Since Socrates is back and is going to tell everyone how the pictures I have been showing fit into the global flood, I thought I would put this one up. I am sure he will explain the data soon rather than tell everyone things about me.

the picture in the center is a map on the top fo the Faeroes basalt. it is the basalt flow which was deposited on the ocean floor and in the rift valleys when the the Atlantic Ocean formed by splitting Europe from North America. The two seismic lines are volcanic cones seen on the top of the basalt which was covered by about 5-7000 feet of post break-up oceanic sediment. The quantity of basalt which flowed out of the earth at that place is huge. It is estimated to be 6.6 x 10^6 km^3 and in places is 5 km thick. Consider this from a well drilled into it:


"A total of 120 lava flows with an average thickness of 20 m were drilled. One third of the lava flows are capped by a thin (0.5-2 m) sediment layer. The upper part of each lava flow is very rich in vesicles due to the rapid cooling; thin lava flows are thus vesicular throughout, whereas thicker lava flows contain only few vesicles in the lower part." L Kiorboe and S. A. Petersen, "Seismic Investigation of the Faeroe Basalts and their Substratum," in R. A. Scrutton, M. S. Stoker, G. B. Shimmield and A. W. Tudhope, editors, The Tectonics, Sedimentation and Palaeoceanography of the North Atlantic Region, (London: The Geological Society, 1995), p. 111-122, p. 112

The volcanism didn't come out all at the same time. There is sediment between the basalt flows.

the two pictures on the side are the volcanoes. I marked the craters and pointed to the sediment on the side of the volcanoes which thins towards the volcano. this proves that when that bit of sediment was deposited, the volcano stuck up above the surrounding topography.

Anyway, explain the buried volcanos.

Yesterday @ 03:28 AM post located here
grmorton:
Response to grmorton

Since Socrates is back and is going to tell everyone how the pictures I have been showing fit into the global flood, I thought I would put this one up. I am sure he will explain the data soon rather than tell everyone things about me.

No doubt Socrates can speak for himself. I will declare an interest in this thread. In Origins 34, I wrote an article "Volcanic catastrophe on a Scottish Island". There is no web version, but the listing is at:
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/b...ns/bcs071.html

the picture in the center is a map on the top fo the Faeroes basalt. it is the basalt flow which was deposited on the ocean floor and in the rift valleys when the the Atlantic Ocean formed by splitting Europe from North America. (snip)

These rocks are all part of the North Atlantic Igneous Province, a major flood basalt deposit in the Tertiary.
One of the places you can see these rocks on land is Mull - the theme of my article.

The volcanism didn't come out all at the same time. There is sediment between the basalt flows.

This also can be seen on land. There is very little evidence of weathering and the development of topography - but there are definite time gaps between flows. In one place on Mull, at Ardtun, there are leaf beds - with magnificently preserved leaves.

the two pictures on the side are the volcanoes. I marked the craters and pointed to the sediment on the side of the volcanoes which thins towards the volcano. this proves that when that bit of sediment was deposited, the volcano stuck up above the surrounding topography.
Anyway, explain the buried volcanos.

On land, it is very difficult to find physical evidence of feeder conduits and vents, so these seismics are good news! Such feeder systems are needed to get the vast outpourings of basalt onto the Earth's surface.

I should say that I have no interest in explaining these deposits or the buried volcanoes within the 1-year flood that many have chosen to defend. This is a lost cause. The explanation proposed in my article is that these deposits came many years after the Flood - during which time the Earth was recovering from the global catastrophe. This scenario provides an explanation of Flood basalts (within conventional geology there is no satisfactory model for these vast outpourings of lava) and the field evidences for short time delays between the successive lava flows.
For further on this approach, please see the thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...&threadid=8012
Fossil record laid down after the Flood? in Biology 301.

Today @ 01:19 PM post located here
dtyler:

I should say that I have no interest in explaining these deposits or the buried volcanoes within the 1-year flood that many have chosen to defend. This is a lost cause. The explanation proposed in my article is that these deposits came many years after the Flood - during which time the Earth was recovering from the global catastrophe. This scenario provides an explanation of Flood basalts (within conventional geology there is no satisfactory model for these vast outpourings of lava) and the field evidences for short time delays between the successive lava flows.

There is no mainstream explanation for the origin of flood basalts? I had no idea.

