BASICS IN THE FLOOD GEOLOGY Flood models: the need for an integrated approach …………………………………..……………………..………….3 How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood? ……………………………………………………..…..…...7

IS THE GLOBAL FLOOD FEASIBLE Flood models …………………………………………………………………………………….. .. . ……….…….………..8 Hypercanes: rainfall generators during the Flood? ………………………………………………………………….… 10 After devastation … the recovery …………………………………………….………………………………..…………13

WHAT SORT OF DAMAGE WOULD A GLOBAL FLOOD CAUSE Wild, wild floods! ……………………………………………………………………………………………….………..… 16 Australia’s drought exposes ‘drowned town’ ………………………………………………………………….…………. 17

WAS THE GLOBAL FLOOD REALLY JUST A LOCAL FLOOD IN THE BLACK SEA ARE Pre-Flood relics on the bottom of the Black Sea? ………………………………………………………………………19 Proof of Global Flood at the Black Sea? ………………………………………………………………………………… 20

DEEP UNDERSTANDIG OF THE FOOD GEOLOGY Why was the UK once totally under water? ……………………………………………………………………………… 20 The earthquake occurred just off Sumatra at a subduction zone where the India plate slides beneath the Burma

plate. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………24 Waves in the past …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….26 Where did all the water go? …………………………………………………………………………………………………27 The recent, rapid formation of the Mount Isa orebodies during the Flood …………………………………...………. 29 The geological history of the Brisbane and Ipswich areas, Australia …………………………………………..……..34 ‘More than a pile of stones’ …………………………………………………………………………………………..……. 37 The Global Flood explains Hopewell Rocks, Canada …………………………………………………….………..…….37 Evaluating potential post-Flood boundaries with biostratigraphy …………………………………………………..…..38 Granite formation was catastrophic In spite of what the tourist sign says ………………………………..…………..42 Clarifying the magmatic model for the origin of salt deposits ………………………………………………..….……..43 The Giant’s Causeway, Northern Ireland: colossal volcanic eruptions during the Global Flood ………..….……….45 A Scottish site ………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….………49 The ‘Arabia’: a steamboat buried in a cornfield ………………………………………………………………..………….51 Flood geology vs secular catastrophism …………………………………………………………………………….….….52 UK under water in Journal of Creation 27(1) ………………………………………………………………………..……53 The origin of the Carboniferous coal measures—part 3 ……………………………………………………….…….….59 The K/T impact hypothesis and secular neocatastrophism ………………………………………………………….…. 62 Huge dinosaurs flee rising waters of the Global Flood in Australia ………………………………………………….... 63 Carved by the receding waters of the Global Flood ………………………………………………………………….….65 Geologists see effects of the Global Flood in Africa ………………………………………………………………….…. 67 Cape Peninsula sandstones, South Africa, deposited during the GlobalFlood ……………………………………….68 Revealing spectacular evidence for the Global Flood ……………………………………………………………………69 A receding Flood scenario for the origin of the Grand Canyon ………………………………………………………….70 Sedimentary blankets ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….80 80 whales buried mysteriously in Chilean desert ………………………………………………………………………...81 Pyramid Rock …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………82 Floating fish and fossil fables ………………………………………………………………………………………………83 Sediment bioturbation experiments and the actual rock record …………………………………………………………84 ‘Seashells in the desert’ ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..86 Mining mountains in West Virginia ………………………………………………………………………………………….86 A river like no other ………………………………………………………………………………………………….………..87 Rock language: is there such a thing? …………………………………………………………………………………….89 Picture Gorge shouts sudden cataclysm …………………………………………………………………………………..90 Golden evidence of the Global Flood ………………………………………………………………………………………91 How gold formed during the Flood …………………………………………………………………………………………92 How landscapes reveal the Global Flood ………………………………………………………………………………….92 Greenland ice cores: implicit evidence for catastrophic deposition …………………………………………………… 94 New evidence of the Global Flood from Mexico………………………………………………………………………….. 95 Beware the bubble’s burst …………………………………………………………………………………………………..97 The riddle of paleokarst solved ……………………………………………………………………………………………..98 A gorge in three days! ……………………………………………………………………………………………………...103 Colossal Crystals ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………104 Kata Tjuta: an astonishing story ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 104 The Green River Formation: a large post-Flood lake system …………………………………………………………..105 The geologic setting of the Green River Formation ……………………………………………………………………..111 Difficulties with a Flood model for the Green River Formation …………………………………………………………115

GLOBAL FLOOD LEGENDS Flood! ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...118 Indian creation myths ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….120 Australian Aboriginal Flood Stories ………………………………………………………………………………………..122 A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis …………………………………….124 The Biami legends of creation and Noah’s Flood ………………………………………………………………………..125 Native people remember God in the Land of the Long White Cloud. …………………………………………………126 World Creation stories ………………………………………………………………………………………………………127 A Witness at the “ends of the earth” ………………………………………………………………………………………129

Flood models: the need for an integrated approachby A.C. McIntosh, T. Edmondson & S. Taylor

Summary

Any scientific understanding of the Flood must address the hydrology and sedimentation that occurred during the Flood and in subsequent years as the Earth settled down. A number of scientific models previously proposed for the Flood are summarised and assessed. Further progress will require an integrated approach from many scientific disciplines. As well as the traditional contribution from the geological sciences, coordinated inputs from a number of other disciplines will be needed such as fluid flow, heat transfer, plate tectonics, vulcanology, planetary astronomy, and mathematics, in order to build a possible Flood hypothesis. Any model for the Flood can only be speculative. A coordinated approach will impact current Flood models that have accepted the sequential nature of the geological column and that have put the Flood/post Flood boundary far down in such conjectural reconstructions.

IntroductionTraditionally, for scientists operating from an evolutionary premise, the geological sciences have provided the chronological framework to allow other scientific disciplines to place their data in an historical context. The main principle of uniformitarianism has motivated research into present geological processes so that rocks these scientists regard as ancient can be interpreted in terms of such processes. In the last thirty years there has been a major shift in thinking amongst evolutionary geologists with the development of plate tectonics—all modern geological processes are now seen as part of a global interaction of plate tectonics, which itself has been adopted as the interpretative geological paradigm.By contrast, scientists working from a creation perspective view all significant geological events within a creation chronological framework. In particular, creation scientists need to understand the Global Flood by addressing the hydrology and sedimentation that occurred during the cataclysm and in the subsequent years as the Earth settled down. Modern geological processes, while instructive, do not have the same standing as for long-age uniformitarian scientists. This is because geological processes during Creation and the Flood were different from what we observe today. So creationists have a greater need to develop an integrated approach from many scientific disciplines. As well as the geological sciences, inputs from many other disciplines are needed, such as fluid flow, heat transfer, plate tectonics, vulcanology, planetary astronomy, and mathematics. In this paper we summarise the current state of a number of scientific models that have been proposed to describe the world-wide Flood and to integrate our understanding of science from the creation perspective.The vapour canopy modelThe vapour canopy model of the Flood is the one that has held greatest sway in scientific creationism  since serious research began in the 1960s. The book The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris,1 first published in 1961, and Whitcomb’s later The World that Perished (1996) explain this view.2 The vapour canopy theory is that the Earth’s atmosphere was surrounded by a water vapour blanket that collapsed at the onset of the Flood. Dillow has extensively explored this concept theoretically.3 This model has led the field for a number of years, but has difficulties in accounting for the large amount of catastrophic upheaval in the Earth at the beginning and through the Flood year.Catastrophic upheaval is evident, for instance, at the Old Red Sandstone rock formation from Loch Ness to the Orkneys in Scotland where an area 2500 m deep and 160 km across, contains countless fish, buried in contorted and contracted positions, as though in convulsion.4,5 There is all the evidence of catastrophic burial by processes (it would seem) of greater power than that provided by the vapour canopy theory. Although there may be some substance in these objections to the vapour canopy proposal, it should be noted that this model of the Flood, though it predicts late drowning of creatures by rising floodwaters, should not be regarded as tranquil. Indeed in this model, the rising waters would be extremely turbulent, and probably involve vast surging tidal waves. Nevertheless it is still difficult to explain the major fossil strata by this

method.Consequently some, such as Garner,6 Garton,7 Tyler,8,9 and Robinson,10,11 object, not only to the vapour canopy model of the Flood,12 but also (more fundamentally) to the basic premise that the Flood caused most of the fossils. Their objection arises from their belief that the geological column represents a real time sequence (though on a fast time-scale of the one-year Flood followed by many post-Flood disasters). Because there is evidence deep in this geological column that many animals were alive on land, and yet are buried above waterborne sediments, they propose that most of the geological column was deposited after the Flood. Thus, they propose that the Flood removed all trace of land air-breathing creatures and that most of the fossils found on the Earth were buried by post-Flood catastrophes. Here we seek to show that to regard the geological column as a true chronological record is at best a questionable assumption. We agree with Froede that there needs to be a complete rethink of how to interpret the geological layering so evident in the rocks.14,15 Woodmorappe rightly points out that the way the supposed ten periods are assigned can be quite subjective.16 In this paper we question whether we really yet have any firm grasp of the way all the strata have been laid down. Even the basic notion that ‘bottom is oldest’ is not

proven.17One of the major difficulties raised by Flood models of fossilisation (including the canopy theory) is the problem of dinosaur nest sites within the fossil record. These certainly pose quite a difficult problem to solve in the context of Flood sedimentation.Garner points out that the eggs are obviously in neat patterns, suggesting that they have to be regarded as in situ, and cannot be accounted for by sediments deposited elsewhere and transported in before final fossilisation. 6Garton shows that there are dinosaur tracks all the way from the Cretaceous to the Tertiary and Quaternary rocks. 7 He concludes that this must be evidence of post-Flood activity. Tyler believes the vast chalk deposits (usually taken to be the crushed remains of marine shells) need decades to form and also concludes that the Cretaceous is post-Flood.8Because of such evidence, critics of Flood fossilisation in general, and the Whitcomb and Morris model of the Flood in particular, have maintained that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is low down in the geological record, in the Paleozoic, as explained by Tyler.9 (This geological column term is used simply for communication purposes. The order of the strata may well be incorrect for reasons outlined later.) Such critics have maintained that all Flood models which attribute most fossils to the Flood, are incorrect, and propose that the Flood left no trace whatsoever of all air-breathing land creatures—the so called

Calculated vertical temperature profile for a vapor canopy model of the Earth’s atmosphere compared with the temperature profile today (after Rush and Vardiman).50 Theoretical models of postulated pre-Flood vapour canopies are used to explore whether it is feasible to postulate significant quantities of water in the atmosphere above the Earth. In this example, only 50 cm of precipitable water is stored but this raises the surface temperature of the Earth to above 100°C.

‘blot out’ theory.In a companion paper,13 we give important reasons why fossils are the most natural evidence expected from the Flood. However these authors are right to criticise the vapour canopy model if it does not provide enough sedimentation to achieve such a vast thickness of fossil-containing strata. This is why we discuss other models in this paper, which, we believe, yield a more plausible picture of the Flood year.The hydroplate modelThe hydroplate theory has the advantage of explaining great devastation in the first 40 days. This theory for the catastrophic formation of the sedimentary rock layers during the Flood has been proposed by Dr Walter Brown (former chief of Science and Technological Studies at the Air War College, and Associate Professor at the U.S. Air Academy).18–20

The main proposal for the origin of the Flood waters is massive catastrophism in the first 40 days of the Flood. (We agree with the European Flood proponents that the initial devastation was exceedingly great, but we dispute that there remains no evidence of the mabbul and its effects on creatures in the geological record.) The Brown hypothesis18,20 is that the Earth’s crust was fractured (maybe by an impact), releasing vast subterranean waters (the ‘ fountains of the great deep’) under great pressure into the atmosphere, perhaps as high as 30 km. Brown’s model essentially deals with water, but in the following continental drift phase includes volcanic activity21 as a result of the fast tectonic movement caused by the widening rupture in the Earth’s crust. Thus he states:‘In some regions, the high temperatures and pressures formed metamorphic rock. Where this heat was intense, rock melted. This high pressure magma squirted up through cracks between broken blocks, producing other metamorphic rocks. Sometimes it escaped to the earth’s surface producing volcanic activity and “floods” of lava outpourings such as we see on the Columbia and Deccan Plateaus. This was the beginning of the earth’s volcano activity.’   22 Brown states further:‘Shifts of mass upon the earth created stresses and ruptures in and just beneath the earth’s crust. This was especially severe under the Pacific Ocean, since the major continental plates all moved toward the Pacific. The portions of the plates that buckled downward were pressed into the earth’s mantle. This produced the ocean trenches and the region called the “ring of fire” in and around the Pacific Ocean. The sharp increase in pressure under the floor of the Pacific caused ruptures and an outpouring of lava which formed submarine volcanoes called seamounts.’   23 Thus the initial rupture of the Earth’s crust under this view would hurl rocks and sediments in gigantic muddy fountains of water which then lead to intense precipitation for the 40 day period. These fountains would eventually be followed by many large volcanic eruptions in the ‘Ring of Fire’ around the Pacific, all with the force of Krakatoa. This volcano exploded in 1883 sending rocks and dust into the atmosphere to a height of 55 km. The explosion was so intense that it could be heard 4,600 km away. Dust fell at a distance of 5,327 km ten days after the explosion,24 and a tsunami (tidal wave) 30 metres high travelled right across the Indian Ocean at 720 km/h.25 Similarly, during the Flood, on top of the water borne sediments, and sometimes mixed with them, vast layers of magma would be poured out or catastrophically exploded into the atmosphere.The rain in the first 40 days of the Flood involved not only the return to the Earth of the jets of superheated steam ejected into the atmosphere (which would partly fall as hail and snow), but great quantities of rock debris as well. Many fossils could have formed within the first few weeks of the Flood in this model. In the next 110 days, further vast layering, scouring and re-layering of the continents would occur under the ravages of the Flood waters. The final catastrophic drainage of the waters occurred at the end of the continental drift phase when, after massive tectonic upheaval,

the land eventually re-appeared as the Earth’s crust found a new equilibrium. Some have criticised the rupture phase of the hydroplate model with its vast quantities of hot steam ejected at enormous speeds into the atmosphere, causing immense rainfall. However, the ‘explosive mixing of water and lava’10 targeted by these objections, is very possibly how the ‘windows of heaven’ were opened.Within the context of the hydroplate model, it is entirely feasible that many creatures would flee in vain to survive. We would expect to find fossil evidence of this, such as tracks in mud subsequently covered quickly by sediment.26 Furthermore there is certainly room for some late-Flood and post-Flood disasters as the waters receded. Thus the Grand Canyon may well have been formed when a vast natural inland lake (left behind after the Flood receded) burst its banks and scoured out the canyon. In this process, vast quantities of silt and debris would be carried to the Pacific coast-line.27 Brown,18 describing the aftermath of the hydroplate catastrophe, agrees with Austin that the Grand Canyon formed in this way. The Toutle Canyon was observed to form

catastrophically in a similar manner, but on a much smaller scale, after the Mount St Helen’s eruption in 1980. Such catastrophic processes may account for the burrows of small marine creatures in rocks at one horizon, but which are now covered by further sediments.Catastrophic plate tectonics and runaway subductionThe theory of catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) was initiated by Baumgardner,28 and later developed in conjunction with other creation scientists.29 Reed et al. provide a good review of plate tectonics as interpreted within a catastrophic framework,30 but make the point in their conclusions that the original driving mechanism behind continental plate displacement and subduction is not known. CPT theory starts with the assumption that the Flood was initiated when slabs of oceanic crust broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometres of pre-Flood continental margins. It is suggested that subducting slabs of material locally deformed and heated the mantle, locally lowering its viscosity. With lowered viscosity, the subduction rate increased—and this in turn caused the mantle to heat up even more. This, it is argued, led to a thermal runaway instability, and allowed subduction rates of metres per second. Baumgardner shows that rapid, large-scale subduction would furthermore initiate global-scale flow of the mantle beneath the Earth’s crust. This in turn would cause strong convection currents in the Earth’s outer core and explain how geomagnetic reversals took place.31,32 Magnetic reversals of course had been thought to have taken place slowly over millions of years on the evolutionary geological timescale. However, the extension by Humphreys of the CPT theory of Baumgardner to account for the Earth’s magnetism gives an underlying cause for the quick reversals. In that evidence for rapid reversals has been discovered in thin lava flows, the magnetic field deductions from CPT theory gives considerable confidence in the theory of continental plate collision and subduction as being a primary mechanism for major global upheaval during the Flood.

Recoil phase of the hydroplate model for the geological events of the flood (from Brown).51Rupture of the crust allows steam and sediment to be ejected as a fountain into the atmosphere, returning to the Earth as rain. The continents start to move apart.

It is only recently that the implications of the mathematical modelling of CPT have been successfully understood. It was necessary to solve numerically the stiff partial differential equations governing the behaviour of silicate rock material, taking full account of the large dependence of effective rock viscosity on temperature and strain rate. The highly nonlinear relationship between viscosity and stress implies that the effective viscosity decreases sharply once the material is subjected to a strong shear stress. This liquefying effect increases dramatically as the temperature increases, even though it may only be at 60% of its melting temperature. An important feedback mechanism then comes into play. As the cold upper boundary layer of the Earth’s mantle sinks into the hot mantle underneath (due to the liquefying stress), it heats the mantle locally. This reduces the viscosity even further, thus allowing the plate to sink faster.

The two effects (strong shear stress and the peeling away of the upper cool boundary of the mantle) effectively reinforce each other, and consequently thermal runaway begins. As Baumgardner states in his paper:‘A compelling logical argument in favor of this mechanism [subduction] is the fact that there is presently no ocean floor on the earth that predates the fossiliferous strata. In other words all the basalt that comprises the upper five kilometers or so of today’s igneous rocks has cooled from the molten state since sometime after the Flood cataclysm began.’   28 He then asks where the pre-Flood seafloor went. The model convincingly suggests the answer that the original sea-floor was catastrophically subducted, so that we now have a relatively new sea-floor—formed as igneous flows from the Earth’s mantle deposited in very thick (five kilometres or so) layers at the bottom of the present-day oceans.The hydroplate theory previously discussed and CPT are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. But this need not be so. There is considerable room for volcanic activity during the continental drift phase of the hydroplate theory. 33 The breaking of the Earth’s crust (possibly by an impact) may well have released large volumes of subterranean waters into the atmosphere, and led to the rapid movement of the broken continental plates from the impact centre. Subsequently, a subduction mechanism may then have taken over from the initial catastrophe, driving continuous upheavals in the Earth’s mantle under the seas, and sustaining the disaster for the rest of the Flood year.The importance of research in sedimentologyGuy Berthault has produced some landmark research into sedimentology. First on a small scale, but more recently on a larger scale, he has studied the deposition of heterogeneous mixtures from flowing water.34 His results indicate that different sediment layers do not deposit one after the other in a vertical direction, but all at the same time horizontally.35 Applying these findings to the Grand Canyon, the different layers would have been deposited under strong water currents and laid down horizontally,not vertically. Thus many of the layers of the canyon would have been deposited simultaneously, and do not necessarily represent different periods of time. If proved, this has immense implications for the whole theory of sediment formation world-wide. Clearly we must avoid saying that all sediments were laid down this way. The vast coal seams would be one example of deposition in a non-flowing environment. However Berthault’s sedimentology experiments have overturned previous belief that layers form one after the other in stages. Such surprising results may help us understand why the apparent order of the so-called geological column is reversed in some parts of the world.Furthermore it is interesting to note that the preliminary results of the work by Baumgardner and Barnette support Berthault’s basic premise.36 They considered the simplified problem of a shallow, homogeneous and inviscid fluid (water) flowing over a rotating sphere. Their fully transient solution to this problem produced some unexpectedly fast flowing regions of strong cyclonic gyres with velocities of 40–80 m/sec. The effect of such fast flowing currents on deposits of material carried with the water is not yet understood, but this shows that there is a great deal to be done with heterogeneous flows where the shallow water assumption is lifted. Generic studies, both experimental and numerical, are needed.A method for classifying rock formations without direct appeal to the geological column (with collapsed time-scales) has been proposed by Walker.37 This method advocates different types of flood formations as the waters rose and subsided. The hydroplate method or Baumgardner’s approach can both be used as possible driving mechanisms for the Flood within such a classification.A possible Flood fossilisation scenarioIt is vital to remember that no one theory is probably entirely adequate to reckon with all the data, but nevertheless, one can speculate about possible answers to perceived problems. For example, Garner has rightly pointed out the difficulty with certain basalt flows appearing ‘late on’ in the supposed geological column.38 Since these seem to require a sub-aerial environment, one can understand his conclusion that the post-Flood boundary must be earlier than the basalts. Thus with the water drained from the land, the subsequent volcanic activity in the Mesozoic and Cainozoic would be sub-aerial. But if we accept the hydroplate model of the initiation of the Flood, then the first 40 days would involve immense destruction consistent with the Paleozoic (some even include most of the Precambrian39) record. The waters of the oceans were still rising, parts of the land were still not covered entirely by water—there may even have been a brief lull. Certainly this is not inconsistent with the creation flood model. In the next 110 days, immense volcanic upheaval occurred on the land masses, but still not all the land was finally covered. At the same time, upheavals of the land masses were also occurring, so that some of the land that had been covered was exposed, albeit briefly—of the order of weeks.It is conceivable that dinosaur tracks could have been made in this time. Garton rightly points out that these dinosaur tracks go right through the Mesozoic and into the Cainozoic.7 Under our scenario, tracks in the Mesozoic are consistent with ground still being available at the

Runaway subduction of the oceanic plate into the Earth’s mantle drives metres-per-second motion of the rigid lithospheric plates in the catastrophic plate tectonic model of the Flood.

Temperature profiles associated with subduction of oceanic slab into the mantle of the Earth (from

Baumgardner).52Computer models of the Earth’s mantle demonstrate the conditions that would be necessary to initiate runaway subduction.

late stage of the 150 days. Some tracks may already have been made earlier, just after the 40 days’ initial onslaught, and then pushed upwards when the mountains rose. Similarly, tracks showing no sign of chaotic motion in the Pyrenees in Spain40 may also be at the late stage of the 150 days, again pushed upwards as the mountains rose. Finally the waters with vast amounts of debris and sediment overpowered these large creatures which, not surprisingly are buried in the same part of the strata as the later tracks and usually ‘higher’ up the column. We do not claim that such a scenario explains everything. There is a vast amount of work still to be done to understand the mechanisms involved. But we suggest that a willingness to expect and look for the unusual is always important for advance in scientific research.Dinosaur tracks and nests during the Flood?Egg-laying by dinosaurs in Mesozoic strata,6 well above what appears to be the initial fossils of marine creatures in the lower strata, challenges the view that most of the fossils were formed by the Flood. Robinson gives further evidence of other apparently in situ fossils including plant roots in the Jurassic as well as marine fossils apparently in situ right up through Cretaceous into Tertiary rock.11 Robinson argues against the vapour canopy model, stating:‘The sudden death of the dinosaurs and other animals at the end of the Cretaceous is a phenomenon for which the received Flood model [i.e. the vapour canopy model of Whitcomb and Morris] has no explanation.’   41 However, the model suggested by Robinson, Garner, Garton and others involving many post-Flood catastrophes gives no real answer either to the sudden death of dinosaurs in the Cretaceous. Their post-Flood fossilisation hypothesis, in our view, becomes a serious scientific problem.Marine fossils are found high up in mountains in the Alps, often deposited with great violence (as suggested by the Jurassic marine fossils at lower altitude on the North East Coast of Yorkshire near Whitby). The burial of large dinosaurs, by their thousands in Alberta and Montana,6South Dakota, Kansas and Colorado42 with vast continental sedimentation (in some places thousands of feet thick) would not be possible without causing gigantic upheaval in other parts of the Earth. It seems inconceivable that post-Flood disasters could deposit such thick strata without causing violent effects all round the world. The scale, depth and the sheer number of fossils argues strongly that these must be part of the Flood. Rather than forcing the interpretation of mabbul to mean the removal of all possible evidence of any creatures (the ‘blot out’ theory—to allow suggested post-Flood activity), it seems wiser to question whether we have properly understood the scientific evidence.In his article, Robinson states that Oard’s post-Cretaceous model for the Flood/post-Flood boundary is ‘not a straightforward interpretation of Scripture’.43 He argues that the position on the geologic column whereby the Flood killed the dinosaurs is ‘a paradigm constraining the interpretation of Scripture’. However, the alternative position he advocates, of entirely blotting out all animal remains without trace is, in our view, forcing a tenuous meaning on the word mabbul. This and the requirement of post-Flood disasters on a continental scale are leading to a much greater difficulty in the natural interpretation of Scripture.We suggest that the burial of the dinosaurs by Flood waters is consistent with the evidence. We have suggested, as one option, that the dinosaurs and their nests were buried late in the Flood. Other scenarios could be possible. For example, sea creatures may have been buried by vast submarine landslides,44 which were then pushed above sea-level in the first few days of the Flood. At the same time, sediments containing dinosaurs buried in the early stages of the Flood may have then been transported only a short distance across the newly exposed submarine deposits. It seems clear that some dinosaurs must have been buried by catastrophic waterborne sediment, at least in the case of the Mongolian examples of burial in the Cretaceous layers.45A third option, and possibly the most plausible view, for the occurrence of dinosaur tracks late in the strata is that advocated by Garton.46He suggests that large creatures (including dinosaurs) were trapped in the floating Carboniferous forests. The evidence for these vast islands of vegetation carried by the heaving seas seems to be particularly strong.47 Garton maintains that these creatures swarmed the inhospitable land in the final stages of the Flood. (In that he allows a few creatures to have survived the first 40 days, we presume he does not regard the ‘blotting out’ to be fully comprehensive.) This option explains the apparent anomalies and suggests that there may have been some protection from the initial inundation from above in the early stages of the Flood. Scheven’s excellent work on floating mats of vegetation seems to explain the Carboniferous coal measures very ably. It is conceivable that as these mats struck land, the continued pounding of the seas as the waters rose to their maximum height could cause violent deposition of sediments with vast ocean waves criss-crossing the continents. The waters at this stage were not necessarily tranquil. In fact, this is most unlikely. Great geological activity seems to have been going on still, even though the rains had stopped. The bringing up of the mountains and the sinking of the valleys occurred immediately after the earth was finally covered.48It is therefore entirely conceivable that further giant mudslides trapped the dinosaurs as the rafts struck land in the final stages of the 150 days, or that some escaped onto land, only to be buried as the rising waters finally covered the land. The burial of birds in the later strata is all consistent with the final stages of the 150 days, where no land was available.Conclusion—an integrated approach neededIt is important that all scientific disciplines be utilised to understand the possible processes of the Flood. It is not only geology that should be considered. Hydrodynamics also must play a part in understanding sedimentation processes. Berthault has rightly stated ‘Determination of initial hydraulic conditions from sedimentary structures, resulting from sedimentological data is, therefore, a research priority.’ 49 Today, in the experience of the lead author (in fluid dynamics and thermodynamics research), a multi-disciplined approach is usually needed before scientific advances can be made in the understanding of complicated and unusual phenomena. Progress is not generally possible when it is insisted that only experts of one discipline can solve the underlying physics of a particular problem.The modelling of the flow of heterogeneous mixtures with the full laws of conservation of energy, mass, momentum, is one of the greatest challenges that computational fluid dynamics has faced. A very careful and thorough approach is demanded when the particle size of the material carried with the water varies widely. The problem involves materials of different densities, different viscosities, with very large variations in local Reynolds number (convection divided by viscous diffusion) and hydraulic conditions. Furthermore, boundary layers have to be modelled with particular attention to the possible change from turbulent to laminar flow. The experiments of Berthault have already clearly shown that surprising lamination can occur in the sediment deposits from such flows. These conditions now need to be modelled by fluid dynamicists and mathematicians, so an understanding of the larger picture can emerge by carefully constructed mathematical models.On the larger scale modelling of solid earth geophysics, we acknowledge the impressive work already under way with the investigations of Baumgardner and Barnette.36 Interaction between geologists and other scientists (particularly those researching in fluid dynamics), is essential if there is to be progress in Flood geology, beyond (the not unnecessary) basic description of what rocks and fossils are found at particular locations.

How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?• How did saltwater fish survive dilution of the sea water with fresh water, or how did freshwater types survive in salt water?• And how did plants survive?

If the whole Earth were covered by water in the Flood, then there would have been a mixing of fresh and salt waters. Many of today’s fish species are specialized and do not survive in water of radically different saltiness to their usual habitat. So how did they survive the Flood? We do not know how salty the sea was before the Flood. The Flood was initiated by the breaking up of “the fountains of the great deep. Whatever “the fountains of the great deep” were (see Chapter 9), the Flood must have been associated with massive earth movements, because of the weight of the water alone, which would have resulted in great volcanic activity. Volcanoes emit huge amounts of steam, and underwater lava creates hot water/steam, which dissolves minerals, adding salt to the water. Furthermore, erosion accompanying the movement of water off the continents after the Flood would have added salt to the oceans. In other words, we would expect the pre-Flood ocean waters to be less salty than they were after the Flood. The problem for fish coping with saltiness is this: fish in fresh water tend to absorb water, because the saltiness of their body fluids draws in the water (by osmosis). Fish in saltwater tend to lose water from their bodies because the surrounding water is saltier than their body fluids.Saltwater/freshwater adaptation in fish todayMany of today’s marine organisms, especially estuarine and tidepool species, are able to survive large changes in salinity. For example, starfish will tolerate as low as 16– 18% of the normal concentration of sea salt indefinitely. Barnacles can withstand exposure to less than onetenth the usual salt concentration of sea water. There are migratory species of fish that travel between salt and fresh water. For example, salmon, striped bass and Atlantic sturgeon spawn in fresh water and mature in salt water. Eels reproduce in salt water and grow to maturity in freshwater streams and lakes. So, many of today’s species of fish are able to adjust to both fresh water and salt water. There is also evidence of post-Flood specialization within a kind of fish. For example, the Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon (a different species of the same kind) lives only in fresh water. Many families1 of fish contain both fresh- and saltwater species. These include the families of toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/ anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and flatfish. Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh- and saltwater representatives. This suggests that the ability to tolerate large changes in salinity was present in most fish at the time of the Flood. Specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then (see Appendix to Chapter 1). Hybrids of wild trout (freshwater) and farmed salmon (migratory species) have been discovered in Scotland,2 suggesting that the differences between freshwater and marine types may be quite minor.1. ‘Family’ is one of the main levels of classification for fish. In fish there is plenty of evidence for hybridization within families—the trout/salmon family, for example—suggesting that families may often represent the creation ‘kind’ in fish.

2. Charron, B., Escape to sterility for designer fish, New Scientist 146(1979):22, 1995.Eels, like many sea creatures, can move between salt and fresh water.How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood? Indeed, the differences in physiology seem to be largely differences in degree rather than kind. The kidneys of freshwater species excrete excess water (the urine has low salt concentration) and those of marine species excrete excess salt (the urine has high salt concentration). Saltwater sharks have high concentrations of urea in the blood to retain water in the saltwater environment whereas freshwater sharks have low concentrations of urea to avoid accumulating water. When sawfish move from salt water to fresh water they increase their urine output twenty fold, and their blood urea concentration decreases to

less than one-third. Major public aquariums use the ability of fish to adapt to water of different salinity from their normal habitat to exhibit freshwater and saltwater species together. The fish can adapt if the salinity is changed slowly enough.So, many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes.Aquatic air-breathing mammals such as whales and dolphins would have been better placed than many fish to survive the Flood, not being dependent on clean water to obtain their oxygen. Many marine creatures would have been killed in the

Flood because of the turbidity of the water, changes in temperature, etc. The fossil record testifies to the massive destruction of marine life, with marine creatures accounting for 95% of the fossil record.3 Some, such as trilobites and ichthyosaurs, probably became extinct at that time. This is consistent with the account of the Flood beginning with the breaking up of the “fountains of the great deep” (i.e. beginning in the sea; ‘the great deep’ means the oceans). There is also a possibility that stable fresh-3. There is a huge number of marine fossils. If they really formed in the manner claimed by evolutionists (over hundreds of millions of years), then transitional fossils showing gradual change from one kind to another should be most evident here. But they are conspicuous by their absence. Furthermore, fossils of such things as jellyfish, starfish, and clams are found near the bottom of the fossil record of multi- cellular organisms, and yet they are still around today, fundamentally

unchanged. Freshwater trout can hybridize with (saltwater) salmon. Image by Marcus Österberg sxc.huand saltwater layers developed and persisted in some parts of the ocean. Fresh water can sit on top of salt water for extended periods of time. Turbulence may have been sufficiently low at high latitudes for such layering to persist and allow the survival of both freshwater and saltwater species in those areas. Survival of plants Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water.4 Indeed, salt water impedes the germination of some species so that the seed lasts better in salt water than fresh water. Other plants could have survived in floating vegetation masses, or on pumice from the volcanic activity. Pieces of many plants are capable of asexual sprouting. Many seeds have devices for attaching themselves to animals, and some could have survived the Flood by this means. Others could have survived in the stomachs of the bloated, floating carcasses of dead herbivores.ConclusionThere are many simple, plausible explanations for how fresh- and saltwater fish and plants could have survived the Flood. There is no reason to doubt the reality of the Flood.

IS THE GLOBAL FLOOD FEASIBLE

Flood models by Jonathan Sarfati

Creationists by definition believe in a globe-covering flood. But how this occurred has been a matter of intense debate within the creationist geologist community. Some general observations can be made from a theological, philosophic and scientific perspective.

Figure 2. In the catastrophic plate tectonics model, runaway subduction into the earth’s mantle of the oceanic plates drives the motion of the rigid lithosphere at metres per second.Higher atmospheric or oxygen partial pressureOne idea for the pre-Flood world, derived partly from the fallacious pre-Flood paradise assumption, is that oxygen concentration15 or atmospheric pressure was higher than today. This would supposedly have beneficial effects duplicated in today’s hyperbaric chambers. These increase the oxygen partial pressure16 as per Dalton’s Law.17Yet would they be as beneficial as claimed, given the known health benefits of anti-oxidants? To be fair, evolutionists have also proposed higher oxygen concentration or higher atmospheric pressure in the past.18 This is supported by some scientific evidence, yet this does not hold

up:19Higher oxygen levels in amber air bubbles: yet they are not a closed system—gases diffuse in and out. Furthermore, contraction under solidification would shrink bubbles, thus raising pressure according to the law named after the creationist ‘father of modern chemistry’, Sir Robert Boyle (1627–1691), that gas pressure is inversely proportional to volume. Also, even the formation of bubbles in itself must increase pressure, to counteract the resistance of surface tension to producing the new surface area of the inside of the bubble. This excess Laplace pressure is given by the equation:ΔP = 2γ∕rwhere ΔP is excess pressure, or difference between inside and outside; γ = surface tension; r is bubble radius. This extra pressure is considerable in tiny bubbles, so the partial pressures would also be increased, according to Dalton’s Law.Pterosaurs need high pressure to generate enough lift to fly: but previous models of pterosaur flight overlooked the function of the tiny pteroid bone, that would have supported a controllable flap. This would greatly increase lift in both takeoff and landing.20,21Gigantic insects could not have gained enough oxygen under normal pressure. The fossil record shows huge insects such as Meganeura, a dragonfly with a wingspan of 71 cm. For a long time, scientists thought that insects didn’t breathe, and oxygen diffused passively through holes (spiracles) through tiny tubes in the abdomen (tracheae). Since this could work only over very short distances, how could such a creature survive without extra oxygen?22 Yet recent synchrotron X-ray microscopy shows that insects really do ‘breathe’ by squeezing the tracheae, such that half the gas is exchanged every second.23,24This doesn’t disprove a higher oxygen concentration and air pressure, but it shows that they were not needed scientifically. They are definitely not needed on creation grounds.Meteorite impact Flood began with fountains in the sea and other deep parts of the earth, and only secondarily from the rain. However, some Flood models involve a meteorite initiating the Flood. But could it be acceptable ?Certainly, there is strong evidence of large numbers of impacts on the earth and other solar system bodies. Further, the evidence from lunar craters—their location mainly in one quadrant and the ‘ghost’ craters26,27 —suggests that the main source of bombardment was a narrow meteoroid swarm that passed by before the moon had moved very far in a single orbit. 28 A likely time for this swarm was in the Flood year. Indeed, multiple impacts would provide sufficient energy to maintain the Flood, including causing much water (liquid and vapour) to shoot into the sky and return as rain. But a meteorite as an initiator of the Flood seems unacceptable. This contradicts the clear teaching that the Flood began deep within the ocean and underground, not the sky. Furthermore, this is not an argument from silence, but an argument from conspicuous absence. If a meteorite really were the primary cause, then why does Genesis not mention such a dramatic event? In formal logical terms, an argument from conspicuous absence is a valid argument called denying the consequent (or modus tollens). Canopy theoryThe canopy theory, as a model for the beginning of the Flood, aligns strongly with this ‘antediluvian paradise’ idea. This asserts that the ‘waters above’ referred to a canopy of water vapour, which condensed and collapsed to provide the rain for the Flood (figure 1). A few decades ago, this was very popular—for good reason, since it seemed to explain many things about rain, rainbows and longevity. Now it is rejected by most informed creationists.However, the real problem was that some creationists gave the impression that it was a direct teaching of Scripture; CMI cautioned against such dogmatism back in 1989 when the model was still very popular among many creationist writers.33  Clearly these waters could not have been a canopy that collapsed during the Flood, since they were still present over a thousand years later.Many of the arguments for the canopy were faulty on scientific grounds. For example, one argument is that the canopy would protect us from damaging radiation, and explain the extremely long lifespans. But water vapour is not a great shield for UV—you can be sunburned on a cloudy day and while swimming. When it comes to cosmic radiation, there is no evidence that this is involved in longevity, and as stated above, the cause of decreasing lifespans was genetic rather than environmental.What water absorbs very well is infrared, as any vibrational spectroscopist knows.34 It is actually a far more important ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2, accounting for about 66% of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or maybe even as much as 95%.35 This leads to the major scientific problem with the canopy theory—a water vapour canopy thick enough to provide more than about a metre’s worth of floodwater would cook the earth.36

Catastrophic plate tectonicsThis is probably the most popular model among informed creationists today.37 This accepts much of the evidence adduced to support uniformitarian plate tectonics, but solves a number of problems. The CPT model begins with a pre-Flood super-continent. While uniformitarian models assume that the ocean plates have always had the temperature profile they display today, the CPT model starts with some additional cold rock in regions just offshore surrounding the supercontinent. Since this rock was colder, it was denser than the mantle below. At the start of the Flood year, this began to sink (figure 2).One problem with this created instability is that it would be a ticking time bomb. This is not necessarily an insuperable difficulty, though, since it is akin to the issue of (and answer to) “why are some features designed to hurt other things, if the world was created fine?” While some things can be explained as an adaptation from plant-eating structures, such as some teeth, other

things cannot. A good example is jellyfish’s stinging cells with a catapult mechanism. Here, it is not adequate to claim that they once stung plants. Figure 3. In the hydroplate model rupture of the crust allows steam and sediment to be ejected as a fountain into the atmosphere, returning to the earth as rain (from Brown, ref. 62).But how can it sink more rapidly than ocean plate subducts today? The answer lies in laboratory experiments that show that the silicate minerals that make up the mantle can weaken dramatically, by factors of a billion or more, at mantle temperatures and stresses. If a cold blob of rock is sufficiently large, it can enter a regime in which the stresses in the

envelope surrounding it become large enough to weaken the rock in that envelope, which allows the blob to sink faster, resulting in the stresses becoming a bit larger still, and causing the rock inside the surrounding envelope to weaken even more. Moreover, as the blob sinks ever faster, the volume of the envelope of weakened rock grows ever larger. Rather quickly the sinking velocity of the blob of dense rock can reach values of several km/hour, on the order of a billion times faster than is happening today. This is called runaway subduction.The sinking ocean floor would drag the rest of the ocean floor along, in conveyor belt fashion, and would displace mantle material, starting large-scale movement throughout the entire mantle. However, as the ocean floor sank and rapidly subducted adjacent to the pre-Flood super-continent’s margins, elsewhere the earth’s crust would be under such tensional stress that it would be torn apart (rifted), breaking up both the pre-Flood super-continent and the ocean floor.Thus, ocean plates separated along some 60,000 km where seafloor spreading was occurring. Within these spreading zones hot mantle material was rising to the surface to fill the gap caused by the rapidly separating plates. Being at the ocean bottom, this hot mantle material vapourized copious amounts of ocean water, producing a linear chain of superheated steam jets along the whole length of the spreading ridge system. Not only is CPT backed up by supercomputer modelling that even impresses uniformitarians,39 but it has also provided further fruitful research avenues for creationists, including a mechanism for Earth’s rapid magnetic field reversals40 and hydrothermal solutions to carve huge caves.41All the same, weather experts have been modelling the weather for decades, yet there are still many flaws; some argue that we should not place too much faith in modelling for plate tectonics either. Defenders argue that there are fewer unknowns in a confined solid state modelling of CPT than in the fluid (liquid and gas) dynamics and variable solar activity modelled in weather simulations.Thus I think it is still the most promising theory, explaining the data supporting uniformitarian plate tectonics, and solving a number of its problems. That is why I have promoted it in my two largest books, Refuting Compromise (2004) and The Greatest Hoax on Earth? (2010). Its strong points include explaining high-pressure minerals and simultaneous uplift of all of today’s high mountains. Furthermore, under Uniformitarian PT, plates are moving too slowly to penetrate past the upper layers of the mantle; rather, they should blend in long before they reach the lower mantle. Yet studies show that the subducted plates have penetrated much further, and are still relatively cool. This is consistent with the subduction being fast enough to penetrate the mantle, and recently enough so they haven’t had time to heat up.But CPT is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so it is legitimate for creationists to question or reject it as a model, and a number of knowledgeable creationist geologists do.42,43 Opponents argue that it concedes too much to uniformitarianism, and that it doesn’t explain the whole of the Flood, but only the last half.HydroplateThis model of Dr Walter Brown46 has many passionate supporters. Brown explains:“Before the global flood, considerable water was under the earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates.”Furthermore, water and rocks were hurled at speeds exceeding escape velocity, so this explains the origin of comets, asteroids and meteorites (figure 3).47Furthermore, ‘the Flood caused meteors’ lacks the Genesis weakness of ‘meteor caused the Flood’. Yet it has failed to attract the support of many creationist geologists and geophysicists, many of whom have no reason to reject a successful flood model.Furthermore, few creationist astronomers would accept an Earth origin for comets, meteors and asteroids.Reaching Earth’s escape velocity of 11.2 km/s would be hard enough, and such objects would burn in the atmosphere. Note that our spacecrafts are launched in stages: first, they are taken up to a low earth orbit, where the speed is about 8 km/s. Then another stage accelerates the craft to escape velocity, which is a little lower as it is further from Earth’s gravity—about 10.9 km/s. But to launch comets into orbits reaching beyond Pluto would require speeds just a little less than the escape velocity with respect to the sun’sgravity at the earth’s orbit, or 42.1 km/s—and that’s after overcoming atmospheric resistance. Note that the Voyager space probes were able to move past Pluto only by using “gravitational slingshots” of handily aligned planets to augment their speeds.The Journal of Creation has published an article about various Flood models, including the hydroplate, which was treated neutrally.48 But for the creationist community to take it further, Dr Brown should publish it in a journal such as this, and respond to criticisms from creationist experts in geology, e.g. that there is more water still inside the mantle than in the oceans. 49 A forum similar to a previous one on CPT50 would be most instructive.‘Vanishing Flood’ modelsFlood must have left some dramatic evidence, otherwise why would scoffers be held culpable for “deliberately ignoring” the fact of the Flood if there is no evidence?

Tas Walker’s ‘Geology’ modelFigure 4. The creation Geologic Model is a geologic classification scheme based on the creation record of Earth history. The model is useful for classifying geologic data, understanding geologic processes and guiding geologic research. It is a powerful tool for communicating creation geologic concepts.So, given that the Flood left behind considerable evidence, as this passage teaches, what can be predicted? Walker has proposed a geological framework (although not an explanation of the Flood per se) by which to understand rock layers and fossils, not just for the Flood year, but forall of Earth history—from the Creation Week to the present time (figure 4). He did this by using the clear descriptions of Scripture, as well as more loosely holding inferences from what we think we know about sedimentology and hydrology.Walker proposes two

main stages of the Flood ‘year’ (really 370 days): ‘inundatory’ and ‘recessive’. There might be some minor deviations, since variations in topography, floodwater and chemistry, mean that the results of Flood processes might not be strictly synchronous, even though the rocks produced might be the same.The former is subdivided further: the earliest is the ‘eruptive phase’, derived from the explosive implications of the “fountains of the great deep bursting forth”; second, ‘ascending phase’, derived from the waters “increasing” upon the Earth ; third, the ‘zenithic’, Flood waters “prevailing” for so long with the mountains all covered, as well as the common-sense observation that the waters must have peaked some time.The latter (‘recessive’) stage is subdivided not according to Scripture per se, but according to hydrological observations (which is why it is called a model).57 First, large amounts of water moving off a surface that was wholly submerged would first start to flow in huge sheets. This phase is called ‘abative’. Then, as the water level dropped and land emerged, the flow would be divided into large channels, hence the ‘dispersive’ phase.This makes good sense of many geological features hard to explain under uniformitarian models,58 of which I will mention two. First, planation surfaces, which look like someone had taken a giant plane over the surface and shaved it flat, regardless of orientation or hardness. This is just what a giant sheet of water would do in the abative phase.59 Second, water gaps: instead of rivers following the path of least resistance around mountains, many go through gaps in them. This is consistent with violent channelized flow of huge volumes of water overtopping perpendicular barriers and carving channels straight through them. Since water gaps were formed after much erosion had occurred, they are consistent with having been formed in a later stage of the recessive stage. 60Verified predictions are a strength of a model, but they cannot logically be considered a proof—that would be a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.1

ConclusionThe Global Flood is essential for understanding Earth history. Yet we were not there, so trying to understand it has a number of difficulties. So it is not surprising that there are a number of different creationist proposals, and a few errors in some.The starting point must be the explicit statements of Scripture, and propositions that logically follow from them. Since the Flood was ahistorical event, then our description of its details is at heart historical.For finding out the details, science is useful as a forensic tool, but is not the driving discipline. This can show how  known processes in hydrology and sedimentology would work under the constraints of the creationly-derived propositions. With so many unknowns, it is not surprising that there are a number of different models. But multiple models are a good thing in science, especially when it comes to trying to understand what happened in the unobservable past. What ultimately matters is what is true, not what fits a particular scientific model.

Hypercanes: rainfall generators during the Flood?by John Woodmorappe

A class of super-hurricanes provide a hitherto-unexplored mechanism for the 40-day rainfall during the Flood. These unusual super-storms originate over areas of scalding-hot ocean water, as would be generated by submarine volcanoes during the early stages of the Flood. Whereas ordinary cyclones affect broad but limited geographic regions, hypercanes deliver moisture well into the stratosphere, ultimately causing global effects. Although a large number of hypercanes would be needed to account for the global rainfall during the Flood, the combined geographic area directly affected by the hot ocean water, and by such hypercanes, would be minimal. Thus the organisms could have easily survived in the large areas of ocean, free of these life-destroying effects. Recent research on cyclonic storms helps clarify the role of SSTs (sea surface temperatures) and dissipative heating in hypercane genesis.

