[_ Old Earth _] Columnar Basalt/Lava Flows vs The Flood

[Charlie Hatchett]

These are very clearly not intrusion necks but large plains that got flooded by lava and which cooled while exposed to the surface. Intrusions don't form such nice flat layers.

I disagree that intrusions don't create "nice flat layers":

Note the sill in the bottom picture. That's what we're seeing and what your calling plains. The surrounding sediment holds the basalt in place while it cools. The exposures represent where the overlying sediment is eroded.
Sills follow the contour of the underlying and overlying strata, making "nice flat layers".

Umm...because only there we can see it without excavating it on our own.

And again, do you seriously assert that geologist cannot distinguish landslide rubble from sedimentary strata?

And where is the mountain whose landslide covered this:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/images/20 ... _large.jpg

Where did all that rock above the basalt come from in merely 4000 years:
http://www.cas.sc.edu/geog/gsgdocs/imag ... inting.jpg

Again, I think your mistaken in not interpreting these structures as intrusions. It's the most obvious explanation.

When basaltic lava flows cool and solidify they contract, often developing fractures perpendicular to their surface. Individual columns tend to have a hexagonal (six-sided) cross section. Since columns are always at right angles to the cooling surface, vertical columns are seen in lava flows and sills, horizontal in dikes, and columns typically radiate outwards from the center of pillow lavas. The hexagonal columns may then become exposed when the lava flow is eroded.

http://www.geology.iupui.edu/Research/K ... /index.htm

And in my backyard:

Cross-cutting the Cretaceous sedimentary rocks are
late Cretaceous basalts that formed sills, dikes, laccoliths,
and small volcanoes. The igneous rocks rose along
fractures in the Balcones Fault Zone, and Brackettville
marks their western limit. Outcrops of columnar basalt
are mined and crushed along U.S. Highway 90 in Knippa,
82 km east of Brackettville.

http://www.utexas.edu/tmm/sponsored_sit ... hapter.pdf

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up landside rubble? I'm not understanding you.

The last image seems to be the result of a cooling downhill lava flow - it doesn't bear any resemblance to the curved columns of neck basalt as visible in your first picture.

Higly improbable on the surface (if not impossible), but easily explained by something containing the flow in it's shape (a sill). Lava, especially slow cooling lava, would not be resting on a slope. It would continue to flow downhill.

And all that erosion happened in merely 4000 years?

Easily.

Necks are bad examples because they do not require exposure to air on a large surface, but there are plenty of plains:

I don't understand why you keep bringing up the requirement to be exposed to air? Do you have a reference? Sills, dikes, and laccoliths obviously don't require direct exposure to the atmosphere.

And how about the welded tuffs anyway?

How about we hash out the columnar basalt thing first?

 

[Lewis]

Keep going folks this is great.

 

[jwu]

I disagree that intrusions don't create "nice flat layers":

Ok, i should have said "nice flat horizontal layers"

Note the sill in the bottom picture. That's what we're seeing and what your calling plains. The surrounding sediment holds the basalt in place while it cools. The exposures represent where the overlying sediment is eroded.
Sills follow the contour of the underlying and overlying strata, making "nice flat layers".

And how about cases in which the underlying strata clearly was subject to erosion, i.e. exposed to the surface?

Again, I think your mistaken in not interpreting these structures as intrusions. It's the most obvious explanation.

Considering that we see lava pools forming all the time nowadays, that's not true.

When basaltic lava flows cool and solidify they contract, often developing fractures perpendicular to their surface. Individual columns tend to have a hexagonal (six-sided) cross section. Since columns are always at right angles to the cooling surface, vertical columns are seen in lava flows and sills, horizontal in dikes, and columns typically radiate outwards from the center of pillow lavas. The hexagonal columns may then become exposed when the lava flow is eroded.

That's a good point though.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up landside rubble? I'm not understanding you.

Because you keep bringing it up that "giant landslide" image - twice on this page pf the thread alone.

