The Great Coticule Mystery

And He answered and said unto them, “I tell you that if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.” Luke 19:40

As an amateur mineralogist, I find coticule to be an extraordinarily confusing mineral, even as I appreciate and value it for honing.

The drawing in the second picture is of a 5 meter vertical section of a quarry, which today extends down another 40-50 meters. The lack of disruption between the layers indicates that they were laid down very quickly, successively. If they weren't, we would see a lot of disruption in the banding from either marine life or terrestrial life, especially over the course of "millions" of years.

BBW is primarily composed of volcanic metamorphic rock, a type of shale or slate with a high iron content, while the coticule layers are composed of spessartine garnets embedded in a silica and mica matrix of sedimentary rock, with occlusions of manganese present in both BBW and Coticules. This rapid deposition of strata was then followed by seismic upheaval that folded the layers like kneaded bread before they hardened into stone. Current geological models would say that heat and pressure have done this over millions of years, yet this heat and pressure would have turned the sedimentary layers into metamorphic rock, or fractured the sedimentary layers into millions of pieces at the bends. We can see in the photograph above this clearly hasn't happened, yet it is undeniably bent. Also, mica is a very soft mineral, and if it wasn't rapidly deposited, the abrasion of silica and garnets would have obliterated the mica, and that isn't what we see in the stone at all.

The evidence in the stone strongly implies the coticule layers were deposited rapidly and thickly (50+ meters) and then subjected to violent seismic activity before the layers had completely dried out. How does science explain this? The only explanation that fits is a massive flood on a scale never seen today, followed rapidly by seismic upheaval in a scale beyond my comprehension. There are similar geological formations seen in the Grand Canyon, and scientific models and the smartest geologists we have can't explain those either, and they don't dare say "worldwide flood" as that would immediately invalidate the theory of evolution, lose them their funding, and cost them their tenure and teaching or research positions.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the coticule layers are clear evidence of the Biblical account of a worldwide flood. Alternate explanations welcome! Discuss.

 

When I was young, and in school many years ago, I was told that science was "a search for the truth," using observational data. The older I get, the more I notice that "science" has been highjacked to promote a specific worldview, and not necessarily one that fits the observational evidence.

There have been numerous scientific papers written on coticules, and I'm currently in the process of finding and translating them to see what has been the prevailing scientific thought on the creation of these layers. One excerpt in English mentioned that the volcanic deposition theory had been debunked, but was cut off before they went into the particulars. I will probably email the writers and see if they will send me the whole document.

 

I was able to finally find a full copy of the abstract of the papers I referred to in my previous post, and it was as entertaining as I expected. They obviously devoted a ton of research to the subject, as well as a detailed analysis of previous research efforts made in the past:

(Edit: for those who don't want to wade through the technical jargon, they think coticule layers were formed by multiple periodic underwater landslides (avalanches) of sand and mud that separate out due to gravity. The likely problem this model can't address is the folding of the layers and the obviously short time frame needed to create these folded formations. It is interesting to note that their model would also seem to work with a theory of multiple tsunamis laying down layers of sand as they wash inland, and covering the sand with mud and organic matter as the waves recede again).

ABSTRACT

Coticule is the name originating in Belgium for a fine-grained metasedimentary yellowish rock mainly composed of quartz, spessartine and mica, which is repeatedly interstratified in the hematite-rich purple slates of the Lower Ordovician of the Ardenne region. It was described for the first time in the nineteenth century in the Stavelot-Venn Massif (Ardenne), which is accordingly the type-area for this peculiar lithology. Since then, numerous occurrences were described all over the world in metamorphic rocks of various grades and ages. The exact nature of the Belgian coticule protolith remained hypothetical, although intensively discussed for a long time in the literature. After an extensive review of all the stratigraphical, sedimentological and geochemical results and new field, geochemical (major and trace elements) and Nd isotopic investigations, we propose a significantly improved and sustained genetic model: the thin coticule layers were deposited offshore in a deep oceanic basin as limy mud turbidites. During the early Floian (c. 477 Ma, Early Ordovician), density currents came from the north, from the shelf which bordered the emergent Brabant Massif at that time and flowed down the slope to the deep basin-plain. The purple shales enclosing the coticule layers represent the normal pelagic sedimentation in the basin. These shales are exceptionally rich in Fe and Mn, because of the hydrothermal activity of the nearby and young Rheic Ocean ridge. Indeed, the Rheic Ocean opened in the Early Ordovician (c. 482 Ma). During diagenesis, the strongly oxidizing depositional environment favoured the mobility of Mn2 +, as opposed to Fe3 + that remained insoluble and immobile. This allowed for the migration of divalent manganese from the pelagic shales and for replacing calcium in the turbiditic carbonate fraction, to form rhodochrosite. Later, epizonal metamorphism transformed the clay-quartz-rhodochrosite paragenesis of the protolith into the muscovite-quartz-spessartine paragenesis of the coticule. Hence, in the type-area, coticule genesis needed a peculiar environment including a continental shelf with limy mud deposits, a continental slope generating periodical turbidites and a nearby oceanic ridge, here the nascent Rheic Ocean, delivering hydrothermal iron and manganese.

