Martin

Misrepresentations of Martin et al. (1985) in Oard (1997), What Oard (2008a) and Oard (2009a) Don’t Say about Eyles and Januszczak (2007), and Nothing Strange Going On: Mr. Oard Simply Failed to Notice the Second Martin et al. (1985) Section in my 1999 Essay

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

May 4, 2014

Introduction

One of the major goals of Oard (1997), Oard (2008a), and Oard (2009a) is to transform all evidence of pre-Pleistocene glaciations into deposits that are compatible with Noah’s Flood. As documented in this essay and elsewhere at this website, Mr. Oard frequently distorts and misrepresents the geologic literature in his unsuccessful attempts to attain this goal. Although there are controversies over whether certain formations or outcrops are glaciogenic or not (Chumakov, 2008, pp. 108-109; Eyles and Januszczak, 2007; Hoffman, 2011; Domack and Hoffman, 2011), Mr. Oard has been unable to find a single secular 21^st century geologist that denies the existence of pre-Pleistocene glaciations. The evidence for pre-Pleistocene glaciations is stronger than ever (for specifics, see here, here, and here).

Currently, there is a controversy over whether the Otavi Group and related rocks of Namibia, Africa contain any Late Precambrian glacial deposits. Martin et al. (1985) and Eyles and Januszczak (2007) are skeptics of the glacial evidence, and Mr. Oard attempts to use these articles to promote Flood geology in Oard (2008a) and Oard (2009a). In contrast, Hoffman (2011) and Domack and Hoffman (2011) disagree with Martin et al. (1985) and Eyles and Januszczak (2007) and contain detailed field results that provide new evidence of a ~635 million years old glaciation in the Ghaub Formation of the Otavi Group, including evidence of tillites that are absolutely fatal to Flood geology. In the upcoming years, we’ll see how the opponents of the Otavi Group glaciations respond to this new evidence. Meanwhile, the misuse of Martin et al. (1985) in Oard (1997) and Mr. Oard’s continued misrepresentations of Martin et al. (1985) and his failures to properly cite my 1999 essay and Eyles and Januszczak (2007) in Oard (2008a) and Oard (2009a) need to be discussed.

What Oard (2008a) and Oard (2009a) Overlooked

As discussed in my 1999 essay, Oard (1997, p. 43, 61) misrepresents discussions in Martin et al. (1985) of the origins of a “varvite” and a “pebbly schist” from these Namibian rocks. Oard (2009a, p. 114) and Oard (2008a, pp. 37-38) respond to some of my statements that deal with his misinterpretations of Martin et al. (1985). Actually, my 1999 essay has two separate sections that discuss how Oard (1997) misquotes and misrepresents Martin et al. (1985). Because Mr. Oard in Oard (2009a, p. 114) and Oard (2008a, pp. 37-38) overlooked the second section in my essay, he neglects and misunderstands some important issues that I raised about Martin et al. (1985).

First Discussion from Martin et al. (1985): Precambrian “Varvite”

The following is the first section of my 1999 essay, which deals with Oard (1997, p. 61) misrepresenting discussions of the Precambrian “varvite” in Martin et al. (1985):

“In another example, Oard ([1997], p. 61) cites Martin et al. (1985) and claims that a Precambrian ‘varvite’ in Namibia was really a series of ‘mass flow bands,’ where the light- and dark-colored bands supposedly ‘separated out’ during ‘mass flow.’ Oard ([1997], p. 61) describes the banding in the Precambrian rock as if it had a sedimentary origin. However, Oard is again wrong. Martin et al. (1985, p. 181-182) claim that the rock and its features are metamorphic and not sedimentary! That is, the ‘varves’ or ‘mass flow bands’ were really produced from high temperature conditions while the rock was ‘baked’ deep within the Earth.”

Oard (1997, p. 61) is from Chapter 8, “Dropstone Varvites”, which is Mr. Oard’s attempt to dismiss the existence of all pre-Pleistocene dropstone varvites. (Flood geology and young-Earth creationism cannot tolerate the existence of even one pre-Pleistocene iceberg dropping a rock into an ancient varve and it also cannot tolerate any varves that are older than a few thousand years.) The above paragraph from my 1999 essay is a rebuttal to the following section of Oard (1997, p. 61), where he states:

“Another example of reclassification is the ‘banded varved rocks’ containing dropstones from a late Precambrian diamictite in Nambia [sic, Namibia]. This diamictite was briefly mention [sic] in Chapter 6 [of Oard, 1997]. It had been assumed glacial by all investigators, up until 1985 [sic, see Eyles and Januszczak 2007, pp. 195-196]. A careful examination of the outcrop revealed that the layers were not lithified varves, but mass flow bands (Martin, Porada, and Walliser, 1985). The light colored laminae were quartz-rich and dark colored laminae were biotite-rich. The laminae separated out during mass flow.” [my 2013 comments in brackets]