Higly improbable on the surface (if not impossible), but easily explained by something containing the flow in it's shape (a sill). Lava, especially slow cooling lava, would not be resting on a slope. It would continue to flow downhill.

From your own source:

When basaltic lava flows cool and solidify they contract, often developing fractures perpendicular to their surface. Individual columns tend to have a hexagonal (six-sided) cross section. Since columns are always at right angles to the cooling surface, vertical columns are seen in lava flows and sills, horizontal in dikes, and columns typically radiate outwards from the center of pillow lavas.

What we see on that image is columns which are not right angled to the surface of the flow or sill or whatever, a significant amount of erosion (exposed to the surface) that acted upon this which then afterwards got covered by another layer of tuff explains this.

Easily.

How? basalt is quite resistant...

I don't understand why you keep bringing up the requirement to be exposed to air? Do you have a reference? Sills, dikes, and laccoliths obviously don't require direct exposure to the atmosphere.

At first i thought columns needed air contact to form, but you're right that this seems not to be the case. Now i am more interested in the structure of the flows which indicates surface contact.

According to the flood model there should not be any non-subaquatic pyroclastic flows in the strata which were laid down by it, just sills and dikes and so on, right? Which strata was it again?

How about we hash out the columnar basalt thing first?

Ok.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Ok, i should have said "nice flat horizontal layers"

sill:

Britannica Concise

In geology, a tabular igneous intrusion emplaced parallel to the bedding of the enclosing rock. Although they may have inclined orientations, nearly horizontal sills are most common. Sills may range from a few inches to hundreds of feet thick and up to hundreds of miles long. They include rock compositions of all types.

And how about cases in which the underlying strata clearly was subject to erosion, i.e. exposed to the surface?

Example please.

What we see on that image is columns which are not right angled to the surface of the flow or sill or whatever, a significant amount of erosion (exposed to the surface) that acted upon this which then afterwards got covered by another layer of tuff explains this.

http://www.cas.sc.edu/geog/gsgdocs/imag ... inting.jpg

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/images/20 ... _large.jpg

Both of these are textbook examples of sills, with the overlying strata still intact. Note the cooling surface of both examples is the side of the mountain, not the top.

How? basalt is quite resistant...

It’s the strata the igneous intrusion pentrated that is eroding. Most likely sedimentary rock.

 

[jwu]

Example please.

However, since we have learned that columnar basalt can form without surface contact, i concede that point. Still, there are other things which indicate that strata formed with contact to air. Let's get to the welded tuffs again.

http://www.cas.sc.edu/geog/gsgdocs/images/GSG_CD/ColunarJointing.jpg

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/images/20 ... _large.jpg

Both of these are textbook examples of sills, with the overlying strata still intact. Note the cooling surface of both examples is the side of the mountain, not the top.

The first one is a neck...while the second one might be a sill, the cooling surface wasn't the side of the mountain in either case - after all we can only see the side because a lot of material eroded away there. And your own sources say that it always forms at a right angle to the cooling surface.

It’s the strata the igneous intrusion pentrated that is eroding. Most likely sedimentary rock.

But it had to be basalt that eroded away - else the columns hadn't formed at a right angle to the cooling surface, as your own sources said they would.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Let's get to the welded tuffs again.

Sure.

I'll let you pick the specific topic or example(s).

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vw_hyperexchange/pc6.jpg

1931 postcard of Devils Tower, Wyoming, a shallow intrusion that formed columnar jointing as it cooled.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vw_hypere ... otherm.jpg

Possible mechanism for the formation of columnar jointing at Devils Tower. Isotherms are layers with the same temperature. Joints formed perpendicular to the isotherms as the rock cooled. From Spry (1962).

 

[jwu]

The Ipswitch Basin in Australia. It's a Triassic formation but consists of lava flows and air fall tuffs:
http://www.geocities.com/aroach.geo/geology/meso96/

Particularly the Hector and the Brisbane tuffs...these are not welded tuffs but air-fall ignimbrites nonetheless.

