Tas Walker debunked again.

[Steve660]

My latest anti-creationist article is now available on-line. Entitled "Reading between the (basalt) columns" it is an examination of Tasman Walker's nonsense about the Interbasaltic Bed in Northern Ireland. This is a palaeosol, specifically a fossil laterite, impossible to explain in terms of a Noachian flood and young earth. As Walker is to visit the Giant's Causeway in September, which there are good exposures of the Interbasaltic Bed, it will be of use to anyone wanting to go ask him awkward questions. Note that the published article had to be greatly cut down in size for space reasons. The original tackled every one of Walker's alleged "problems" as well as describing the scientific evidence that Walker ignores, and which proves the lateritic nature of the feature. Anyone wanting a copy of the full length article can PM me and I will send them a Word version. The published one is in Earth Science Ireland, Issue 15, (Spring 2014), p. 30-31. The full issue may be downloaded as a pdf from the Earth Science Ireland website: earthscienceireland.org Enjoy!

[a_haworthroberts]

Walker will be spreading his misinformation at Nottingham University on 22 September. Mein Gott.
http://creation.com/rock-man-uk-tour

[a_haworthroberts]

Interesting ...
http://creation.com/giants-causeway-geo ... ce-ireland

[Roger Stanyard]

Interesting ...
http://creation.com/giants-causeway-geo ... ce-ireland

Tas Wa;ker is neither a geologist nor a scientists; he's a mechanical engineer who works for a religious organisarion, Creation Ministries International. He's no more professionally proficient in geology than my cat's arse is. His occupation is proselytising his fundamentalist religiou opinions.

[Peter Henderson]

Interesting ...
http://creation.com/giants-causeway-geo ... ce-ireland

Tas Wa;ker is neither a geologist nor a scientists; he's a mechanical engineer who works for a religious organisarion, Creation Ministries International. He's no more professionally proficient in geology than my cat's arse is. His occupation is proselytising his fundamentalist religiou opinions.

The author's bio:

Angus Kennedy has an Honours Degree in Geology from Glasgow University. He worked in the oil industry as a well logger from 1980 to 1984, after which he joined a leading quarrying company in Northern Ireland as a lab technician sampling and testing aggregate and asphalt production. Later he became a Technical Manager overseeing two quality control labs and dealing with other technical matters. From 1995 Angus moved to quality and environmental systems management where he has acted in various management roles. When required, he has acted as geologist to the company in matters relating to aggregates, the assessment of quarries and in trial drilling programmes

If this appears in Earth science Ireland without any response from real geologists then it's a travesty.

Steve clearly has more work to do.

Update: On 17 November 2014, Angus Kennedy emailed this letter to Dr Tony Bazley, editor of Earth Science Ireland, who replied saying he appreciates the contribution. It just missed the current issue, which is at the printers, but will be in the following (Spring) issue. Dr Bazley expects he will have to trim the references somewhat but will try to put them online so people with an interest can check them out

Is Dr. Bazely that clueless about young Earth creationism ?

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Peter Henderson]

THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT EITHER THE AGE OF THE EARTH OR THE FORMATION OF THE GIANT'S CAUSEWAY.

Why has the editor has of Earth science Ireland agreed to publish this ????????

I think a letter to Dr Tony Bazley is in order

[Steve660]

I have been in touch with the editor and he denies agreeing to publish Kennedy's open letter. He was planning on just mentioning it and referring any interested readers to the creation website. I was looking forward to debunking it as Kennedy gets so much wrong. Like denying the presence of carbonised remains (I did refer to them at Craigahulliar quarry, and I have other examples lined up), and his chemistry is all wrong. The acids that result from volcanic eruptions (hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, sulphuric) would actually dissolve laterite, not create it! I found it odd that he should complain about the lack of erosion gullies such as are observed as a result of slash and burn agriculture. Does he think this form of agriculture was taking place during the flood? If not then why should one expect to see such gullies? The "laterites" he claims to have observed within one flow are almost certainly boles - weathered tops of flows where the laterisation process has begun but not got as far as laterite. I have loads more data (analyses, isotopic data, fossil evidence) that demonstrates the surface origin of the Interbasaltic Bed, but had to omit it for reasons of space. Note that the paper Kennedy says proves clay deposition from fast flowing water actually says it deposited from water flowing at 10 to 26 cm/s. I walk faster than that.

[Steve660]

Comments on creation.com are limited to 1800 characters, so I have submitted a very abbreviated version of the rebuttal below. I am not optimistic they'll accept it - they've never accepted my previous posts. The rebuttal below is provided "for the record" and so that Angus Kennedy cannot kid himself that he has successfully answered my article. He hasn't. Enjoy.

