Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   basalt layering and flood deposits
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 1 of 30 (54423)
09-08-2003 2:17 AM


Curious on the YEC explanation of basalt layering that are often exposed in river canyons particularly in the Pacific Northwest. Typically many layers are noticable with depositional layers in between. This formation (not even considering the time require to cut thru the basalt to form canyons) is a slam dunk indicator of looooong time periods.
On a recent vacation I snapped this picture from Yellowstone national park. Which of the deposition layers here are represented by the flood? How about the time to cut a canyon thru this hard rock several times?
The above sample is a modest example I have seen canyons in Washington state with over a dozen distinct flows.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 09-08-2003 9:26 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 22 by iceage, posted 10-20-2003 1:34 PM iceage has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 30 (54446)
09-08-2003 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iceage
09-08-2003 2:17 AM


quote:
Which of the deposition layers here are represented by the flood?
All of them.
quote:
How about the time to cut a canyon thru this hard rock several times?
The flood did that too.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iceage, posted 09-08-2003 2:17 AM iceage has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 3 of 30 (54861)
09-11-2003 1:18 AM


Looking around (since no resident yec'er here would help out) I found the following article that indeed addresses the columbia plateau lava flows.
Field Studies in the Columbia River Basalt, Northwest USA | Answers in Genesis
Interesting they conclude "Considering all these evidences, we conclude that the Columbia River basalts were deposited during the Flood, not after the Flood."

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Rei, posted 09-11-2003 3:16 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 6 by Bill Birkeland, posted 09-15-2003 12:38 AM iceage has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 4 of 30 (54869)
09-11-2003 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by iceage
09-11-2003 1:18 AM


How silly
Thanks for taking on the role of the creationists
Their chief argument is that scientists have said that the lava traveled very quickly without major changes of temperature, that it must have been deposited incredibly quickly. *What*??? That argues against an underwater eruption - underwater eruptions cool *incredibly* quickly. They're trying to claim that an eruption launched magma *750 kilometers* *underwater*???, but it only was a (proportionally) thin sheet? Three times??? Please
Their statement about petrified trees is nonsense. Preservation of wood is near soley due to a lack of oxygen in the soil or water that they're trapped in. Petrified wood is nearly always stripped of limbs and bark, and is nearly always either found fallen over or merely "stumps". You don't find big, standing trees, precisely because they can't get preserved that way. Water preserved them from the heat of lava? Are their readers dumb enough to buy into the fact that a superheated distorted eruption isn't hurting trees that are buried mere feet away?
Hey, is there salt in the petrified trees? No? Wierd, eh?
Their knowledge of supervolcanoes is preposterous. Nothing like extant geological processes? Have they looked at the size of the magma dome underneath Yellowstone National Park? Or are they expecting volcanoes that destroy large chunks of the midwest to erupt once every few years?
They talk about pahoehoe lava found as if it's evidence for their claim. Yet, pahoehoe lava is *slow moving*. Their argument is that this lava is somehow moving at preposterous speeds so that it doesn't instantly cool. They discard the roping behavior, as is near universally accepted, on the basis of one dissent.
Their stuff about columnar jointing implying rapid cooling, which is nonsense. The process they describe is from observations of features that take months; underwater volcanism instead produces features like are seen in the massive landslides at the base of the Hawaiian islands. On the other hand, they pretend like nothing else can be used to determine cooling speed - nice tossing away of information there. Vulcanologists risk their lives all across the globe, every day, collecting samples of lava cooling at different rates - and the chief measure of the cooling speed is crystal size, which they conveniently ignore.
They mention that pillow lava is found at the periphery, but neglect to mention that it was found at what was the coastal periphery. They claim that it's not found at the edges because it must have been moving too fast. *conveniently* moving in a nice even sheet, right, instead of explosively upwards and outwards? . They also conveniently ignore how undersea volcanoes form strong conical shapes, which collapse under extreme rockslides - not the slightest bit of which is observed. They oggle at the tiny amounts of minerals that form from water interaction with lava, ignoring that these minerals should be ubiquitous, not rare.
They mention the aquatic fossils which are exactly where acquatic fossils are expected - and neglect to mention the fact that most of the area has *no* aquatic fossils. Then they go on to the preposterous claim that the quartzite didn't form there, but that it was carried from Oregon. Wow, you can explain away *anything* that doesn't fit with your theory like that, can't you? Do you know why they don't want quartzite to be present there? Because quartzite is metamorphic, and won't form in a flood.
Having one place where there's a few my erosion is incredibly small. That's actually very good preservation. They then pull a bit of disingenuity about the strata, focusing on segments that are eroded (which are irrelevant geologically) and ignoring the parts of beds that are present. You can't get any information from eroded beds. And I would challenge them to find any reputable geologist who agrees with their statement on these cases that there is "no evidence of erosion". They try to pretend that there is one for one case, but that quote is out of context, in that there *is* little erosion in the Columbia River region - only a very small part of the area is eroded, and that area is only missing a few my.
They then assume that bauxite was formed by some magical process not observed today, without even guessing at what it could be. They mention that Bauxite is sometimes formed in tropical environments, but leave out the other major way that it is formed. Which is.... wait for it... in *basaltic lava*! When it is, it's usually found near Latterite. And, hey, guess what???
Then, they ask real geologists to show them where erosion of the basalt has occurred. They show them a place, which makes them write, "Consequently, for now, the only evidence suggestive of long periods of time is the altered state of the subjacent basalt layer." Duh! What sort of evidence did you expect, to find a fossilized grass root system??
They then assert that the material isn't soil but some sort of wierd flood reaction, and assure us that they "sent it to the lab" (strange, they didn't list the results... ). They then state that soil should be occurring on top of every outcrop. Strange that they didn't ask the geologists why hehe
Their attempt to explain foldings in the basalt where it flowed down the sides of mountains can only be described as "cute". Small amounts of trapped lava leaking out at just the right time? Yeah, lava "leaks" Underwater, at that.
Their comment about "too much erosion" is preposterous. The area is mostly large sedimentary deposits between lava flows. Noone would expect to find *eroded boulders* in an area mostly made of sedimentary rock Note how no one was quoted, just a vague assertion
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by iceage, posted 09-11-2003 1:18 AM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by edge, posted 09-11-2003 11:20 PM Rei has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 5 of 30 (55037)
09-11-2003 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rei
09-11-2003 3:16 AM