And once we're done with welded tuffs and other ignimbrites we can continue with evaporites: Rocks which are formed by large bodies of water with solved minerals completely drying out. E.g. like the strata which are currently forming at the dead sea or the salt lakes in the south west of the USA.
These are found all over the geologic column as well and couldn't possibly form during a global flood.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

The Ipswitch Basin in Australia. It's a Triassic formation but consists of lava flows and air fall tuffs:
http://www.geocities.com/aroach.geo/geology/meso96/

Particularly the Hector and the Brisbane tuffs...these are not welded tuffs but air-fall ignimbrites nonetheless.

And once we're done with welded tuffs and other ignimbrites we can continue with evaporites: Rocks which are formed by large bodies of water with solved minerals completely drying out. E.g. like the strata which are currently forming at the dead sea or the salt lakes in the south west of the USA.
These are found all over the geologic column as well and couldn't possibly form during a global flood.

Sounds interesting. Let me do a little research and pondering over your points this week, and I'll try to have a response by this weekend.

Cheers

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

The Ipswitch Basin in Australia. It's a Triassic formation but consists of lava flows and air fall tuffs:
http://www.geocities.com/aroach.geo/geology/meso96/

Particularly the Hector and the Brisbane tuffs...these are not welded tuffs but air-fall ignimbrites nonetheless.

It’s very possible the “air fall ignimbrites†were blasted through the water, high into the atmosphere, and settled back on the basin floor. But more likely, the Triassic and Jurassic , geologically, document the middle phases of a worldwide, catastrophic, tectonic and water inundation event:

Triassic

Jurassic

“...many scientists agree that the reign of the dinosaurs was ended at the end of the Cretaceous Period by the impact of a large asteroid. Not only did this impact wipe out most of the dinosaurs, but it was probably responsible for the extinctions of many other types of animals at that time, too...â€Â

Richard Kissel, Ph.D
Chicago's Field Museum

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow ... 2-ask.html

“...The Triassic period ended with a mass extinction, which was particularly severe in the oceans...â€Â

“...It is not certain what caused this Late Triassic extinction, which was accompanied by huge volcanic eruptions ... the largest recorded volcanic event since the planet cooled and stabilized, as the supercontinent Pangaea began to break apart...â€Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic

One certainly has to interpret the Hector and Brisbane ignimbrites in catastrophic versus uniformitarian terms.



. A few questions for you:

1. How has it been determined, outside of the fossils contained within these geologic features, that these strata are “Triassic� The only information I gain from the term “Triassic†is certain types of fossils are found within the strata. It’s only a way to categorize a single catastrophic event in a relative sort of way.

2. Why could this subsection of the geologic column not show survival of the fittest at it’s most extreme: catastrophe?

3. What’s your take on the Spae-Time Continuum, The Big Bang Theory and their effects on “absolute†dating methods?

 

[jwu]

It’s very possible the “air fall ignimbrites†were blasted through the water, high into the atmosphere, and settled back on the basin floor.

No, because in particular the Brisbane tuff is the result of a pyroclastic flows which followed the course of valleys. Blasting through the surface and then settling down would not produce such a strictly confined flow. Moreover, it cooled down in these valleys, fumaroles at the base of the ignimbrite indicate that it was hot and cooled down in its final position. Such a flow couldn't happen underwater and ash that settles down through water would not be confined to the shape of a valley, nor would it leave fumaroles as it's already cooled down by the water.

Could you elaborate what you mean by that inundation event? The oceans were different back then, no-one denies that - but that doesn't make evidence for not the entire world being underwater go away, but that's what you'd require. In that sense you shoot your own leg with the two pictures, which do show dry land - and that's not just a guess but based on geological evidence.

One certainly has to interpret the Hector and Brisbane ignimbrites in catastrophic versus uniformitarian terms.

Well ok, then please show me an interpretation which works and which is not contradicted by evidence such as the fumaroles.

1. How has it been determined, outside of the fossils contained within these geologic features, that these strata are “Triassic� The only information I gain from the term “Triassic†is certain types of fossils are found within the strata. It’s only a way to categorize a single catastrophic event in a relative sort of way.

