Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

It's hard to get finer-grained that a true 'trap' rock. However, the very presence of water along with rapid cooling will change the texture completely. Most subaqueous volcanics will be fragmental (broken up), and often altered (heat plus water plus dissolved materials). Look up the term 'hyaloclastite' sometime.The exception to this is in the case of some pillow basalts, but again, they have macro-textures that are immediately recognized by virtually all geologists. They are also usually altered to a sodic (remember the salt questions?) type.Again, the reality is complex. For instance, what happens when a magma encounters groundwater? We could go on and on.

Volcanic islands are problematic. Most subaqueous volcanics are pyroclastic; that is, they are broken up and tend to collapse or erode easily. So, what you need is a huge amount of eruptive material to actually form an island that will resist wave action long enough for intrusive and extrusive lava to be deposited and support a long lasting island. As we can see, it does happen. However, if you look at the seafloor topography around the Hawaiian Islands, you will see huge landslide deposits all around the emergent islands.

To amplify on my previous post, the subaqueous lavas encounter water and cool so rapidly that they fragment into tiny grains that are mostly glass and therefor are readily altered in the presence of water. So, they are not only broken up, but they are converted quickly to clay minerals. This means that they are exceedingly weak.I'm showing a picture here of a subaerial example of clay-altered volcanic rocks in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado. The lobe of material flowed from right to left, into a valley and formed Lake San Cristobal. You might imagine that same type of material partly suspended and thinned by water and and how far it might flow. I'm also sure that this same phenomenon is what happened in Washignton state a few years ago, killing a number of people. To my mind, a lot of these things are predictable.

Heh, heh ...This always seemed odd to me. I think most YECs feel the same way to some degree; but realistically, it's not that big a deal. The other radiometric methods date much older events and are probably much easier to deal with as far as technique. Frankly, it is easier to attack than other methods because of the nature of the 'beast'.

Rapid cooling forming glass fragments, and in the presence of water. We are talking about subaqueous volcanism here.Here is an example of a volcanic island.

quote:

---

Surtsey ("Surtr's island" in Icelandic, pronounced ˈsʏr̥tsei) is a volcanic island located in the Vestmannaeyjar archipelago off the southern coast of Iceland. At 63.303N 20.605WCoordinates: 63.303N 20.605W, Surtsey is the southernmost point of Iceland. It was formed in a volcanic eruption which began 130 metres (426 ft) below sea level, and reached the surface on 14 November 1963. The eruption lasted until 5 June 1967, when the island reached its maximum size of 2.7 km2 (1.0 sq mi). Since then, wave erosion has caused the island to steadily diminish in size: as of 2002, its surface area was 1.4 km2 (0.54 sq mi).[1] The most recent survey (2007) shows the island's maximum elevation at 155 m (509 ft) above sea level.[2](Surtsey - Wikipedia bold added)

---

Note that the island has lost half its area between 1967 and 2002. Not sure what's happened since then, but at an elevation of 155m, it may have built something of a skeleton and a mass to help resist future wave erosion. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Yes. Ash can fall in air as a cold or hot deposit. If hot enough, it can make a very competent rock. If cold, it will be a fine dust, just as the ash from Mt. St. Helens was deposited over most of the northwest US. That material will essentially disappear and eventually be preserved in places like the Columbia River alluvial fan. Again, yes. Tuff is a rock type composed of consolidated volcanic ash. And again, the hotter, the more compacted it can become forming a 'welded tuff'.The exact mode of composition, transport and deposition will result in numerous variations of tuffs.

Tambora (Sumbawa Island, Indonesia), April 1815, largest historic volcanic eruption. Up to 100,000 deaths attributed to the climate and tsunami effects of the one, single eruption. Tambora is still considered active. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Just a quick reference:CD011: Carbon dating.ETA: Heh, heh...Anyone that says this:

quote:

---

"If the earth and life on earth are really as ancient as the theory of evolution requires, a great proportion of radiocarbon ages should be infinite. This is because, with a half-life of only 5,730 years, initial radiocarbon in a fossil decreases in about ten half-lives to a level too low to be measured."Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1982, pp. 116-117.