Introduction

The French term coticule (from Latin “cos”, whetstone; Lamens and Geukens, 1984 addendum) is the local name for a fine-grained, metasedimentary yellowish rock consisting mainly of quartz, spessartine and mica. This is a rock known worldwide for its polishing capabilities and was used for sharpening razors and knives or for polishing telescope mirrors such as that of Mount Palomar (USA). The name coticule was used purely descriptively for the first time for these peculiar rocks from the Ordovician of the Stavelot-Venn Massif (SVM, Ardenne Allochthon, Belgium; Fig. 1) by Omalius d'Halloy (1808). It was re-used by Dumont (1848) in his famous description of Belgian geology and was first petrographically described by Renard (1878). The SVM is thus the type-area for this unusual lithology that has never been observed elsewhere in Belgium. This spessartine-rich rock was mined extensively for whetstones, probably since the Roman period and certainly since the Middle Ages until the mid-nineteen sixties (Goemaere et al., 2007). In consequence, its occurrence and geological setting are very well documented. However, the interpretation of the origin of these rocks has been controversial in the literature.
Since the original description in Belgium, coticule occurrences have been described by many authors all over the world in metamorphic rocks of various grade and age (e.g. Clifford, 1960, Roy and Purkait, 1968, Kennan and Kennedy, 1983, Bennett, 1989, Mawer and Williams, 1991, Thomson, 2001, Willner et al., 2001, White, 2010, Kropac et al., 2011). Coticules have also been found in association with metamorphosed massive sulphide deposits (e.g. Spry, 1990, Gauert, 2005), although these occurrences are usually lithologically very different from the Belgian-type coticule. Worldwide, coticules occur as thin layers in metamorphosed sedimentary sequences characterized by an abundance of Mn (Fe) garnet and quartz, but within a wide range of both depositional setting and variable metamorphic conditions. Recent mis- and/or false interpretations (Römer et al., 2011 and comments by Waldron and White (2012) and Schofield et al. (2012)) are mostly due to the lack of reference to the coticule type-area, the Belgian coticule.
Coticules seem to occur mainly in the Ordovician of the Appalachian and Caledonian fold belts (e.g. Stavelot-Venn Massif, New England, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ireland, Wales). Kennan and Kennedy (1983) suggested that coticule could be used as a key lithology for correlations along these fold belts. More recently, with the progress of the Early Palaeozoic plate tectonic palaeogeography (e.g. Scotese and McKerrow, 1991, Stampfli and Borel, 2002, Cocks and Torsvik, 2002, Cocks and Torsvik, 2005, Cocks and Fortey, 2009) and of the geological knowledge of these fold belts (e.g. Winchester and the PACE TMR Network, 2002, Verniers et al., 2002, Hibbard et al., 2007, Linnemann et al., 2007, White, 2010, Woodcock, 2011, Rees et al., 2014, Pothier et al., 2015), several authors have extended this proposition, stressing the characteristic abundance of Mn-rich sediments (including coticule) in the Cambro-Ordovician of the Avalonian and peri-Gondawanan realm (Waldron et al., 2011, Römer et al., 2011, Linnemann et al., 2012, Herbosch and Verniers, 2015). The geographical distribution of coticules and/or Mn-rich sediments and their geochemical signatures may thus have important palaeogeographical and sedimentological implications. However, recent literature has not reached a consensus on the significance of these implications.
Although there is a wide consensus for a pre-metamorphic manganese enrichment by sedimentary or diagenetic processes, the exact nature of the Belgian coticule protolith remains hypothetical, yet controversial (e. g. De Dycker, 1939, Macar, 1973, Richter, 1975, Schreyer, 1975). Three reasonably well-supported hypotheses can be distinguished: (1) Mn-halmyrolysis of a volcanic tuff rapidly deposited in a sedimentary basin (Kramm, 1976, Kramm, 1980); (2) lime mud rapidly deposited in a basin, probably by density currents, in which Ca within calcium carbonate is diagenetically replaced by Mn of the neighbouring shales (Lamens, 1985a, Lamens, 1985b, Lamens et al., 1986); (3) repetitive changes of Eh-pH in a sedimentary basin combined with temporary “hydrothermal clouds“ of Mn and SiO2 (Krosse and Schreyer, 1993). However, these models failed to present indisputable evidence to explain the entire set of geological and geochemical observations. We do not take into account the hypothesis of diagenetic enrichment of Fe and Mn comparable to the recent Mn crust in the Baltic or Barents seas (Römer et al., 2011) because of too many stratigraphic and palaeogeographic misinterpretations (see comments by Waldron and White, 2012, Römer and Kröner, 2012, Schofield et al., 2012).
This paper proposes an improved model for the origin of the coticule in the Belgian type-area based on: (1) an extensive compilation of abundant but scattered and often little known literature; (2) recent advances in sedimentology, stratigraphy and cartography of the SVM; (3) new field investigations; and (4) new geochemical and isotopic data (major and trace elements, including REEs and Nd isotopes) of coticule and the surrounding purple slates.