It's volcanic ash, radiometric dating works just fine on it. And before you object to radiometric dating supposedly being unreliable: You still have to meet the challenge of presenting a scenario which accounts for the correlation of various independent dating methods.

And besides, index fossils are completely sufficient - after all, the flood model does propose hydrologic sorting of fossils, so that relative ages should be accurately reflected by index fossils.
This makes that formation count as mid-deluvian by the flood model's own standards.

2. Why could this subsection of the geologic column not show survival of the fittest at it’s most extreme: catastrophe?

It does - just not the right type of catastrophe for the flood model to work.

3. What’s your take on the Space-Time Continuum, The Big Bang Theory and their effects on “absolute†dating methods?

These are irrelevant to the point at hand. Let's stay on topic here, which is geology vs the noachian flood. If you want to discuss them, then you're free to make a seperate thread on them separatee, i'll be there.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

3. What’s your take on the Space-Time Continuum, The Big Bang Theory and their effects on “absolute†dating methods?

These are irrelevant to the point at hand. Let's stay on topic here, which is geology vs the noachian flood. If you want to discuss them, then you're free to make a seperate thread on them separatee, i'll be there.

I think it is a relevant question because as part of your answer you site radiometric dating as a way of ascertaining, outside of the fossils contained within the strata, the absolute date of the formation. I do agree with you that the fossil record reveals a relative chronology: The Triassic and Jurassic recording the final phases of dry land before total inundation globally.

Also, just to clarify: are you saying subaqueous fumaroles and ignimbrites don't exist?

You bring up a lot of other good points that I'd like to ponder on this week. I'll try to have a response by this weekend.

Cheers,

Thought you might find this interesting:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... anoes.html

I'm still purusing it.

"...Unlike volcanic activity at mid-ocean ridges, island arc volcanoes can remain fixed over their magma sources for thousands of years, allowing them to sometimes grow above water level and become islands..."

Here's another interesting link:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ume_2.html

"...The new data on hydrothermal fields and megaplumes underscores the fact that volcanic activity on the ocean floor remains a largely mysterious phenomenon..."

"Ninety percent of the Earth's volcanic activity takes place underwater," Murton said. "Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there..."

Here's a cool movie of an underwater vent:

http://www.oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explo ... _wm320.wmv



Another type of cone formed within the Galápagos archipelago is called a welded tuff cone. Tuff is the name designated for volcanic rock that is formed by the consolidation of very small pyroclasts. Welded tuff is only formed when a particular eruption occurs at extremely high heat. The pyroclasts actually fuse together, to form large sloping peaks. One particularly good example of a welded tuff cone comes from around the island of San Cristóbal, called Leon Dormido (also known as Kicker Rock). The shoe like appearance as seen in this photograph taken from our ship at dusk, helps to explain why the formation is called "Kicker Rock". It is debated that this particular formation may have also formed underwater, in which case it would be categorized as palagonite.

Another type of cone formed within the Galápagos archipelago is called a welded tuff cone. Tuff is the name designated for volcanic rock that is formed by the consolidation of very small pyroclasts. Welded tuff is only formed when a particular eruption occurs at extremely high heat. The pyroclasts actually fuse together, to form large sloping peaks. One particularly good example of a welded tuff cone comes from around the island of San Cristóbal, called Leon Dormido (also known as Kicker Rock). The shoe like appearance as seen in this photograph taken from our ship at dusk, helps to explain why the formation is called "Kicker Rock". It is debated that this particular formation may have also formed underwater, in which case it would be categorized as palagonite.

http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/galsite ... lcano.html

 

[jwu]

You bring up a lot of other good points that I'd like to ponder on this week. I'll try to have a response by this weekend.

Ok, just take your time.

Just a notice:
Palagonites are sufficiently distinct from welded tuffs which formed under air to be used as evidence that there was fluid water on mars in the past.