Re: How silly
quote:
Thanks for taking on the role of the creationists
And thank you for dismantling the Woodmorappe/Oard article. Obviously, you have much more patience than I in reading this nonsense.
Though I scanned the article very lightly I was attracted to the argument that pillows are probably more abundant than they appear because of the size of the volcanic field and that only the outer periphery would develop pillows. And there was also the fact that you could only see them by looking up at the bottoms of the flows! After reading that, I found myself looking up from the floor alright!
I shudder to think what a YEC like True Creation might do with an article like this to regurgitate on these pages as the new gospel of YECism. I really think that no one under the age of 35 should be allowed to read this stuff.
[This message has been edited by edge, 09-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rei, posted 09-11-2003 3:16 AM Rei has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 6 of 30 (55478)
09-15-2003 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by iceage
09-11-2003 1:18 AM


Dear Friends,
The Young Earth creationist article about the Columbia River Group by John Woodmorappe (a pen name of Jan Peczkis) and Michael J. Oard, "Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, north-west USA," is a failed attempt at doing field geology, which involves numerous errors of fact and interpretation. The article can be found at:
Field Studies in the Columbia River Basalt, Northwest USA | Answers in Genesis
Unfortunately, because of the lack of time, it is impossible to document in any detail the misinformation, blatantly incorrect field observations and simplistic misinterpretations that occur in this article. However, I can take the time to illustrate a number of them. As I have suggested to a good friend of mine, maybe a detailed analysis of this article would make a good article for the Talk.Origins Archives or, even the Journal of Geoscience Education.
One example of a blatantly incorrect geological observation is illustrated when the article stated:
"At another location, Ginkgo Petrified
Forest State Park at Vantage, WA, we
observed many petrified logs. However,
the term 'petrified forest' is misleading
because none of the trees appeared to
stand in place as if in a forest."
Having visited Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park, I found the claim that "none of the trees appeared to stand in place as if in a forest" to be grossly incorrect. Having been there, I know that is quite true that a number of the logs were at various angles from horizontal to horizontal. However, I also saw a considerable number of in place, rooted stumps. They are protected from vandals and souvenir hunters by metal cages and clearly marked by metal signs that provide the names of the tree that make them quite visible to even the average tourist. In fact, as noted below, the stumps are even associated with a well-defined paleosol, which Woodmorappe and Oard and his associates also failed to find. In case of the Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park, as with other field observations, the field observations made by Woodmorappe and Oard about the "apparent" lack of in place stumps is obviously wrong even though these stumps are clearly marked and can be easily found by tourists visiting the park.
In addition, there are in situ petrified stumps present elsewhere within sedimentary deposits lying between some of the basalt lava flows of Columbia River Group. Some of these were discussed in:
Orsen, Mar J., 2003, Biostratigraphy of
the Columbia River Basalt Petrified Forests.
Session No. 226, The Columbia River Flood
Basalts: New Insights into the Volcanism,
Petrology, and Tectonism of a Large
Igneous Province: Dedicated to Peter
Hooper on His Retirement, Geological
Society of America Seattle Annual Meeting
(November 2-5, 2003).
http://gsa.confex.com/...3AM/finalprogram/abstract_59603.htm
In the above abstract, Orsen (2003),
"Three major petrified forests are recognized
on the basis of in situ stumps, forest litter,
soil horizons and abundance of logs. These
forests correspond to and help define temporal
lulls in flood basalt activity: Umtanum
Petrified Forest at the Umtanum unit/Sentinal
Bluffs unit of the Grande Ronde Basalt
(~15.6 mya); Ginkgo Petrified Forest at the
Vantage interbed/Ginkgo flow of the Wanapum
Basalt (~15.5-15.4 mya); and Saddle Mountains
Petrified Forest at the Roza flow/Priest
Rapids flow of the Wanapum Basalt (~14.5 mya)."
"Destroying intervals of 'geologic time'"
One telling remark in this section was,
"Nowhere did we observe anything resembling
a valley, or boulder bed, between successive
lava flows."
