Exclusive Engagement: Flood Geology versus The Volcano ("Mainstream" Geology); DH and MPSS

[Mike PSS]

First some pictures.



Volcanism is a wonderful process. It pollutes the air, destroys the surrounding countryside and doesn't take shit from Al Gore.

But in the geologic sense, volcanism provides one of the constructive processes for land formation. Volcanism and plate tectonics go together like a hammer and nail. There are also many other geologic associations that are revealed when we understand volcanisms impact upon local, regional, and global geology. Volcanism is so widespread and impactful upon the earth that the experts even named a rock type (igneous) after its spew. Then there's the ash and whether it's airborne (tephra) or on the ground (lahar).

Here's a whole glossery of volcano terms from the USGS.

So what does all this volcano stuff have to do with "Flood Geology"?

Well, there are two main items related to volcano's within "Mainstream" Geology I can think of that, if the "Flood Geologist" examined in detail and understood would cause any him/her/it to give up their ideas that the Global Flood of Noah ever took place.

The first item relates to Stratigraphy, or how volcanic sediments (magma/ash/lahar) can be analysed within the geographic column to determine a temporal placement of a volcanic event and its extent. This also reveals clues on related events in the geologic column that are stradled by volcanic layers.

The second item I mentioned already and that is Plate tectonics. Volcanism could be considered part of the circulatory system within Plate tectonics. Let's call volcanism the capillaries of the Plate tectonic circulatory system. Geographically volcanoes are also markers of plate boundries depending upon what a plate is doing or has done in the past. The Pacific Ring of Fire is a modern day marker that associates volcanic activity with tectonic plate activity.

Now, "Mainstream" Geology is more than just volcanos. Volcanology is only one of the Fields of Study within Geology. Wiki lists 31 fields of study, of which I'm sure there are more but we'll start easy.

Fields or related disciplines of Geology

Earth science
*Economic geology
-Mining geology
-Petroleum geology

*Engineering geology
*Environmental geology
*Geoarchaeology
*Geochemistry
-Biogeochemistry
-Isotope geochemistry

*Geochronology
*Geodetics
*Geography
*Geological modelling
*Geomicrobiology
*Geomorphology
*Geomythology
*Geophysics
*Glaciology
*Historical geology
*Hydrogeology or geohydrology
*Mineralogy
*Oceanography
-Marine geology

*Paleoclimatology
*Paleontology
-Micropaleontology
-Palynology

*Petrology
*Petrophysics
*Plate tectonics
*Sedimentology
*Seismology
*Soil science
-Pedology (soil study)

*Speleology
*Stratigraphy
-Biostratigraphy
-Chronostratigraphy
-Lithostratigraphy

*Structural geology
*Volcanology

I feel that with only three (3) of these fields mentioned; volcanology, stratigraphy and Plate tectonics; I can discredit any notion of a Global Flood of Noah at any time in the past. Especially the claim that such flood took place upon this earth ~4500 ±500 ybp.

First some evidence from stratigraphy. I'll start with the island of Japan, and some guys who went out and dug holes in peat and mud.

Who knew you could make a career out of doing that?

Estimation of eruptive ages of the late Pleistocene tephra layers
derived from Daisen and Sambe Volcanoes based on AMS -14C dating
of the moor sediments at Ohnuma Moor in the Chugoku Mountains,
Western Japan

We have taken five sediment cores drilled at
Ohnuma Moor in 2002 and 2003 to determine late
Pleistocene paleoenvironmental changes in and
around the moor. In the five cores, we have newly
recognized two volcanic ash layers as well as K-Ah,
MsP, Sh, and AT. In the present paper, we describe
the stratigraphic positions, lithology, and
petrographic properties of the two ash beds and
correlate them with the Daisen Nise-hoki Volcanic
Ash Beds (Nh: Okada and Tanimoto, 1986) and the
upper fall unit of the Sambe Ukinuno Pumice Beds
(SUk: Machida and Arai, 1992), the latter of which
is also ascribed to the Sakate Volcanic Ash Beds
(Sakate: Yoshikawa et al., 1986) previously known
as a widespread tephra layer in the northern and
central Kinki District, western Japan (Machida and
Arai, 1992). We also determine the eruption ages of
the five tephra layers except for K-Ah on the basis
of the 28 available Accelerate Mass Spectrometric
14C (AMS-14C) dates obtained from the core
sediments at Ohnuma Moor.

This one paper is a good cross-section of what can be discovered with analysis of volcanos. Tephra layers that cross-correlate with other cores from other geographies. Stratigraphic placement of layers from across geographic areas. Placement of tephra layers to actual volcanic eruptions. Age determinations of sediments in and around the tephra. And on, and on, and on.

I don't expect the "Flood Geologist" to accept some of these findings in this or other papers. But all of these results are firmly based upon practices in all the fields of geology.

So, after evidence, I have one question for the "Flood Geologist". Please describe those sections or areas of this paper that are in error and provide at least a resonable explanation of why this error occurred. I don't need a counter-point (yet), just a clear understanding of the areas of contention within this published article. We can start from there.

The "Mainstream" Geologist
Mike PSS
Merda taurorum animas conturbit

[BWE]

Mod Note:
Mike PSS created this as an EE thread and, until Mike PSS acts in bad faith regarding the conditions of EE threads, outside posts will be merged into the peanut gallery.
-BWE

[Mike PSS]

Dave,
I've reread my OP a few times and have come to the conclusion that I should have written so much more stuff. I'm now getting pins and needles to write more about volcanism and geology.

At the present I'm kind of following your suggestion I read in a previous discussion where you said you would like alternative posts. I like that format only so far as we have limited questions and answers and can follow the personal debate more easily.

However, since my OP has only scratched the surface of the subject involved I wish you would post soon so that I can expand on what is there.

I'll make a suggestion. If we do find we have a need to post out of turn then limit the post to supporting information of the immediate prior post, and leave out any questions or comments. That way we won't clutter the debate flow but can improve our posts position w.r.t. the most recent questions at hand.

Deal?

MikePSS

[Dave Hawkins]

The basic error in these papers you have presented is in the assumptions involved in radiometric dating of the layers. These errors have been discussed at length by other creationists. I suppose we could discuss them here too, but I was hoping for a discussion more about the structure of the strata.

I am interested in volcanism and I think a candid study of volcanism shows that there was indeed a period (only one period) of massive but declining volcanism in geologically recent times. This correlates well with the Biblical record of Noah's Flood.

Austin writes about this volcanism ...



Austin's idea makes sense to me, a non-professional ... think about it ... the earth's crust basically rips apart because of pressure build up under the crust and massive mayhem ensues. Volcanoes are churning stuff out like there's no tomorrow ... then as pressure is relieved, the adjustments in the crust get smaller and smaller.

[This graphic comes from the latest "Answers" magazine issue (Oct-Dec 2008, p. 73) from AiG.]

BTW ... India's Deccan Plateau was volcanic in origin also and Argentina, South Africa and Brazil have similar plateaus.

Lyell's principle of "the present is the key to the past" seems wholly inadequate to explain any of this massive volcanism but a massive, recent catastrophe such as that describe in the Bible does.

Austin and Hoesch have another paper which describes these super volcanoes in more detail. Here's their summary and a link to the paper ...