Oard (1997, p. 61) is clearly wrong to claim that the “laminae” in the rock “separated out during mass flow.” The bands are metamorphic and have nothing to do with glaciers or sediment mass flows. Concerning these “banded varved rocks”, Martin et al. (1985, pp. 181-182) actually wrote:

“The glacigenic explanation of the mixtite units seemed to find strong support by De Kock and Gevers’ (1933, p. 116) description of ‘banded varved rocks’ containing scattered, occasionally faceted pebbles. The supposed varves consist of light and dark coloured laminae (quartz-rich and biotite-rich) which are several millimeters thick. These, however, are not of sedimentary origin, but define a metamorphic transposition cleavage ...[reference to figure omitted] which can be mistaken for a sedimentary feature, where it forms a very acute angle with primary bedding.” [my emphasis]

Rather than openly admitting that Oard (1997, p. 61) failed to properly cite the description of the “banded varved rocks” in Martin et al. (1985, p. 181-182) as being metamorphic, Oard (2009a, p. 114) tries to divert attention from his careless mistake by arguing that I neglected to recognize the “main point” of Martin et al. (1985, p. 181-182):

“In another place in my book [Oard, 1997] discussing the non-glacial origin of ‘varvites’ in Namibia, Henke (1999, p. 23-24) claims that I quoted Martin et al. (1985) out of context by not noting their theory of a metamorphic origin of the millimeter-scale banding in the ‘varvites.’ But he neglects the main point of Martin et al. (1985), who presented evidence against the dropstone varvite interpretation and reinterpreted the formation as of non-glacial origin.” [bold emphasis by Oard 2009a, p. 114]

I certainly recognize that this metamorphic rock is non-glacial, but the diversion given by Oard (2009a, p. 114) does nothing to promote Mr. Oard’s Flood agenda or demonstrate that he carefully read and adequately cited Martin et al. (1985). Although this “varvite” probably had a metamorphic origin and the new evidence in Hoffman (2011) and Domack and Hoffman (2011) was published after Oard (2009a), Mr. Oard now needs to realize that the controversy over the presence of glaciogenic deposits elsewhere in these Namibian rocks did not end with Martin et al. (1985) and Eyles and Januszczak, 2007. The debate continues.

Second Discussion from Martin et al. (1985): “Pebbly Schist”

While not realizing that I discuss the following topic in a second section of my 1999 essay, Mr. Oard in Oard (2009a, p. 114) and Oard (2008a, p. 38) next turns his attention to the “pebbly schist” in Martin et al. (1985, p. 181). Oard (2009a, p. 114) states:

“Martin et al. (1985) do say that the ‘pebbly schist’ (their quotation marks) was originally of mass flow origin and did have sedimentary bedding. Second, some of the predominantly quartzite rocks are not pebbles but range from 60 centimeters to 1.5 meters in diameter and were considered dropstones. Third, all workers before them [Oard 2008a, p. 38 adds ‘except Schermerhorn’] had interpreted the deposit as a glaciogenic dropstone varvite. I was simply pointing out that what had once been considered a ‘dropstone varvite’ was reinterpreted as non-glacial - a context strangely not mentioned by Henke.” [bolded emphasis by Oard 2009a, p. 114; my comments in brackets and my emphasis in bolded italics]

Contrary to what Mr. Oard believes, I was not “strangely” silent about this issue in my 1999 essay. Mr. Oard simply did not carefully read all of the comments in my 1999 essay about his misrepresentations of Martin et al. (1985) in Oard (1997).

To obtain the proper context, Mr. Oard originally made the following statements on the “pebbly schist” in Oard (1997, p. 43):

“A late Precambrian pebbly schist in Nambia [sic, Namibia] was considered glaciogenic by all investigators prior to 1985. Striated and faceted pebbles were cited as proof of glaciation. Martin, Porada and Walliser (1985) reexamined the outcrops and concluded that there is no evidence for a glacial origin. They consider the striated and faceted clasts to be ‘pseudofaceted.’ Martin, Porada and Walliser (1985, p. 172) explain as follows:

‘Their occasional flattish surfaces lack the characteristic shape of glacially bevelled pebbles. Pebbles with flat surfaces, similar to those picked up, are formed when broken pebbles are slightly abraded by further transport. Such pebbles can be found in most non-glacial gravels. The very rare observed ‘striae’ consisted of single, random scratches that could have been received whilst the pebble was exposed on the surface.’“

Here is the second section of my 1999 essay, where I discuss the “pebbly schists” and that through detailed field work, Martin et al. (1985) argued that the pre-1985 “glacial evidence” for these rocks was far more superficial than even what Oard (1997, p. 43) was willing to admit:

“Oard [1997] often misrepresents the literature on this subject, as he does with other topics. As an example, Oard ([1997], p. 43) indicates that striated and faceted pebbles were once used to argue that a Late Precambrian schist in Namibia had a glacial origin. Martin et al. (1985) reinterpreted the schist as a non-glacial rock despite the presence of supposed striated and faceted pebbles. A careful review of Martin et al. (1985) and even a quotation from p. 172 of Martin et al.’s paper by Oard ([1997], p. 43) indicates that the striations are very rare. The last sentence that Oard quotes from Martin et al. (1985, p. 172) even states:

‘The very rare observed ‘striae’ consisted of single, random scratches that could have been received whilst the pebble was exposed on the surface.’