Are you saying that all Tertiary flood basalts were erupted during a short period in the last 4k years or so? What caused them to start up and shut down? Why is there no written record of them being deposited and what were the effects on human populations? Even the eruption of Laki, by itself, in 1783(?) caused some distress all over Europe and it was referred to by several historians.

So just what is your explanation, then? You only say that they occurred 'many years after the flood' during recovery. That surely isn't much detail. I see from your publication that you think there was a catastrophe on Mull. What is you logical process to come to the conclusion that this was global in nature? Or is it just another uniformitarian event and not necessarily global?

Today @ 04:57 PM post located here
aniso:
Response to Aniso

There is no mainstream explanation for the origin of flood basalts? I had no idea.

Here are a few paras from an article that I've written relating to this topic:

By the end of the 1980s, several models had been proposed for the generation of these large scale magma flows. The most influential was the work of Robert White and Dan McKenzie (1989a, 1989b). They pointed out that, because temperature increases with depth, a relatively rapid thinning of the Earth’s crust will lead to large scale melting associated with decompression. Pressure release could convert large volumes of hot solid rock to mobile magmas that can find a way to the surface to emerge as a series of volcanic lava flows. This, combined with the Plate Tectonic concept of a super-heated mantle plume, provides a powerful explanation for the very large extrusions of magma involved in flood basalt deposits. It explains many different observations with one comprehensive model."

"Anderson et al (1992) tested the White and McKenzie model by looking closely at their eight listed continental flood basalts. For six cases, there was no significant evidence that the flood basalts were linked to mantle plumes, and in every case, there was no evidence of significant lithosphere thinning. These observations are major problems for their theory."

"Price (2001) wrote: “The mechanisms which are held to be responsible for the emplacement of these large basaltic provinces are contentious, and hotly debated.” He refers to three main views, including that of White and McKenzie. Price concludes that the lithosphere thinning model must be rejected, because it requires a degree of stretching and thinning that is completely unrealistic within the current framework of plate tectonics."

Are you saying that all Tertiary flood basalts were erupted during a short period in the last 4k years or so? What caused them to start up and shut down? Why is there no written record of them being deposited and what were the effects on human populations? Even the eruption of Laki, by itself, in 1783(?) caused some distress all over Europe and it was referred to by several historians.

I have not referred to 4K years ago - and I am not suggesting this.
Flood basalts are, in my thinking, linked to global catastrophism - although thay occurred as after-effects of the Mabbul. I hold to pressure release as a key mechanism, but one that is only effective in the context of global instability after the Flood.
There are no written record because they occured before the dispersal of humanity after the Flood.
I have visited the Laki eruption site and taken an interest in the after-effects of it. This is a tiny pimple of activity compared with what was going on during the eruption of flood basalts.

So just what is your explanation, then? You only say that they occurred 'many years after the flood' during recovery. That surely isn't much detail. I see from your publication that you think there was a catastrophe on Mull. What is you logical process to come to the conclusion that this was global in nature? Or is it just another uniformitarian event and not necessarily global?

I have not said it was global. But the Mull lavas are part of a much more extensive episode of volcanism that affected most of the North Atlantic. I've given more detail in my "Origins" article. I'm preparing a talk on the subject for November and maybe another article will emerge from that.

Can I point out that my posting was not to write an essay here on flood basalts, but to respond to grmorton's challenge. He implied that creationists have nothing to say. On the contrary, there are many things that we have already said! The challenge is not to creationists in general, but to a subset of creationists who hold that nearly all the fossils were laid down in the Flood. The rest of us have no problems with Flood basalts - they fit readily into the framework of interpretation that is being developed.

dtyler:

Here are a few paras from an article that I've written relating to this topic:

By the end of the 1980s, several models had been proposed for the generation of these large scale magma flows. The most influential was the work of Robert White and Dan McKenzie (1989a, 1989b). They pointed out that, because temperature increases with depth, a relatively rapid thinning of the Earth’s crust will lead to large scale melting associated with decompression. Pressure release could convert large volumes of hot solid rock to mobile magmas that can find a way to the surface to emerge as a series of volcanic lava flows. This, combined with the Plate Tectonic concept of a super-heated mantle plume, provides a powerful explanation for the very large extrusions of magma involved in flood basalt deposits. It explains many different observations with one comprehensive model."