Anatomy of a hurricane (after Oard).16 Hurricanes form in warm, stagnant, subtropical oceans when the rising moisture-bearing air starts to circulate. Heat from the warm ocean surface converts to kinetic energy, intensifying the circulation. The inrush and updraft of moisture-bearing winds is balanced by the lateral circulation of the winds around the ‘eye’ caused by the Coriolis effect of the earth’s rotation.Where did the water come from that led to the 40-day global rainfall at the start of the Flood? Critics have scoffed at the creation account on this matter, pointing to the fact that no modern storm system could ever produce that much rain. Following similar thinking, compromising evangelicals have likewise argued that only a local flood could have rainfall associated with it. The obvious reply is that no known normal meteorological process would produce 40 days of continuous

rainfall over the Tigris-Euphrates region! Thus, the attempt to reduce the Noachian Deluge to a local event fails miserably once again.In criticizing the concept of a global 40-day rainfall, both bibliosceptics1 and compromising evangelicals display a narrow-minded adherence to known meteorological processes as the sole conceivable source of the rainfall. Their attitude only demonstrates a reluctance to consider any alternatives.But what else is new ?In 1795, before examining the evidence, the deist James Hutton, ‘the father of modern geology’, proclaimed: ‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now. … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’2 (emphasis added)—uniformitarianism.But why should creationists follow Hutton’s rule instead of interpreting the facts in terms of the creation framework? At the 4th International Conference on Creationism, in August 1998, I presented a technical paper that introduced hypercanes as a novel mechanism for the Flood rainfall.3 Here I describe this research for CEN Tech. J. readers, and update it with some recent developments in our understanding of powerful cyclonic storms.Some previous theories for the 40-day global rainfall

This section is not intended to provide a comprehensive account of past theories, but rather to call attention to some of them. Many commentators have supposed that the earth was surrounded by a water vapour canopy that condensed at the start of the Flood. This is an area of ongoing research, and it is possible that a workable canopy will be modeled one day. However, it appears at present, that no naturalistically-functioning canopy, able to provide more than about one metre of rainfall, could have surrounded the earth without making it too hot for life to exist below.4Anyway, a global canopy is not necessary to explain the existence of a much-warmer, pre-Flood world than the world we know today. My research5 has highlighted alternative conditions that would have

sustained a frost-free planet. These include the absence of ice caps at the poles, the absence of tall mountain ranges (whose presence tends to deflect global wind circulation from a more polar direction—according to some models), larger concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (for a greenhouse effect), and the existence of shallow seas over much of the continental-interior areas.Because water has a high specific heat, these shallow seas would trap heat, and help prevent the interiors of the large continents from falling below freezing temperatures at night. It should be stressed that these antediluvian seas would have covered a much larger percentage of the continents than the conventionally-modeled Cretaceous epeiric seas which are found to freeze over in winter according to some models. Consequently, there would have been ample large areas within the continental interiors with enough thermal inertia to prevent the near-surface temperatures dropping below freezing in winter.Progress of seawater lofted into the stratosphere by a hypercane (after Woodmorappe).17 1. Hypercane injects water into the stratosphere which freezes to crystals, 2. The thick ice cloud bank is split by wind shear, 3. Eddy diffusion (vertical arrows) enlarges the clouds and large ice crystals either fallout or evaporate enlarging the cloud decks downward (curved arrows). Most eventually join synoptic systems and rain out, 4. Precipitation of the remaining ice clouds is triggered by either by convection from solar heating (broken arrows) or wind shear induced convection (curved arrows), including cloud collisions and mergers.Others have suggested that jets of hot water were being injected from the ocean bottom into the atmosphere as the Flood began. The hot water subsequently cooled, and fell back as rain. This mechanism needs to be evaluated more fully. To my knowledge, no detailed research has been conducted on its feasibility or otherwise. And, as it turns out, such hot-water jets may be completely unnecessary in view of the probable existence of hypercanes.Still others have conjectured that the 40-day rainfall originated from water vapour injected into the air by volcanoes. However, we now realize that most of the water emitted by volcanoes is scavenged in the volcanic plume itself. Very little of it persists in the upper atmosphere. But if a volcanic caldera fills with ocean water, appreciable quantities can be vaporized and lifted by the volcanic plume into the upper atmosphere. However, even then, a volcano is much less effective in lofting water into the stratosphere than a hypercane.6One gains the impression that previously-proposed models for the 40-day rainfall are inadequate. We thus need to consider other mechanisms for the 40-day rainfall, and the hypercane turns out to be a prime candidate. I will assume that it rained over most, but not necessarily all, of the earth’s surface at any given instant of time within the 40 day and night period, and that the rain was largely but not completely continuous. All of these conditions would have been fulfilled by hypercane-generated rainfall.The nature of hypercanes

In some parts of the world, hurricanes are referred to as typhoons or simply cyclones. 7 Hyper-hurricanes, or hypercanes for short, are exceptionally-powerful hurricanes which are now believed to originate under extreme water-surface temperatures. They were discovered while computer modeling the effects of normal hurricanes, albeit with very extreme SSTs (sea surface temperatures). As we shall see, hypercanes hold the key to transferring large volumes of ocean water into the upper atmosphere.To understand hypercanes, we must first discuss how hurricanes work. Conventional hurricanes form in warm, stagnant, subtropical oceans. If the air-currents aloft are favourably positioned, the rising moisture-bearing air will be driven into a pattern that starts to circulate. As wind circulation begins, heat from the warm ocean surface converts to kinetic energy. This intensifies the circulation in a type of vicious circle, eventually transforming the system into a full-blown hurricane. The inrush and updraft of moisture-bearing winds is balanced by the lateral circulation of the winds caused by the Coriolis effect of the earth’s rotation. That is why there is an ‘eye’ in the hurricane.The hurricane produces a great deal of rainfall, but only in and near the regions it affects directly. It is not powerful enough to raise the water from the ocean into the upper atmosphere where winds would carry it a considerable distance beyond the storm itself. This is not an easy task for a storm to accomplish, because a 4th-power law operates. For example, to double the height to which a storm will rise in the atmosphere requires roughly a sixteen-fold increase in power.Computer simulations have revealed what would happen as hurricanes become more and more powerful. This would occur, for example, if the surface water were not only warm (25–30ºC, as in a tropical ocean), but scalding hot (near 50ºC, or about 120ºF). The rising, moisture-bearing air would set up a much more intense circulation than in a typical hurricane.With the increased intensity of circulation, two significant effects would take place. Both the barometric pressure of the storm and the size of the ‘eye’ would shrink drastically. The latter would occur because the powerful winds would equilibrate with the Coriolis ‘force’ much closer to the centre of the storm than for a conventional hurricane. Also, the storm column would rise to twice the altitude.Instead of raining locally, the moisture (in the form of ice crystals) would be lofted into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere), where it could travel for many thousands of kilometres before melting and falling as rain. The small ice crystals, elevated to stratospheric altitudes, would remain aloft for several days at least, before eventually raining on the earth. And, as discussed in my ICC paper, the crystals would probably undergo several cycles of sublimation and recrystallization before doing so. Meanwhile, sufficient time would have elapsed for the upper-level winds to transport the cirriform ice-crystal clouds over the continents.Unlike conventional hurricanes, hypercanes would tend to remain stationary. It is suggested that, if a hypercane were blown off the ‘bubble’ of hot water by atmospheric winds, it would die down without hot water to ‘feed’ from. But a new hypercane would probably form over the original ‘bubble’ of hot water.In contrast to the hurricane, the hypercane does not need favourable upper-level winds to form. Once the ocean surface is hot enough, simulations suggest that the hypercane would be self-triggering. Both conventional hurricanes and hypercanes are giant heat engines that depend upon the temperature gradient between the warm surface-water and the cold upper atmosphere to generate their power. Since the temperature gradient is greater for the hypercane than for the conventional hurricane, the hypercane is much more powerful.But what would make the ocean surface hot enough to trigger, and then support, a hypercane? Obviously, no conventional meteorological conditions would ever raise ocean temperatures anywhere near 50ºC. But an underwater volcano would—if it were large enough. We are really talking catastrophism now! Hot magma from the volcano, mixing with ocean water, would create a hot water plume. Being less dense than the surrounding cool water, the plume would rise and create a ‘bubble’ of hot water at the surface. Provided this bubble (or ‘patch’ in two dimensions) of scalding water is large enough—say 50 km in diameter—theory predicts that a hypercane will form. And it will not die out until either the heat source is dissipated, or lateral winds snuff out the hypercane.Hypercanes in a global Flood contextIf indeed hypercanes were active during the Noachian Deluge, how would they have operated? At the onset of the Flood, the ‘fountains of the great deep’ broke up, instantly spawning thousands of underwater volcanoes. Within hours, hot plumes of scalding water generated thousands of hypercanes all over the world’s oceans. Unimaginably large volumes of water were thus lofted into the upper atmosphere. Shortly thereafter, the cold, upper atmosphere was saturated with water, mostly in the form of ice clouds. With time, the ice crystals coagulated, and fell back to the earth. Upon reaching the denser middle atmosphere, they either melted or evaporated. The moisture became available to the conventional weather systems, and generated intense global rainfall.Finally, the tectonic processes during the Flood caused large waves to develop. These snuffed out the hypercanes. Thus we had only 40 days of rainfall, instead of rainfall throughout the year-long Flood. Most of the water which flooded the continents came from the oceans as they increased in depth, and not from the hypercane-induced precipitation.Survival of life though the FloodMy research on hypercanes has inadvertently clarified some issues that have been the subject of bogus anti-creationist arguments. Some bibliosceptics have claimed that large numbers of simultaneous volcanic eruptions would cause an intolerably intense global acidic rainfall and caused extreme and long-term cooling of the land surface after the Flood.To begin with, the turbulence of floodwaters would rapidly mix any acidic rainfall, thus greatly minimizing its effects on living things. More important, the anti-creationist arguments tacitly suppose that a linear relationship exists between volcanic emissions and consequent atmospheric aerosol loading (e.g. a thousand volcanoes will emplace roughly a thousand times the aerosol mass of a single volcano). To the contrary, we now know that volcanoes are self-limiting in terms of the amounts of either dust or chemical compounds that the upper atmosphere can hold.8In other words, the holding capacity of the stratosphere is limited, preventing excessive accumulation of acid-causing, or sunlight-blocking, chemical species at any one time. As a result, we would not expect excessive acid rain during the Flood. Nor is there likely to have been excessive surface cooling after the Flood.Another anti-creationist argument would have us believe that ocean water would become so hot during the Flood that nothing could have survived. This, of course, rests on two dubious premises:That enough heat would be produced to raise the temperature of the oceans to intolerable levels;That the heat would be distributed evenly through the oceans, to every layer in every geographic area. This argument is similar to the claim that there is sufficient poison gas in the world’s arsenals to kill the world’s human population several times over. This would be true only if each of the six billion inhabitants of earth lined up and individually received the minimum fatal dose.Let us deconstruct the ‘everything-gets-boiled’ argument. It must be realized that, perhaps counter-intuitively, large patches of hot water will not readily mix with the neighbouring cooler water, except perhaps at the Equator. This is because the Coriolis effect, like an invisible fence, confines the scalding water to a relatively small geographic area.9Moreover, hypercanes, and the ‘bubbles’ of hot water that gave rise to them, would have been limited in geographic extent. For example, they may have been confined to the ‘ring of fire’around the earth, narrow bands along the mid-ocean ridges, and the belts of present-day volcanoes. Alternatively, if the ‘ring of fire’ was of late-Flood origin, the hot ‘bubbles’ may have been confined to essentially point-source undersea volcanoes, many of which have since become known as seamounts. Thus the Coriolis-‘fence’ and the geographic separation of the undersea volcanoes, limited the hot water ‘bubbles’ to relatively small areas of the ocean until the hypercanes dissipated most of their heat.

Marine life inside the hot water ‘bubbles’ would have been almost completely obliterated, but outside it would have been largely unaffected. To use the poison-gas analogy, one individual was killed by a 1000-times fatal dose, while 999 other individuals were completely unaffected.Recent research on cyclonic stormsWe do not yet know the theoretical limits of the size or power of hypercanes. 10 However, at some point, the internal friction of moving air must prevent the hypercane from exceeding a certain size. More research is needed to understand this limit, and how it relates to the actual quantities of rainwater that could have been lifted by hypercanes during the Noachian Deluge. No more modeling has been performed on hypercanes in recent years, but there have been advances in our knowledge of cyclonic storms. This in turn helps our understanding of hypercanes.We had known for some time that most cyclonic storms are not as powerful as one might predict solely from SSTs. But some are. So why do some cyclonic storms reach their ‘potential’, while others don’t? We now suspect that cyclonic storms use the full amount of the power available to them only when they are in constant contact with the warm surface water. By contrast, those storms which, as a result of their progress across the ocean, mix the warm surface water with colder subsurface water, tend to be self-inhibiting.11 In effect, these storms suffocate themselves.The implication of this for hypercanes is rather obvious. If hypercanes are to work, then the negative feedback effects of surface-water mixing must be avoided. In other words, the ‘bubble’of hot water on the ocean surface must be deep enough to prevent the hypercane mixing the thick layer of hot water with the subsurface cool water. I have heard a depth of 150 metres quoted as the minimum thickness for a ‘bubble’ of hot water. It is precisely the global-catastrophic Flood that would provide the conditions necessary to create ‘bubbles’ to generate hypercanes. Not only would these Flood ‘bubbles’ have the necessary temperature and diameter, but they would also have sufficient thickness.Recent research has also advanced our understanding of the dissipative heating process in cyclones. We now realize that most heating occurs in the boundary layer of the eyewall region (where the maximum wind speed occurs).12 Frictional heating of the boundary layer takes place, with resulting dissipation of kinetic energy at the molecular level.13 In some ways, this process resembles the loss of kinetic energy in a machine due to friction as the moving parts rub against each other. Some kinetic energy is lost as heat, and thus the real-world machine can never be as efficient as a theoretical frictionless one. It is also for this reason that perpetual motion machines are impossible.But here the analogy ends. It turns out that, counter-intuitively, the dissipative heating can actually increase the force of cyclonic storm. When dissipative heating is included in the simulations, the projected maximum wind speeds can be greater, and the barometric pressure within the storm lower, than when dissipative heating is neglected.14 How can this be? Recall that the cyclonic storm is a heat engine. It turns out that some of the heat rejected from the cyclone is returned to the ‘front’ end of the heat engine (i.e. where the heat source is), thus intensifying the storm. While this applies for conventional cyclonic storms, it is unclear at present to what extent this would take place in the much more powerful hypercane. Since hypercanes rise to much higher altitudes than conventional hurricanes, the effects of dissipative heating are not straightforward. In addition, a significant source of uncertainty is the amount of dissipative heating which occurs in the ocean instead of the atmosphere.15

ConclusionsHypercanes may well turn out to be the ‘missing link’ between oceanic waters and global rainfall during the global Flood. Creationists with a background in the atmospheric sciences need to conduct further research on hypercanes. If such research validates the hypercane concept, and answers the lingering questions about dissipative heating, we will be much closer to understanding how the 40 days and 40 nights of rainfall took place during the early stages of the Flood .

After devastation … the recoveryAn amazing bounce-back after catastrophe gives us insights into how the world recovered from the Flood.

by Keith Swenson and David Catchpoole

When Mount St Helens erupted on 18 May 1980, the resulting devastation of the area around the volcano left many stunned at the sheer scale of the destruction. More than 200 square miles (over 500 square km) of what had been a vast green blanket of pristine forest, clear mountain streams and tranquil lakes was now a monotonous grey ash-covered wasteland of fallen timber, steaming pumice plains, barren mudflows and avalanche debris. Shortly after the eruption, the then U.S. President Jimmy Carter compared it to a moonscape. Scientists studying the affected area referred to an ‘apparently sterile landscape’,1 lamenting that ‘It will never be again, in our lifetime’2 and speculating that it would even be ‘impossible for insects to recover at all.’3

Gloomy predictions wrongScientists who flocked to study the devastated area soon found that the initial pessimistic forecasts of long-term barrenness were largely unfounded.4 For example, within just three years, 90% of the original plant species were found to be growing within the blast zone.5 As is evident from the ‘before-and-after’ photographs on these pages (more photographs were originally included with this article), the innate resilience of the creation had been greatly underestimated.Life’s return—the detailsHowever, many species were completely eliminated from the Mount St Helens blast zone because of the eruption. While most volcanoes erupt in an upward fashion, Mount St Helens initially exploded sideways, spewing its oven-hot blast over the forested landscape to the north. Nicknamed the ‘stonewind’, the rock-laden, ground-hugging steam blast advanced rapidly outward from the volcano in a 180° arc, flattening over 200 square miles (500 square km) of forest in less than ten minutes. The extent of biological destruction was staggering. The timber felled by the eruption would have been sufficient to build almost 500,000 three-bedroom houses. Virtually all the visible mosses, ferns, shrubs and wildflowers vanished. Not only did all living organisms in the upper North Fork Toutle River die, but 15 miles (24km) of the river itself was no more! 6 The estimates of animal deaths by the Washington State Department of Game included 11 million fish; 1 million birds (including 27,000 grouse); 11,000 hares; 5,000 deer; 1,500 elk; 1,400 coyotes; 300 bobcats; 200 black bears; 15 mountain goats; 7 and 15 cougars.8 In addition, 57 people were counted as dead or missing.

Virtually all species of medium-to-large sized mammals in the affected area,9 and presumably all bird species,10 were obliterated. But many have come back, by immigrating from outside. Various bird species were recorded in the area soon after the eruption, probably feeding on insects (the first helicopter crews to land in the devastated area reported that flies and other conspicuous insects had preceded them).11,12 Although not all of these insect migrants survived (herbivorous insects could not live until plants had started to grow again), many species did survive—often by consuming their airfall companions, both alive and dead. Among the aerial arrivals were millions of wind-borne spiders,13 plant seeds and fungus spores.Once vegetation had begun to regrow, the large herbivorous mammals such as elk and deer re-entered the blast zone. Elk, being highly mobile, were able to move into and out of the blast zone at will, and this further hastened plant recovery, as their dung contained seeds and nutrients transported from outside the devastated area. Beavers from the adjacent forests followed water courses upstream to blast zone lakes. Amazingly, salmon and trout maturing in the Pacific Ocean at the time of the eruption (and thought to be intolerant of anything other than cold, clear, well-oxygenated streams), successfully ascended muddy and ash-clogged waterways in their instinctive urge to spawn.14Although millions of organisms living above ground at the time of the eruption were wiped out, many life-forms within the devastated area survived the fury of the blast.15 How? Ants survived in underground colonies,16 salamanders in the soft wood of decomposing logs, fish in ice-covered lakes, and roots of plants were protected from the blast inferno by soil and snowpack. Although large numbers of these subsequently succumbed to the unforgiving post-eruption environment, some lived on and reproduced. In fact, ecologists acknowledge that the presence of such ‘unexpected survivors’ greatly accelerated recovery. The aquatic and streambank areas exhibited the most rapid recovery. At least 10 of the 16 original species of amphibians (frogs, toads and salamanders) survived the eruption.17 Frog and toad survivors exploded onto the recovering landscape, rapidly establishing large breeding populations by the mid-1980s.

Today, the diversity of species (e.g. birds18) living in the area devastated by the eruption of Mount St Helens in May 1980 is approaching its pre-eruption levels. The kinds of birds and animals that have not yet returned are mostly species preferring old-growth forest habitat. While it will probably take at least 200 years before old-growth forest again occupies the blast zone (providing another disturbance does not intervene), Mount St Helens has forced ecologists to rethink their theories of ecological ‘succession’. This was because they found both ‘pioneer’ and ‘climax’ species growing side-by-side!Mount St Helens and the world-wide FloodObserving the return of life to Mount St Helens can provide some insight into the return of life to the world after the Flood. Both Mount St Helens and the world-wide Flood were cataclysmic geologic events

involving extreme volcanism ,flooding, and the destruction of life—one on a local, the other on a global scale. In both, organisms survived and repopulated the post-disturbance landscape. Consider:Many species were completely wiped out from the blast zone, particularly the birds and the large land mammals (e.g. deer and elk).At Mount St Helens, these species returned to the devastated landscape through migration from beyond the zone of destruction. After the world-wide Flood, animals migrated, multiplying and repopulating the earth.Interestingly, reproductive rates of elk (large herbivores) early in the recovery period at Mount St Helens were among the highest ever seen, probably due to availability of high-quality forage from recovering vegetation. Survival of offspring also increased, probably a reflection of the low numbers of predators, which only moved in and multiplied later once herbivore herd numbers had increased.Just as hunting pressure drove elk into the blast zone at Mount St Helens (local authorities had put restrictions on hunting in the devastated area), the post-Flood human population, as it spread across the earth following the dispersion from Babel, must have induced wild creatures to move to more distant regions. With their much higher reproductive rates, herbivores probably occupied the far-flung unoccupied zones of the earth well in advance of predators and man. Birds, with their capacity for flight, are likely to have been at the forefront of the dispersal into the devastated post-Flood landscape, as at Mount St Helens. This may explain why birds such as New Zealand’s Moa that could have lost the ability to fly through mutation (loss of genetic information) were able to survive in apparently large numbers—until hunters eventually migrated to the area.Interestingly, the animals and birds that were the first to colonise the devastated landscape at Mount St Helens are known by ecologists as ‘generalists’, i.e. able to tolerate a wide array of environmental conditions and dine on a variety of foods. Among the most conspicuous of the first colonisers at Mount St Helens was the common raven, known to eat almost anything, including carrion.

Tourists and researchers visiting Mount St Helens and Spirit Lake are amazed—not only by the extent of destruction wrought by the volcano, but by the incredible ‘bounce back’. The area has given great insight into rapid formation of such things as layers and canyons; now, also, into how rapidly ecosystems can recover from cataclysm. Photos by Keith Swenson

Many species—plants, microbes, insects, amphibians and aquatic creatures—survived within the blast zone, if not in adult form, then as seeds, spores, eggs and/or larvae.Mount St Helens shows us that species can indeed survive cataclysmic geologic events.Though many plants, amphibians and fish died in the eruption (as undoubtedly occurred in the Flood, as per the fossil evidence), many survived to reproduce. As for insects, it is known that there are billions of insects in the air column, even up to altitudes of 4,500m (15,000 feet).19,20 Though most if not all would not have remained aloft during the 40 days of rain, many insects would have survived the Flood in floating logs and other debris.Even dead insects would, through their carcasses, have been an important source of food for survivors and nutrients for the vegetation sprouting as the Flood waters receded. And as at Spirit Lake (see aside below) legions of microbes probably helped restore the volcanically degraded post-Flood lakes and seas. Animals could thereafter have migrated gradually from the Mount Ararat region into a prepared landscape, already populated by abundant microbial, plant, insect and aquatic life.Resilience of the creationThe overarching conclusion to be drawn from Mount St Helens is the extreme resilience of the creation. Sceptics often argue that recovery from a global catastrophe such as the Flood would be impossible within a short time-frame. Mount St Helens, however, demonstrates how quickly and completely recovery can occur in the natural world. So, following the Flood, the regreening and repopulating of the earth could also have happened within a very short time-frame..

Keith SwensonKeith Swenson

U.S. Geological SurveyThe death and rebirth of Spirit LakeOn the morning of May 18, 1980, Spirit Lake, a paragon of tranquility and beauty, was virtually obliterated. About one-third of the avalanche of debris ploughed directly into this azure jewel, causing its water to slosh over 240 metres (800 feet) up the mountain slopes to the north, where it picked up the soil and vegetation of an old-growth forest, including a million logs. When this organic soup returned, it was to a new lake basin, elevated over 60 metres (more than 200 feet) above its pre-eruption level. Oven-hot flows of volcanic debris boiled into the lake’s south shore, and volcanic rocks and ash rained from the sky. The first helicopter crews into the blast zone reported they were unable to find Spirit Lake. They did not recognise it with its surface obscured by a mantle of floating logs and pumice.When scientists returned to Spirit Lake in June of 1980, they found it had been ‘transformed into a roiling [‘roil’ = to stir, to make muddy], steaming body of degraded water choked with logs and mud.’1 They predicted it would take 10–20 years to return to its ‘pre-eruption chemical and biological condition.’ As it turned out, it took closer to five! How did this happen so quickly?After the eruption, Spirit Lake became a ‘paradise’ for microbes. Its waters, once cold (10°C = 50°F) and clear, became warm (over 32°C = 90°F) and muddy, laden with organic debris, mineral nutrients and other chemicals. Bacteria proliferated to an astounding degree in this broth, ultimately peaking at half a billion bacterial cells per millilitre—a ‘concentration that is possibly unprecedented in the annals of environmental microbiology.’2 For a time, the oxygen levels were so depleted by the decomposition

activity that the lake could support only anaerobic (i.e. can live without oxygen) microbes. Spirit Lake thus bubbled like a

cauldron from escaping carbon dioxide, methane and hydrogen sulfide generated by these bacteria in bottom sediments. For scientists visiting the area, the odour was overwhelming! However, the ‘no oxygen’ bacteria were crucial in decomposing the huge amounts of organic debris settling on the bottom of the lake during this phase of the recovery process.Restoration was greatly hastened by the coming of the winter rains. This seasonal influx of fresh water diluted the concentration of toxic chemicals and raised oxygen levels. Wind, waves and seasonal lake turnover stirred in still more oxygen, enabling the return of oxygen-dependent microbes, which absorbed mineral nutrients from the water, and thus helped clear the lake of these and other chemicals. Water clarity improved, and with increased light penetration the phytoplankton reappeared. They produce food by photosynthesis and release oxygen as a by-product. Within just five years, the water quality had nearly returned to its pristine pre-eruption state—a remarkable transformation.Keith Swenson U.S. Geological Survey

Log mat floating on Spirit Lake following eruption disaster.

WHAT SORT OF DAMAGE WOULD A GLOBAL FLOOD CAUSE

Wild, wild floods!North Sea Megaflood

by Emil Silvestru

The Labyrinth in Antarctica is now attributed to extensive subglacial floods.Recently the Brits have found out what really separated them from mainland Europe: catastrophic flooding! And not once but twice! Detailed studies of the bottom of the English Channel have revealed an ancient river valley that once collected the waters of the Thames, Somme, Rhine-Meuse and the Scheldt—rivers that all discharge today into the North Sea.1,2High resolution imagery of the seafloor has not only revealed an ancient river but also clear signs of large-scale flooding (megafloods)—signs like flat-topped, elongated and streamlined islands up to 10 km long and 4 km wide, plus grooves nearly 200 m wide, 2–3 m deep and 10–15 km long.1The flooding discharged an estimated 1×106 m3 s–1 of meltwater from a pro-glacial lake located where the North Sea is today. Within the evolutionary (long-age) timeframe, the first flooding event is

believed to have occurred about 425,000 years ago during the Ice Age. In my view, however, the first erosional event was the receding water of the Flood3  cutting a deep canyon through the landbridge that then connected Europe and the British Isles, a structural ridge known as the Weald-Artois anticline made almost entirely of chalk.Then, at the end of the last episode of intense freezing (believed by evolutionary scientists to have taken place 20,000 years ago) an even larger meltwater lake formed north of the canyon which is believed to have been dammed by moraines or some other obstacle. At some point the dam breached and a flood which they claim was even greater than the previous one 4 scoured away all that remained of the structural ridge, creating the English Channel as we know it today.1,2

History repeatedThis newly accepted megaflood is the last one in a series that began to make its way into the scientific establishment over 80 years ago; when J Harlen Bretz proposed that the Channelled Scablands in Washington State were caused by a gigantic flood.5 Bretz was derided and his idea utterly rejected for nearly 50 years. Now the Lake Missoula flood is a widely accepted explanation and even believed by some to have been a cyclical event!6Then came the Lake Agassiz flood: a gigantic meltwater lake that formed at the southern edge of the Laurentide Ice Sheet in Canada and suddenly drained catastrophically eastward, cutting the Niagara Gorge and the St Lawrence River in a geological instant.7,8 Further studies in Canada have shown that gigantic floods had also repeatedly occurred underneath the ice sheet.9,10 My research along the Niagara Escarpment has revealed that such subglacial sheetfloodswere most likely responsible for the formation of this famous landmark. West of Lake Agassiz, at the foot of the Rockies in Alberta, another massive subglacial flood seems to have shaped most of the foothills and possibly the Rockies themselves.9,11,12As this iconoclastic idea was gaining momentum, traces of similar floods have been found in places like Antarctica. Weird landscapes like the Labyrinth in Antarctica’s Western Dry Valleys are now attributed to ‘extensive subglacial floods’ (please notice the plural!) in the middle Miocene (long before humans were around according to evolutionists).13All of these floods have had estimated discharges of the same order of magnitude as the one that created the English Channel. Such a huge input of fresh water into the oceans would have certainly affected the thermohaline circulation system7,14 and through that the global climate.What next?It is interesting to notice that the North Sea flood (I will tentatively use this appellative here) is a latecomer in the geosciences, although it is physically located in the cradle of modern geology! The fact that the data is located under the sea should not be an excuse. This is not any sea but the English Channel, arguably the most investigated seafloor in the

world!I believe it has more to do with Lyell’s lingering ghost of which the late Derek Ager—an enemy of creationism!—said in the preface of his last book (seen by many as his scientific testament): ‘Just as politicians rewrite human history, so geologists rewrite earth history. For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell. Any suggestion of “catastrophic” events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable.’ 15 There may be another reason for the late recognition of European glacial and subglacial floods: the mountains. In North America (where most of the glacial and subglacial floods have been documented) the mountain ranges run north-south or north-east–south-west and are located at the edges of the continent. Thus there was no mountainous barrier for either the ice sheet growing southward from the Arctic, or the meltwater it produced when the Ice Age ended. In Europe (where the ice sheet also advanced from the north) on the other hand, the Pyrenées, Alps, Tatras and Carpathians created a massive east-west barrier from the Atlantic to the Black Sea (continued beyond by the Caucasus, Karakorum and Himalayas). This barrier effectively stopped the advance of ice and when meltwater accumulated behind it, may have directed most of it towards the western and eastern ends of the obstacle. It is therefore possible that the North Sea flood was fed by more than just local meltwater.There is another interesting possibility: the Black Sea flood being caused not by invading Mediterranean Sea waters (as believed by the advocates of this catastrophic event16) but by meltwater running east and then south across the Ukrainian steppe and into the Black Sea. This could have caused the Black Sea to overflow eastward, cutting or deepening the Bosporus. Maybe the Caspian and Aral seas were also formed this way. Nobody has yet searched for traces of such a glacial or subglacial flood in Eastern Europe, but given the incredible momentum of this neo-catastrophic approach, it may happen anytime now!ConclusionClearly, there is an increased willingness for the evolutionary geology establishment to accept catastrophes within geological history (‘the rare event’ as Ager calls it). However, the establishment is adamant that these catastrophes were isolated and widely spaced in time. So, whenever catastrophes are recognized, they have to fit the long-age geologic timetable (‘reinforcement syndrome’).All these floods were a consequence of the Quaternary Ice Age, for which creationists have the only plausible explanation. The Ice Age occurred after the Flood and was a result of it. Furthermore, the post-Flood Ice Age was unique (in spite of the fact that some evolutionists have postulated up to 40 glacial events during what we call the Ice Age17).Within the creation timeframe, all these catastrophic floods occurred close to each other and their cumulative effect on global climate must have been dramatic. Semi-closed seas like the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and the Red Sea could have been ‘flooded’ and/or overflowed repeatedly.According to existing climate models,13 such an input of freshwater would have caused significant global cooling, and that is exactly what the Younger Dryas episode13,18 at the end of the Ice Age was, seemingly on a global scale.19 Another consequence was the rapid rise in ocean level which would have rapidly isolated lands that were previously connected. Humans and animals would have been suddenly isolated, allowing for the development of the present-day demography and biogeography.Studying the multiple effects of these post-diluvial floods can provide valuable data pertaining to many aspects of Earth history, from the dynamics and effects of the Flood to dispersal of humans after the Tower of Babel episode. The facts are out there for all to study and use to further the Kingdom! Willingness and funding is all that’s needed!

Australia’s drought exposes ‘drowned town’The legacies of a ‘tranquil’ flood and the Global Flood are very different

by David Catchpoole

The depleted waters of Lake Eucumbene, photographed June 2007. (click for larger image)In the grip of drought, many of Australia’s major water storages have fallen to unprecedented lows.Lake Eucumbene’s receding waterline has exposed again the paths once trodden by former ‘old Adaminaby’ residents.For example, Lake Eucumbene in the Snowy Mountains is down to less than 20% of capacity—the lowest ever since that man-made lake was formed when the valley was dammed in 1958 as part of a large hydro-electricity scheme. One measure of the severity of the current drought is that the water level in Lake Eucumbene is now so low that the site of the former settlement of Adaminaby, which was never expected to be seen again after being submerged almost fifty years ago, is accessible once more. In fact, the sloping main street of the old town is now being used by locals as a boat ramp to access the depleted Lake Eucumbene.With Lake Eucumbene’s water level so low, old

Adaminaby’s Denison St makes a great boat ramp! (click for larger image)‘We couldn’t believe it when the old streets started to reappear,’ said one former resident, Leigh Stewart, who grew up in old Adaminaby and once ran a shop there. 1 He was one of about 700 residents of the former settlement (often referred to as ‘old Adaminaby’), which was compulsorily relocated by the government in the 1950s before the land was inundated.

More than 100 buildings from the old town were moved nine kilometres over a hill to the town that now bears the name Adaminaby.2 (Some timber houses were simply lifted onto the back of trucks and transported to the new town site; others such as St John’s Church of England were dismantled stone-by-stone and rebuilt.) About one-third of the old town’s residents chose to live in ‘new’ Adaminaby—the remainder took their compensation packages and moved elsewhere.Photo: Andrew Snowdon

Denison St, the former main street of the old town, now being used by boat owners to access the depleted waters of Lake Eucumbene. (click for larger image)

This flight of concrete steps led up to one of the three church buildings relocated brick-by-brick in the 1950s. Walking up these steps once more has brought back a flood of memories for one old-timer—he remembers standing at the top of these steps as he and his bride were being sprinkled with confetti 60 years ago. (click for larger image)Rusted batteries, shards of pottery, bottles and other remnants of everyday life in the former settlement are now drying in the sunlight, exposed to the air for the first time in nearly half a century. One can see the foundations of old houses, covered by a layer of muddy silt. And the blackened skeletons of trees lining a road in old Adaminaby reach skyward out of the receding water—mute reminders of a town that was once a ‘thriving regional hub’ to which people travelled from surrounding districts to transact business.According to media reports, the sight of the remnants of the once-familiar landmarks of the old town had been ‘stirring painful memories for former residents’.Wandering down the streets where he played as a child, Greg Russell, now 82, could see once more the flight of concrete steps leading up to the site of the church where he was married. It was at the top of these steps that he and his wife Mary were sprinkled with confetti 60 years ago. ‘It’s sad and it makes me a bit nostalgic,’ he said. ‘We had some good times there and it’s strange to see it this way now.’The Gobal Flood vs the Adaminaby experience

Building foundations and unwanted rubble from ‘old Adaminaby’ buildings, abandoned when the town was relocated in the 1950s, can be clearly seen, despite decades of inundation by the waters of man-made Lake Eucumbene. Although in some places the layer of silt can be up to 30 centimetres deep, contrast this with the legacy of the global Flood—sedimentary rock layers many thousands of metres thick, containing billions of dead things evidently buried quickly—one can conclude that the Flood was anything but ‘tranquil’. (click for larger image)An information sign in modern-day Adaminaby giving a brief history of the relocation of the old town, erected by the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority. (click for larger image)the Global Flood’s water flows were catastrophic. In stark contrast to the slow filling of Lake Eucumbene,3 the Floodwaters came in a rush, with the ‘fountains of the great deep’ breaking open, and ‘forty days and forty nights’ of continuous rain. And though the volume of water in Lake Eucumbene (when at full capacity) is

relatively large, it is as nothing compared to the Flood—an event where there was so much water it completely, and rapidly, inundated theentire planet, submerging the tops of the then highest mountains for 150 days.The remains of an old stove/oven? (click for larger image)The violence of this event was such that every land animal and bird whereas there’s no indication of any such creatures drowning as the waters of Lake Eucumbene rose after the dam was completed in 1958. The very existence of fossils in sedimentary rock worldwide is consistent with the global Flood—creatures had to be buried quickly to be fossilized, and we find layer upon layer of sediment, obviously laid down in one hit.Photo: Andrew Snowdon

Note that the trees are not only still standing where they once grew, but also have intact branches, even with pine cones still attached—quite different from tree logs found in the fossil record which are broken, devoid of branches, roots and bark. (click for larger image)Contrast Adaminaby’s meagre ‘layer of muddy silt’ and drowned trees still rooted in their original roadside positions with polystrate fossils—often very large tree trunks, ripped away from where they once grew, buried vertically straddling multiple sedimentary layers, many metres deep. (See I got excited at Mount St Helens! andThe Yellowstone petrified forest.) Such huge quantities of sediment, violently shifted by rushing, planet-inundating water, testify to the dramatic re-shaping of the earth’s topography. The pre-Flood land could have been literally ‘washed away’ or buried under hundreds of metres of sediment eroded from elsewhere. Insights from AdaminabyAll kinds of artifacts from everyday life in the former town site [e.g. the door latch fitting photographed above] can be found drying in the sun, just where they were left, now exposed by the receding waters of Lake Eucumbene. So why don’t we find artifacts of human civilization from pre-Flood times? Because unlike the tranquil inundation of old Adaminaby, the Global Flood was catastrophic, globally rearranging the pre-Flood topography—therefore it’s hardly surprising that remnants of pre-Flood civilization have yet to be found.1. Comparing the legacy of the gentle flooding of Adaminaby with that from the catastrophic world-wide global Flood shows that the Flood was definitely not ‘tranquil’ (nor local). In other words, the ‘tranquil flood’ theory, erroneously mooted by some, does not fit reality

As the waters receded, one could once again drive on the bitumen of old Adaminaby’s Denison St—after nearly fifty years of inundation. In contrast, even short exposure torushing water can spectacularly carve through bitumen roads. (See, e.g., Govt to probe NSW highways after fatal flood collapse). (click for larger image)2. We have pointed out elsewhere that the apparent lack of any human fossils or artifacts from pre-Flood civilizations might have been destroyed during the flood .

WAS THE GLOBAL FLOOD REALLY JUST A LOCAL FLOOD IN THE BLACK SEA ARE

Pre-Flood relics on the bottom of the Black Sea?by Tas Walker, CMI–Australia

14 September 2000

Robert Ballard, discoverer of the wreck of the Titanic, has captured the headlines again this year with his findings 300 feet under the surface of the Black Sea. In a telephone interview from his ship, 12 miles off the northern coast of Turkey west of Sinop, Ballard reported that his remotely-operated underwater vehicles (ROVs) had found evidence for human settlement. He reports finding well-preserved artefacts including carved wooden beams, wooden branches and stone tools. He also said he located a collapsed structure “clearly built by humans” in a former river valley beneath the sea.This exciting discovery provides concrete evidence that people once lived in that now inundated region. It contrasts with last year’s expedition when, due to choppy waves and strong currents, the ROVs were unable to record anything on the sea floor.Whatever prompted Ballard to search for evidence of human settlement 300 feet under the sea? It started with geologists Bill Ryan and Walter Pitman of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York who suggested that, toward the end of the Ice Age, the Black Sea suddenly rose some 300 feet.What is remarkable about these reports is the unabashed enthusiasm for linking this Black Sea flood with the Gobal Flood. What really happened?If we accept that the Black Sea flooded towards the end of the Ice Age, we can link it with creation chronology and the true history of the world. There is a good case for the Ice Age being post-Flood. Ussher’s creation-based chronology places the Flood at 2348 BC, and creationist research suggests that the Ice Age took 500 years after the Flood to reach its maximum and a further 200 years to melt back. (Remember these are estimates only.) Thus, the Black Sea flood occurred after most of the continental ice sheets had melted, thereby raising ocean levels and allowing the Mediterranean to spill into the Black Sea some 700 years after the Flood.So, with the Flood at 2348 BC, the Ice Age peak would have been around 1850 BC and the melt back completed by 1650 BC at which time the Black Sea area flooded. The discrepancy between this and the published date of 5600 BC (7,600 years ago) for the Black Sea flood is because the date of the Black Sea flood is based on 14C analyses. The problem is that the 14C dates have not been corrected for the increase in the atmospheric ratio of 14C/12C following the Flood. The sudden burial of masses of vegetation changed the balance in the carbon reservoirs on the earth, and equilibrium is still being approached. Properly corrected 14C dates would agree with the young date. Thus, the

Black Sea flood is one of many post-Flood catastrophes that have occurred around the world (e.g.,  Siberian mammoths, Iceland’s mega-flood).ConclusionIt is clear from the geological investigations that there is a good case for a sudden drowning of the Black Sea Shelf thousands of years ago. The weight of evidence is compelling, even more so now with Ballard’s reports of definite signs of human habitation beneath the water.But the link with the Global Flood is wrong—nothing but wild, unsubstantiated speculation.. That doesn’t even explain how flood legends arose, especially those in places like America and Australia. On the contrary, the flood legends are corrupted recollections of the one-and-only worldwide Flood.Rather than the Global Flood, the Black Sea evidence points to a local, post-Flood catastrophe at the end of the Ice Age around 1650 BC.

Proof of Global Flood at the Black Sea?What has Robert Ballard Really Found?

Information Department

In an article from the Washington Post dated 13 September 2000, explorer Robert Ballard (discoverer of the Titanic) led a team to the Black Sea in search of evidence for Noah’s Flood. About 550 feet below the surface, they found evidence of a ‘sudden, catastrophic flood around 7,500 years ago—the possible source of the Old Testament story of Noah.’They captured sonar images of a ‘gentle berm and a sandbar submerged undisturbed for thousands of years on the sea floor.’ Then using radiocarbon dating, they determined that the remains of the freshwater mollusks found on this submerged beach were 7,500 years old and that the saltwater species were only 6,900 years old. (By the way, radiocarbon is not reliable in giving accurate dates going back thousands of years. CMI believes that Noah’s Flood should be dated to about 4,300 years ago.)In an interview, Ballard said, ‘What we wanted to do is prove to ourselves that it was a global flood.’According to Columbia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman, who had predicted where this shoreline would be found in the Black Sea, describe the flood as such: ‘The Black Sea was created when melting glaciers raised the sea level until the sea breached a natural dam at what is now the Bosporus, the strait that separates the Mediterranean Sea from the Black Sea. An apocalyptic deluge followed, inundating the freshwater lake below the dam, submerging thousands of square miles of dry land, flipping the ecosystem from fresh water to salt practically overnight, and probably killing thousands of people and billions of land and sea creatures.’Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review, replied to Ballard, Ryan, and Pitman’s claim with, ‘All modern critical Bible scholars regard the tale of Noah as legendary. There are other flood stories, but if you want to see the Black Sea flood in Noah’s flood, who’s to say no?’We agree that they indeed have found evidence for a huge flood in the Black Sea area. But we do not support their claim that this was Noah’s Flood. You see, in order to justify their assertion, they declare that the record of Noah’s Flood in the scripture is legendary and just a myth. They say the ‘myth’ originated from a real event (their Black Sea flood), but that it has been grossly distorted and exaggerated as it was relayed by word of mouth before eventually being written down. By using the term ‘myth’ they can disregard all the details of the creation account that do not fit their Black Sea claim.Pitman recently spoke about this idea during an Australian lecture tour. Now in his mid 70s, Pitman has an interesting talk. He has conducted some excellent geological work in the Black Sea area. He presented good geological evidence that the Black Sea suddenly rose in level when a land barrier with the Mediterranean Sea failed, allowing water to flow in suddenly.The Flood was not a local flood in the Black Sea area, but a world-wide flood that has left its mark on every continent on this planet.Pitman knows that his link between the Black Sea flood and the Gobal Flood does not fit with Genesis. For example, his Black Sea flood does not have 40 days and nights of rain (He says the ‘whole event probably lasted about 40 years’), does not have a 140-meter ark as described in the Bible, does not cover the highest mountains, does not recede off the Earth etc, etc. Pitman knows it does not fit, shrugs his shoulders and when questioned about it he simply said he does not read the Bible literally. Therefore, his link with the Global Flood is totally arbitrary. He wants a flood, so plucks the Global Flood out of the air. It is a good flood to pick because it sells lots of books. Furthermore, the geologists love him. They think by saying that the Genesis Flood was a local flood then they can dismiss the implications of the real global Flood .

DEEP UNDERSTANDIG OF THE FOOD GEOLOGY

Why was the UK once totally under water?by John D. Matthews

The teaching of geology is dominated by an irrational desire to avoid any reference to the Global Flood when the whole world was submerged under water recently. It achieves this by burrowing into small, detached details and carefully ignoring the bigger picture. This paper examines the bigger picture in the UK, drawing together diverse aspect of geology, geography and the hydraulics of river flow to show that the UK experienced a complete flood recently. But many other factors are also uncovered that point to the whole world having experienced that same flood.

Geology, as currently taught in schools, colleges and universities, knows nothing of the Flood .Textbooks and journals on geology universally reiterate uniformitarianism (the assumption that the present is the key to the past) as being a necessary and sufficient way of studying geology. The Flood is sidelined by this bondage to uniformitarianism.Neither is there any reference in this ‘bondage’ geology to the large number of non-biblical flood legends from many parts of the world which add support to the principle of a global flood. These should have prompted a serious study before geology became entrapped by uniformitarianism, which is hardly liberated by admission of the occasional catastrophe.1,2Our focus in this paper is to show that when we examine geology holistically, rather than burrowing ourselves in small detached details, confirmation of the recent Flood emerges.The UK, because of its relatively small size compared with the world’s land mass and the early development of geology here, has been explored to a higher level of detail than many other countries. This paper presents evidence from within the uniformitarian paradigm that the UK experienced a complete flood recently. In the process we show that there are also other pointers, quite independent of flood legends, to the whole world having experienced a global flood. Other researchers are then encouraged to complete this story geologically.A worldviewHancock and Kauffman7 estimate that at the end of the ‘Cretaceous’ period the amount of dry land worldwide was around one half of what it is now. Although young-earth creationists are unlikely to readily accept the uniformitarian meaning of ‘Cretaceous’ or the millions of years associated with it, it provides a starting point for our study.Mount Everest, the highest in the world at 8,848 m above sea level, is composed of limestone and once lay beneath what such geologists call the Tethys Ocean in the ‘Late Cretaceous’. Limestone is a rock that is formed under water and contains (marine) crinoid fossils.8Everest supposedly started to come up out of the water 50 Ma (million years ago) as India supposedly collided with the European Plate causing the Himalayas to form.The uplift was completed at 5.5 Ma.9 We are neither going to discuss

how the individual dates were obtained nor take them at face value. We will discuss the concept of ‘deep time’ later, but we also have to note that radiometric dating is totally unreliable because decay rates have not been constant,10 though this is not admitted in geological articles.Later we will show that aspects of tectonics, erosion, and sedimentation provide overwhelming support for Vardiman et al.’s10 conclusion that radiometric dates of rocks need to be shortened by removing four to six trailing zeros from the age. There is no such thing as ‘deep time’, though we will live with the concept temporarily as we survey the uniformitarian literature.There is a further point that has to be challenged. Ascribing relative ages to rocks in different areas through a casual use of the stratigraphic geological column is outmoded. 11,12 Each case needs examining individually. For the moment we will use the terminology of the geological column to provide the relative dates of the rocks since our first aim is to show uniformitarian geologists that, even within their own paradigm, there is substantial evidence for the global flood. Later we will challenge this method of relative dating.UK mountains and peaksBringing our focus back to the UK, because of the wealth of geological information, we start with England. England’s highest peak is Sca Fell, in the Lake District, at just short of 1,000 metres. The area is one of structural complexity13 with rocks of the Borrowdale volcanic group (BVG) deposited supposedly in the ‘Ordovician’ period (~450 Ma) being the dominant surface rocks. However, these are underlain by the Tarn Moor Mudstones deposited in water. So the area was once under water at least 450 Ma.Now while the current consensus favours a subaerial (i.e. exposed to the air) setting for the BVG, it is possible that the subaerial nature of the BVG has been overstated.14 Thus the area may have remained under water even much later. Note that we are putting names from the geological column, such as ‘Ordovician’ and ‘Cretaceous’ in quotes because of our reservations about their overwhelming uniformitarian connotation.There are four reasons Garner14 gives for the possible watery origin of the BVG rocks:The welding of ignimbrites has been cited in support of the subaerial interpretation, but this has been strongly challenged by field and theoretical studies demonstrating that welding can take place underwater and may even be more likely underwater. Notably, BVG ignimbrites are often underlain or overlain by subaqueously deposited pyroclastics.Attention has been drawn to lava flows with features suggesting weathering in a subaerial environment. However, many of these ‘extrusive lava flows’ have now been reinterpreted as ‘intrusive sills’, which were never exposed to the atmosphere. Their weathered appearance is due to interaction between the hot magmas and the wet sediments into which they were intruded.Many of the bedded tuffs in the BVG display evidence of having been deposited underwater or reworked by water. Observed structures include ripples, channels, slumps, cross bedding, graded bedding, flute marks and load casts. In some locations, such as Pavey Ark, the volcanic breccias are interpreted as hyaloclastites (glassy) which formed when lava was rapidly chilled and fragmented by contact with water.Fossil-bearing marine mudstones of the Holehouse Gill Formation occur in the upper part of the BVG, although this is regarded as a brief, localised incursion into an otherwise subaerial succession.Turning our attention to other high spots in the UK, the highest mountain in Wales is Snowdon (1,085 m). At its simplest, it is now a series of irregular-shaped plugs of igneous rock, but these plugs pierced a series of layers of mudstone, which had been laid down under water supposedly around 500 Ma (‘Cambrian’). The mudstone has been tilted almost to the vertical and has been compressed and heated into slate.15,16Scotland’s highest mountain, and the highest in the UK, is Ben Nevis at 1,343 m. The reason we can be sure the area was once under water is similar to the story for Sca Fell and Snowdon. Much of the area is metamorphic rock,17 but Ben Nevis emerged from depth as a granite intrusion, displacing the water-deposited sediments, which then transformed the surrounding country rock into metamorphic rock by the heat from the granite.In Northern Ireland, the highest mountain is in the Mourne range (852 m). Though the mountain range is granite, it is underlain by slate and shale. Thus the area was under water supposedly 440 Ma.Was every part under water at the same time?