This remarkably incorrect observation also grossly misrepresents the stratigraphy of the Columbia River Group. The fact of matter, as mapped by real geologists, it contains several major unconformities, often including deeply cut valley systems filled with fluvial sediments and younger lava flows. The fact that Woodmorappe and Oard were unable to find them further illustrates the extremely superficial and careless nature of their "field study." The lack of any discussion in this article of such features documented in the abundant literature published on the Columbia River Group also shows either that they failed to completely research it for this article or simply filtered out the knowledge / observations that contradicted the case they were making in this article.
"Flood depositional history"
In this section, Woodmorappe and Oard completely contradicted their above claim about the lack of valleys and erosional conglomerates by discussing and illustrating examples of them. For example, in figure 9, they illustrated a "remnant of an intracanyon basalt flow, which trapped exotic quartzite and basalt boulders below it..." and in figure 10, they illustrated a picture of "thick boulder conglomerate near Lower Monument". They then contradicted themselves further by discussing "thick gravel deposits are frequently found between flows of the Columbia River basalts". Thus, in this article, the authors completely contradicted themselves by stating "The lava flows themselves consist of monotonously thick layers. Nowhere did we observe anything resembling a valley, or boulder bed, between successive lava flows." and later discussing and illustrating actual examples of such valleys and conglomerates. In this discussion of the conglomerates and entrenched valleys. Woodmorappe and Oard also incorrectly concluded that the valleys and conglomerates are limited to the upper part of the Columbia River Group. In fact, a competent review of the published literature would have clearly demonstrated that valleys cut into older lava flows and filled with fluvial sediments and younger lava flows occur throughout the Columbia River Group.
"Ancient 'weathered horizons' and 'fossil soils'"
Contrary to what Woodmorappe and Oard claimed, the bauxites and laterites are indeed buried ("fossil") soils and these and other "fossil" soils, called "paleosols" by geologists, have been found within the Columbia River Basalts / Groups. A paleosol is an ancient soil that formed in the relatively stable surface of an ancient landscape during the geologic past. Paleosols ("fossil soils") have distinctive and often unique, morphological features, i.e. root molds and traces, krotovina, soil horizions, soil peds, and cutans that were created from the alteration of the parent material, in which it has developed, by soil-forming processes. These features can be used to unequivocally identify any well-preserved paleosol. Two major implications of the presence of a paleosol is that either very little or no sediment accumulated during the period that it formed and the surface, in which it has developed, was dry land, except for very brief seasonal flooding during the time it formed. The presence of a paleosol is prime proof that the area was neither underwater nor being rapidly buried during the time it formed.
A paper that discusses ancient paleosols (fossil soils) and illustrates their characteristics is:
Therrien, F. O., and Fastovsky, D. E., 2000,
Paleoenvironments of Early Theropods, Chinle Formation
(Late Triassic), Petrified Forest National Park,
Arizona. Palaios, 2000, vol.. 15, pp. 194-211.
Page Not Found
If a person both knows what they are looking for and takes the time examine the outcrops with an open mind, he or she can find numerous examples of paleosols as discussed in examples 1, 2, and 3 given below.
Example 1, "Geology 101 Spring Field Trip"
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~meinert/Fieldtrip.html
"Stop #2 Lake Interbed This roadcut exposes an
ancient lake bed. The Columbia River basalt
flows did not all come out at once. The time
between individual flows ranged from days to
millions of years. Thus, for some flows there
was time for substantial erosion, development
of paleosols, river drainage, and lakes.
These features were then buried and preserved
by subsequent flows. The roadcut at this
stop exposes thinly bedded lake sediments
which have been preserved in between two
basalt flows. The shale and mudstone layers
contain numerous fossil fragments of fish
and leaves. Split open some of the mud layers;
you might be lucky enough to find a perfectly
preserved fossil."
Example 2. "F383 Global Climate Change 2002
Fall Meeting Cite abstracts as: Eos. Trans.
AGU, 83(47), GC61A MCC: 133 Saturday 0830h
Carbon Cycle and Climate: Past Present, and
Future I"
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm02/fm02-pdf/fm02_GC61A.pdf
"GC61A-05 0940h
Were CO2 levels and climate coupled
during the middle Miocene climatic
optimum?
Nathan Sheldon (541-346-5992)
Department of Geological Sciences,
