine, we know they do. They leave signatures in the rock record that show they happened quickly. On the other hand there are many processes that have led to the geology we see today that can not reasonably have happened quickly.
What we are not so good at is discerning the signatures - largely because we come to the data with expectations.

Just showing some examples of rapid events hardly strengthens your case. Furthermore, as the above example appears to show, geologists do not rule out rapid occurences. There is hardly a need for a complete rethink to incorporate catastrophism when it is incorporated into modern thinking anyway. Uniformitarianism vs catastrophism is old hat.
Maybe it is old hat. But some are still wearing the old hat of uniformitarianism!
I did not post this thread just to give yet another example of catastrophism. Diluvialists are being charged with ignoring evidence about slow processes - yet the evidences presented are only effective against people who say the geologic column (or most of it) was laid down in 1 year. This also is old hat and I would like to see us move the discussion into more productive areas. This post can be interpreted as a protest against the methodology of Glenn Morton, bringing us a Stone Dome that can only be examined by seismics and drill cores. I seek a higher standard of debate - further comments are in post 1.

[SteveF]

What we are not so good at is discerning the signatures - largely because we come to the data with expectations.
I think we are doing a pretty good job. I'm training in Quaternary sciences and can cite numerous examples (Younger Dryas stadial for example) where we have been able to see events in the past that have occured quickly.

You still can't get away from the fact that there are events and processes that can not reasonably have been expected to have occured in a short space of time.

Do you not think that your expectations (largely without foundation) are causing you to be a little biased?

Maybe it is old hat. But some are still wearing the old hat of uniformitarianism!
Geologists fully accept that things have happened quickly in the past. I think you are behind the times.

I did not post this thread just to give yet another example of catastrophism. Diluvialists are being charged with ignoring evidence about slow processes - yet the evidences presented are only effective against people who say the geologic column (or most of it) was laid down in 1 year. This also is old hat and I would like to see us move the discussion into more productive areas.
One year or a couple of thousand. It makes very little difference, its still not enough time. Nothing you have posted so far suggests otherwise, no positive evidence whatsoever.

You have posted here an example of geologists who fully accept that something happen quickly which rather diminishes your point about a debate being needed over timescale. Furthermore, just finding a couple of places where something happens relatively fast is not convincing support for your model.

Geology fully accepts variable timescales and fits them into a framework that is doing a pretty good job of explaining the data we collect. Things that occur slowly and a number of things that occur quickly explains things. Hypothesising that pretty much everything happens quickly explains nothing in a remotely coherent fashion.

This post can be interpreted as a protest against the methodology of Glenn Morton, bringing us a Stone Dome that can only be examined by seismics and drill cores.
I am sure Glenn doesn't feel that seismics and drill cores are the only methodologies available to us. What he has done is provided seismic data and drill core data that is nigh on impossible to fit into a YEC framework be it your or a one year version.

I seek a higher standard of debate - further comments are in post 1.
I am genuinely not being facetious when I ask why haven't you attempted to get this debate going in the peer reviewed literature. Submit something to sedimentary geology for example.

Through all this talk of seeking improved debate you have not yet once provided any vaguely convincing evidence for your model. Is fostering debate all you seek to do?

[dtyler]

Why should this be surprising to anyone? We've all seen volcanic eruptions, landslides, and floods.
Nothing like on this scale.

Geologists aren't stupid you know. There are ways to get a rough measure of the timescale of an event. As just one example, the speed of cooling of an igneous formation can be roughly gauged by looking at the size of the crystals in the rock. The larger the crystals, the slower the cooling.
You are right: geologists are not stupid. It is no reflection on the integrity of geologists to say that they also bring presuppositions to the data that affect their interpretation of it. My concern is with those who can't or won't agree with this comment. The example of magma cooling and crystallisation is a good one. For years, this was used as an argument for vast ages for granite crystalisation. Then laboratory studies started to show that the ages might not be so long. A recent study says that the time scale can be "years as opposed to millenia".

Granite recrystallization: The key to the nuclear waste problem?, Fergus G.F. Gibb and Philip G. Attrill, Geology: Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 657–660.
ABSTRACT: We report the outcome of high-temperature, high-pressure experiments showing that granite can be partially melted and completely recrystallized on a time scale of years as opposed to millennia as widely believed. ...

Geologists are not stupid - but all the more reason to keep questioning things that can be traced back to the influence of Lyell.

I think "invariably" may be a bit of a hyperbole, don't you? The Grand Canyon has surely been the object of rigorous work, yet I don't hear of it getting any younger.

That's not what I hear:

Catastrophic floods built Grand Canyon
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., July 20, 2002, Saturday

Dams of volcanic rock laid across the Grand Canyon have burst repeatedly and catastrophically over the past million years -- most recently about 165,000 years ago -- carrying enormous onrushing floods and carving out much of the great landmark in the blink of a geologic eye, new research by U.S. Geological Survey and University of Utah geologists suggests.

The findings tend to support other new data indicating the canyon's Inner Gorge may be no more than 700,000 years old, much younger than earlier estimates of 3 million to 5 million years, said Robert Webb, a research geologist with USGS. ...

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't understand the point here. Geologists aren't glued to the "its all long" thought process. Geologists are pretty sure that the Whirlpool bend of Niagara Gorge was formed in days. Does that mean Niagara Falls progressed to its current condition in weeks? Of course not.

[dtyler]

I think we are doing a pretty good job. I'm training in Quaternary sciences and can cite numerous examples (Younger Dryas stadial for example) where we have been able to see events in the past that have occured quickly.

You still can't get away from the fact that there are events and processes that can not reasonably have been expected to have occured in a short space of time.
of course I welcome the signs of greater realism in geological science. I'm encouraged by your comments re the Quaternary. Of the examples presented to us on TheologyWeb, I have engaged with the ones I've thought were more significant. I continue to think that the discussion is misdirected - Glenn has himself said that I represent minority within Diluvialism and his guns are primarily for the majority view. That excludes me from a lot of detailed discussion - but it also fails to address the real issues.

Do you not think that your expectations (largely without foundation) are causing you to be a little biased?
If you omitted the words in parenthesis, I will acknowledge that I have a bias. But I am aware of it and seek to guard against jumping to conclusions.

Geologists fully accept that things have happened quickly in the past. I think you are behind the times.
If that were my point, I would be.

re Glenn doesn't feel that seismics and drill cores are the only methodologies available to us. What he has done is provided seismic data and drill core data that is nigh on impossible to fit into a YEC framework be it your or a one year version.
I do not think this example has enough data to allow a conclusion to be drawn.

[SteveF]

Nothing like on this scale.


You are right: geologists are not stupid. It is no reflection on the integrity of geologists to say that they also bring presuppositions to the data that affect their interpretation of it. My concern is with those who can't or won't agree with this comment. The example of magma cooling and crystallisation is a good one. For years, this was used as an argument for vast ages for granite crystalisation. Then laboratory studies started to show that the ages might not be so long. A recent study says that the time scale can be "years as opposed to millenia".

Granite recrystallization: The key to the nuclear waste problem?, Fergus G.F. Gibb and Philip G. Attrill, Geology: Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 657–660.
ABSTRACT: We report the outcome of high-temperature, high-pressure experiments showing that granite can be partially melted and completely recrystallized on a time scale of years as opposed to millennia as widely believed. ...

Geologists are not stupid - but all the more reason to keep questioning things that can be traced back to the influence of Lyell.



That's not what I hear:

Catastrophic floods built Grand Canyon
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., July 20, 2002, Saturday

Dams of volcanic rock laid across the Grand Canyon have burst repeatedly and catastrophically over the past million years -- most recently about 165,000 years ago -- carrying enormous onrushing floods and carving out much of the great landmark in the blink of a geologic eye, new research by U.S. Geological Survey and University of Utah geologists suggests.

The findings tend to support other new data indicating the canyon's Inner Gorge may be no more than 700,000 years old, much younger than earlier estimates of 3 million to 5 million years, said Robert Webb, a research geologist with USGS. ...
Still no positive evidence David. All it shows is the scientific method in action (assuming these new findings become accepted) and the fact that geologists aren't constrained by uniformitarianism!

[SteveF]

of course I welcome the signs of greater realism in geological science.
They aren't just signs though. They are fully accepted and have been for a while. Some things still happen slowly though.

If you omitted the words in parenthesis, I will acknowledge that I have a bias. But I am aware of it and seek to guard against jumping to conclusions.
But your expectations are largely without foundation. There aint no evidence (scientific anyway) for them. if you are aware of it, then how come you are still reaching conclusions unsupported by the data?

If that were my point, I would be.
It strikes me that one of your points is that geologists don't accept that some things can happen quickly. They do. As I said, they have a perfectly coherent framework that explains the data well.

I do not think this example has enough data to allow a conclusion to be drawn.
Glenn has provided many examples (and will no doubt provide anymore) that have gone unadressed.

I'm happy to continue this with you David but I'm off home now and probably won't check TWeb till Sunday/Monday.

[Monkey Boy]

Nothing like on this scale.

You're begging the question. The eruption of one individual dome would have been no more catastrophic than St. Helens, Pompeii, or Kratatoa. You can't assume that all of the domes erupted simultaneously. Even if they did, so what? Again we all know that really big catastrophes are (thankfully) more rare than run-of-the-mill catastrophes.

You are right: geologists are not stupid. It is no reflection on the integrity of geologists to say that they also bring presuppositions to the data that affect their interpretation of it. My concern is with those who can't or won't agree with this comment. The example of magma cooling and crystallisation is a good one. For years, this was used as an argument for vast ages for granite crystalisation. Then laboratory studies started to show that the ages might not be so long. A recent study says that the time scale can be "years as opposed to millenia".

Granite recrystallization: The key to the nuclear waste problem?, Fergus G.F. Gibb and Philip G. Attrill, Geology: Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 657–660.
ABSTRACT: We report the outcome of high-temperature, high-pressure experiments showing that granite can be partially melted and completely recrystallized on a time scale of years as opposed to millennia as widely believed. ...