Angus Kennedy’s weak response to my article suffers from errors, unsubstantiated statements and omissions. Here is a summary, in roughly the order the problems arise in his open letter.
His tired assertion about dating methods relying on “assumptions about rates, original starting conditions and processes” has been rebutted in detail on the usual counter-creationist websites, so merits no further comment here except to point out that the one about “rates” leads to comical consequences. If radioactive decay rates were accelerated by the amount required to make young rocks look billions of years old, then the heat liberated would boil off the oceans, and likely melt the earth’s crust.
His assertion that “God’s tape measure” is recorded in the Bible assumes that the Bible is God’s word.
Kennedy invokes “an unimaginable magnitude of tectonism and magmatism” during the flood. Indeed, the creationists posit catastrophic plate tectonics, with sinking continent-size slabs of dense rock dragging the crust around at a brisk walking pace. Again the heat released would melt the crust, and probably the mantle too. So again the oceans would be boiled off, and an ocean of magma would remain. The oceanic crust comprises about 2/3 of the earth’s surface and consists of about 7 km thickness of basalt. This was all molten in the space of one year, along with all the terrestrial igneous rocks, both intrusive and extrusive.
Consequently there would be no hot water around to cause “alteration and laterization of susceptible rocks”, it was all boiled off, and the rocks would themselves have been molten. And I have not included the intense meteorite bombardment creationists have to cram into the flood year (look at the moon).
Laterite can form from many durable rock types, including granite, rhyolite and basalt, all of which have long been used for monumental purposes. My monuments example therefore stands.
The examples Kennedy gives of disrupted and mingled basalt and laterite do not indicate rapid laterite formation so are irrelevant.
His claim of thin “layers of pink lateritic basalt” within a single flow is more likely several similar flows with weathered tops forming “boles”, which he has mistaken for one single flow. Such boles are common in Antrim and represent the beginning of the lateritisation process on the weathered tops of exposed flows.
He provides no evidence that the alteration claimed to be due to “volatiles streaming up through the basalt” was indeed lateritisation. Where are the chemical analyses, chemical and mineralogical profiles, and isotope data? Laterites have distinctive chemical and mineralogical compositions, and profiles. It could have been zeolitisation, which is very different.
He invokes warm acid rain in the “aftermath” of the flood to generate his fast laterite, but the Interbasaltic Bed is buried under rocks allegedly formed during the flood. So it cannot have formed in the aftermath.
His chemistry is wrong. Kennedy invokes acid rain resulting from volcanic emissions, and his footnote 10 lists some of those acidic vapours: SO2, HF and HCl, which form respectively, sulphuric, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids, and he emphasises the last. Unfortunately for him laterite is readily soluble in all these acids. Far from creating laterite, they would dissolve it! In reality laterite forms under much less aggressive conditions, even neutral and alkaline ones.
So his scenario fails because there was no water, it having been boiled off, and the rocks were molten with all that heat. And afterwards, the acid rain was the wrong kind of acid!
The 3 Ma age estimate is the most up to date, and is for the full 30 m thickness (Ganerød 2010).
The comment about uniform thickness was originally one of Walker’s, and concerned the regional topography, not local variations.
Kennedy complains about the absence of gullies forming as a result of deforestation in the course of slash and burn agriculture. I did not realise that creationists posited any kind of agriculture taking place during the flood. Nevertheless there is evidence for natural fluvial reworking of the laterite (Cole et al 1912) and erosional disturbance (Eyles, 1950).
Kennedy complains, “What any unbiased person should spot straight away, and consider to be truly remarkable, is the fact that there are no carbonised remains of any such rainforest to be seen”. But I provided an example of charred remains (Craigahulliar quarry). Here are some more: a bed full of “charred sticks” at Ballintoy, large carbonised “stools of trees” at Cullinane, and “carbonised timber trunks” in Clonetrace mine (Cole et al, 1912). Doubtless many more occurrences have gone unrecorded.
The “pockets of lignite” are widespread, and substantial enough to have been mined extensively.
Kennedy ignores some of my corrections of Walker, like Walker’s claim there are no plant roots (I gave two examples), and his claim that the top of the bed is not altered (it is). Does Kennedy concede these points?
The “facts” from “130 years of geological effort” I “bang on about” include some I had not space to include in the original article. Like the analyses by Eyles (1952) and Hill (2000) proving a laterite composition, both chemical and mineral, and with the expected profile (most leached at the top, proving action by descending water) which Walker ignores (Walker and Kennedy seem to differ in that the former denies it is a laterite, the latter accepts it is, but thinks laterites form fast). Hill also found evidence for alternating wet and dry seasons. Fossil evidence including pollens indicates a surface origin, as does the isotopic signature (Tabor & Yapp, 2005). And radiometric dating coupled to palaeomagnetism gives a rate of formation similar to that observed for modern laterites (Ganerød 2010). The fossils are specifically Palaeocene, another problem for Kennedy. Why not Carboniferous, Devonian, or a random mixture?
The paper Kennedy cites as proving deposition of clay in “fast flowing” water gives speeds of 10 to 26 cm/s. I walk faster than that. It will not do for the violent churning creationists envisage. But since the oceans had all boiled off anyway, the point is moot.
The final paragraph of my article was heavily edited, and the words largely those of the editor.
Creationists really are “highly deceptive and misleading”, and their beliefs are absurd. Laterites do form slowly, the Interbasaltic Bed is a fossil laterite and the evidence for this is overwhelming. Walker’s list of errors, Kennedy’s chemical ignorance, and the creationists’ laughable flood scenario, do not change that.