1272 University of
Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403
The middle Miocene climatic optimum was
a transient warming event 16 Ma before present.
Recent workers have cited isotopic (Pearson
and Palmer, 2000, Nature 406:695) and
stomatal index (Royer et al., 2001, Science
292:2310) evidence to suggest that this
climatic warming occurred without a significant
increase in atmospheric pCO2 from near-modern
levels, and that CO2 levels were decoupled from
climatic change.
The Picture Gorge Subgroup, of the Columbia
River Flood Basalt in Oregon, preserves interflow
paleosols that record the climatic warming.
Because they formed in situ, the chemical
composition of the protolith is well-constrained.
As a result, it is possible to model weathering
of the basalt and soil formation under a variety
of atmospheric pCO2 conditions and to compare
those results with quantitative studies of the
actual paleosols."
...rest of abstract deleted...
The article also stated,
" Black and white photography does not do
justice to these 'weathered' surfaces. Consider
Figure 7. In color, the overlying basalt is
the usual gray-black, but the underlying
'laterite' layer, occurring below the grass-
covered basalt layer, is a bright, fire-truck
red. When broken by the hammer, the allegedly-
weathered basalt displays a somewhat-friable,
dull pink-orange texture."
Many of these layers have been studied in great detail by conventional geologists, and shown to have all of the characteristics, e.g. horizonization, ped morphology, root traces, and the presence of terrestrial gastropods, of paleosols. This evidence clearly refuted Woodmorappe's and Oard's contention that that these paleosols are layers created actually by hydrothermal reactions. In fact, they completely overlooked the fact that "palagonite-like products" can be created not only by high-temperature hydrothermal reactions by also weathering reactions involving ground water. Unlike features, such as horizonization, ped structures, which are unique to and diagnostic of fossil soils, the clay mineralogy fails to be either unique to or proof of, as is claimed it to be, hydrothermal alteration.
That many of the "Reddened clay-rich horizons between basalt flows" are indeed paleosols has been demonstrated by research such as:
Sheldon, Nathan D., PEDOGENESIS AND
GEOCHEMICAL ALTERATION OF COLUMBIA RIVER BASALT
LAVAS, Session No. 140 "Traces" of Soil Ecosystems
through the Phanerozoic: New Insights into
Terrestrial Paleoecology, Paleohydrology, and
Paleoclimate, GSA Annual Meeting, November
5-8, 2001 Boston, Massachusetts
http://gsa.confex.com/...1AM/finalprogram/abstract_22337.htm
http://gsa.confex.com/...2001AM/finalprogram/session_845.htm
In part, that abstract stated:
"Reddened clay-rich horizons between basalt
flows have historically been identified as
"baked zones" or as zones of lateral groundwater
movement. The reddening has been attributed to
thermal or chemical alteration of the permeable
portion of the basalt flow. However, many of
these zones are paleosols that record significant
hiatuses in basalt flow emplacement. Paleosols
were identified in the field on the basis of
features such as horizonation, ped morphology,
and root traces. A small number of terrestrial
gastropods were also found. ...."
The presence of well-developed paleosols within the basalt lava flows of the Columbia River Groups is documented by numerous publications, such as:
Geologic Map of the Scotts Mills, Silverton,
and Stayton Northeast 7.5 Minute Quadrangles,
Oregon By Terry L. Tolan and Marvin H. Beeson,
U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 99-141.
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of99-141/geol.txt
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of99-141/geol.ps.
"... The vesicular flow top of the Sentinel Bluffs
flow is often moderately to deeply weathered with
the glassy groundmass between vesicles altered to
clay. This decomposition often imparts a cream to
yellowish white bleached appearance to the
Sentinel Bluffs flow top and gives it the outward
appearance of a sedimentary rock. This relatively
severe weathering is the result of a substantially
longer period of exposure to subaerial weathering
(>200,000 years vs. 10,000 to 30,000 year hiatus
between emplacement of older Grande Ronde flows)
before being covered by the next CRBG flow
(Beeson and others, 1985, 1989; Beeson and Tolan,
1996)."This hiatus in CRBG volcanism permitted
soils to develop on Sentinel Bluffs flow tops and
rivers and streams to reestablish drainage systems
across areas inundated by Grande Ronde flows.
Within the map area, a thin (0.3 to >3 m-thick)
interbed overlies the Sentinel Bluffs flow. This
interbed ranges from a paleosol developed on the
Sentinel Bluffs flow top to fluvial volcaniclastic
and siliciclastic siltstones and sandstones. ..."
"Subaerial or subaqueous?"