In the next sentence, which Oard [1997] does not quote, Martin et al. (1985, p. 172) conclude:

‘None of the supposed facets showed a set of parallel striations.’

In other words, unlike glacial materials, the pebbles in the schist did not have well developed striations on their facets. Martin et al. (1985, p. 182) further state:

‘The supposed facets, which are found on quartzite pebbles only, are ‘pseudofacets’ that were produced by pressure-solution processes and are always oriented parallel to the transposition foliation…[reference to Martin et al.’s figure omitted here]. These interpretations do not exclude the possibility that some isolated pebbles and boulders could have been ice-rafted.’

Martin et al. (1985) continue with other detailed discussions that support an overall non-glacial origin for the schist. Contrary to what Oard [1997] indicates, through detailed studies, scientists (like Martin et al., 1985) do find features that can successfully distinguish non-glacial and glacial rocks.” [my 2013 bolded and italicized emphasis]

Early Hesitation about the Namibian Late Precambrian Glaciations

With the exception of Schermerhorn for the “pebbly schist” (Oard 2008a, p. 38), Mr. Oard claims in Oard (1997, p. 43, 61) and Oard (2009a, p. 114) that “all workers” prior to 1985 considered that the Namibian “varvites” and “pebbly schist” to have had a glacial origin. Although Hoffman (2011) and Domack and Hoffman (2011) present new evidence of glacial deposits in the Ghaub Formation of the Otavi Group, contrary to Oard (2008a) and Oard (2009a), there was a lot of skepticism and reluctance about the Late Precambrian Namibian “glacial evidence” in the pre-1985 literature. In particular, Eyles and Januszczak (2007, p. 195) show that there was widespread doubt and reluctance about the glacial origins of the Chuos “Tillite” and other Namibian rocks long before 1985, and even by Gevers (1931) when he first proposed the glacial origin:

“Nonetheless, Gevers (1931, p. 5) had some doubts and was troubled by the great thickness of the Chuos Tillite (compared with modern or Quaternary tills) and by his inability to recognize any glacially striated clasts despite extensive outcrops.”

Eyles and Januszczak (2007, p. 196) list a number of references that indicate that Martin et al. (1985) were not alone in their skepticism of a glaciogenic origin for these rocks:

“These rocks had been previously interpreted as synrift mass flows lacking any specific climate significance (Frets, 1969; Guj, 1974; Schermerhorn, 1974; Hedberg, 1976; Downing, 1983; Miller 1983a,b; Porada & Wittig, 1983a,b; Martin et al., 1985).”

Eyles and Januszczak (2007, p. 179) also state:

“Diamictite facies were reported in the 1930s as tillites left by an ice sheet (although the absence of striated clasts and other key glacial indicators was viewed as problematic).”

“These strata contain prominent poorly sorted breccias, diamictites and conglomerates that when first reported in the 1930s were interpreted as glacial deposits although the absence of key glacial indicators such as striated clasts was recognized (Gevers, 1931).” [my emphasis]

Eyles and Januszczak (2007, p. 191) further agree with Martin et al. (1985):

“No striated or glacially shaped clasts have been identified despite observations of many hundreds of metres of thickness, extensive areas of bedding planes and large zones of broken rubble where numerous clasts are freed from their matrix. This is in agreement with previous workers who were unable to identify definite evidence of a glacial source of sediment (Gevers, 1931; Martin et al., 1985).”

Eyles and Januszczak (2007, p. 194) also conclude:

“A glacial source cannot be ruled out but no diagnostic indicators (striated, shaped clasts) are evident (Gevers, 1931).”

So, Martin et al. (1985) and more recently Eyles and Januszczak (2007) indicate that even early workers that supported a “glacial origin” for these rocks only found weak evidence to support their arguments. Although Oard (2008a, p. 38) states that Eyles and Januszcazak (2007) did not find any major “diagnostic” glacial features in the Namibian rocks, Hoffman (2011) and Domack and Hoffman (2011) again disagree and argue that their detailed field studies have shown that the Otavi Group does contain glaciogenic deposits.