Cole, G.A.J., Wilkinson, S.B., M’Henry, A., Kilroe, J.R., Seymour, H.J., Moss, C.E. & Haigh, W.D. (1912) The Interbasaltic Rocks (iron ores and bauxites) of North-East Ireland, Mem. Geol. Surv. of Ireland, HMSO, Dublin

Eyles, V.A. (1950) Note on the Interbasaltic Horizon in Northern Ireland. Q.J.G.S. London, cvi, p.136-7

Eyles, V.A. (1952) The Composition and Origin of the Antrim Laterites and Bauxites. Mem. Geol. Surv., Belfast, HMSO

Ganerød, M. Smethurst,M.A., Torsvik, T.H., Prestvik, T., Rousse, S., McKenna, C., van Hinsbergen, D.J.J., Hendriks,B.W.H. (2010) The North Atlantic Igneous Province reconstructed and its relation to the Plume Generation Zone: the Antrim Lava Group revisited. Geophys. J. Int., 182, 183-202.

Hill, I.G., Worden,I.H., Meighan, I.G. (2000) Geochemical evolution of a palaeolaterite: the Interbasaltic Formation, Northern Ireland. Chemical Geology, 166, 65-84.

Tabor, N.J. & Yapp, C.J. (2005) Coexisting goethite and gibbsite from a high-paleolatitude (55°N) Late Paleocene laterite: Concentration and 13C/12C ratios of occluded CO2 and associated organic matter. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 69(23), 5495-5510.

[a_haworthroberts]

http://creation.com/giants-causeway-geo ... ce-ireland
Comments by Steve and an attempted rebuttal by Angus have now appeared under the article.

[Steve660]

I was pleasantly surprised that they accepted my post, but then I have noticed before that creationists do sometimes allow critical remarks - when they think they have answers. Of course AK's answers don't stand up and I have posted a counter-rebuttal. I am waiting to see if it is accepted. AK's reply is essentially an exercise in irrelevance, and missing the point. He continues to get his chemistry wildly wrong and, interestingly, is now trying to hedge his bets about volcanic emissions. Unfortunately for him there is no known chemical process that can turn basalt into laterite at the rate he requires.

[Steve660]

Not surprisingly my last submission in response to Angus Kennedy in the comments thread below his "Open letter" was not accepted, even though it was submitted before the 14 day deadline. For the record here it is:

Heat problem is fatal to young earth creationism (YEC). Not just “a problem to be addressed”. There are others, eg. intense meteorite bombardment. YEC defies physics.
The Interbasaltic Bed (IB) laterite formed even from durable, unaltered rock. Angus’ drill evidence doesn’t change this, nor prove lateritisation “within” flows. He has no evidence (eg. analyses) proving it’s not a series of flows with weathered tops. That also fits drill evidence.
I welcome his kind offer to visit. Look 4ward to it. Thanks.
The composition of IB sets tight pH & temperature limits on formation conditions. They can’t be aggressive. He has no chemical mechanism, I do. YEC defies chemistry.
Gully erosion Angus cites is result of agriculture. The erosion observed is like that in modern laterites without agriculture, eg. meandering rivers.
All Walker’s “problems” are false/irrelevant. I made no contradiction, Angus just missed the point.
Forest was not rainforest, but temperate one. Angus assumes it must be preserved. Not so. What didn’t burn in the lava simply decayed. But there are charred remnants – I gave 4 examples. These refute claims by Walker & Angus that such remains are absent. Pollen & other fossils prove lowland forest was present.
Angus ignores point that fossil & isotope data prove surface origin.
He & Walker differ about timing & identity of IB. Angus accepts it’s laterite, but has it after flood, but then he’ll have problems explaining later sediments & fossils on top of upper basalt. Walker seems to dispute it’s laterite, & places it during flood. Non-YECs all agree, it’s a laterite formed on surface millions years ago, & differ only in detail.
I follow evidence wherever it goes. YECs start with conclusion then cherry-pick & force the evidence to fit. That not science.