---

...doesn't have a clue. In radiocarbon dating anything over 50ky, depending on the sample characteristics, IS an infinite age.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I'm trying to imagine what the world has come to when someone 'needs' an issue of CRSQ...

quote:

---

I see much active/historical debate about the proposed causes of this anomaly. I'm not so interested (for current purposes) in the cause so much as whether it's accepted and demonstrable that it exists as a world wide layer. If you understand the theology that I'm up against (all life killed all at once), having such an identifiable marker laid down world wide, smack in the middle of all this death is a nice arrow in the evidence quiver.

​

I'm wondering how broad the confirmation is of this layer. Is it a solid accepted fact of geology? I reading the Wiki page for Luis Alverez, I saw this statement: Not Found
quote:

​

"Publication of the 1980 paper brought criticism from the geological community, and an often acrimonious scientific debate ensued."

​

Was/is that debate centered around cause of the layer or the existence of the layer? I don't want to put this arrow in my quiver without confirming it's validity and understanding any controversy. It would seem to me that with as many holes as we drill in the earths crust, confirmation of this layer could be pretty broad if it exists.

​

I have been unable to find any reference to this yet in the excellent Wiki-book on geology provided by Dr Adequate, but I'm not even close to being all the way through that reference and I can't seem to find a way to search the contents of that book electronically (without searching the entire site).

​

Any suggestions appreciated.

---

What you are seeing is the nature of science and learning about the earth. There were several issues with the origination of the impact theory.As with many debates in the sciences, there was a problem with the mechanism. Some people had a problem with the concept as there was no known source for the iridium layer. As the wiki article shows, the Chicxulub crater was discovered later.The next problem was timing and duration of the extinction event for the dinosaurs. Even to this day, there is still some debate as to how long it took the dinosaurs to go extinct and exactly when it happened.These are not critical to the interpretation of an impact origin for the iridium layer or that it occurred near the K/T boundary, or that the event occurred millions of years ago.And yes, debate in the scientific community can by 'acrimonious'. Bad theories don't last very long in that environment.AFAIK, the layer is global except where it is eroded away. The thing about iridium is that it is a rare element in the earth's crust, and anomalies are pretty well-defined and easy to detect. Even tiny amounts are significant. Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

After a little search, I found this map: In this reference:The Chicxulub multi-ring impact crater, Yucatan carbonate platform, Gulf of MexicoSome of the other figures in the article are important as well, showing, for instance the differences between proximal and distal deposits. Note also that they rely not only on iridium but shocked quartz, magnetics and some other geochemical variability in ferrous metals.

quote:

---

"Characteristics of K/Pg boundary sections world—wide are also important in studies of the climatic and environmental perturbations generated by the impact and in evaluating effects in the biosphere. Initial studies were carried out in distal sections from Europe (lvarez et al., 1980), and only later analyses of sections in proximal sites were completed. Studies demonstrated the global distribution of the ejecta layer, with K/Pg boundary sections in all continental areas and ocean basins (Figures 19 and 20). Marine and continental deposits were characterized by the iridium anomaly, and shock minerals. Studies in the Gulf of Mexico—Caribbean Sea areas showed that sections were more complex and thicker as compared with distal sites, with presence of high—energy sedimentary deposits and fireball layer, and also indicating that iridium enrichment patterns varied with relative location to impact site (Bourgeois et al., 1988; Smit et al., 1992; lvarez et al., 1992; Urrutia—Fucugauchi, 1993). The K/Pg boundary layer in distal and proximal sections is characterized by a magnetic anomaly, with increased magnetic susceptibility and remanent magnetization (Figure 21) (Villasante et al., 2007)."

---

If you presuppose a biblical flood, yes. However, there is no evidence for such a flood event.Besides, you are still using an impact to explain the iridium, not a flood per se. But yes, there could be other things going on at the time. There were probably volcanoes erupting too, but so what?

Ummm, ... we aren't doing that.Impacts can happen whether there was a flood or not. We were discussing the global occurrence of an iridium layer supporting the interpretation of a global event caused by an extraterrestrial origin. Your flood has nothing to do with this discussion. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

A very specific question was asked. I was attempting to answer. There was nothing in the question regarding the validity or disproof of a flood.When the flood comes up, your statement will be relevant... maybe.Or maybe you could complain that the iridium layer does not disprove the existence Cambrian mammals, also.

Are you saying that the flood explains the iridium layer?If so, then you need to explain your explanation.