Another aspect that has to be considered is the shape of the tuff. If i recall correctly palagonite tuffs typically form cones or similar strictly localized formations as the water cools them down right where they get ejected.
The tuffs that i am referring to however are comparatively thin layers which stretch over many square miles and also appear to have flowed downhill as a cloud, following the contours of the ground below like a river. They couldn't possibly do that underwater and maintain a sufficient temperature for long enough to weld or to form fumaroles.

While underwater fumaroles are not unknown, these are distinct in sofar as they have an own source of heat, a nearby underground magma flow. Those of the tuffs however do not, they only had the heat that the ash brought itself.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

No, because in particular the Brisbane tuff is the result of a pyroclastic flows which followed the course of valleys. Blasting through the surface and then settling down would not produce such a strictly confined flow. Moreover, it cooled down in these valleys, fumaroles at the base of the ignimbrite indicate that it was hot and cooled down in its final position. Such a flow couldn't happen underwater and ash that settles down through water would not be confined to the shape of a valley, nor would it leave fumaroles as it's already cooled down by the water.

What do you make of these two reports (and the parts I highlighted) as they relate to your above statement:

Subaqueous pyroclastic flows form almost one-half of the 10,000-ft Ohanapecosh Formation (Eocene and Oligocene?) in the eastern part of Mount Rainier National Park, Washington. Most of these flows probably originated by the sloughing of debris from the flanks of active underwater volcanoes during and after pyroclastic eruptions. Some of the pyroclastic flows caused directly by underwater eruptions may not have been completely quenched and could have traveled as stream-inflated slurries of pyroclastic debris and water.

http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi ... t/74/4/391

The Ohanapecosh subaqueous pyroclastic flows are extensive, nonwelded deposits of lapilli-tuff or fine tuff-breccia ranging in thickness from 10 to more than 200 ft. They are interbedded with thinner and generally finer turbidity-current and ash-fall deposits formed by smaller and more water-rich slumps of pyroclastic debris from the underwater volcanoes and by ash falls that rained into the water.

http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi ... t/74/4/391

 

[jwu]

There are many types of pyroclastic flows. Lava flows are one type, and no-one denies that these can happen underwater. Clouds of hot ash are another type of pyroclastic flow, and while there can be hot ash underwater too, it cannot flow for significant distances, following the shape of the ground and then still form fumaroles at a significant distance away - because it'd cool down too quickly. Different to a massive lava flow it's solved in the water and thus has the same temperature as the water after a few seconds. And if it doesn't instantly boil the water at the ejection point, it won't do so further downhill either, when it's even somewhat cooler and under higher pressure.

They are interbedded with thinner and generally finer turbidity-current and ash-fall deposits formed by smaller and more water-rich slumps of pyroclastic debris from the underwater volcanoes and by ash falls that rained into the water.

That's not a comparable formation at all. The tuffs from my example are pure air fall tuffs, not mixed with other flows, and that article also explicitly says that the ash rained onto the water from above.

The pattern of distribution from the tuffs in question however shows that the ash did not rain onto the water because it follows the course of the valley - just like a pyroclastic cloud would do. Had it settled down from raining onto the water surface, it would not be confined to the shape of the valley, nor would it still be hot enough to form fumaroles when it finally solidified on the ground - it already would have boiled the water on its way down there, thus losing its energy and being thrown around by water vapor bubbles in a way that would prevent lithification.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

There are many types of pyroclastic flows. Lava flows are one type, and no-one denies that these can happen underwater. Clouds of hot ash are another type of pyroclastic flow, and while there can be hot ash underwater too, it cannot flow for significant distances, following the shape of the ground and then still form fumaroles at a significant distance away - because it'd cool down too quickly. Different to a massive lava flow it's solved in the water and thus has the same temperature as the water after a few seconds. And if it doesn't instantly boil the water at the ejection point, it won't do so further downhill either, when it's even somewhat cooler and under higher pressure.


Quote:
They are interbedded with thinner and generally finer turbidity-current and ash-fall deposits formed by smaller and more water-rich slumps of pyroclastic debris from the underwater volcanoes and by ash falls that rained into the water.
That's not a comparable formation at all. The tuffs from my example are pure air fall tuffs, not mixed with other flows, and that article also explicitly says that the ash rained onto the water from above.