Summary

Supervolcanoes on a scale unlike any in recorded human history once shook western North America. The gigantic Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation stands as mute testimony of this violence. Three observations, including super-cracks, super-deposits, and widespread soft-sediment deformation, suggest a violent rending of fissure vents in the Sierra region that was the source for the Brushy Basin ash. The same watery catastrophe that buried dinosaurs in Utah was accompanied by super-size volcanism from sources in the west. The record is best interpreted in durations of days or weeks, not millions of years. The Genesis Flood provides the historical framework used to understand supervolcanoes.
http://www.icr.org/articles/print/2830/

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

The basic error in these papers you have presented is in the assumptions involved in radiometric dating of the layers. These errors have been discussed at length by other creationists. I suppose we could discuss them here too, but I was hoping for a discussion more about the structure of the strata.

OK Dave, that's a start. You disagree with the proposed ages of material tested by radiocarbon (only 14-C dating is mentioned in this paper) dating.
However, as you noticed the paper (singular, not plural) I presented, found here, not only has radiocarbon dates but also core samples and analysis of the core samples.

Starting on .pdf Page 3 we have "Lithology and Stratigraphy of the Core Sediments" and this discussion and analysis of the core strata continues through .pdf Page 7.

Would you agree that the analysis of these core samples is valid? Or do you take issue with the results of this analysis (like the rock type, placement of layers, association of layers between cores, etc.).

Also, would you agree that the 14C testing shows a clear relationship between depth of sample and strength of 14C measurement? You may not agree with the ages presented, but do you then deny the method of testing to derive the 14C/12C ratio? Or, is it clearly apparent to you that a direct relationship is found between the depth of the sample taken and the corresponding 14C/12C ratio (see .pdf Page 8 for the 14C measurement table and .pdf Page 16 for a pretty graph showing this relationship).

I am interested in volcanism and I think a candid study of volcanism shows that there was indeed a period (only one period) of massive but declining volcanism in geologically recent times. This correlates well with the Biblical record of Noah's Flood.

How Dave? How does it correlate with respect to the paper I presented? The layers mentioned in the core samples are all seperate and distinct eruptions seperated by sedimentary deposits. And all the layers can be associated with different volcanic events on different parts of the Island of Japan.

Do these tephra layers in the paper represent the "one period" of volcanism you claim? Or are they part of the "declining volcanism" in recent times? How does one distinguish this difference?

Austin writes about this volcanism ...



Austin's idea makes sense to me, a non-professional ... think about it ... the earth's crust basically rips apart because of pressure build up under the crust and massive mayhem ensues. Volcanoes are churning stuff out like there's no tomorrow ... then as pressure is relieved, the adjustments in the crust get smaller and smaller.

Can you associate this global claim with the paper presented please? How does the Island of Japan, and the core samples taken, associate with the global catastrophe you have mentioned?

BTW ... India's Deccan Plateau was volcanic in origin also and Argentina, South Africa and Brazil have similar plateaus.

Don't forget Siberian Traps. There are many other Large igneous provinces upon the earth. What does this have to do with core samples in Japan? Or your claim about a Global Flood? Is there some link between these, please elaborate.

Lyell's principle of "the present is the key to the past" seems wholly inadequate to explain any of this massive volcanism but a massive, recent catastrophe such as that describe in the Bible does.

I'm not quoting Lyell, or using Lyell's books or references. Why do you make a counter-claim about Lyell? I didn't bring him up.

Austin and Hoesch have another paper which describes these super volcanoes in more detail. Here's their summary and a link to the paper ...

Dave,
I changed your link tag to the mentioned original paper from ICR's Impact series (Impact #398). Your tag was actually a print request on the article. Sneaky, Sneaky

Dave,
I read that paper and it can be broken down into the following structure.
Introduction/Claim; "Did Brushy Basin member ash originate in the Sierra Nevada?"
Background Information; "Three styles of explosive volcanoes and examples."
Specific Description; "Geographic and Geologic description of Brushy Basin deposit."
Discussion of Claim; "Discussing Three reasons to claim that Brushy Basin deposit had its origin in the Sierra Nevada"
Summary/Conclusion; "Support of original claim." EXCEPT...

in the Summary Austin and Hoesch make the following statement....

...The record is best interpreted in durations of days or weeks, not millions of years. The Genesis Flood provides the historical framework used to understand supervolcanoes.

NOWHERE IN THAT PAPER, EXCEPT IN THE CONCLUSION, DO AUSTIN OR HOESCH HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT TIMING OF THE EVENT OR LINKS TO THE SUPPOSED GENESIS FLOOD FRAMEWORK. HOW CAN THEY CONCLUDE THIS SUPPOSED LINK WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION OR EXPLANATION?

Dave, can you please elucidate for me HOW these supervolcanoe eruptions, or even the core samples taken in Japan, can be best interpreted in a Genesis Flood historical framework.

I guess first I would like to know some details about the Genesis Flood historical framework.

Finally, I have some more volcanic information. And that is called Tephrochronology. That means a chronological sequence of events can be derived from analysis of the occurance of tephra layers within geologic strata. The USGS has published techniques on how they utilize tephrochronology in their studies.

Tephra layers are collected at critical locations where age control is required. The physical characteristics of tephra components are described (mineralogy, glass shard morphology, and the presence and nature of other components), and the volcanic glass is separated from the tephra and analyzed by one or more chemical techniques to determine a compositional fingerprint. This fingerprint is compared by computer matching programs with our database of over 4500 analyses of previously-analyzed samples, and the best matches are identified and form a pool of candidates for correlative samples. These are evaluated in terms of petrographic, stratigraphic, and chronologic criteria to select the best matches. These procedures allow us to correlate tephra layers at critical sites to other localities where the same tephra layers are present, and often to sites where the age of the layers has been previously determined by one or more numerical dating methods (e.g., 14C, 40Ar/39Ar). New tephra layers are analyzed and dates at those sites where the best materials for dating can be obtained. The results of our tephrochronologic research are combined with other chronostratigraphic data (e.g., magnetostratigraphy, oxygen isotope chronostratigraphy, stratigraphic sequence information) to develop a four-dimensional spatial and temporal chronostratigraphic framework for late Neogene sediments and rocks in the western U.S. and the Pacific margin.

That last bolded bit deserves repeating....
"A four-dimensional spatial and temporal chronostratigraphic framework."

That's a mouthfull. But it certainly sounds important. And it is important because this framework is put together by combining the results of chemical, radioisotopic, magnetic, and geologic data into a correlated comprehensive picture of the sampled tephra.

Pretty neat. And these techniques are being used all the time to establish correlations between regional strata in different areas of Japan.

http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/articl...03A0248670.php
New evidence for correlation of three key tephra layers in the Quaternary strata between the Yokohama district and the Boso Peninsula, central Japan is provided. Strong coincidence of petrographic and chemical characteristics of tephra layers clearly demonstrates that the Sg3 tephra layer in the Ofuna Formation and the Sg2 and Sg3 tephra layers in the Koshiba Formation in the Yokohama district can be correlated with the Kd38, Kd25 and Kd24 key tephra layers in the Kiwada Formation in the Boso Peninsula, respectively. Biostratigraphic datums of calcareous planktons in the Ofuna-Koshiba Formations also support this result. Our study indicates that previous correlation of the Quaternary strata between the Yokohama district and the Boso Peninsula should be re-considered and detailed chronological studies of them will be needed in order to reconstruct basin evolution around the Kanto region during the Quaternary. (author abst.)

And on and on and on....

[Mike PSS]

I brought up Tephrachronology but would like to add some information of interest to this point in relation to the Japanese tephra's.

How do the Japanese independently date these eruptions? Why, with written and archeological evidence.