I was also able to find a partial of the conclusion.

Conclusion

Following the synthesis of earlier works, new observations and analyses done for this paper we can refute the volcaniclastic model proposed by Kramm (1976) and the model of repetitive changes of Eh-pH conditions in the depositional basin (Krosse and Schreyer, 1993). The density current model (Lamens et al., 1986) appears to be viable but cannot explain all the observed peculiar characteristics of the coticule-bearing Les Plattes Member depositional basin. However, these models have helped us to...

Unfortunately, it ends there.

 

A real head-scratcher, isn't it? There is no way to convince me that each of those clear and distinct sedimentary layers represents millions of years. You would have tree roots and grass roots and worm trails and wind and water erosion mixing and blending those layers up. (Yes, even if they formed underwater). When I dig in my backyard I can see the gradual change from topsoil to soil to clay.

The timeframe textbooks teach just do not make sense to anyone capable of analytical thought.

Edit: While I'm thinking about it, another thing that never made sense to me is that massive fossilized whale graveyard they found in Chile with 60 or 70 complete whale skeletons in it. They've also found whale skeletons in the middle of the Sahara desert. Whales float when they die. They float for a long time. When they do sink, they do it slowly. There's even a term for it. "Whale fall." There are even scientists who do nothing but study how whales decompose.

In order to get something to fossilize, you have to cover it in highly mineralized sediment. So the question is, how much dirt do you have to pile on a whale to keep it's bloated corpse from popping back up through the dirt to be eaten and dispersed by scavengers? And where does said dirt come from? I've got about 50 more questions like that that are easily explained by "world-wide flood," but require very convoluted and unconvincing answers if world-wide flood isn't the answer. There was no answer given for how those whales ended up being fossilized that I've ever been able to find. The question doesn't seem to ever come up.

Edit: I brought this up the other day on Facebook and was told that I was stupid because the whale carcasses obviously settled at the bottom in an oxygen free environment and were slowly covered with silt. I pointed out that the people doing the excavation believe the whales ate bad algae, died, and were washed up on the beach, which is why they were all in one place. Neither answer is very logical, as the first fails to answer why the whales were grouped together, and the second fails to answer how they fossilized.