You're quote mining David, and that's dishonest. Here's a longer excerpt from the paper:

Among the potentially more robust of the scenarios proposed for disposal of small to moderate volumes of HLW in deep boreholes is the "high-temperature, very deep disposal" scheme of Gibb (1999, 2000). In this, special cylindrical containers filled with heat-generating HLW are deployed in the lower part of a 4-5 km deep borehole in granitic continental crust. Heat from the waste fairly rapidly generates a substantial zone of partial melting in the granite surrounding the containers. As the heat output decreases this melt will cool slowly and recrystallize to seal the waste packages into a sarcophagus of solid crystalline granite surrounded by zones of metamorphosed and annealed rock. For this to work two things are crucial. First, sufficient melting of the granite must occur at temperatures low enough to preserve the integrity of the containers and second, this partial melt must be able to recrystallize completely to a holocrystalline rock. Both have to happen on time scales appropriate to the thermal decay of the waste. For the case of 5 year old spent PWR fuel modelled by Gibb (2000) it would take around 65 days for the rock adjacent to the container to reach a maximum temperature of 850 °C and 2.5 years to fall to 600 °C. The latter is equivalent to a cooling rate of ~0.011 °C/hour.

Cooling rates deduced from natural granite bodies have encouraged a widely held belief that granites can only form by extremely slow crystallization over thousands, if not millions, of years but there are grounds for believing that acid (silica-rich) magmas can be completely crystallized at cooling rates orders of magnitude faster. To test this, and hence the feasibility of the high-temperature borehole disposal scheme described above, partial melting and recrystallization experiments were performed on a typical S-type granite, with a range of H2O contents, under the conditions predicted to occur in the disposal scheme.

From http://www.shef.ac.uk/isl/abstracts/abs2003.html#anchor23

Geologists are not stupid - but all the more reason to keep questioning things that can be traced back to the influence of Lyell.

Why? Even the creationst geologists of the time were ultimately convinced.

That's not what I hear:

Catastrophic floods built Grand Canyon
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., July 20, 2002, Saturday

Dams of volcanic rock laid across the Grand Canyon have burst repeatedly and catastrophically over the past million years -- most recently about 165,000 years ago -- carrying enormous onrushing floods and carving out much of the great landmark in the blink of a geologic eye, new research by U.S. Geological Survey and University of Utah geologists suggests.

The findings tend to support other new data indicating the canyon's Inner Gorge may be no more than 700,000 years old, much younger than earlier estimates of 3 million to 5 million years, said Robert Webb, a research geologist with USGS. ...

I was not clear on my prior comment. In my mind, the origin of the GC begins with the deposition of those very first sedimenary layers. It's not the sculpting of the canyon per se that belies its age, it's the geological history written in its rocks.

[aniso]

1. Geologic processes in the past do not necessarily fit our preconceived ideas about rates of process or even types of process. Be prepared for some surprises when you investigate the Earth’s history. Some processes were very short – measured in hours, days or years.

Yes, David, we know this. When did you discover that there are some rapid geological processes? Many of them, in fact. It still astounds me that you continue to entertain this illusion that, somehow, YECs are the ones who discovered rapid geological processes.

2. Igneous processes tend to be stretched out over thousands or even millions of years, but this expectation needs to be revised.

If ALL geological processes were rapid, on a human scale, this is true. However, you have been unable to support this presupposition of yours.

And actually the 'expectation' is revised when the evidence warrants it. Just as your reference shows. It would seem to me that science is working just the way it is supposed to. Perhaps your paradigm of paradigm change needs drastic revision, eh?

So, what is your problem? You need to go out and collect the data. Not just an anecdote that fits in with mainstream geology, anyway. You need substantial evidence showing that an entire class of processes is rapid and further that all associated processes must be equally rapid. We know that many volcanic processes are rapid (or did you think that one escaped us?), so really, you have given us absolutely nothing here but an interesting mainstream geological theory. I experience no sense of shock at all, and have no concern that my world is about to be turned up-side down.

Whether we are considering magma segregation, magma transport to the surface, emplacement or cooling: all these processes can take place much faster than previous generations of geologists surmised.

Wrong. Many geologists were taught about kimberlite intrusions, caldera formation and the unroofing of core complexes etc. Once again, I am sorry that your education was incomplete.

3. In most cases, geological research has explored timescales in only a limited way – because “everybody knows” that the timescales are in millennia or longer. More rigorous work, that looks for clues about timescales, invariably finds that past estimates have been too long. A case in point was posted by Glenn Morton at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20334. The Great Stone Dome is known from seismics and boreholes, but is not accessible to field geologists. In such a case, a variety of scenarios could be proposed to explain the data – but testing these scenarios would be quite difficult. It is more useful to argue from geological structures where we do have the opportunities to test hypotheses more effectively.

And exactly what is your point here? The first part of the statement having been shown invalid, of course.

4. A Flood Geology Understanding of the Pine Valley Mountains. Those who have followed previous threads to which I have contributed will know of my interest in developing and testing the Recolonisation model of earth history. This involves a global catastrophe (linked to the biblical history of Noah’s Flood) followed by an extended period of more local catastrophism as the Earth recovered from the destruction of the pre-Flood world. These particular events would then be part of the post-Flood catastrophism affecting the North American continent. The timescales indicated in my notes above are fully consistent with this scenario.

So, these post-Eocene events happened outside of human memory even though by then the flood was over and the recolonization of the world was well underway? No, this doesn't fit at all. You've only got 4000 years to deal with, David. There should be excellent records of all of these catastrophes that you cram into 4000 years. After all, the flood itself is so well documented in the Bible.

In your next post, perhaps you could tell us how all these huge catastrophes could happen, but that overthrusts are imaginary as most YECs tell us.

[SedRocks]

[QUOTE=dtyler]The dramatic nature of these past events, and the speed of formation of geological structures, should make us stop and think about our basic approach to geological interpretation.[\QUOTE]

Dave Hacker's Ph.D. dissertation (the source of the findings you are citing) was a triumph of traditional geology, as it combined meticulous field mapping, ceaseless stomping over the countryside, careful attention to subtle clues in the rocks, and meticulous working out of the details regarding temporal sequence and spatial arrangement. The main thing that Dave Hacker's dissertation makes us stop and think about is how good classical geological methods are and how much can be learned from very classical field work.

Dave, you are right that from Lyell until Hurricanes Donna and Camille and Harlan Bretz' triumph regarding the Channeled Scabland floods geologists had an overall bias against sudden and in favor of gradual. Basically this was an over-reaction against (1) Cuvier's catastrophism and, (2), more generally, against biblical geology of various stripes, both of which have been continual utter failures when measured against all incoming evidence since about 1820, combined with being extremely impressed with Lyell's Principles of Geology to the extent of exaggerating its uniformitarian themes.

However, as Aniso said, geological classrooms are now full of information about inferred sudden kimberlite eruptions, rapid drainings of large lakes, rapid floodings of Black Seas and Mediterranean basins, sudden collapses of volcanoes, and so forth.

Dave, as I've said before on other threads you are fighting a view of geology that has had no basis in reality for the past 35 years. You have set up a strawman that does not exist.

As a demonstration of this, it is hard fact that none of the geologists involved with or overseeing Dave Hacker's Ph.D. research were astonished by his inferences regarding rapid progression from landsliding through ash eruption to generation of lava flows, although everyone was impressed by how well he marshalled his evidence. No one involved with the research thought the rapidity was unthinkable, or that it broke any sacred uniformitarian paradigms. No one walked out of his dissertation defense in protest, and none of us thought about becoming a flood geologist as a consequence of his findings.

Dave Hacker also showed that these laccoliths happened in succession rather than all at once, and he showed that they happened a long time ago, not recently. I've forgotten what you consider to be post-flood, but you still have a heck of a lot of complex post-laccolith geologic events to find time for, even just in southern Utah. I don't think any justification exists for your claims that these "particular events would then be part of the post-Flood catastrophism affecting the North American continent", or that "the timescales indicated in my notes above are fully consistent" with such a scenario.

[grmorton]

Maybe it is old hat. But some are still wearing the old hat of uniformitarianism!
I did not post this thread just to give yet another example of catastrophism. Diluvialists are being charged with ignoring evidence about slow processes - yet the evidences presented are only effective against people who say the geologic column (or most of it) was laid down in 1 year. This also is old hat and I would like to see us move the discussion into more productive areas. This post can be interpreted as a protest against the methodology of Glenn Morton, bringing us a Stone Dome that can only be examined by seismics and drill cores. I seek a higher standard of debate - further comments are in post 1.

But David, you haven't even attempted an explanation of the Great Stone Dome. Your silence on the topic can't be considered evidence in favor of your position. I showed that even if one accepts the ridiculous cooling rates of Woodmorappe and Snelling, it still takes longer than the YEC age of the earth for the geology of the East Coast of the US to be explained. And using that same ridiculous cooling rate, your 2000 years after the flood recolonization model doesn't fit either. So, the Great Stone Dome destroys your viewpoint.

By the way, David, since you believe that only the Cambrian and Ordovician strata are due to the flood, can you tell me what animals were doing walking around on Cambrian and Ordovician strata while the flood raged around them?

edited to add: David, frankly, I am ashamed for you about the quote mining you did. By selectivly quoting that bit about granite crystalization, you show yourself not to be a worthy opponent.

[aniso]

I was not clear on my prior comment. In my mind, the origin of the GC begins with the deposition of those very first sedimenary layers. It's not the sculpting of the canyon per se that belies its age, it's the geological history written in its rocks.

Keeping in mind here that the reference was only to the INNER canyon and not the entire canyon; and it also referenced a most recent even of 160 ky ago. Hardly supporting evidence for David and the young earth.

[Kulindrichnus]

Derek Ager (beloved of Creationists, but I doubt many of them ever heard him give his opinion of them) said some quarter of a century ago that the stratigraphical column represented 'long periods of boredom punctuated by brief periods of terror'.

Sedimentary geologists have known, long before Ager, that most sedimentation happens quickly. Any modern analogue or flume-tank studies will tell them this. Deep time is not locked up in preserved sedimentary deposits; it is locked up in the relationships between them- in the colonised bedding planes, the tiered bioturbation horizons, the intraformational erosion surfaces which mark the nonpreservation of sediment, the major unconformities, the diagenetic histories, the multiple histories of deformation, erosion, and redeformation.

David is simply comforting himself by shouting about the rapidity of deposition exhibited by sedimentary (including landslide or volcaniclastic units, as here) rocks, because, as he well knows, the deep time he seeks to discredit is not there. David's hidden suggestion in doing this is that if we look for deep time in these sediments and do not find it, then it must not exist. This may satisfy the fools or ignorants who wish to believe; but it is akin to saying that if I do not find concorde in my garage then it was never built. Such a position is not scientific, nor even honestly misled; it is deliberately disingenuous.

