09-17-2003 10:52 AM and message 15, Randy asked,
"Do you find this a bit surreal?"
Getting back on topic, a surreal aspect of "Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, north-west USA", by "John Woodmorappe" and Michael J. Oard, and published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 103-110, was pointed out to me by someone interested in eventually writing a formal Talk.Origins FAQ on it.
This item occurs in "Subaerial or subaqueous?", in which Woodmorappe and Oard wrote:
"There are a variety of additional evidences,
which indicate that most, if not all, of the
Columbia River basalts were extruded underwater.
These include marine fossils (such as sponge
spicules, diatoms, and dinoflagellates)
between lava flows, and numerous areas of
well-rounded, exotic quartzite gravel,
cobbles, and boulders locally interbedded
with the flows (but mostly lying above the
basalt).27-29."
The footnoted references are:
"27. Barnett, J. and Fisk, L.H., Palynology
and paleoecology of a sedimentary interbed in
the Yakima Basalt (Miocene), Palouse Falls,
Washington, (4):259-278, 1980. Northwest
Science 54"
"28. Coffin, H.G., Columbia River basalts:
rapid submarine deposition (unpublished
manuscript), 1996; (cited with permission
of the author).", and
"29. , Where is the Flood/post-Flood
boundary in the rock record,
(2):267-273, 1996. Oard, M.J.
CEN Tech. J. 10"
NOTE: the complete reference to Oard (1996) is:
Oard, M. J., 1996, Where is the Flood/
post-Flood boundary in the rock record.
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal.
vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 267-273.
Reading Barnett's and Fisk's "Palynology and paleoecology of a sedimentary interbed in the Yakima Basalt (Miocene), Palouse Falls, Washington" article was a surreal and revealing experience. Woodmorappe and Oard cited it in the footnotes along with Oard's and Coffin's research, as if Barnett's and Fisk's paper also presented evidence for the accumulation of the Columbia River Basalt Group on the ocean bottom in a marine environment, which they argued was associated with the Noachian Flood.
A friend sent me a copy of Barnett's and Fisk's paper that he had gotten from the local research library for his purposes with the comment that I had to read this paper to believe it. He found a surreal contrast between Barnett's and Fisk's conclusions and the arguments being made by Woodmorappe and Oard in of "Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, north-west USA" because their conclusions were so different. Barnett and Fisk (1980) did find "diatoms, and dinoflagellates". However, they were freshwater diatoms, and dinoflagellates. In addition to these fossils, Barnett and Fisk found freshwater aquatic plants and freshwater alga, Pediastrum, which Woodmorappe and Oard apparently didn't see fit to inform their readers about. In short, Barnett and Fisk found freshwater alga, aquatic plants, diatoms, and dinoflagellates, which in terms of specific genera and species present, instead of supporting Woodmorappe's and Oard's ideas about the Columbia River Basalt group accumulating under deep, marine water, refuted them. It is rather surreal that a study, which contradicted their hypothesis, should be cited as if it supported it.
In short, Barnett and Fisk concluded:
The Palouse Falls palynoflora reflects reasonably
well the regional climatic conditions as evidence
by the related floras of the Columbia Plateau.
The presence of planktonic forms, aquatic
macrophytes, and marsh plants indicates that
deposition of the sediments took place in a body
of water, probably a pond or lake. This
interpretation is supported by the presence of
abundant diatoms. The general decrease in aquatic
plants and increase in forest elements upward in
the section suggest a shallowing or infilling of
the pond or lake, perhaps due to increased
volcanic activity and erosion of ash from the
surrounding region. Supporting this view is the
presence of thin bands of lignite near the top
of the section, with a 1-10 cm coal layer just
underlying the capping basalt."
Thus, the paper by Barnett and Fisk failed to provide any evidence of marine fossils. Instead, their paper discussed freshwater palynomorphs from either a pond or small freshwater lake with 25 to 30 cm (10 to 12 inches) of sediment at its bottom when it was buried by a lava flow. It is quite surreal that their paper clearly contradicted the argument being made by Woodmorappe and Oard instead of supporting it and, still, Woodmorappe and Oard cited it as if this paper supports their arguments. It is totally surreal that people, for which English is their native language, were incapable of conprehending the fact that Barnett and Fisk are discussing freshwater fossils instead of marine fossils.
Being unpublished, Dr. Harold Coffin's paper is unavailable for review and comment. Thus, it hardly serves as proof of anything. As pointed out by the same person, Coffin, in his book "Origin by Design" concluded that the presence of pillow lava and "pelagonite", diatomaceous earth, and acritarchs indicates that the Columbia River Basalt Group were extruded subaqueously during the Noachian Flood. However, as noted in previous discussions, the occurrence of of pillow lava and "pelagonite also form in lakes. Thus, they aren't diagnostic of deep sea / marine environments as Dr. Coffin erroneously believed. As in case of pillow basalt and "pelagonite", Dr. Coffin apparent didn't know that diatomaceous earth can also accumulate within shallow freshwater lakes and, thus, useless without a detailed analysis of the genera and species of diatoms present within them as evidence of marine or deep water conditions. Finally, acritarchs are ""an informal utilitarian, 'catch-all' category without status as a class, order or other supragenieric unit" comprised of "small microfossils of unknown and probably varied biological affinities..." As a result, the presumption made by Coffin in "Origin by Design" that acritarchs are marine dinoflagellates is an invalid assumption. Also, the simple presence of unidentified acritarchs, because of their varied biological affinities and environmental preferences cannot be used to make any inferences as Coffin did about the depositional environments of the sediments in which they occur without knowing the specific genera and species involved. In addition, the paper, cited by "Origin by Design" as documenting the acritarchs, described a completely freshwater and swampy flora of palynomorphs that completely refuted Dr. Coffin's conclusions. However, this did not stop Dr. Coffin from citing that paper as if it supported his interpretation. Like Woodmorappe and Oard, Dr. Coffin neglected to inform his readers, sparing them from the angst of being confused by facts contradicting his arguments, of the freshwater, even swampy, nature of the palynomorphs discussed in the cited paper. If Coffin's unpublished paper uses the same sort of simplistic, faulty, and surreal logic as found in "Origin by Design," then there is serious question as to if it actually offered any real evidence for the deep sea - Noachian Flood accumulation of the Columbia River Basalt Group. If Woodmorappe and Oard want to use it in their arguments, they definitely need to make a copy of Coffin's unpublished paper available for review.
Oard's paper has been requested by interlibrary loan by other interested parties. Eventually, someone will get into looking into the validity of evidence offered by that paper.
Finally, sponges are found in both freshwater lakes and marine environments. Thus, the presence of sponge spicules in sediments within the Columbia River Basalt Group cannot be used to argue that it accumulated within deep water.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 09-18-2003]
™ Version 4.2