Writing in Japan was introduced in the 4th Century AD from China. So written records of events after that could mention volcanic activity. Japanese scientists have studied this in detail to analyze written accounts and correlate these accounts with volcanic events.
Homepage of the working group on historical volcanology based on ancient-modern literature in Japan

...established in October 1994 and dissolved in September 1997...
The WGHVJ aimed to collect, decode, analyze, and interpret historical documents, which were written mainly with the classical Japanese language and include descriptions about volcanic activities.

This working group went on to identify many eruptions through written records.

This list of eruptions in Japan shows that for the past 2000 years many eruptions can be assigned a specific day/month/year date because of literature.
Catalog of volcanic eruptions during the past 2000 years in Japan - TEXT DESCRIPTION
Catalog of the eruptions for the past 2000 years in Japan - TABLE

Originally Posted by Sample of the list...

M Year.MonthDate Volcano Dating method

3.3 837 Kirishima Literature
2.3 830 Fuji Stratigraphy
3.4 822 Oshima (Izu) Stratigraphy
3.0 806 Bandai Literature
2.4 800.0411J Fuji Literature
4.6 788.0414J Kirishima Literature
4.5 771 Beppu.Tsurumi Literature
766 Aira.Sakurajima Literature
4.3 764.01 Aira.Sakurajima Literature
3.7 742 Kirishima Literature
2.3 720 Fuji Stratigraphy
4.4 713 Oshima (Izu) Stratigraphy
3.4 700 Kirishima Stratigraphy
3.6 700 Kikai Stratigraphy
4.3 700 Zao Stratigraphy
3.4 700 Oshima (Izu) Stratigraphy
4.3 684.1126J Kozushima Nihon Shoki
4.3 675 Oshima (Izu) Stratigraphy
4.3 650 Oshima (Izu) Stratigraphy
3.6 625 Oshima (Izu) Stratigraphy
4.2 600 Oshima (Izu) Stratigraphy
3.4 575 Oshima (Izu) Stratigraphy
3.9 550 Oshima (Izu) Stratigraphy
4.9 540 Haruna Archaeology
4.1 540 Rausu (Shiretoko) Radiocarbon
3.3 530 Fuji Stratigraphy
3.6 520 Fuji Stratigraphy
4.8 510 Haruna Archaeology
3.0 500 Oshima (Izu) Stratigraphy
2.5 500 Miyakejima Stratigraphy
3.6 500 Kikai Stratigraphy
4.4 500 Aso Radiocarbon
3.3 470 Fuji Stratigraphy
4.6 420 Ata.Kaimon Archaeology

Notice from this list that we have four different ways to measure an event. So any time a researcher digs a hole in Japan he/she/it has a ready reference to the tephra layers found and how they were derived and how they relate to one another.

If I remove the Radiocarbon derived dates from this list I'm still left with a comprehensive list of eruptions derived through written records, archaeological digs, or stratigraphic placements. All of these types of chronological dating utilize methods not associated with radiocarbon testing.

And that is only a list for the last 2,000 years.

A quick Google brings me this page....
HAYAKAWA's ONE MILLION-YEAR TEPHRA DATABASE
From Here...
Hayakawa Paleovolcanology Laboratory

I'll have to spend a little more time absorbing that database.
But needless to say, there exists a llllllllllaaaaaarrrrrrrggggggeee amount of data about Japanese Volcanic activity.

[Dave Hawkins]

Don't expect a response in 1 day. I need to read the original paper you cited.

[Mike PSS]

I am holding my tongue and will not succumb to an obvious retort.

Post when your able.

*****mmmmmmmmmpppphhhhh*****

[Dave Hawkins]

OK, Mike I read a good portion of your paper. The first question I have is ... Why the discrepancy between depths and ages between these two papers ... http://hitohaku.jp/research_collecti...pdf/p29-50.pdf (yours) and the Lake Suigetsu paper we all discussed a while back ... https://digitalcommons.library.arizo..._371_378_v.pdf. One involves a moor which is a shallow lake and the other involves a lake (presumably not as shallow) but besides this difference, the examples seem to be pretty similar. Anyway, the interesting thing is that in Lake Suigetsu, the 10 meter depth corresponds to ~7000 Ybp whereas in the the Ohnuma Moor, 10 meters corresponds to >30,000 ybp. Why the radical difference? Do you see why I find these date interpretations suspect?

You asked

Do you agree that the analysis of these core samples is valid? Or do you take issue with the results of this analysis (like the rock type, placement of layers, association of layers between cores, etc.).

Answer is yes, I agree with all this. I just disagree with the interpretation of the C14 concentrations.

Also, would you agree that the 14C testing shows a clear relationship between depth of sample and strength of 14C measurement? You may not agree with the ages presented, but do you then deny the method of testing to derive the 14C/12C ratio? Or, is it clearly apparent to you that a direct relationship is found between the depth of the sample taken and the corresponding 14C/12C ratio (see .pdf Page 8 for the 14C measurement table and .pdf Page 16 for a pretty graph showing this relationship).

Again, I agree that labs are able to detect C14 concentrations reliably. I just disagree with the age assignments interpreted from this. As you know, these age determinations are based upon a steady state C14 ratio assumption, which, if there was a global cataclysm, would certainly not have held true.

How Dave? How does it correlate with respect to the paper I presented? The layers mentioned in the core samples are all seperate and distinct eruptions seperated by sedimentary deposits. And all the layers can be associated with different volcanic events on different parts of the Island of Japan.

Do these tephra layers in the paper represent the "one period" of volcanism you claim? Or are they part of the "declining volcanism" in recent times? How does one distinguish this difference?

The scenario described by Austin and Hoesch correlates well with the Biblical record because a catastrophic bursting of the fountains of the deep is implied by the Biblical text. So on the one hand, we have an ancient text relating a story of the earth basically ripping it's crust open and on the other hand we have a record in the rocks of exactly that also: giant rips in the earth's crust which belched out all manner of lava and ash (and probably water) followed by lesser and lesser similar episodes. These two lines of evidence are not easily dismissed.

How do you interpret this evidence and why? When in geologic time do you think think the 5 eruptions shown in Austin graphic occurred and why do you date them so?

[Mike PSS]

FINISHED

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

OK, Mike I read a good portion of your paper. The first question I have is ... Why the discrepancy between depths and ages between these two papers ... http://hitohaku.jp/research_collecti...pdf/p29-50.pdf (yours) and the Lake Suigetsu paper we all discussed a while back ... https://digitalcommons.library.arizo..._371_378_v.pdf. One involves a moor which is a shallow lake and the other involves a lake (presumably not as shallow) but besides this difference, the examples seem to be pretty similar. Anyway, the interesting thing is that in Lake Suigetsu, the 10 meter depth corresponds to ~7000 Ybp whereas in the the Ohnuma Moor, 10 meters corresponds to >30,000 ybp. Why the radical difference? Do you see why I find these date interpretations suspect?

Dave,
The RATE of deposition of sediment in a basin is independent due to many factors. The fact that two seperate bodies of water could have two seperate rates of deposition is no surprise. In fact in Lake Suigetsu the scientists have determined that the rate of sedimentation has changed in the past.

A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE

As shown in Figure 1 the sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial).

Don't look at the rate, but look at the layers. My post coverring tephrachronology started to cover this. Remember that these tephra layers are in sequence temporally. So researchers should always find them in some order in almost every core they sample.