In comparison, David seldom engages meaningfully on those threads where deep time is inescapeable- for instance, Glen's recent threads on the diagenetic precipitation of anhydrite through sabkha dessication and the reworking of conglomerate, or Glen's dozens of posts about bioturbation- and when he does, he employs disingenuous tactics (such as the comparison of desert denudational geomorphologies with marine ones) easily dismissed by the real geologists he apes on this board.

By the way, David, I did my entire PhD on seismic and drill cores. Your suggestion that the conclusions drawn from such studies must be doubted because the nature of the study itself makes falsification of hypotheses difficult is both erroneous, deeply offensive, and shows, clearly, that you have never undertaken such a study yourself. The area you live in owes its (former) prosperity to 200 years of subsurface exploration, with very satisfactory results. I suspect you know this well enough, but that you cannot rein in your urge for duplicity. As Glen has said, once again you show yourself to be an unworthy opponent.

K

[dtyler]

But David, you haven't even attempted an explanation of the Great Stone Dome.

I'm just picking up this thread again after a time away. I have not attempted to explain the Great Stone Dome argument you gave us because I do not think I have much data to work with. Whatever *anyone* says is speculative - including your arguments for long timescales. I was thinking how to respond to this kind of argument and the response I came up with was to show you that at least one dome-shaped igneous body requires a catastrophist scenario to explain the data. If one requires short timescales, then why not others? This sends us back to the data - we need to gather the evidence that will allow us to draw a meaningful conclusion (and avoid presuming long timescales).

By the way, David, since you believe that only the Cambrian and Ordovician strata are due to the flood, can you tell me what animals were doing walking around on Cambrian and Ordovician strata while the flood raged around them?

This is not part of this thread - and animals were not walking around on Cambrian and Ordovician strata during the Flood.

edited to add: David, frankly, I am ashamed for you about the quote mining you did. By selectivly quoting that bit about granite crystalization, you show yourself not to be a worthy opponent.

So, it is selective quotation to quote the first sentence of the author's abstract! The rest of the abstract deals with the burial of radioactive waste, so I cut it. I have seen another part of the paper quoted, but it says the same thing! The point I was making is a perfectly fair one and I have no reason to think that my use of the paper is selective. Here is a sentence in the quote posted earlier: it is exactly the point I was making.
Cooling rates deduced from natural granite bodies have encouraged a widely held belief that granites can only form by extremely slow crystallization over thousands, if not millions, of years but there are grounds for believing that acid (silica-rich) magmas can be completely crystallized at cooling rates orders of magnitude faster.Why is it that when the authors of the paper write those words, they are deemed to be engaging in scholarly activity, whereas when I write something similar and quote these authors, I am accused of quote mining?

[Monkey Boy]

Why is it that when the authors of the paper write those words, they are deemed to be engaging in scholarly activity, whereas when I write something similar and quote these authors, I am accused of quote mining?

Because the context of the paper does not address the question of whether granites crystallize rapidly in a natural setting. It addresses the question of whether granite can crystallize completely when cooled rapidly under artificial conditions. The fragment you quoted excludes this important context and is used to support a position which the context does not warrant. Thus it constitutes quote mining on your part.

[dtyler]

Because the context of the paper does not address the question of whether granites crystallize rapidly in a natural setting. It addresses the question of whether granite can crystallize completely when cooled rapidly under artificial conditions. The fragment you quoted excludes this important context and is used to support a position which the context does not warrant. Thus it constitutes quote mining on your part.

The context was certainly not overlooked. It was explicit. This was your orginal comment:Geologists aren't stupid you know. There are ways to get a rough measure of the timescale of an event. As just one example, the speed of cooling of an igneous formation can be roughly gauged by looking at the size of the crystals in the rock. The larger the crystals, the slower the cooling.
You were repeating the widespread view that large crystals means long timescales. This view needs to be challenged and corrected - and that is what I did. You are right: geologists are not stupid. It is no reflection on the integrity of geologists to say that they also bring presuppositions to the data that affect their interpretation of it. My concern is with those who can't or won't agree with this comment. The example of magma cooling and crystallisation is a good one. For years, this was used as an argument for vast ages for granite crystalisation. Then laboratory studies started to show that the ages might not be so long. A recent study says that the time scale can be "years as opposed to millenia". Please note that I introduced the "recent study" by referring to "laboratory studies". Experimental petrology is a very interesting field - and it is based on the premise that laboratory findings can be related to phenomena in the natural world. The point I was making was that large crystals do not imply long timescales. We have known about this for over 20 years, but the message is taking a long time to take root. The paper I cited was the most recent that I have on file that makes the point. There are obviously other issues raised by the paper that I made no mention of - they are not relevant to the particular point under discussion.

[rogero]

To reiterate some posts on this thread, modern geology is not strictly uniformitarian but allows for catastrophic and rapid events, when such are the best explanations of the observed data. Thus, I don't see how this post is in support of a young earth vis-a-vis standard geology. A young-earther would need to show that ALL geological activity is rapid, which it most definitely is not.

[Monkey Boy]

You were repeating the widespread view that large crystals means long timescales. This view needs to be challenged and corrected - and that is what I did.

But you didn't challenge it at all. The abstract, let alone your quote, says nothing about crystal sizes. This excuse is starting to smell phony, David.

The point I was making was that large crystals do not imply long timescales. We have known about this for over 20 years, but the message is taking a long time to take root.

I know that's the point you want to make, but the quoted paper does not make it.

The paper I cited was the most recent that I have on file that makes the point. There are obviously other issues raised by the paper that I made no mention of - they are not relevant to the particular point under discussion.

Again, the paper does not make the point you want it to. You found a quote that sounded like it made your point, you mined it, and you disregarded the larger context of the paper.

[Acanthostega]

Geologists aren't stupid you know. There are ways to get a rough measure of the timescale of an event. As just one example, the speed of cooling of an igneous formation can be roughly gauged by looking at the size of the crystals in the rock. The larger the crystals, the slower the cooling.


Large crystals do not necessarily imply slow cooling. The largest crystals associated with granites are often found in narrow pegmatite veins – which must have cooled relatively quickly. Crystal size is determined by lots of factors (e.g. nucleation rate, pressure changes and amounts of volatiles) – not just the rate of cooling.

Experimental and theoretical research by petrologists has shown that plutonic textures can be formed in short periods of time. Plagioclase, orthoclase, and quartz have been grown in crystal forms and sizes characteristic of granite (Mustart, 1969; Swanson, 1977; Swanson et al, 1972). Plagioclase zoning (Lofgren, 1974), comb-layering (Lofgren and Donaldson, 1975), and mafic-before-felsic cyrystallization (Naney and Swanson, 1980) have all been simulated in the laboratory.

Swanson (1977, p.974) argues that the rapid crystallization of feldspar and quartz in these experiments 'suggests re-evaluation of the length of time required to produce the large crystals of the granitic rocks'.

Refs:

Lofgren G.E., 'Temperature induced zoning in synthetic plagioclase feldspar', in Mackenzie W.S., Zussman J. (editors), The Feldspars, Manchester University Press, 1974, pp.362-375.

Lofgren G.E., Donaldson C.H., 'Curved branching crystals and differentiation in comb-layered rocks', Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 1975;49:309-319.

Mustart D.A., 'Hydrothermal synthesis of large single crystals of albite and potassium feldspar', EOS 1969;50:675.

Naney M.T., Swanson S.E., 'The effect of Fe and Mg on crystallization in granitic systems', American Mineralogist 1980;65:639-653.

Swanson S.E., 'Relation of nucleation and crystal-growth rate to the development of granitic textures', American Mineralogist 1977;62:966-978.

Swanson S.E., Whitney J.A., Luth W.A., 'Growth of large quartz and feldspar crystals from synthetic granitic liquids', EOS 1972;53:1127.

[rogero]

Large crystals do not necessarily imply slow cooling. The largest crystals associated with granites are often found in narrow pegmatite veins – which must have cooled relatively quickly. Crystal size is determined by lots of factors (e.g. nucleation rate, pressure changes and amounts of volatiles) – not just the rate of cooling.

Experimental and theoretical research by petrologists has shown that plutonic textures can be formed in short periods of time. Plagioclase, orthoclase, and quartz have been grown in crystal forms and sizes characteristic of granite (Mustart, 1969; Swanson, 1977; Swanson et al, 1972). Plagioclase zoning (Lofgren, 1974), comb-layering (Lofgren and Donaldson, 1975), and mafic-before-felsic cyrystallization (Naney and Swanson, 1980) have all been simulated in the laboratory.

Swanson (1977, p.974) argues that the rapid crystallization of feldspar and quartz in these experiments 'suggests re-evaluation of the length of time required to produce the large crystals of the granitic rocks'.

Refs:

Lofgren G.E., 'Temperature induced zoning in synthetic plagioclase feldspar', in Mackenzie W.S., Zussman J. (editors), The Feldspars, Manchester University Press, 1974, pp.362-375.

Lofgren G.E., Donaldson C.H., 'Curved branching crystals and differentiation in comb-layered rocks', Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 1975;49:309-319.

Mustart D.A., 'Hydrothermal synthesis of large single crystals of albite and potassium feldspar', EOS 1969;50:675.

Naney M.T., Swanson S.E., 'The effect of Fe and Mg on crystallization in granitic systems', American Mineralogist 1980;65:639-653.

Swanson S.E., 'Relation of nucleation and crystal-growth rate to the development of granitic textures', American Mineralogist 1977;62:966-978.

Swanson S.E., Whitney J.A., Luth W.A., 'Growth of large quartz and feldspar crystals from synthetic granitic liquids', EOS 1972;53:1127.

Every freshman geology student knows that pegmatites are associated with high volatile content (esp. water) of magma. This does NOT imply that ALL phaneritic textures are associated with high volatiles and a short time frame of cooling. Deep rocks associated with the basement complexes and roots of old tectonic episodes are definitely not all pegmatitic.

Young-earthers need to demonstrate a method for rapid cooling of low-volatile magma that will produce phaneritic textures.