"Anderson et al (1992) tested the White and McKenzie model by looking closely at their eight listed continental flood basalts. For six cases, there was no significant evidence that the flood basalts were linked to mantle plumes, and in every case, there was no evidence of significant lithosphere thinning. These observations are major problems for their theory."

David, are you sure that you are not just finding the one dissenter and then using him as an authority? We agree that there is geologic evidence of time between the basalt flows, but to claim that there is 'no significant evidence that the flood basalts were linked to mantle plumes" is to go way over the top. The Rockall basalts are extruded at the time the Atlantic was breaking up, which means, a thinning crust and the break up was associated with the mid-oceanic ridge, which, if you haven't noticed, is still putting out basalt along its entire length. There must be a plume around there somewhere!

I have seen seismic data from West of Ireland on which you can clearly see the dykes and sills of the intruded basalt.. This was clearly a time when the earth was being pulled apart in that area and the cracks were filled with basalt. To the east, in the North Sea, the Balder Tuff consists of several thousand individual ash flows:

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

So, where did the ash flows come from if not from the Rockall Basalts?

"Price (2001) wrote: “The mechanisms which are held to be responsible for the emplacement of these large basaltic provinces are contentious, and hotly debated.” He refers to three main views, including that of White and McKenzie. Price concludes that the lithosphere thinning model must be rejected, because it requires a degree of stretching and thinning that is completely unrealistic within the current framework of plate tectonics."

But David, what you are doing is saying that if we don't understand something, it didn't happen. That is illogical.

I have not referred to 4K years ago - and I am not suggesting this.
Flood basalts are, in my thinking, linked to global catastrophism - although thay occurred as after-effects of the Mabbul. I hold to pressure release as a key mechanism, but one that is only effective in the context of global instability after the Flood.
There are no written record because they occured before the dispersal of humanity after the Flood.
I have visited the Laki eruption site and taken an interest in the after-effects of it. This is a tiny pimple of activity compared with what was going on during the eruption of flood basalts.

Agreed, but until you are very precisely specific about when the flood was, what sediments it refers to, you have nothing. Any ideas must be specific enough to be criticised.

The challenge is not to creationists in general, but to a subset of creationists who hold that nearly all the fossils were laid down in the Flood. The rest of us have no problems with Flood basalts - they fit readily into the framework of interpretation that is being developed.

On this, David, we agree, but they don't seem to talk about data very much.

Yesterday @ 05:21 PM post located here
dtyler:

Here are a few paras from an article that I've written relating to this topic:

By the end of the 1980s, several models had been proposed for the generation of these large scale magma flows. The most influential was the work of Robert White and Dan McKenzie (1989a, 1989b). They pointed out that, because temperature increases with depth, a relatively rapid thinning of the Earth’s crust will lead to large scale melting associated with decompression. Pressure release could convert large volumes of hot solid rock to mobile magmas that can find a way to the surface to emerge as a series of volcanic lava flows. This, combined with the Plate Tectonic concept of a super-heated mantle plume, provides a powerful explanation for the very large extrusions of magma involved in flood basalt deposits. It explains many different observations with one comprehensive model."

So there is an explanation.

"Anderson et al (1992) tested the White and McKenzie model by looking closely at their eight listed continental flood basalts. For six cases, there was no significant evidence that the flood basalts were linked to mantle plumes, and in every case, there was no evidence of significant lithosphere thinning. These observations are major problems for their theory."

So, maybe there are other explanations? Somehow I don't think you have exhausted the available positions.

"Price (2001) wrote: “The mechanisms which are held to be responsible for the emplacement of these large basaltic provinces are contentious, and hotly debated.” He refers to three main views, including that of White and McKenzie. Price concludes that the lithosphere thinning model must be rejected, because it requires a degree of stretching and thinning that is completely unrealistic within the current framework of plate tectonics."

I think I asked earlier what your concept for the formation of flood basalts is. You have taken someone else's work here and taken it apart in detail and yet you have not provided us with what YOU think happened. Just because something is debated in geology does not mean that an explanation does not exist. Surely, the fact that it is debated indicates to me that someone else has another idea that you have not addressed. Most scientists in the real world fight ideas with ideas. It appears to me that you really don't have an idea other than some vague reference to a 'recovering' earth. Furthermore you keep distancing yourself from any YEC concepts with which we are familiar and never really provide us with your ideas.

a: “ Are you saying that all Tertiary flood basalts were erupted during a short period in the last 4k years or so? What caused them to start up and shut down? Why is there no written record of them being deposited and what were the effects on human populations? Even the eruption of Laki, by itself, in 1783(?) caused some distress all over Europe and it was referred to by several historians. ”

D: I have not referred to 4K years ago - and I am not suggesting this.