The Japanese have studied this and have designated some of the more extensive eruptions in the past as "marker tephra". These tephra layers are from large eruptions that usually leave distinct core layers across most areas of Japan. They have mapped the extent of each of these "marker tephra" events and compiled them in this paper.
Volcanoes and Tephras in the Japan Area
That is a fabulous paper that summerizes all the major tephra forming events. I can't copy/paste from that paper but I'll refer back to it often (as the "Tephras in Japan" paper for ease of typing). There are maps, tables, measurements and even a neat time-space diagram about these events.

So how do these marker tephras work in the field? While searching for these papers I ran across someone else doing the same type of analysis. They even used the same papers I'm using, the moor core and the 40,000 year chronology I linked above.

This is from RAZD at EvC forums in 2007

Originally Posted by See Message 5

This independent study uses 14C dating to date volcanic ash layers. When you draw a vertical line through the intersection of the 14C dating where it intersects the SUk (=Sakate) line you get a 14C age of ~16,500 BP.

Doing the same thing on that graph of varve and 14C dating versus sediment depth from Lake Suigetsu:



Gives me a 14C age of ~16,500 BP. The same 14C age for the same layer of volcanic ash from two (2) different environments...

Those two graphs also show the temporal placement of three different volcanic events in this sequence:
K-Ah
SUk (Sakate)
AT
Any core sample taken that contains these tephras should always have them in this order (unless something weird is going on). And that is what is found time and again.

And researchers across Japan repeat this method of tephra analysis in other cores. Here's a paper about varved core samples in Lake Tougou-Ike. The table shows how they find the K-Ah tephra layer through both varve counting and 14C dating.

http://www.ues.tmu.ac.jp/geog/public...Kato_et_al.pdf

Here's a paper from Lake Biwa showing five different tephra layers. Also they found different average sedimentation rates from different areas of this large lake.

http://tor9.big.ous.ac.jp/People/tor...ayashida07.pdf


An average sedimentation rate at Site 3 is about 110 cm/ky, which is almost 2.5 times higher than that of Site 2 (40 cm/ky).

So you see, sedimentation rate is independent on age determination. It is the temporal placement and multiple types of dating (varve counting, sediment depth, 14C testing) that help determine ages in these cases.

Originally Posted by Dave

You asked

Answer is yes, I agree with all this. I just disagree with the interpretation of the C14 concentrations.

So the data gatherring and testing is valid.

That's good, we can work from there.

Originally Posted by Dave

Again, I agree that labs are able to detect C14 concentrations reliably. I just disagree with the age assignments interpreted from this. As you know, these age determinations are based upon a steady state C14 ratio assumption, which, if there was a global cataclysm, would certainly not have held true.

That's fine. Your sole objection to this paper is the ages reported by 14C dating.

Originally Posted by Dave

The scenario described by Austin and Hoesch correlates well with the Biblical record because a catastrophic bursting of the fountains of the deep is implied by the Biblical text. So on the one hand, we have an ancient text relating a story of the earth basically ripping it's crust open and on the other hand we have a record in the rocks of exactly that also: giant rips in the earth's crust which belched out all manner of lava and ash (and probably water) followed by lesser and lesser similar episodes. These two lines of evidence are not easily dismissed.

Dave,
You really didn't answer my question. I bolded it above. When I'm looking at a core sample HOW do I make a distinction between whether this ash layer is from that "one event" or if it's later?

The "Tephras in Japan" paper is a good working paper for scientists who dig cores in Japan. But if there exists an alternative explanation then I would think a rudimentary explanation would exist so that these Japanese core drillers can, in future, associate these tephra layers with the "flood event" or the "post-flood declining volcanic activity" period that you claim.

Let's start with a simple conversion table, something like the conversion table that R.H.Brown generated for his 14C dates. I'm not worried about validity (yet), I just want some type of scale to work from here.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/17056.htm

Originally Posted by Dave

How do you interpret this evidence (from the Austin paper) and why?

What specific evidence are you referring to here Dave? Are you asking me about the biblical record? Or do you want me to evaluate your claim about giant rips? Or is it trying to say that the "fountains of the deep" are really volcanic tephras scatterred across the US?
My first analysis would be to look at the biblical record itself and see what it specifically says. Then I would take this description from that book and look at the claims made by you, Austin/Hoesch, and also Wally Wonderpants Brown (whom you invoke by mentioning big rips).
Could you please find the sources for these claims so that I can see them side by side?

For "The Volcano" side, what I will do is make one other post that introduces some Plate Tectonics as an explanation about the cause of some of these eruptions that Austin mentions. Since that discussion will be specific to plate tectonics I'll seperate out the posts.

Originally Posted by Dave

When in geologic time do you think think the 5 eruptions shown in Austin graphic occurred and why do you date them so?

I defer to the scientists who did the testing on these tephra samples. Sticking to my theme of the Japanese Islands, here's a Japanese Sceintist who compiled a worldwide list of large eruptions that serve as "marker tephra".
Quaternary Volcanoes and Widespread Tephras of the World
Look at the table on .pdf Page 9.
Mazuna is dated by (GISP2) which is an Greenland ice core correllation since this ash fall from this eruption was found upon the GISP2 ice core sample.
Bishop Tuff is dated by Ar39-Ar40 radioisotopic method.
Lava Creek is dated by Ar39-Ar40 radioisotopic method.
Huckleberry Ridge is dated by Ar39-Ar40 radioisotopic method.
This paper doesn't mention the Brushy Basin member, but this paper lists Ar40-Ar39 as the method used to date the Brushy Basin member formation.

In summary,
We agree that the data collected from the "moor" paper is valid but you think that only the 14C absolute and corrected dates are mistaken. By this I would like to add that all the other core samples are correctly gathered and analysed.

Please answer the question I bolded above that I thought you didn't adequately address.

Please agree on some type of 14C marker like the R.H.Brown table. If you don't agree with Brown, then what in general is your relationship between 14C ratios and dates?

Please provide the proper sources that you consider valid that I can use to comper the Biblical claim with the scientific claims of massive eruptions, big rips, and such.

Please be patient for my plate tectonics post. I may defer until after your next post just to keep things straight.

[Dave Hawkins]

Do these tephra layers in the paper represent the "one period" of volcanism you claim? Or are they part of the "declining volcanism" in recent times? How does one distinguish this difference?

I think it may be possible to say that Layer A and Layer B are approximately the same age because of their Carbon 14 signature, but dating them absolutely is tough without historical records because of the unknown ratios of C14 in the past. As you know, we have evidence that these ratios may have been radically different 5000 years ago.

Here's my question repeated ...

The scenario described by Austin and Hoesch correlates well with the Biblical record because a catastrophic bursting of the fountains of the deep is implied by the Biblical text. So on the one hand, we have an ancient text relating a story of the earth basically ripping it's crust open and on the other hand we have a record in the rocks of exactly that also: giant rips in the earth's crust which belched out all manner of lava and ash (and probably water) followed by lesser and lesser similar episodes. These two lines of [parallel] evidence are not easily dismissed.

How do you interpret this evidence and why? When in geologic time do you think think the 5 eruptions shown in Austin's graphic occurred and why do you date them so?

[Mike PSS]

^^^Dave,

Sorry to make you rework, but I think I've addressed all this in my Post #10. I kept saving the post to the forum so that I wouldn't lose data and you may have seen only my partial response.

I'll humbly ask you to reread that post since these questions are addressed. Look at the summary at the end of the post too.

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

^^^Dave,

Sorry to make you rework, but I think I've addressed all this in my Post #10. I kept saving the post to the forum so that I wouldn't lose data and you may have seen only my partial response.

I'll humbly ask you to reread that post since these questions are addressed. Look at the summary at the end of the post too.