In order to validate the creation account of the Flood from geological evidence, it is not sufficient, though it was helpful as a precursor, to show that all our mountains were once under water. We need to ask if the whole of the UK was simultaneously under water recently.Our foray into the uniformitarian literature to answer these questions, ignored by those who practise uniformitarianism, starts with our figure 1, taken from Rayner,18 and based on primary sources such as Hancock and Rawson.19 In what is described as the ‘Late Cretaceous’ period and dated around 65 Ma, her composite map shows all of England, much of Wales, and major parts of Scotland under water. It also shows the whole of the Ireland landmass under water, as well as major parts of continental Europe. Furthermore, this map is regarded as ‘conservative’ by Rawson20 and Gannon,15 who point out that a ‘radical’ view of the exposed land mass of Britain around 65 Ma is smaller than Rayner’s map shows, and may even have been nonexistent.Others who have studied the ‘Cretaceous’ period have maps which show a small island of land in the Lake District (LD), and an extension of area ‘W’ to the south to include the Brecon Beacons (BB); for example, Gale.21 Rawson,20 in a solo-authored article,

apparently contradicting what is described above, shows the area ‘W’ to be in the south of Wales rather than the north (his figure 12.2B). The latter is possibly a draughtsman’s error because of the relative heights of the respective areas. Whatever the individual causes for the differences, part of the explanation is the problem of identifying which igneous deposits were subaerial and which were subaqueous, as mentioned above.Even taken at face value, this map is a step in the direction of showing a positive answer to our first question. It is wrong for all those who cling to uniformitarianism, supported by a bit of catastrophism, to dismiss the global flood without performing basic checking. The loss of 80–90 % of the land surface of the UK all at once is catastrophic in our context. But our story of restoring credibility in the exact details of the global flood has further mettle in it yet because we have more to say about Wales, even if we cannot at this stage explain all the outliers in figure 1.The area in Wales (marked W) is Snowdonia. From our discussion above we know that it was definitely under water ~500 Ma. As noted, some geologists will also accept that it was under water ~65 Ma22 though it may not have stayed under water during the intervening time.Another reason for the difference in opinion arises from the uncertainty in the depth of the

ocean when the chalk was being deposited. Chalk is present in England southeast of a line from Hunstanton to Abbotsbury. There is also a smaller area near Flamborough and patches west of Abbotsbury. Because of the erosion that took place from the NW (see below), chalk is judged to have been deposited much further NW than where it is presently found. A conservative estimate19 is that it occupied the whole area SE of a line from Flamborough to Exeter. Traces of chalk are also found in the Hebrides, Northern Ireland and SW Ireland in collapse structures.21 This implies a significant cover of chalk at one stage in Earth’s history, much further than Hancock and Rawson19 estimated.The depth of the ocean when chalk was being deposited is considered to have been 100–600 m (Rayner).18 Since the chalk is pure (no land-based clastics or organic matter in it), land must have been even further away than NW of this Flamborough-Exeter line. This is one of the reasons behind the statement that much, if not all, of the UK was under water at that one time. Only where the landscape islands (outliers) are shown (W, S1, S2, and S3) is there residual doubt that that they were not under water exactly at this point in time.Figure 1. The limited area of UK not flooded during the ‘Late Cretaceous’ (from Rayner18).A further question is the relative height of the Snowdonian area and the other outliers in figure 1, during the ‘Cretaceous’. The height was what it is today, plus what was eroded in the ‘post-Cretaceous’ period less any rise in the basement rocks. Estimates of as much as 1.5 to 2.0 km for the additional height exist. Obviously, these put Snowdon above water, but these heights are ‘guesstimates’. If there was land in those positions, then there would be a high probability of land-derived clastics in the chalk. They don’t exist. The estimates of heights are based on the recognition that the dykes and the host rocks in these areas were once topped with much more ‘over-burden’ than they are now. However, since the bulk of this ‘over-burden’ has since disappeared, we know that the top of the ‘over-burden’ was once under water much later than that first igneous intrusion, and that that water must have had extensive erosive power to remove that additional ‘over-burden’. This ‘Late Cretaceous’ period seems to fit closely.The crucial evidence which could settle the issue is often buried under later glacial deposits. The issue of radiometric dating is of no help. While to a uniformitarian geologist the ‘Devonian’ and ‘Cretaceous’ periods are separated by ~200 million years, the RATE study10 shows that the details are severely suspect. Later we will examine other aspects of river flow in the region and how that this casts light on the subject in favour of our interpretation.The three areas in Scotland which might have been under water ~65 Ma (S1 is the Southern Uplands, S2 is the Grampian area and S3 is the Northern Uplands) could be explained in the same way. The area in Norway needs further research but is likely to prove more difficult to unravel because of the greater degree of glacial history frustrating efforts to uncover material which may be ‘Late Cretaceous’. Additional information is currently available for the other parts of continental Europe 23 not shown on figure 1, but further research is needed. The area Cn on the figure is Cornubia (named after Cornwall), and will be referenced later.Deep timeThere will be objections at this stage to our hypothesis that all parts of the UK were simultaneously under water within the

past few thousand years, because the submergence of the land that we have demonstrated has been assigned an age of ~65 Ma. This is not the 4,500 years for the date of the Flood . 24Hutton promoted the concept of ‘deep time’ at the end of the 18th century.25 His observation of erosion in present-day rivers showed very slow rates. Therefore the courses the rivers follow must be old, so the rocks over which these rivers flowed must be old.His line of reasoning based on erosion fails when we consider the Flood. When rocks were deposited they would have been unconsolidated and therefore amenable to rapid erosion. Hardening (consolidation) may have taken hours, days or even months depending on location, burial history, and the arrival of other mineral-rich waters.26 The rates of erosion would therefore have been very variable rather than always slow.The folding and erosion at Siccar Point in Scotland is a specific example Hutton used to justify ‘deep time’. The area is quite small so it is difficult to provide a detailed explanation of what happened there. Considering the iconic nature that uniformitarians hold of it, there is a paucity of literature.

Probably the best description of it is that of Rowan (website).27 Challenges to the assumption that a long period was needed to fold and erode the Silurian rocks have been made by Tyler on the BCS website,28 and Walker.29Justifying ‘deep time’ by reference to radiometric dating is not acceptable. Radiometric dates overestimate rock ages by several orders of magnitude.10 Those estimates of land in ‘Late Cretaceous’ times (figure 1) are therefore what happened not 65 Ma, but just a few thousand years ago.It may be that radiometric dates can be used to assess relative dates.30 However, many creationists go further and accept Humphreys’ dictum (in Vardiman et al. 200031) that there is a guaranteed one-to-one correspondence between radioisotopic age and stratigraphic age (p. 342, figure 3). The data are far from complete, but that guarantee is suspect for two reasons. The standard deviation of the data using radioisotopic age to obtain stratigraphic age is about 180 Ma (i.e. 3–4 geological periods).To show what this means, consider a rock sample (T), radioisotopically assessed, which, from that dictum, gives a stratigraphic age of ‘Triassic’, and another sample (P) from a distant location (where the strata provide no supplementary clues to their relative ages) that gives an older ‘Permian’ age. Yet there is a 30% probability that P is younger than T. Such strata are therefore inferred the ‘wrong way round’ 30% of the time.Figure 2. The rising of the UK and the retreat of the floodwaters in the ‘Late Palaeocene’ (various sources)We can try and reduce the standard deviation by Bayesian regression on the data in the hope of getting better relative dating estimates. What happens then is that the standard deviation is reduced to 120 Ma. But the trend line no longer goes through the origin. The line (in Ma) is: stratigraphic age equals 0.4 times radiometric age plus 180. That is not helpful to anyone since it pushes many rock samples immediately into the ‘Triassic’. The whole issue needs re-examining outside a framework of belief in the absolute reliability of the geological column. For the moment, with the support from overwhelming stratigraphic evidence,12,32 we assume that the geological column is an outmoded paradigm that has the potential to cause confusion rather than give light.The retreat of the FloodThe uniformitarian understanding of what happened after this total (or almost total) immersion of the UK ~65 Ma was that the area started to uplift in the Irish Sea because of thermal doming.33,34 This is seen as one cause of a general stratigraphical tilt towards the southeast in England and Wales. Cope32 places the apex of the dome between Anglesey (A on figure 2) and the Isle of Man (I). So the overlying water would have had to run off radially from this position because a cone-like structure would be emerging. Thus over England and Wales the flow would be towards the south and east.

Figure 3. Possible reconstruction of late floodwater drainage between ‘Eocene’ and ‘Quaternary’ times.Thompson35 objects to the doming because the thermal dome would have eventually subsided, to which Cope36 replies that that is why the Irish Sea is now sea, rather than land. Both authors agree that some kind of ‘igneous underplating’ (bolstering up) would also have been necessary to explain the runoff processes. The precise cause of the tilting on Wales and England is not important to our thesis, though there is a further supporting point for the uplift centred on what is now the Irish Sea. There is little or no sediment that would be left there in the Irish Sea21 if the major doming had not taken place there.Uniformitarian geologists have traced the subsequent events. Initially, short rivers developed in the northwest, creating a large delta lagoonal complex covering much of what was to become England. Figure 2 shows this situation in ‘Late Palaeocene’ ~55 Ma (Gibbard and Lewins33). The ancient rivers have

been named either after modern day rivers that follow similar courses (Trent and Thames) or geographical names (Solent and Hampshire). These earlier tracks have been ascertained by discoveries of gravel deposits consistent with erosion at upstream positions.37 The present-day river courses are due to recent earth movements, and the ice age adjusting the drainage patterns, see later.The grey colour shows land within the boundary of the present outline of the UK. Obviously there might have been land in the Irish Sea, and the North Sea where the question marks have been placed. A further point is that the delta lagoonal complex would have been receiving water and sediment from separate uplift of France and other parts of continental Europe, but not Ireland, which was tilted the opposite way. Those details are still to be explored.Subsequently the shore of the delta tracked further SE across England and the rivers lengthened. By ‘Late Eocene’ times (Bartonian ~ 40 Ma) the delta had disappeared, leaving the London Basin and the Hampshire-Dieppe Basin (figure 3). The rivers at this point in time are described as ‘Eocene Amazons’ or ‘Mississippis’ (Gibbard and Lewins 33). Figure 3 gives a possible reconstruction of their courses between ‘Eocene’ and ‘Quaternary’ times (~2 Ma) based on a wide range of sources. Total agreement is not available on all the courses, probably due to geologists using uniformitarianism when it is not applicable, but there is general agreement, especially on the Solent and Thames.Both the real Amazon and Mississippi are mighty rivers. The flows of water are huge compared with the UK’s Thames and Trent. So are the widths of these rivers—many kilometres, especially near the estuaries. Furthermore, unlike the Amazon and Mississippi, there were many of these rivers almost on top of each other, not thousands of kilometres apart.The western head of the Thames was subsequently captured by the south-flowing Severn. Of other interest is the Solent, which has since disappeared. The interpretation is that the headwaters were in North and South Devon (D1).It flowed across Dorset (D2) and on into Hampshire (H). It was less influenced by the doming north of Wales because land was also emerging, or had emerged in Cornwall and part of Devon (Cornubia—Cn on figure 1). East and away from Cornubia, the river failed to develop in any southerly direction because of folding in the chalk (see map) that restrained the flow against the NW-SE tilt. Development of this river is described in detail by Velegrakis, Dix, and Collins,38 along with the ultimate breaching of the chalk fold that created Poole and Bournemouth Bays (just above the ‘d’ in the word ‘Folding’ on the map). This breaching was quite late—‘Quaternary’ times ~2 Ma. Two short rivers now cross Dorset where the Solent once flowed (Piddle and Frome) but their headwaters do not stretch back to Devon because of more recent uplift of land in Devon and Dorset.The ‘unnamed’ river in Wales would set the scene as a precursor for several short rivers in that area (Towy, Loughor, Tawe, and possibly the upper reaches of the Usk and Wye). Jones22 discusses how these recently developed rivers evolved from that earlier drainage system.The key question in our minds, once we free ourselves from the bondage of uniformitarianism, is what sustained these UK rivers of Amazonian size in terms of width and ability to create that amazingly large lagoonal complex basin. The rivers were only fractions of the length of the Amazon and Mississippi, which need large rain-catchment areas to sustain them. So either it rained 100 to 1,000 times as much as it does today in the UK (an average of about 1 m per year) or the life of these ‘Eocene Amazons’ was short-lived (just days). This would have been because the land was uplifting in the NW (with a corresponding tilting down towards the SE, shedding huge volumes of floodwater)—not at the rate of around 1 mm/20 years that uniformitarian Cope32 offers, but centimetres to metres a day.Both optional answers are ignored by this geological bondage. In fact, the question is not even considered. The result of the rainfall figures suggested would leave all the ground continuously flooded with sheets of water, except for the highest ground. The most obvious answer to what sustained these rivers is therefore the rapid uplift of the ocean floor so that water flow was generated by retreat of the ocean. 39Large portions of the UK would then have been out of the water within months, though of course, the data specifically refers to Ararat, not the UK. By making this choice of answer we have removed 10–30 Ma from Earth’s recent history, condensing the Palaeocene’, and parts of the ‘Eocene’ into a matter of months. The sustaining of the Proto Solent until the Quaternary (Velegrakis et al.37) with its immense erosive powers in the present Solent/Isle of Wight area suggests that the ‘Oligocene’, the ‘Miocene’ and possibly the ‘Pliocene’ lasted only a few months rather than ~30 Ma commonly assigned to the total duration of these epochs. The estuary of the Thames moved south about 20 km in ‘Quaternary’ times (Green and McGregor40).Further discussion on the UK outliers of ‘cretaceous’ ageFigure 1 shows UK outliers of rock older than ‘Cretaceous’ age which were possibly not submerged during that period. That would mean that the Flood was not complete even within this part of Europe or else this major amount of submergence had nothing to do with the Flood. First, remember that radical uniformitarian geologists do not consider that any of these outliers existed in the ‘Late Cretaceous’ period. For the purpose of this discussion we are accepting that the maps provided by these geologists have captured the fact that at a unique point in time (what they call ‘Cretaceous’) no land existed across what is now the whole of the UK. So on the basis of their own data, the Flood was total. Additionally we have shown, independently of the unacceptable radiometric dating, and using their own data based on the behaviour of those ‘Amazonian’ rivers, that this event was much more recent than 65 Ma.Second, suppose that figure 1 is an accurate reflection that these outliers were real features during the ‘Late Cretaceous’ as a unique period of time in the UK as Rayner 18 and others contend. We have already established that this was much more recent than 65 Ma. Then, as land lifted, at the high rates we have shown to be applicable in the Anglesey/Isle of Man area, huge waves of water could have formed, possibly tsunamic in character. These would have had the potential to swamp the surfaces of the outliers. So there was a definite potential for every part of the UK to be submerged simultaneously at least for a few days.The third point is based on the recognition that, just because a uniformitarian geologist dates a rock using data from the geological column, it does not

guarantee that that rock was deposited at the same time as other rocks labelled with the same geological name at other places on Earth. Take the point in time that the bulk of the UK was under water, figure 1. This has been assigned a ‘Late Cretaceous’ age. But it is wrong to say categorically that the outliers, which conservative uniformitarians judge to be pre–‘Cretaceous’ rocks, were pre–‘Cretaceous’ rocks, when there is a significant probability of them being the same or a younger age. (Probabilities have been discussed above.)Neither the fossil content nor radiometric dating, where available, can provide convincing equivalence of the time. As an independent example of the confusion over relative dating, consider the folding of the abovementioned chalk ridge, and the obvious inference that a single folding event took place simultaneously in the ‘Cretaceous’ and ‘Tertiary’ rocks.11 We have here evidence of the blurring of the periods geological names refer to, and independent verification of the ability to take 20–30 Ma off our recent history.Whatever argument one endeavours to make for explaining away the ‘conservative’ outliers in figure 1, there is minimal evidence that the whole of the UK was not fully under water in the recent past. The onus is on the uniformitarians to prove otherwise.Other parts of the worldFigure 1 is limited to the region around the UK. Now a global flood means a global flood. There are two points that indicate that the rest of the world was covered with water at the same time. We have a series of worldwide flood legends.41 And geologically we have the estimate7of a major loss of land worldwide in the ‘Cretaceous’.If better exploration and the removal of some dubious assumptions were carried out (such as relinquishing the geological column) all that land would probably disappear at a unique point in time, though we would not be able to call it ‘Cretaceous’.Summary and new challengesWe have challenged the hypothesis that the earth was not subjected to a global flood within the past few thousand years, using mainly uniformitarian sources of information.We first showed that the UK’s mountains were once under water. Then we identified geological maps which show that at a time called ‘Late Cretaceous’, 80–90% of our present UK land did not exist.Although these ‘conservative’ maps suggest that only 80–90% of the UK was under water at exactly the same time, we have advanced three reasons to suggest that 100% of the land was under water.We have also produced evidence, based on river flow, to show that this submergence was recent. The challenge now is to widen the study of evidence for a global flood to neighbouring countries. The potential already exists based partly on uniformitarian maps and the realization that the geological column is not a robust concept. We also need to encourage other evangelicals to engage in studying the effects of the Flood rather than hiding behind uniformitarianism because they consider that “evidence (of the global flood) would not have been overlooked, had it existed” (White4).Tsunami tragedy

The earthquake occurred just off Sumatra at a subduction zone where the India plate slides beneath the Burma plate.

by Tas WalkerCountries surrounding the Indian Ocean experienced widespread devastation on 26 December 2004, following an earthquake off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra.Striking at 6:58 am local time, the earthquake was caused by a massive slip between two of the rigid plates that make up the crust of the earth (see diagram on right). With a magnitude of 9.3 on the Richter scale1, vertical movement between the Indian and Burmese

plates was about 13 m (43 ft) over an incredible 1,200-km (750-mile) rupture length.USGS

Strewn amidst ripped-up vegetation and debris, a car has been tossed aside like a toy by the power of the incoming surge. Humans and animals stood little chance of survival in the face of such catastrophe.Like a giant underwater paddle, the movement of the ocean floor created a tsunami2 that spread in all directions. In the open ocean a tsunami generally goes unnoticed, even though it travels as fast as a jumbo jet. But when it reaches shallower water, it slows down and increases greatly in height.Estimates are conflicting, but the death toll from the disaster was about 300,000 people, with tens of thousands missing and over a million left homeless. In terms of lives lost, this would be the worst single tsunami in modern history. The previous worst was the 1703 tsunami at Awa, Japan, that killed over

100,000 people.In Banda Aceh, the city closest to the epicentre, the tsunami arrived about 20 minutes after the earthquake was felt.3 The shaking was severe, with residents reporting being unable to walk or even squat without being knocked to the ground. Many buildings withstood the earthquake but were destroyed by the tsunami waves.NOAAThe tsunami wave traveled rapidly across the ocean.In Sri Lanka, 1,600 km away, the first wave began to impact the eastern coast about 100 minutes later. A secondary wave struck

approximately 20 minutes after that.Scientific reports will continue to be published on what will be one of the most devastating earthquakes this century.Unprecedented disaster?Louis Michel, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, called the tsunami ‘an unprecedented disaster both in terms of human suffering and the physical damage wrought’.4It was certainly the largest watery disaster in recent history, but was it unprecedented? No. A catastrophe some 4,500 years ago inundated more of the globe, killed more people, destroyed more homes and left a greater trail of geologic evidence. The 2004 tsunami gives a tiny insight into the magnitude of the largest physical disaster in earth history.The earthquake that triggered the tsunami was just one quake, albeit with a magnitude of 9.3. At any location on the coast it took only a couple of

hours for the water to rush in and flow back to sea. But after the water was gone, the devastation was horrific. Some parts of the coastline were radically uplifted, some stayed submerged and others were washed away.No comparisonThe Flood would have begun with massive earthquakes when the fountains of the great deep burst open. But the Flood also involved heavy rain and a continual increase in sea-level . The disaster was not over in an hour or two, but continued to worsen day after day for five whole months .Beach erosion on the east coast of Sri Lanka. Waves removed beach sand about 1 m (3 ft) vertically and 20 to 30 metres (65–100 ft) wide and deposited it further inland.Imagine the situation in the countries around the Indian Ocean if a second tsunami had followed the first a couple of hours later. Then a third two hours after that. And so on. How would the people respond when they realized that the hills on which they were sheltering were slowly disappearing into the sea? Imagine the panic as each new

wave eroded the land away in huge chunks. Visualise this continuing into the night, and then the whole of the next day, and then the next, for five months.There would have been no chance to mount an international rescue effort. The focus on the ground would have moved, from helping the victims, to escaping the ongoing calamity. Whole communities would have moved to higher ground at first. Then what? There would be no time to build rafts or boats, and nowhere to get food or water for six months on the open sea.The tsunami of 2004 should make us question those who claim that the Global Flood never could have happened. Considering that our planet is two-thirds covered with water, 11 km (7 miles) deep in places, the tsunami demonstrates how a relatively small disturbance to the earth’s crust will inundate vast areas within hours. How much more devastation would have been caused by the Flood, which involved far

more than a single tsunami wave?DigitalGlobeA part of Banda Aceh—before and after.A wall of waterOnlookers are taken by surprise as the tsunami breaks across the beach with awesome fury. With a death toll in the hundreds of thousands, cities and towns around the Indian Ocean were destroyed or severely damaged by the results of this single event.The later flooding effects of Hurricane Katrina in the USA once again gave a stark and deadly reminder of the awesome

power and destructive force of large volumes of water.The Flood inundated the entire earth, leaving its mark in the world’s geology with sediments up to many kilometres thick. The remains of billions of dead creatures buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the world testify to this cataclysm.Brentwood Higman, University of Washington

Tsunami sediment at Nalaveli Hotel

Sediments and eyewitnessRip-up clasts in sand deposited by the June 2001 tsunami in Peru.

Is the tsunami relevant to how geologists talk about rock layers? Yes, because the tsunami had eyewitnesses. That is why, in January 2005, teams of scientists visited the devastated areas to document its geological effects.1,2 They call it ‘ground truthing’.At Nalaveli Hotel in Sri Lanka, they found 20 cm (8 inches) of sand deposited in two beds on soil, consistent with eyewitness reports of two waves. The contact between the beds is identified by a darker mineral layer. In each layer the sand grades upward from coarse to fine—a graded bed.Graded beds are typical of a wave deposit. Sometimes marine animals are scattered on the surface. The lowest bed often contains rip-up clasts3 (pieces of the underlying material

ripped up by the wave).Clearly, the bed of sediment does not represent a living environment. The tsunami collected the sediment, marine animals and other material from a number of environments and deposited them together.The lighter material, such as branches, bark and wood, was deposited elsewhere. If a scientist examined the fossils in the beds of sediment and said they showed how life evolved over a long period of time he would be wrong.Survived at seaThe receding waters of the tsunami dragged people out to sea, including Malawati, a 23-year-old Indonesian woman. She survived for five days, badly sunburnt and bitten by fish, by clinging to a sago palm and eating its fruit and bark. She saw sharks all around but, incredibly, none attacked her.Rizal Shahputra, a 23-year-old Indonesian from Banda Aceh drifted in the open ocean for eight days. Along with scores of other people, he clung to floating planks of wood. Dead bodies were all around. One-by-one everyone but Rizal was swallowed by the sea, including his family members.

Waves in the pastTas Walker

Graded beds are common in the sedimentary record, pointing to deposition from large waves (pictured left). The beds are often extensive, suggesting that the waves travelled great distances over relatively flat terrain. And the beds have not been disturbed by animals and plants, indicating that not much time elapsed between one wave and the next.Warnings went unheededWaverly Person of the USGS National Earthquake Information Center said that many people could have been saved if the countries most severely affected—including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and India—had had a tsunami warning system, or even tide gauges.1

By Tuncay Taymaz, Fault plane solutions report

Locations of past earthquakes (small circles). Large circles show angle and direction of faulting.A tsunami is generated at the source of the underwater earthquake and so, depending on locality, there is usually 20 minutes to two hours for people to move to higher ground. Because tsunamis are extremely rare in the Indian Ocean, people had not been taught to escape disaster by fleeing inland after they felt the tremors of an earthquake.Victor Desosa, a former merchant seaman who had experienced a tsunami in Chile, saved the village of Galbokka in Sri Lanka . When the water receded (just before the tsunami arrived) he ran around telling his neighbours to run for it. They believed him and as a result, only one of several hundred inhabitants of his village was killed. Casualty rates in nearby villages were 70% to 90%.2

USGS

This tree was stripped of its bark up to a height of 1.5 metres by the force of the waves.

Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC

American heartbreakOn 29 August 2005, fierce Hurricane Katrina ripped apart homes in the Gulf States of USA and washed them into the sea. A sharp drop in air pressure, a storm surge of 8 m (25 ft), a few structural failures, and New Orleans was flooded. Thousands of people perished and hundreds of thousands were made homeless. A thriving metropolis was destroyed. Katrina gives us another sobering reminder of how easy it is for the water on our planet to devastate the land.

The power of waterDuring the worldwide Flood, massive movements in the earth’s crust would have caused huge tsunamis and destruction on a global scale. The Indonesian quakes and resulting waves would have been tiny by comparison to the events at the time of the great Flood. Billions of creatures, including dinosaurs, were killed and buried in sediments as the entire earth became flooded. Fossils frequently show creatures suddenly killed and buried.

Where did all the water go?by Andrew Snelling

Australia’s Uluru: Evidence suggests it is much younger than was thought.To the tourist industry, it’s a real money spinner. To its European discoverers in the 1870s, it was a rock that appeared more wonderful every time it was viewed. To the Australian Aborigines, it was a place of shelter and special ceremonies. In some of their legends it came into being as a result of 40 days and 40 nights of rain. To the geologists, however, it

has been a perplexing puzzle, so they have largely ignored it.But despite the silence of the geologists, the publicity from the tourist industry has ensured that Ayers Rock has become one of Australia’s most famous landmarks. Situated in Australia’s arid red heart, the Rock is almost 460 km (285 miles) due south-west of the township of Alice Springs. Visited by thousands of tourists each year, it rises abruptly on all sides from the surrounding flat desert plains to a height of about 350 m (1,140 ft). This single massive Rock measures 9 km (5.6 miles) around its base, and stands in an awesome and solitary grandeur that can be only fully appreciated by those who visit its silent and desolate abode in Central Australia.Even though geographers such as the noted Australian Dr C.R. Twidale2 have intensely studied the multitudinous erosion features on the face and at the base of the Rock, and believe they understand the erosion process that has shaped and produced Ayers Rock, geologists have said little about the origin of the material that makes up Ayers Rock.Figure 1.Some geologists have proposed that the Rock evolved slowly some 550 to 600 million radiometric years ago, when sandy material was slowly scoured from the

Musgrave Ranges and moved 100 km (63 miles) northwards by water slowly moving into a large depression (Figure 1). This accumulation process, they claim, would have taken many millions of years to build up the massive thickness of rock layer

that comprises Ayers Rock. Then about 350 million radiometric years ago, the sandy material, by that time hardened to form sandstone, is thought to have been pushed up and tilted by earth movements. Over the next 250 million years slow erosion processes carved out the present shape of Ayers Rock, a shape which they say has been little changed over the past 100 million years.But this evolutionary story about how Ayers Rock came to be illustrates why geologists have not said a great deal about the origin of the material in it, since the material within Ayers Rock actually contradicts the story of slow formation. So just what is Ayers Rock made of and how did it get there?What is Ayers Rock?Now while most tourists may think that Ayers Rock is simply a big boulder resting on the desert sand, it is anything but that! Ayers Rock is really just the ‘tip of the iceberg’. Geological exploration has revealed that there is even more of the same rock under the ground, and beneath the surrounding desert sands. In fact, it turns out that all this sandy rock material makes up one single bed or rock layer tilted so that it now stands almost up on its end. When measured, this single bed is at least 2.5 km (1.6 miles) thick, but that is only the thickness of the material which makes up the exposed part of Ayers Rock. The hidden part of Ayers Rock under the surrounding desert sands shows that the entire bed is in the order of some 6 km (3.75 miles) thick.Cross-section through Uluru showing the tilted layers of arkose continuing under the surrounding desert sand.The actual material that makes up Ayers Rock is a particular type of coarse sandstone. Technically, it is known as arkose because it contains the mineral feldspar. It is this pinky-coloured mineral, along with the rusty coatings on the sand grains, that gives Ayers Rock its overall reddish colour. When you examine a piece of this Ayers Rock sandstone closely, you find that the mineral grains in it have a fresh and shiny appearance, especially the feldspars. The grains are often jagged around the edges, not smooth or rounded. The rock consists of large and small grains all mixed up in the same layer, a situation which geologists usually describe as ‘unsorted’.

Now this is not the kind of evidence you would expect to find if Ayers Rock had been formed slowly over millions of years, and had then endured further long periods of exposure to weathering at the earth’s surface. Feldspar minerals break down relatively rapidly when exposed to the sun’s heat, water and air (for example in a hot, humid tropical climate), and very quickly form clays. If the Ayers Rock

sandstone had been exposed to the destructive forces of erosion and tropical weathering for 350 million years as evolutionists claim, then the feldspar minerals would have long since turned to clay. With the feldspars turned to clay the sandstone would have become weakened, and then collapsed as the clay and remaining mineral grains were entirely washed away, leaving no Ayers Rock at all. Furthermore, sand particles which are moved back and forth by moving water over vast eons of time, lose their jagged edges and become rounded and smooth. At the same time, these same particles being acted upon by the moving water over a long period of time would also be sorted, so that the larger particles and the smaller particles would be separated by the action of the water. This sorting action can be seen today in a river bed, where the small grains are carried along when the current is slow, leaving behind, and separating them from, the large rocks that can only be moved when the current is swifter. Thus, if the sandy material at Ayers Rock had taken millions of years to accumulate as evolutionists claim, then the resultant sandstone should have had smooth rounded grains that had also been sorted into separate layers of either small or large particles.So fresh shiny feldspars, jagged grains and unsorted particles all indicate that the sand accumulated so rapidly the materials did not have enough time to be weathered by the sun’s heat, water and air or to be sorted, since they were rapidly transported from their source of origin and then simply dumped and buried in a heap.How was it formed?

The Uluru arkose as seen under a geological microscope. Note the mixtures of grain sizes and the jagged edges of the grains.There can be no doubt the sand was certainly washed into a vast depression, and that it had been scoured from the Musgrave Ranges, but the whole process must have been catastrophically rapid. One only has to consider the amount and force of water needed to dump some 6,000 m (approx. 20,000 ft) of sand, probably in only a matter of hours, after already having carried this sand some 100 km (63 miles), to realise that such an event had to be a catastrophic flood. This traumatic flood also had to be a recent event, otherwise the feldspar mineral grains in the sandstone would not appear as fresh and as unweathered as they are today if they had endured at least 350 million years of exposure to the sun’s heat, water and air in the tropical climate that Twidale suggested.2

Since the beds are now standing vertically, it is also obvious that the sand after being washed into the depression, and while still being compressed and hardened, was pushed up and tilted by

earth movements. How was it then shaped into its present form? Twidale, the noted Australian geographer and world leader in the study of landforms and landscape-forming processes, is emphatic that the evidence at Ayers Rock points unequivocally to rapid water erosion of the Ayers Rock sandstone in a hot, humid tropical climate, not a desert climate like that in Central Australia today. Twidale’s observations and conclusions are certainly consistent with the idea that the modern landform of Ayers Rock developed as the same catastrophic floodwaters which dumped it in its vast depression began to retreat away from the uplifted land surface, scouring and eroding the soft and still fairly loose sand to leave behind the landform we now know as Ayers Rock.3 This process continued as the waters of that flood continued to retreat off the rising Australian continent. Indeed, many scientists from diverse specialities agree that Australia is a continent that is still drying out after being very wet in the recent past. Following the retreat of these floodwaters, and as the landscape dried out, the material in Ayers Rock hardened. The chemicals in the water between the sand grains formed a cementing material to bind the mineral grains together, drying in much the same way as cement in concrete dries and binds together the stones and sand mixed with it. With the final retreat of the waters from off the land, and the continued drying out of the continent, present day desert wind erosion has merely pock-marked the surface of the Rock.Conclusion

It is hardly surprising then that most geologists today are puzzled by Ayers Rock, because the evidence there does not fit into their evolutionary story with its vast eons of slow erosion and deposition, then slow erosion again. Instead the evidence at Ayers Rock is much more consistent with the scientific model based on a recent and rapid, massive, catastrophic flood.

The recent, rapid formation of the Mount Isa orebodies during the Floodby Andrew Snelling

AbstractMount Isa orebodies show evidence of recent, rapid formation.Mount Isa in north-west Queensland, Australia, is one of the world’s largest concordant base metal deposits, with both silver-lead-zinc and copper orebodies in the same Middle Proterozoic shale beds. Statistical analysis of the cyclicity and lateral zonation of the ore sulphides and host sediments in the silver-lead-zinc orebodies enables calculation of a deposition rate that could have produced the whole Mount Isa deposit in less than 20 days! Most geologists today agree that the orebodies at Mount Isa were originally deposited at the same time as, and as part of, the host shales, being deposited by submarine hot, salty, metal and sulphide-rich volcanic “springs”.

IntroductionMount Isa is one of the world’s largest concordant base metal deposits.Since its discovery in 1923 the major mineralisation at Mount Isa has been the subject of many studies and much controversy. Situated at lat. 20°44’ S, long. 139°29’ E (See Fig. 1) in Middle Proterozoic sediments of the Precambrian shield region of north-west Queensland, Mount Isa is one of the world’s largest concordant base metal deposits. Silver-lead-zinc and copper orebodies found in the same beds but spatially independent of each other, extend over a strike length of 4.5 km, a width of 1 km and a depth of 1.6 km with an average dip of 65°W (See Fig. 2). Since mining began in 1931 close to 80 million tonnes [as at February 1984] of ore averaging 3% copper, and another 55 million tonnes averaging 178 g/tonne silver, 7.4% lead and 5.8% zinc have been produced, but proven reserves are currently in excess of 140 million tonnes at 3% copper and 60 million tonnes of silver-lead-zinc ore.1

Geological settingFig 1. Location of Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia.The Mount Isa deposit lies in the western basin of an intensely deformed, multiply intruded and variably metamorphosed belt of Lower and Middle Proterozoic ‘age’ sediments. The basement to these sediments consists of acid volcanics complexly intruded by different phases of granite, and basic dykes, all of Lower Proterozoic (1800–2000 million A.G.Y.[arbitrary geological years]) ‘age’. Following a period of erosion of the basement, deposition of a variety of sediments (conglomerates, sandstones, siltstones, shales, tuffs, cherts and dolomites) and basaltic lavas began. Sedimentation appears to have been in two ‘waves’, the first ‘wave’ of sediments being dominantly quartz-rich sandstones, with some thick basalts, conglomerates, siltstones and other sandstones. In contrast, the subsequent Mount Isa Group sediments mark a change in sedimentation to a carbonate-rich black shale environment.1The Mount Isa Group sediments themselves are estimated to be about 1650 million A.G.Y. old, and can be sub-divided into a sequence of dolomitic siltstones with minor dolomites, overlain by tuffaceous (that is, volcanic ash-bearing) dolomitic siltstones and shales. Within these tuffaceous upper Mount Isa Group sediments is the Urquhart Shale, the rock unit that contains all the known economic mineralisation at Mount Isa.1Structural studies have revealed that

following the cessation of sedimentation, the Mount Isa Group sediments were subjected to two episodes of deformation which tilted, folded and faulted the rock sequence. Accompanying metamorphism was extremely mild in the immediate area of Mount Isa and eastwards, but more severe to the west of a major fault zone which had developed just west of the Mount Isa deposit (the Mount Isa Fault).1

The mineralisationThe Mount Isa deposit consists of copper and silver-lead-zinc orebodies which are spatially separated within the Urquhart Shale (see Fig. 2). Copper ore is restricted to irregular masses of brecciated siliceous and dolomitic rocks locally called ‘silica dolomite’ that are broadly transgressive to the bedding in the enclosing Urquhart Shale, and terminated at depth by the green-schist basement.1,2,3The mineralisation consists of cross-cutting veinlets and blebs of chalcopyrite (CuFeS2) within the ‘silica dolomite’ masses.3 Up dip from the green-schist basement, lobes of ‘silica dolomite’ interdigitate with zones of finely laminated and bedded silver-bearing galena (PbS)-sphalerite (ZnS)-pyrrhotite(FeS)-pyrite(FeS2) ore.3 These silver-lead-zinc orebodies occur in generally slightly recrystallised pyritic tuffaceous shales, are strictly conformable to the shales, and consist of alternating bands of shale and sulphide-rich shale.2,3 Ore boundaries are normally defined by economic limits rather than by limits of mineralisation.2 Between the orebodies the Urquhart Shale consists of barren tuffaceous, carbonaceous dolomitic shale and siltstone.1

Theories of ore formation

Fig. 2 (a) Typical cross-section through the southern mining area of the Mount Isa mine.Early investigators concluded that the silver-lead-zinc orebodies were epigenetic, that is, the mineralisation had been introduced by hydrothermal fluids (that is, hot waters) into the structurally prepared host rocks subsequent to the latter’s deposition.1 Galena, sphalerite and pyrite were said to have been deposited by hydrothermal replacement of selected beds within the shales, despite the theoretical necessity for complex alternation of deformation and introduction of fluids to explain mineral textures.1,2In the past 25 years careful research has resulted in most geologists favouring a syngenetic origin for the silver-lead-zinc orebodies, that is, the sulphides were deposited contemporaneously with the sediments which now form the enclosing rock.1–8 That this is now established beyond doubt9 may be seen by comparison with probable modern analogues in the depths of the Red Sea, Gulf of California, and East Pacific Rise (at 21°N) rift zones10–14 where metal and sulphide-rich hot salty volcanic waters are being spewed out, sometimes as ‘black smokers’,15 resulting in adjacent deposition of black carbonaceous metal sulphide muds. Substantial precipitation of the metal sulphides from the columns of hot salty water may be further achieved by the work of myriads of bacteria which swarm around these vents.16,17 At Mount Isa subsequent post-depositional deformation and metamorphism has recrystallised, folded and partly re-distributed the metal sulphides, but bedding features such as particle size grading are still evident.Picture: superiorresources.com.au

Fig. 2 (b) Typical cross-section through the northern mining area of the Mount Isa mine.Controversy regarding the formation of the Mount Isa copper orebodies in the ‘silica dolomite’ has been a little more difficult to settle, but in spite of some dissenters18,19,20 the current consensus amongst most geologists favours a syngenetic and sedimentary-exhalative origin, like the silver-lead-zinc orebodies.1,7,21It is now considered that conditions necessary for deposition of all sulphides began with the development, through penecontemporaneous faulting, of a restricted basin of sedimentation. Active volcanism present during deposition of the Urquhart Shale triggered release of silver-lead-zinc-copper bearing brines into an already hypersaline environment on the shallow sea floor.21 The copper was deposited in a chert-dolomite facies near the submarine fault scarp, and silver-lead-zinc in the black shales further into the basin.1,7 Subsequently the copper ores underwent greater reconstitution than the silver-lead-zinc ores during diagenesis, deformation and metamorphism, the copper being remobilised from the original sediment into veins, while the host sediments were recrystallised and brecciated.1

Evidence for recent rapid formation during the FloodEvidence for recent rapid formation of the Mount Isa orebodies during the Flood falls into two categories:Evidence for recent formation during the Flood—the presence of fossils and carbonaceous (organic) matter; andEvidence for rapid formation—analysis of the cyclicity in the sulphides and sediments, leading to calculation of the deposition rate.(A) Evidence for recent formationIn the creation framework of creationist geology, the Flood (approximately 4,300 years ago) was the event responsible for most of the fossils in the earth’s crust. Thus, as argued by Snelling,22 wherever

fossils or organic matter representing fossil remains are found in the geological column the rocks containing the fossils were deposited either by or after the Flood regardless of their assumed evolutionary geological age.At Mount Isa both fossils and organic matter have been found in abundance in the Urquhart Shale which contains all the known economic mineralisation. Saxby and Stephens23 noted that carbonaceous (organic) matter, which constitutes on average up to 1% by weight of the Mount Isa sulphide ores, occurs both as relatively large discrete flakes and as dispersed films. Chemical analyses of the isolated organic matter revealed a carbon content of approximately 93% for the Mount Isa ore, while both transmission electron microscope and electron diffraction examination of the crystalline structure suggests that the Mount Isa organic matter is more akin to graphite than anthracite. Thus Saxby24 places the Mount Isa organic matter well along the coalification series towards graphite, confirming that it was probably derived from plant material such as algae and bacteria.Mathias and Clark1 suggested that the possibility of some of the ‘silica dolomite’ being original algal material cannot be dismissed, while Bennett25 had earlier maintained that he had discovered algae-like bodies in the ‘silica dolomite’. Love and Zimmerman26 and Love27 were, in fact, the first to describe the possibility of microfossils in the Urquhart Shale at Mount Isa. They were particularly interested in trying to assess if pyrite in the shales had a microbial origin, and described a number of forms, some of which represented the organic framework from which they had dissolved the pyrite. Other forms appeared to be double-walled cells, commonly infilled with pyrite, which Love and Zimmerman26 believed to be the remains of organisms.Because of the ensuing debate as to the origin of the pyrite grains, Love and Amstutz28 decided that the Mount Isa organic structures were not microfossils. More recent re-examination of organic matter from the silver-lead-zinc orebodies by Muir29, however, has demonstrated conclusively that the host Urquhart Shale contains abundant organic

remains of micro-organisms. These microfossils are brownish-grey to black in colour as a result of the mild metamorphism of the Mount Isa Group sediments, but are reasonably well-preserved in other respects apart from occasional distortion of cells as a result of internal growth of pyrite or other minerals. Love and Zimmerman26 had found both single-and double-walled microfossils that correspond with the morphologies encountered by Muir29 (see Fig. 3). While the microfossils observed by Love and Zimmerman26 were mainly isolated forms with occasional clusters, Muir29 found large masses of both double-and single-walled cells resembling colonies. She concluded that the greatly abundant microfossils were the remains of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria).Even more recently Neudert and Russell30 have reported their discovery of stromatolites, the layered structures formed as a result of the accretion of fine grains of sediment by matted colonies of micro-organisms, principally blue-green algae (cyanobacteria), in sediments closely associated with the Mount Isa orebodies. They found these algal stromatolites both immediately below the ore-bearing Urquhart Shale in the Native Bee Siltstone, and above in the Kennedy-Spear Siltstone. They described them and concluded that their shape and internal fabric closely resemble algal structures that occur today in shallow marine environments such as at Hamelin Pool, Shark Bay, Western Australia, and the Persian Gulf, while similar stromatolites are also known on the shores of the Great Salt Lake, Utah, and in the Coorong area, South Australia.The fossiliferous character of the ore-bearing Urquhart Shale and upper Mount Isa Group sediments has thus been established beyond doubt. When it is realised that the algae whose remains are found fossilised in these so-called 1650 million A.G.Y. old rocks at Mount Isa have identical counterparts alive today, it is more than reasonable to conclude that these fossils were deposited recently and contemporaneously with both the Urquhart Shale and the Mount Isa ore deposit during th Flood.(B) Evidence for rapid formationExamination of diamond drill cores from the Mount Isa silver-lead-zinc orebodies reveals that, although the ores and sediments are finely laminated, the ores commonly form zones several centimetres thick separated by sulphide-deficient sediment. On a cut surface of a hand specimen of these mineralisation zones it can be seen that they are made up of one or more readily identified simple lithologies:galena-rich usually containing pyrrhotite,sphalerite-rich usually containing pyrrhotite,mixed pyrite-sphalerite usually as very thin (mm or so) alternating laminae, andfine-grained pyrite-rich.Fig. 3 Double-walled cells as part of a large algal colony, Urquhart Shale, Mount Isa. (Scale bar = 5/µm)