Woodmorappe and Oard also failed to understand the different possible origins of the pillow lavas and palagonites. It is true that pillow lavas and palagonites can be found in the Columbia River Group. However, what Woodmorappe, Oard and the other "geologists" involved in this study seem to be completely unaware of the fact that pillow lava and palagonites will form when basaltic lava is either submerged under or flow into any body of water. Regardless of whether basaltic lava becomes submerged / flows into in a lake, an ocean, an estuary, or bay, the cooling of basaltic lava by water will create pillow lava and palagonites. The simple presence of pillow lava and palagonites in a package of strata cannot be used to infer the type of water body in which it formed.
Being denser than unconsolidated water-saturated sand and mud, basaltic lava will sometimes sink into them instead of flowing over them. The sinking of basaltic lava into a water-saturated sediment will also produce pillow lava and palagonites within the floodplain of a river without any standing body of water being present.
This is all discussed and documented in detail by:
Cas, R., and Wright, J., 1987, Volcanic
Sucessions: Modern and Ancient, Kluwer
Academic Publishers Group, 544 pp.
Because the lava flows blocked innumerable rivers and streams as they flow flowed across the Columbia Plateau, including canyon eroded into older lava flows during periods between eruptive episodes, large and deep lakes were created in front of the lava flows. As a result, there was plenty of opportunity for pillow lava and palagonites to form when lava flowed into these lakes. That such lakes existed is confirmed by the presence of fossiliferous freshwater lake deposits interbedded within the basalts of the Columbia River Group. Thus, minor beds of pillow basalt and palagonites,as found in the Columbia River Group, can easily be formed within nonmarine / non-Noachian Flood environments . In fact in figure 4 of the article by Woodmorappe and Oard, the change from subaqueous to subaerial environment, as a shallow lake was fill in by a lava flow, can be seen in the change from pillow lava to colonnade structure of the flow. This figure shows that, in this case the depth of water body, into which the flow entered, was quite shallow and nowhere as deep as the Noachian Flood this article postulated. Rather figure 4 shows the body of water that this flow entered was a very shallow body of water, even for many lakes.
Woodmorappe, Oard and their fellow associates also overlooked the fact that the pillow lava and palagonite comprise a relatively minor, almost insignificant amount of the Columbia River Group. They occur almost entirely as isolated beds within lavas that clearly cooled on dry land. In making their claims about the Columbia River Group, they ignore the fact that the bulk of the lava flows have the characteristic structure of basalt lava that cooled on dry land. This observation in itself refutes the thesis that the Columbia River Group accumulated underwater during a mythical Noachian Flood.
I could go on with many such examples of the rather inept scholarship and bogus observations to be found in this article. However, I have much better things to do with my time than bore people with the further details of an incredibly sloppy piece of alleged research, which is full of faulty observations, misinterpretations, and overlooks huge amounts of contrary evidence that has been documented in the published literature.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
Houston, TX
P.S. For more information about fossil soils, paleosols, a person can go look at: 1 Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the
Geologic Column: Three strikes against
Young Earth Creationism by Joe Meert at:
Paleosols
http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/paleosol.htm
2. Weathering mantles and the Age of the Earth
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sap.htm
The best book for understanding paleosols is:
Retallack, Greg J., 2001, Soils of the Past
Blackwell Publishers, 404pp
Pictures of various paleosols can be found at:
http://www.uoregon.edu/...i/retall/Paleoclasses/geol435.html
Other figures can be found at:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~dogsci/retall/soils.html
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 09-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by iceage, posted 09-11-2003 1:18 AM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by JonF, posted 09-15-2003 11:09 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 8 by Joe T, posted 09-15-2003 11:47 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 9 by edge, posted 09-15-2003 4:01 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 7 of 30 (55517)
09-15-2003 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bill Birkeland
09-15-2003 12:38 AM