[dtyler]

Dave Hacker's Ph.D. dissertation (the source of the findings you are citing) was a triumph of traditional geology, as it combined meticulous field mapping, ceaseless stomping over the countryside, careful attention to subtle clues in the rocks, and meticulous working out of the details regarding temporal sequence and spatial arrangement. The main thing that Dave Hacker's dissertation makes us stop and think about is how good classical geological methods are and how much can be learned from very classical field work.

Yes, I am entirely happy with this. Geologists do have methodologies that work and credit is certainly due to DH for his achievements.

Dave, you are right that from Lyell until Hurricanes Donna and Camille and Harlan Bretz' triumph regarding the Channeled Scabland floods geologists had an overall bias against sudden and in favor of gradual. Basically this was an over-reaction against (1) Cuvier's catastrophism and, (2), more generally, against biblical geology of various stripes, both of which have been continual utter failures when measured against all incoming evidence since about 1820, combined with being extremely impressed with Lyell's Principles of Geology to the extent of exaggerating its uniformitarian themes.

Thanks. We are in agreement.

However, as Aniso said, geological classrooms are now full of information about inferred sudden kimberlite eruptions, rapid drainings of large lakes, rapid floodings of Black Seas and Mediterranean basins, sudden collapses of volcanoes, and so forth.

Dave, as I've said before on other threads you are fighting a view of geology that has had no basis in reality for the past 35 years. You have set up a strawman that does not exist.

I know you have said it before - and I have tried to respond by saying that I will not make blanket statements about uniformitarianism, but I will point out examples of uniformitarian thinking in those contributing to TheologyWeb. I have been driven to make further comments by specific examples of uniformitarian thinking. So, whilst I would welcome the situation if you were right, I am compelled to say that uniformitarianism is alive and well!

This thread has been a response to uniformitarianism: Glenn's thread on the Great Stone Dome is riddled with it. He simply does not have enough data to draw the conclusions he does. My response has been to post data about a stone dome that is undoubtedly a witness to catastrophism: this is not saying that *all* igneous domes are catastrophic, but it is saying that if one can be, so can others. We must do the necessary field work to reach a conclusion and deductions from theoretical principles can be highly misleading.

Are you saying that your geological colleagues here on TheologyWeb do not exhibit rather dated geological views on uniformitarianism? I know they give theoretical credence to the changes - but their mindset is strongly in the tradition of Lyell. For what it is worth, I do not include you in this comment - your contributions are distinctive because your thinking is empirically-led rather than deductive from theory. (Sorry if that offends anyone, but it is far milder than posted comments about my mindset!).

As a demonstration of this, it is hard fact that none of the geologists involved with or overseeing Dave Hacker's Ph.D. research were astonished by his inferences regarding rapid progression from landsliding through ash eruption to generation of lava flows, although everyone was impressed by how well he marshalled his evidence. No one involved with the research thought the rapidity was unthinkable, or that it broke any sacred uniformitarian paradigms. No one walked out of his dissertation defense in protest, and none of us thought about becoming a flood geologist as a consequence of his findings.

This is pleasing to know.

Dave Hacker also showed that these laccoliths happened in succession rather than all at once, and he showed that they happened a long time ago, not recently. I've forgotten what you consider to be post-flood, but you still have a heck of a lot of complex post-laccolith geologic events to find time for, even just in southern Utah. I don't think any justification exists for your claims that these "particular events would then be part of the post-Flood catastrophism affecting the North American continent", or that "the timescales indicated in my notes above are fully consistent" with such a scenario.

My thread starter referred to the successve emplacement of the laccoliths. My attempt to set these geologic events in an alternative geologic history was limited to a paragraph - it was to anticipate the response "So what? - what has this got to do with Flood geology". It was also to show that I do not treat geology as a series of isolated catastrophes, and do think about local, regional and global histories. But I also recognise that such comments open the door to reactions like yours. That is a risk I chose to take.

[Monkey Boy]

Large crystals do not necessarily imply slow cooling.

I do not disagree. My initial reference to crystal sizes was meant only as a general example and for rhetorical reasons excluded many of the qualifiers regarding the context in which the crystals are found. Your references serve to highlight the importance of that context.

[aniso]

Yes, I am entirely happy with this. Geologists do have methodologies that work and credit is certainly due to DH for his achievements.

Then why do YECs not apply the same methodology? Why do we see things like Brethault's experiments being trotted out as representative of the geological record? Why do we see Steve Austin collecting samples of historical basalt flows for radiometric dating? These efforts make a mockery of YECism.

I know you have said it before - and I have tried to respond by saying that I will not make blanket statements about uniformitarianism, but I will point out examples of uniformitarian thinking in those contributing to TheologyWeb.

The problem is that you HAVE to make blanket statements about uniformitarianism, otherwise all you've got is anecdotal information. If you are to make it a point that the universe is only 10ka old, you have to negate several entire bodies of geological work.

I have been driven to make further comments by specific examples of uniformitarian thinking. So, whilst I would welcome the situation if you were right, I am compelled to say that uniformitarianism is alive and well!

But not in the way you see it. No one here denies catastrophic events. Thousands, millions of them. We see them frequently in our own lifetimes and it is kind of hard to ignore. You are still fighting a battle that was over a century ago.

This thread has been a response to uniformitarianism: Glenn's thread on the Great Stone Dome is riddled with it. He simply does not have enough data to draw the conclusions he does.

You must live in an ivory tower, David. Most geophysicists I know are compelled by their jobs to draw conclusions and make recommendations. Not to sit back indefinitely and say, 'well, on the other hand...'.

My response has been to post data about a stone dome that is undoubtedly a witness to catastrophism: this is not saying that *all* igneous domes are catastrophic, but it is saying that if one can be, so can others. We must do the necessary field work to reach a conclusion and deductions from theoretical principles can be highly misleading.

And you will notice that no one here had a problem with that interpretation. The only problem we have is that you seem to have a predilection to extend any catastrophic event to EVERY geological event.

Are you saying that your geological colleagues here on TheologyWeb do not exhibit rather dated geological views on uniformitarianism?

LOL! That is a good one coming from you! After all, you are the only one fighting this battle still a century after the assualt on the Lyellian viewpoint.

I know they give theoretical credence to the changes - but their mindset is strongly in the tradition of Lyell.

Nonsense. We have just shown that we all like and even enjoy the catastrophic origin of the unroofed laccoliths in Utah. Are you saying that this was a Lyellian event?

For what it is worth, I do not include you in this comment - your contributions are distinctive because your thinking is empirically-led rather than deductive from theory. (Sorry if that offends anyone, but it is far milder than posted comments about my mindset!).

I am sorry, but if your reasoning here is the same as it is in your war against uniformitarianism, then I don't know if SedRocks should take that as a compliment. Are you saying that none of the rest of us rely upon experience and empirical evidence through decades of field work?

My thread starter referred to the successve emplacement of the laccoliths. My attempt to set these geologic events in an alternative geologic history was limited to a paragraph - it was to anticipate the response "So what? - what has this got to do with Flood geology". It was also to show that I do not treat geology as a series of isolated catastrophes, and do think about local, regional and global histories. But I also recognise that such comments open the door to reactions like yours. That is a risk I chose to take.

In that case, I am not sure what you point is here. Are you supporting a flood with the OP? If not, then perhaps you could make you point more clearly.

[aniso]

Originally Posted by Acanthostega
Large crystals do not necessarily imply slow cooling.

I do not disagree. My initial reference to crystal sizes was meant only as a general example and for rhetorical reasons excluded many of the qualifiers regarding the context in which the crystals are found. Your references serve to highlight the importance of that context.

There are several factors involved in the formation of crystals. Time is just one of them that David and Acanthostega have isolated. The real question is do we find all of these factors in nature, and at the scale they are observed in the field.

[grmorton]

This is not part of this thread - and animals were not walking around on Cambrian and Ordovician strata during the Flood.

By stating that animals weren't walking around on Cambrian and ordovician strata, you made it part of this thread. Here is a photo on Cambrian animal tracks. I can find Ordovician animal tracks as well but it shouldn't be necessary. This photo falsifies your viewpoint, David.

[attachment]



So, it is selective quotation to quote the first sentence of the author's abstract! The rest of the abstract deals with the burial of radioactive waste, so I cut it. I have seen another part of the paper quoted, but it says the same thing! The point I was making is a perfectly fair one and I have no reason to think that my use of the paper is selective. Here is a sentence in the quote posted earlier: it is exactly the point I was making.
Why is it that when the authors of the paper write those words, they are deemed to be engaging in scholarly activity, whereas when I write something similar and quote these authors, I am accused of quote mining?

No, you ripped that sentence way out of context.

Edited to add: In another note David makes the erroneous claim:

This thread has been a response to uniformitarianism: Glenn's thread on the Great Stone Dome is riddled with it. He simply does not have enough data to draw the conclusions he does.

David, you simply don't know what you are talking about. We had hundreds of thousands of miles of seismic data, oil well cuttings, oil well logs, paleontological reports, etc ad nauseum. I had more than enough evidence to claim what I did. You have never worked the East coast of the US professionally so you wouldn't have access to the data that I had access to.

[dtyler]

By stating that animals weren't walking around on Cambrian and ordovician strata, you made it part of this thread. Here is a photo on Cambrian animal tracks. I can find Ordovician animal tracks as well but it shouldn't be necessary. This photo falsifies your viewpoint, David.
Hardly. A "track" is a term reserved for things with legs. You have posted a "trail". If you had asked me, "what were animals doing making trails in the Cambrian and Ordovician?", I would have answered - participating in the recolonisation of the Earth after the Mabbul destruction. You need not post Ordovician trails - I have them in my own collection.

Regarding crystal sizes in cooling magma bodies:No, you ripped that sentence way out of context. I'm still waiting for an explanation from you or MonkeyBoy about this. Assertions do not demonstrate validity. Experimental igneous petrology repeatedly uses laboratory conditions to gain insights into natural processes. That paper explicitly refers to granitic magmas being "recrystallized on a time scale of years as opposed to millennia as widely believed." It is directly relevant to the comment MonkeyBoy made about inferring timescales from crystal size. It is also perfectly consistent with a significant body of literature that demonstrates that granitic sized crystals do not need even a decade to form. The long ages are *inferred* from the model of slow conductive cooling, not from the coarse crystaline structure.