The sulphide layers are separated by intervals of fine-grained dolomitic Urquhart Shale, the thicknesses of the individual units being extremely variable.Finlow-Bates3 carefully studied two long sequences of drill cores through the silver-lead-zinc orebodies, one sequence being close to, and interdigitating with, lobes of the ‘silica dolomite’ and the other sequence being up-dip and distal to the ‘silica dolomite’ (refer to Fig. 2). He investigated the extent and nature of ordering and cyclicity in the orebodies by applying statistical concepts known as entropy (randomness), a difference matrix and an embedded Markov probability matrix all drawn up for the sequence of sediments under study. Simply put, the idea is that if the presence of one lithology (A) in some way favours the formation of a second lithology (B) above it, then throughout the sedimentary sequence the probability of B following A will exceed that expected by chance alone. Thus a ‘tally matrix’ was constructed for the whole of both sequences showing the number of times each lithology is followed by every other lithology. This was then turned into a probability matrix, giving a measure of the degree of upward ordering in the succession. It was thus found, for example, that there is a 0.66 probability that a sphalerite layer will follow a galena layer. Further analysis via an

independent trials matrix established that the Mount Isa sediments were deposited by a nonrandom process that did not vary with time.Finlow-Bates3 then turned his attention to answering the question: what are the elements responsible for the nonrandom deposition process? He subtracted the probability matrix from the independent trials matrix to produce a difference matrix in which each positive entry represents a transition that occurs more often than expected by chance. Thus, for instance, his results show that even though galena is found a disproportionate number of times above a sphalerite bed, given that a sphalerite bed is found, then dolomitic shale is still the commonest following lithology.Mathias and Clark1 provide details of variations in lead-zinc abundances with distance from the ‘silica dolomite’ for a 3 metre unit in the footwall of the No. 7 orebody. Although this represents an average of a number of sulphide cycles the progressive differentiation of lead and zinc is strikingly apparent. Values of 14% lead and 10% zinc at 80–100 m from the copper ores give way to 3½% lead and 8% zinc at 500 m. They also observed that the isogrades rake to the north, pyrite shows the greatest lateral extent of all the sulphides, and the metal abundance trends are common to all the silver-lead-zinc orebodies. Finlow-Bates3 thus concluded that these observations are all compatible with the view that the source of the lead, zinc, and iron is closely related to the present site of the copper ores with waning metal deposition away from this source with differential deposition of lead, then zinc and finally iron. He also went on to suggest that we may, therefore, reasonably conclude that the transitions upwards dolomitic shale → sphalerite → galena are more abundant towards the copper-bearing ‘silica dolomite’; and dolomitic shale → sphalerite/pyrite and dolomitic shale → pyrite away from it. It also seems reasonable to conclude that the different minerals were deposited from pulses of the same parent solution. Differentiation of this solution during mixing with sea water to produce zonation is much more plausible than a separate supply of a lead solution, a zinc solution and an iron solution. In this case the vertical cyclicity of the ores and sediments revealed by the

difference matrix analysis is a function of the lateral zonation of the individual sulphide beds. Finlow-Bates3 thus found that these conclusions were consistent with his probability matrices and so was able to construct a hypothetical sulphide unit (see Fig. 4) that fits all the data—laterally and vertically (upwards and downwards transitions). These then were the elements responsible for the nonrandom deposition process.Fig. 4 Diagram of a hypothetical sulphide unit, silver-lead-zinc orebodies, Mount Isa.In discussing his results, Finlow-Bates3 argued that the metals and some sulphur were carried in a fluid that

entered the sea as a buoyant plume or sea-floor-hugging current. All the evidence from the carbonate-hosted lead-zinc deposits worldwide indicates that lead is precipitated preferentially before zinc and that iron continues to precipitate after lead and zinc have been removed. If the rate of metal deposition was slow compared to the rate of solution supply, then the vertical sequence dolomitic shale → galena → sphalerite → pyrite → dolomitic shale would be expected across the entire orebody resulting in a very different matrix analysis. If the precipitation was slow, lead would reach the far limits of the depositional basin. To the contrary, the observed lateral zonation lead → zinc → iron, is depicted in Fig. 4, implies that the rate of metal deposition must have kept pace with the solution supply in a controlled manner. Because mixing of a plume with sea water would have caused rapid temperature drops and thus uncontrolled instantaneous sulphide dumping, Finlow-Bates3 concluded that the Mount Isa deposits were formed from a sea-floor-hugging current rather than a plume.The consequences of this model on sulphide deposition rates are somewhat startling. Backer31 has calculated a deposition rate of 1 metre/1,000 years for the Red Sea deposits referred to earlier. Finlow-Bates3 argues for a more rapid rate as his following hypothetical calculation shows. Consider a layer of dense ore solution, a metre deep, flowing on the sea floor at a rather sluggish rate of 1 metre/minute carrying 50 ppm lead all of which is to be deposited within a distance of 1,000 m. A galena bed carrying 25% lead with an average thickness of 1 cm would form in just under 5 weeks, a rate greater than 1 metre/10years! Thus he argues that discrete ore beds represent weeks rather than years of deposition if deposited from sea-floor-hugging currents of dense brine.It is not difficult to see the implications of these calculations. If we make some appropriate and reasonable changes to Finlow-Bates’ parameters and then recalculate the deposition rate the result is even more startling. Consider, then, a layer of dense ore solution, 15 metres deep, flowing on the sea floor at a rate of 500 metres/minute (30 km/hour, still relatively slow) carrying 1000 ppm lead all of which is to be deposited within a distance of 1,000 m. (It should be noted that these figures are reasonable even in present day terms: the Red Sea brine pools are up to 250 metres deep;32 dense turbidity currents are known to have travelled thousands of kilometres down the continental slope and across the deep ocean floor at speeds up to between 65 and 80 km/hour;33 and concentrations of metals such as lead carried by ore-forming solutions are by consensus stated to be in the range X0–X,000 ppm, where X = 1, 2, … ,34 and by analysis of residual fluid inclusions in ore and ore-related minerals have been measured as up to 10,000 ppm. 35) A galena bed carrying 25% lead with an average thickness of 1 cm would then form in only about 20 seconds, a rate of about 1 metre/30 minutes!!DiscussionThe combination of the prominent lateral zonation, the pulsed nature of the sulphides, and the high grade of the individual sulphide layers is compatible with the hypothesis that the hydro-thermal fluid was supplied in relatively rapid bursts and deposition occurred relatively rapidly.3Injection of the majority of the fluid through fractures by major earth movements36 is the most attractive model to account for this periodicity. Smith37 argued that many of the faults in the Mount Isa area were active during deposition of the Urquhart Shale, and there seems little doubt that the nearby Mount Isa fault was still moving. Thus fault movements propelled the fluids into the sedimentary site (possibly through the ‘silica dolomite’ breccia) to produce the main sulphide bands. For the time that zinc remained soluble, galena only was precipitated from the solution and so galena overlies dolomitic shale. Occurrence of pyrrhotite in the mineralisation closer to the source may well be a function of higher solution temperatures and/or sulphur deficiencies since pyrrhotite’s occurrence is known to be controlled by the availability of sulphur.38 Thus the formation of pyrite would have required addition of some sulphur from the sea water’s dissolved sulphate ions. Greater degrees of sea water mixing expected as the solution reaches the outer margins of the orebody would both increase the availability of sea-water sulphate and lower temperatures. Both trends favour pyrite over pyrrhotite.The transgressive and regressive character of the system is most reasonably interpreted as corresponding to the waxing and waning of the metal supply, and hence perhaps also the solution supply. The evidence suggests that the waxing phase was faster than the waning phase, which in reality is quite logical. The dolomitic shale content of the sulphide beds is usually less than 30%,3 which would tend to suggest that sulphide deposition was significantly faster than the basin carbonate and shale deposition. However, we cannot be certain that the metal solution did not carry the wherewithal to make dolomitic shale as well. In fact, Finlow-Bates3cites evidence suggesting that in the sulphide layers most of the silica and some of the carbonate almost certainly had its origin in the hydrothermal fluid. Galena is not preferentially present in the thick sulphide units, but is still found in some quite thin sulphide layers, suggesting that the lead:zinc ratio may have changed in different ore pulses.3 But at the fine lamination scale considerable mixing of sulphides obviously occurred so that despite an apparently uniform overall trend short term perturbations were common.There is other evidence to suggest that formation of the Mount Isa orebodies was a rapid process—lead isotope evidence. Richards39 reports that the silver-lead-zinc orebodies at Mount Isa show marked lead isotopic uniformity. Richards analysed a suite of ore samples, collected by Mount Isa Mines Ltd geologists, that represented the full stratigraphic range across the deposit and extended the lateral spread along strike. A few other random samples, including poly-sulphide veins in-filling fractures and strike faults within the ore host rocks, were also included in the suite.Richards reported that the lead isotopic homogeneity at Mount Isa was ‘impressive’.39 He found that this lead isotopic homogeneity extended along strike from Mount Isa for almost 20 km northwards to the Hilton silver-lead-zinc deposit and for at least another 15 km southwards, making the total lateral extent at least 35 km. Furthermore, this isotopic homogeneity also extends in depth through the full stratigraphic span of the whole silver-lead-zinc ore sequence, including lead ore that has been remobilised into fractures. One obvious explanation for this isotopic homogeneity (Richards did not attempt an explanation) is that the lead in the silver-lead-zinc orebodies, and hence the orebodies themselves, was deposited rapidly from a single uniform source. If ore deposition had taken millions of years then isotopic homogeneity over such impressive areal dimensions could hardly be anticipated. On the other hand, deposition of the entire sequence of orebodies in less than 20 days would, of virtual necessity, be expected to produce the observed isotopic homogeneity.Numerous attempts have been made to identify the source of the metals that were deposited to form the Mount Isa copper and silver-lead-zinc orebodies. Again lead isotopes offer potential as geochemical tracers. An isotopic match between lead-in-ore and the lead in a geologically suitable source unit lends credence to a proposed genetic relationship. Conversely and perhaps more strongly, an isotopic mis-match contributes by the process of elimination to the narrowing of alternatives.A 'black smoker'Farquharson and Richards40 used this technique in their search for a genetic relationship between the lead in the Mount Isa silver-lead-zinc orebodies and igneous rocks in the region. The choice of the igneous rocks as likely candidates for being the source rocks of the lead is based on the obvious role of volcanic activity during ore deposition, as evidenced by the thin tuff units interbedded with the orebodies and by the tuffaceous character of the dolomitic shales that host the sulphide minerals themselves. Their approach involved derivation of the lead isotope initial ratios by the whole-rock isochron method, and comparison of the initial ratios (206Pb/204Pb, 207Pb/204Pb, and 208Pb/204Pb) with the isotopic composition of the ore lead. On the basis of their results, Farquharson and Richards40 concluded that both the Eastern Creek Volcanics and the Kalkadoon Granite could be related to the orebodies, possibly through the mechanism of weathering and erosion. They went on to suggest that an examination of the source of the ore-related tuff units, which argue very strongly for a

contemporaneous volcanic source of the metals, could even yet lead to the possibility that Kalkadoon-like material beneath the pile of sediments and volcanics was the source of magma generation, volcanism and mineralisation.The significance of their results lies in the location of the igneous rocks they concluded could be related to the orebodies. The Eastern Creek Volcanics, in fact, are in fault contact with the overlying Mount Isa Group sediments beneath the Mount Isa orebodies (see Fig. 2) where alteration and metamorphism have changed what were thick basalts into greenschists or greenstones. The Kalkadoon Granite outcrops in a north-south linear belt to the east of the Mount Isa orebodies, but its lateral extent at depth is unknown. It is part of the crystalline basement complex and is said to have intruded the basement volcanics between 1800 and 1930 million A.G.Y. ago, with a later phase at 1785 million A.G.Y., and possibly an even younger phase.1 The Eastern Creek Volcanics are said to be about 1800 million A.G.Y. old, whereas the orebodies are estimated to have been deposited at about 1650 million A.G.Y. ago, the same approximate ‘age’ as the main phase of the Sybella Granite which outcrops to the west of the Mount Isa orebodies.40Farquharson and Richards40 suggested that the lead to form the silver-lead-zinc orebodies may well have been derived via weathering (that is, oxidation) from both the Kalkadoon Granite and the Eastern Creek Volcanics. Many recent studies41,42 (and references therein) have focused on the hydrothermal alteration of basalts on the ocean floor by sea water and have endeavoured to reproduce the

process in the laboratory so as to assess the effects. These studies have shown conclusively that significant amounts of iron, zinc and copper are readily leached from basalts under conditions of hydrothermal circulation of sea water. Haynes43 made a study of the geochemistry of altered basalts and associated copper deposits which related the formation of strata-bound sedimentary copper deposits to solutions that had acquired copper during oxidative alteration of basalts. The study showed that altered basalt lavas occur beneath many such copper deposits, that altered basalt lavas are depleted in copper during the alteration episode, and that the amount of copper ‘released’ during alteration is sufficient to provide all of the copper found within the overlying copper deposits. Altered basalt lavas were thus concluded to be the source rocks for these copper deposits. It was this study and its application to the Stuart Shelf area of South Australia which resulted in Western Mining Corporation geologists finding the huge Olympic Dam copper-uranium-gold-silver deposit at Roxby Downs in 1975.44It is thus highly significant that the Mount Isa deposit is underlain due to faulting by the Eastern Creek Volcanics which consist of up to 5,000 m of ‘flood’ basalts with minor tuffs that have been altered to greenschists or greenstones, largely by metamorphism, beneath the orebodies. Furthermore, veins of copper and lead sulphides are known to occur in the Eastern Creek Volcanics, for example, in relatively unaltered basalts just east of Mount Isa.39 The Eastern Creek Volcanics also contain lenses of quartzites (essentially rocks composed of interlocking grains of pure silica, that is, quartz) intercalated with the basalts, and so it may also be significant that the highest grades of copper in the copper orebodies correlate with high silica content of the host ‘silica dolomite’,1 silica that could have been derived, like the copper, from the Eastern Creek Volcanics.Conclusions—a creationist interpretationIt has been clearly shown that the rocks which host the Mount Isa copper and silver-lead-zinc orebodies are highly fossiliferous and thus in the creationist’s historical framework these rocks were laid down rapidly in the year-long global catastrophe. The statistical analysis of the cyclicity and lateral zonation of the sulphides and sediments in the silver-lead-zinc orebodies enables calculation of the deposition rate. All the silver-lead-zinc orebodies and their host fossiliferous dolomitic shales could thus have been deposited in less than 20 days.Since the Flood occurred approximately 4,300 years ago according to the creation chronology, the evolutionary ages for the rocks and ores at Mount Isa have to be discarded. That this discarding of radiometric dates can be done with confidence is due to the work of Slusher,45 Setterfield,46 Matthews,47and others, who have shown that radioactivity is unreliable as a means for dating rocks. Nonetheless, field relationships between rock units still need to be recognised as indicating a sequence of events, albeit a much more rapid sequence of events. That there is still a systematic pattern to the radiometric dates coinciding with the observed sequence of rock units has been explained by Setterfield46 as due to the decay in the speed of light and consequently a more rapid radioactive decay rate in the past, as well as his later work48 on systematic isotope variation in successively deeper magma zones from this same cdecay effect in the early history of the earth.Having thus eliminated the great age differences between the granites, basalts, dolomitic shales and the orebodies at Mount Isa, it is now possible to reinterpret the data within a Flood model. Thus it is conceivable that the source of the ore metals was both the Eastern Creek Volcanics and the later phases of the Kalkadoon Granite. Deep circulation of sea water through the thick cooling Eastern Creek basalts, deposited only days or weeks earlier, was responsible for the leaching of copper, lead, zinc, and other metals, and silica, magnesium, calcium, carbonate and other ions. These waters were heated by the cooling basalts, by the increasing depth of burial due to the ‘waves’ of Mount Isa Group sediments, and algae, being washed in and deposited on top of the basalts, and by heating from beneath during intrusion of the Kalkadoon Granite into the basement rocks below. Volcanism and the release of metal-laden hydrothermal fluids associated with the granite intrusion were triggered by the deep penetration of faulting and fault movements. Explosive volcanism produced showers of tuff that mingled with the sediments of the upper Mount Isa Group resulting, for example, in the tuffaceous character of the Urquhart Shale, and sometimes producing distinct tuff beds, as seen by the tuff marker beds in the Mount Isa deposit. Mixing of hydrothermal fluids and the hot deep circulating sea water produced a dense metal-laden hot brine that was ‘pumped’ in pulses to the sea floor surface by the fault movements. Such pulses propelled the metal-laden brines across the sea floor as sea-floor-hugging currents depositing their contained metals in layers, interspersed with the sediments being washed in, in the manner described earlier. The silica, magnesium, calcium and carbonate contained by the brines were deposited with the metals, particularly as the dolomite component of the domomitic shales, as chert units, and as the ‘silica dolomite’ closer to the faults (for example, the Mount Isa Fault). Brecciation of the ‘silica dolomite’ was produced by these same fault movements. And all this happened in a matter of a few weeks reminiscent of the opening of the ‘fountains of the deep’, rather than over countless millions of years.At the cessation of these fault movements and the associated cycle of

deposition, folding and renewed faulting deformed and tilted the rocks, resulting in mild metamorphism and some minor redistribution of metals, particularly the copper. This deformation and metamorphism was largely terminated by uplift of the area that resulted in the commencement of a new sedimentation cycle as the turbulent Flood waters scoured and eroded the rising land mass, and shifted their acquired sediment load to new deposition sites in adjacent subsiding areas. Final uplift in the closing stages of the Flood year resulted in further erosion by the retreating waters draining off the continent, leaving behind the present land surface.

The geological history of the Brisbane and Ipswich areas, Australiaby Tas Walker

Published: 7 August 2014 (GMT+10)

Figure 1. Simplified geological map of the Brisbane and Ipswich areas (from Willmott, ref. 9.) Click for larger image.One of the values of history is that it helps us understand where we have come from and so appreciate our place in the world. Our view of the past will inform the choices we make today, which also shape our future. Especially significant is our understanding of geological history, which provides the broadest and most basic picture of where we fit into the world.George Orwell said, “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”1 How true. There is a contest at present about geological history, about which version of history will inform the stories in our culture that explain the world. George Orwell also said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” In the last 50 years with the increased

influence of films, media, and public education, there has been a change in the way people understand geological history. That, in turn, has changed our culture. It’s pervasive. At the tourist sites in South East Queensland signs are posted that present just one particular view.2 It’s the same with news reports of fossil discoveries,3 documentaries on national television,4 and so on.Many people think that these stories about the past are based on objective geological facts, set in stone, so to speak. That is not correct. The lion’s share of the story is based on the shared beliefs and opinions of those within the professional geological community—beliefs that are widely accepted but rarely examined or questioned. Let’s briefly look at how these geological histories are created.How geological history is developedA geological history is a story. It’s a story about the past that has been invented by geologists to explain how the rocks came to be in the places where they are found. Geologists observe the rocks in the field. They do not observe the events in the past. The story they tell comes from their imagination. So, although the geologist is constrained by the rocks he sees on the ground, he has a great amount of flexibility about the sorts of stories he can invent.Let’s look briefly at how this works. The rocks in the field provide the basic geological data, and geologists are good at carefully recording and describing what they see. From these observations they draw conclusions about the area, such as the dollar value of the minerals in the ground, and the area’s geological history.One of the main tools geologists use to record geological data is the geological map, which shows where different types of rocks are found geographically, plus much detail about their relationships with each other. 5 In conjunction with the geological map geologists publish reports in which they describe the characteristics of the different rocks and their relationships with each other.In this article we will present a geological history of the Brisbane and Ipswich area as part of the broader history of the world. Not only will our story be constrained by the rocks in the field. We will use the geological information from standard geological publications but we will reinterpret it using a creation geological model.6 Detailed analyses using the creation perspective have been applied to two significant geological features of the area. These are the basement rocks7 and the sediments connected with the Great Artesian Basin.8Figure 1 shows a simplified geological map of the Brisbane and Ipswich area in South-East Queensland, as presented in a popular-level booklet entitled “Rocks and Landscapes of Brisbane and Ipswich”.9 Different rock units are shown as different colours, and we can identify the rocks from the legend on the map. Not only does the legend distinguish the geological units, but it briefly describes their characteristics, plus it arranges them in order. The oldest rocks are at the bottom of the legend and the youngest at the top.From the information on the map together with the material in the booklet we can now develop the geological history for the area. Geologically, south-east Queensland is an interesting area because of the large variety of different rocks exposed.The waters of the Flood rise (First 150 days)The global Flood is the key historical event that explains the rocks of the area. Early during the Flood, in the first 150 days as the waters were rising, the basement rocks of the south-east Queensland area were deposited deep under the ocean.10 Figure 2 shows the current location of these deposits. On the geological map (figure 1) these rocks are coloured grey and indicated at the bottom of the legend. The Warwick Willmott booklet describes these events as occurring 300–400 million years ago, but that length of time was decided by long-age geologists by assuming the rocks were deposited slowly.11 This assumption ignores the catastrophic impact of the Flood, which they don’t believe happened, and which washes away the idea of millions of years. There was a large volume of a variety of materials deposited including fine silt, poorly sorted sand, beds of chemically deposited silica, and black volcanic lava.12 These display evidence of rapid and catastrophic processes, which is consistent with the nature of the Flood.

After some time, of the order of weeks, tectonic movements in the earth’s crust compressed and uplifted these deposits above sea level. The compression and uplift deformed the rocks, mixed them up, and metamorphosed them. Willmott describes this in his booklet as “Consolidation, intense compression, folding and uplift of the sediments to form a mountain belt.”13 It wasn’t just a mountain belt, but the whole of eastern Australia seems to have been involved in the formation of a number of fold belts around this time, including the New England Fold Belt (figure 2).The basement area is large and has been given different names depending on where it is exposed, such as the Neranleigh-Fernvale Beds, the Bunya Phyllite, the Rocksberg Greenstone, and the Kurwongbah Beds (see geological map—figure 1).After these rocks were uplifted, as well as being folded and slightly metamorphosed, the surface of the continent was greatly eroded as the water uplifted with the sediment flowed into the ocean.Volcanoes erupted violently around this time. It’s possible that the tectonic movements that compressed and uplifted the basement rocks also heated and melted other rocks, generating the molten magma. It is likely that these events were connected. Some of the molten rock erupted over the landscape, now forming the Brisbane Tuff, which is beautifully exposed in the Kangaroo Point Cliffs.14 Other molten rock pooled under the earth’s surface forming granite plutons, such as the Enoggera Granite. These rocks are shown as dark blue and red on the geological map (figure 1), and are toward to bottom of the legend.Following the uplift, folding, and erosion of the basement rocks, the waters of the Flood continued to rise. They would have flowed back and forth across the land under the influence of tides, tsunamis, and crustal movements. These waters deposited sediment and buried plants and animals in places that today are called the Galilee Basin, Cooper Basin, and Bowen Basin (figure 3). These basins contain abundant coal and gas, which come from the vegetation buried at this time. It is likely that these basins in Queensland were connected to the Sydney Basin in New South Wales and that the water flowing from the uplifted continent flowed into the sea around this area (figure 3). The smaller Ipswich Basin near Brisbane was also deposited around this time (figure 3). Willmott describes this process as “Sediments begin to accumulate on stabilised

continent.”15 These sediments are shown as pale blue on the geological map (figure 1) and sit at about the middle of the legend.Further tectonic movements gently folded these rocks and changed the levels of the land surface, causing the positions of the sedimentary basins to change. This, coupled with rising floodwaters meant that sediment, vegetation, and animals continued to be deposited over a much larger series of basins covering a large part of Eastern Australia. These sediments now contain the water reservoir known as the Great Artesian Basin (figure 4). A geological cross section of the basin (figure 5) shows these sediments up to 3 km thick. Note the dotted lines which show the arrangement of some strata across this vast deposit. Note too that some of these lines are cut off at the ground surface illustrating how the material above the surface was eroded away after the sediment was deposited. That will be explained in the next section. The Woogaroo Subgroup around Brisbane was deposited at this time, and is shown as green on the geological map (figure 1).Willmott describes this process as, “Widespread accumulation of sediments on river plains of the stabilised continent.”16 He speaks of “river plains” because long-age geologists automatically try to explain the rocks they observe in terms of the sorts of things we see happening today. No doubt the continent did look something like a river plain in flood, with water moving in wide sheets across the continent, probably multiple streams like a braid of hair, depositing sediment. But the flow of water would have been wider, deeper and more constant. The water level was rising and that provided space for more sediment to accumulate. Unlike the river plains we see today, there would not have been trees and forests growing because the sediments were fresh and there was no time for trees to grow since the sediments were deposited. Rather, vegetation would have been washed into the area. The vast coal deposits we find in these rocks represent the vegetation that was washed in as enormous rafts and dumped there. The sediments of the Great Artesian Basin were deposited as the waters of the Flood were reaching their peak.

Figures 2–6 prepared by Tas Walker.

Figure 2. Eastern Australia fold belts.

Figure 3. Galilee, Cooper, Bowen and Sydney basins, as well as the smaller Ipswich Basin.

Figure 4. Sediments connected with Great Artesian Basin as they exist today. Their geographical extent was greatly eroded as the waters of the Flood receded.

Figure 5. Geological cross section of the Great Artesian Basin. Note section has a vertical exaggeration of 100 to 1.Floodwaters recede (Last 220 days)After around 150 days, the floodwaters eventually reached a maximum. They began to fall after large scale tectonic movements slowly lifted up the continent and lowered the ocean basins. The floodwaters then started to flow off the continent into the oceans. Geologists recognize this period

of tectonic upheaval and describe it at the break-up of the supercontinent Pangaea.The receding floodwaters, first in wide sheets and then in huge channels, severely eroded the surface of the continent of what is now Australia, and carved the landscape into pretty much the form we see it today. Lots of sediment, kilometres in thickness, was eroded from the surface of the continent during this time. We can see an indication of the extent of this on the geological section of the Great Artesian Basin (figure 5) where some of the strata (dotted lines) are cut off at ground level. This was a period of erosion on the continents, not a period of deposition. Willmott describes this as “A long period of erosion of the landscape …” 17The flow of water gradually reduced in its intensity until the area around Brisbane and Ipswich was likely covered in large ‘lakes’, which continued to drain. Sediment accumulated in these ‘lakes’, and it is now preserved in local sedimentary basins, such as the Oxley and Petrie basins. These are coloured brown on the geological map (figure 1).While the floodwaters were receding volcanic eruptions occurred, probably caused by stress in the crust as crustal movements produced cracks, and pressurized the areas beneath the crust of molten (or partly molten) rock. This movement and pressure caused the magma to erupt on the surface, now forming the basalt plateaus in the area such as Maleny Plateau. Eruptions during this time also formed the enormous shield volcano in northern New South Wales, called Mt Warning, part of which form the Lamington Plateau.These eruptions also formed the Glasshouse Mountains, which are the eroded plugs of volcanoes. The composition of the Glasshouse Volcanoes is less basaltic and more granitic than the original basalt lava on the Mapleton Plateau. It’s likely that the Glasshouse eruptions were a later stage of the same eruption, representing melted continental crust, or that the original basaltic magma changed its composition to be more like granite as the magma crystallized.A significant area of land around these plateaus and mountains was eroded away by the final stages of the receding floodwaters, leaving them exposed as spectacular landmarks. This erosion evidence provides an idea for the timing of the eruptions. These volcanic eruptions are shown red on the map, at Mount Glorious and near Redbank Plains (figure 1—don’t confuse the red for these basalt lavas with similar red used for the granite.)After the Flood (~4,500 years ago)After the floodwaters receded, the continent was vegetated by seeds and plants left on the surface. The oceans and waterways were colonized by marine animals that were left in the waters on and around the continent after the Flood. However, the air-breathing land animals that now live in Eastern Australia migrated from Mt Ararat in the Middle East, probably using land bridges through the Indonesian Islands.All humans living in Australia today also have their origin in the Middle East, having migrated to the continent at various times by various routes. Humans have been responsible for bringing many different kinds of animals, including dingoes, rabbits and cane toads. Landscape erosion, sedimentation and volcanic eruptions have occurred in the approximate 4,500 years since the Flood, but these were minor compared with what happened in the catastrophic year of the Flood itself. On the geologic map (figure 1) the areas that formed after the Flood are called Alluvium, coloured white, and restricted to the coastal areas and river flood plains.ConclusionOnce we understand how to link geological evidence to the creation model, it’s a simple step to develop a geological history. We begin with the creation geological model and the classifications that have already been carried out. , We obtain geological maps and commentaries and are able to reinterpret the information provided within the creation model. The geological sequence of the area is shown schematically in figure 6, interpreted from both the long-age and the creation perspectives.

Figure 6. Schematic of the geological history of the Brisbane and Ipswich areas comparing the long-age interpretation with the creation history.It is worth noting that the geological sequence of events in the Brisbane area broadly applies to all of eastern Australia. Once we understand the big picture sequence for Brisbane, we can use the same story and apply it to another area that we are interested in. It is helpful to obtain a geological map of the area18 so you can identify the rocks that you see, and then you can link them to this geological history. The main rock packages and events will be much the same, but they have different names in different areas. Different areas will experience the various geologic processes to a different degree. For example, in some areas the basement rocks are severely folded but in others the folds are gentler. In some areas there is little erosion while in others the erosion is severe, removing some of the packages entirely and exposing rocks from deeper in the earth. It’s variations on a theme.

‘More than a pile of stones’

The real meaning of the Giant’s Causeway and structures formed during the FloodBy Phil Robinson

Published: 28 August 2014 (GMT+10)

The battle over worldviews ragesI recently purchased a fridge magnet at the Giant’s Causeway which had a picture of the famous basalt columns with the slogan ‘More than a pile of stones’. The rationale for the slogan likely stems from the national pride in the magnificent stones at this World Heritage site. However it also reflects a much larger debate in recent years concerning how and when the 40,000 interlocking basalt columns were formed. The debate regularly sees calls to censor any creationist interpretations of the site, and attracted world attention in July 2012 when the

new Causeway tourist centre included a small reference to the existence of this alternative viewpoint. Secularists were quick to mount a noisy objection. CMI has published a number of articles explaining, for instance, how the Causeway would have formed during Noah’s Flood and the significance of the reddish inter-basaltic beds at Giant’s Causeway.The information leaflet that is handed to visitors at the Causeway’s visitors centre states that the columns are, “an epic 60 million year–old legacy to the cooling and shrinking of successive lava flows”.1 In stark contrast, thinking within the creation worldview, we can identify the basalt columns. From a creation worldview the stones let us, “look to the past in order to become orientated to the present – and thereby gain confidence for the future”.3  Learning and teaching the spiritual lessonsIn the current battle of worldviews we need to take back the history of these stones. As with all rocks that were formed during the Flood they are not just a ‘pile of stones’, but have a huge spiritual significance.. No matter what part of the world you live in, there will be rocks in your locality that were formed during the Flood. It is time to increasingly ‘take them back’, renouncing the millions of years and the naturalistic interpretations attached to such formations, and explaining their true origins and spiritual significance. There is overwhelming evidence found in the stones all around us, consistent with a worldwide Flood; for examples see polystrate fossils, fast octopus fossils, hundreds of jellyfish fossils, flat gaps and much more at Geology Q&A’s. What are you doing to take back the stones where you live?Giant’s Causeway Tours!With this message in mind, CMI

(UK/Europe) and Creation Outreach Ministries have jointly arranged for CMI-Australia’s Dr Tas Walker to take groups on geological field trips at the Giant’s Causeway, explaining their formation from a creation perspective. For those living in Northern Ireland, please pray for and consider joining us on one of these excursions, which are part of his Rock Man UK speaking tour of Northern Ireland and England. However, this is just one example of a number of ways that you could take back the history of rocks near you; similar ideas include museum and zoo visits—and CMI has a range of ministry programs to help your church or organisation.Fascinating flower pots

The Global Flood explains Hopewell Rocks, Canadaby Tas Walker

The Bay of Fundy in eastern Canada is famous for its enormous tides. At Hopewell Rocks, toward the end of the bay, the tide may rise as high as 14 metres (46 feet), but it does not stay high very long. The water is always moving, either up or down, and the level can change by a metre (3 feet) in 30 minutes.1The tides are eroding the cliffs and leaving stacks that are narrow at their base and look like ‘flower pots’ standing on the shore. These have fascinating names like Baby Elephant, Mother-in-law, and Lover’s Arch. Visitors to Hopewell Rocks, sometimes thousands a day, descend the Main Staircase at low tide and stroll across the ocean floor—until the water begins to rise again.When I visited Hopewell Rocks some years ago, the large, modern, interpretive centre was equipped with colourful display boards and models. On-site interpreters gave talks about the local wildlife, sea life, and plant life, and told the geological story about how the rocks formed.2 Their story was one spanning eras of unimaginable time hundreds of millions of years ago.

When I descended the steps, I saw that the flower pots were made of gravel that had been cemented into stone. Some of the chunks of rock were angular but most were rounded. This conglomerate rock, as it is called, spoke of large quantities of fast flowing water. Rushing floodwaters would not have taken very much time to deposit that gravel. As I walked across the exposed ocean floor and examined the flower-pot stacks and cliffs, I realised I was looking at evidence from the global Flood.Large tidal movement erodes cliffs leaving stacks like flower pots with narrow bases.

The cliffs are composed of conglomerate made of large pieces of rock, needing lots of fast-moving water to wash them into place.Low tide among the flower pots. The strata were tilted by earth movements.Time was the key. Although the interpretive boards spoke of millions of years, I reminded myself that that time was not in the rocks I saw.3 And, after suitably adjusting the times that were quoted,4 the sequence of geological events shown on the interpretive board fitted well with what was expected from the Flood. The Flood explained it well, giving new insights into features like the origin of the buried vegetation that turned to coal. 5 When we apply the new interpretation to the interpretive boards it changes the way we see the world.

Evaluating potential post-Flood boundaries with biostratigraphy—the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundaryby Marcus R. Ross

Here I report a biostratigraphic analysis of 303 genera from 28 North American terrestrial mammalian families, in which all families contain members that are either extant or last appear in Pliocene or Pleistocene deposits. The distribution of these taxa within the Cenozoic rock record is used to evaluate proposed demarcations for the Flood/post-Flood boundary. A pronounced biostratigraphic break is expected at the Flood/post-Flood boundary since the final devastation and burial of pre-Flood nephesh creatures should be stratigraphically overlain by the arrival of post-Flood migrants. It is found that when the Flood/post-Flood boundary is placed at or near the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary, then a significant number of mammalian genera (23%), and nearly every family (>96%), crosses this boundary. Rather, the Flood/post-Flood boundary should be located below the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary, at a geological location with a more pronounced biostratigraphic break.

Figure 1. Continental configurations for: a) Rodinian supercontinent (late Precambrian), with a star for the location of North America/ Laurentia; b) near-modern (Pleistocene), with arrows depicting potential migration path out of North America to an unknown modern, with arrows depicting required post-Flood migration paths to North America. Illustrations by R. Blakey and produced with TSCreator.15The present distribution of living organisms is the consequence of numerous Flood-and post-Flood related events. For those nepheshcreatures, the biogeography of the modern species is primarily reflective of the migration. Whether baramins are best reflected at lower taxonomic levels (e.g. genera) or are more inclusive (families or higher taxonomic categories), intrabaraminic speciation events may be recorded in post-Flood sediments, leaving a fossil record of diversification within baramins leading to the present.Evaluation of this record is the domain of biostratigraphy, the branch of paleontology dedicated to discovering the patterns of fossil occurrences within vertical sections of sedimentary rock. This may be done in local geological sections, or local sections can be correlated and combined for broad-scale evaluations (regional, continental, and global). Biostratigraphy also falls within the broader discipline of geological correlation, the process of linking/matching rock units over distances in which they are not seen.While a number of criteria have been offered for determining the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary, there remains as yet no consensus. Opinion is primarily (though not entirely) split between a boundary at or near the Cretaceous/Paleogene (= Tertiary) 1–3 or the Pliocene/Pleistocene4,5 divisions. I submit that a robust biostratigraphic analysis aids in determining the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary, since a pronounced biostratigraphic break marking the termination of the Flood should be expected by all creationists. The reasons are as follows.Since the pre-Flood distribution of continents was markedly different than the modern distribution,1,6 pre-Flood ecosystems from any given continent would be significantly different from those found on that same continent after the Flood.Even if the continental configuration was identical to today (which is unlikely), the majority of young-earth creationists maintain that Earth’s climate was more equitable, particularly in (presently) temperate and polar regions. Hence pre-Flood organisms would face differing climates upon their return to the same continent and latitude. Such climatic differences would only become more pronounced leading up to and throughout the post-Flood Ice Age7 (which, in accordance with ‘high’ boundary placement, occurs very shortly after the end of the Flood).As a result, it is unlikely that the post-Flood dissemination of animals would result in a return to their pre-Flood geographic locales. In other words, it is unlikely that species of baramins would display a proclivity to migrate to the graveyards of their

deceased, pre-Flood baraminic kin.Figures 1a–c illustrate the biogeographic problem at the heart of the Flood/post-Flood boundary debate. Figure 1a represents the starting point of travel that a representative of a North American mammal baramin needs to make, given a Rodinia-type continental configuration prior to the Flood. This represents the current, conventionally inferred positions of the continents just prior to the Cambrian, and stands in accord with substantial tectonic reorganization during the Flood, such as those envisioned in Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. Figure 1b depicts the travel route from a modern plate configuration, which is nearly identical to the continental configuration at the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary .This view requires that significant lateral tectonics did not occur during the Flood. Again, I believe this second option is incorrect, but it is provided here for illustrative purposes. Once the Flood abates, the progenitors and/or their offspring must migrate to North America (figure 1c).Regardless of the initial continental configuration, the following must be true if the Flood/post-Flood boundary is placed at or near the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary: North American fossil taxa must have either inhabited the locations of their present fossil deposits (in North America) prior to the Flood, or they must have been transported exceptionally long distances en masse to North America during the Flood.One would also expect that the post-Flood baramin representatives would follow a ‘sweepstakes’ pattern of opportunistic migration and inhabitation of the new post-Flood world and its varied environments. Given this and the above-mentioned differences in climate (especially pronounced given the location of North America/Laurentia in figure 1a), there would likely be no preference for any particular baramins to migrate back to the starting locations of their now-deceased, pre-Flood kin.But what if the Flood/post-Flood boundary is not/ cannot be placed at a particular geologic location? That is, what if the Flood ended in one location that geologists call ‘Eocene’ and elsewhere in the ‘Pliocene’? While this may be possible for certain deposits (e.g. the marine sediments of the southeastern United States display a marine → terrestrial transition reflective of continual sea level drop

through much of the Cenozoic; in this case, some areas may be post-Flood earlier than other, still-inundated areas), it is unlikely to apply here. In North America, the vast majority of the mammals evaluated here are found in sedimentary deposits from regionally restricted terrestrial basins, rather than trans-continental sedimentary deposits likely to be formed under Flood condition. This fact was part of the rationale for placing the end of the Flood near the Cretaceous-Paleogene (= Tertiary) boundary by Austin et al.1 in their description of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics.MethodsSelection of North American mammalsIdeal groups to test the argument for a Pliocene/ Pleistocene location for the Flood/post-Flood boundary are North American mammals. These groups benefit from a long history of intensive, well-documented collection and study. There are dozens of notable localities with excellent stratigraphic sections throughout the Cenozoic from far-ranging locations across the continent (ranging from California and Oregon to Nebraska, South Dakota, and Florida). Furthermore, two recent publications8,9 provide a comprehensive treatment of the diversity, biogeography, and biostratigraphy of the entire North American Cenozoic mammal fossil record, and these data have been imported into searchable online databases.10

Creation of biostratigraphic range chartsNorth American mammalian families were tabulated and analyzed using the Paleobiology Database.10 The Paleobiology Database is a collaborative online repository of paleontological information. In particular, the Paleobiology Database includes taxonomic, biogeographic, and biostratigraphic data for fossils described in the professional paleontological literature and curated in museums and university repositories. This database is searchable using a variety of browser-based tools and methods, and permits downloading of data for additional methods by researchers.11For this analysis, mammalian families were chosen from the following Orders: Artiodactyla, Carnivora, Edentata/Xenarthra, Insectivora, Lagomorpha, Marsupialia, Perissodactyla, and Proboscidia. Each of the families selected from these orders contain genera that are either extant or cross the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary, and therefore exist until the Ice Age, which is recognized by creationists to be a post-Flood event.7

Figure 2. Correlation diagram of Cenozoic periods and epochs with North American Land Mammal Ages (NALMAs). Figure produced with TSCreator.To conduct the analysis, I employed the following methods:From the main page at www.pbdb.org, the ‘Count taxa’ tool from the ‘Analyze’ tab was selected to create a list of the fossil genera within each queried family. I entered the family name (e.g. Canidae) into the ‘Taxonomic group’ box. I then clicked ‘Submit Query’, and the tool produced a list of genera and species.I copied and imported this list of genera into the ‘Analyze taxonomic ranges’ tool, which builds biostratigraphic range charts from known fossil occurrences, generated from the published literature and records from museum collections. After entering the genus list, I selected ‘as entered’ in the ‘Break taxa into’ box and submitted the query.The next page which loads is the ‘Confidence interval options’ page. Under ‘Time scale’, researchers can choose among a number of biostratigraphic methods for graphical output. I selected ‘North American Land Mammal Ages’ (see below for discussion).On this same page, I selected ‘no confidence intervals’ under the ‘Estimate’ box. This retrieves only the raw occurrence data, with no statistical estimates on biostratigraphic ranges above or below documented first and last appearances.For visual ease of evaluation, I selected ‘last appearance’ for the ‘Order taxa by’ box and submitted the query.Standard geological chronology vs North American land mammal agesI evaluated the differences in reporting which result from selecting two timescales applicable to the Cenozoic mammal record of North America: stages (e.g. Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene) and North American Land Mammal Ages (herein NALMAs). The NALMAs are a biostratigraphic system used primarily for the Cenozoic of North America, built upon biostratigraphic relationships among mammals (there are several late Cretaceous NALMAs as well; they are not employed in this evaluation). This system was first established in 1941 by Wood et al.,12 and extensively revised in Woodburne’s mammal compilation.13 It is used extensively in the mammalian paleontological literature, and North American mammal taxa are comprehensively described in relation to the NALMAs in the Woodburne and Janis  et al. mammal compilations.8,9,13 Figure 2 shows the relationship of the NALMAs to the stages of the Cenozoic.One can immediately see from figure 2 that the NALMAs are more numerous than are the stages, and therefore provide finer resolution in biostratigraphic studies than do stages in the Cenozoic. When using the Paleobiology Database for this study, the NALMAs also provide more accurate documentation of both the number of genera reported and the completeness of their respective fossil record, thus providing more accurate biostratigraphic ranges than stages. This is due to the use of NALMAs (rather than stages) for recording mammal occurrences in the compilation texts of Woodburne and Janis  et al.,8,9,13 and the uploading of these published data into the Paleobiology Database.Moreover, the use of the NALMAs also resulted in the removal of non-North American taxa which were occasionally (and curiously) included in stage-based searches of North American mammals. For example, the Giraffidae has no North American taxa (either modern or fossil), yet the biostragraphy of the African members of this group was reported when using stages and limiting the search to North America. Records for giraffes were not encountered when using NALMAs as the search parameter.Results and analysisThe position of the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary (dated at 2.6 million years ago by conventional geologists) correlates to the upper portion of the Blancan NALMA (figure 2). For ease of evaluation, the boundary between the Blancan and overlying Irvintonian NALMA will serve as a proxy for the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary. Genera known from the Irvingtonian NALMA that also record fossils from the Blancan NALMA or below are considered to cross the Flood/ post-Flood boundary when placed at the Pliocene/Pleistocene. Any genus whose highest occurrence is within the Blancan is not considered to cross the boundary. Of the 303 genera surveyed, 70 (23%) cross the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary. Table 1 summarizes the full analysis, and figures 3 through 11 (figures 4–11, see online supplement14) provide graphical expression for a sample of the families evaluated. In each of these figures, the recovery of a fossil within a genus during one of the NALMAs is represented by a grey square in the centre of the NALMA biozone. The grey square is thus a presence/absence data point during a particular NALMA, and this analysis does not resolve early, middle, or late subdivisions within each NALMA.

Figure 3. Biostratigraphic distribution of the Antilocapridae (pronghorn antelope). Figure produced and modified from the Paleobiology Database.10Figure 3 is the output generated for the family Antilocapridae, and serves as a guide for interpreting these figures. Fossils of this unusual ungulate family (which have a bony horn capped by antler material) are found only in North America, and the family is represented today by the lone species Antilocapris americana, the pronghorn antelope. As seen in figure 3, Antilocapris is accompanied by sixteen additional genera from Antilocapridae during the Cenozoic.A dashed line marks the boundary between the Blancan and Irvingtonian NALMAs, the proxy for the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary. Of the seventeen total genera, four cross the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary. Additional examples are provided in figures 4 through 14 (see online supplement14), reflecting a variety of well-known and often-discussed mammalian groups.When the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary is used to approximate the Flood/post-Flood boundary, nearly one-fourth of the post-Flood baramin members (understood to be species within the same genus) evaluated here migrated from North America, and returned again to North America to coincidentally inhabit the same geographic locations as their pre-Flood (or transported, Flood-buried) baraminic kin.If pre-Flood baramins are better approximated by the taxonomic rank of family (which is more reflective of current baraminological research and rather broad consensus within the young-earth

community), then the situation is far more severe. Twenty-seven of the 28 mammal families studied here include at least one genus which crosses the Flood/post-Flood boundary when placed at the Pliocene/ Pleistocene boundary, and many families display multiple boundary-crossing genera. The lone exception is the Rhinocerotidae (table 1, figure 1214), the last members of which in North America suffer extinction during the Pliocene (figure 10, online supplement 14; see also Janis et al.8). So if the family approximates the baramin, then >96% of the mammal baramins evaluated here migrated from Laurentia/North America and returned again to North America.Moreover, taxa which would have had to return to North America are in some cases genera known only from North America (e.g. Antilocapris(pronghorn antelope), Odocoileus (whitetail and mule deer), Sylvilagus (cotton-tail rabbits)). For these taxa, there is no pool of species from their genus on other continents which could coincidentally migrate to North America during the post-Flood period. In other words: why would endemic pre-Flood North American mammals return only to North America? One would expect, given the ‘sweepstakes’ model of post-Flood migration, that pre-Flood baramins currently known from the Cenozoic of other continents would appear above the boundary as Pleistocene fossils in North America. While it is certainly true that there are a number of genera which appear to migrate from Asia and Europe (especially bovids14) and South America (a number of edentates/xenarthrans), these taxa are themselves known from more recent geological strata, rather than from deeper within the Cenozoic, or below. This supports a Flood/post-Flood boundary significantly lower than the Pliocene/ Pleistocene, with the Cenozoic faunal interchanges and significant endemic development reflective of post-Flood migration and intrabaraminic diversification.Lastly, and perhaps most damaging: why are there no post-Flood mammal migrants into North America, the Flood-derived fossils of which are otherwise only known from India? Or Africa? Or Australia? The latter is the most damaging case, as the fossil record of mammals in Australia is most unusual, being dominated by an extensive array of marsupials. Yet there are no fossil kangaroos, koalas, or Tasmanian wolves in North America or any other continent. They are not present anywhere else in Pleistocene deposits, or indeed in any other Cenozoic deposits on any of the other continents. A biostratigraphic analysis like this one of the Australian mammal record by a researcher more familiar with these taxa would likely show similar patterns to those seen here, and perhaps even more pronounced.ConclusionsThe biostratigraphic analysis presented here for North American mammalian families makes placement of the Flood/post-Flood boundary at or near the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary untenable. Rather, these data are more naturally interpreted as representing time-sequential recolonization of the post-Flood world by diversifying terrestrial mammal baramins. Given

the biostratigraphic break expected to characterize the Flood/post-Flood boundary, a lower location for the boundary must be sought. At present, the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary appears to be the stratigraphically highest and most prominent biostratigraphic break (it includes the last inplace stratigraphic appearance of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and several other bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian groups), though a similarly thorough analysis must be completed in order to strengthen its claim to the Flood/post-Flood boundary.

Order Family # Genera# Genera CrossingPlio/Plei Boundary

% Crossing

Artiodactlya AntilocapridaeBovidaeCamelidaeCervidaeTayassuidae

1716301011

41542

23.56.316.740.018.2

Carnivora CanidaeFelidaeHyaenidaeMustelidaeProcyonidaeUrsidae

2515340713

391734

12.060.033.317.542.930.8

Edentata/Xenarthra DasypodidaeGlyptodontidaeMegalonychidaeMegatheriidaeMylodontidaeNothrotheriidaePampatheriidae

2221311

1211111

50.0100.050.0100.033.3100.0100.0

Insectovora Talpidae 18 4 22.2

Lagomorpha LeporidaeOchotonidae

147

62

42.928.6

Marsupialia Didelphidae 1 1 100.0

Perissodactlya EquidaeRhinoceratidaeTapiridae

27178

101

3.70.012.5

Probocidia ElephantidaeGomphotheriidaeMammutidae

192

121

100.022.250.0

8 Orders 28 Families 303 genera70 boundary-crossing genera

23.1% of genera cross boundary

Table 1. Genus-level mammalian survivorship across the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary in North America.

Granite formation was catastrophicIn spite of what the tourist sign says

by Tas Walker

Albany, on the south coast of Western Australia, is a popular stopping-place to explore the area’s beauty. A peninsula shelters Albany from the Great Southern Ocean, and is home to the famous ‘Gap’ and ‘Natural Bridge’ rock formations. Interpretive signs in the Torndirrup National Park tell visitors what they are looking at.One says:“The continents of Australia and Antarctica were bound together along this rugged coastline for more than one billion years, forming part of the supercontinent Gondwana.”You can see the coastline and the characteristic granite landscape, with its

domed rock outcrops and rounded tors. But you can’t imagine a billion years of time, or how they could measure that value. Nor can you see Antarctica, 3,500 kilometres across the ocean.Granite is often found in large, oval

shaped ‘plutons’, 10 or 20 km across. Geologists say plutons took an enormous time to form and cool, as the sign in the park says:“Pressure and friction at the base of the two fused continents caused rock to melt and slowly rise up through the gneiss [a banded metamorphic rock]. Think of a lava lamp   . This molten rock slowly cooled, hardening into granite and helping to cement the continents together.”“Think of a lava lamp.” Just as the blobs of ‘lava’ rise in the lamp, geologists say enormous ‘balloons’ of molten rock (called diapirs) rose slowly through (yes, through) the earth’s crust. That’s right, the granite balloon, like a single towering body, rose through solid rock—“Slowly, slowly.” This process is said to have taken millions of years.This idea is often used against the creation timescale of Earth history. Skeptics mock that granite ‘proves’ the creation chronology is ridiculous. However, geology researchers have long abandoned this balloon idea. They say the scientific consensus has been wrong for a long time. In the Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, granite expert John Clemens said:“The long-cherished picture of granitic diapirs slowly pushing their way toward the upper crust and grinding to a halt by solidification has been replaced by an altogether different picture of narrow feeder dykes punching their way upward in months, pulsing with magma and feeding rapidly growing plutons.”1Instead of millions of years, geologists now say granite plutons form in months. Instead of rising slowly through solid rock, the molten granite punches quickly through long cracks in the crust. That makes much more sense.Another long-cherished belief overturned by granite research is the idea that the crystals took millions of years to grow. Clemens again:“Experimentally measured rates indicate that a 5 mm crystal of plagioclase could have grown in as short a time as 1 hour, but probably no more than 25 years.” 1

Clarifying the magmatic model for the origin of salt depositsAnswering criticisms

by Stef HeeremaPublished: 19 November 2013 (GMT+10)

Editorial explanation: The origin of the vast salt deposits of the world has traditionally been explained by evaporation of enormous volumes of seawater over millions of years. In 2009, Stef Heerema published an alternate model whereby the salt deposits are of a magmatic origin,1 a model that fits the evidence, and has implications for the speed of their emplacement as well as other features of the deposits. More recently Stef Heerema made available a video presentation2 of a lecture he gave on the magmatic model. Kevin Nelstead has posted a critique of Heerema’s magmatic model on his blogsite.3 Stef Heerema here responds to that critique.