Perhaps, if Mr. Oard had not overlooked the second section in my essay, he in Oard (2009a, p. 114) would have realized that nothing “strange” was going on in my comments and that I clearly admitted that Martin et al. (1985) had reinterpreted the Namibian pebbly schist as non-glacial. Again, I clearly stated in my 1999 essay:

“Martin et al. (1985) reinterpreted the schist as a non-glacial rock despite the presence of supposed striated and faceted pebbles.”

As stated in my other essays at this website, it is important to recognize that there are plenty of pre-Pleistocene rocks that show conclusive evidence of glaciations. Mr. Oard has a tendency to emphasize and attack the most questionable and controversial examples, and ignore the best evidence that refutes his YEC agenda (for example, see: “The Cold and Hard Evidence of Ordovician Glaciations Continues to Accumulate and Bury Flood Geology”).

References

Chumakov, N.M. 2008. “A Problem of Total Glaciations on the Earth in the Late Precambrian”, Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation, v. 16, n. 2, pp. 107-119.

De Kock, W.P. and T.W. Gevers. 1933. “The Chuos Tillite in the Rehoboth and Windhoek Districts, South-West Africa”, Transactions of the Geological Society of South Africa, v. 35, pp. 115-118.

Domack, E.W. and P.W. Hoffman. 2011. “An Ice Grounding-Line Wedge from the Ghaub Glaciation (635 Ma) on the Distal Foreslope of the Otavi Carbonate Platform, Namibia, and its Bearing on the Snowball Earth Hypothesis”, GSA Bulletin, v. 123, n. 7-8, pp. 1448-1477.

Downing, K. N. 1983. “The Stratigraphy and Palaeoenvironment of the Damara Sequence in the Okahandja Lineament Zone”, in R. McG. Miller (ed.) Evolution of the Damara Orogen, Special Publication of the Geological Society of South Africa, v. 11, pp. 37-41.

Eyles, N., and N. Januszczak. 2007. “Syntectonic Subaqueous Mass Flows of the Neoproterozoic Otavi Group, Namibia: Where is the evidence of global glaciation?” Basin Research v. 19, n. 2, pp. 179-198.

Frets, D. C. 1969. “Geology and Structure of the Huab-welwitschia Area, South West Africa”, Bulletin of Precambrian Research, v. 5, p. 235.

Gevers, T. W. 1931. “An Ancient Tillite in South West Africa”, Transactions Geological Society South Africa, v. 34, pp. 1-17.

Guj, P. 1974. “A Revision of the Damara Stratigraphy along the Southern Margin of the Kamanjab Inlier, South West Africa”, Bulletin Precambrian Research Unit, v. 15, pp. 167-176.

Hedberg, R. M. 1976. “Stratigraphy of the Ovamboland Basin, South West Africa”, Bulletin Precambrian Research Unit, v. 15, pp. 167-176.

Hoffman, P.F. 2011. “Strange Bedfellows: Glacial Diamictite and Cap Carbonate from the Marinoan (635 Ma) Glaciation in Namibia”, Sedimentology, v. 58, pp. 57-119.

Martin, H.; H. Porada and O.H. Walliser, 1985, "Mixtite Deposits of the Damara Sequence, Namibia, Problems of Interpretation," Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 51, pp. 159-196.

Miller, R. McG. 1983a. “Tectonic Implications of the Contrasting Geochemistry of Damaran Mafic Volcanic Rocks, South West Africa/Namibia” in R. McG. Miller (ed.) Evolution of the Damara Orogen, Special Publication of the Geological Society of South Africa, v. 11, pp. 115-138.

Miller, R. McG. 1983b. “The Pan-African Damara Orogen of South West Africa/Namibia”, in R. McG. Miller (ed.) Evolution of the Damara Orogen, Special Publication of the Geological Society of South Africa, v. 11, pp. 431-515.

Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.

Oard, M.J. 2008a. "An Ancient ‘Ice Age’ Deposit Attributed to Subaqueous Mass Flow -Again!" Journal of Creation, v. 22, n. 2, pp. 36-39.

Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient ‘Ice Ages’“, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.

Porada, H., and R. Wittig. 1983a. “Turbidites in the Damara Orogen”, in H. Martin and F.W. Eder (eds.), Intracontinental Fold Belts, Case Studies in the Variscan Belt of Europe and the Damara Belt of Namibia, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 543-576.

Porada, H., and R. Wittig. 1983b. “Turbidites and their Significance in the Geosynclinal Evolution of the Damara Orogen”, in R. McG. Miller (ed.) Evolution of the Damara Orogen, Special Publication of the Geological Society of South Africa, v. 11, pp. 21-36.

Schermerhorn, L.J.G. 1974. “Late Precambrian Mixtites: Glacial and/or Nonglacial?” American Journal of Science, v. 274, pp. 673-824.