David, you simply don't know what you are talking about. We had hundreds of thousands of miles of seismic data, oil well cuttings, oil well logs, paleontological reports, etc ad nauseum. I had more than enough evidence to claim what I did. You have never worked the East coast of the US professionally so you wouldn't have access to the data that I had access to.
Seismics and bore holes give good data about structure - which is why the work is done. The issue of interpreting the data in terms of a geologic history is far more demanding. It is easy for theory to substitute for empirical evidence.

[grmorton]

Hardly. A "track" is a term reserved for things with legs. You have posted a "trail". If you had asked me, "what were animals doing making trails in the Cambrian and Ordovician?", I would have answered - participating in the recolonisation of the Earth after the Mabbul destruction. You need not post Ordovician trails - I have them in my own collection.

And they were made while a raging global flood was going on? David, come back to this universe. Your semantic quibble is nothing more than an escape mechanism for you. A way to avoid the consequences of fining TRAILS which had to be made in a calm environment, in the middle of your global flood.
You are becoming as slippery as Tony Blair.

Regarding crystal sizes in cooling magma bodies: I'm still waiting for an explanation from you or MonkeyBoy about this. Assertions do not demonstrate validity. Experimental igneous petrology repeatedly uses laboratory conditions to gain insights into natural processes. That paper explicitly refers to granitic magmas being "recrystallized on a time scale of years as opposed to millennia as widely believed."

Come on David. The granite was heated JUST above the melting point and then allowed to cool to just below it. Of course it crystalized rapidly because it didn't need to cool from a gazillion degrees of hot.

Seismics and bore holes give good data about structure - which is why the work is done. The issue of interpreting the data in terms of a geologic history is far more demanding. It is easy for theory to substitute for empirical evidence.

This shows you don't have the foggiest clue to what one has in Seismic, not seismics, and bore holes. They give much more than structure. The bore hole gives you rocks and fossils. These microfossils are found in the same order throughout the world's oceans--everywhere!!!. So they can be used for correlation since no YEC has ever given an explanation for why the raging global flood would sort microscopic animals based upon their skeleton shapes (which aren't exposed when the animal or plant is alive) see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm

Seismic data gives one information on structure, yes, but it also gives information on time sequence in geology. I explain this (and you should know better, but don't want to see it) at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/seismic.htm

David, you have never interpreted a seismic line in your life. How can you say interpreting the data is more demanding? Basically, it requires the AMAZING ability to stay within the lines. One gets on a seismic reflection and draws a colored line mapping that particular reflections extent. Kindergarten kids could do it.

And the fact is, at the Great Stone dome, the beds which are cooked by the Great Stone Dome intrusion, are above the cooking down in SE Georgia Embayment. This means there are two cooking events. It isn't hard, and requires the skill of a kindergartener to see this.

[dtyler]

And they were made while a raging global flood was going on? David, come back to this universe. Your semantic quibble is nothing more than an escape mechanism for you. A way to avoid the consequences of fining TRAILS which had to be made in a calm environment, in the middle of your global flood.
You are becoming as slippery as Tony Blair.
Glenn, you keep firing at the wrong targets. You are the one who injected the word "raging global flood". the "raging" part was the Mabbul - the first 40 days. In the Recolonisation model, this is the Hadean, moving into the Archaean. After that, signs of recolonisation are widespread - and that includes trails and burrows. What is a semantic quibble to you is basic ichnological terminology to me. I assume that when a geologist uses terms to describe geological phenomenon, those terms have a particular meaning. If words mean what the author thinks they mean, then we really are on the slippery slope.

Come on David. The granite was heated JUST above the melting point and then allowed to cool to just below it. Of course it crystalized rapidly because it didn't need to cool from a gazillion degrees of hot.
Of course, any rock will cool quickly if conditions allow it. In experimental petrology, this is routine. After quenching, the rapidly solidified melt becomes a glass. The important thing in this paper is that the granitic texture was obtained quickly - getting the crystalline texture was an important part of the exercise. That granitic texture is not a sign of long timescales. I am still waiting for an explanation as to why this is taking the words of the abstract out of context.

Seismic data gives one information on structure, yes, but it also gives information on time sequence in geology. I explain this (and you should know better, but don't want to see it) at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/seismic.htm

Sequence is part of structure. My points are concerned with timescales - establishing a sequence is one challenge and interpreting that sequence in terms of geologic processes and timescales is another.

[SteveF]

Glenn, you keep firing at the wrong targets. You are the one who injected the word "raging global flood". the "raging" part was the Mabbul - the first 40 days. In the Recolonisation model, this is the Hadean, moving into the Archaean. After that, signs of recolonisation are widespread - and that includes trails and burrows. What is a semantic quibble to you is basic ichnological terminology to me. I assume that when a geologist uses terms to describe geological phenomenon, those terms have a particular meaning. If words mean what the author thinks they mean, then we really are on the slippery slope.
Is this the same Hadean and Archean during which the earth was being bombarded with meteorites? Is this the same Archean that consisted of a reducing atmosphere of methane and ammonia? Doesn't sound like a suitable environment for the beasties that wander out an recolonise (not to mention the huge ecoligical problems with such recolonisation).

Oh and wouldn't this require the entire earths surface to cool and form plates (as they did in this time) in 40 days. Even taking into account a tweak in timescales its a bit daft.

Sequence is part of structure. My points are concerned with timescales - establishing a sequence is one challenge and interpreting that sequence in terms of geologic processes and timescales is another.We have radiometric dates (shown time and time again to be relaible) to aid us in interpreting timescales. They seem to contradict your beliefs somewhat!

There is no logical reason to assume (as you seem to do) that because somethings happen quickly, then therefore all processes must. This is ad hoc thinking to support an existing prejudice.

Edited to add a bit about ecology

[Monkey Boy]

Regarding crystal sizes in cooling magma bodies: I'm still waiting for an explanation from you or MonkeyBoy about this. Assertions do not demonstrate validity. Experimental igneous petrology repeatedly uses laboratory conditions to gain insights into natural processes. That paper explicitly refers to granitic magmas being "recrystallized on a time scale of years as opposed to millennia as widely believed." It is directly relevant to the comment MonkeyBoy made about inferring timescales from crystal size.

It's not relevant for two reasons:
1) It makes no mention of crystal size, which the whole basis of my original claim.
2) The experiment was placed in a very specific context -- the disposal of radioactive waste in boreholes. It is not at all clear that the results are relevant in natural settings and at the scale observed in natural formations. (thanks aniso!)

It is also perfectly consistent with a significant body of literature that demonstrates that granitic sized crystals do not need even a decade to form. The long ages are *inferred* from the model of slow conductive cooling, not from the coarse crystaline structure.

This brings us back to the point I originally intended to convey. The slow cooling model makes predictions which can be tested. Your implication that scientists are content to accept models without testing them is rather offensive. Maybe we ought to turn the tables. Is your hypothesis of a young earth just an *inference* from the biblical creation model, or have you tested its predictions and found them to be true? If so, please share your findings as I think we would all be quite impressed.

Seismics and bore holes give good data about structure - which is why the work is done. The issue of interpreting the data in terms of a geologic history is far more demanding. It is easy for theory to substitute for empirical evidence.

We're still waiting for that empricial evidence for a global flood. Does the hypocrisy of your own comments totally escape you?

[dtyler]

Is this the same Hadean and Archean during which the earth was being bombarded with meteorites?
Yes. The Earth was being destroyed and all air-breathing creatures were wiped out - saving only those on the ark.

Is this the same Archean that consisted of a reducing atmosphere of methane and ammonia?
You are about 30 years out of date here. There is no evidence that the Earth's atmosphere was ever reducing. You are repeating one of the "origins myths" of our time.

Doesn't sound like a suitable environment for the beasties that wander out an recolonise (not to mention the huge ecoligical problems with such recolonisation).
That's right. It was an environment that was hostile to life. Recolonisation came later.

Oh and wouldn't this require the entire earths surface to cool and form plates (as they did in this time) in 40 days. Even taking into account a tweak in timescales its a bit daft.
There are lots of assumptions built into this comment. Remember that the Earth before the Mabbul was habitable according to biblical history - whereas the evolutionary scenario has quite a different approach.

We have radiometric dates (shown time and time again to be relaible) to aid us in interpreting timescales. They seem to contradict your beliefs somewhat!
Yes they do contradict. I fully accept that.

There is no logical reason to assume (as you seem to do) that because somethings happen quickly, then therefore all processes must. This is ad hoc thinking to support an existing prejudice.

I have said repeatedly that this is not the argument of this thread. It has never been an argument I have used.

[SteveF]

Yes. The Earth was being destroyed and all air-breathing creatures were wiped out - saving only those on the ark.
And er, how exactly did the ark survive this incredibly harsh world?

You are about 30 years out of date here. There is no evidence that the Earth's atmosphere was ever reducing. You are repeating one of the "origins myths" of our time.
All the signs seem to show a very harsh environment. Its not a subject I'm hugely familiar with, but a quick search found a fair bit. For example, from Precambrian Research, 104, 147-174, 2000:

Ba depletion seems to have been especially characteristic of chemical weathering during 2.35-2.2 Ga under CO2-rich and low-O-2 atmosphere

How exactly did Noah survive this?

Oh and shortly after the archean, around 2.4 to 2.2 million years ago the earths first glaciation occured (Erikkson et al 2001, Sedimentary Geology, 141, 1-35). It was quite frankly cold and yet life was able to start up quite happily, warm adapted species and all in the radically different earth system that a glacial poses. Oh and a glaciation takes a long time. You can't grow an ice sheet in a few hundred years.

That's right. It was an environment that was hostile to life. Recolonisation came later.
You miss my point. Ecologically recolonisation has problems as i alluded to in an earlier thread regarding sucession. Ecologically theory just can't be generalised as widely as you would like.

There are lots of assumptions built into this comment. Remember that the Earth before the Mabbul was habitable according to biblical history - whereas the evolutionary scenario has quite a different approach.
So it was habitable, suddenly turned into the hadean and archean (for which a substantial portion of time the earth was thought to be molten) then truned back again. In 40 days.

Yes they do contradict. I fully accept that.
Then why do you persist in thinking the earth is young? Are you just ignoring data that is perfectly valid (as radiometric dating is) just to fit preconcieved notions. Thats pretty ad hoc.