OK, thanks. I do see your answers in post #10 now and I have gleaned the info I was looking for. Your view then is that all these volcanoes erupted within the last 2 million years. Fine. Let's make a little graph below showing the entire supposed history of geologic time and plot this 2 million years of declining volcanic activity on it ... each one of the dashes represents 100 million years, so 40 dashes represents 4 billion years of earth history.

----------------------------------------.

The last dash represents the last 100 million years and the dot represents 1/50th of this ... the last 2 million years, the supposed interval in which all these massive volcanoes happened.

So my question is ... why all this massive volcanism in the last tiny blip of earth history? I thought the earth was supposedly moving and heaving and grinding and groaning (gradualist plate tectonics/orogeny, etc, right?) for the whole 4 billion years. Where's the evidence of all of this type activity for the previous 3,998 million years?

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Your view then is that all these volcanoes erupted within the last 2 million years. Fine. Let's make a little graph below showing the entire supposed history of geologic time and plot this 2 million years of declining volcanic activity on it ... each one of the dashes represents 100 million years, so 40 dashes represents 4 billion years of earth history.

----------------------------------------.

The last dash represents the last 100 million years and the dot represents 1/50th of this ... the last 2 million years, the supposed interval in which all these massive volcanoes happened.

So my question is ... why all this massive volcanism in the last tiny blip of earth history? I thought the earth was supposedly moving and heaving and grinding and groaning (gradualist plate tectonics/orogeny, etc, right?) for the whole 4 billion years. Where's the evidence of all of this type activity for the previous 3,998 million years?

Dave,
This is "Rocks for Jocks" stuff. The two things about geology you should understand is rock types and timeline.

The timeline of course is broken down into eras and periods and epochs and such.


If we are going to communicate reasonably we should use a common language.

Now for the rocks themselves. Remember that Igneous rock is formed from cooling magma. Magma that doesn't reach the surface of the earth is called intrusive or Plutonic. Igneous plutonic rock can be found in many different forms, but the two most prevelent that we see today are granite and lava tubes. Here's a couple examples of each of these formations.

Devil's Tower National Monument is a volcanic plug of cooled magma that never reached the surface. The surrounding rock is ~200MM years old but the intrusive plug is ~65MM years old.

Until erosion began its relentless work, Devils Tower was not visible above the overlying sedimentary rocks. But the forces of erosion, particularly that of water, began to wear away the sandstones and shales. The much harder igneous rock survived the onslaught of erosional forces, and the gray columns of Devils Tower began to appear above the surrounding landscape.

There are numerous other examples of plutons. The Zoroaster Granite at the base of the Grand Canyon is a pluton that was injected through the Vishnu Schist sediments, that granite is over 1.2billion years old. These things are found all over the place at all ages of the earth.

The ashfalls, lava flows, and other effects from an eruption are called extrusive or Volcanic rock. When this stuff is hardened and buried in geologic strata there are geologic names for the different types of rocks found. There are many types and classifications of volcanic rock but the four that you will find referenced the most are Basalt (magma with low silica content), Rhyolite (magma with high silica content), Ignimbrite (the pyroclastic flows from a volcanic eruption), and Tuff (solidified ashfall).

The entire oceanic crust across the globe is made up of a top layer of basalt with a bottom layer of gabbro (a plutonic type of rock). Existing ocean crusts are less than 200MM years old. But older crust fragments have been found on the continents because island arcs in the past have scraped up oceanic crust and deposited them on the continent during the island arc impact; this can be found in California from the formation of the Sierra Nevada mountains (an island arc orogeny).

Also, you mentioned the Deccan Traps in your previous post. This is an example of a large igneous province which are large areas of lava flow.

These are well documented large igneous provinces in geological research.

Continental Flood basalts
Ethiopian Highlands
Columbia River Basalt Group
Chilcotin Plateau Basalts (south-central British Columbia, Canada)
Deccan Traps (India)
Paraná and Etendeka traps (Brazil-Namibia)
Brazilian Highlands
Rio de la Plata Craton (Uruguay)
Karoo-Ferrar (South Africa-Antarctica)
Siberian Traps (Russia)
Emeishan Traps (western China)

Oceanic Plateaux
Caribbean large igneous province (Caribbean Sea)
Kerguelen Plateau (Indian Ocean)
Ontong Java Plateau , Manihiki Plateau and Hikurangi Plateau (southwest Pacific Ocean)
Jameson Land

Volcanic Rifted Margins
High Arctic Large Igneous Province (includes the Ellesmere Island Volcanics, Strand Fiord Formation, Alpha Ridge, Franz Josef Islands and Svalbard.)
North Atlantic Igneous Province (includes basalts in Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, Scotland, Faroes)
Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (eastern United States and Canada, northern South America, northwest Africa)

Dike Swarms
MacKenzie Dike Swarm, Coppermine basalts (Canada, Precambrian)

But solidified, rock-like Tephras are called Tuff. And these formations are found throughout the geologic strata.

This paper describes a tephra layer in the Unkar formation; Grand Canyon Supergroup.

New U/Pb age determinations from an air-fall tephra at the base of the Unkar Group dates the onset of deposition at ca. 1255 Ma

Another classic rock formation is needle spires. This is when a thick layer of ash is covered by another layer of basalt (magma) then the area erodes. This is from Cappadocia in Greece and was deposited from 65MM to 10MM years ago then eroded away over the past 10MM years. You can see the cliffside in the back which shows the basalt cap coverring the thicker layer of tuff.


One other item to cover and that is how to associate the tephra layers from Japan, which are in mud/silt/peat and the rock strata deeper in the earth. In other words, where are all the layers of the small volcanic eruptions in the past (we can find the thick tuff layers easily). Sedimentary rocks like shales are made from mudstone and siltstones which seems the place to look for these interspersed tephra layers. As the rock is buried and consolidated over time the rock is compressed.

Here's an example of a geologist describing rock formations found in Oregon.
Rocks of the Tillamook Bay Drainage Basin, the Coast Range
of Oregon

The Yamhill formation (Ty) is mid-Eocene in age, and consists of massive and thin bedded marine siltstone and thin interbedded arkosic and basaltic sandstone. Locally interbedded basaltic lava flows and lapilli tuff are found...

So think of every one of those interbedded layers as a single volcanic event in the local area. And this is only one small layer, tephra interbedding is ubiquitous across the globe, even in metamorphic rock.

And there's more, Bentonite clays are formed from the weathering of volcanic ash. So it can serve as a marker for past volcanic events even if erosion of the original deposits has taken place.

So Dave,
Anytime you find basalt, tuff, granite, gabbro, ignimbrite, bentonite or any other related deposit upon or under the earth you have evidence of volcanism in one form or another. And this evidence is found in all ages of rocks examined.

****************

Now, you still owe me some explanations from your previous statements....

First, your answer to my question about the layers was confusing.

Originally Posted by Dave

I think it may be possible to say that Layer A and Layer B are approximately the same age because of their Carbon 14 signature, but dating them absolutely is tough without historical records because of the unknown ratios of C14 in the past. As you know, we have evidence that these ratios may have been radically different 5000 years ago.

-What is "Layer A and Layer B"? I can't find this reference in the "moor" paper. Plus, your explanation is lacking in any type of detail. Maybe if you answer the 14C question below first then come back to this one.

-Please agree on some type of 14C marker like the R.H.Brown table. If you don't agree with Brown, then what in general is your relationship between 14C ratios and dates?