Sodalite—raw stoneI am thankful that Kevin Nelstead has responded to my ideas about the origin of salt deposits. I once was prepared to become an old earth creationist myself, so I understand Kevin’s position.When I entered a salt mine in Germany in 2007, I was ready to accept the ideas of an old earth because it appeared to me that to precipitate such an amount of salt out of seawater would have taken millions of years. With so many respectful scientists believing in the evaporation model I had no choice, I thought. But when I entered the salt mine my view changed dramatically, as there was no evidence to support the belief of those scientists. There was an abundant amount of salt without the slightest sign of any sea-related attributes.It is most important to understand that my starting point was not the GlobalFlood. My investigation started with the evidence and to my own surprise I ended with the world wide Flood. So, that is slightly different from how Kevin puts

it in his response, where he accuses me of being driven by the perceived necessity to fit everything into a creation timescale. In the following I will go through Kevin’s statements, answer his objections, and clarify my position.

Kevin states that there is no creationtimescale Further, the global Flood is detailed in days and months. Kevin states that 67 km of seawater was required to form 1 km of saltTo evaporate such a vast amount of water in a basin would take lots of time and lots of evaporation cycles. I mentioned 60 km, and Kevin’s 67 km of evaporated seawater is even more unlikely.Kevin states that there have not been sandy barriers between oceans and basinsThe concept of a sandy barrier has been a standard feature of the evaporation model for the origin of salt deposits. Now Kevin exchanges the idea of sandy barriers for coral reefs, but nowhere on earth is there such an analogy. Although there are many coral reefs enclosing basins in hot and dry climates they do not form salt stocks.Kevin states that marine organisms do not thrive in hypersaline environmentsHe overlooks that this evaporation process requires a vast amount of seawater, which will abundantly deliver fish, jelly-fish, shell, water birds, sea mammals, alga, sand and clay into the basin. Therefore it is impossible to deposit hundreds of meters of pure sodium chloride in such a basin. But this is what we find in salt formations.The proposed coral reef will not survive a hypersaline environment either, which makes the evaporation process even more inconsistent.Kevin states that pollen have been found in salt formationsFirstly, that still does not confirm a marine origin for salt formations. Secondly, salt formations can be contaminated by pollen after their primary igneous deposition. Salt formations have been subject to erosion for thousands of years. Water has been rushing in delivering pollen and rushing out taking away a lot of salt.It is interesting that the idea of evaporates came as a simple deduction by geologists considering the evaporation process in the Caspian Sea. There, the deposition of salt by evaporation was witnessed by Ochsenius (1877).4 Since then most salt formations worldwide have been deemed to be evaporites. Are they really? No, as the process in the Caspian Sea is secondary, receiving its salt from the erosion of primary igneous salt formations high up in the surrounding mountains.Kevin states that there is abundant laboratory data that salt can flow on the surface in solid stateI look forward to seeing this data. As far as I am informed there is none. Even if this is so, why would it matter for the magmatic model for the origin of salt deposits? I don’t see the significance.Kevin states that there is no evidence that something like a salt magma has ever existed in the earthHe is not well informed then. The salts Carbonatite and Anhydrite5 both are derived from magmas. Note that it is only since 1982 the primary igneous origin of Anhydrite has been noticed by scientists.Kevin states that there is a restricted connection from the sea into the Dead Sea and Danakil DepressionNo, there has never been any connection. Therefore these formations can only be from a primary igneous origin. Maybe if the Great Rift continues to open a connection will come into being.Kevin states that the Ol Doinyo Lengay volcano is not a modern analogyFirstly, it shows the low viscosity which is typical for a salt magma. Secondly, carbonatite is largely part of salt depositions worldwide. Thirdly, in the magma of this volcano sodium, potassium and even a form of sodium chloride (sodalite) has been found. Fourthly, this is a salt volcano and therefore an excellent modern analogy. On the other hand, there are no modern analogies available for the origin of salt deposits by primary evaporation.Kevin states that there is no association between the occurrence of salt deposits and coalThe coal seams that have been mined in the south of the Netherlands continue underlying the 500,000 square kilometres wide Zechstein formation. Kevin might be right that the association between salt and coal is not worldwide confirmed. But that does not refute the magmatic origin of salt.Kevin states that most large salt deposits are associated with shallow marine sedimentary rocksThat shows that there was an interaction between the salt lava and the sediments that were being quickly deposited by the Flood. It is interesting that the Flood sediments are overloaded with fossils in strong contrast with the salt which does not contain fossils. This contrast underlines that the salt and the sediments are derived from different sources.Kevin would expect hydrothermal alteration of the rocks where the magma was passing throughHe is right. I expect that such alteration of the surrounding rocks would be present and suspect it has not been observed because people have not been looking for it. Gas and oil companies do most of their exploration in the deep layers underneath the salt and so they have not looked for hydrothermal alteration of the surrounding rocks. There is an interesting copper bearing ‘Kupferschiefer layer’ which underlies the Zechstein salt, the origin of which is not yet understood. This layer might be the result of such a hydrothermal alteration. I am not the first that came to the conclusion that salt is from a magmatic origin. James Hutton had reason to note it and others expected the salt deposits to have been formed from hydrothermal water driven by magma.6 I addressed that in the video2 in the fourth minute.Kevin states that it is not demonstrated that an NaCl lava flow could spread out underwater over many tens of thousands of square kilometres

I wonder what he expects a lava volume of a half million cubic kilometres would do, other than cover the bottom of a basin. Liquid salt runs like water and will fill up the basin indeed.Kevin states that no evidence for feeder dikes was providedThe conduits through which the supposed salt magma erupted underneath the Gulf of Mexico were showed in the 21st minute of thevideo.2

Kevin states that fluid inclusion studies indicate that evaporites formed from seawaterTNO—Geological Survey of the Netherlands3D seismic interpretation of sub-surface salt formations in north-east Netherlands. Underground ‘mountains’ of massive salt rise up as much as 3.5 km.Young and Stearley7 do reference an investigation into paleobrine temperatures.8 The starting point in this

research was that salt is a precipitate out of seawater in a paleo-environment. If there was no seawater nor paleoclimate involved then this investigation cannot be used to indicate an ancient temperature. This kind of research to the origin of salt formation reads to me like fairy tales.Magma can account for fluid inclusions as well, as magmas always contain some water. After cooling, the water in the salt lava can form oversaturated fluid inclusions. The chemistry of the oversaturated fluid depends only on the present temperature, pressure and surrounding salts.Fluid inclusions have been found in samples out of the F-unit, which is the uppermost level of the formation. A possibility is that this layer has been contaminated by ground water. When a mine is opened then the overpressured9 ground water, surrounding the formation, will find a way towards the atmospheric pressure inside the mineshaft. The Asse mine in Germany, which was in use as a nuclear waste storage, is a well known example of such a water invasion.Kevin states that in some salt deposits, anhydrite and gypsum dominate over haliteCorrect. If salt formations were formed out of seawater why do they all have different compositions? This shows clearly their primary igneous origin; every volcano will leave its own signature in the lava. In the tenth minute of this video2 I explain how the composition of the magma will influence the solidification process.Kevin states that the peer-review process of the Journal of Creation failsHis accusation goes far wider than the Journal of Creation. What are we to say about all the incorrect papers concerning sandy barriers enclosing basins that have been published? And what about the many incorrect hydrothermal approaches that have been published in different journals? No, this paper didn’t slip through failing peer reviews. As long as science doesn’t give satisfying answers to the origin of salt deposits there has to be room for new approaches. The last thing we need is censorship by the establishment.Kevin states that magnesium chloride does occur in its hydrated form bischofite (MgCl2•6H2O)In the sequence proposed by mainstream geologists bischofite would be the last salt to precipitate after full evaporation of all the water in the basin. The next salt layer can only be delivered by opening the barrier again to repeat the precipitation sequence. But then the story becomes complicated, as the magnesium chloride will immediately dissolve in the new water. But no, the magnesium chloride is assumed to be first covered by clay as if by a miracle. It is clear that magnesium chloride cannot be precipitated in this way as it is very hydrophilic and highly soluble. It is much more likely that magnesium chloride would be derived from magma. The water component does not contradict this view as water can be absorbed after deposition. And decomposition in hydrochloric acid and magnesium oxide might have been prevented by the pressure of about one kilobar, which would have been applied by the waters of the Flood.Kevin states that final crystallization in the eutectic point would produce an interlocking mesh of halite and anhydrite. He refers to the tenth minute of this video.2

These salts do not form mixed crystals as calcium sulphate differs a lot from sodium chloride. That means that pure calcium sulphate and pure sodium chloride crystals will be formed and be ordered by their density in interaction with the lava.Kevin states that upturned sedimentary layers next to salt domes show every indication of having been deposited horizontally, and then punctured by rising masses of solid but moldable salt. These layers show the typical signs of strain associated with deformation, including folding, fracturing and faulting.That is what geologists want to see, but it is no more than their interpretation. A salt pillar can underlie an area of several tens of square kilometres. A salt pillar has a flat top, is not a needle, and cannot puncture through upper layers. If Permian salt buried under Triassic layers was forced to rise slowly, then the Triassic layers would have been found on top of the pillar, but they are not. The system fails as clearly shown in the video2 from the 13th minute.ConclusionKevin Nelstead’s criticisms of the magmatic model for the origin of salt deposits have been clearly and simply refuted. The magmatic model fits the evidence well, far better than the evaporation model, which has many insurmountable problems. The magmatic model explains the characteristics of the salt deposits of the world and accounts for their formation during the global Flood catastrophe.A giant cause

The Giant’s Causeway, Northern Ireland: colossal volcanic eruptions during the Global Floodby Tas Walker

Geologic cross-section 

Only a very small portion of the total volume of lava erupted is visible in the cliffs at Giant’s Causeway. The total thickness of all the basalt erupted at that time could be as much as 1 km.Each year, almost half a million people visit the Giant’s Causeway on the north-east coast of Northern Ireland to see the remarkable rocks.On the plateau 100 m (330 ft) above the Atlantic Ocean, the rolling plains flaunt every shade of green. Steep basalt cliffs zigzag into the distance and the ocean foams along the rocky blocks below.The Causeway is composed of tightly packed basalt columns crammed together with their tops broken off. They form a path of stepping-stones leading from the bottom of the cliff to disappear beneath the swells.These volcanic rocks indicate a time when the world was very different. What was the cause? Generally, visitors are unaware that they are looking at some of the giant, catastrophic effects of global Flood.Giant’s Causeway from the Global Flood?

It’s not surprising that people do not see the connection.1 Causeway brochures say the rocks are 60 million years old.2  Geologic marvels in stone Someone has estimated that there are 40,000 stone columns. Most have five or six sides but some have four, seven or eight. Columns are 40–50 cm (15–20 in) across and create a fascinating honeycomb pattern.But people do not realize that geologists cannot measure the ages of rocks directly. It’s impossible, because scientists can only make measurements in the present. Without eyewitness reports, the best we can do is to calculate an age based onassumptions about the past. Geologists quote ages of millions of years because they make wrong assumptions. They don’t believe the Global Flood was real, so they ignore its catastrophic effects. (See ‘Radiometric dating’.)Once we realize that the dates assigned to the Causeway are not measured but just

someone’s opinion, we can look at the evidence in a different light. And the evidence of the Causeway points to a large-scale watery catastrophe, much bigger than anything we see today. It’s consistent with the Flood. One indication is the cataclysmic size of the lava eruptions.Huge volcanic eruptionsThe tourist feature called The Organ (pictured below, far left) illustrates the immense depth of just one lava flow. It is part of the first of seven lava flows comprising the Causeway Basalts. Only two are visible in the cliffs here. Astonishingly,

Causeway flows are massive, commonly up to 30 m (100 ft) thick.3

On top of the columns, high above, sits a zone of twisted and irregular rocks. Geologists call the columns, the colonnade, and the upper zone, the entablature, with obvious reference to classical Greek architecture.Columns of the first Causeway flow also form the tourist attraction called The Harp (left). A second lava flow sits above. In fact, some of the isolated columns from this second flow stand out against the sky, forming an attraction calledThe Chimney Tops.The first two lava flows of theCauseway Basalts are visible all around the Causeway in the upper

half of the cliffs. They sit above a thin orange band. Under the band, the cliffs comprise a series of lava flows called  The Lower Basalts.The basaltic eruptions flowed over more than the area around the Causeway Coast. Basalt extends over 30 km south beyond Belfast, and 150 km north-east under the ocean to Scotland (see map, below).4We see that Giant’s Causeway is dramatic evidence for catastrophic volcanic eruptions. Basaltic lava gushed out of fissures and holes in the

earth at a tremendous rate. It surged so rapidly that it did not have time to solidify before covering the land in deep, glowing pools of molten rock.Water, water everywhereEvidence of water is another indication that Giant’s Causeway formed during the Flood. Water left telltale signs all over the lava flows:5Molten rock flowing over the flooded land generated lots of steam. It bubbled up through the bottom of the lava, leaving long, vertical tubes.6,7At the top and bottom, water quenched and shattered the lava on contact, leaving broken rock.8Rapid cooling of the lava under water produced ‘pillow lavas’.8,9 They squeezed out like a tongue of toothpaste and have a glassy skin. Frequently, the hot water chemically changed the basaltic glass into a soft, yellow-brown material called palagonite.Soon after each lava flow was emplaced, the displaced floodwaters returned, flooding over the top of the basalt. The water circulated down into the cracks, which quickly penetrated deeper inside the lava. This produced the distinctive twisted columns at the top of the lava flows called the entablature.5,10Returning floodwaters also deposited layers of sediment and vegetation.6,11The successive lava flows occurred so quickly that they preserved the glassy top of the underlying lava surfaces.6Even though the lavas flowed into abundant water, the eruption was so large and rapid that the lavas were able to flow for huge distances. The effects of lava-water interaction are particularly evident at the surfaces and edges of the lava flows.

Photo of Anna and Alistair Wylie, by Alistair

The Organ

Photo by Alistair Wylie

The Harp and The Chimney Tops

A different lightGiant’s Causeway involved a large-scale watery catastrophe, much bigger than anything occurring today. As soon as we clear our minds of interpretations invented by people who do not believe in the gobal Flood, we can see the evidence in a different light. We see that the geologic conditions are consistent with the world-shattering event—the event that dramatically affected the course of human history just 4,500 years ago.

How do the columns form?The pool of hot lava cools and partly solidifies into rock—starting at the top and bottom.Cooling continues and the solidified rock contracts. Star-shaped cracks appear on the top and bottom solid surfaces.The three prongs on the cracks grow longer and join, forming polygons, generally with four to seven sides.Cooling continues. More rock solidifies. The cracks spread upwards and downwards forming columns. The columns continue to cool. Their height shrinks and they break into pieces with ball and socket joints.ShipwrecksThe idyllic setting on the Causeway Coast betrays the violence and hostility often experienced there. Exposed to the full force of the North Atlantic, many ships have met with disaster on the jagged rocks. The most famous is the Girona, the biggest ship of the Spanish Armada. In 1588, while heading for Scotland, it ran into worsening conditions, lost its rudder, and foundered at midnight, with the loss of some 1,300 lives.1

Radiometric datingGiant’s Causeway is said to be 60 million years old, based on radiometric dating. But radiometric dating depends on assumptions and is not the absolute certainty we are led to believe it is. Even geologists will accept radiometric dates only if they agree with what they already think the age should be.Radiometric dating gives many surprises. Basalts from Hualalai in Hawaii, observed to have erupted in 1800–01, gave potassium-argon (K-Ar) ages ranging from 160 million years to 3,300 million years.1 A lava dome on Mt St Helens in USA, observed to form since the 1980 eruption, gave K-Ar ages between 350,000 and 2,800,000 years.2 Lava erupted from Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, between 1949 and 1975, gave K-Ar ages up to 3,500,000 years.3 

Buried vegetationOne striking feature of the Causeway cliffs is an orange bed, which forms a prominent band in the sheer basalt face. This bed creates a natural bench and the cliff path follows it around the bays. It is 10–12 metres (30–40 ft) thick and composed of soft, friable, red and brown material. Technically, it’s called the Interbasaltic Bed—i.e. the bed between the basalts.1,2The Interbasaltic Bed contains a soft, brown coal called lignite. That’s simply vegetation altered chemically by heat in a wet, oxygen-free environment. Traditionally, geologists say this lignite formed over millions of years in a swampy environment, similar to the peat bogs in Ireland today, but the evidence contradicts this. Leaves and bark

fragments are abundant, as well as pollens and other tree parts.3 In other words, the vegetation is too well preserved to have remained in a bog for thousands, let alone millions, of years.In addition, the trees identified include cedar, pine, spruce, hazel and alder3—species that do not grow in peat bogs. The evidence points to water rapidly having washed the vegetation into place. Then heat from the basalt quickly transformed it into coal.The bed does not represent a long period of time but rapid burial and energetic chemical alteration. During a pause in the volcanic eruptions, water flowed over the basalt and deposited a layer of sediment and vegetation. The next eruption trapped the water in the sediment, which, together with the heat, altered the basalt chemically. Once the basalt cooled, groundwater percolated through the soft material and continued the chemical alteration, producing a thick bed of soft material..

Lyle, P., A Geological Excursion Guide to The Causeway Coast, W&G Baird, Antrim, Northern Ireland,.

Legend of giants

How did the Causeway form?As the floodwaters peaked, several months into the Flood, thick limestone strata were deposited over large areas of Europe, including (what is now) Ireland.

Volcanoes erupted as the earth’s crust moved and ocean basins began to sink relative to the land. Floodwaters started flowing from the continents. Cracks opened in the crust and lava gushed out, covering the limestone.

Eruptions paused occasionally and the floodwater ebbed temporarily, depositing sediment and vegetation on the basalt surface.

Continued eruptions poured more lava onto the surface, filling depressions in pulses. Surging water quenched the lava lakes, which solidified into basalt that cracked into long columns as it contracted.

For hundreds of years after the Flood, high precipitation built thick sheets of ice over the land. The ice retreated at the end of the Ice Age, exposing the Causeway Coast.

A Scottish site, revered by evolutionary geologists worldwide as the birthplace of their long-age philosophy, actually gives powerful evidence for the Global Flood.

by Tas Walker

Figure 1. Geology of England, Scotland and Wales.A rocky peninsula near Cockburnspath, 60 km (40 miles) east of Edinburgh, Scotland, has become something of a ‘Mecca’ for modern geologists. According to one geology professor, the first thing you notice about Siccar Point is that it is covered with geology students.1This is understandable because the site features regularly in geological literature as an icon of ‘deep time’.2

Atop the grassy cliffs, pilgrims enjoy a bird’s-eye view before descending the steep, treacherous path to the rocky point at shore level. This has been called the birthplace of modern geology, where James Hutton supposedly ‘obtained his revelation’ that the earth was not made in six days some six thousand years ago, but was unimaginably old.Hutton’s ideas inspired Darwin4 and gave him the eons of time he needed for his theory of evolution.

Figure 2. Hutton’s unconformity. The man sitting on the lower, vertical rocks points to the contact where the upper, almost-horizontal beds of Old Red Sandstone rest.Recently, one geology student described how, when his group reached the point, they were moved to read extracts from the writings of Hutton and John Playfair.5

Hutton and Playfair6 visited Siccar Point in the late 1700s, not by the A1 motorway, but by boat on a fine day that enabled them to keep close to rocks along the shore. ‘What clearer evidence’, Playfair wrote, ‘could we have had of the different formation of these rocks, and the long [time] interval which separated their formation?’7 So what did they really see?What Hutton sawAt Siccar Point two distinct kinds of sandstone meet (figure 2). The strata of the lower, older sandstone are tilted almost vertically, and they have been sliced off abruptly, in a nearly horizontal line. The upper, younger sandstone has been deposited on top of the eroded surface and is still almost horizontal. The place where these rocks touch is called an ‘angular unconformity’.8

Figure 3. Vertical and horizontal strata meet at Siccar Point.As James Hutton explored the Scottish hills, he could see that rainfall gradually eroded the rocks, and that rivers carried the sediment into the sea. From what he saw, he envisaged that it would take many thousands of lifetimes before the hills eroded away.9So, when Hutton viewed the sandstone outcrops at Siccar Point, he wondered where the sand had come from. He reasoned that the older, lower rocks must have been much higher in the past. As these eroded down, they produced the sand which now forms the upper rocks. But where did the sand for the lower rocks come from? Presumably there must have been even-older rocks which were eroded away. And for those rocks? There must have been older rocks still, and so on endlessly. So Hutton saw ‘no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end’. Most people think the idea of billions of years comes from radiometric dating. But clearly that’s not true, since this dating method was not developed until the beginning of the 20th century, about 100 years after Hutton died. Hutton based his idea of an old earth on an assumption. It was not a discovery. He assumed that the same slow processes eroding the Scottish highlands in the present formed the ancient rocks by the North Sea in the past. Figure 4. Overlying sandstone strata.However, if Hutton had examined the sandstone outcrops a little more closely, he would have realized

that extraordinary processes, quite different from what he saw in Scotland, were involved. Hutton misinterpreted the rocks at Siccar Point because of his faulty assumptions. Almost all geologists who have visited the site since then have missed the real significance of the outcrop for geological time, because of thinking the same way.The lower rocksThe lower rocks are composed of grey vertical beds of alternating greywacke and shale. 10,11 Greywacke is a type of sandstone which indicates that it was deposited very rapidly. It is composed of particles with a range of sizes, from very coarse sand to fine clay. This means that the sediment was transported and deposited so rapidly that it did not have time to sort into different sizes (as occurs on beaches and in rivers today).

Figure 5. A ‘graded bed’ has a sharp, distinct base with the coarsest grains of sand at the bottom. Moving upwards in the bed, the grains of sand become gradually finer and finer. The top of the bed is followed abruptly with the base of the next graded bed. Graded beds may form from fast-flowing underwater avalanches.Also, the grains of sand in greywacke are not rounded, but jagged, indicating again that the sand was transported rapidly. If it had been transported slowly in a river, the sharp edges would have been worn smooth as the moving sand particles rubbed each other.In a bed of greywacke, the sand is often coarse at the bottom and fine at the top, indicating that the whole bed was deposited from one pulse of water (figure

5). Sometimes beds of greywacke show cross bedding, again indicating that they were deposited from fast-flowing water (figure 6).The fact that the beds are so flat over such large distances shows that the water-flows covered a large area. And the flat strata sit one on top of the other—without any sign of a break in deposition—indicating the fast deposition processes operated continuously while the whole rock deposit was formed.So the lower rocks show abundant evidence for large-scale, rapid deposition. Evidence for the long periods of time that Hutton imagined is just not in the rocks.Diagram courtesy of Steve Austin, Grand Canyon: monument to catastrophe, ICR.

Figure 6. Cross bedding is formed as fast-flowing water generates sand waves on the bottom. The thickness of the beds indicates the speed and depth of the water.Folding and erodingNot only were the lower rocks deposited quickly, but they were folded while they were still soft and contained abundant water. The beds do not indicate evidence of brittle fracture. So they must have been folded while still plastic. Also, as a result of the folding, the rocks changed (metamorphosed) and new minerals such as mica grew in them. Metamorphic reactions need abundant water if they are to proceed.12 All this means that there was not much time between deposition and folding.Another evidence of catastrophe that

Hutton missed was the contact between the upper and lower sandstones. He interpreted the contact as a long time-break between the folding and deposition of the next layer of rock. However, where the lower vertically bedded rocks are exposed to the weather in the area, pronounced differential erosion is evident. The softer shale erodes from between the beds of the harder greywacke, which stand out like ribs across the countryside.However, the contact shows no differential weathering (figure 8), which indicates that the erosion was by catastrophic processes, unlike the gradual erosion of the countryside today. Also, there is no evidence of a soil layer at the contact, 13 as would be expected if the rocks had been eroded by normal weathering.The upper rocksGeologists have called the upper sandstone beds, which sit on top of the greywacke, the ‘Old Red Sandstone’ (figure 4). These also show dramatic evidence of catastrophe.

Figure 7. Part of the metre-thick layer of broken rocks that sit on top of the contact. Rocks are blocky and angular, and some are as big as a football.First, the base of the Old Red Sandstone consists of a metre-thick layer of broken rocks, called a breccia (figure 7). Large clasts (broken pieces) of greywacke, some the size of a football, have been ripped off the underlying rocks and dumped on top of the eroded surface. The breccia covers a huge geographical area and the flat surfaces of the rocks tend to face the same direction. This is an imbricate structure and indicates strong water currents. The broken pieces of rock are blocky and angular, indicating they did not roll against each other very much. Obviously they were not transported far from where they were

broken off, and they were deposited quickly. This breccia layer is clear evidence that fast- flowing water eroded the contact and dumped the broken material on top. These obvious evidences for catastrophe contradict the supposed need for long periods of time.Furthermore, the Old Red Sandstone covers a huge geographical area, indicating that the catastrophe was very large.14 In the Scottish Midland Valley, which incorporates Siccar Point, the sediments are deposited in a rectangular basin. It is 400 km long from Siccar Point in the east to Northern Ireland in the west. It is 100 km wide, from the Southern

Uplands to the Grampian Mountains in the north. It consists of pebble beds, sands and silts mixed with volcanic lavas and is more than 7 km thick. Not only that, but the beds are so amazingly uniform and parallel that they can be visually traced for huge distances. It was no small river that deposited these sediments in its delta. The physical characteristics of the Old Red Sandstone point to exceptional depositional processes, quite different from the sorts of processes that we see happening on the earth today.

Figure 8. A close-up of the contact between the vertical and horizontal beds. Note that the bottom beds have not been differentially weathered but have a clean, straight contact.Also, the sediments within the Old Red Sandstone contain abundant fossils of fish and plants (figure 9).15 The specimens are often well preserved, indicating rapid burial under unusual conditions. They must have been isolated rapidly from the environment to prevent decomposition and scavenging. These fossils indicate that the sediments were deposited extremely rapidly.Most of the sandstone strata show large-scale cross bedding and plane bedding, which indicates deep, fast-flowing water. This points to a high-energy depositional environment, not to long periods of time.The successive beds of the Old Red Sandstone show they were deposited

one after the other without significant time breaks between them. For example, there is no evidence of ancient soil layers, or of organic matter incorporated into a soil or of plant roots.13 Some sandstone horizons contain animal tracks, so there was not much time involved.16 There are no canyons or valleys cutting across the beds. Yet there should be if, for long periods, the weather had been eroding them. In other words, the vast time came, not from the rocks but, from Hutton’s imagination.A geological iconSo, Hutton did not find the idea of immense geological time, or ‘deep time’, in the rocks. Why did he misread them? Why do so many geology students look at the same outcrop and not realize that the long ages are missing? The vast age comes from a wrong belief about how the rocks formed. It willfully overlooks the geological effects of the worldwide Flood.

Figure 9. Diorama of ‘Devonian’ marine life. Fossils of plants and fish are found in the Old Red Sandstone.The unconformity at Siccar Point is evidence of catastrophe on a grand scale. Perhaps Hutton did not appreciate the magnitude, or the tectonic nature,17 of that global event. Early in the Flood, sediments were deposited continuously by underwater avalanches in a deep marine environment. Soon after, these were cemented, uplifted and eroded by continental-scale water movements. Then followed more deposition as the global inundation continued—rapidly depositing the Old Red Sandstone over Europe.Scientists call Hutton the father of modern geology and his theory has greatly affected scientific thought. But his ideas on the age of the earth represent a rejection of creation history and a return to the old Greek way of looking at things.

The ‘Arabia’: a steamboat buried in a cornfieldby Jonathan O’Brien

In 1856, while on a voyage up the Missouri River, the steamboat Arabia hit a concealed log and slowly began to sink.1 It had a full contingent of passengers and crew. Also on board was a cargo of new store goods including clothing, elegant china, preserved foods, tools and medicines, representing many of the necessities and small luxuries of life for the settlers of the western frontier.Eventually the steamboat disappeared completely beneath the water, but not before all the passengers and crew were rescued. A poor mule went down with the ship, along with the cargo. At first, attempts were made to recover some of the goods but the heavily mud-laden waters and fast-flowing current proved too difficult for the salvagers. The steamboat and its contents remained undisturbed on the bed of the river.

Over the years the river shifted its banks, with the result that the steamboat became deeply buried in river sediment. Where it sank became a cornfield, more than 800 metres (over half a mile) from the present course of the river. Arabia’sexact location was lost, and her story passed into legend.But in 1988, using modern geophysical equipment, explorers rediscovered the wreck. Although not a small steamboat, at 52 metres (171 feet) long and able to carry 222 tons of freight, the Arabiawas buried 14 metres (45 feet) underground. Large excavators and a crane were needed, and the salvagers ended up digging a hole as big as a football field.2The walnut log (below) that caused the sinking was still piercing the hull, and the bones of the long-dead mule were on the deck. Hundreds of the diverse cargo goods were recovered, many beautifully preserved.3 Today you can visit a museum displaying some of these items which provide a fascinating insight into the fashions, habits and styles of those frontier times.

Secular geologists often say that it takes eons of time for sedimentary layers to form. But the steamboat Arabia was completely buried in sediment, and then some, in about 50 years.4This gives a tiny insight into how the vast waters of the Flood, global in magnitude and laden with sand and mud, would be

capable of depositing much greater quantities of sediment than the Missouri River, over a much larger area, and in a much shorter space of time.

Flood geology vs secular catastrophismPublished: 14 April 2013 (GMT+10)

What are the differences?Much is made of the debate between ‘gradualists’ like Charles Lyell and ‘catastrophists’ like Georges Cuvier in the history of geology. In the 19th century it seemed that Lyell’s gradualism won the day—it was the dominant paradigm in geology for 150 years. However, Cuvier’s catastrophism has made a massive comeback in the last few decades. This presents new opportunities and challenges

for creationists. Carl Froede in his article The K/T impact hypothesis and secular neocatastrophism—why is this important to Flood geology? discusses some of the opportunities. Nick L. from the United States writes in response to this article, and CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds with comments interspersed, outlining some of the challenges and differences.Dear Nick,Thank you for your email.I really hate to be nitpicky, but mainstream acceptance of a form of limited catastrophism hardly validates the idea that the strata of the entire American West was deposited and sculpted by the flood and the ensuing retreat of the floodwaters (just an example I picked).Catastrophe is back on the table for discussion where it wasn’t before.True, but neither was the article implying that. The point is just that catastrophe is back on the table for discussion where it wasn’t before. At least now we don’t have to be completely talking past one another.The stratigraphic record is rife with the evidence of catastrophic events (that is why one of the basic sedimentary structures geology students are taught to identify is the scour/fill structure). But it is far more common to see the effects of slow deposition and erosion.Can we seriously say that after only ~30 years of serious reassessment of Lyell’s hold on geology? Lyell understood just how destructive the notion of catastrophe was to his entire historical framework—without something slow and gradual as an absolute norm there is no way to know purely from forensics when anything happened. This is why Lyell fought Cuvier and his followers with such vigour, and it’s why secular catastrophism must always anchor itself in something Lyellian—it has no timeline without Lyellian gradualism.Lyell understood just how destructive the notion of catastrophe was to his entire historical framework.

And we would of course dispute the notion that slow and gradual is the norm in the rock record (see our  Geology Q and A). But unless you understand the philosophical/theological background to our understanding of geology, then you’ll most likely be left trying to launch a positivistic 1  critique against a worldview that shuns positivism in any sort of historical study. (This doesn’t mean we leave no room for science, only that science doesn’t always get the final say.). But each position is far more complex than that in practice, especially when dealing with some specific empirical evidence. It has also been noted in laboratory experiments that the deposition of carbonate minerals (calcite, dolomite, aragonite, etc.) occurs on a timescale too slow for flood geology (read: Catastrophism) to explain the thick carbonate sequences of the Grand Canyon (see Plummer et al. 1978 or Reddy et al. 1981 for a discussion on the kinetics of carbonate deposition and dissolution).Creationists are not unaware of such ‘problems’. Andrew Snelling discusses a few factors that speak against the ideas that the Grand Canyon limestones are evidence of slow and gradual deposition.2 First, the grain size distribution and structure of the Grand Canyon limestones differ markedly from modern lime mud deposits found in shallow tropical waters. Second, there is observational evidence of catastrophic formation of lime mud deposits caused by hurricanes. Third, many of the Grand Canyon limestone deposits cover thousands of square kilometres. Fourth, the Redwall Limestone has a fossil nautiloid bed with an estimated one billion fossils. Moreover, from those observed there is a distinct pattern to their deposition position; they generally face a NW–SE direction, which suggests a strong current depositing the remains catastrophically, and not of slow-and-gradual processes.

You cite Bretz as your catalyst persona for breaking away from true uniformitarianism. This would not be noteworthy but for the fact that Bretz stubbornly clung to a far outdated theory of cave development (originally postulated by William Morris Davis in 1930) that was disproved by researchers in both Europe and the Americas. This ‘ostrich mentality’ is what I most often notice about publications Creation scientists: latch onto the only study that supports your views and stick your head in the sand to discount all others.Actually, the article somewhat questions Bretz’s impact on the gradualism/catastrophism debate. Carl Froede finds the catalyst for mainstream geology’s en masse break with Lyell in the impact hypothesis for the extinction of the dinosaurs. And note that Froede is not citing this K/T extinction event hypothesis because he believes it, but because it caused a paradigm shift among secular geologists.Besides, modern research on the Channeled Scablands still follows Bretz’s lead. There are disagreements over the number of floods that formed the scablands, but the flood hypothesis remains the constraining paradigm.And what do Bretz’s ideas about cave development have to do with his ‘Missoula Flood’ hypothesis? Just because one of his ideas was (presumably) wrong doesn’t mean they all were. And Bretz is widely recognized as a paradigm changer with respect to the Channeled Scablands—this is not news to modern geologists. So I don’t know how this article engendered an accusation of an “ostrich mentality” against us—you’ve cited something irrelevant to the impact of

Bretz in relation to the article’s theme and have provided no evidence of said “ostrich mentality”.Just in case this engenders a response, please understand a couple of things first. First, the mere fact we write rebuttal articles at all suggests we don’t simply cite studies that support our views. Second, it’s not as simple as ‘this study supports our ideas; this one doesn’t’. We come to the secular literature with a completely different set of assumptions about the past from what that literature operates with. We are bound to find certain studies more ‘useful’ than others because many will ask what we consider to be irrelevant questions—just as would be the case for a secular geologist if they investigated the creationist literature.As a modern secular geologist currently stuck in academia (read: grad school H***), I am not opposed to reading of or even considering the possible validity of other views, but I do believe in the process of peer review and full (within limits, obviously) and fair consideration of all pertinent research.You are willing to give full consideration—within limits. What limits? What determines those limits? Is how you determine those limits logically sound?We believe peer review is a useful method of evaluating ideas as well—we wouldn’t run a peer reviewed publication if we didn’t (and I personally speak as a member of the editorial team)! However, peer review is far from perfect—see Creationism, science and peer review for more details.The creation framework is very different from anything you’ll find in the secular literature. It really is a different way of thinking about the rocks.

UK under water in Journal of Creation 27(1)Published: 11 April 2013 (GMT+10)

by Joanna F. WoolleyNew fossil and field evidence relating to the structure of the root system of lycopods, the dominant vegetation of Upper Carboniferous strata, are presented and critically examined. Neither the elastic and partially hollow nature of the lycopod root structure, their inferred geometry throughout early ontological development, nor other evidence support the prevailing paradigm that the coal measures formed in a terrestrial swamp environment. Rather, they favour the floating forest or silvomarine hypothesis of Kuntze regarding the formation of Paleozoic coal layers.

Are lycopods structured for water immersion?Part 1 of this paper traced how researchers have traditionally thought the Paleozoic coal deposits of the northern hemisphere formed in swamps.1 It described how in recent decades there has arisen renewed interest in an alternate view—i.e. that they were the result of beached floating ocean forests. The originators of the floating forest paradigm were biologists, arguing strongly from paleontological evidence that the dominant Paleozoic fern-tree plants were structured for a water environment. An in-depth and independent investigation would be needed to counter their conclusions, but such an investigation might serve to strengthen and extend their proposals if they were correct.In this article the author reproduces some salient points brought up by the floating forest advocates while adding her own independent observational checks and

calculations. Mathematical modeling of lycopods is initiated here by looking at their root systems. Some startling and significant finds have resulted from this analytical investigation.What do Paleozoic fern-tree roots say about coal formation?The first thing to note about the lycopod root system is that it is found fossilized in an amazing variety of distinct rock types. Stigmaria are found in clay, claystone, shale, sandstone (including greywacke), limestone, and even coal.2 If Stigmaria were fossilized in situ as the dominant paradigm assumes, then they were lithified in a wider range of ‘soils’ than any known plant can tolerate. Also, stigmarian rootlets were designed to be shed.3 Hence, eitherStigmaria were the roots of a rather unusual and extraordinary plant, or the assumption that their fossilization always took place in situ needs revision. One hypothesis that accomplishes this revision is that Stigmaria were part of a floating forest, an ancient quaking bog, in a marine environment that was rapidly buried. If the biological principle that “form indicates function” has any real meaning, Stigmaria should have morphology suited to an aquatic environment that should still be evident in their fossils.New evidence for the vacuous nature of Paleozoic lycopod roots

Figure 1. Well-preserved rootlets in coal balls:Stigmaria ficoides Brongniart rootlets in cross-section (after Gürich-Gothan28).

Figure 2. Cross-section of a Stigmaria which had fossil fern leaves between the layers (after Brown29).If lycopod roots were hollow, this would be a strong argument they were suited for a watery environment. Indeed, it has long been known that their appendices or rootlets were hollow. Past examination of excellently preserved rootlets in coal balls has established this fact (figure 1).4 Furthermore, vintage scientific reports have noted that Stigmaria themselves were either hollow or had interiors with contents that were easily invaded. One particularly good fossil sample collected in the past had layers in its interior that even had fern fossils between them (figure 2).5As part of this investigation, the author has collected and measured samples of Stigmaria. All the samples discussed in this paper were collected at locations within a three-kilometer radius of a point centered just west of the commercial centre of Portersville, Pennsylvania, primarily from a sandstone layer immediately below the Middle Kittanning Coal. The fossil sites were found in the following manner. Satellite photographs were used to geomorphologically locate rapidly eroding areas on the edge of steep gullies (i.e. buried runoff channels were sought as possible Stigmaria collecting localities). The steepness of the gullies was a consequence of the stream base level being influenced by what is interpreted as a glacier-caused stream reversal. The rapid erosion was due to a perched water table, a consequence of a thin clay layer at the base of the undercoal sandstone. All predicted sites yielded Stigmaria. However, those Stigmaria that had been compressed into the thickness of a double ‘bark’ were excluded from this in-depth investigation. The existence of such samples, however, goes a long way toward proving the conjecture that they were either hollow or at least easily flattened.Some of the samples examined strengthened this impression of an easily invaded interior. Each of these shows the broken extension of the rootlet attached to its central core or ‘stele’ swept back along and parallel to the stele’s axis as if the Stigmaria had been intrusively filled by sediment originating from a source closer to its trunk. (Evidence of prominent micaceous layers on or in the interiors was found in 23.6% of the samples6 collected and analyzed.7) In order to further test whether stigmarian interiors were hollow, measurements were taken of the first 30 logical salient characteristics of stigmarian fossils suggested by examination of the fossil samples collected.6 Among the measurements tabulated were those of their cross-sectional shape (table 1).Table 1. Shapes of collected and measured Stigmaria from Portersville, Pennsylvania, USA.

Cross-sectional shape % of samples % with steles % with lower side covered with stigmata

Circular or Elliptic 25.8 83 62

‘I-beam’-shaped 3.4 33 67

‘U’-shaped 24.7 45 51

Semicircular 38.2 44 1.2

Triangular 2.2 50 0

Rectangular 5.6 40 20

Figure 3. Genesis of ‘I-beam’ shapedStigmaria subjected to uniform crushing pressure from above.Many (25.8%) of the measured Stigmaria were circular or elliptic in cross-section. Moreover, 3.4% had an ‘I-beam’ shape, as if the sides had been crushed from an originally circularly-shaped object. An additional 38.2% were somewhat semicircular, as if they had been sheared (which, judging from the absence of stigmata on the base of these Stigmaria, appears to have been the case).8The crushed ‘I-beam’ shape would be expected if Stigmaria were reinforced by spoked rootlets radiating from a stele and pinned at the root’s outer edge, and then subjected to crushing pressures. If a Stigmaria, which was originally circular in cross-section, were subjected to uniform crushing pressure from above (figure 3), it would tend to first take on an elliptic cross-sectional shape. However, this would make some of the rootlets attached along the center of the flattened top and bottom limp, while others at the ends, where the curvature was greatest, would transmit extreme tension to the sides. It would then either collapse inwards if the sides were pliable enough, or the roots or rootlets could rupture, both of these cases being observed.9 This perceived observational agreement is mathematical: all the I-beam shaped Stigmaria follow the analytical considerations contained in the preceding reference when they are being crushed, lending credence to the conjecture.10

Figure 4. A bent Stigmaria piece with compressionally displaced stele (arrow) collected from Portersville, Pennsylvania, USA.The Stigmaria collected in Pennsylvania appear to have been easily bent, crushed, or wrinkled (figures 4, 5a, and 5b. Figure 5b is an enlargement of a part of figure 5a). Wrinkles paralleling the stigmarian axis showed in 8.4% of the measured samples. Conversely, when the longitudinal axes of the Stigmaria are bent, they exhibit compression folds along their inner radius while appearing stiffened by wrinkle-smoothing tension along their outer radii of curvature. This reflects the roots’ lateral stiffness, despite their transverse susceptibility to being crushed. Stigmaria under bending tension consistently show their steles as having moved off centre toward the outer edges in response to this bending. This bespeaks of a probable mobility of the stele, one that may indicate that the inner pith around it is very pliable or non-existent.

Figure 6. Measured and normalized distribution of steles relative to the cross-section of the Stigmaria. These steles should be clustered toward the center of the cross-sectional area of Stigmaria if the root were solid; instead they are bunched toward the bottom.More telling are the locations of steles on collected samples relative to the cross-section of the Stigmaria.11 These steles should be clustered toward the centre of the cross sectional area of Stigmaria if the root were solid, instead they are bunched toward the bottom (figure 6).12 One unusual stigmarian fossil sample found in shale illustrates many previous points made above and partially settles whether or not the stigmarian cores were hollow. This meter-long mudstone or sandstone sample (missing the middle third of its length) was found in situ in the centre of the carbonaceous Clarion Shale of western Pennsylvania next to many fossil ferns (in all probability where the Scrubgrass Coal would have been if it were locally present). It constitutes the very tip of the stigmarian root. It is circular or elliptic in cross-section but progresses to a crushed ‘I-beam’ shape while its stele progressively sags as it moves towards the tree-fern trunk. More importantly, this one Stigmaria sample apparently

underwent a different taphonomic (probably electrochemical) history from all other collected or viewed samples. Besides apparently lacking any trace of external rootlets, this well-preserved sample had at least 30% of its core filled with what appears to be a fossilized spongy material, possibly reproducing tracheids.13 Whatever fossilized biological material there was appears to be clustered around the central stele. So it appears, from an examination of this sample, that there could be several possibilities for Stigmaria:the spongy material was agglomerated toward the tip and decreased toward the trunk;it was pervasive near the trunk and decreased toward the tip;

Figure 7. Indented Stigmaria surface due to an interior collapsed stele (after Scheven3).it filled the whole inside of the Stigmaria (except for the obvious places like rootlet extensions and the space occupied by the stele);or it filled a given percentage of the interior (30% or more).The stele itself appears to be subject to collapse, although not nearly as readily as theStigmaria proper, judging from the samples collected in western Pennsylvania. A progressively collapsing stele has been found on a Stigmaria from Plainville, Massachusetts. Other researchers have found indentations in the exterior shape of Stigmaria apparently mirroring delayed stele collapse (figure 7)—a phenomenon observed by the author on a specimen she did not collect, one not from her collecting region. Such a phenomenon probably indicates a different stratigraphic or taphonomic history from that undergone by all the specimens collected by her. Summarizing, it appears that every aspect of

lycopod roots indicate they were both light in weight and elastically pliable beyond the normal limits generally ascribed to the roots of terrestrial tree-sized plants. This is especially true of its rootlets or appendices.The structure and fossilization of Paleozoic lycopod rootsStigmarian roots have long been recognized as being fossilized with their rootlets radiating out perpendicularly from them (figures: 8, 9, and 10). 14 This layout is seen as an aquatic adaptation, not a terrestrial one.

There appears to be no logical reason for the existence of perpendicularly radiating rootlets or appendages of lycopod roots if they belong to terrestrial plants. There are especially no reasons for them to double back

upon themselves or wrap around the Stigmaria. Yet this is seen frequently in samples collected, leading to serious doubts about them being terrestrial in habitat (figure 11).15

Figure 8. Drawing of rootlets radiating from a Stigmaria, used by Kuntze2 to illustrate their structure.

Figure 9. Model of the tip portion of a Stigmaria with radiating rootlets (after Cleal and Thomas30).

Figure 10. End-on photograph of a Stigmaria with radiating rootlets, Plainville, Massachusetts, USA.

Figure 11. Schematic showing the exterior rootlet orientation from an examination of 106 Stigmaria fossil samples. Not many had extant rootlets attached to the fossils; most radially spreading rootlets were left with the matrix from which the Stigmaria were extracted.Root systems vary widely in their form and show adaptations to markedly different life cycles. They also tend to fall into categories that can be related to their seed form. For example, most monocotyledonous plants have fibrous root systems. Those species of monocotyledons that have bulbs, corms, or rhizomes additionally have mainly adventitious roots, as do grasses where these supplement their seminal roots:“The root systems of dicotyledonous plants, on the other hand, are usually based on a taproot and its branches. The taproot often does not persist, however, and then the framework of the root system consists of several of the lateral branches.”16

Stigmaria, the root of lycopods, does not fit into either of these categories. It has lateral roots but never a taproot. It most resembles, by analogy of form, the root systems of pond plants like the bladderwort (Utricularia vulgaris).17 The very large rootlets of Stigmaria not only stick out straight from the root radially on all sides, but they are also very long. They are so

long, in fact, that the top ones would be sticking up in the air unless the lycopod they are associated with germinated from a deeply buried site or was later completely buried by sediment. Both of these possibilities are very unlikely: the lycopods’ peculiar ontogeny would seem to argue convincingly against them.The size of this quandary can be illustrated by a few examples. The mature Stigmariain figure 12 are all a meter or less below the germinating point of the lycopod, whereas rootlets on some similarly mature lycopods are as much as 2.0 meters long.18 There is a possible reconciliation to this apparent difficulty. If the rootlets of the lycopods were similar to the roots of mangrove trees, they would be expected to be air-breathing, possessing special tiny pores (or lenticels) and large air spaces (or aerenchyma). No explicit mention or any evidence of the existence of lenticels on the rootlets ofStigmaria have been found.