Correct, you haven't. THat is why I have to guess what your concept of the origin of flood basalts is. This is a common technique for YECs wishing to avoid criticism. I'd hoped you would be different.

Flood basalts are, in my thinking, linked to global catastrophism - although thay occurred as after-effects of the Mabbul.

Not much detail here. But its a start, I suppose. Any absolute ages available on this?

I hold to pressure release as a key mechanism,...

I'm sure that most petrologists would agree. How do you get your pressure release? White and Mackenzie offered a solution. At least they attempted an explanation so how about you?

... but one that is only effective in the context of global instability after the Flood.

Such as?

There are no written record because they occured before the dispersal of humanity after the Flood.

So the evidence does not exist.

I have visited the Laki eruption site and taken an interest in the after-effects of it. This is a tiny pimple of activity compared with what was going on during the eruption of flood basalts.

Exactly my point. If you want to have all of the Tertiary flood basalts erupted in a short cataclysm, the continued viability of human civilization becomes a tenous proposition.

a: “ So just what is your explanation, then? You only say that they occurred 'many years after the flood' during recovery. That surely isn't much detail. I see from your publication that you think there was a catastrophe on Mull. What is you logical process to come to the conclusion that this was global in nature? Or is it just another uniformitarian event and not necessarily global? ”

d: I have not said it was global.

So you agree with the uniformitarian viewpoint.

But the Mull lavas are part of a much more extensive episode of volcanism that affected most of the North Atlantic. I've given more detail in my "Origins" article. I'm preparing a talk on the subject for November and maybe another article will emerge from that.

I look forward to a summary containing some details such as the ones offered by mainstream geologists.

Can I point out that my posting was not to write an essay here on flood basalts, but to respond to grmorton's challenge. He implied that creationists have nothing to say. On the contrary, there are many things that we have already said!

Well an example of details would be interesting. Glenn has given you a certain amount of detail without writing an essay himself. Perhaps a simple absolute timeline would be a good start.

The challenge is not to creationists in general, but to a subset of creationists who hold that nearly all the fossils were laid down in the Flood. The rest of us have no problems with Flood basalts - they fit readily into the framework of interpretation that is being developed.

But that is the framework that you do not provide us with. I had a rough enough time figuring out what the heck Setterfield was trying to say over the last couple of years. I don't really want to get involved in all of that again.

Today @ 02:47 AM post located here
grmorton:
Response to grmorton

David, are you sure that you are not just finding the one dissenter and then using him as an authority?

Yes. There are real theoretical problems. It often takes a dissenter to voice them publicly.

We agree that there is geologic evidence of time between the basalt flows, but to claim that there is 'no significant evidence that the flood basalts were linked to mantle plumes" is to go way over the top. The Rockall basalts are extruded at the time the Atlantic was breaking up, which means, a thinning crust and the break up was associated with the mid-oceanic ridge, which, if you haven't noticed, is still putting out basalt along its entire length. There must be a plume around there somewhere!

Aaah GRM! "We can't identify it, but it must be there!" "We insist on others having details, but when it comes to an issue like this, theory must be given its place".

Glenn, do you not realise that there are doubts even among mainstream geologists that plumes even exist? Here is a copy of an information note sent by one of our "Recolonisation" group earlier this year. I'll put it in a quote box - but please note it is not a quote from TheologyWeb.

There has been a vigorous debate about the mantle plume hypothesis in the pages of 'Geoscientist' recently.

It began with a broadside by Gillian Foulger, in which she argued that the hypothesis has become so flexible that it is essentially unfalsifiable. The data, she says, are being forced into an ill fitting, a priori model, and the falsification approach is not being applied. The most positive thing she finds to say about the hypothesis, on the basis of the hundreds of papers being published about it each year, is that it "is paying a lot of mortgages"!

Since then, another critical article by Don Anderson has been published, along with several letters (again, mostly critical of the plume hypothesis). In the latest issue, Andy Saunders has written a defence of the plume hypothesis, challenging the anti plume lobby to present a viable and testable alternative hypothesis.