It did elicit a private reply from Tas Walker, talking nonsense about fitting data to frameworks. I do hope to take up AK's offer of a quarry visit, next year.

[a_haworthroberts]

And I thought CMI deplored 'censorship' (if indeed any took place as was alleged here):
http://creation.com/atheistic-opposition-response

[Steve660]

I submitted it on Thursday 4th. They have a 14 day deadline which would have expired on the Sunday. Previous posts were delayed by a few days before appearing, perhaps to give AK a chance to write a reply. They may simply have been tardy, or it may have been something else.

[a_haworthroberts]

http://creation.com/geological-excursio ... rn-ireland
Just seen. About to take a look.

Key quotes (which ignore or reject the scientific consensus because this is not about science but hardline literalist Bible defending):
"As you follow the path you can see that this red bed dips downhill. It’s claimed to be an ancient soil that formed slowly over millions of years, which is why it’s called a laterite. This time-frame contradicts the history of the Bible, and not surprisingly we saw many characteristics of this bed that do not fit the ‘ancient soil’ explanation, which we will discuss later";
"As we walked back to the Visitors’ Centre we had a good view of the rolling surface of the plateau and could appreciate how it had been eroded flat, first by receding floodwaters and then by glaciers that covered the landscape during the post-Flood Ice Age";
"We concluded that the Causeway was emplaced after the chalk layers were deposited, as the waters of the Flood were receding into the ocean. Further, the area was eroded first by the receding floodwaters and then by glacial ice during the post-Flood Ice Age";
"Perhaps one day tourists will be informed that the rocky outcrops are a memorial of the vast watery catastrophe that overtook our globe just some 4,500 years ago".

Whether there were any dissenters in the group is not made clear.

Incidentally, Walker sent me an email overnight suggesting I might want him to forward to me "a YouTube video about who we are in Christ".

I had already decided that I do not wish to view it (and said as much) - before seeing this new article.

My Christian life came to an end. And if the god in question really exists he wants his followers to lie and fabricate to defend a 2,000+ year old book. I want nothing to do with such an entity. I never lied for him and the book of Genesis in the past (I focused on the gospel in the New Testament if I ever 'witnessed' to people).


PS - as for the text in blue at the end:
Perhaps a YEC such as Walker (or John Hartnett who has already ducked this very question, or maybe Mr Ken Ham himself) will answer the following question:
"Why do you believe Earth has experienced at least one 'ice age' (ie a glaciation)? Do you have an ‘eye-witness’ account of such an event? Or is it that there is solid physical and observable evidence for at least one past glaciation? Do young earth creationists sometimes accept ‘historical science’? What are the criteria for sometimes accepting it whilst normally decrying it and insisting that it cannot be true science?"
Walker refers to physical ie geological evidence for ice ages. Thus I would suggest that he is accepting some 'historical science' - though of course with a YEC spin in his statements, because the most obvious explanatlons of the observable evidence are 'not allowed' if you are a YEC Christian. His claim: "The Bible explains the Ice Age' is totally preposterous. If he told the truth he would state: "I can force the Bible to explain that Earth has been more extensively glaciated and a lot colder in the past - as science has already revealed before I invented my claimed 'biblical explanation'". (An 'explanation' contradicted by Genesis 8 verse 22. But 'Bible geology' is not and never has been 'the Bible' - it is the evidence-lacking claims (involving massive simultaneous volcanic eruptions as well) by the likes of Tas Walker and Michael Oard ie the 'word of Man' which ADDS to the Bible.)

PPS - after some late additions this post is now final (at 0.34 am).

[Steve660]

Thanks for the link Ashley. I knew Walker was leading a tour of the Causeway in September. I do not know if he had seen my latest debunking (in Earth Science Ireland) at that time, although he had certainly seen my much earlier one, so knew his claims were untenable. At least the appearance of a new item on the topic on creation.com provides an opportunity for further posts there.
I wonder who the "professional geologists" were? AK probably, but he did use the plural.
He whines that the creationist view is supressed, but not the long-age one, "But why should only one view be presented on an important issue when it is subjective speculation?" What an outrageous remark!