Figure 12. Lycopod bases (the small one is immature) with branching tree root stigmaria, Museum der Geol. Landesanstalt in Berlin. (From Gotham, W. and Weyland, H., Lehrbuch der Palaobotanik, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, p. 145, 1964.)However, many cases of silica infilling the rootlets were found, as if they were transporting this mineral in later taphonomic decay. These cases are especially associated with rootlets that show bending near the root—a generally atypical occurrence. From this and other evidence, the author surmises that lycopod rootlets were stiffened by silica (as are some parts of contemporary marsh plants). This would explain their assumed high specific gravity (based on the assumption that they were neutrally buoyant). It would also protect them from rot and salinity. Their taphonomic decay rate is inferred to be the determinant of the various fossil forms these

rootlets take. They usually appear as rigid and uniform cylinders radiating straight out from the root, but sometimes they appear flattened and expanded except near the root connection, or as silica cylinders with coal macerals in the middle replicating former pliability even near the root connection.One final point should be noted concerning the rootlets. Consider the two samples with an abrupt angular flexure of many straight-sided radiating rootlets which were collected in the eastern Pennsylvanian anthracite region. These samples of flexure, not faulting, suggest some sort of mass readjustment of a semisolid block within a more fluid medium. (If it were an artefact of terrestrial erosion, the flexed rootlets would not be as straight and parallel as they are.) The majority of the author’s fieldwork was done in bituminous regions. Not a single case of slumped rootlets was found in this region. The author’s collection of Stigmaria in anthracite regions has been at least an order of magnitude less than that in bituminous ones. However, it is precisely in these regions of greater metamorphism that the two samples of slumped rootlets were found. This may be coincidence, or it may be related to some other phenomenon or combination of phenomena (e.g. more intense folding, differences in dewatering or diagenesis).

Figure 13. Schematic of lycopod development (modified after Eggert19).An unusual ontogenyThe lycopods had a much different development than other tree-sized seed plants. (We know this because of the painstaking work of D.A. Eggert, who serially sectioned many individual lycopod parts from coal balls, resulting in a detailed hypothetical reconstruction of their ontogeny.19) They started life as a closed megaspore, a sort of boat seed case, something one would expect if they germinated in an aquatic medium.20 Then they went on to form a young plant with a rounded stump-like, full-girth appearance (figure 13). This developmental pattern markedly differs from that of other tree-like plants, the growth of which is primarily upward with girth expansion occurring over time by the accumulation of secondary xylem (the woody element of such

trees). The issue of whether or not this lycopod development reflects a design for an aquatic environment will be covered in a future article.If a lycopod were to start its development in marine surroundings, one would suspect that it would be so designed as to be both partially sticking out of the water and also able to right itself if overturned in the juvenile stage. The known stigmarian structure, including its interior voids or spongy areas, ensures the first condition under any reasonable circumstances, by way of its presumed density.21 Let us now consider its ability to right itself.If one imagines an ideal immature lycopod turned upside down and totally immersed in ocean water, it becomes obvious such a circumstance would be highly unstable. Because the lycopod was assumed to be originally buoyant, its four starting roots would stick out of the water. But now that they were exposed in air, they would gravitationally present a highly unstable (or metastable) situation. A root, then a second one, would fall to the water surface with the slightest perturbation.

Figure 14. Schematic on stability of immature lycopods. The overturned position of the baby lycopod would be irreversible for the left side of the shown sequences.Assuming the ontogeny of Eggert,22 there would be at least two critical design criteria that logically would have to be met if the lycopod were to right itself in order to survive. If it were overturned and were lying with two roots on the surface of the water and two sticking up in the air, then the angle between the plane of those roots on the surface of the water and the plane of those sticking up in the air definitely would have to be less than 90°. Otherwise the overturned position of the baby lycopod would be irreversible (figure 14).23 On the other hand, if it were laying somewhat sideways while two of its roots were on the water surface plane with the other two submerged—not an unreasonable situation if it were naturally righting itself—then the angle between the two planes containing the roots should be near 90° if the lycopod were to continue to right itself by way of its density distribution (including voids and spongy areas causing positive buoyancy). These two considerations need to be checked against available evidence. Together they restrict the interplane angle between pairs of roots to be close to, but less than, 90°.It has been asserted that the rootlets shed themselves uniformly in a non-traditional manner seemingly unrelated to water availability, more like the shedding of leaves due to maturing plant growth. Shedding of rootlets is well known among

plants.24 However, the rootlets referred to as being shed here are dwarfed by stigmarian appendices. Furthermore, the shedding being referred to is done by areas, the plant abandoning non-productive rootlets generally from mineral-depleted areas. This is unlikely to be the case for water emplacement (e.g. in a swamp), where mineral mobility in the fluid would tend to be equalized over larger areas. Note that the shedding of rootlets on an immature lycopod would be advantageous in its ability to right itself in a fluid environment if the rootlets shed were the expected middle ones—the ones not on or near its top or root-tip-growing surfaces. If rootlets were likely to be injured drastically enough to allow water invasion, and if they were close to neutrally buoyant to begin with, then it would make perfect sense from the stability point of view for water-immersed plants to shed them.One lycopod root system documented in the literature (figure 15a) is close enough to the stage right before it starts its upward trunk growth that its geometry at that point could be reasonably estimated by visual backtracking of its apparent growth. When this is done and the angle between any two planes, each containing two of its primary roots, is calculated, a value of 84° is obtained.25 This lycopod root is quite typical of the Pennsylvania strata. It is of a Stigmaria ficoides Brongniart: it represents the overwhelming majority type of lycopod roots from the Pennsylvanian. On the other hand, the most unusual lycopod-like root base from the Pennsylvanian known to the author is Stigmariopsis Grand’Eury (shown from a hypothesized reproduction of it in figure 15b26). Calculating the angle between the two planes containing pairs of its immature roots gives a value of 86°. These two examples are considered as bracketing what would be expected from such root systems. Note that both of these bounding cases clearly meet the criteria necessary for lycopods to be able to right themselves if they ended upside-down in seawater. Also observe the stigmarian-like root structure shown in figure 16 of a Mesozoic lycopsid from Vladivostok, Russia.27 Its form suggests adaptation for a watery environment and further strengthens and extends the argument that many ancient plants were created for such an environment.

Figure 15a. Stigmaria ficoides Brongniart from the Carboniferous of Yorkshire, UK, side and bottom views (after Williamson31).

Figure 15b. Stigmariopsis Grand’ Eury schematic side and bottom views (after Hirmer, ref. 4, p. 297), the most unusual lycopod-like root base from the Pennsylvanian know to the author (shown from a hypothesized reproduction of it).

Figure 16. Bottom portion of a Mesozoic lycopsid shoot with stigmarian-like branching. On the shoot itself are the scars of leaves; on the root branching are the stigmata of the rootlets (after Williamson32).

ConclusionsThere is much fossil evidence suggesting the roots of Upper Carboniferous fern trees were quite elastic. In addition, there is a plethora of observations suggesting they contained vacuous and fragile organic matter, perhaps even being partially hollow. Their unusual ontogeny and radiating rootlets also suggest immersion in a watery environment. These factors provide strong evidence for the silvomarine hypothesis of Kuntze concerning the nature of Upper Carboniferous floating forests. They herald the need for uniformitarians to revisit and revise their long-age, vegetative swamp environment explanations for the formation of Paleozoic coal layers.

The origin of the Carboniferous coal measures—part 3: a mathematical test of lycopod root structureby Joanna F. Woolley

The notion of the compatibility of form and function in plant organisms is used as a guide to mathematically predict the geometrical shape of Carboniferous Stigmaria (i.e. lycopod roots). It is assumed that Stigmariawere created to be in an abundant fluid environment. The analytical predictions resulting from this assumption are compared to the Paleozoic fossil evidence. This mathematical model is part of a complete lycopod model that is outlined in enough detail to be reproduced. Finally a rationale for the discrepancies in the depiction ofStigmaria in popular and scientific venues versus what has been used in this model developed is given. Agreement between predicted stigmarian structure and the fossil evidence strongly supports an abundantly fluid environment for them. It favors the floating forest, catastrophic paradigm of Paleozoic coal formation.

Part 1 of this paper1 noted how uniformitarians thought the Paleozoic coal deposits of the northern hemisphere formed in swamps. This was despite the plethora of evidence they uncovered which presented problems for their paradigm. Particularly troublesome were the difficulties surrounding the incredible biodensity of fossils in the coal measures coupled with a lack of biodiversity; the disarticulation of the fossils coupled with their excellent preservation; and the separation of different fossilized parts of the same object, such as roots and trunks, into different stratigraphic layers. Other anomalies included the lateral geographical extent of the coal seams, the high purity of the coal seams with minimal contamination from mud and sand, and the inability to find an analogous modern environment.The first part of this paper further noted the existence of an alternate paradigm, that of the floating forest or silvomarine origin of the Paleozoic coal deposits. This hypothesis by biologists is supported by their paleontological and chemical evidence that the dominant Paleozoic fern tree plants were structured for a water environment. In line with this, the second part of this paper2 concentrated on presenting new fossil and field evidence directly bearing on the elastic and vacuous nature of those fern trees. The author’s calculations concerning their root structures, their unusual ontogeny and radiating rootlets and other evidence were found to strongly support the floating forest hypothesis.The silvomarine hypothesis for the formation of Paleozoic coal beds was first put forth in the latter part of the nineteenth century by the German biologist Dr Otto Kuntze. His concept was that the Paleozoic coal beds formed from dense vegetative mats or forests which had floated on the oceans’ surfaces. His two books on the subject were filled with numerous observations of the fossil evidence in addition to a phenomenal breath of quantitative analyses (e.g. on coal bed chemistry).However, he failed to address some major questions which arise concerning the viability of his floating forest hypothesis. Where did the intervening limestone, shale, sandstone, and clay layers come from? Why are the fern tree roots that form the base of this forest almost always separated from their trunks? How do you account for the large number of coal layers in cyclothems? Why is the biodiversity so low? And so forth.As a first step in quantitatively examining some of these questions, a mathematical model of the dominant vegetation in the Paleozoic coal beds should be made. This is of much greater significance because of the extraordinarily low biodiversity seen in the coal beds. This paper presents a mathematical model of a lycopod or fern tree, concentrating on the significance of its root structure.

Figure 1. [Above] A Stigmaria ficoidesBrongniart from the Middle Pennsylvanian of the Piesberg near Osnabruck, Germany; [Below] a schematic configuration (top view).

Alpha = 78.86 degrees, beta = 69.2 degrees,; for a 9-meter diameter: a= 0.716829006 m, b = 0.942453873 m, c = 2.98482897578 m; for a 6.7-meter diameter: a = 0.533639371 meters, b = 0.7016045499 meters, and c = 2.22203934863.A mathematical testA reasonable assumption for the spread of a lateral Paleozoic lycopod root system in an aqueous environment would be that at its termini for the mature Stigmaria, and perhaps in its intermediate stages at the points where its roots bifurcate, its roots should be equidistant from each other. That is, they would be distributed equally around a circle centered at their genesis point. This is certainly the case for the start of all lycopod root systems: the four roots are spaced at 90° from each other to begin with (figure 1).3Now consider the next stage of growth: from the first root bifurcation to where the root is ready to bifurcate again. If we had the lengths of the first two stages of these Stigmaria, then there would be a uniquely determined angle between them if the roots are equidistant from each other at the termini of both stages. If ‘ a’ is the common length of the first four branches, and ‘b’ the common length of the next eight, with ‘α’ being the bifurcation angle, then ‘a’ and ‘b’ are related explicitly through the following equation:a = b ( [ 1 + √2 ] sin [ α/2 ] – cos [ α/2 ] ).Therefore any previously published example of such a root system could have both the lengths of its first two stages measured and that of the bifurcation angle between them. The lengths could then be put into the equation that calculated the ideal bifurcation angle under the given assumptions. The calculated and measured angles could then be compared to see how valid the assumption is in practice.Take the example from the literature shown at the top of figure 1. However, note that there is considerable variation in the lengths of the root sections (the averaged values were used), apparently because some suffered from adverse growing conditions. The first bifurcation angle was calculated to be 79°, and the averaged measured angle between them turned out to be 75°. Hence, we have reasonable agreement, though it is not perfect. However, the final stage of root growth in this specimen is far more interesting.Given the lengths and the analytically determined angle from the example under discussion, an iterative mathematical procedure can be used to calculate the angles between the final branchings of the roots and their lengths if they must be equidistant from each other.The calculations showed that every second pair of terminal roots has to cross each other. That the terminal roots have to cross each other can also be shown geometrically. Up to the first bifurcation, the stigmarian branches make an equal angle of 90° with any circle centered at the start of the root system. At the first bifurcation point, the new outwardly progressing branches then make the same angle in absolute magnitude (but not 90°) with any circle of expansion. However, these angles have opposite signs at alternate positions around the periphery of any of these circles. When the branches have grown to where they are equidistant from each other, the second point of bifurcation has been reached, by definition. The angles made by the two new branches in the next bifurcation then have to be radically different: one of them approaches any circle of expansion at a more tangential aspect, while the other one approaches at more of a normal aspect. Therefore, the adjacent branches that approach from a skimming tangent must necessarily cross each other eventually, because they are rapidly approaching each other while the other pair is on a more nearly parallel course. Thus the distance between them closes as they grow outward before they cross. They have to cross in order to put distance between themselves equal to that of the more nearly parallel branches. This is a most unnatural circumstance if the roots are embedded in soil and not a fluid, at least from the perspective of efficient use of resources.One example from the scientific literature had an angle of 57°. 4 This was consistent with the calculated angle for the crossing of the stigmarian roots of 58.06°. The author also collected one sample of fossil stigmarian roots preserving this junction; the angle measured at it was 53°. Another sample, from southeastern Kentucky’s Bryson Formation, was also located. It again had an angle that measured 53°. These three examples give some added confidence in the mathematical model, though the agreement could be better.Other assumptions on the root lengths and bifurcation angles were considered, but found wanting. For instance, retaining the assumption of the equal separation distance at the termini of the roots (just before they bifurcate or at their maximum extent), but adding the requirement that the bifurcation angles between all the sets of roots for all bifurcations be equal, will not allow the branches to cross each other and remain equidistant. That is, such a solution is impossible: it is mathematically excluded when the angles are required to be equal. Furthermore, for the case where the terminal branches are not allowed to cross but the equal bifurcation angles requirement is retained, the solution space is from just above 30° to 60°, which is below the value of any bifurcation angle seen in fossil evidence the author is aware of. Finally, the ratios of lengths which meet both the equal-spacing-only-at-the-final-terminal and equal-bifurcation-angles-for-all-of-them without crossing requirements are far from those observed in real fossil remains.This all strongly suggests that such a root system was indeed designed for a watery environment. If it were not, then the plant would have, at one point in the terminal stage of its roots’ growth, a situation where every second pair of root tips of the plant would be nearly coincident. This is definitely not a strategy that one would imagine a plant would pursue to maximize its nutrient intake in a water-limited environment. When this prediction is compared to the photographs of the few existing extant stigmarian root systems available to the author, good agreement is found.

Figure 2. Reproduction of an unrealistically distorted depiction of a Lepidodendron and its roots, abstracted from the University of California at Berkeley’s department of paleontology website.The mathematical model of a Stigmaria is just one part of a complete lycopod mathematical model outlined here.5 It was developed to quantitatively answer the many tough questions about the Paleozoic floating forest, e.g. those concerning the large number of layers in Paleozoic cyclothems; the biodensity and particular spacing of lycopods; and the origin of the limestone, shale, sandstone, and clay layers in cyclothems. These questions and others, like why Stigmaria are nearly always found separated from their lycopod trunks, will be answered in forthcoming articles. The answers are both intriguing and surprising, providing good reasons to believe the superior merit of the silvomarine hypothesis.Typical misleading representations of Stigmaria and lycopodsDespite the long-term existence of unequivocally clear evidence to use in reconstructing lycopod root systems, especially the crossing of their roots, accurate portrayals of them are exceedingly rare.6 What reconstructions are attempted usually mimic the roots of contemporary trees with shallow roots splayed out radially from the base, with a notable absence of any root crossings. A few typical examples of this tendency follow.The University of California at Berkeley paleontology department’s web site reproduces a representation of Stigmaria (see figure 2) which ignores the symmetry and consistent root crossings

of Stigmaria.7 In addition, the height of the Lepidodendron lycopod is distorted by a factor of nearly five (despite referencing work by Eggert where this is not the case). All these gross distortions help hide the true nature of the floating forest. The particular height distortion is ubiquitous in the scientific literature8 as are similar misrepresentations of the Stigmaria.

Figure 3. A questionable reproduction of the Upper Carboniferous forest, as displayed at the Pennsylvania State Museum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.Pennsylvania contains some of the world’s best examples of Upper Carboniferous strata. Accordingly, the Pennsylvania State Museum in Harrisburg has exhibits highlighting coal-producing Carboniferous vegetation. This vegetation is dominated by the lycopod fern trees, shown uprooted in the three accompanying photographs of paintings and models from the museum (figures 3, 4 and 5). However, even though the exterior dimensions and morphology of the lycopods are well known, they are grossly misrepresented in the museum. For example, the roots are only one fourth the size they should

be, the rootlets are one twelfth the size they should be (the equivalent of pretending a six foot man is only six inches high!), and they are missing on the top of the roots (except at the tips of them) and shown bending downward rather than radiating straight out from the root. All of these disingenuous representations are necessary, along with other ones concerning the biodiversity and biochemistry of the Pennsylvanian, to maintain the fiction that Pennsylvanian coal was produced in swamps rather than from a flood-beached floating forest.Some may suggest that governments cannot be expected to get things of a technical nature correct. However, the Pennsylvania State exhibit was dedicated on June 18, 1976, and had paleontologist Donald Baird as a consultant.9 Although his expertise centers on tetrapods (i.e. amphibians and lepospondyli), it would be logical to assume that he was aware and approved the presentation of lycopods at the museum.

Figure 4. A questionable reproduction of an uprooted Stigmaria with rootlets, as displayed at the Pennsylvania State Museum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Figure 5. A questionable reproduction of an uprooted Stigmaria with rootlets (note absence of rootlets on most of the top [left] side) as displayed at the Pennsylvania State Museum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

There were several species of Stigmaria named before 1820. However, these names are not given scientific credence because they occur before the date an international commission on botanical names was established. 10 After that date various researchers began to produce descriptions of new species and otherwise add to our knowledge of  Stigmaria. Because this data was scattered throughout various scientific publications in multiple languages, it became evident that an encyclopedic review of the subject would be most beneficial. Such a review was undertaken in French under the editorship of Edouard Boureau, with William G. Chaloner writing it.11Chaloner is noted for his work on fossil spores, not on lycopods. Perhaps because of this his review was all the more candid than it would have been otherwise. He noted that it was difficult to affirm the validity of the different species of Stigmaria that had been described. This was because some of them had been established only after a few transverse cuts had been made on fossil specimens and it was not certain these were not just displaying different stages of stigmarian ontogeny. In fact, it is likely the three groups that species were placed into were simply reflections of taphonomic disturbances rather than speciation. More on this topic will be given after the following discussion.

Figure 6. The details, as well as the overall picture, of Stigmaria are misrepresented in the above diagrams abstracted from an encyclopedic review of lycopods.Similarly, the author has seen a complete gradation between smooth and grooved stigmarian steles, so this may also be a taphonomic development that is not related to differences inStigmaria species. Note that Chaloner fails to even mention the two books written by the botanist Dr Otto Kuntze. Yet Kuntze’s work is far broader in scope of specimens considered and had far more empirical rigour than any reference Chaloner chose to cite.Figure 6 is from Chaloner’s review.12 The upper part of it gives a typically disingenuous, asymmetrical view of generally non-crossing Stigmaria. The distortions of the fossil evidence all tend to support the swamp-generation hypothesis at the expense of the silvomarine one. The lower part of the diagram is much worse. The rootlets are shown visibly tapering with one of them bifurcating. They are noted as being 40 cm long, one fifth of the length reported elsewhere. They are shown bending downward. Out of the estimated 100,000 rootlets seen by the author, none have been visibly tapered, bent downward instead of radiating out perpendicularly to the surface of the Stigmaria, bifurcated, or been as short as represented here when their lengths could possibly be traced that far.13The lower part of figure 6 does present the hollow space in the interior of the Stigmaria. However, the rootlets are

shown as traversing parallel to the stele in this space before they enter it. This has never been observed by the author. Numerous examples of the rootlets entering the stele perpendicularly—without undergoing any bends in the interior of the Stigmaria have been seen. The case of usually broken rootlets being swept in one direction along the axes of the stele has also been observed. Could it be that the few cuts examined by other researchers on a simple  Stigmaria are running into this phenomenon without correctly interpreting it? Are Stigmaria species being defined on the basis of structural disturbances having nothing to do with evolutionary differentiation and everything to do with a violent placement of a floating forest? Is it possible investigators haven’t seen the superiority of the floating forest hypothesis because they have been too preoccupied with the quest to prove an untenable guess to have noticed the true macroscopic nature of lycopod fern trees?ConclusionsThe Paleozoic fern tree root model is an integral part of a more extensive model of the entire lycopod. Such a model is necessary to quantitatively examine the various aspects of the hypothesis that the Carboniferous coal measures were emplaced by the beaching of floating forests. The input to the Paleozoic fern tree model is contrasted to the input that would have been derived if the contemporary consensus depiction of lycopods by uniformitarians were used. It is conjectured that arguments about homologous structures and evolutionary adaptive reduction, the dwelling on evolutionary expectations rather than on observations, has steered researchers away from a more realistic appreciation of Paleozoic lycopod structure and the floating forest hypothesis. Contemporary examples of dubious depictions of lycopod structures, ones showing gross distortions from the fossil evidence, are given. The work presented herein favors the silvomarine or floating forest hypothesis of Kuntze at the expense of the swamp hypothesis for the genesis of Paleozoic coal beds.

The K/T impact hypothesis and secular neocatastrophism—why is this important to Flood geology?by Carl R. Froede Jr

Figure 1. Arizona Meteor Crater. Originally envisioned as a crater created by a volcanic explosion, later study demonstrated it was formed by the impact of an iron asteroid. Questions remain regarding its age but creationists interpret it as having formed after the Flood.Historians of the secular geological sciences have documented the 19th-century victory of Lyellian gradualism over creation and secular catastrophism. However, gradualism’s rigid approach stifled creative thought and forced many secular geologists to accept counterintuitive interpretations of geological phenomena. Any appeal to catastrophic processes was generally deemed unacceptable. As a science, geology then languished under the burden of gradualism.

This stranglehold was challenged in the early 1920s by Bretz’s work on the Channeled Scablands1 of Washington State. The refusal of mainstream geologists to admit the obvious was a reflection of the depth of the philosophical commitment to Lyell. Lest anyone should doubt the seriousness of ending one’s professional career by defending some aspect of catastrophism, one needs to look no further than the extensive disclaimer in Derek Ager’s classic book, The New Catastrophism.2 Thanks to Lyell’s efforts to smear Cuvier with the brush of ‘Scriptural Geology’, geologists long equated any form of catastrophism with the Flood.What changed?Though many credit Bretz with breaking the stranglehold of gradualism, the modern rebirth of secular catastrophism (i.e. neocatastrophism) actually was forced on the gradualists with the unique proposal for the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous by the impact of an asteroid.3 This simple proposal initiated a debate between those who defended an Earth-based cause for the extinction and those who invoked an extraterrestrial (and catastrophic) cause.At the time of the Alvarez et al. proposal, a major shortcoming of the extraterrestrial hypothesis was the lack of any supporting impact crater dated to the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) extinction event. Many who rejected the asteroid impact hypothesis pointed to large-scale volcanism. In 1991, the Chicxulub impact crater was identified in the southern Gulf of Mexico and dated to the K/T boundary.4 But even then, many rejected it as the cause of the extinction event and continued to believe that a better cause was to be found in massive flood basalts. However, supporting evidence of an extraterrestrial cause—impact glass spherules and tsunami deposits—were identified at several locations around the Gulf of Mexico. Also, radiometric dating of flood basalt candidates returned dates that fell outside an acceptable range. Those who continued to advocate a terrestrial cause for the K/T extinction event were effectively running out of ammunition.Solidification of the extraterrestrial causeMounting evidence in support of an extraterrestrial cause for the extinction at the K/T boundary has slowly overwhelmed its opposition such that there is now little debate among secular geoscientists over the extraterrestrial cause for the global extinction that they allege occurred at the K/T boundary. Most of the work being conducted today regarding this theory revolves around better defining the formation, morphology, and scale of the Chicxulub Crater.5,6

Why does this matter?Few outside of the geological sciences fully appreciate or understand the paradigm shift that was cemented by the acceptance of the extraterrestrial ‘dinosaur killer’. Lyellian gradualism suffered a fatal blow. Neocatastrophism, if only relegated to discrete periods of deep geological time, was no longer automatically rejected. Suddenly, the rock record could allow for catastrophism (see figure 1). Predictably, once the dam burst, phenomena attributed to catastrophic causes were rapidly identified in many places.7 Ironically, these global events now include large scale volcanic eruptions which have been tied to other extinction events. Historically speaking, Cuvier’s catastrophism has triumphed over Lyell’s gradualism. Of course, both secular gradualism and secular catastrophism are opposed to the catastrophism of the Flood; another indication of how worldview assumptions drive geological interpretation. But the advent of neocatastrophism has changed the terms of the debate and removed the concepts of uniformitarianism and gradualism from the arsenal of secular geology.Summary and conclusionsThe dominance of gradualism in the geological sciences stifled geologic thought for more than a hundred years. Historians of geology now realize that non-scientific factors preserved that paradigm, even when it was clearly contrary to the evidence. Ridicule and peer-pressure once reserved for any form of catastrophism is now solely reserved for creationists`s catastrophism. The simple idea that an asteroid created the massive K/T extinction event recorded in the rocks has forced open the way for neocatastrophism.Secular geologists now recognize many catastrophes have been documented in the rock record. Creationists would counter that all of these ‘events’ are merely the location-specific details of the Flood. Although young-earth creationists were often criticized by gradualists for interpreting the rock record in a more catastrophic manner, this is no longer the case. Without their commitment to the rigid framework of the standard geologic timescale, today’s secular neocatastrophists would actually be more aligned with the creation understanding of earth history.The rise to dominance of secular neocatastrophism has greatly helped the young-earth Creation/Flood framework. Simply put, there are not enough of us to do the field work necessary to interpret the rock record consistent with creation history. In many instances, secular catastrophism provides a significant first step towards defining a Flood interpretation of the rock record made possible following the widespread acceptance of the K/T extraterrestrial extinction hypothesis.

Huge dinosaurs flee rising waters of the Global Flood in AustraliaABC’s Catalyst program reports Kimberley dinosaur footprints

by Tas WalkerPublished: 30 October 2012 (GMT+10)

Measuring dinosaur tracks on sandstone platform.In October 2012, Catalyst, the science television show of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, featured amazing dinosaur footprints from the Kimberleys in north-west Australia.1

Thulborn ref. 4

At James Price Point, 60 km north of Broome on the Dampier Peninsula, paleontologist Steve Salisbury was filmed checking multitudes of footprints preserved in the rocky platforms.Catalyst reporter Mark Horstman says, “You’ve gotta be quick to study the fossils here. This tide is racing. And this was dry a few minutes ago. The tidal range is up to 10 metres, and the fossils are only visible at the lowest of low tides, so that’s for a few hours for a few days for a few months every year.”Sand is washed in and out of the area, continually revealing new footprints. The program shows Steve Salisbury measuring a recently-exposed sauropod footprint about 1.7 metres long—a world record. He said the animal that made that print could be 7 or 8 metres high at the hip and more than 35 metres long.These footprints were made during the global Flood.There are so many clues in the rocks at that point to the catastrophe of the Flood, yet Steve Salisbury and his team did not make the connection. They have been trained for years to think in one particular way, and the Flood is not on their radar. Worse still, if they ever did seriously float that possibility they would almost certainly lose their jobs (see Expelled).Indeed, the

footprints help us work out the timing of when the rocks were laid down during that year-long catastrophe.2 Clearly the land animals were alive when they made the prints, so the floodwaters had not yet peaked. After that, there would be no footprints because all land animals perished. Other evidence of the timing comes from the geology and from the landscape. This indicates it was not long before everything was inundated. One clue that we are looking at an unprecedented geological catastrophe is the enormous extent of the sedimentary deposits. Host Mark Horstman explains that the footprints are preserved in the Broome Sandstone, which extends for 200 km along the coastline and is up to 280 metres thick. He says, “At the time this was a vast river plain of muddy swamps and sandbars.” Actually, there was not a lot of mud. 3Mostly it was fine to very coarse sand with areas of gravel. The Broome Sandstone is known to cover the whole of the Dampier Peninsula.4 A river plain of such an enormous extent is monstrous compared with the rivers on the earth today. The Broome Sandstone points to an exceptionally large depositional system.The surface of the sediment was soft and wet, and the animals walked on it soon after—before it had gone very firm. Steve Salisbury describes the tracks of a stegosaurus:“It’s got four stubby little fingers on the hand and then quite a fat three-toed foot, and that combination is really characteristic of stegosaurs. … he’s gone for a bit of a slip down there. It looks like there’s a double step—he’s kind of slid for a bit and then had to gain his grip, and got to the bottom there and probably quite relieved that he’s made it … and then continued up that way.”The idea of a river plain comes from the pattern of cross-bedding in the sandstone. These beds indicate that the water was flowing as the sediment was deposited. Some of the cross-beds are very large, so large that they indicate water flows of flood proportions. In order to avoid such an interpretation, the sand deposits with the large cross-beds have been interpreted as forming in a desert. That’s right—a desert. This switch implies a puzzling sequence of environments. How could there have been a fast flowing river system, followed by a dry desert, followed by another river system? By ignoring the possibility of the Flood these palaeontologists create problems for themselves as they try to interpret what was going on.As Steve Salisbury is filmed walking over the rocks we are told we are “exploring an extinct ecosystem as we walk through a landscape frozen in time.” However, what is preserved is quite unusual compared with ecosystems we see today. Fossils in the sandstone include marine organisms such as plankton and bivalves as well as land plants such a pine trees and ferns.4 Describing it as an ecosystem gives a misleading impression. So many different kinds of plants, animals and organisms that would be found in a normal ecosystem are missing from the deposits. That is because the dinosaurs, during the Flood, were not part of a normal ecosystem. The landscape was in the process of being destroyed by a devastation that impacted both the land and the ocean. This particular situation represented by the Broome Sandstone lasted for only a few weeks and months.

Host Mark Horstman pointing to dinosaur tracks (highlighted).It’s interesting that Steve Salisbury recognises the transience of the situation. He says, “Most of the track sites that we see probably only represent, you know, between a few days and a couple of weeks, 130 million years ago, so they really do provide a fantastic snapshot.”Note, “A few days and a couple of weeks”, and “snapshot”.The footprints are the clear evidence for this brief, short time frame. They were made in soft sediment, and that provides a tight time constraint. And the imprints have been well preserved, which also constrains

the time before the subsequent sediment was deposited on top. If the footprints had been exposed for any longer than a few weeks they would have been eroded away.Clearly, people who talk about those mind-numbing time periods of 130-million years have a time problem: where do they propose to insert all those millions of years into the sediments?Most people would imagine that the 130 million years was measured by precise laboratory equipment using hi-tech radioactive dating. That is not the case. The quoted date was decided by comparing the mix of fossils found in the sandstone with fossils found in other parts of the world.5 Actually, it is impossible to measure the ages of sedimentary rocks, or any other rocks, by analysing samples in the present (see The way it really is).

The Catalyst program captured the dramatic attempts of dinosaurs trying to escape the rising waters of the Flood some 4,500 years ago. Although the program made no reference to this global event, and presented the information exclusively in terms of evolution over millions of years, the evidence is plain to those who know what to look for. As my friend who brought this program to my attention said, “I have to admit I just thought of dinos running from flood waters when I saw it.”Horse Shoe Bend, Arizona

Carved by the receding waters of the Global Floodby Tas Walker

Published: 18 September 2012 (GMT+10)

Figure 1. Horse Shoe Bend is a spectacular geological twist carved into the Colorado Plateau near Page, Arizona.Earlier this year, a well-known geologist stood with a group of people at the rim of Horse Shoe Bend, Arizona, (figure 1) and declared that the Flood could not have formed this feature. During an energetic event such as the Flood, he said, the water would flow in a large gush in one direction. According to this professor of geology at a university in California, the winding course of the Colorado River indicates that the river had low energy and would have been flowing just above sea level at that time.This professor, who has authored well-known books on geology, was absolutely sure that theFlood could not explain the meandering loop.However, when we look a bit more carefully at the landscapes in the area, the evidence is very clear. The canyon was indeed carved by the Flood. But to recognize that, you have to think big.Google Maps is an excellent tool for examining the area (figure 2). Horse Shoe Bend sits near the town of Page and is about 8 km (5 miles) downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. In this section the Colorado River takes a winding course for 25 km (16 miles) from Lake Powell (dark water to the top right of image) to Marble Canyon (bottom left), which is upstream of Grand Canyon. So deeply has the river cut into the plateau that sightseers need to be careful at the rim of the bend, where there is a drop of 300 metres (1000 feet) to the bottom (figure 1).

Figure 2. Area around Horse Shoe Bend as revealed on Google Maps.It is a simple matter to picture the receding waters of the Flood and see how well that explains the landscape:In the ‘second half’ of the Flood, as the waters began to recede from the continents into the ocean, they initially flowed in wide sheets. In this area they would have flowed in a south-west direction, cutting the large, flat plateau on which the town of Page sits (figure 2). This erosion is obvious to geologists and they have called it The Great Denudation. Kilometres of sediment have been eroded from a vast expanse above the plateau by this sheet-flow phase of the Flood.With time the water flow reduced but still flowed in enormous channels. The erosion that this caused can be seen in the cross section shown in figure 3 (generated using Google Earth). Here the flow channel is more than 30 km (20 miles) wide. The present course of the Colorado River sits in a deep slot that runs along the middle of this channel. This dual-shaped cross section is a typical signature of the recessive stage of the Flood. For more information see A receding Flood scenario for the origin of

the Grand Canyon (at Feature 5 of the article).1This enormous channel is the evidence that the geologist above expected, when he said the water from the Flood would flow in a large gush in one direction. However, he did not make the connection because he was not thinking of a large enough gush.As the North American continent continued to rise and the ocean level fell, the surface of the plateau around Page emerged. Note that the plateau would have been undulating rather than flat, similar to the uneven surface on the beach when the tide goes out. The water that continued to flow, draining the ponded areas upstream (such as Lake Powell and beyond), would have flowed along the lowest parts of the landscape, following the winding, meandering route that we now see.The geologist above was likely correct when he said the river was flowing just above sea level when Horse Shoe Bend was being eroded. Marble Canyon was likely full of water and eroding in an upstream direction. The water flowing down the Colorado River from Lake Powell flowed into Marble Canyon, probably forming a hydraulic jump at the escarpment (e.g. Example on YouTube).2At present, The Colorado River is much smaller than Horse Shoe Bend (figure 1), suggesting that a much larger volume of water flowed through the bend as it was being carved. This area of the US is relatively dry with the average rainfall for Page3 being less than 18 cm (7 inches) per year. Such meagre rainfall is unlikely to produce the flow of water needed to erode such a deep gorge.As the water continued to drain during the Flood, and the water level in Marble Canyon dropped (technically described as a lowering of ‘base level’) the flow cut the canyon deeper, but continued to follow the pre-existing meandering shape.The flow of water was not slow and gentle as the term ‘meander’ suggests. The shape of the river was determined by the undulating surface of the plateau. The entire discharge of the enormous ponded area upstream on the plateau would have been through this section of river.Geologist Steve Austin in his book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe explained how the conditions that carved these deep canyons have been studied in a large flume in the laboratory.4 It was found that the canyon needed a high discharge rate and lowering of base level in order for the meanders to be incised vertically. In other words, the deep canyon points to high energy flow. When the flow rate is low the alluvium in the channel would not be swept away and the channel would be cut horizontally, not vertically.Note that upstream of Page the canyon (as delineated by the dark waters of Lake Powell, figure 2) is shaped like a fern frond (a fractal shape). This indicates that, as the river was cutting deeper into the plateau, water was ponded in large areas upstream. The fractal shape is produced when the ponded water drains sideways into the long canyon now filled by Lake Powell. For further discussion on this process see  A receding Flood scenario for the origin of the Grand Canyon (at Feature 2 of the article).Since the section of river between the Glen Canyon Dam and Marble Canyon was draining a large ponded area upstream, it is actually awater gap, which is another tell-tale feature of the Flood. The Colorado Plateau in this area displays many water gaps. For more information on water gaps see Do rivers erode through mountains?5

Figure 3. Google Earth reveals that the Colorado River near Page sits within a channel over 30 km wide, eroded by the receding waters of the Flood.So, contrary to what the Californian geology professor claimed, Horse Shoe Bend and the landscape surrounding it are elegantly explained by the receding waters of the Flood. Actually, it is difficult to see how these features could be explained by slow-and-gradual processes.

Geologists see effects of the Global Flood in Africa

by Tas WalkerPublished: 4 September 2012 (GMT+10)

Plateau high above sea level from a highway stop east of Pretoria. The plateau was eroded into sediments of the Karoo basin by floodwaters receding in wide sheets after the ocean basins began to open and deepen. The sediments of the Karoo basin exposed across this plateau contain vast coal deposits used for electricity generation at numerous power stations.About 4,500 years ago, the African continent was entirely covered with water. We know this is true because humans witnessed the event, recorded what they saw, and the document they wrote is available to us today. About that water and its depth that account reads:The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. This was a period of great sedimentation on the earth, especially on the parts of the crust that now form the continents.Once the waters of the Flood had completely inundated every piece of land on the earth, they began to recede, and they continued to recede for a period of about seven months, until the continents were dry. Where did the waters go? They flowed into the ocean basins which were widening at the time, or deepening, or both.Geologists actually catch hints of this event but their interpretive framework, especially the dates they have assigned, prevents them from making the connection. For example, they speak of a time when the Indian and Atlantic Oceans were ‘born’—of the break-up of Gondwana. The ‘birth’ of these oceans provided the place for the waters to go:The break-up of Gondwana began with the opening of the Indian Ocean along the African east coast, heralded by the eruption of basalts and rhyolites of the Lebombo region.1

This is the first hint of geological changes to the ocean basins, needed to receive the floodwaters. According to their evolutionary thinking it was some 180 million years ago, but in reality that translates to about ‘half way’ through the Flood. Here is another quote:Some 120 million years ago, South America began to detach from Africa, opening rifts along the southern African west coast. This thinned the continental crust: the start of the Atlantic Ocean.2

This is the second hint. The dates, as we mentioned, are subjective and made to agree with their long-age framework of thinking. If the relative timing is correct, and that would need to be checked, then it means that, during the Flood, the Indian Ocean opened up slightly before the Atlantic. Sedimentation and marine life during Gondwana’s break-upUnlike the Karoo—where sedimentation occurred for nearly 120 million years, much of it on land, producing a complete record of terrestrial life during the Permian, Triassic and early Jurassic Periods—the later Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods during which the break-up of Gondwana occurred are poorly documented in the rocks of South Africa. During this time it seems that southern Africa was elevated and the interior was experiencing erosion. Sedimentation deposition was taking place mainly in the developing Indian and Atlantic oceans, now all off-shore areas.3Note the statement, “During this time it seems that southern Africa was elevated”. That is consistent with the continent rising and emerging from beneath the floodwaters.However, we should first clarify some of the evolutionary assumptions in this statement. Note that the filling of the Karoo basin did not take 120 million years but something of the order of a month or two. The sedimentation happened quickly because there was enormous geological energy involved in the filling process. Note too that the fossils in the Karoo do not provide a record of life over millions of years but record the order in which plants and animals were buried during the Flood, in particular its middle period just before the waters peaked.Also, we need to hold lightly to the claim that the opening and deepening of the ocean basins actually involved the break-up of a supercontinent called Gondwana, with South America and Antarctica breaking away from southern Africa and moving to their present locations. This may be correct or the story may change with further research.The key point is that the geological observations on southern Africa match the pattern expected from the creation account of the Flood, when it says the waters stopped rising and began to recede from the earth.The change in sedimentation on Africa described by geologists matches this change in water movement. When the waters were rising, the floodwaters were depositing sediment on the interior of Africa, ending with the enormous Karoo Basin. When the waters were receding, sedimentation was at the edges of the continent. Further, when the waters were rising, the interior of Africa was experiencing great sediment deposition. When the waters were receding the interior of Africa was experiencing great erosion. That is why the geologists speak of the break-up being “poorly documented”.So, geologists do see the effects of the Flood, and document them quite remarkably. But they do not make the connection because of the uniformitarian glasses they are wearing by which they interpret the evidence. This philosophy is like mind-forged manacles. It makes them imagine the process took hundreds of millions of years. It would be interesting if geologists could free themselves to look through a different interpretive framework. If they would do this, even for a little while and for the adventure of exploring new ideas, it will be interesting to hear of the new insights that they will gain.

Cape Peninsula sandstones, South Africa, deposited during the GlobalFlood

by Tas WalkerPublished: 26 July 2012 (GMT+10)

Maroon mudstone beds and buff sandstone beds alongside Chapman’s Peak Drive south of Cape Town.In the steep road cut alongside Chapman’s Peak Drive, south of Cape Town, South Africa, you can see some of the flat-lying beds of sediment that form the 1000-metre (3000-ft) tall mountains along Cape Peninsula. The mudstone has a distinctive maroon colour while the coarser sandstone is buff. The road runs just above the

contact between the sandstone and the underlying granite.Geologists have called these sediments the Graafwater Formation, which is around 70 metres (200 ft) thick along Chapman’s Drive.1 Above it sits another 550 metres (1800 feet) of sedimentary strata, the Peninsula Formation, which lacks the distinctive maroon mudstone layers.2 The Peninsula Formation forms the impressive cliff faces prominent in Table Mountain and the escarpments above Chapman’s Peak Road. 2There are many features of these sandstone deposits on the peninsula that point to large-scale, rapid deposition, as you would expect during the Global Flood.The sediments cover a large geographical area. McCarthy and Rubidge have a geologic map that shows the Table Mountain Group extending beyond Port Elizabeth, 700 km (400 miles) to the east, and almost as far as Vanrhynsdorp, 300 km (200 miles) to the north.3 This points to a geologic process that covered a very large area, as would be expected from the Flood.The sandstone beds are “amazingly uniform”.2 This feature can be seen in the above image of the road cut, but also from a distance when you look at the escarpments in the area, such as the escarpment of Table Mountain or of the Twelve Apostles. Once again, this points to an energetic geologic process that covered a large area.The sandstone beds are frequently quite thick, some as thick as 6 metres (20 feet).4 This points to a large water flow with abundant sediment, again as would be expected from the Flood catastrophe.The continuous nature of the sedimentation indicates continually rising sea level. There is no evidence of erosion or a break in deposition at the contact between the two formations, so geologists believe that the sediments represent a process of continuous deposition.5Sedimentary structures indicating flowing water are common, including large trough and tabular cross bedding.6Abundant wave and ripple marks, again indicating flowing water.6The sedimentary beds show evidence of slumping, including load casts.6 Imagine how a billiard ball placed on a layer of soft mud would sink into the mud. When sand is deposited onto soft sediment, blobs of sand will sink into the underling mud forming ‘load casts’. These features indicate deposition so rapid that the sediments are still uncompacted and loose.Well rounded quartz pebbles up to 70 mm (3 inches) in diameter are distributed through the sandstone, sometimes forming thin lenses of pebble conglomerate.6 These stones give an idea of the water flow needed to carry them along.Mainstream geologists don’t connect this evidence for large-scale watery deposition with the Flood. Often they do not appreciate the catastrophic implications of the evidence they are documenting. That is because they have eliminated any thought from their minds that the Flood actually occurred. The Flood does not form part of their interpretive process and this is a major blind spot in their thinking.Instead, they try to explain the evidence in terms of geological processes operating at the present time: slow, gradual, limited in scale and energy. Part of their interpretive process is to match the sediments to a modern depositional environment but, as you can imagine, the match is problematical. In the case of these Table Mountain sediments, various opinions have been put forward7 but the sediments do not seem to comfortably match any environments that exist on the earth today.One suggestion is that the sediments were deposited partly in a river delta and partly in the shallow ocean. The Graafwater Formation supposedly was in a sheltered tidal setting with large areas of still water (presumably to account for the mudstone8). The Peninsula Formation was deposited in a high energy coastal setting with sandy beaches and bars, to explain the abundant, well sorted sand.7However, there are many features listed above that this environment does not explain, especially their large geographical extent and the evidence for flowing water and rapid sedimentation. More recently, geologists have suggested a major braided river system flowing over a wide continental plain.1 Today, braided rivers carry abundant sediment and form a wide, flat, gravelly river channels. However, there are many features of the sediments that this environment does not explain, including the thickness of the sediment pile.The Flood involved flowing water, and that meant landscape erosion and sedimentary deposition. It covered huge areas of the earth as sea level was rising with respect to the continents. It was an ongoing process that took some five months

until the entire earth was inundated. It took a further seven months for the waters to recede from the continents into the oceans . The sedimentary rocks forming the Table Mountain Group in South Africa were deposited partway through the first ‘half’ of the Flood as the floodwaters were rising. The evidence is graphic.Image from georneys.blogspot interpreted as, ‘More trace fossil burrows!’ Notice the evidence of rapid sediment deposition in the form of cross bedding immediately above the pale streaks that have been interpreted as ‘burrows’.Problems with Flood interpretationThere are always questions that flow out of geological interpretations, whether that interpretation is from a long-age uniformitarian perspective or a creation one. One question that arises when we assign these sediments to rapid Flood deposition involves features called ‘trace fossils’, features that in this case have been interpreted as burrows.9 If the entire Table Mountain Group was laid down during the Flood, then how would there be enough time for

organisms to make such burrows within some layers?However, the ‘burrows’ are sparse and the beds are still clear, crisp and distinct. Depositional features, such as cross bedding, are still very well preserved. This indicates that there was not much time elapsed after each bed was deposited before the next was emplaced upon it. If there had been a long time we would expect the beds to be colonized by organisms and the depositional structures would have been obliterated as they burrowed in the sediments. This is called bioturbation. So, if these features are indeed burrows, they could be escape burrows for organisms that had been quickly buried in the sediment.But they may not be burrows. When these sorts of problems arise we need to question the standard geological interpretations that are automatically assigned. Rapid deposition introduces other possibilities. It’s feasible that they could be features formed abiotically as the sediments were deposited. They could be dewatering tubes on account of the beds being deposited rapidly and needing to release the trapped water as the sediment settled. Or they could be small lenses of a different material, or soft sediment deformation. The fact that they are a different colour further suggests they involved preferential post-depositional staining by iron-rich, mineral-laden pore water.