maybe a detailed analysis of this article would make a good article for the Talk.Origins Archives
What you've posted is a darned good start. May I direct your attention to The Evolution Wiki, which is an excellent place to post articles that are incomplete but worth saving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bill Birkeland, posted 09-15-2003 12:38 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
Joe T
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


Message 8 of 30 (55523)
09-15-2003 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bill Birkeland
09-15-2003 12:38 AM


Not bored!!
Mr. Birkeland said:
quote:
I could go on with many such examples of the rather inept scholarship and bogus observations to be found in this article. However, I have much better things to do with my time than bore people with the further details of an incredibly sloppy piece of alleged research, which is full of faulty observations, misinterpretations, and overlooks huge amounts of contrary evidence that has been documented in the published literature.
I certainly understand if demands upon your time prevent you from further addressing this, but rest assured that at least one person (that would be me) is not in the least bored. Should you have further disposable time to finish the job, I would be greatly appreciative,
Joe T.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bill Birkeland, posted 09-15-2003 12:38 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 30 (55548)
09-15-2003 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bill Birkeland
09-15-2003 12:38 AM


quote:
The Young Earth creationist article about the Columbia River Group by John Woodmorappe (a pen name of Jan Peczkis) and Michael J. Oard, "Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, north-west USA," is a failed attempt at doing field geology, which involves numerous errors of fact and interpretation.
Maybe they ran short of adult beverages on their little excursions. I mean, it's not like they had to collect a lot of field data or anything. Thanks for the complete vaporization of this fiasco of an unprofessional paper. THe Woodmorappe/Oard article is an embarrassment to any professional scientist, regardless of field. I'm glad you took the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bill Birkeland, posted 09-15-2003 12:38 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Randy, posted 09-15-2003 4:13 PM edge has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 10 of 30 (55552)
09-15-2003 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by edge
09-15-2003 4:01 PM


So this is what passes as peer reviewed paper in creationist circles. It would be great if a full analysis of the nonsense in this paper could be put up somewhere just to show how bad YEC peer review is, especially since they claim that the only reason that work like this can't get published in real science journals is because of "evolutionist bias".
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by edge, posted 09-15-2003 4:01 PM edge has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 11 of 30 (55660)
09-16-2003 12:39 AM