The debate makes for interesting reading, if only for another insight into how science really operates. We see the reinforcement syndrome at work once the plume hypothesis was accepted, plumes turned up everywhere. In 1963 the idea was proposed for the Hawaiian chain, by 1971 twenty plumes had been identified, by 1999 there were 5,200. In 2003, the number was reduced to only nine! Problems with the model are 'fixed' by a proliferation of additional hypotheses. We also see the power of a dominant paradigm Foulger claims that alternative mechanisms are rarely mentioned and papers suggesting them are rarely accepted by mainstream journals.

I've given the citations below for anyone who would like to read the various contributions.

Foulger G. Plumes, plates and Popper. Geoscientist, May 2003;13(5):16 17.

Wright J, Foulger G, Dore T, Smith A, Hamilton W, Millward T. Letters and reply. Geoscientist, July 2003;13(7):17 18.

Anderson DL. The plume hypothesis. Geoscientist, August 2003;13(8):16 17.

Sheth H. Letter. Geoscientist, August 2003;13(8):20.

Saunders A. Mantle plumes: an alternative to the alternative. Geoscientist, September 2003;13(9):20 22.

Hernlund J, Foulger G, Stein S. Letters and reply. Geoscientist, September 2003;13(9):23.

I have seen seismic data from West of Ireland on which you can clearly see the dykes and sills of the intruded basalt.. This was clearly a time when the earth was being pulled apart in that area and the cracks were filled with basalt. To the east, in the North Sea, the Balder Tuff consists of several thousand individual ash flows: (quote snipped)
So, where did the ash flows come from if not from the Rockall Basalts?

Obviously there was a great deal of very violent catastrophic volcanism. My point is that the mantle plume explanation for the Flood basalt outpouring is lacking. The alleged "detail" in the plate tectonic explanation has evaporated.

But David, what you are doing is saying that if we don't understand something, it didn't happen. That is illogical.

If you are reading me this way, we are not communicating very effectively! Of course it happened. I've referred to an article I've written on a small part of the happening. I've argued that a post-Flood setting for the happening makes sense of the data.

Agreed, but until you are very precisely specific about when the flood was, what sediments it refers to, you have nothing. Any ideas must be specific enough to be criticised.

In another thread, the "fossil record after the Flood?" in Biology 301, I've argued for the Hadean/Archaean rocks being associated with the Mabbul (the first 40 days of the Flood, represented in the Bible as an event of judgment, destruction, wiping out). I've argued that at least the Proterozoic sediments were laid down during the rest of the Flood year. I've indicated that Recolonisers are not of one mind on where to put the end of the Flood year. I've said that a biblical constraint is provided by the first appearance of air-breathing animals after sediments that are devoid of any evidence of air-breathers that had to be on the Ark. This puts the Permain as the latest we can fix this boundary. It can be lower in the gological record, but not higher. I posted some URLs for further amplification of the model. I think this is a coherent framework that enables criticism and discussion. The criticism that has come on that thread have not been particularly challenging - I could do a lot better myself!

dtyler:

Yes. There are real theoretical problems. It often takes a dissenter to voice them publicly.

I thought that you might be picking the lone dissenter and making him the authority. My copy of Geological History of Britain and Ireland, published in 2000 accepts the mantle plume view (see the article by Anderton, p. 375 in particular. Apparently, your lone or few dissenters wasn't able to convince people.

Aaah GRM! "We can't identify it, but it must be there!" "We insist on others having details, but when it comes to an issue like this, theory must be given its place".

but you are taking the view, "if I wasn't there, it couldn't have been either'. I find my position more reasonable. I believe trees falling in the forest, unobserved, actually do make sound.

Glenn, do you not realise that there are doubts even among mainstream geologists that plumes even exist? Here is a copy of an information note sent by one of our "Recolonisation" group earlier this year. I'll put it in a quote box - but please note it is not a quote from TheologyWeb.

Well, I am not the fount of all knowledge. It has been a while since I studied this area. There isn't much oil in basalts. I will order these articles but I suspect they are disagreeing on some esoterica rather than doubting that there are mechanisms which cause basalts to come out of the mid-atlantic ridge. After all, you surely don't deny that we see basalts comeing out of the ridges today do you?

Obviously there was a great deal of very violent catastrophic volcanism. My point is that the mantle plume explanation for the Flood basalt outpouring is lacking. The alleged "detail" in the plate tectonic explanation has evaporated.

But we actually see basalts coming out of the earth on Iceland today. Just not in the quantities of the Rockall but that may only be from the perspective that we need more time.