I have said repeatedly that this is not the argument of this thread. It has never been an argument I have used.
Not used directly maybe, but if the earth is a few thousand years old then processes have to have been occuring quickly.

[Avatar_of_evil]

You are about 30 years out of date here. There is no evidence that the Earth's atmosphere was ever reducing. You are repeating one of the "origins myths" of our time.

Well you can argue over the evidence but it is a lie to say such evidence does not exist.

[rogero]

...
You are about 30 years out of date here. There is no evidence that the Earth's atmosphere was ever reducing. You are repeating one of the "origins myths" of our time.

...


I guess I am 30 years out of date in my geology knowledge, since that's when I took my geo coursework. So the time sequence of No Fe in paleosols --> BIF --> Red beds is no longer accepted as evidence of transition from a reducing to an oxidizing atmosphere?

Just curious...

Also...

... All the signs seem to show a very harsh environment. It's not a subject I'm hugely familiar with, but a quick search found a fair bit. For example, from Precambrian Research, 104, 147-174, 2000:

Ba depletion seems to have been especially characteristic of chemical weathering during 2.35-2.2 Ga under CO2-rich and low-O-2 atmosphere
...


Doesn't low O2 mean reducing?

[Kulindrichnus]

the "raging" part was the Mabbul - the first 40 days. In the Recolonisation model, this is the Hadean, moving into the Archaean.

REcolonization??

There's not a scrap of geological evidence for pre-Hadean colonization of anything. There isn't even a pre-Hadean earth to colonize in the first place, and evidence for the Hadean itself is scant- the system is best preserved on the moon!

Would I be right if I guess you're going to tell us that all the pre-flood (i.e., pre-Hadian) faunas were melted up in a global fireball during Noah's meteor bombardment and that's why we don't realize about the pre-hadean earth and its' garden of eden?

What is a semantic quibble to you is basic ichnological terminology to me.

Anyone wishing to assess David's ichnological skills (e.g. arbitarily informing me that the ichnogenus Thalassinoides was represented by a single species on the basis of no investigative work at all, overlooking the presence of Rhizocorallium and annelid encrustations as recorded in his own references, etc) might like to refer to the Filey Brigg thread, where, as usual, David's progress may be reconstructed using methodological naturalism and the ubiquitous paper-trail of unanswered questions.

K

[Roy]

Hardly. A "track" is a term reserved for things with legs.

Tyres have legs?

There may be a legs v. no-legs distinction in paleontology, but in non-technical areas the distinction is definitely continuous/regular v. sporadic/irregular, e.g. railway tracks <-> nature trails, animal tracks <-> game trails, vehicle tracks <-> paper trails, worm-tracks <-> scent trails etc.



Roy

[kuboes1831]

Can one do any geology without some kind of principle of uniformity.

Orthodox geologists do thsi with care

YEC"geologists" (oxymoron) either adopt an ultra-extreme uniformitarianism which neither Lyell or Darwin ever held, so just come out with vain babblings

[aniso]

Regarding crystal sizes in cooling magma bodies: I'm still waiting for an explanation from you or MonkeyBoy about this. Assertions do not demonstrate validity. Experimental igneous petrology repeatedly uses laboratory conditions to gain insights into natural processes. That paper explicitly refers to granitic magmas being "recrystallized on a time scale of years as opposed to millennia as widely believed."

You have a problem here, David. It is not possible to 'recrystallize a magma'.

Also, did anyone notice that this paper talks about 'recrystallization' and not crystallization? There IS a difference.

It is directly relevant to the comment MonkeyBoy made about inferring timescales from crystal size. It is also perfectly consistent with a significant body of literature that demonstrates that granitic sized crystals do not need even a decade to form.

What the heck is a 'granitic sized crystal'? And no, you have not yet shown this.

The long ages are *inferred* from the model of slow conductive cooling, not from the coarse crystaline structure.

Please show us evidence that a batholith has cooled in a few years. I don't recognize recrystallization experiments as being evidence for this.

Also, I seem to remember a few years ago how YECs touted the fact that granites could not be formed in the laboratory. This was supposed to be evidence of divine creation. How do you square that statement with your current stand?

Seismics and bore holes give good data about structure - which is why the work is done. The issue of interpreting the data in terms of a geologic history is far more demanding. It is easy for theory to substitute for empirical evidence.

Then you have an explanation of the geological history for all of the seismic data that Glenn has presented? Why are you holding out on us?

[grmorton]

Glenn, you keep firing at the wrong targets. You are the one who injected the word "raging global flood". the "raging" part was the Mabbul - the first 40 days. In the Recolonisation model, this is the Hadean, moving into the Archaean. After that, signs of recolonisation are widespread - and that includes trails and burrows.

Bull roar. You get negative points for knowing your own viewpoint. I had written in the post above this one on Oct 17, 2003 http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=248035#post248035 :

David, WHERE do YOU think the end of the flood is? I don't care where OTHER recolonists think it is. Answer with a simple answer, that question. Give me a geologic period or era, epoch or stage.

You replied:
Since you ask me for my personal view, I'll give it. I do not think it particularly important in the context of all the other matters we've discussed. I put it at the end of the Ordovician.

So don't give me a different, slippery story today. In October the flood extended until the Ordovician, Today it is only until the Archaean. You change your story with the change of days. That is not science, but snake oil.




What is a semantic quibble to you is basic ichnological terminology to me. I assume that when a geologist uses terms to describe geological phenomenon, those terms have a particular meaning. If words mean what the author thinks they mean, then we really are on the slippery slope.

You are just using a semantic quibble to divert attention to the fact that there should be no tracks, trails, insect burrows, invertebrate burrows (homes, nests or whatever you wish to call them) during the middle of the global flood, which you said ended in the Ordovician in October and now you claim ended in the Archaean. One has the slip-sliding away feeling for the global flood.

Of course, any rock will cool quickly if conditions allow it. In experimental petrology, this is routine. After quenching, the rapidly solidified melt becomes a glass. The important thing in this paper is that the granitic texture was obtained quickly - getting the crystalline texture was an important part of the exercise. That granitic texture is not a sign of long timescales. I am still waiting for an explanation as to why this is taking the words of the abstract out of context.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.



Sequence is part of structure. My points are concerned with timescales - establishing a sequence is one challenge and interpreting that sequence in terms of geologic processes and timescales is another.

You are so unknowledgeable in geology and its workings that it is laughable, but sad at the same time. You continually tie falsehood to the Bible, like a cruel child ties a tin can to the cat's tail. A structure is defined by words like 'anticline', 'syncline', 'erosional truncation', 'pinch out', 'faulted.' Sequence is defined with words like, 'before,' 'during', 'after'. You are probably thinking of sequence stratigraphy, but even there that is a set of markers of lowstands and high stands of the sealevel. These surfaces have structure, but they also have sequence---one is older than the other.

David, you have a serious problem admitting that you are wrong.

[aniso]

Of course, any rock will cool quickly if conditions allow it. In experimental petrology, this is routine. After quenching, the rapidly solidified melt becomes a glass. The important thing in this paper is that the granitic texture was obtained quickly - getting the crystalline texture was an important part of the exercise.

Excuse me. I saw nothing regarding the development of a 'granitic texture' in a very short time, only evidence for rapid recrystallization under some very specific conditions. David, you are getting farther and farther from reality here. Have you actually read this paper? Do you have any other/better examples of rapidly forming granitic textures?

That granitic texture is not a sign of long timescales. I am still waiting for an explanation as to why this is taking the words of the abstract out of context.

David, I am willing to entertain real evidence in you favor. But you are not giving us much to work with.

[Kulindrichnus]

So don't give me a different, slippery story today. In October the flood extended until the Ordovician, Today it is only until the Archaean. You change your story with the change of days. That is not science, but snake oil.

It is quite ironic in this light that the end-ordovician is a MFS....

[grmorton]

It is quite ironic in this light that the end-ordovician is a MFS....

Oh what a laugh. I hadn't picked up on that. Thanks. I wonder if David knows what an MFS is and more importantly what the implications are to his viewpoint? He certainly doesn't appreciate the implications of trails to his viewpoint.

[Roy]

It is quite ironic in this light that the end-ordovician is a MFS....

WTF is MFS? RSVP PDQ. IMO, PLU use FTM TLAs.

TTFN,

R.

[rogero]

WTF is MFS? RSVP PDQ. IMO, PLU use FTM TLAs.

TTFN,

R.


R, FYI: Maximum Flooding Surface, IIRC

R

[dtyler]

It's not relevant for two reasons:
1) It makes no mention of crystal size, which the whole basis of my original claim.
2) The experiment was placed in a very specific context -- the disposal of radioactive waste in boreholes. It is not at all clear that the results are relevant in natural settings and at the scale observed in natural formations. (thanks aniso!)

I'm persisting with this because I completely reject the claim that this paper is not relevant to understanding timescales associated with the coarse grain size of granites. Monkey Boy raised the subject - suggesting that coarse grain size implies long timescales.

Regarding this paper from Geology, of course the paper makes mention of grain size! The abstract would lead us to think that, and the text certainly does. It is worth pointing out that “crystallization” is one of the keywords linked to the abstract.

Crystallization is important to the paper. It is vital for storing nuclear waste that “the melt slowly cools and recrystallizes to seal the packages into a sarcophagus of solid granite surrounded by zones of thermal metamorphism in which any pre-existing fractures are sealed by annealing and low temperature hydration mineralization”. It is important for two reasons. “First, sufficient melting of the granite will occur at low enough temperatures for the containers to survive, and second, the partial melt to be completely recrystallized to a fine- to medium-grained holo-crystalline rock – both on timescales appropriate to the thermal decay of the waste."

In this context, the words previously posted are very significant. “Cooling rates deduced from natural granite bodies have encouraged a widely held belief that granites can only form by extremely slow crystallization over thousands, if not millions, of years but there are grounds for believing that acid (silica-rich) magmas can be completely crystallized at cooling rates orders of magnitude faster.”

The experimental work (Figure 4) shows granitic melts, with different water contents and different rates of cooling, showing cooling from 800 degrees Centigrade to about 550 degrees. At 1 degree C per day, the slowest cooling rate, complete crystallization was achieved in 270 days.