Revealing spectacular evidence for the Global Floodby Tas Walker

Published: 3 July 2012 (GMT+10)

Chapman’s Peak Drive south of Cape Town, South Africa. The ‘Chappies’ runs on top of a grey granite pluton which drops steeply into the sea. Brown sedimentary strata deposited as the floodwaters rose sit in horizontal beds alongside and above the roadChapman’s Peak Drive is a glorious and breath-taking drive that winds its way in a hundred curves around the mountainous coastline south of Cape Town, South Africa. The locals affectionately call it ‘The Chappies’. Perched almost in space, its bends and twists manoeuvre along a sheer drop into the ocean, hugging the escarpment of Cape Peninsula.What is even more spectacular, especially for a geologist, Chapman’s Peak Drive runs along the junction between two starkly different geological features. In the cut as you drive along the road you can see flat-lying maroon, purple, and tan beds stacked like pancakes one upon the other. The beds continue up the escarpment peeking out from beneath the vegetation. These strata are part of a vast sedimentary blanket1 called the Cape Supergroup. Although this blanket has been folded and eroded, it still covers much of the southern portion of South Africa.2Underneath the road and plunging into the sea is a steep outcrop of granite. These smooth, grey, rounded rocks were once part of an enormous body of molten ‘lava’ deep within the crust of the earth. That body is now called the Cape Peninsula Pluton,3 and is itself part of a larger group of granite outcrops called the Cape Granite Suite.The world experienced a global, catastrophic Flood about 4,500 years ago, and we can explain this landscape from that perspective. Mainstream geologists do not believe the global Flood ever occurred, so they use a different lens through which to interpret the past. All the same, the careful observations they have made and the detailed reports they have written of those observations (e.g. in the references below) help us understand the rocks and interpret them from a creation perspective. (I.e., minus the speculation in their reports about what happened before the geologists were born.)We need to realise that we are looking at just a tiny part of the evidence for the Flood. We are like ants in the grass; our perspective is limited as we try to understand the world around us. That is why it is so helpful to examine geological maps and geological diagrams that show us a bigger scale of what is present.Briefly, as a result of movements in the crust, the granite was emplaced in large magma chambers kilometres in diameter under the earth early during the Flood. Ongoing movement of water across the earth during this catastrophe removed the rock above the granite. As the Flood continued, fast flowing waters deposited a great volume of sediment in gigantic, flat, sheets over the continent. The sea levels continued to rise and this made room for more sediment to be deposited until eventually the sediment pile reached an enormous thickness—more than 7 km (4 miles) in Western Cape.4Eventually, the floodwaters reached their peak. Further movements within the crust of the earth folded the sediments of the Cape Supergroup and deepened the ocean basins, allowing the floodwaters to flow off the continent. This eroded many kilometres of sediment from the landscape, depositing it at the edges of the African continent on the continental shelves. The mountains alongside Chapman’s Peak Drive, including Table Mountain, are erosional remnants, isolated rock outcrops that survived that remarkable 

A receding Flood scenario for the origin of the Grand Canyon

by Peter ScheeleMany creationist geologists have proposed that the Grand Canyon (GC) was formed by a catastrophic dam-breach event. This would have released large quantities of water from impounded lakes east of the canyon that had remained on the plateau after the Flood. This event would have carved the GC, starting from the east moving to the west. Yet there are many features of the GC that cannot be adequately explained by such a dam-breach event. A better explanation is that the GC was formed while the waters of the Flood receded from the American continent. As this receding water flowed from east to west, the GC was mainly carved out in the opposite direction, from west to east. This scenario explains many characteristic and unusual features of the GC, such as its location through the top of a ridge, its branching structure, its numerous major and minor side canyons, its meandering and the presence of multiple ‘outflow points’ in its terminal escarpment.

Figure 1. A Digital Elevation Model of the Grand Canyon region with an artificially raised water level. It shows the contours of the lakes that could have formed east from the Kaibab Plateau when the GC still would have been ‘closed’. The arrow indicates a more logical point for a breaching event than through the current higher point of the Kaibab Plateau.The breached-dam theoryContrary to the uniformitarian view that the origin of the Grand Canyon (GC) was a slow process over 7 million years, creationists have claimed it was carved by a single catastrophic event by the breaching of an enormous natural dam. This breached-dam theory (BDT), as it is called, says that the water from two lakes lying east of the Kaibab Plateau, called Hopi Lake and Green River Lake (or Grand Lake), catastrophically carved through this higher-lying plateau and formed the GC.Walt Brown presented an account of the BDT in his bookIn The Beginning, which was first published in 1980 and is now in its 8th edition.1 In the late 1980s, Edmond Holroyd defined the boundaries of the two lakes.2,3Steve Austin et al. summarized the BDT in his 1994 book about the GC.4Figure 1 is a Digital Elevation Model of the region around the GC and indicates by joining lines of equal contour (calculated by software) the raised water level that defines the possible outline of the lakes.5

Brown most explicitly describes the process of the dam-breaching, whereas Austin only roughly outlines the general idea of such a breach. Most often when a BDT is discussed, reference is made to other ‘canyons’ that have been catastrophically carved, such as:Mount St Helens canyons, which were carved following the 1980 volcanic eruption.The Scablands, caused by “The Lake Missoula Flood”.Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington,6 caused by the drainage of storm water.

Figure 2. Wide-angle view of the Grand Canyon, clearly showing its branching structure. The Colorado River flows from right to left (east to west). Arrows show some side branches of the canyon.Nevertheless, as we will see in detail further on, there are many features of the GC that are not adequately explained by such a dam-breach event. To begin with, there are obvious physical differences between the GC (see figure 2) and the canyons listed above. For instance, the canyons of Mount St Helens (figure 3) do not show the branching structure exhibited by the GC. The Scablands has an explicit multi-channelled pattern (figure 4), which is completely absent in the GC, but would be expected if the large amount of water from the two lakes had been unleashed on that landscape.

Figure 3. The edges of the ‘Little Grand Canyon’ at Mount St Helens are relatively straight and do not exhibit the branching structure of the Grand Canyon.Mike Oard7 has listed five objections against the BDT and suggested the possibility that it was carved from west to east as the waters of the Flood receded to the west. This paper discusses some of the major and unique characteristics of the GC that need to be explained by any theory for the origin of GC and how these characteristics fit with a so-called Receding Flood Scenario (RFS).

Figure 4. The multi-channeled and parallel structure of The Channeled Scablands in north-west US is quite different from the Grand Canyon. The channels do not exhibit the branching structure evident with the Grand Canyon.Method of studying: Google EarthBesides the use of scientific literature, Google Earth has been an important tool in studying the origin of the Grand Canyon. Google Earth uses detailed satellite images of the earth’s surface which are projected onto a 3D Digital Elevation Model of the landscape. In that way spectacular overviews and ‘fly bys’ of the area of interest can be generated that are impossible to realize by ground or field work. Because the Flood was a global event, the unprecedented possibilities of Google Earth can help to better understand the scale of the impacts the Flood must have had in shaping the landscapes of the earth and in this case, the GC.Features of the Grand Canyon that need to be explainedFeature 1: The GC is carved

through the higher points in the landscapeFigure 5 shows a north-south cross-section through the GC area, starting from the northern mountains on the left to the Kaibab Plateau and the GC on the right. This is the so called ‘Grand Staircase’. It can be seen that the GC cuts through the higher parts of the Kaibab Plateau on the right and not through the lower level near the Chocolate Cliffs in the middle, which roughly corresponds with the area in figure 1 indicated with the arrow. Why would any breaching occur in a higher part right through a ‘mountain’ rather than in a lower part?

Figure 5. A north-south cross-section through the so called ‘Grand Staircase’ illustrating the geological strata that comprise the walls of the Grand Canyon, which is at the far right.The Receding Flood Scenario (RFS) is able to explain a cut through higher ground very well. Consider the GC area (indeed the whole North American Continent) being completely covered with water to a depth of 1 km or more. This immense body of water would extend 500–600 km to the east and have a similar north-south dimension. We will call this body of water the Grand Canyon Inner Sea and discuss it in detail later.Because the continents are being compressed and the ocean basins are sinking, the area of the Colorado Plateau is uplifted and therefore the water within the GC Inner Sea is retreating in a westward direction and the water-level is lowering. The water follows many routes flowing out of the area from higher to lower regions. When there is a submerged landform, such as a plateau, mountain, hill or ‘sandbank’, the water will not only flow to the left and right of the landform but also over its top as long as it remains submerged. The water flowing over the top will, at a certain point, increase in speed, since there is less and less room for the water to find a way. Therefore some parts of the top of the landform will start to erode faster than other parts or the sides. In this way a channel or gully will form right through the higher parts of the elevation (figure 6).

Figure 6. Schematic of how a canyon is carved through higher ground as water levels lower (phases 1–5). Image B is a cross-section of image A at the vertical dotted line. When the water in image A flows from right to left over a submerged elevation it may carve out a gully in the elevation (image B), even though water still flows at the sides. As the gully deepens, it grows in the opposite direction of the water flow (image A).

Figure 7. The Wadden Sea in the Netherlands, a tidal area with sandbanks, illustrates how the daily tides cut through the higher points in the sandbanks to allow the retreating seawater to pass.As the water level keeps falling, the sides of this initial channel will emerge from the water (phase 1 in figure 6). But water will continue to flow rapidly because of the enormous volume of water that still needs to drain out. The underwater mountain hinders the receding water and therefore the water will take every possible route out. Thus the channel will be carved deeper and deeper, even though there might still be water flowing along the sides of the elevated landform. Provided the water level of the Inner Sea lowers slowly enough, water will keep flowing through the channel and erode it deeper and deeper as the water level lowers (figure 6B). As a result, the channel will grow longer in an upstream direction, beginning in the area where the landform is highest and moving to the area where the landform is lower. The most remarkable thing about this process is that the direction in which the gully is carved is opposite to the direction the water flows (figure 6A).Another remarkable feature of this drainage process is that, once the channel has achieved a certain length, it will start to branch out like a tree as the water continues to drain from the plateau. The main channel will develop side channels, which in turn will develop side channels, and so on. The side channels develop because, as the main channel grows in length, the water on the plateau is then able to flow sideways into the channel. This sideways flow eventually initiates secondary channels that continue to grow sideways (Feature 2 and 6).

It is possible to see today how this process produces a branching structure by observing tidal areas with lots of sand, such as in the Wadden Sea to the north-west of the Netherlands. Gullies are cut by the daily tides through the a submerged landform, such as a plateau, mountain, hill or ‘sandbank’, the water will not only flow to the left and right of the landform but also over its top as long as it remains submerged. The water flowing over the top will, at a certain point, increase in speed, since there is less and less room for the water to find a way. Therefore some parts of the top of the landform will start to erode faster than other parts or the sides. In this way a channel or gully will higher points in the sandbanks to allow the retreating seawater to pass through. Figure 7 shows an example of this effect in the Wadden Sea. The lighter coloured areas are already dry. The dotted line indicates the higher point of the sandbank. The large black arrows indicate the direction of the flowing seawater when the sandbank is submerged. It can be clearly seen how several gullies have been cut through the higher levels (the narrow white arrows pointing upward in the foreground) and branch out in the lower levels that are still underwater in this picture (the narrow white arrows pointing downward in the middle). The structure of these gullies is not exactly the same as in the GC, but this is likely due to:The scale of the GC, which is more than an order of magnitude larger.The amount of water flowing through these gullies, which is many orders of magnitude less than in case of the GC.The GC having been a one-time event, with maybe some limited tidal effects. The sandbanks and gullies of the Wadden Sea are the result of long periods of tides, day in and day out.

Feature 2: The branching structure of the western half of the GCImage generated by Google EarthTM 2008

Figure 8. The branching structure at the western part of the Grand Canyon. Branches are shaped as a V or U with the width tapering away from the outlet of the branch. The branching shapes on branching shapes resemble fractals.

Figure 9. The Niagara Falls illustrates how steady erosion by a constant flow of water produces a U shape. Erosion of the Falls is in the opposite direction to the flow of water.Figure 8 shows the typical branching structure apparent along the western part of the GC. The dotted line indicates one side or ‘bank’ of the GC. At several positions branches can be observed extending away from the GC and these branches become narrower as they extend further away. This narrowing means the edges of these branches tend to have a triangular shape. The branches themselves also have branches, and those might even split further. The edges of the branches always seem to be shaped as a V or a U. A ‘sudden’ high-velocity current caused by a dambreach would carve out parallel channel-like structures, as can be observed in the Scablands (figure 4). It would not create this sort of branching pattern, nor would it create these V- and U-shaped gullies.A spectacular example of such similar V- or U-shaped erosion on an escarpment, which is still eroding up to this present time, is the notch of the Niagara Falls (figure 9). This shows that a relatively constant supply of low velocity water on the plateau can explain the origin of a V- or U-shape better than a breach event can. Notice also that the Niagara Falls is eroding backward in the opposite direction to the water flow, as discussed previously with figure 6. Once the V-shape of the main canyon is established, three conditions are needed to form the typical branching type canyons observed in the GC:

There needs to be a relatively constant (or regular) supply of a large volume of water covering the raised area and flowing into the main canyon.The raised area/plateau needs to be rather flat so the water can flow into the main canyon from both

sides. The steeper the downstream slope on the raised area, the shorter and narrower the V-shape of the main canyon will be. When the raised area is flat, it will result in a main canyon with a long, broad V and with more branching.The sediments need to be relatively soft; otherwise the erosion would be too slow to keep pace with the lowering water level. In hard rock the water would have flowed away over the sides of the raised area before any gully/canyon had time to be eroded.Figure 10. Branching type channels on the coast of Argentina have an appearance similar to the branching in the Grand Canyon.The receding

water of the Flood is precisely what is needed to create branching V-shaped cuts along the sides of the GC by flowing sideways into the canyon. Therefore we can conclude that many, or all, the cliffs of the GC are former waterfalls! That must have been a spectacular sight. The water had been flowing over the edges into the GC and thus carving out V-shapes.The much deeper channels in the middle of the GC were formed after the main canyon was cut, and they are still being eroded today by the normal drainage of the Colorado River that flows through it (see feature 5, p. 111).Along the coast of Argentina we can also find beautiful examples of branching structures caused by receding tidal water as shown in figure 10. Note the similarity of the wide flat mud flats, cut by the narrow gully in the middle, with the features of the GC. Also note the steeper ‘cliffs’ on the sides and the branching ‘canyons’ towards the lower-lying parts behind the cliffs.Feature 3: The non-branching structure of the eastern half of the GCAs shown in figure 2, the eastern part of the GC northwest of the Kaibab Plateau does not exhibit the branching structure evident in the western part. On the North Rim, the canyon shows a typical erosion pattern that can also be observed in mountainous areas. The cliffs located on the South Rim look much like a collection of landslides that slipped into the GC. These features indicate that the process that formed the eastern part of the GC is likely different from the process that formed the branching part in the west. It suggests that the GC was formed in two major steps, a western step and an eastern step. Both steps would have initially involved cutting through higher ground—one through the Kaibab Plateau and one through the Hualapai Plateau (see feature 4 below). Both would likely have been formed at the same time. However, the western arm would eventually extend to connect to the eastern Kaibab section when the water level had lowered enough.Neither the BDT nor the regular uniformitarian views can adequately explain these differences.Feature 4: The multiple ‘outflow points’ at the end of the GCImage generated by Google EarthTM 2007; DigitalGlobe 2008.

Figure 11. The westward end of the Grand Canyon looking east across the escarpment to the Hualapai Plateau. Apart from the outflow point of the Grand Canyon (point number 5), there are a number of similar but smaller ‘outflow’ points (numbered 1 to 4 and 6 and 7).Figure 11 shows the area where the GC exits at its western end (looking in an eastward direction). This area is characterized by a huge escarpment/ridge (indicated by the white

line), which is about 160 km long and up to 1,000 m high. The GC presently cuts through the Hualapai Plateau and ends at the escarpment at marker 5. The Colorado River, which flows through the GC, emerges from the escarpment at this point and runs into Lake Mead, which can be seen in the foreground.However, there are several other ‘outflow points’, or gorges, cut back into the escarpment. Although they are smaller than the GC, they have a similar appearance. Markers 1 to 4 identify some of these smaller outlets in the vicinity of the GC. These gullies/ canyons are not currently operating as drainage outlets for the catchment area behind them. Marker 6 identifies another such outlet, which is currently operating as a drainage outlet. Marker 7 is on the other side of the GC at another outlet, and this one is even harder to explain in terms of being formed by the present drainage system because the GC is right behind it and takes care of all the drainage.The elevation of the entire plateau area surrounding the GC rises slowly as we move downstream along the GC from east to west, forming a ridge. The elevation of the plateau ‘suddenly’ drops off at the ridge/escarpment mentioned above. Figure 12 is a view south along this escarpment, with the high plateau to the left and the lower landscape to the right.Image generated by Google EarthTM 2008

Figure 12. Looking south across the Hualapai Plateau, showing the same outflow points numbered in figure 11 which are eroded as gorges into the escarpment. The receding floodwaters flowed from east to west, i.e. from left to right.The global Flood provides a simple, plausible explanation for these multiple outflow points through this escarpment. In the second half of the Flood, as the waters of the GC Inner Sea were receding from the continent into the Pacific Ocean basin (because the continent was compressed and the GC area uplifted), water flowing from the east was trapped behind this ridge. This water was forced to flow over and through the ridge at those 7 outlet points, thus eroding the deep canyons at these points and carving out the branching, V-shaped structures that can be observed at these locations.As the water level dropped, only one of those outflow points (probably the longest and deepest at that time) continued to flow, whereas the others ceased to serve as outlets. Outflow point number 5 in the Hualapai Plateau remained in service to drain the rest of the water behind it and, as such, continued to erode deeper and further eastward. This is an example of cutting through higher ground similar to that which we saw with the Kaibab Plateau.Different erosion patterns on the north and south rim of the GC outletAllen Roy concluded that a ‘recent gigantic flood’ eroded the Hualapai Plateau. 8 An outflow point, as described above, fits this observation very well. Strangely enough, branching, V-shaped structures are not present on the southern side of this GC outflow point as they are on the northern side. When we examine the landscape, we can see that this must have been because the northern parts served as outflow points for the higher northwest region of the plateau, but the southern parts did not need to drain the lower southern area. They served as a bend in the miles-wide ‘river’ mouth of the receding water (see figure 15) and thus more smoothly eroded the Hualapai Plateau there.At the most southerly point (at the ‘question mark’ in figure 15, called Peach Springs) there might even have been another second large, but temporary, outflow point for this GC ‘river’.

Figure 13. Schematic cross-section of the Grand Canyon, showing the dual structure: section A, which is wide and shallow, and section B, which is narrow and deep.Feature 5: The dual cross-section of the GCAs shown in figure 13, the cross-section of the GC has two distinct shapes. The canyon of section A is broad and relatively shallow. The canyon of section B sits in the middle of section A. It is much narrower, is carved much deeper and has steeper sides.The Colorado River flows through section B. The present size of the

Colorado River is a good fit with the size of this deeper canyon, indicating that this deeper section was eroded by the Colorado River over time. It also means that the flow in the Colorado River in the past (when the narrow canyon first began eroding) was similar to the flow in the river at the present time.However, the broader section, A, could not have been eroded by a river with the same size and flow as the Colorado River. It would have had to have been eroded by a river with an immensely larger volume of flow. Using Google Earth, we can estimate the size of the ‘river’ and superimpose it on the map (figure 14 and figure 15). By connecting all the sides/banks of the GC (ignoring the side canyons), we can see this is an immense river of unparalleled scale. We may conclude that this broad river represents the Flood drainage-river that carved the section-A portion of the GC.

Image generated by Google EarthTM 2008

Figure 14. When lines are drawn at both sides of the Grand Canyon alongside the innermost projections of the intact sides, the size of the immense ‘river’ that drained the receding floodwaters becomes clear.Image generated by Google EarthTM 2008

Figure 15. When the sides/banks of the Grand Canyon are connected (ignoring the side canyons), the magnitude of the initial water channel that carved the canyon becomes clear. The channel is much broader at its mouth (to the left of the figure in the west) than upstream toward its source (to the right in the east). This whole ‘river’ is basically another V-shape.

This ‘river’ is much broader at its mouth than at its beginning, which basically is another stretched V-shape drainage structure. In other words, the volume of water flowing through the long canyon was greater at its outlet than in its upstream portions. This is because a lot more water flowed out of the area when the water level was high than when it had lowered.This dual cross-section indicates that the initial volume of water flowing through the GC outlet point must have been huge. When the water level lowered, its volume decreased, creating a narrower river and eroding a narrower channel in the lower parts.The deeper canyon (figure 13 section B) in the middle of the broad canyon (section A) only started to erode after all the floodwater on the plateau has drained. It was eroded by the normal drainage of the huge Colorado basin, which continued to flow through section A. Erosion at this reduced scale continues up to the present day.Feature 6: The large side ‘arms’ of the GCThe GC has two very large side canyons visible in the middle of figure 2, one extending north and the other south. It also has several smaller side arms on its western part. The larger branch in the north is called Kanab Canyon and the one in the south is called Havasu Canyon. Those side arms themselves also exhibit the typical branching, V-shaped structure. They are broad where they join the GC and narrow at their extremities. On first impression, these branches look like drainage systems for the catchment area they are located in, not like channels caused by a sudden flood of water from the east. The side branches are perpendicular to the direction of the main part of the GC, which means they cannot have been formed by a dam-breach event. A dam breach releasing water from behind the Kaibab Plateau would have carved canyons in the direction of flow, as illustrated in figure 4, not perpendicular to it.However, these side branches are beautifully explained by the RFS. These canyons would have formed in a similar way to the rest of the GC but after much of the CG Inner Sea had drained from the plateau. The side branches extend into regions where there were still huge amounts of water that still needed to drain. The only way these enormous amounts of water could drain was to the lowest point in that area, which was toward the GC channel.We can simulate the water flows at the time the floodwaters receded by ‘lowering’ the water level in the GC region using software and a Digital Elevation Model. Figure 16 shows a sequence of six steps as the water level drops, making it clear what areas of the landscape emerge and what areas remain underwater at subsequent stages.

Figure 16. Simulation of the Grand Canyon region as the water level lowered. The white lines indicate local elevations by which the huge northern and southern lakes are separated from the Grand Canyon. Arrow A shows where the northern lake connects to the Grand Canyon. Arrow B indicates the direction of water flow from the northern lake as it carved Kanab Canyon. Arrow C shows the direction in which Kanab Canyon was carved as the water lowered and the northern lake emptied.It can be seen that a large lake forms in the northern part. As this lake drains into the GC, its borders decrease, closely following the tip of the arm of Kanab Canyon right until the lake is completely drained. This is in line with the speculations of Williams et al.9 who stated that the drainage of a lake formed Kanab Canyon.We need to take into consideration that a lot of water from the northeastern part of the Colorado Plateau also would have found its way through Kanab Canyon until the water level was so low that the gap north of Kaibab Plateau at Chocolate Cliffs (arrow in figure 1) was closed.The Havasu Canyon to the south only shows a lake in the first picture of figure 16. It does not show a diminishing lake at its very tip as occurs with Kanab Canyon. This may suggest that Havasu Canyon would have formed differently or much quicker than Kanab Canyon. Yet, it is the larger of the two and it still has exactly the same patterns. Therefore it seems justified to conclude that there might have been some relative tilting of the southern part compared to the northern part after the canyon was created.

Figure 17. Possible temporary situation where two large northern and southern lakes drain their contents into the Grand Canyon. The arrows indicate the location of the initial waterfalls which carved backwards to excavate the side canyons as the lakes emptied.This simulation assumes that the levels of the landscape today are still similar to the levels when the GC originated, which, of course, would not necessarily be correct if the whole plateau had tipped in the process. It is well known that the region has undergone severe uplift and compression. From a Flood perspective, it is likely that this uplift was the driving force behind the drainage of the area. Therefore it would not be unreasonable that the landscape today has remained similar to what it was back then and that the subsequent changes have only been relatively small.

To compensate for the possible tilting of the southern part and to make a more accurate estimation of the situation with the side arm lakes, figure 17 has been created. This figure illustrates how that, as the water level was lowering and the GC ‘river’ was diminishing, two lakes formed on the plateau, one trapped to the north and the other to the south. These lakes released their water into the side branches of the GC in the same way that the GC Inner Sea earlier flowed into the GC on

the Hualapai Plateau. At the overflow points of these lakes (indicated with the arrows) waterfalls like the Niagara Falls, but much larger in size, were carving both side canyons at the same time.Feature 7: The Colorado River is meandering at Marble Canyon

Figure 18. In Marble Canyon the Colorado River meanders through hard rock, which is impossible. The arrows indicate branches that face upstream against the flow of the Colorado River.Figure 18 shows the Colorado River at the level of Marble Canyon, and, as can be seen, it is meandering in hard rock!One prerequisite for a river to meander is that the sediments it flows across are soft, not hard. Meandering is caused by a combination of erosion and deposition of sediments.

What could possibly explain that the Colorado River is meandering in hard rock? The likely answer to this would be that such rock wasn’t that hard when the Colorado River originally carved its first shape.Another prerequisite for meandering is that the water has to flow slowly enough to deposit the sediments. Therefore the BDT is not adequate to explain this, but the RFS is.The uniformitarian explanation for this feature is that the river first formed in deposited alluvium and that after uplift of the Colorado Plateau it continued eroding down through the hard rock.10-15 Nevertheless, at Marble Canyon there is no

alluvium on the plateau, neither is there any trace of a previous alluvium.Figure 19 is an example of meandering gullies caused by receding tidal water in Wadden Sea. It clearly demonstrates that slowly receding waters are well capable of creating meandering structures. This means receding Flood water is the best explanation for the meandering Colorado River at the level of Marble Canyon.Image generated by

Google EarthTM 2007; Aerodata International Surveys 2008.Figure 19. Meandering gullies (example at arrow) caused by receding tidal waters in the Wadden Sea, The Netherlands.Feature 8: Some branching canyons in Marble Canyon point in the opposite directionSome of the side canyons of the Colorado River in Marble Canyon point upstream to the river instead of the normal downstream direction (see arrows in figure 18). Brown1 tries to use this as evidence for a dam-breach theory, but a more logical explanation is provided by the RFS. The level of the rim of Marble Canyon and the surrounding plateau slopes ‘uphill’ against the direction of the flow of the Colorado River. Of course the river doesn’t flow uphill, but it does cut through higher ground and therefore the rim becomes higher as we go downstream. The reason that the Colorado River flows through an uphill area is the same reason that explains the other parts of the Colorado River: receding waters cut it out. Therefore the side arms connecting to the Colorado River point in their logical direction: downhill to the east, which happens to be in upstream direction of the Colorado River that now flows to the west.The Receding Floodwater ScenarioWe cannot be completely certain of the precise extent and size of the drainage basin, the GC Inner Sea, that emptied through the area of the GC because, for instance, there has been compression in the north of the region and the Colorado Plateau has been uplifted. Nevertheless a rough impression of its size can be made by following the current higher mountains as its borders (hatched area, figure 20). However, the current drainage system of the Colorado River extends even further north beyond the borders of the map. It is possible that there might have been another continental sea of similar size, the water of which eventually also found its way out through the GC area (plain area, figure 20).

Figure 20. Possible extent of temporarily impounded water on the western part of the continent forming an inland ‘sea’ that drained through the Grand Canyon into the ocean.According to the RFS, the erosion process had already begun before the waters of the inner sea became completely trapped. This is because water flowing across the continent would have flowed over and around submerged mountain ridges. For a small period of time during this stage of the Flood there would have been simultaneous overflow points at several locations that left their mark on the landscape. But the carving of the GC fully began when that complete body of water became trapped and had no other way out than through that one single outflow point.There is something to say for simultaneously cutting the canyon at two locations. Because the Kaibab Plateau is also at a high point in the landscape, the carving process should have begun there before the lower side arms began to form. This means that there might have been a western and an eastern part of the GC that only interconnected later on when the water was low enough. We have to take into account that the region has been uplifted. This would have been caused, not only by tectonic compression, but also the removal of the weight of water resting upon it.As with any model, the RFS is based on certain assumptions. The first, of course, is that the entire region, and thus the whole American continent, was fully covered by water. It also assumes that any continental movement associated with the concept of plate tectonics happened quickly, over weeks and months, during the year of the Flood (as in the Runaway Subduction Model). In addition, the consequent compression of the western part of the American continent probably was nearly almost finished by the time the waters started to recede.These considerations result in the following scenario:As the floodwaters were receding the GC likely started eroding at the two higher points in the landscape, first in the east (Kaibab Plateau), since that was probably higher than in the west (Hualapai Plateau). At this point all the sediments, which were deposited earlier in the Flood, were still soft and wet and not hardened rock.On the escarpment/ridge to the west some 5 to 7 overflow points developed simultaneously as the waters receded. One of these points carved further, faster and deeper and therefore remained to serve as an outflow for the GC Inner Sea that became trapped on the continent behind the ridge. The other overflow points stopped releasing water as the level dropped.The upper cliffs of the borders of the western Grand Canyon are former waterfalls that drained the water of the GC Inner Sea into the GC and created the branching structures. These waterfalls were relatively short lived. At this time the ‘Grand Canyon’ was a huge ‘river’ kilometres wide.When the southern Havasu and northern Kanab side arms were cut, the waters that kept flowing through the Kaibab outflow carved a connection with the main system, thus establishing almost the entire length of the GC.Eventually, Marble Canyon was cut out by the waters trapped behind the Kaibab Plateau after its level was so low that it was not able to flow through the northern opening anymore.During the process the entire area was gradually lifted up, partly because tectonic forces were compressing the continent, and partly because the weight of its Inner Sea was decreasing, resulting in isostatic adjustment of the continent.In the ages after the Flood, the sediments dried out and hardened to solid rock. The Colorado River continues to flow through the GC but is a magnitude smaller than the GC ‘river’ that drained the receding floodwater. Therefore the rate and pattern of erosion dramatically changed compared to what it had been initially, carving the narrower, deeper and steeper, inner canyon. More ‘normal’ post-Flood weathering and smaller-scale drainage erosion has also extended the borders and cliffs of the GC but only in a relatively small measure.ConclusionsThere are a number of unusual and characteristic features of the GC that need to be explained by any model for its origin. These features include the branching structure of the western half of the GC, its numerous major and minor side canyons, and the location of the canyon in the higher parts of the region. Other unusual characteristics of the GC include the meandering parts of the Colorado River and the existence of multiple ‘outflow points’ from the escarpment, some of which are now ‘dried up’.These features demonstrate the shortcomings of the uniformitarian model, which assumes only present-day processes to explain the canyon and therefore needs to fall back on ad hoc secondary hypotheses.These characteristic features of the GC also run counter to a sudden draining of post-Flood lakes in a dam-breaching event.A Receding Flood Scenario, whereby the North American continent was once covered by water kilometres deep that needed a way out after becoming trapped in a gigantic bowl when the area was uplifted, is a relatively simple model that incorporates and explains all of these features elegantly. The volume and extent of the water that drained was of a scale even larger than the entire GC itself and the processes involved are hard to research or even imagine without satellite images and modern software.

Sedimentary blanketsVisual evidence for vast continental flooding

by Tas Walker

At Echo Point west of Sydney, Australia, visitors have a panoramic view of The Three Sisters—spectacular remains of a huge sandstone outcrop, broken and teetering on the edge of a wide valley. In the distance you can see the same sedimentary strata in vertical cliffs that stretch as far as the eye can see. These sedimentary layers also travel out of sight under the earth—much further than many suspect, 100 km (60 miles) east to the Pacific Ocean, 200 km north and 200 km south.1 They form part of the Sydney basin, a geological structure where layers of sediments

accumulated to a depth of 3 km (figure 1).2

You can see the same geological pattern when you stand on the rim of Grand Canyon in western USA. As you peer across the abyss you marvel at the horizontal rock layers that decorate the walls—the same pattern on both sides of the canyon. Some layers form sheer cliffs; others crumble into sloped aprons. With so little vegetation in the area, the layers stand out and can be traced into the distant haze. In fact, these sedimentary formations have been recognized over thousands of kilometres across North America.3

Click for larger imageBritish geologist Derek Ager in his book The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record4 marvelled at the way sedimentary rocks layers persisted for thousands of kilometres across continents. Like a blanket, they are relatively thin compared with the area they cover.Click for larger imageHe mentioned the chalk beds that form the famous White Cliffs of Dover in Southern England and explained that they are also found in Antrim in Northern Ireland, and can be traced into northern France, northern Germany, southern Scandinavia to Poland, Bulgaria and eventually to Turkey and Egypt. He described many other cases, yet even after that he said, “There are even more examples of very thin units that persist over fantastically large areas … ”Another example that Ager could have mentioned is the Great Artesian Basin. This covers most of Eastern Australia (figure 2) and its individual strata run continuously for thousands of kilometres.5Its sandstone members store enormous volumes of underground water, which allowed ranchers to graze livestock and settle the arid outback (figure 3).One of the formations within this basin, often mentioned in the news when companies were drilling for oil and gas, is the so-called Hutton Sandstone. This rock formation, an easily-recognized target, was buried as much as 2 km in the middle of the basin but exposed at the surface at the edges—at places like Carnarvon Gorge in Queensland.Layers of sediment blanketing such huge areas point to something unusual happening in the past. Today, blankets of sediments are not being deposited across the vast areas of the continents; if they were it would be difficult for humans to survive. Rather, sedimentation is localized,

confined to the deltas of rivers and along the narrow strips of coastline.A curious feature of these sedimentary blankets is that they contain evidence of rapid, energetic deposition. Geologists describe various strata as a “fluvial environment” or a “high energy braided stream system”,6 which is another way of saying the sediments were deposited by large volumes of fast flowing water that covered a very large area.This evidence suggests a watery catastrophe that affected all the continents. But people do not connect these sediments with the global Flood, because the rocks are said to be hundreds of millions of years old. Are they? We need to realize that the ‘ages’ quoted were calculated by assuming that sedimentation was slow-and-gradual, which is why millions of years are needed. But a catastrophic inundation of the continents, as the evidence indicates, means the rocks were deposited quickly and didn’t take millions of years.

80 whales buried mysteriously in Chilean desertMarine graveyard is evidence for the Global Flood

by Tas WalkerPublished: 01 December 2011(GMT+10)

Figure 1. A complete fossil whale skeleton in the Chilean desert.Researchers from the USA and Chile reported, in November 2011, a remarkable bone bed on the west coast of northern Chile near the port city of Caldera, about 700 kilometres (440 miles) north of the capital, Santiago.1 Excavations uncovered the remains of some 80 baleen whales of which more than 20 specimens were complete (figure 1).2 They also found other kinds of marine mammals including an extinct dolphin with tusks and a sperm whale.3The previous year, construction workers upgrading the Pan-American Highway discovered the fossil site in a road cut just north of Caldera. Since then, teams of scientists led by palaeontologist Nick Pyenson4 from the Smithsonian Institute and Mario Suarez from the nearby Museo Paleontologico de Caldera5 have been working to excavate the fossils while the road works were temporarily suspended.The fossils alongside the highway are confined to a sandstone ridge about 20 metres (70 feet) wide and 240 metres (800 feet) long (figure 2). Most whales were about 8 metres (25 feet) long, and perfectly preserved. Some whales were so close together that

they overlapped one another (figure 3). The site in a corner of the Atacama Desert is now well above sea level and over a kilometre from the shore. Suarez said it was well known that whale bones jutted out of the ridge, which was given the name

Cerro Ballena, or Whale Hill.6

Paleontologists were thrilled to find the treasure trove, describing it as “very unusual”. Pyenson thinks the whales all died “more or less at the same time” after they were trapped in a lagoon. Others suggest they became disoriented and beached themselves. Paleontologist Erich Fitzgerald from Museum Victoria in Australia said it’s possible the remains accumulated over thousands of years. Whale expert Hans Thewissen from Northeast Ohio Medical University thought the whales might have gathered in a lagoon and been stranded by an earthquake or storm. After the connection to the ocean closed, the lagoon dried up and the whales died.The puzzle of how these marine creatures died has caught news headlines with one reporting “Fossil Bonanza Poses Mystery”. Another asked, “How did 75 whales end up in the desert?”Interestingly, some of those posting comments on these news reports suggested the creatures perished in the Flood. Robert Raeburn of Western Australia said, “The whales probably swam there when the whole world was covered in water, about 4000 years ago. They would then have been stranded when the waters assuaged (drained back) to expose the dry land. … The field evidence for large-scale catastrophe is overwhelming as these research scientists have reported. What stops people making the obvious connection between these fossils and the Flood? It’s the million-year ages assigned to the fossils. On one comments thread Holly from the USA responded to the Flood idea with, “Nothing from the Bible perspective makes sense, since 4,000 years ago that area wasn’t covered with water. However it was about 2 million years ago.”But the 2-million-year-figure is the number paleontologists gave for the age of the fossils. Actually, they said the whales probably died between 2 million and 7 million years ago—that is early Pliocene to early Miocene (according to the International Stratigraphic Chart7). But where did they get those ages from?

Figure 2. Photo illustrates the extent and thickness of the outcrop containing the whale fossils. Larger cobbles and pebbles are seen at the base of the outcrop behind the person crouching, and on the top of the cut on the other side of the road. Coarser lenses, possibly of pebbles or shells, are visible in the embankment behind the man. Image from Daily Mail.3 Click for larger image.

Figure 3. Whales overlapping one another. Image from io913

Figure 4. Late Cenozoic sedimentary basins on the west coast of northern Chile. From Feldmann et al.11Click for larger imageFirst, they assign the ‘series’ and ‘stage’ by the field relationships among the strata and according to the fossils found therein.8 At this site they said that the fossil dating is complicated and probably not sufficiently precise to determine if the whales all died at the same time. Second, once the series and stage has been decided they simply read the ‘age’ in millions of years off the chart.Figure 5. Immense boulder conglomerate toward the base of the Caldera basin indicating the high energy processes associated with the early sediment fill. Boulder deposits such as this have been connected with the receding waters of the Flood.14Image from Pyenson Lab15

But how were the numbers determined for the chart? By agreement of an international committee which bases its thinking on the geological philosophy of uniformitarianism—a philosophy that only allows slow and gradual processes as explanations, or local catastrophes at the very largest. 9 In other words, uniformitarian geologists are quite comfortable to hypothesise a storm, earthquake or tsunami, but not the global Flood.On the other hand, drawing on multiple lines of evidence, creation geologists consider the Flood a real event in history and the fossil layers to have been deposited mostly during this event. The Flood washes away the millions of years because it falsifies the assumptions on which the million-year ages are based. Most creation geologists would accept that the standard geological column represents the general order of deposition during the Flood, with

some of the uppermost parts of the column being deposited in the 4,300-year period afterwards.10

The sandstone strata containing the whale fossils are contained within a local area called the Caldera basin (figure 4).11

Similar localised basins are found at a number of places along the western coast of Chile. Although the basins are relatively small for Flood deposits, the characteristics of the sediments in these basins (figures 2 and 5) and the abundant fossils contained in them indicate that deposition took place during a period of rapid and major coastal subsidence.12 Coastal subsidence of this nature is exactly what we would expect in the second part of the Flood when the ocean basins sank, the continents rose and the floodwaters flowed into the ocean. And major coastal subsidence explains the rapid burial of the whales and other creatures because rapid burial was needed soon after death to preserve the fossils. After the ocean basins had mostly subsided and the waters had almost completely drained from the land, the whales and other animals that perished in the catastrophe were buried—toward the end of the Flood. As Robert Raeburn commented on one of the web news reports, the mystery disappears when we interpret the rocks and the fossils from a creation perspective.The fascinating geological history of Pyramid Rock, Phillip Island, Australia

Pyramid Rock, composed of black basalt columns, in the distance sits on a pink granite outcrop.Images courtesy of Tas Walker.

By Tas WalkerPublished: 3 November 2011(GMT+10)

One remarkable tourist highlight on Phillip Island, near Melbourne, Australia, is Pyramid Rock, which presents a distinctive silhouette against the Southern Ocean. You can see its black triangular shape from most of the beaches and headlands along the island’s southern coast.The boardwalk to the lookout gives an excellent view of the black basalt columns crammed along the base of the steep cliff.1 The same columnar jointing is visible in Pyramid Rock in the distance, as well as in most of the headlands and wave platforms that surround the island. And Phillip Island is only part of the area of land that was covered by hot, fuming lakes of molten basalt lava, now referred to as the Older Volcanics.2 Geological map of Phillip Island [Click for larger view]The basalt outcrop in the foreground on Phillip Island itself and the pyramid in the ocean were once connected, but the intervening rock has been eroded away. You can judge something of the depth of a single lava flow from the length of the columns. As you look at these rock outcrops imagine the extent of the lava flow and its depth. Imagine, too, the huge volume of basalt rock that has been removed by erosion since the rocks solidified. This is just one of many lava flows stacked one upon the other that is visible on the island.There is another fascinating geological feature visible from this lookout, one that allows you to understand something of the geological history at a glance. Notice that the rocks at the base of Pyramid Rock are of a different colour from the pyramid itself. They are pink because they are composed of granite, not basalt. They are part of a huge granite body, some of which rises high above the ocean to form

Cape Woolamai—the south-eastern tip of Phillip Island.3

Interpreted geological history of the Pyramid Rock unconformity on Phillip Island. The granite was emplaced early in the Flood, when the previously deposited sediments were compressed and uplifted. Significant erosion by continental scale floodwater movement removed the country rock and, during the Recessive stage of the Flood, the Older Volcanics were erupted.In geological terms the contact between the underlying granite and the overlying basalt is called an unconformity. It signifies a time gap between the granite being emplaced and the basalt lava flowing on top. It’s from sites like this that geologists conclude that lots of erosion occurred between the time the granite was emplaced and when the basalts were erupted. Unlike basalt, granite magma does not flow over the surface of the earth but accumulates far underground in magma chambers, perhaps at a depth of a kilometer or more. So for the granite under Pyramid Rock to have been exposed at the surface, the sedimentary rocks into which the magma had intruded and which sat on top of the granite had been eroded away—likely kilometers of material. Most geologists imagine that this occurred over hundreds of millions of years by slow-and-gradual weathering, such as we observe today. However, continent-wide movements of water during the Flood not only account for such erosion but explain how it could have occurred within weeks or months.Also at this site you are able to observe another interesting feature. Notice in the foreground in the grass that pale-coloured, sandy deposits sit on top of the basalt.1This coarse, sandy/gravelly material is composed of slightly angular quartz fragments and a whitish clay called kaolinite. It’s typical of sediment produced from the breakdown of granite, and most likely was derived from erosion of the Woolamai granite. It was deposited from flowing water.In other words, the basaltic lavas not only erupted after a huge amount of erosion had already taken place but also while erosion was still occurring. In places the basalt lavas flowed directly on top of the granite, in other places on top of sandy sediments, and in yet other places sandy sediments washed over the top of the lava flows. It’s a feature that is easily explained within a Flood framework.Within that perspective, the granitic magma was intruded into sediments deposited early in the Flood as the waters were rising on the earth. It was the compression and folding of the sediments that generated the granitic magma and emplaced it within the earth at that time. After the floodwaters peaked and the continent of Australia began to rise relative to the ocean, the stress along the margins of the continent led to the eruption of the black volcanic lavas. These erupted over the surface as the floodwaters were receding from the continent into the Southern Ocean.

Floating fish and fossil fablesLouisiana fish kill destroys fossil formation ideas

by Shaun DoylePublished: 18 January 2011 (GMT+10)

Figure 1. Massive floating fish grave in Louisiana shows fish bodies don’t sit underwater waiting to be fossilized.In mid-September 2010, a massive fish kill was reported in Louisiana amid fears it was caused by the catastrophic BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico in April.1 After a thorough investigation, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries concluded the fish kill was caused by low oxygen levels from low tides and high water temperatures. 1However, note what happened to the fish. They all ended up floating on top of the water in a vast mat of sea creatures (figure 1). This colossal kill can help clear up some basic misconceptions about the formation of fossils, something that has far reaching implications.Most people think fossils take millions of years to form. They get this idea from what is taught in textbooks and museums, which use drawings depicting how fossils form, such as figure 2. The story starts by showing a dead animal sinking to the bottom of the ocean, where it lies on the sediment waiting to be fossilized. Slowly, more sediment accumulates and gradually buries the dead creature over millions of years until it’s completely covered. The sediment then

hardens and fossilizes the dead creature inside it. The land is uplifted, the sediment eroded until the fossil is exposed after more millions of years, ready for scientists to dig up.Figure 2. This diagram of the formation of a dinosaur fossil from the National Dinosaur Museum, in Canberra, Australia, illustrates the popular millions-of-years story of how fossils form.This massive fish kill in Louisiana illustrates why this popular story is wrong. The thousands of sea creatures are  floating—they’re not lying on the riverbed waiting to be covered in sediment and fossilized. The scavengers and bacteria don’t leave these sorts of kills alone. Under such conditions they break down the corpses very quickly, leaving practically nothing to sink and fossilize.For fossils to form, this decay process needs to be prevented by rapidly burying the dead creatures in sediment. That restricts access to oxygen and scavengers, which prevents rapid breakdown. The final process in forming the fossil usually involves a mineral cement that turns the sediment into stone, but that process does not take millions of years either. (See Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?)The incredible fish kill in Louisiana demonstrates that the traditional story we are told about fossil formation is wrong. Millions of years of time are not needed. Dead fish don’t sink to be slowly buried by sediment. The fossil record testifies that something abnormal happened in the past that buried the animals quickly. Such fossil formation is completely consistent with global catastrophe of the Flood.

Sediment bioturbation experiments and the actual rock recordby Carl R. Froede Jr

Figure 1. Filter-feeding organisms have penetrated the quartz sands creating vertical to subvertical burrows. The displaced sand now lies adjacent to the opening of the burrow. The vertical nature and spacing of these tubes would limit the extent of bioturbation. Only through a large population of organisms would the horizontal sedimentary fabric be completely removed. Diameter of the larger sand piles is approximately 10 cm. These particular traces would fall into the Skolithos Ichnofacies. This setting is a modern subtidal lagoon located in St. Andrews State Park, Panama City Beach, Florida.The bioturbation of sediments by trace makers is often perceived by naturalists as a process requiring extensive periods of time. Little experimental work has been conducted to either support or refute such a concept. However, recent laboratory analysis indicates that the bioturbation of marine sediments can occur within short periods of time.Bioturbation experiments

Marine worms, bivalves (clams), arthropods (shrimp and crabs), and echinoderms (sea urchins and brittle stars) are just some of the many animals that live on or in marine sediments (figures 1 and 2). The study of traces created in sediment is identified as ichnology (Gk ichnos = trace).1Recently, an investigation was conducted to determine the rate that select bivalves, arthropods, and echinoderms could bioturbate marine sediments. The animals were collected from tidal flats and shallow subtidal sediments from the Ogeechee estuary, Georgia (U.S.A).2 They were placed into glass aquaria filled with alternating layers of sand and heavy minerals with each layer being approximately 5 to 10 mm thick.2 Examination of the rate of bioturbation occurred at 1, 6, 24, 72 and 144 hour intervals by collecting X-ray images of the aquaria sidewalls.2

Experiment resultsThe results of the study indicate that:“ … ten filter-feeding individuals could take as long as 115 yr to churn a 1 m 2 plot of sediment, by indexing the measured burrowing rates to realistic animal population densities. Ten such mobile deposit feeders as irregular echinoderms could bioturbate the same sediment in just 42 days. Under maximum population densities modeled, the animals could bioturbate the sediment plot in 61 min. Given the reported results, qualitative interpretation of the rock record is possible: highly burrowed examples of the   Skolithos   Ichnofacies reflect high population densities and at least seasonal time spans. Highly burrowed examples of the   Cruziana   Ichnofacies may represent moderate population densities and short time spans.” 3

Figure 2. Mobile deposit feeders have left a trail on top of the quartz sand as they plowed through the sediments looking for food. These types of trace makers moving through the sediment substrate would rapidly bioturbate the sands and destroy any laminations in the sediments. These traces would fall into the Cruziana Ichnofacies. The width of view is approximately 60 cm. The setting is a modern subtidal lagoon located in St. Andrews State Park, Panama City Beach, Florida.It should be noted that the filter-feeding animals are interpreted to occur in theSkolithos Ichnofacies (figure 3) while the mobile deposit feeders would be found in the CruzianaIchnofacies (figure 4). The benthic environment for each of these ichnofacies is defined as:“ Skolithos   Ichnofacies (shifting substrates)—Lower littoral to infralittoral, moderate to relatively high-energy conditions most typical. Associated with slightly muddy to clean, well-sorted, shifting sediments subject to abrupt erosion or deposition. Higher

energy increases physical reworking and obliterates biogenic sedimentary structures, leaving a preserved record of physical stratification. Generally corresponds to the beach foreshore and shoreface; but numerous other settings of comparable energy levels also may be represented, such as some estuarine point bars, tidal deltas, and deep-sea fans.“Cruziana   Ichnofacies (shifting to stable substrates)—In shallow marine settings, typically includes infralittoral to shallow circalittoral substrates below minimum but not maximum wave base, to somewhat quieter conditions offshore; moderate to relatively low energy; well-sorted silts and sands, to interbedded muddy and clean sands, moderately to intensely bioturbated; negligible to appreciable (though not necessarily rapid) sedimentation. A very common type of depositional environment, including not only shelves and epeiric embayments but also littoral to sub-littoral parts of certain estuaries, bays, lagoons, and tidal flats.” 4

Implications for the rock recordIf we are consistent in applying the uniformitarian philosophy to the rock record then we should expect a high level of bioturbation for almost all of the sediments deposited in a former marine setting, especially if that environment existed with little to no change for thousands to millions of years. Counter to that conceptualization, some diluvialists have predicted that we should expect little sediment bioturbation due to the high-energy conditions associated with the Flood.5 Within this diluvial interpretation it could be postulated that the rapid deposition of sediments, one atop another, would leave little time for trace makers to move in and stir them. However, neither perspective is consistent with the actual rock record (figure 5).