quote:
Although we could not locate convincing field evidence for long periods of time, we realized we needed to be cautious. We did not want to be guilty of selecting evidence that supports a young-earth position and overlooking contrary evidence. For this reason, we asked local creationist geologists, very familiar with the geology of the area, to show us any apparent field evidence for ancient soils.
haha This made me laugh. They don't want to be accused of only looking at YEC *evidence* so they invite Creationists to lead them around. Sure, that makes perfect sense!
And then there's this one in the reference section:
quote:
26. Williams et al., An introduction to the geology of Verde Valley: a different perspective, CRSQ 36(2):86, 1999. Welded tuffs can also cool underwater without producing pillow structures.
Referencing:
quote:
Although pillow lavas clearly indicate underwater deposition, it cannot be overemphasized that lavas can be extruded subaqeously without producing pillow structures.26
I wasn't aware that tuffs EVER produced pillow structures... seeing as they are not exactly lava flows. Am I missing something?
I'm thinking their "field geology" consisted of visiting pre-selected roadside outcrops with a few observations from afar thrown in for good measure. Oh yeah, and purposely taking bad pictures.
Definitely an embarassment to good scientists - no wonder Woodmorappe uses a pen name, I'd be hesitant to put my real name on that paper, too.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Bill Birkeland, posted 09-16-2003 12:53 PM roxrkool has replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 12 of 30 (55770)
09-16-2003 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by roxrkool
09-16-2003 12:39 AM


09-15-2003 11:39 PM
roxrkool quoted from the paper by Jan Peczkis (under the pen name John Woodmorappe) and Michael J. Oard:
"Although pillow lavas clearly indicate
underwater deposition, it cannot be
overemphasized that lavas can be extruded
subaqeously without producing pillow
structures.26"
roxrkool also noted that footnote 26 referred to;
"26. Williams et al., An introduction to
the geology of Verde Valley: a different
perspective, CRSQ 36(2):86, 1999. Welded
tuffs can also cool underwater without
producing pillow structures."
roxrkool asked:
"I wasn't aware that tuffs EVER produced
pillow structures... seeing as they are
not exactly lava flows. Am I missing
something?"
You are not missing anything here. It is just another example of the incredible lack of understanding exhibited by many Young Earth creationists of basic geology. Apparently, neither Woodmorappe nor Oard understand the simple fact that ash-flow tuffs and basaltic lava flows are very different types of volcanic deposits. A lava flow consists of molten lava that has flowed across the land and cooled. In contrast, a fluidized mixture of very hot gas and ash, called pyroclastic flows, deposit ash flow-tuffs. An ash-flow tuff doesn't solidify as lava flows do. Rather, the ash is deposited as the gas escapes from the gas - ash mixture. In some cases, the ash is cool enough that it simply forms a bed of unwelded friable ash. If the ash is hot enough, it will be still plastic, but not molten, and will stick together, "weld", and deform under it's own weight. This welding occurs only within the lower half, which remains at maximum emplacement temperature the longest. The upper part remains unwelded, friable ash because the ash cools quickly. The base of an ash-flow tuff is often unwelded because contact with underlying soil or rock also cools it quickly. A pyroclastic flow is analogous to a duststorm, while a lava flow is analogous to a river. The mechanics of formation of lava flows and ash-flow tuffs so different that it is rather foolish, if not completely silly, for anyone to use one to interpret the environment of accumulation for the other.
A starting reference about ash-flow tuffs is:
Ross, C. S., and Smith, R. L., 1961, Ash-flow
Tuffs: Their Origin, Geologic Relations and
Identification, Professional Paper no. 366,
United States Geological Survey, Reston,
Virgina.
The claim that basaltic lava flows can cool underwater and create the internal features exhibited by the Columbia River Basalts is unsubstantiated by either any real world observations or any detailed theoretical model. It can only be characterize as desperate wishful thinking on the part of some Young Earth creationists that lacks any scientific basis. A person can see the various characteristics of Columbia River basalts in the pdf file "Appendix A Examples of Columbia River Basalt Group Flow Features" at:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/...s/asc98FT30602%20appendix%20A.pdf
The source of the above PDF file is:
Richland, WA, 2002, Natural Gas Storage
in Basalt Aquifers of the Columbia Basin,
Pacific Northwest USA: A Guide to Site
Characterization,. Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
It can be found at:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/...mission/ngs/asc/asc98FT30602.html
(NOTE: Numerous maps showing the distribution of individual flow units within the Columbia River Group can be found in "Identification of Columbia River Basalt Group Flows", which is part of the above report and available at:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/...s/asc98FT30602%20appendix%20G.pdf )