In another thread, the "fossil record after the Flood?" in Biology 301, I've argued for the Hadean/Archaean rocks being associated with the Mabbul (the first 40 days of the Flood, represented in the Bible as an event of judgment, destruction, wiping out). I've argued that at least the Proterozoic sediments were laid down during the rest of the Flood year. I've indicated that Recolonisers are not of one mind on where to put the end of the Flood year. I've said that a biblical constraint is provided by the first appearance of air-breathing animals after sediments that are devoid of any evidence of air-breathers that had to be on the Ark. This puts the Permain as the latest we can fix this boundary. It can be lower in the gological record, but not higher. I posted some URLs for further amplification of the model. I think this is a coherent framework that enables criticism and discussion. The criticism that has come on that thread have not been particularly challenging - I could do a lot better myself!

But, when challenged with channels in Carboniferous beds which should rule out the Permian, you retreat to the idea that the end of the flood is earlier, then when shown Devonian channels you don't say anything and now you are back to saying that the Permian is the end of the flood. 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.

I think the reason you get so fuzzy on the end of the flood is because you can't find a defendable place to put it.

Today @ 12:28 PM post located here
grmorton:
Response to grmorton

I thought that you might be picking the lone dissenter and making him the authority. My copy of Geological History of Britain and Ireland, published in 2000 accepts the mantle plume view (see the article by Anderton, p. 375 in particular. Apparently, your lone or few dissenters wasn't able to convince people.

Of course. But this is hardly strange!

but you are taking the view, "if I wasn't there, it couldn't have been either'. I find my position more reasonable. I believe trees falling in the forest, unobserved, actually do make sound.

You have no reason for saying this - and it is certainly not my position. Anyway, the point is probably lost now - let's move on.

I then presented evidence of debate in mainstream geology about the very existence of mantle plumes.

Well, I am not the fount of all knowledge. It has been a while since I studied this area. There isn't much oil in basalts. I will order these articles but I suspect they are disagreeing on some esoterica rather than doubting that there are mechanisms which cause basalts to come out of the mid-atlantic ridge. After all, you surely don't deny that we see basalts comeing out of the ridges today do you?

Glenn, *all* the parties in these discussions think that basalt comes out of the mid-atlantic ridge! Why is it so difficult to make a simple point! It is the mantle-plume model that is being questioned.

But we actually see basalts coming out of the earth on Iceland today. Just not in the quantities of the Rockall but that may only be from the perspective that we need more time.

Of course we see it. I have visited sites in Iceland where lava was flowing 15 years before. The debate is over explanatory mechanisms, not the base data.

But, when challenged with channels in Carboniferous beds which should rule out the Permian, you retreat to the idea that the end of the flood is earlier, then when shown Devonian channels you don't say anything and now you are back to saying that the Permian is the end of the flood. 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.

There has been no retreat. I could have started by saying: "Why are you talking about Carboniferous channels - when I'm quite comfortable with Precambrian channels (so much so, that I've taken others to see them and to discuss catastrophism in the Precambrian). Perhaps I'm letting you lead the discussion too much and this is being interpreted as me modifying my position through these exchanges.

The reason for coming back to the Permian is that this is where diluvialists can identify biblical constraints. One of the complaints that Recolonisers have is that other diluvialists claim to be biblical but then they major on non-biblical maxims (such as "fossils are a diagnostic sign of the global flood" and "post-Flood strata can only be a minor part ofthe geologic record") The bible tells us none of these things - but it does give us a framework for understanding the evidences supplied by air-breathers (trackways).

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.

I think the reason you get so fuzzy on the end of the flood is because you can't find a defendable place to put it.

NO, it is because I do not think it is very important for developing the model.

dtyler:

Glenn, *all* the parties in these discussions think that basalt comes out of the mid-atlantic ridge! Why is it so difficult to make a simple point! It is the mantle-plume model that is being questioned.

OK, DAvid, now that we have gone round the earth to get next door, Why does the lack of a plume make a whit's worth of difference to anything. Assume you are right, plumes don't exist. That doesn't mean a thing about the fact that 1, the basalts, which you agree came out of the mid-oceanic ridge, would have given off lots of heat, CO2, mercury, volcanic ash etc. Nor will the lack of plumes mean anything for the evidence of long time periods between the basalt flows. So, exactly why did you bring this up? What is the point? If it was to divert us, you succeeded.