The pattern of distribution from the tuffs in question however shows that the ash did not rain onto the water because it follows the course of the valley - just like a pyroclastic cloud would do. Had it settled down from raining onto the water surface, it would not be confined to the shape of the valley, nor would it still be hot enough to form fumaroles when it finally solidified on the ground - it already would have boiled the water on its way down there, thus losing its energy and being thrown around by water vapor bubbles in a way that would prevent lithification.

Alright, I've got to get to work (grrrrrrr...) :x . I'll try to have a response by this weekend. Have a good week bro.

 

[dad]

It's typical for basaltic lava flows which cooled on dry land.

Long ago, molten rock cooled quickly. Doesn't matter if it was on land at all.

These are some more examples of such basalt covered by some more sediments...too many sediments for it to be post flood, and it's clearly above anything that can be called pre flood:

I don't see how it is above anything that was pre flood here. And if there was rapid continental movement, one expects things piled up here and there.

So all these strata were exposed to air when the lava flows formed, i.e. not they didn't form during a global flood.

Since it cooled fast in the far past this does not matter.

 

[scutato]

Wait wait wait.

However, since we have learned that columnar basalt can form without surface contact, i concede that point.

When? I'm trying my best to understand this, but I'm mostly ignorant when it comes to geology. Interesting stuff to (try to) understand though! You guys know your stuff

 

[Solo]

http://www.ancientdays.net/geotime.htm

 

[jwu]

http://www.ancientdays.net/geotime.htm

See this thread for a response:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 8&start=15

[...]

The same old song again..."back the the past physics worked differently, without leaving any evidence of changes of the laws of physics, bla bla bla."

And besides...the point was that for this particular type of formation it had to cool slowly, not quickly.

When? I'm trying my best to understand this, but I'm mostly ignorant when it comes to geology.

There was an example of a sill that cooled as columnar basalt, so contact to air is not required for it to form and hence this line of reasoning does not work. Of course the precise shape of a lava flow can indicate that it happened under air contact, but that then doesn't have anything to do with columnar basalt then anymore, and there aren't many resources on this available on the net - mostly because it's considered "too obvious" to be worth explicit mention by geologists. If it's called a lava flow, then it's identified as a surface flow (subterraneous ones are magma flows), and if it's rather small, then it doesn't bring enough own energy to flow for a long distance underwater, it'd cool down there too fast and form pillow structures instead of a smoothly shaped flow.

Some images of such lava pillows:

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons ... illows.jpg
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Sub ... ures/7.jpg
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Compo ... 1.300w.jpg

Some images of such flows right as they form:
http://satftp.soest.hawaii.edu/space/ha ... ge.s2.html

However, there are other things which indicate that strata formed under air contact, therefore the discussion has shifted towards air fall tuffs with fumaroles (which indicate that the ash was still hot enough to boil water when it settled down on the ground, which it couldn't be if it just rained on top of water and then sank down to the ground), welded non-palagonite tuffs, and in the not so distant future we'll also get to evaporites (mineral residues of lakes and even whole oceans which dried out...i don't really see that happening during a worldwide flood) and paleosols (layers of ancient humus which indicate vegetation having grown where for quite some time)

 

[dad]

The same old song again..."back the the past physics worked differently, without leaving any evidence of changes of the laws of physics, bla bla bla."

And besides...the point was that for this particular type of formation it had to cool slowly, not quickly.

Your OP really was mostly pictures, I don't remember 'the point' claimed that 'that particular' (whatever picture you are referring to here) type of formation had to cool slowly either. Why did it 'have' to cool slowly, and how slowly do you think it had to cool and why?

Also I don't say physics laws worked differently, I simply point out they did not exist then, and will not again in the future. The laws beyond the present governed more than physical only mass.

I also pointed out that I saw no reason layers you claimed 'could not' be pre flood actually were not pre flood.
Obviously you want to preach, rather than discuss. Fine.