 

I'm pretty sure that current geological thinking on those is that they were rapidly buried under a lot of sediment, but that it only happened in localized areas, and for some reason, are all rooted in the same geological strata, in various locations across the earth's continents. More recent examples have been found, dating to the last few thousand or in some cases, the last few hundred years, or in the case of Mt. St. Helens, the last 40+ years. It does seem rather odd that there's a gap of 400 million years or so between the examples we know about that are the result of 'localized' flooding and not volcanic activity. Curious that.

Rest assured, the localized locations are indications of local flooding only, just like large coal beds are the result of there not being bacteria capable of chowing down on plant matter, despite the fact that all plant eaters (and plants) supposedly evolved from bacteria and other single celled organisms, and protein chains.

I remember reading in old science texts that we were certain to find the missing links to explain the evolution of species under the ocean's seabed Pre-cambrian layers as time went on. The only problem with that is the oldest layer (which is basalt) of ALL of the ocean seabeds only date back to the "Jurassic Period."

They've only been searching for 150 years now, and I'm absolutely positive they will find something very soon. They just need to look a little harder. The "missing" links between the protozoa of the Pre-cambrian and the trilobites of the Cambrian are out there somewhere, waiting to make the paleontologist who finds them famous the world over, and the toast of every evolutionist. Why, they could have their professorship in any institution they desire.

In case it doesn't shine through, yes, I'm being very sarcastic. Science is the newest religion of the world, and research and data that doesn't fit it's particular worldview is suppressed and mocked by the highly educated people who ought to be the most open-minded about it.

These same people will freely admit that the universe had a beginning, and everything in existence came from a single point of "nothingness" they call the 'big bang.' they will believe and defend that supernatural miracle, but not a Creator; such is the hubris of humankind.

I'll get off my soapbox now, as I, like Icarus, am starting to fly too close to the sun, or in this case, skirting the forum rules regarding the discussion of religion, which I am supposed to enforce, not willfully break.

Edit: I don't see a belief in God and a belief in science as mutually exclusive.

I'm including this quote from a brilliant debate Christopher Hitchens and John Lennox had several years ago around the question, "Is God Great?" It's well worth a watch on YouTube, regardless of one's personal beliefs.

"...I agree very much with Christopher Hitchens. It is repudiation of many of the evils that he claims have been done in the name of God. But I've learned to distinguish between the greatness of God and the inexcusable evil that has been done by those professing His name. And so, I do not deduce that ‘God is not great and that religion poisons everything.’ After all, if I fail to distinguish between the genius of Einstein and the abuse of his science to create weapons of mass destruction, I might be tempted to say ‘Science is not great and technology poisons everything.’ What is more, as I look back at the evils of atheist regimes of the 20th century, I might also be tempted, ladies and gentlemen, to say ‘Atheism is not great, it has poisoned everything.’ As it is, I hold that science shows some of the greatness of God... The idea that God and science are mutually exclusive explanations of the universe is as wrong as saying that internal combustion and Henry Ford are mutually exclusive explanations of the automobile. They are complementary explanations. One explains how it works, the other why it exists... Telescopes can show us the wonder of the night sky, but science didn't put the stars there, nor did the laws of biology and physics, ladies and gentlemen. They describe what is there, they don't put it there... Yes, it does need a Creator. Alan Sandage, widely regarded as one of the fathers of modern astronomy, who discovered quasars, said, 'I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God, to me, is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something rather than nothing."

 

It's one of the great miracles of scientific thought. All matter originated from a single point of zero volume and infinite density and the Laws of Physics were suspended at the beginning of the universe.

The James Webb telescope has enabled us to see into the far reaches of space, and has forced them to add two new theories to the Big Bang.

They now speculate that at the instant of creation, everything was accelerated beyond the speed of light for a brief time, then slowed down. This adds two new miracles, as they don't know how everything was accelerated, and once accelerated, what agency could cause the acceleration to stop?

All three of these events just happened to happen. By chance. As a completely random event.

... because to say otherwise implies that someone or something created the universe for a purpose, and if the universe was created for a purpose, then perhaps we, as thinking contemplative beings, were also created for a purpose, logically it would follow that the primary purpose of created beings is to worship their Creator.

And the Creator gave us dogs to serve as an example of the devotion we should aspire to.