There has been no retreat. I could have started by saying: "Why are you talking about Carboniferous channels - when I'm quite comfortable with Precambrian channels (so much so, that I've taken others to see them and to discuss catastrophism in the Precambrian). Perhaps I'm letting you lead the discussion too much and this is being interpreted as me modifying my position through these exchanges.

As you admitted in another thread, you already knew there were burrows from the Precambrian on. Why are you arguing about what I posted? You could have simply acknowledged that they were there. By the way, here are the carboniferous burrows:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...6&pagenumber=5

The reason for coming back to the Permian is that this is where diluvialists can identify biblical constraints. One of the complaints that Recolonisers have is that other diluvialists claim to be biblical but then they major on non-biblical maxims (such as "fossils are a diagnostic sign of the global flood" and "post-Flood strata can only be a minor part ofthe geologic record") The bible tells us none of these things - but it does give us a framework for understanding the evidences supplied by air-breathers (trackways).

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.

Thank you David. I much appreciate finally getting a straightforward answer. That is what science is all about. One says something and then lets others criticise it.

So how do you explain the Precambrian to Ordovician burrows and trackways? What was going on in the Flood?



NO, it is because I do not think it is very important for developing the model. [/quote]

Yesterday @ 11:38 AM post located here
dtyler:

Obviously there was a great deal of very violent catastrophic volcanism.

As there is today and as there evidently was in the pre-Tertiary. What is the point?

My point is that the mantle plume explanation for the Flood basalt outpouring is lacking. The alleged "detail" in the plate tectonic explanation has evaporated.

Are you saying that because there is no mantle plume under the the flood basalts today that they could not have been produced by a mantle plume in the past?

Yesterday @ 06:32 PM post located here
grmorton:
Response to grmorton

OK, DAvid, now that we have gone round the earth to get next door, Why does the lack of a plume make a whit's worth of difference to anything. Assume you are right, plumes don't exist. That doesn't mean a thing about the fact that 1, the basalts, which you agree came out of the mid-oceanic ridge, would have given off lots of heat, CO2, mercury, volcanic ash etc. Nor will the lack of plumes mean anything for the evidence of long time periods between the basalt flows. So, exactly why did you bring this up? What is the point? If it was to divert us, you succeeded.

I brought it up in a response to aniso on 16th October - because aniso questioned my saying that "within conventional geology there is no satisfactory model for these vast outpourings of lava". There are theories, and the major theory over the past decade requires mantle plumes for it to work, so I have been explaining that the theory has failed the relevant tests and should be abandoned.

You posted this thread - volcanoes that cannot be explained by the Flood. I am saying that you have no explanation of them yourself! I am also saying that the pressure release mechanism for flood basalts can work within a framework of catastrophism. That is not diverting anyone. It is grappling directly with your challenge.

David: I brought it up in a response to aniso on 16th October - because aniso questioned my saying that "within conventional geology there is no satisfactory model for these vast outpourings of lava". There are theories, and the major theory over the past decade requires mantle plumes for it to work, ...

So you are saying that there is no such thing as mantle plumes, or are you saying that there are none present beneath the major flood basalt provinces?

...so I have been explaining that the theory has failed the relevant tests and should be abandoned.

Actually, you said there were three (I think) prior models and you only mentioned one. You then provided us with a couple of dissenters, but never told us what they actually think about the origin of flood basalts.

I'm afraid I have to say that this is a old, worn-out YEC method of refutation: cite people who dissent with a model, but never show that they provide their own in response. Then say, "See, the model is invalid!" I'd expected better.

Yesterday @ 10:42 PM post located here
aniso:
Response to Aniso

So you are saying that there is no such thing as mantle plumes, or are you saying that there are none present beneath the major flood basalt provinces?

I am saying that all the conventional geological models for flood basalts are flawed. the best known (White and McKenzie) requires mantle plumes. I have indicated that research has failed to establish the link and furthermore, that even if there was a link, there would still be major problems with their hypothesis. My personal view is that "mantle plumes" do not exist.

Actually, you said there were three (I think) prior models and you only mentioned one. You then provided us with a couple of dissenters, but never told us what they actually think about the origin of flood basalts.

I'm afraid I have to say that this is a old, worn-out YEC method of refutation: cite people who dissent with a model, but never show that they provide their own in response. Then say, "See, the model is invalid!" I'd expected better.