The authors write: “Particularly significant in the context of such schemes are the cooling experiments carried out on cores of solid granite that confirmed that the partial melts can be recrystallized (Fig. 5), but demonstrated that the silicate liquids will flow into any fractures in the rock before sealing them completely on recrystallization.” (Fig 5 shows a thin section of granite that had cooled from 800 deg C to 560 deg C at 0.1 degC/h. It shows that there is complete recrystallization – no glass).

So, what do I make of the statement: "It is not at all clear that the results are relevant in natural settings and at the scale observed in natural formations." Unless you are arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry are changing depending on the "setting", the findings are directly relevant. Granitic textures do not imply timescales longer than, say a year or two. You cannot "see deep time" in these textures. You can interpret long timescales if you first assume a certain model of emplacement of the granite - but that is another story. It is not the issue raised by Monkey Boy.

This brings us back to the point I originally intended to convey. The slow cooling model makes predictions which can be tested. Your implication that scientists are content to accept models without testing them is rather offensive.

This sounds rather like backtracking. You made a statement linking granite crystal size to timescales - and I have said this can be tested and it proves false. I also quoted from a paper that freely acknowledges that a "widely held belief" about granite crystallization is out by "orders of magnitude". This has been known for over 30 years, yet people still retain the outdated view - yourself included. I think I know why this is - but you can speak for yourself. I do not want to sound "rather offensive"! Why have you persisted with holding this view when the experimental work to test the claim has shown the belief to be wrong?

[rach12]

The authors write: “Particularly significant in the context of such schemes are the cooling experiments carried out on cores of solid granite that confirmed that the partial melts can be recrystallized (Fig. 5), but demonstrated that the silicate liquids will flow into any fractures in the rock before sealing them completely on recrystallization.” (Fig 5 shows a thin section of granite that had cooled from 800 deg C to 560 deg C at 0.1 degC/h. It shows that there is complete recrystallization – no glass).

So, what do I make of the statement: "It is not at all clear that the results are relevant in natural settings and at the scale observed in natural formations." Unless you are arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry are changing depending on the "setting", the findings are directly relevant. Granitic textures do not imply timescales longer than, say a year or two. You cannot "see deep time" in these textures. You can interpret long timescales if you first assume a certain model of emplacement of the granite - but that is another story. It is not the issue raised by Monkey Boy.


But David, isn't there a world of difference between the partial melting and REcrystaillization of a granite core and the cooling rate of a magma chamber emplaced at depth?

[geochron]

Crystallization is important to the paper. It is vital for storing nuclear waste that “the melt slowly cools and recrystallizes to seal the packages into a sarcophagus of solid granite surrounded by zones of thermal metamorphism in which any pre-existing fractures are sealed by annealing and low temperature hydration mineralization”. It is important for two reasons. “First, sufficient melting of the granite will occur at low enough temperatures for the containers to survive, and second, the partial melt to be completely recrystallized to a fine- to medium-grained holo-crystalline rock – both on timescales appropriate to the thermal decay of the waste."


These are the premises on which the proposed disposal scheme is based, yes. The paper sets out to investigate whether they are met when radioactive waste is buried in granite.



In this context, the words previously posted are very significant. “Cooling rates deduced from natural granite bodies have encouraged a widely held belief that granites can only form by extremely slow crystallization over thousands, if not millions, of years but there are grounds for believing that acid (silica-rich) magmas can be completely crystallized at cooling rates orders of magnitude faster.”



The quote I've found says...


"Cooling rates of natural granites have been deduced from the times taken for the intrusions in which they occur to cool from their emplacement temperatures, but such times (derived by various techniques) have indicated cooling rates mostly in the range 10–500 8C/m.y. (Attrill and Gibb, 2003b). These have encouraged a widely held belief that granites can only form by extremely slow crystallization over thousands, if not millions, of years. There are, however, good grounds for believing that silicic magmas can be completely crystallized at cooling rates orders of magnitude faster." (Page 658, collumn 2)


I think the thing you're overlooking here is the question of how much a granite that is partially melted and recrystallised resembles a granite found in nature.

"There are, however, good grounds for believing that silicic magmas can be completely crystallized at cooling rates orders of magnitude faster".

Perhaps these geologists were being a little ironic here - if I recall my introductory geology, a silicic melt that cools quickly produces a fine grained rock called a rhyolite.


The authors write: “Particularly significant in the context of such schemes are the cooling experiments carried out on cores of solid granite that confirmed that the partial melts can be recrystallized (Fig. 5), but demonstrated that the silicate liquids will flow into any fractures in the rock before sealing them completely on recrystallization.” (Fig 5 shows a thin section of granite that had cooled from 800 deg C to 560 deg C at 0.1 degC/h. It shows that there is complete recrystallization – no glass).

So, what do I make of the statement: "It is not at all clear that the results are relevant in natural settings and at the scale observed in natural formations." Unless you are arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry are changing depending on the "setting", the findings are directly relevant. Granitic textures do not imply timescales longer than, say a year or two. You cannot "see deep time" in these textures. You can interpret long timescales if you first assume a certain model of emplacement of the granite - but that is another story. It is not the issue raised by Monkey Boy.



Perhaps you should have quoted this bit as well...


To avoid the well-known nucleation problems in granitic systems (Naney and Swanson, 1980), it is essential that seed crystals be present in the melt. Usually this is achieved experimentally by incorporating large pieces of the seed phase in the starting material (Scaillet et al., 1995; Simakin and Chevychelov, 1995). In our experiments this was unnecessary; before cooling, the starting materials were run at 800 deg C for 624 h such that only a partial melt was generated. Hence, the seeds were already present as relict crystals, exactly as they would be in the disposal schemes.


Which rather calls into question the relevance of the experiments to a cooling intrusion.

Also, typical grain sizes (from Fig 5) in the melt look to be around 0.5 mm or less - well into the texture size geologists associate with quick cooling anyway iirc. Maybe a real geologist can set me straight, but wouldn't a rock with the composition of a granite that was this fine grained be called a rhyolite? And aren't they classified as extrusive rocks because they are thought to have cooled quickly...

It is far from clear to me how this paper, which is dealing with how fast a granite that has been partially melted can be cooled and still yield a crystalline rock rather than a glass, has anything to do with the cooling rates of coarse-grained granites that formed from total melts.


This sounds rather like backtracking. You made a statement linking granite crystal size to timescales - and I have said this can be tested and it proves false.


Perhaps, but this paper neither addresses nor proves any such thing, I'm afraid. It says nothing whatsoever about the dependence of grain size on cooling rate. It does however show that fast cooling yields small crystals.

You seem to be working on the assumption that a recrystallised granitic melt is the same things as a granite no matter what the crystal size.

[aniso]

I think the thing you're overlooking here is the question of how much a granite that is partially melted and recrystallised resembles a granite found in nature.

As far as I know, a good petrologist can tell annealing and recrystallization textures in a granite. I wonder if David, thinks all natural granites have such textures.

[rach12]

Regarding this paper from Geology, of course the paper makes mention of grain size! The abstract would lead us to think that, and the text certainly does. It is worth pointing out that “crystallization” is one of the keywords linked to the abstract.

David, this paper only barely touches on grain size. The abstract makes absolutely no mention of grain size and only the word "recrystallized" appears.


Crystallization is important to the paper. It is vital for storing nuclear waste that “the melt slowly cools and recrystallizes to seal the packages into a sarcophagus of solid granite surrounded by zones of thermal metamorphism in which any pre-existing fractures are sealed by annealing and low temperature hydration mineralization”. It is important for two reasons. “First, sufficient melting of the granite will occur at low enough temperatures for the containers to survive, and second, the partial melt to be completely recrystallized to a fine- to medium-grained holo-crystalline rock – both on timescales appropriate to the thermal decay of the waste."

David, I read the paper and did not get out of it what you did.

Namely, the quotes above are describing a proposed scheme (Gibb's own idea referenced in a prior paper from 2000) that would be necessary to safely and securely store radioactive waste. Those quotes you presented are NOT conclusions of this or any other study.

Gibb suggests that the safest method to store radioactive waste would be to place the waste at the bottom of 4 - 5 km deep boreholes drilled into granite. As the waste decays, heating up the surrounding granite, partial melting would occur. As the heat output from the waste decreases, the granite melt would slowly cool and recrystallize - sealing the waste in a "sarcophagus of solid granite." Additionally, this SCHEME, in order to work, would require sufficient melting at the temperatures produced by the decaying waste (in order to encase the containers), as well as for the melt to recrystallize to a fine- or medium-grained holocrystalline rock - all in a specific amount of time, namely a few years.

This study, on the other hand, did manage to produce crystalline rock instead of glass, but it did not produce medium-grained granite as you seem to suggest. Grain sizes are on the order of ~0.3 mm, three times too small to be considered medium-grained. They are more on the order of very fine-grained to fine-grained.

As far as I can see, these types of studies are interesting, but I fail to see any real relevance to naturally occuring granitic plutons... at this time.

Perhaps you could suggest another paper???

[Monkey Boy]

I'm persisting with this because I completely reject the claim that this paper is not relevant to understanding timescales associated with the coarse grain size of granites. Monkey Boy raised the subject - suggesting that coarse grain size implies long timescales.

I just want to note that I do not claim that coarse grain size must imply long time scales. The context of the formation is vitally important, and such a conclusion is only valid in some contexts.

In this context, the words previously posted are very significant. “Cooling rates deduced from natural granite bodies have encouraged a widely held belief that granites can only form by extremely slow crystallization over thousands, if not millions, of years but there are grounds for believing that acid (silica-rich) magmas can be completely crystallized at cooling rates orders of magnitude faster.”

The paper presents the results of an experiment to see if granitic magma can fully recrystallize at "fast" cooling rates and with certain magma chemistry. The question is, are the "fast" cooling rates and magma chemistry used in the experiment applicable to the scale and type of natural formations we see? Given the conditions outlined in the paper, I think it's not at all obvious that these results have any relevance at all. Hence my charge of quote mining.

So, what do I make of the statement: "It is not at all clear that the results are relevant in natural settings and at the scale observed in natural formations." Unless you are arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry are changing depending on the "setting", the findings are directly relevant.

No need to change physics or chemistry to make the results irrelevant, just the cooling rates, magma chemistry, and heating profile. If you can explain how it is possible for a massive magma chamber to cool at rates of 0.1 degC/hr, if you can show how the chemistry of the tested magma is representative of most granite formations, and if you can show that most granite formations were only partially and not totally melted, then you might have a point.