-Please provide the proper sources that you consider valid that I can use to comper the Biblical claim with the scientific claims of massive eruptions, big rips, and such. You mention that these events correllate but you provide no direct references for this supposed correllation.

[Dave Hawkins]

I understand that there is igneous rock all over the place, but this is supposedly created slowly and steadily not abruptly and catastrophically like a volcano erupting. But it seems that massive volcanism has occurred only in the recent past. Here's another source that indicates this ...

Much larger events are recorded in the geologic past but we cannot claim a complete record. A few examples:

* 70,000 years ago, Toba, Indonesia. About 500 cubic kilometers of ash.
* 700,000 years ago, Long Valley, California. About 500 cubic kilometers of ash.
* 700,000, 1.4 million and 2.1 million, Yellowstone, Wyoming. About 500 cubic kilometers of ash.
* Miocene: huge ash eruption, probably centered in the Snake River volcanic center; wind-blown ash suffocated and buried animals in Nebraska, but not as an immediate result of the eruption.
* 15 million years ago: Columbia Plateau flood basalts.
* 240 million years ago: Siberian flood basalt eruptions. Suspected by some as the cause of the Permian mass extinction.
* Ordovician (450 million years ago): Vast ash falls blanketed all of eastern North America and Scandinavia, which at that time were close together. The probable source was somewhere southeast of present Alabama. Single ash beds can be traced from Alabama, where they are meters thick, to Minnesota, where the thickness is a few centimeters.

Source, T. Simkin and others, 1984, Volcanoes of the World, Stroudsburg, PA, Hutchinson Ross, 232p.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PLATETEC/TOPTEN.HTM

What I'm trying to understand is the mainstream view of catastrophism as indicated by your sig. I get the feeling that people like Ager think it's like this ...

---!--!----!------!--!---!----!-!---!---!--!-----!-!-

where the dashes each represent 100 million years of 'boredom' as Ager puts it and the exclamation points represent something exciting like a meteor strike or a huge volcanic eruption.

So with Ager's view above in mind, my question is ... where's the evidence for all these exclamation points in the record? What I've given you in the above quote would look like this ...

------------------------------------!----

which is a little better for your case, but not much. If Ager is correct, then you've got an awful lot of 'missing evidence' supporting this 'Ager Episodic Catastrophism' idea. I thought in science we were supposed to base theories on evidence that's really there, not on missing evidence.

Also, don't forget that the Brushy Basin member (and probably others ... I haven't looked yet) was not just a volcanic eruption. It was a volcanic eruption that included massive WATER flow ...

A super-size deposit

In the western interior states of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming is a remarkable deposit known as the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation. The layer is over 100 meters thick across wide portions of the Rocky Mountain and Colorado Plateau regions, and altered volcanic ash in the form of smectitic clay is its dominant component. Sedimentary bedforms indicate airfall tephra settled into water and, in some cases, formed into an ash-water suspension that flowed with considerable energy before coming to rest. One such suspension in northeast Utah carried dinosaur carcasses and deposited them in what is today a world-famous dinosaur exhibit.5 Marble-size pumice fragments occur within the air-fallout deposit in Colorado and Utah. The (dense rock) volume of pyroclastics in the Brushy Basin Member, an estimated 15,000 cubic kilometers, would be enough to bury the state of New Jersey to a depth of 740 meters. Volcanoes in the Sierra region are thought to have spewed the ash.6 Chemical and isotopic composition of the Brushy Basin Member appear to match granitic plutons in the Sierra Nevada Batholith, as well as rocks of the Independence dike swarm in the eastern Sierra and Mojave region. The Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation testifies of super-size volcanism and simultaneous watery catastrophe. But where were the fissures from which this ejecta came?

So the problem with volcanism and the mainstream view is that we should have a record of it much farther back than 450 million years. And who knows if these dates are reliable anyway? As I have pointed out to you dates are 'calibrated' by index fossils and of course, index fossils are 'dated' by the assumption that Macroevolution is true. This is a circular process and has been shown to be fallacious, the most spectacular example being the Koobi Fora example explained here ... http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...ating-game.asp ... I know you are aware of this example but I don't recall your explanation as to why the tuff was originally dated at 200+ million years old, then later dated at 2.6 myo then at 1.8 myo.

Given all this and the many other lines of evidence we have for a young earth not an old one, I think the Brushy Basin member and these other volcanic deposits speak of a single, recent cataclysm thousand of years ago, not millions.

============================================

YOUR QUESTIONS

-What is "Layer A and Layer B"? I can't find this reference in the "moor" paper. Plus, your explanation is lacking in any type of detail. Maybe if you answer the 14C question below first then come back to this one.

-Please agree on some type of 14C marker like the R.H.Brown table. If you don't agree with Brown, then what in general is your relationship between 14C ratios and dates?

-Please provide the proper sources that you consider valid that I can use to comper the Biblical claim with the scientific claims of massive eruptions, big rips, and such. You mention that these events correllate but you provide no direct references for this supposed correllation.

Layer A and Layer B simply means 'two given layers anywhere in the world.' I don't believe it's possible to date pre-Flood artifacts by C14 at the present time. Maybe if mainstream science would accept the Flood as a reality and we did some research oriented in that direction, we could achieve this goal. It's a good goal but we must have proper assumptions for it to work. Sources I consider valid? I think that much of the work done by mainstream geologists is valid. Where I differ is in the age interpretations and in the rejection of the Biblical Flood as a probable cause. I would highly recommend that you read 'The Genesis Flood' by Morris and Whitcomb. You will find many references to the geological literature there and you will understand the creationist position much better so as to evaluate it more accurately. How about if you agree to read TGF if I agree to read your pick of a basic college level Geology text? I'm searching for a good one now.

[Mike PSS]

Dave,
I have spent time and effort with all of my explanations. Seeing that your rebuttals to my work and your support of your own Flood Geology is very lacking in detail I will start to do the same.

I am not going to spend two hours on a well detailed post to have you come back with quick one-liners that, if you read through and comprehended the post, you would find that the answer to your one-liners was already given.

Maybe its because you understand nothing about Geology, and that's fine. That's why I'm here. But remember, ask questions and comprehend first before you make erroneous conclusions about some detail that you are not well informed. Your first question is a case in point.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I understand that there is igneous rock all over the place, but this is supposedly created slowly and steadily not abruptly and catastrophically like a volcano erupting.

Well your wrong here, spectacularly. In the Pnut Gallery, Roy posted the definition of Igneous Rock from Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Igneous rocks are formed by solidification of cooled magma (molten rock). They may form with or without crystallization, either below the surface as intrusive (plutonic) rocks or on the surface as extrusive (volcanic) rocks.

That bolded bit means that extrusive Igneous rocks are volcanic in origin.

I also explained in my previous post that extrusive rocks come in different forms like Basalt, Rhyolite, Tuff and Ignimbrite.

Put these two facts together and you can safely deduce that if you find any of these rock types in the geologic column then their ultimate source was a volcanic event. Whether it was a shield volcano, lava dome, cinder cone, stratovolcano, supervolcano, submarine volcano or other source; the presence of volcanic rocks means an eruption took place.

But it seems that massive volcanism has occurred only in the recent past.

Wrong. I gave specific source references of volcanic rocks going back over 1.2 billion years. And that was only using the top Google hits of a very rapid search. It's not my intent to show you every volcanic strata of every geologic formation across the earth. I only need to show that enough counter-points exist to support my claim.
[quote]Here's another source that indicates this ...