I can tell you what Prof Neville Price thought - I have his book in front of me. But you are missing the point. Glenn has laid down a challenge, and I have thrown it back at him. He says diluvialists do not have an explanation for some particular volcanos linked to the North Atlantic Igneous Province, and I have said that we do: pressure release associated with post-Flood catastrophism. I have also challenged Glenn by saying that there are no other viable explanations of these volcanoes (linked to flood basalts). Rather than me write an essay on the different views, I would like Glenn to address this challenge. It is not my role to defend a plate tectonic model: it is for those who think plate tectonics has the answers!

dtyler: Glenn has laid down a challenge, and I have thrown it back at him. He says diluvialists do not have an explanation for some particular volcanos linked to the North Atlantic Igneous Province, and I have said that we do: pressure release associated with post-Flood catastrophism. I have also challenged Glenn by saying that there are no other viable explanations of these volcanoes (linked to flood basalts). Rather than me write an essay on the different views, I would like Glenn to address this challenge. It is not my role to defend a plate tectonic model: it is for those who think plate tectonics has the answers!

David, the reality is, your viewpoint in creationism is a vast minority and thus, most creationists believe in a one year flood. My criticism was directed at that viewpoint. They can't explain how volcanoes can be found in the fossil record when 50-100 feet per day of sediment is being dumped on these things. So, my criticism stands as directed.

With your view, you are claiming that all the geologic evidence was produced in post flood catastrophism. But, that could only have lasted a few hundred years and the evidence for slow deposition frankly gets your position as well--channels and burrows. I would agree that your position can't be attacked by the volcanos. But, as I noted, your position can't explain channels and footprints and burrows in sediments of the flood. You have pushed the flood so far back in geologic time that it left no fossils of the preflood world. Thus your view is meaningless to really explain the fossils. And it is unable to explain why lifeforms found in the older rocks are so different from those we see alive today. There are no living fossils if by that one means that the fossil is identical to a modern form.

And given that almost everyone in geology does accept the existence of mantle plumes, I think your arrow directed at the geologists misses the mark.

Yesterday @ 05:24 PM post located here
dtyler:

“ Yesterday @ 10:42 PM post located here
aniso:So you are saying that there is no such thing as mantle plumes, or are you saying that there are none present beneath the major flood basalt provinces? ”

Response to Aniso:
I am saying that all the conventional geological models for flood basalts are flawed. the best known (White and McKenzie) requires mantle plumes. I have indicated that research has failed to establish the link...

Then perhaps you should compar notes with Duncan and Richards (1991, "Hot spots, mantle plumes, flood basalts and true polar wander, Rev. Geophys. 29:31-50), who find a very clear connection between the NATB province and a hot spot. As to ALL conventional models being flawed, I think you have a way to go in supporting this statement. You have only provided one example and only a weak argument against its mechanism.

...and furthermore, that even if there was a link, there would still be major problems with their hypothesis.

Please explain.

My personal view is that "mantle plumes" do not exist.

Then you must have an alternate explanation for the Hawaiian Island-Emperor seamount chain, and the Yellowstone chain of volcanism. I'd love to hear it sometime, especially if is completely unflawed as you seem to require all theories to be.

a: “ Actually, you said there were three (I think) prior models and you only mentioned one. You then provided us with a couple of dissenters, but never told us what they actually think about the origin of flood basalts.

I'm afraid I have to say that this is a old, worn-out YEC method of refutation: cite people who dissent with a model, but never show that they provide their own in response. Then say, "See, the model is invalid!" I'd expected better. ”

D: I can tell you what Prof Neville Price thought - I have his book in front of me. But you are missing the point. Glenn has laid down a challenge, and I have thrown it back at him. He says diluvialists do not have an explanation for some particular volcanos linked to the North Atlantic Igneous Province, and I have said that we do: pressure release associated with post-Flood catastrophism.

And I am asking for more details. Or are there flaws in your story that you do not want exposed?

I have also challenged Glenn by saying that there are no other viable explanations of these volcanoes (linked to flood basalts). Rather than me write an essay on the different views, I would like Glenn to address this challenge. It is not my role to defend a plate tectonic model: it is for those who think plate tectonics has the answers!

It has an answer. THe answer may be tentative and it may not answer ALL of the questions you might have. If you have something superior, other than "post-flood catastrophism" then we'd love to hear it.