The entablature, colonnade, and rubbly or vesicular flow tops zones shown in "Appendix A Examples of Columbia River Basalt Group Flow Features" are features that can only form above water given the very different mechanical and chemical processes involved in the cooling of molten lava on dry land and under water. In addition, figure A.8 shows an underwater to above water transition within a Columbia River lava flow that occurred when the shallow body of water, into which the lava flowed, was filled by lava and the remaining part of the lava flow cooled above water level.
An excellent reference to look at for an understanding of lava flows, ash flow tuffs, and other volcanic deposits is:
Cas, R., and Wright, J., 1987, Volcanic
Sucessions: Modern and Ancient, Kluwer
Academic Publishers Group, 544 pp.,
ISBN: 0412446405
A detailed explanation of how these features are created can be found in "Northwest Geology: Inside a Basalt Flow" by Stephen Reidel at:
http://www.pnl.gov/agg/whatsnew/CRBcolumns.doc
Other web pages are:
Columbia River Basalt
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/columbia/basalt.htm
[PDF]Microsoft PowerPoint - Lecturer 4
Volcanic Structures
http://www.geo.umass.edu/...%204%20Volcanic%20Structures.pdf
roxrkool commented:
"Definitely an embarrassment to good scientists
- no wonder Woodmorappe uses a pen name, I'd
be hesitant to put my real name on that paper,
too."
I don't believe it is a matter of embarrassment as she is quite proud of all of the papers that she [he :-)] has published as John Woodmorappe. One unproven hypothesis about why she uses a pen name is that she, under her real name, has published papers that accept both evolutionary and an ancient Earth as the truth and she doesn't want to have to explain why in one set of papers she accepts evolution and an ancient Earth and other papers express an anti-evolutionary, anti-ancient Earth, and anti-geology agenda. Other people have hypothesized that she fears losing her job as an Illinois high school science teacher. This is suggested by the emphasis given in the article that she has written justifying the use of pen names to the phrase "or to keep separate their vocation and avocation" in Pseudonyms: A Long, Honorable Tradition" by John Woodmorappe, MA Geology, BA Geology" at
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_01.asp
There is nothing unethical about using "John Woodmorappe" as a pen name. The unethical practice here is the policy of an alleged peer-reviewed scientific journal to accept articles written by authors using pen names. It is quite unscientific for any journal to publish articles where the author uses a pen name instead of his real name. If a journal is truly promoting science and trust, it would only accept those articles, in which the authors were willing to use their real names.
Look for "John Woodmorappe" in the "The Anti-Evolutionists" web page at
Coming soon page | Register your own domain at GKG.NET
and on p. 88 of
Tom McIve, 1988, Anti-Evolution: A Reader's
Guide to Writings before and after Darwin.
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
Maryland, 408 pp. ISBN: 0801845203
If a person wants to learn more about the "John Woodmorappe" controversy, they can go search USENET posts posted to the talk.origins newsgroup using the "Googles Advanced Group Search" at:
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
A person should use the keywords "Peczkis" and "Woodmorappe" for the search.
Any more discussion of the use of the "John Woodmorappe" as a pen name should be done in a separate thread.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 09-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by roxrkool, posted 09-16-2003 12:39 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by roxrkool, posted 09-17-2003 1:37 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 15 by Randy, posted 09-17-2003 11:52 AM Bill Birkeland has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 30 (55902)
09-16-2003 10:09 PM


Hmm, no comments by our resident YECs? It would seem that an article like this would be right up True Creation's alley...

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 09-17-2003 5:13 PM edge has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 14 of 30 (55928)
09-17-2003 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Bill Birkeland
09-16-2003 12:53 PM


Bill,
Thanks! As always, a complete answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Bill Birkeland, posted 09-16-2003 12:53 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 15 of 30 (56041)
09-17-2003 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Bill Birkeland
09-16-2003 12:53 PM


Jan Peczkis is male.
Here is Woodmorappe writing about Peczkis referring to him with the male pronoun and Woodmorappe should know since he is Peczkis.
Do you find this a bit surreal?
Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of God
Woodmorappe also references papers by Peczkis in Noah's Ark a Feasibility Study. Welcome to the bizzaro world of YEC.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Bill Birkeland, posted 09-16-2003 12:53 PM Bill Birkeland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by roxrkool, posted 09-17-2003 1:18 PM Randy has not replied
 Message 19 by Bill Birkeland, posted 09-18-2003 12:00 PM Randy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024