Much larger events are recorded in the geologic past but we cannot claim a complete record. A few examples:
<snip>
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PLATETEC/TOPTEN.HTM

Read what the author says. Do you deny that my sources found volcanic rocks over 1.2 billion years old? Somone in the Pnut Gallery just posted a source of volcanic rock over 1.8 billion years old.

What I'm trying to understand is the mainstream view of catastrophism as indicated by your sig. I get the feeling that people like Ager think it's like this ...

---!--!----!------!--!---!----!-!---!---!--!-----!-!-

where the dashes each represent 100 million years of 'boredom' as Ager puts it and the exclamation points represent something exciting like a meteor strike or a huge volcanic eruption.

Wrong again Dave. And I'll have to give you a quick synopsis of plate tectonics to show you this. Basically, anytime you have almost any kind of plate movement you have volcanism.

Igneous Rocks
The volume of extrusive rock erupted annually by volcanoes varies with plate tectonic setting. Extrusive rock is produced in the following proportions:[1]

divergent boundary (where two plates are seperating): 73%
convergent boundary (subduction zone, where one plate slips below the other): 15%
hotspot (independent of plate movements): 12%

These are global averages at present and may change some over time, but you can see that even in the past when the earth had minimal plate movements you still had hotspot activity causing eruptions across the globe.

By the way, hotspot volcanism is today found in Hawaii, Yellowstone, Iceland, Azores, and other areas. Here's a map of present day hotspots.

So with Ager's view above in mind, my question is ... where's the evidence for all these exclamation points in the record? What I've given you in the above quote would look like this ...

------------------------------------!----

which is a little better for your case, but not much.

Well Dave, If you decide to make a global model based upon a "few examples" then that is what I would expect you would get. However, if someone actually catalouged all the volcanic events based upon all the volcanic origin rock formations across the globe throughout history (a reference I have not yet found but am looking for) then I imagine you would see something like this....

(!!!!!!!!!!){!!!-!!!!!!-!!!!}!!!!!-!!!!!!-!!!!!!!

The first billion years, we only have a few surface craton rocks to examine. But the mainstream veiw is that the earth was cooling at this time. The next 1.5 billion years I haven't studied much, nor have I really thought much about. But a cooling earth still had active volcanics and I'm sure I could search the database for examples of volcanic rocks from this period.

The last two billion years I can find volcanic rocks interspersed throughout the rock record. The only reason I included a couple dashes above is that you haven't really defined what meets the criteria for massive eruptions. Maybe I shouldn't give you any benefit and put all exclamation points.

If Ager is correct, then you've got an awful lot of 'missing evidence' supporting this 'Ager Episodic Catastrophism' idea. I thought in science we were supposed to base theories on evidence that's really there, not on missing evidence.

It is only your misinterpretations of the evidence I've presented that have led you to this conclusion. Please go back to my previous post and see where I've supported my statement that volcanic origin rocks can be found in almost every geologic era.

Also, don't forget that the Brushy Basin member (and probably others ... I haven't looked yet) was not just a volcanic eruption. It was a volcanic eruption that included massive WATER flow ...

So the problem with volcanism and the mainstream view is that we should have a record of it much farther back than 450 million years.

We do have a record of it. Do you deny this after I just showed you?

And who knows if these dates are reliable anyway? As I have pointed out to you dates are 'calibrated' by index fossils

You have not pointed this out to me at any time.

and of course, index fossils are 'dated' by the assumption that Macroevolution is true.

This has nothing to do with Ar40-Ar39 or U-Pb dating of the Brushy Basin member or any other volcanic rock.

This is a circular process and has been shown to be fallacious, the most spectacular example being the Koobi Fora example explained here ... http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...ating-game.asp ... I know you are aware of this example but I don't recall your explanation as to why the tuff was originally dated at 200+ million years old, then later dated at 2.6 myo then at 1.8 myo.

So Dave, we have Koobi Fora as a counter-point to every dating test done on earth?
Is that your stance here? I would really like to know.

Remember, you came here to SUPPORT a Flood Geology explanation AND to get a coherent explanation about mainstream geology. All I see above is you trying to discredit mainstream geology. I see nothing in your rant above that supports flood geology in any way shape or form.

Do you have a point about bringing up Koobi Fora that supports Flood Geology? Or is this just a negative argument against mainstream Geology?

Given all this and the many other lines of evidence we have for a young earth not an old one, I think the Brushy Basin member and these other volcanic deposits speak of a single, recent cataclysm thousand of years ago, not millions.

HOW DAVE!?! HOW DO YOU DERIVE THIS CONCLUSION WHEN THE ONLY ARGUMENT YOU HAVE IS A (NAIVE AND ILL INFORMED) NEGATIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST MAINSTREAM GEOLOGY?!?

From what you've written above, this is what I get from your argument.

1 - We may see igneous rock all over but we don't see catastrophic volcanism throughout geologic history (?????).
2 - The few examples of volcanism given only show a few catastrophes (but many other examples show many other catastrophes).
3 - There's missing evidence for all these other catastrophes for the mainstream view to work (but only a few examples were given, many other examples exist that were not given).
4 - All radiometric testing is suspect because of the Koobi Fora example (?????).
5 - THEREFORE THE EARTH IS YOUNG.

Remember Dave that I posted this about the Snelling/Hoesch paper after I read it.

Originally Posted by MikePSS

NOWHERE IN THAT PAPER, EXCEPT IN THE CONCLUSION, DO AUSTIN OR HOESCH HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT TIMING OF THE EVENT OR LINKS TO THE SUPPOSED GENESIS FLOOD FRAMEWORK. HOW CAN THEY CONCLUDE THIS SUPPOSED LINK WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION OR EXPLANATION?

It seems you and Austin/Hoesch are using the same method of hypothesis creation.

Moving on,
I seperated your run-on paragraph into the seperate questions I had asked. A little bit easier to comprehend. If I made a mistake with this parsing let me know.

Originally Posted by Dave

============================================

YOUR QUESTIONS

Layer A and Layer B simply means 'two given layers anywhere in the world.'

OK, I understand now. You think that a similar 14C ratio of two distinct samples, no matter where they're found, will mean that their ages are similar. But we cannot find the actual age.

Originally Posted by Dave

I don't believe it's possible to date pre-Flood artifacts by C14 at the present time. Maybe if mainstream science would accept the Flood as a reality and we did some research oriented in that direction, we could achieve this goal. It's a good goal but we must have proper assumptions for it to work.

Dave,
The table I posted about 14C was from R.H.Brown at GRISDA and it is the conversion graph for POST-FLOOD artifacts. I made no mention of pre-flood artifacts at all.

Do you agree with the 14C conversion table giving by R.H.Brown in this link?
CORRELATION OF C-14 AGE WITH THE BIBLICAL TIME SCALE

Originally Posted by Dave

Sources I consider valid? I think that much of the work done by mainstream geologists is valid. Where I differ is in the age interpretations and in the rejection of the Biblical Flood as a probable cause. I would highly recommend that you read 'The Genesis Flood' by Morris and Whitcomb. You will find many references to the geological literature there and you will understand the creationist position much better so as to evaluate it more accurately. How about if you agree to read TGF if I agree to read your pick of a basic college level Geology text? I'm searching for a good one now.

Well Dave, I'll look back on Voxrats past review. IIRC He copied and covered most of the book so I'll start there.

But that doesn't address my question at all. I asked you for specific sources that you could link in your message and post in this thread. So that I could review and analyze them for myself.

Post a link to the Bible passage you think is relevant.
Post a link to Wally Brown website and indicate which passages tie into your claim about the Fountain of the Deep and the actual geology.
Post a link to the geologic features that are relevent to your story and how their analysis supports your story.