Granitic textures do not imply timescales longer than, say a year or two.

Only if one cannot make a reasonable model of the process of formation and the cooling rate.

You can interpret long timescales if you first assume a certain model of emplacement of the granite - but that is another story. It is not the issue raised by Monkey Boy.

But this is exactly the issue I raised. Of course scientists have a model of the emplacement of the granite. No "assuming" is required, as the model is yet another result of observation and hypothesis testing. I can see how you'd like to ignore the emplacement model, as that presents its own problems for your YEC views, but it is irresponsible to do so from a scientific perspective.

This sounds rather like backtracking. You made a statement linking granite crystal size to timescales - and I have said this can be tested and it proves false.

I made a statement saying that crystal size was one observation that can be indicative of long timescales. I had assumed the reader would understand that conclusion is dependent upon a large number of other observations and well-tested hypotheses. I guess I assumed wrong.

I also quoted from a paper that freely acknowledges that a "widely held belief" about granite crystallization is out by "orders of magnitude".

Read that sentence in the paper again. There was a belief that granite couldn't crystallize faster than it does in nature. Turns out, under specific artificial conditions, it can.

This has been known for over 30 years, yet people still retain the outdated view - yourself included. I think I know why this is - but you can speak for yourself. I do not want to sound "rather offensive"! Why have you persisted with holding this view when the experimental work to test the claim has shown the belief to be wrong?

To be honest, until you brought it up, I never thought about how fast granite can crystallize. I have no reason to doubt the experimental results and I thank you for the education.

[dtyler]

David, this paper only barely touches on grain size. The abstract makes absolutely no mention of grain size and only the word "recrystallized" appears.

The paper declares two issues that the authors wanted to explore: “First, sufficient melting of the granite will occur at low enough temperatures for the containers to survive, and second, the partial melt to be completely recrystallized to a fine- to medium-grained holo-crystalline rock – both on timescales appropriate to the thermal decay of the waste." Both are important for the proposed waste disposal method to work. Rather than barely touching on grain size, the paper reports experimental data to show that the second requirement is confirmed.

David, I read the paper and did not get out of it what you did.
Namely, the quotes above are describing a proposed scheme (Gibb's own idea referenced in a prior paper from 2000) that would be necessary to safely and securely store radioactive waste. Those quotes you presented are NOT conclusions of this or any other study.
This comment is a mystery to me. The authors wrote their paper because they had some significant conclusions - and the conclusion on crystallisation is the one I've been citing.

This study, on the other hand, did manage to produce crystalline rock instead of glass, but it did not produce medium-grained granite as you seem to suggest. Grain sizes are on the order of ~0.3 mm, three times too small to be considered medium-grained. They are more on the order of very fine-grained to fine-grained.
It produced "fine- to medium-grained holocrystalline rock". All that holocrystalline means is that the rock is wholly crystalline with no glass.

As far as I can see, these types of studies are interesting, but I fail to see any real relevance to naturally occuring granitic plutons... at this time.
Perhaps you could suggest another paper???
Crystallisation rates are a matter of physics and chemistry - they *have* to be relevant to naturally ocurring "plutons". If you believe granites are emplaced as large plutons, it would be expected that cooling would be slow. The point I was picking up was that information re long cooling times can be extracted from the granitic texture. This is where the paper I cited is relevant. The belief in long cooling times is model dependent, and does not emerge from the physics of granite crystallisation.

There are numerous other papers - this just happened to be a convenient example. Acanthostega has helpfully posted references to several others.

In my 1990 ICC paper on "A tectonically controlled rock cycle", I have a section on "Crystal growth in magmatic fluids" that makes the same point. I quote Luth, W.C. "Granitic rocks", in Bailey and Macdonald (eds), "The evolution of the crystalline rocks", Academic Press, 1976, 333-417. He says: "It is frequently assumed that the presence of large crystals in these phases implies slow growth over long periods of time. Although this may be the case, the intent here is to demonstrate that it does not necessarily hold" (p.405). This is exactly the point I have been making, and I see the "Geology" paper last year as yet another confirmation of this same basic point.

[geochron]

The paper declares two issues that the authors wanted to explore: “First, sufficient melting of the granite will occur at low enough temperatures for the containers to survive, and second, the partial melt to be completely recrystallized to a fine- to medium-grained holo-crystalline rock – both on timescales appropriate to the thermal decay of the waste." Both are important for the proposed waste disposal method to work. Rather than barely touching on grain size, the paper reports experimental data to show that the second requirement is confirmed.



I've just read it again - they don't actually comment on the grain size at all afaics.


This comment is a mystery to me. The authors wrote their paper because they had some significant conclusions - and the conclusion on crystallisation is the one I've been citing.


Their conclusion is that it recrystallises, but they don't say anything about its grain size. Figure 5 suggests the grain size is fine.


It produced "fine- to medium-grained holocrystalline rock". All that holocrystalline means is that the rock is wholly crystalline with no glass.


In your quote you're confusing what they specify as required by the application with the results they got. Would you mind pointing out by page/column or quoting the passage where they discuss the grain size of the recrystallised material because I can't find it.


Crystallisation rates are a matter of physics and chemistry - they *have* to be relevant to naturally ocurring "plutons". If you believe granites are emplaced as large plutons, it would be expected that cooling would be slow. The point I was picking up was that information re long cooling times can be extracted from the granitic texture. This is where the paper I cited is relevant. The belief in long cooling times is model dependent, and does not emerge from the physics of granite crystallisation.


The paper has nothing to do with this - the experiments produced small crystals as the model Monkey Boy advances would predict.


In my 1990 ICC paper on "A tectonically controlled rock cycle", I have a section on "Crystal growth in magmatic fluids" that makes the same point. I quote Luth, W.C. "Granitic rocks", in Bailey and Macdonald (eds), "The evolution of the crystalline rocks", Academic Press, 1976, 333-417. He says: "It is frequently assumed that the presence of large crystals in these phases implies slow growth over long periods of time. Although this may be the case, the intent here is to demonstrate that it does not necessarily hold" (p.405). This is exactly the point I have been making, and I see the "Geology" paper last year as yet another confirmation of this same basic point.

I hope you were closer to what the other paper says than you are to this one - because afaics you are so far off base here it's hard to credit. No coarse crystals grew from this melt, even though they were careful to note that seed crystal to promote nucleation were present.

Here's an exercise you might like to work through :wink:

http://www.chemsoc.org/networks/learnnet/jesei/cooling/home.htm

[rach12]

It produced "fine- to medium-grained holocrystalline rock". All that holocrystalline means is that the rock is wholly crystalline with no glass.
yes, as geochron asks, please quote the sentence where Gibb states the study resulted in "fine to medium-grained holocrystalline rock." I agree with the "fine" but from what I saw in Figure 5, those crystals are definitely nowhere near being medium-grained.

And Dave, I do know what holocrystalline means.:smile:


Crystallisation rates are a matter of physics and chemistry - they *have* to be relevant to naturally ocurring "plutons".
Of course chemistry and physics are relevant to crystallization rates, I just don't think this study necessarily is. The conditions are just too far removed from the natural setting of granitic plutons.


I understand the point you are trying to make. I do think it's possible that granite can crystallize much faster than previously thought, I just don't think this study supports that hypothesis.

[Monkey Boy]

I quote Luth, W.C. "Granitic rocks", in Bailey and Macdonald (eds), "The evolution of the crystalline rocks", Academic Press, 1976, 333-417. He says: "It is frequently assumed that the presence of large crystals in these phases implies slow growth over long periods of time. Although this may be the case, the intent here is to demonstrate that it does not necessarily hold" (p.405).

Stop the presses! There are exceptions to the rule! The question is, are there ways to test when the rule likely holds and when it doesn't?

This is exactly the point I have been making, and I see the "Geology" paper last year as yet another confirmation of this same basic point.

If your point is that grain size is not always indicative of long timescales, then I doubt you'd receive much argument from anyone here. My point is that the "Geology" paper describes conditions so far removed from natural settings that to cite it as evidence against the slow formation of large crystals is misleading.

[aniso]

David, do the words 'annealed', 'recrystallized', 'fractures' or 'partial melt' mean anything to you? I'm sorry to pile on here, but you present a target rich environement that I cannot resist.

The paper declares two issues that the authors wanted to explore: “First, sufficient melting ....

What? 'Sufficient melting?' Why not complete melting? Does this mean that you don't really start with a magma?

Now, can you tell us why this is different from a natural granite pluton?

...of the granite will occur ...

Do you think that a partial melt of a granite will give you a granitic magma? Do you think the volatile content of the partial melt is the same as the actual granite parent?

... at low enough temperatures for the containers to survive, and second, the partial melt to be completely recrystallized to a fine- to medium-grained holo-crystalline rock – both on timescales appropriate to the thermal decay of the waste." Both are important for the proposed waste disposal method to work. Rather than barely touching on grain size, the paper reports experimental data to show that the second requirement is confirmed.

This comment is a mystery to me. The authors wrote their paper because they had some significant conclusions - and the conclusion on crystallisation is the one I've been citing.

Now, if they said that all granite plutons cooled from 800 to ambient temperatures in less than a year, THAT would be significant. Why didn't they?

It produced "fine- to medium-grained holocrystalline rock". All that holocrystalline means is that the rock is wholly crystalline with no glass.

Of course it did! There were medium grained crystals there from the beginning!

Crystallisation rates are a matter of physics and chemistry - they *have* to be relevant to naturally ocurring "plutons".

Indeed, and part of that is that some of these granite plutons are thousands of cubic miles in size. Was this duplicated in the lab?

If you believe granites are emplaced as large plutons, it would be expected that cooling would be slow.

Do you believe this?

The point I was picking up was that information re long cooling times can be extracted from the granitic texture. This is where the paper I cited is relevant. The belief in long cooling times is model dependent, and does not emerge from the physics of granite crystallisation.

Of course not. As we have said repeatedly, granitic textures are not a simple case of cooling rate. Why have you ignored us?

There are numerous other papers - this just happened to be a convenient example. Acanthostega has helpfully posted references to several others.

Then lets discuss them. What do they say?

In my 1990 ICC paper on "A tectonically controlled rock cycle", I have a section on "Crystal growth in magmatic fluids" that makes the same point. I quote Luth, W.C. "Granitic rocks", in Bailey and Macdonald (