So far Dave you have NOT presented a Flood Geology story at all. Just some unrelated facts that are not tied together in any meaningful way.

************************
In summary,
-I've given you enough volcanic rock information to show you that volcanic events exist throughout geologic time. Do you agree?

-Please redefine your story about the Brushy Basin member to SUPPORT Flood Geology. You cannot conclude a young earth if you do not support it in your discussion or presented evidence. Trying to discredit mainstream geology does not support anything. Also, the presence of water on earth in the past is not a spectacular find that stands out.

-You agree that 14C ratios have some value for dating but we don't have any mechanism to derive dates yet. Do you agree with the efforts of R.H.Brown and his converstions? If not, why not? Remember that we are establishing some 14C baseline because of your original claim...

Originally Posted by MikePSS

When I'm looking at a core sample HOW do I make a distinction between whether this ash layer is from that "one event" or if it's later?

The "Tephras in Japan" paper is a good working paper for scientists who dig cores in Japan. But if there exists an alternative explanation then I would think a rudimentary explanation would exist so that these Japanese core drillers can, in future, associate these tephra layers with the "flood event" or the "post-flood declining volcanic activity" period that you claim.

-Please support your story about the Fountains of the Deep with actual links and quotes (not just one or the other, I prefer both). Remember that you had stated this originally and I challanged it...

Originally Posted by Dave

The scenario described by Austin and Hoesch correlates well with the Biblical record because a catastrophic bursting of the fountains of the deep is implied by the Biblical text. So on the one hand, we have an ancient text relating a story of the earth basically ripping it's crust open and on the other hand we have a record in the rocks of exactly that also: giant rips in the earth's crust which belched out all manner of lava and ash (and probably water) followed by lesser and lesser similar episodes. These two lines of evidence are not easily dismissed.

[Dave Hawkins]

Dave, I have spent time and effort with all of my explanations. Seeing that your rebuttals to my work and your support of your own Flood Geology is very lacking in detail I will start to do the same.

Mike, sometimes less is more. I'll make posts my way. You make posts your way. If you're unhappy, you could always find a new creationist to argue with.

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Mike, sometimes less is more. I'll make posts my way. You make posts your way. If you're unhappy, you could always find a new creationist to argue with.

Dave, I didn't know we were arguing. I thought I was talking to you about mainstream geology.

I'm just waiting for you to elucidate Flood Geology in a little bit more depth than you have so far. My expression above is more personal frustration in my own effort; I should have dialed it down a notch for the good that you've gained from it so far.

Or is your skin so thin that any subjective observation about your effort is deemed a personal slight?

Carry on Dave, I haven't indicated I'm leaving the scene or not willing to respond. But please reread the words again, not what you "feel" they are saying.

[Dave Hawkins]

I guess I'm trying to figure out what it is you are saying. You lost me.

What I'm saying is that, considering the continental crust only for a moment, we have an interesting arrangement of sedimentary strata interspersed with volcanic ejecta. How about we consider that for a moment? Can we agree that considering this strata only in N. America, we only have evidence of the volcanic ejecta depicted in Austin's graphic and not much (if any) more?

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

What I'm saying is that, considering the continental crust only for a moment, we have an interesting arrangement of sedimentary strata interspersed with volcanic ejecta. How about we consider that for a moment? Can we agree that considering this strata only in N. America, we only have evidence of the volcanic ejecta depicted in Austin's graphic and not much (if any) more?

Dave,
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. My Post #14 contained two links to North American strata containing tephras and volcanic ejecta.

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

This paper describes a tephra layer in the Unkar formation; Grand Canyon Supergroup.

Here's an example of a geologist describing rock formations found in Oregon.
Rocks of the Tillamook Bay Drainage Basin, the Coast Range
of Oregon

mid-Eocene is around 45 million years ago.

Then there's Devil's Tower I showed, that was 65 million years.

Here's a paper about flood basalts from Jurasiac time (180 million years ago) across northeastern North America.

MacKenzie Dike Swarm in Canada was 1.2 billion years ago.

Even Austin's Independence Dike Swarm is mentioned as Jurasiac in age (the source of your Brushy Basin member).
And what do you know. The WIKI article links back to the ICR paper as the source information for this Dike Swarm.

Another quick search found another paper...
Remagnetization (1100 Ma) of Voosges lake tuff (1542 Ma) and other mid-proterozoic rocks, Nipigon graben, northern Ontario
That one paper mentions four different volcanic type events over a 400MM year period in just one area in Northern Ontario.

Late Proterozoic Keewanawan Volcanism, the Voosges Lake Tuff, the Seagull pluton, the English Bay felsic intrusions

So no Dave, Austins events listed are ffffaaaaaarrrrrrr from being the only events on the North American continent.

The reason I chose the Japanese strata is that it is well studied, well documented, easily accessable to everyone, and the whole Island is one big volcano so that volcanic subjects are easily found and discussed. Japan is a case study for volcanic research.

[Dave Hawkins]

Alright, maybe I wasn't clear. I want to focus on N. American volcanic ejecta in strata above the Vishnu Schist and above other strata deemed by you to be the same age as the Vishnu. IOW, I want this to be a discussion of strata deemed by me to be deposited in a single cataclysm ~5000YA (Noah's Flood) but deemed by you to have been laid gradually over many millions of years. Do you agree that in this particular strata the events listed by Austin are the main volcanic events we have a record of? My theory is that the deeper we go in the record the larger the eruption (in general). Would you agree with this theory?

[Dave Hawkins]

Interestingly, the MacKenzie Dike Swarm is larger than Austin's Independence Dike Swarm. Does it occur lower in the record? Is it younger than the Vishnu schist?

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Alright, maybe I wasn't clear. I want to focus on N. American volcanic ejecta in strata above the Vishnu Schist and above other strata deemed by you to be the same age as the Vishnu. IOW, I want this to be a discussion of strata deemed by me to be deposited in a single cataclysm ~5000YA (Noah's Flood) but deemed by you to have been laid gradually over many millions of years. Do you agree that in this particular strata the events listed by Austin are the main volcanic events we have a record of? My theory is that the deeper we go in the record the larger the eruption (in general). Would you agree with this theory?

No.

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Interestingly, the MacKenzie Dike Swarm is larger than Austin's Independence Dike Swarm. Does it occur lower in the record? Is it younger than the Vishnu schist?

Vishnu Schist with Zoroaster Granite. 1.8billion years ago.
MacKenzie Dike Swarm 1.2 billion years ago.

Dave, here's my last summary list of comments. You can scroll up (or click that blue arrow) to find the full post.

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

************************
In summary,
-I've given you enough volcanic rock information to show you that volcanic events exist throughout geologic time. Do you agree?

-Please redefine your story about the Brushy Basin member to SUPPORT Flood Geology. You cannot conclude a young earth if you do not support it in your discussion or presented evidence. Trying to discredit mainstream geology does not support anything. Also, the presence of water on earth in the past is not a spectacular find that stands out.

-You agree that 14C ratios have some value for dating but we don't have any mechanism to derive dates yet. Do you agree with the efforts of R.H.Brown and his converstions? If not, why not? Remember that we are establishing some 14C baseline because of your original claim...

-Please support your story about the Fountains of the Deep with actual links and quotes (not just one or the other, I prefer both). Remember that you had stated this originally and I challanged it...

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

No.

Why not? The events listed by Austin get bigger the deeper we go in the record including the MacKenzie Dike Swarm.