Figure 3. Skolithos traces dominate this exposure of the Meridian Sand from Campbell Mountain, Alabama. Note the vertical to subvertical traces in the sand filled by gray clay. Conditions were optimum for trace maker activity and the amount of time necessary to create these traces could be measured in months, not years or decades. Sediment deposition during this portion of the Flood was low enough to allow the bioturbation of the sediments and the destruction of any preexisting sedimentary fabric. Scale in inches and centimeters.

Figure 4. This image shows Cruziana traces created as casts on the base of a sandstone layer.7 This type of sediment stirring activity would rapidly destroy any preexisting sedimentary fabric. This outcrop is located alongside Lookout Mountain, Georgia (USA). Scale in inches and centimeters.

Figure 5. Sidewall along Providence Canyon, Georgia (USA). Uniformitarians assert that these sands were deposited in a mixed-energy barrier island setting cut by tidal inlets.8 Some of the canyon sidewalls display a few sub-vertical Ophiomorpha traces but many more do not. This sidewall exhibits no evidence of any bioturbation where it would be expected within the hypothesized uniformitarian setting. The cross-bedding displayed in the sands indicates this was a high-energy depositional environment. While some trace makers were present in this energetic setting, they had little opportunity to bioturbate the sediments due to rapid deposition and the reworking of the sediments during the later stages of the Flood. Scale in 15-cm divisions.The presence or absence of trace fossils and bioturbated sediments is dependent on many different factors including trace maker population density, sediment

firmness, salinity, pH, food and oxygen. Also, the behavior of trace makers facing abnormal environmental stress should be considered. For example, Woodmorappe6 proposed a unique idea suggesting that rapid bioturbation could occur concurrently in several vertical tiers if the stressed ichnofauna were protected from sediment compaction and provided an aerobic environment. Many different factors would go into determining if this occurred or if the traces were rapidly produced as individual layers. There are many reasons why sediments may or may not have been bioturbated within a proposed diluvial setting and the site-specific paleoenvironmental factors should be identified.ConclusionsRecent laboratory experiments document that the bioturbation of marine sediments can occur over a short period of time depending on the type and population density of trace makers. For uniformitarians, the lack of any stirred sediment requires that they appeal to punctuated catastrophic events. Such events do not eliminate their reliance on deep time assumptions—the vertical rock record should exhibit layers of intense bioturbation interrupted by nonbioturbated sedimentary events followed by intense bioturbation. However, this is not typically found in the actual rock record.As diluvialists, we can use trace fossils to help define the probable geologic conditions in which the traces were created relative to the Flood setting. Knowing the differences in the rate of bioturbation between the Skolithos and Cruziana ichnofacies allows diluvialists to possibly estimate the time period in which these traces were formed. Where no bioturbation has occurred, we need to determine the factors that prevented trace makers from stirring those sediments.The importance of this new experimental work cannot be overemphasized as the challenge to explaining highly bioturbated sediments no longer requires deep time—it depends on the availability and types of trace makers. A large population of filter-feeding or mobile sediment-feeding animals could easily bioturbate marine sediments within the short time frames of the global Flood. The lack of any bioturbation should direct us to other important considerations why sediment stirring did not occur.

‘Seashells in the desert’

by David Catchpoole

The massive limestone blocks of the Egyptian pyramids contain abundant fossil shells, most of them still beautifully intact, according to a recent mineralogical analysis.1At the Great Pyramid of Khufu (Cheops), the fossil shells constitute ‘a proportion of up to 40% of the whole building stone rock’, explained Professor Ioannis Liritzis and his colleagues from the University of the Aegean and the University of Athens. The fossils were predominately nummulites (coin-shaped coiled fossils of shelled protozoa), but sand dollars, starfish and sea urchins were also detected.This announcement has served to intensify the debate as to whether the pyramid blocks were carved out of natural stone or rather were cast as concrete—an idea proposed two decades ago by Joseph Davidovits, professor and director of France’s Geopolymer Institute. Davidovits had

reproduced such ‘artificial limestone’ by grinding up various local rocks, with the mixture hardening within hours. 2But Liritzis and his team argue that their evidence shows that the building stones used in the constructions of the Giza pyramids, at least—along with the Sphinx and other Egyptian monuments—must have been carved, not cast. For example, X-ray diffraction and other analysis shows that the fossils are ‘largely undamaged’ and distributed throughout the stone ‘in accordance with their typical distribution at sea floors’. And there are no known references to moulds, buckets or other casting tools in early Egyptian texts, paintings or sculptures.Robert Temple, co-director of the Project for Historical Dating and a visiting research fellow at universities in the US, Greece and Egypt, says both sides of the debate present worthy points.‘There is no evidence known that suggests the ancient Egyptians had cranes. Without cranes, it is difficult to imagine how they could have lifted giant stones, some as heavy as 200 tonnes,’ Temple says, but he also agrees that the fossils should not be ignored.‘Frankly, not many people pay attention to the shells, which I have always thought was a shame. “Seashells in the desert”—a good story.’Actually, there are two key points we can note:Irrespective of whether the pyramid blocks were all carved from natural stone or some cast as concrete using ground-up rock, the presence of   abundant marine fossils   points to the raw building materials having been obtained   post -Flood. (How else could you get ‘seashells in the desert’?) So the ancient Egyptian culture arose   after   the events of , not before. The ancestor of the Egyptians, Mizraim, 3   appears in   ; the Egyptian name for Egypt is Misr to this day. 4 In the absence of definitive eyewitness evidence as to how the pyramids were actually constructed, people today can mostly only speculate. But whether the blocks were carved or cast or both, the ingenuity and engineering skills of ancient times ought not surprise us, as man has been intelligent from the very first—in stark contrast to evolutionary teaching, which says early man was ‘primitive’.

Mining mountains in West Virginiaby Tas Walker

Like so many people today, miners in West Virginia often commute to work, but that’s where the comparison ends. Their travel is deep inside the earth below the mountains of ‘the mountain State’, famous for its coal.It’s not unusual for coal miners to descend 350m (1,200ft) down slope before travelling for 20–30 minutes out into the mine.When you work inside a mine, you discover that it’s dark and damp. A new miner needs to get used to moving around with just a light on his head. Rookie miners, or ‘red hats’ as the old hands call them, soon realize that coal mining can be dangerous. It’s an unwritten rule to stay on your toes and look out for your workmates.Map after West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, map 25

Geological map of West Virginia. The Pennsylvanian coal measures extend for hundreds of milesMany start underground because of their family history, with fathers and grandfathers being coal miners before them.Not everyone who darkens a coal mine is thinking about the Global Flood, but there is much underground to remind us about that event—fossils for example.

At first, ‘red hats’ are fascinated to find the remains of trees, leaves, shells and sometimes fish so far underground. It’s fascinating to see delicate, fern-like leaves and leaf-scarred trunks with a scaly appearance.The vegetation looks like it grew in a tropical climate, but there are no tropical plants growing in West Virginia today. Going underground is like travelling into a long lost world, a different environment when the coal was laid down.Miners often uncover roots and branches, and in places the trees and brush are heaped up, just like they were dumped beside a flooding river. It is not uncommon to find large tree trunks, some as long as 25m (80ft). The tree trunks lying on their sides give the impression they have been washed into place.Frequently fossil leaves show exquisite detail of veins and stalks. This reinforces the impression that the vegetation was buried quickly,

before it had time to decay.Broken tree trunk in a layer of sandstone, west of Sydney, Australia, sits on top of a coal seam. Note that the roots are broken off. After it was ripped out and broken, it was washed into place.Usually the layers of coal, or seams, are sandwiched between layers of sandstone, which were laid down by flowing water. Naturally mining companies prefer to work seams that are reasonably flat and level, although in places seams will run up quite steeply in areas where the earth has moved, near a fault, for example.The machinery can work seams that vary from as thick as 3m (10ft) in places to just 1m (3ft) in others.Miners need to be alert for methane, a gas that builds up underground. It is flammable, explosive and poisonous. Methane escapes when the coal is cut, so the mine must be well ventilated to keep the area safe.When the machinery stops, you can hear the methane hissing from the coal face. Sometimes you can see it bubbling in water pooled on the ground. Mining companies are exploring ways to extract the methane before the coal is extracted.The methane suggests that the coal is not millions of years old as generally believed. In such a long time you would expect that gas under such pressure would long ago have leaked out of the coal.. Coal is evidence of the catastrophe global Flood, and many miners agree with that.Some plants from West Virginian coalCalamites grew up to 10 m (30 ft) high and looked a little like bamboo. They are also known as ‘articulates’ because of their jointed stems.Lepidodendron, also called the ‘scale tree’, is an ancient lycopod. They grew more than 40 m (130 ft) high with trunks 2 m (6 ft) in diameter.

Did the coal form in a swamp?Most geologists say coal formed in a swamp. In West Virginia, supposedly 300 million years ago, the area was said to have been a vast, featureless coastal swamp extending for hundreds of miles and barely rising above sea level.1

Why a swamp? Because a swamp is the only way that geologists can imagine lots of vegetation could accumulate in one place. Normally, vegetation disintegrates, even in a rainforest. The idea is that a swamp could prevent the vegetation from decaying.Geologists are reluctant to say that the vegetation washed into place because a flood of a world proportions would be needed, and most geologists don’t like to believe in Global Flood. So, without the Flood, they are only left with a swamp.But, for the idea to work, the swamp has to be just above sea level—too low and it would drown; too high and it would dry out. It has to cover the whole area, hundreds of miles across. It has to sink gradually, over hundreds of thousands of years, at exactly the same rate that the vegetation accumulated. And it has to stay level all that time—no tilting or folding.It is a tall order.

Kettle bottoms—deadly tree rootsSometimes, after the miners have dug out the coal seam, they can see tree roots in the sandstone roof. The wood is well preserved and they can even see where the roots have spurred off around its base. It’s like they are standing underneath the tree looking up at it.Coal miners call the stumps ‘kettle bottoms’ or ‘kettle boms’. The wood is petrified and heavy.Kettle boms are deadly dangerous because they can fall out without warning—a constant peril to coal mining families in West Virginia.You could think that these trees grew in place, but how could such tall trees remain upright on a soft, spongy peat bog?Surprisingly, during a watery catastrophe, broken tree trunks will often tip vertically with their heavy end, the roots, downward, into the water. They look like they grew in place but didn’t. This happened to many of the pine trees destroyed in the catastrophic eruption of Mt St. Helens in 1980.1

And to the trees destroyed at Yellowstone; see Sarfati, J., The Yellowstone petrified forests: evidence of catastrophe, Creation21(2):18–21, 1999; <creation.com/yellowstone>.

Other problems with the swamp idea include:Sandstone layers, or strata, sometimes with faint diagonal markings called cross-beds, frequently sit above or below the seams, indicating it was deposited from flowing water.Thin layers of clay only centimetres thick, called clay bands or partings, run through the coal, often extending for kilometres.The fossils immediately above and below the coal are very well preserved, indicating rapid burial.There are sharp contacts between the coal and the sand/silt/clay below and above.Fossils of broken tree trunks are sometimes in standing positions above, below, and occasionally through the coal, pointing to very rapid burial of the layers.2

Logs immediately above the coal seams are often very large, pointing to watery transport, whereas trees growing on thick peat today are stunted due to lack of nutrients.Coal points to the vegetation being dumped by a huge watery catastrophe—strong evidence to the reality of the global Flood just 4,500 years ago.

A river like no otherby Dr Emil Silvestru

‘No possible action of any flood could thus have modelled the land, either within the valley or along the open coast.’ 1So wrote Charles Darwin about the Santa Cruz River in southern Patagonia. He was in the third year of his  Beagle voyage, having visited many locations along South America’s southeastern coast. He had identified step-like plains running inland from the sea, and he thought they were caused by the slow subsidence and elevation of the land over a very long time, with the receding sea repeatedly eroding the flat surfaces.Exploring the river during April 1834, Darwin saw similar step-like plains on both sides and a layer of basalt, with very little basalt rubble downstream. He was convinced that the river had insufficient strength to erode such large volumes of basalt and grind the rubble to sand—it could only have been done by the sea.He postulated an ancient sea strait cutting the entire continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific! Darwin concluded, ‘[I]t makes the head almost giddy to reflect on the number of years, century after century, which the tides, unaided by a heavy surf, must have required to have corroded so vast an area and thickness of solid basaltic lava.’ 1 His mentor, Charles Lyell, was the one who largely introduced the ‘slow and gradual long ages’ concept to geology. Like him, Darwin totally rejected any sudden, catastrophic agency.The Santa Cruz RiverRio Santa Cruz is an unusual river, flowing out of a lake (Lago Argentino) at a rate that could comfortably supply the water needs of 15 cities the size of New York.2,3 It snakes majestically across the Patagonian plain for 385 km (240 miles), with no tributaries.2Thirty km (20 miles) at its widest, the river valley narrows through three steps to about 3 km (2 miles) at the bottom. However, the river is no wider than 200 m (700 ft) in most places. Such a river is called  underfit, i.e. much smaller than the size of the valley it flows in. Darwin recorded a valley width of only 16 km (10 miles), indicating he never climbed to the top of the slope where the real width is clearly visible.What if Darwin had travelled all the way to the river’s source: Lago Argentino? Presumably his astute mind and keen sense of observation would have led him to an explanation consistent with his view: Lago Argentino is also a remnant of an ancient arm of the sea. Ideally, he would have looked for a place at the lake’s westernmost end where his ancient straits were still visible as a deep cut across the Andes. If so, he would have been deeply disappointed to find, instead, a continuous mountain range from which the beautiful Perito Moreno glacier (pictured above) descends directly into the lake.The Santa Cruz River and meltwater floodingThe water in Lago Argentino comes from the melting of the ice of the glaciers in the Los Glaciares National Park of which Perito Moreno is the most important. As the glacier advances into the lake, it sometimes separates it into two arms. Without drainage, meltwater in the southern arm sometimes rises 30 m (100 ft) behind the ice dam which it eventually breaches, releasing the water into the main lake. Such breaching has been recorded at least 19 times in the last 90 years. 4 Further south, a small glacial lake disappeared overnight in 2007 because of a breached ice dam.5During the final stages of the Ice Age,6 the Patagonian Ice Cap covered most of the Andes7 and at the end of the Ice Age, meltwater accumulated in lakes under the ice and at the edge of the ice cap. A much larger Lago Argentino formed, probably dammed towards the east by massive moraines and ice. When the dam breached, a first burst cut a more shallow channel over 30 km (20 miles) wide—the uppermost step. Then a second, deeper and narrower channel was cut which reached the basalt layer, undermining and eventually cutting it. The flow diminished until a river roughly the size of the present one remained.The soft sediments could not preserve the usual landmarks such floods create. There are however silent witnesses strewn across the valley: rounded

Coal doesn’t take millions of years to formIt does not take millions of years for vegetation to transform into coal. You can do it in 1–9 months using simple ingredients. Put some wood in a strong sealed container with water and a catalyst (such as clay). Heat it to 150°C (300°F) to get brown coal.1 Turn up the temperature for black coal.It just takes heat and pressure. Time is not that important.Hayatsu, R., et al., Artificial coalification study: preparation and characterization of synthetic macerals, Organic Geochemistry 6:463–471, 1984; see also Walker, T., Coal: memorial to the Flood,Creation 23(2):22–27, 2001; <creation.com/coal>.

blocks, some very large, that display many scars of their collisions with other blocks as they were hurled downstream by the floodwaters. These differ from blocks carried by ice.

The meltwater flood hypothesisGeologists today believe that glacial meltwater floods carved unusual landscapes like the Channeled Scablands in Washington State, USA. A larger flood in Canada drained Lake Agassiz’s glacial meltwater and cut the Niagara Escarpment and Gorge and the St Lawrence River. In Canada many floods also occurred underneath the ice sheet. In Alberta, a massive subglacial flood probably shaped most of the foothills and possibly the Rockies themselves.8Catastrophic meltwater floods also cut the narrow land bridge connecting Europe with Britain—ironically the home of the father of anti-catastrophist geology, Charles Lyell.The late Derek Ager, a British geologist and anti-creationist, wrote: ‘Just as politicians rewrite human history, so geologists rewrite earth history. For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell. Any suggestion of “catastrophic” events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable.’9

Darwin and the glaciersWhen Darwin left Europe in December 1831 on board the Beagle, the idea of ice ages was in its incipient stages. He did not fully understand the power of glaciers in eroding and transporting rocks, nor that glaciers extended far from the mountains in the recent past. He had already seen and recorded many erratic (i.e. glacier-transported) blocks on the surface of the South American Pampas but strongly believed, following Lyell, that they had been transported there by icebergs when the sea was covering the Pampas.Darwin published his journal (The Voyage of the Beagle) in 1839, three years after his return to England. At that time he was perfectly aware of the scientific theory of ice ages put forward by the Swiss geologist, Louis Agassiz.10 In fact Lyell had openly opposed it in his presidential address to the Geological Society of London in 1836.11

Darwin himself wrote a passionate critique of Agassiz’s ice age theory.11 His aversion to it may have been aided by the fact that by that time he had started to think along evolutionary lines, whilst Agassiz, though a long-ager, was a staunch anti-evolutionist. As we all know today, Agassiz was right about glaciers and the Ice Age; Darwin was wrong.ConclusionDarwin’s Beagle voyage, in addition to his basic geological training and Lyell’s book, Principles of Geology, made him an experienced field geologist. Exploring the Santa Cruz River played an important role in developing Darwin’s geological views. It reinforced his belief in deep geological time—and, as few scholars today doubt, this played a key part in shaping his evolutionary ideas in biology.11Yet most of his interpretations of this area (and many others in South America) were erroneous, according to modern geology. He assumed for instance that the entire valley of the Santa Cruz River was once an arm of the sea. But it is believed today that it was most probably cut by catastrophic meltwater flooding towards the end of the Ice Age, a concept which Darwin opposed.12The slow, uniform flow of time and geological processes that Darwin believed in is now replaced by a new paradigm according to which most geological processes occurred rather suddenly, often as catastrophic events. Though the Flood is still utterly rejected by the evolutionary establishment—despite the massive evidence—it was the most important catastrophe of all. If a sudden burst of meltwater com ing from melting glaciers could cut the enormous Santa Cruz valley so quickly, how much more would the global Flood, involving all the water in the oceans, have done in terms of shaping the land?

Rock language: is there such a thing?by Dr Tas Walker

ref. 2.Have you heard the saying ‘The rocks speak out’? But can you understand what they say?Let’s see.Look for a moment at the sedimentary deposit shown in the photograph (figure 1). It is 1.5m thick.You can see the bottom portion of the deposit, marked D, is dark, massive and without any clear structure. The next section, marked C, has a few horizontal layers, some that are light coloured and others dark. Above that, the section marked B is made of mostly light sand, which looks like there are a few waves or dunes in it. The whole sequence is capped by a dark layer at the top, marked A.Geologists interpret past environments from such exposures of rock. The idea is that the rocks tell us what happened in the past. But it is people who do the talking; the rocks are silent. That is, the interpretation is determined by perspective.Let’s try to interpret these sedimentary layers shown in the section. This is what we could say:‘The bottom sediments were deposited in shallow mudflats along an ancient coastline. Worms and other organisms, as they grazed for food in the mud, disturbed the sediment and left it without any clear structure.‘As more sediment accumulated in the area, the shoreline gradually advanced seaward, and the mudflats were covered with beach sand. The flat strata were deposited in the zone on the beach that was affected by the tides. The dark and

light strata represent periods of time when the ocean levels sometimes increased and other times decreased: a time of rapid small scale sea transgressions and regressions.‘More sediment accumulated and the coast line continued to build seaward. Eventually the area was covered by small sandy dunes at the top of the beach. Gentle winds helped move the sand up the beach. Just beyond the sand dunes, in a perched lake environment, leaves and twigs from the vegetation in the area accumulated in a shallow marsh.’You can see all this clearly in an illustration of the environment in figure 2.

Geologists routinely interpret past geological environments from the rock layers in this way. It’s part of their job. Here is an example of what they say about the so-called Carboniferous period, which they put at 300 million years ago:

‘Along the margins of the seas, quantities of detritus [accumulated fragments] from eroding mountain chains were carried down by rivers to form wide deltas and delta swamps.’1We often read such interpretations in the media, in tourist brochures, and in school books. The descriptions can be vivid and almost give the impression that the geologists were there to see what was going on.So, how do we rate our interpretation of the sand deposit in figure 1?Not too well. Even though the interpretation was plausible and convincing, it is wrong.In this case, we know how the sediments in figure 1 were deposited. People saw it happen. This sand was deposited in a New Orleans neighbourhood on 29 August 2005 as a result of Hurricane Katrina.2

After Nelson and Leclair, ref. 2.The hurricane produced a storm surge which burst the levee on the London Avenue Canal, flooding the area and depositing sediment as shown in figure3. The section we interpreted was photographed in front of house number 2 (labelled on figure) as workmen cleared the debris away.The levee burst between 7 and 8 am, and the torrent of water was so powerful that it lifted one house from its foundation, moved it 35m (115 ft) into a tree, and turned it around (red house in figure 3). Repairs to the breach began after two days.The whole 1.5m (5 ft) of sand was deposited quickly as water flooded into the neighbourhood. Rather than representing different environments over long periods of time, the sediments represent rapidly changing flow conditions.The bottom section represents the first sediments carried into the area by the initial turbulent torrent. The flat layers above were deposited from a continuous flow of high-velocity water as the water level in the neighbourhood rose. The next section, with the sand dunes, was deposited when the water slowed down. And the organic twigs and leaves were left in a layer on the top.The whole deposit was laid down quickly during one catastrophe in about a day.Clare Bond from the University of Glasgow, and other researchers from the UK investigated human bias in geological interpretation. Consulting with over 200 professional geoscientists they found that a person’s previous experience affects how they interpret geological evidence.3Industry needs to know what risks they face when making major decisions based on the interpretations of geological data.Clearly, the way we interpret rocks depends on what we think happened in the past. Those who start with wrong ideas about the past will be wrong in their interpretation of the data—even if they have a detailed, plausible and consistent story.The big risk is in not recognizing catastrophic deposits.That is the situation with modern geology. Most geologists have decided from the outset that the huge catastrophe of the Flood did not happen.4 So they interpret the rocks in terms of stable environments over millions of years.These explanations are often logical, detailed and plausible (although there are always things that don’t add up, but these are generally overlooked).

Picture Gorge shouts sudden cataclysmby Steve Wolfe

Probably you have heard the expression, ‘Seeing is believing’, but is that always true? In fact, quite often it’s the other way around: ‘Believing is seeing’. This is true of geology, for example. Geological evidence does not speak for itself, and so it must always be interpreted. And how we interpret that evidence is always influenced by our beliefs.A good example of this is found on a roadside interpretive sign near the Sheep Rock Unit of the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument in central Oregon. This is where the John Day River flows through a water gap1 called Picture Gorge. It’s about 300 m (1,000 ft) deep, with nearly vertical walls of basalt.

The National Park Service interpretive sign alongside the highway viewing area states, ‘To many, the sharp, steep walls of Picture Gorge suggest a sudden cataclysm and not the slow, relentless forces that actually shaped it.’ The evidence is that the gorge was cut rapidly, but they don’t see it.According to the standard uniformitarian interpretation, the basaltic lava flowed over this area about 16 million years ago. After that, the river slowly cut down through these lava flows over millions of years to form the gorge. But how could a river flow through a long range of hills? You would expect water to flow around.The creationist interpretation,

however, does not have these sorts of problems. In that view, the gorge was carved by deep water as it was running off the earth during the recessive stage (where the water runs off) of the global flood, as mountains and continents were uplifted and ocean basins subsided. In other words, the gorge was carved rapidly and recently. And that is what the evidence so obviously suggests.Alongside the highway viewing area for Picture Gorge is a National Park Service interpretive sign which states, ‘To many, the sharp, steep walls of Picture Gorge suggest a sudden cataclysm and not the slow, relentless forces that actually shaped it.’ Note that they think it looks sudden.A creationist road guide to the John Day area aptly states that denying such clear evidence for catastrophe ‘is blind adherence to uniformitarianism. Millions of years would break down the steep walls seen here.’2 This is an example where seeing is not believing.But why would people deny the obvious evidence of a ‘sudden cataclysm’? Perhaps it is because that suggests something out of the ordinary, something much bigger than their geological philosophy allows.

Golden evidence of the Global Floodby Jack Lange

Jack Lange holding gold-bearing quartz.Most people would be surprised to learn that smooth water-worn gold nuggets are frequently found not only in rivers and streams but on hills and even mountain tops. For example, several years ago, while prospecting on Cape York Peninsula in Northern Queensland, my brother and I detected about 30 nuggets on a hillside and even on the top of the hill. The nuggets ranged from two grams to over an ounce and were all at least partly smooth. The water-worn nuggets were intermingled with partly smoothed rocks from the size of marbles to a pumpkin.1 Many prospectors wonder how these high-country nuggets became so smooth.Secular geologists may explain that the gold-bearing wash is due to an ancient river bed upheaval. The problem with that theory is that rocks and gravel found in river beds today are generally totally smooth.So we would expect that rocks found in the supposed ‘ancient river beds’ would be very smooth also. Mostly however, they are onlypartly smooth or water worn, as if they have been tumbled along by water movement for a very limited time. This is better explained by the action of the Flood.Gold is found in quartz veins that formed when the host rock fractured (see box). Serious prospectors know that most gold mined today, at some stage, has come from where these gold-bearing quartz veins outcrop at the surface—from quartz reefs. In fact, most nuggets that I have found (and I have found thousands all over Australia), when first unearthed, have quartz attached to them.As the floodwaters were receding, the reefs were pummeled and eroded, and chunks of gold-bearing quartz broke away.2 Some of the gold still remains trapped inside these quartz specimens, and this is often located with metal detectors.Nuggets formed when the gold broke free from the quartz as it was tumbled about. If these nuggets were

moved about sufficiently to become at least partly smooth, then they are categorized as alluvial gold. However if the nuggets are found close to their reef source they are usually jagged and angular, and are categorized as elluvial gold.Any gold that broke free during the Flood would have had months to roll about and become very smooth. Gold that is only slightly smooth on the edges would have broken off during the last stages of the Flood or been tumbled by the movement of the surface sediments since the Flood.My understanding of the Flood and how its massive forces disseminated gold nuggets further from their reef source than commonly thought has helped me become a successful prospector. It’s a fascinating experience to dig a smooth gold nugget out of its ancient resting place and ponder its history.

How gold formed during the Floodby Tas Walker

Gold was known before the Flood. Most of the gold produced during the c reation was probably buried in the Flood.

 

   Gold also formed during the Flood.In the first half of the Flood, floodwaters increased on the earth and dumped thick deposits of sediment. Water still trapped in the sediment was under pressure, contained many aggressive chemicals, and dissolved lots of minerals.Huge earth movements during the Flood folded the sediments, often producing metamorphic rock.The water squeezed through cracks in the rock, depositing quartz and other minerals such as gold, silver, copper, zinc and lead. These mineral-rich quartz veins are called ‘reefs’.In the second half of the Flood, receding floodwaters eroded the land. Gold from the reefs concentrated in alluvial deposits.

How landscapes reveal the Global Floodby Tas Walker

Figure 1. The rocks forming the gorge, orientated almost vertically, are cut across almost horizontally by the plateau.Visualizing the receding floodwatersSignature of the Recessive stage of the FloodFigure 2. Wollomombi Falls (left) and Chandler Falls (right), New South Wales, Australia, after heavy rain. Even though the flow of water is great and the falls spectacular, the flow is relatively small when compared with the gorge itself.As the sea floor started sinking relative to the continents, the floodwaters covering the continents began to flow into the oceans. On each continent the water flowed away from the higher areas in the middle towardthe lower areas at the edges, in a direction generally perpendicular to the

shore.Since the Flood was global the receding waters would have produced the same sort of signature all over the world.At first, the water flowed in sheets. This means that they eroded surfaces relatively flat, even in areas of high elevation on the continents. The water would tend to cut across geological strata like a knife cutting cheese. Such high plateaus are a common feature of today’s landscapes and have been given a name—peneplanes, which means ‘almost a plane’.Photo by Tas Walker

Figure 3. The plunge pool for the Wolomombi Falls is surrounded by only a small amount of broken rocks, or talus, suggesting little rock has fallen into the gorge since it was first eroded.Eventually, the flow of floodwater reduced with time. Thus, the water sheets would divide into mega-rivers, many times wider than the widest rivers that flow over the contents today. These mega-rivers would dissect the plateaus into wide valleys. They would also cut across the underlying geological structure in their journey to the ocean, acting as if the structure did not exist. This is a common feature of present day landscapes and geologists have coined a term for it—discordant drainage. And the mega-rivers would carry even the largest rock debris clear out of their valleys.After the Flood and up to the present time, rainfall draining from the land would flow in the same valleys that were cut by the Flood. However, because the water flowing from the continent is much less than the mega-rivers draining the Flood, today’s rivers and streams are much smaller than

the valleys they occupy. These rivers have also even been given a name—underfit rivers.In the 4,300 years since the Flood, ice, wind and water have continued to erode the landscape. In the first few centuries, ice sheets developed on some areas of the continents, especially in the northern hemisphere, and these produced tell-tale effects on the landscape. However, in areas that were not glaciated, the channels cut by rivers since the Flood are relatively small, about the same size as the river itself. And those rivers would not have enough energy to carry the largest rock debris, called talus, away. In order to be transported, large rock debris would need first to be broken into smaller pieces.We can use this simple model to see the effects of the receding waters of the Flood all over the world. Look for plateaus that have been cut relatively flat, even across the underlying geological structure, such as through mountain ranges rather than around them. Look for wide valleys that cut into the plateaus. Look for rivers that are much smaller than the valleys they occupy and that also cut across the underlying geologic structure. Check the amount of talus in the gorges and valleys.Wollomombi Gorge, AustraliaArmidale, New South Wales sits atop the high plateau that forms part of the Great Dividing Range, a range that runs from the north to the south of the continent adjacent to the east coast. Not far away, at the edge of the plateau, the Wollomombi Gorge cuts deep into surface (figure 1). After heavy rain two waterfalls flow into the gorge (figure 2). The Wollomombi Falls to the left has an impressive drop and the Chandler Falls to the right churns down the steep escarpment in a narrow channel.The rocks in the gorge are tightly folded and faulted and have a near vertical orientation. 1They form part of the eastern block of Australia known as the New England Fold Belt, which was folded, deformed and uplifted.Photo by Tas Walker

Figure 4. Escarpments of the narrow downstream gorge support only a limited growth of vegetation. Little rock debris has fallen into the gorge since it was carved as indicated by the absence of talus in the bottom.Notice that the plateau cuts the vertical strata almost horizontally forming an undulating land surface nearly 1,000 m above sea level. It’s easy to imagine how this plateau could have been cut by the receding floodwaters that were running in sheets eastward off the continents.The Wollomombi Gorge is quite narrow at the bottom but nearly a kilometre wide in places at the top. It is much narrower than the wide valleys further east that are used for farming and which can be many tens of kilometers across. This narrowness indicates that the gorge was cut quite late geologically. Is it possible for the gorge to have been cut by the Wollomombi and Chandler rivers in the approximately 4,500 years since the Flood? That seems unlikely to me considering the volume of material removed from the gorge. It seems more likely that the gorge was cut very late in the Flood when the flow of water was much reduced but still flowing with significantly more energy than the present rivers can muster, even after heavy rainfall.Figure 5. Interpreted geological history of the Wollomombi Falls. Rocks of the area were deposited early in the Flood, compressed and uplifted. The flat plateau was eroded by sheet flow, during the Abative phase of the Flood. The narrow gorge was eroded very late in the Flood, during the Dispersive phase.The trees and other vegetation, growing sparsely on the escarpment, indicate that the escarpment is relatively stable otherwise the vegetation would not be able to become established. There is very little talus in the bottom of the gorge. The plunge pool for the

Wolomombi Falls is about the correct size for water flows that occur at the present time, suggesting that this small pool was excavated after the Flood. Although there are some blocks of rock around the plunge pool the volume of talus is small. This suggests that the talus has accumulated after the Flood and generally not been carried away. In other words, the gorge was mostly excavated when the water flows were much greater and had enough energy to carry the material out. These conclusions depend on whether the rock falling from the walls of the gorge tends to break away as large or small blocks, and how readily the rock material will break down.ConclusionThe Wollomombi Gorge at the edge of the large plateau near Armidale, Australia, is a good example of the sort of geologic signatures that the receding waters of the Flood carved onto the earth. Sheet flow during the Abative phase of the Flood cut the horizontal plateau across the vertical structure of the underlying rocks, and channel flow in the Dispersive phase late in the Flood cut the gorge itself. Only minimal erosion has occurred in the 4,300 years since the Flood.

Greenland ice cores: implicit evidence for catastrophic depositionby John Woodmorappe

Figure 1. Location of the GRIP and GISP2 ice cores in central Greenland (after Oard).1

A number of cores have been drilled into the Greenland ice cap (Figure 1). Two of them, GRIP (Greenland Ice Project) and GISP2 (Greenland Ice Sheet Project) are only 28 km apart, and have been discussed in terms of their overall characteristics. Notably, the two cores disagree strongly in their bottom parts, which, according to conventional dating, are said to represent a time period beginning a few tens of thousands of years ago to about 250,000 years ago.1 This article complements Oard’s1 studies by focussing on the numerous discrepancies that occur within the top of the cores, representing the most recent 13,500 alleged years, as opposed to the bottom parts of the core that represent earlier periods of time. It draws on recently published research,2 which attempted to reconcile the two ice-core chronologies over that period. In particular, this paper examines the numerous difficulties in correlating these cores using ‘annual’ counted layers, sulfate-aerosol horizons, and the variation in oxygen isotopes. The variance in one core must be subject to ad hoc contractions and expansions (i.e. ‘accordioned’) in order to force it to fit the variance of other core. The lack of close correspondence between the two cores, especially in large segments (blocs), in spite of their geographic proximity, favours a catastrophic storm-dominated accumulation of the water material in the Greenland ice cap.Non-annual layersA profusion of (usually) visually distinctive layers is visible in the ice cores due to different composition, crystal structure and colouring of the ice. The visual layers in the GISP2 core have now been counted back to allegedly 40,000 years BP (before the present), although it is acknowledged that there are constant, fine-scale counting uncertainties in the 1–2% range.

There are, in addition, numerous short breaks due to core loss (usually <10 years), over the inferred period of 3,000–9,000 years BP,2 in which the number of missing layers must be interpolated from the thickness of the lost core sections.It has previously been documented that the layers present need not be annual as uniformitarians assume. 3 Indeed, this fact is unwittingly borne out in the latest study. There are a few centuries of sharp disagreement between the two cores at about the middle of the 13th millennium BP, during which the annual-layer assumption must be waived if a constant mutual δ18O signal is to be supposed:‘ … then the problem is not missing core or other “block” data loss. Rather, the GRIP core lacks about half the annual layers throughout this interval, or the GISP2 ice contains many subannual structures which mimic annual bands, or the layers are in fact annual but one of the counts is erroneous.’ 4 Clearly, since the layers are not always annual, the alleged 14,500-year chronologies derived from the GRIP ice cores are only partly based on the actual counting of layers. They also depend upon the correlation of the chemical species of the GRIP chronologies with another core, the Greenland Dye 3 core (Figure 1). In addition, the chronologies rely on an assumed ice accumulation rate (and ice flow thinning estimates) for nearly their first half.2

The mental gymnastics in correlating the cores

Figure 2. Two series of random numbers correlated by the ‘accordioning’ (ad hoc stretching and compressing) of either or both series, as reflected by the variable slope of the tie linesGiven the inadequacy of counting layers, it is important to consider how these cores are crossmatched with each other, and with other presumed chronological sources of information such as marker horizons. The layers of ice in the Greenland cores contain variations in the oxygen-isotope composition, and attempts have been made to correlate the decadal ‘peaks’ and ‘valleys’ of this variance between cores. Uniformitarians assume the ice accumulated steadily over vast stretches of time and interpret the

variance of δ18O as an indicator of past changes in climate. However, the annual to decadal correspondence between the cores, in terms of δ18O variance, is often quite low, in contrast to the high mutual correspondence on a century scale. 5In

order to correlate the cores, therefore, one must locate marker horizons shared by both cores. Volcanic acidity (sulfate) spikes are commonly used, but there are unexpected absences of sulfate horizons in parts of certain cores, with acknowledged ‘continuing disagreement’6 on the proper correlation of those sulfate horizons that do occur. Of course, the ‘accordioning’ (distortion of one series to make it fit the other) invoked for the correlation of the cores (elaborated below) enables sulfate horizons that at first seem to be contemporaneous to be displaced by centuries of relative time. And, reciprocally, it enables non-corresponding sulfate horizons to suddenly become candidates for contemporaneity and attendant tie-point status.Southon’s2 revealing study continues with a correlation of the GISP2 beryllium isotope (10Be) concentration with the Δ14C of the German oak-pine chronologies. These two isotopes are formed by fluctuating extraterrestrial radiation, and the attendant global-scale fluctuations are conventionally believed to be suitable as time markers for correlation. Over the period of 3,400–11,300 BP, the variance of the beryllium isotope leads that of the tree-ring record by 80 years, but a close examination of the data makes it obvious that this offset is actually an average. Finally, beyond 11,300 years, the 10Be is highly perturbed, and this is blamed on large changes in ice accumulation patterns.As for the 80-year average multi-millennial 10Be offset, examination of the relevant graph6 shows that some of the variance is not particularly distinctive, and one could envision alternative correlations of some of the prominent ‘peaks’ and ‘valleys’. Furthermore, the ‘tie lines’ between the two series are neither one-on-one nor even self-consistently offset from core to core. They have variable slope (meaning variable years of offset), with these inferred offsets reaching 200 years for some millennia. In other words, a series of ad hoc expansions and contractions (‘accordioning’—the term used by Southon) is required to correlate the two series. With the imposition of sufficient accordion-like contortions, one could theoretically get any series to ‘match’ any other series. This is illustrated in Figure 2.7 In this example the two series can be ‘harmonized’ by using ‘tie lines’ of variable slope despite the fact that the two series are nothing more than random numbers.8The subjective, in fact contrived, nature of the correlations becomes even worse when one compares the δ18O variance, between GISP2 and GRIP, for the 1,800 BP–5,200 BP interval.9 A ‘dance’ of constantly changing offsets is required to correlate the two sections. There are six intervals of time, each ranging between about 300 to about 700 years, with each interval manipulated to a different degree of ‘accordioning’. The respective offsets for the six time segments, GRIP relative to GISP2, are:–20 years, an indeterminate number of years, either–5 or +100 years,10 +80 years, +35 years, and +50 years. It is not just a matter of massaging the data, but of butchering the data to make it fit conventional uniformitarian ideas!The situation is no better when the correlation is examined over the inferred time interval from 11,500 BP to 13,500 BP. This time, the distortion of one series to fit the other is such that the GISP2 δ18O variance flexibly leads that of GRIP by a range of 80 to about 200 years. An especially prominent ‘accordioning’ between the two cores is centred at about 12,500 BP in GRIP. The condensed (270 year) 12,400 BP–12,670 BP interval in GRIP is believed to correlate with the expanded (400 year) GISP2 interval occurring at 12,500 BP–12,900 BP.10 Even then, the correspondence of ‘peaks’ and ‘valleys’ is not particularly convincing.Some cold facts on δ18OUniformitarians try to correlate the decadal ‘peaks’ and ‘valleys’ in δ18O between cores because they assume the variation is due to past climate changes. However, oxygen isotope ratios can be readily altered by other means, as an inadvertent experimental error made very clear. Stuiver et al.11 report that the polyethylene bottles used to store the melted core ice had unknowingly been replaced by another brand. Owing to changes in barometric pressure, these new polyethylene bottles, when capped, could still ‘breathe’ through their surfaces, causing minute quantities of modern oxygen to diffuse into the bottles. This subtle, unexpected source of contamination distorted the measured δ18O values of the water from the icecap.Clearly, the uniformitarian chronologies developed from measured δ18O variation tacitly assume that the isotopic composition of the snow remained completely stable long after it has fallen and that it was not affected by subsequent diagenetic alteration. Despite the extreme sensitivity of oxygen isotope ratios to external perturbation, we are asked to believe that the δ18O composition of the ice cores has not changed since they were deposited, despite the passage of thousands of years or more! It is high time that the assumption of diagenetic unchangeability for snow and ice layers be re-examined in the light of high oxygen isotope mobility.Scientific creationist implicationsAccording to conventional uniformitarian beliefs, the Greenland ice cores formed in a polar environment very much like the one at present, where snowfall is usually light and infrequent. Since snowstorms are believed to be relatively rare, the cores are supposed to consist primarily of ‘light dustings’ of snow, which accumulated steadily over vast stretches of time.Creationist models, on the other hand, posit that the ice caps accumulated from snow that was deposited rapidly from large snowstorms, which occurred many times each year. The conspicuous bloc to fine-scale irregularities observed in the Greenland cores, and the attendant difficulties in correlating them, are obviously more consonant with a catastrophic creation model than a uniformitarian one. The fact that the GISP2 and GRIP cores show significant discrepancies as recently as AD 2009 indicates that major climatic adjustments probably occurred for thousands of years after the Flood.It is well known that the effects of severe snowstorms can vary markedly over a large geographic area. One area may receive tens of centimetres of snow while an adjacent area, only a few tens of kilometres away, may get hardly any. On this basis, and given the premise that most of the Greenland snow was not formed by yearly accumulation but from numerous snowstorms, it is hardly surprising that even the 28 km distance between the GRIP and GISP2 ice cores is sufficient to reveal significant discrepancies, especially at small inferred temporal scales. Most of the early post-Flood snowstorms must have been very large and intense,12 depositing snow over most of Greenland and beyond. Yet some storms were probably not so extensive and their snowfall would have been geographically more selective. In time, a series of unusually localized snowstorms must have caused entire segments of the respective ice cores to become ‘out of step’ in bloc fashion, accounting for the ‘accordioning’ necessary to force one ice core chronology to even approximately correlate with another.Of course, the entire foregoing discussion assumes that the correlations between the two Greenland ice cores are approximately correct in terms of relative time.13 However, the attendant subjectivities involved in correlating the cores (especially when ‘accordioning’ is freely invoked) should stimulate creationist research into alternative, relative-time compressed correlations of these and all of the world’s ice cores.

New evidence of the Global Flood from MexicoDinosaur dig reveals dramatic insights into the degree of devastation, not so long ago

by Tas Walker

Artist rendering of Velafrons coahuilensisA new dinosaur find from Mexico gives a vivid insight into the enormous extent of the Flood catastrophe as well as the magnitude of the processes involved. An international research team led by scientists from the Utah Museum of Natural History unveiled the fossilized remains of one of the casualties of that event, a previously unknown species of dinosaur, which they called Velafrons coahuilensis.1,2The team, of course, did not report the evidence within a Flood framework. So, although the team hopes the find will give fresh insights into the ancient environments of western North America, they have not considered the most important factor—the Flood. It’s a bit like trying to explain the history of Europe without reference to the Second World

War.Rapid sedimentationThe dinosaur skeleton was excavated in the 1990s in north-central Mexico about 27 miles west of Saltillo, near a small town called Rincon Colorado in the state of Coahuila. The creature was a hadrosaur, or duck-billed dinosaur, with a large crest on its head that looked like a small sail.Diagram after Eberth, D.A., et al., ref. 3

Part of the sedimentary section of Cerro del Pueblo Formation in which Velafrons coahuilensis and other dinosaur fossils were found. (Cl=claystone;Si=siltstone; Fss=fine grained sandstone; Mss= medium grained sandstone; Css=coarse grained sandstone; Cg=conglomerate). The vertical trace fossils interpreted as burrows could rather bedewatering tubes. Click here for larger view. Its remains would have needed to be buried promptly to be preserved, and this would require a considerable quantity of sediment.The sedimentary layers in which the remains of the animal were buried were thick. They are part of the sedimentary rock unit called the Cerro del Pueblo Formation, and its characteristics indicate something of the enormous magnitude of the watery catastrophe involved.Paleocurrent analysis reveals that the floodwaters were flowing to the east while the enormous quantities of sediment comprising the formation were deposited in huge sheets over a wide geographical area.3The thickness of the formation varies from about 500 m in the west to 150 m in the east near Saltillo, a distance of 70 km. The Cerro del Pueblo Formation is part of a much larger sedimentary package many kilometres thick deposited in the extensive Parras Basin.4 Such a huge depth of sediment would not accumulate unless the relative sea level in the area was rising continually to provide the necessary accommodation.The flow of water was highly variable during deposition, as indicated by characteristics of the different strata. There was ample evidence of cross-stratification within the strata, including planar cross-stratification, trough cross-stratification and ripple cross-lamination, all of which indicate strong water flow.5Some sandstone strata contained pebbles and granules, which also give insight into the water currents involved.Another indication of the

power of the water was the thicknesses of the individual strata. The beds of sandstone were frequently massive and many metres thick. There were numerous multi-metre beds of massive mudstone that coarsened upwards, suggesting repeated, enormous and extensive mudflows. Beds often displayed what is called ‘soft sediment deformation’, indicating a deposition so rapid that the beds slumped and moved before they had time to settle and consolidate.Widespread devastation

Reconstructed skull of Velafrons coahuilensis.It’s clear that the events that deposited the sediments had a devastating effect on the living environment, unlike anything that we see happening in storms and floods today. Not only was the hadrosaur, Velafrons, buried, but excavations unearthed a second kind of duck-bill dinosaur, a horned dinosaur similar to Triceratops with two massive horns and a long bony frill. They also uncovered several large tyrannosaurs (related to T. rex), and smaller animals with hooked claws on their feet like Velociraptor.The dinosaur remains were not just buried as isolated skeletons, but excavations uncovered large beds containing the bones of duck-bill and horned dinosaur skeletons all jumbled together. Team leader, Terry Gates said that the region was outstandingly prolific, yielding large numbers of high quality, well-preserved dinosaur fossils.The catastrophe affected

both the land and the sea. Other vertebrate fossils recovered from the formation included turtles, fish, and lizards—that is, both terrestrial and marine animals buried together.The Cerro del Pueblo Formation also includes fossils of snails, marine

clams, ammonites, marine snails, oysters, non-marine snails, fossil wood, leaves and fruit.6 Again, terrestrial and marine life within the same formation.What happened?

Field crew at site where Velafrons coahuilensis was foundThe researchers tried to reconstruct the sort of environment that could explain the remarkable evidence they were finding in the area, but by ignoring the Global Flood they were hard pressed to make a plausible story. It was clear that the sediments pointed to a large watery catastrophe involving mass deaths but they were straining to find a modern analogy.The team speculated that the events were associated with high sea levels that caused the flooding of the low-lying areas (the Cretaceous is recognized as a period of high sea level around the world). They suggested that powerful storms devastated miles of fertile coastline, killing off entire herds of dinosaurs. Perhaps, they said, the storms were like the storms that occur around the southern tips of Africa and South America today. But storms in these areas do not kill and bury entire herds of animals, such as crocs, along with fish, and

lizards, shells, wood and leaves. Such storms do not preserve the remains of such creatures in animal graveyards buried in metre-thick layers of mud and sand.Rapid and catastrophic deposition of sediments, of course, means that they would not take much time to accumulate. In other words, there is a problem with the age of 72 million years quoted for the sediments, which was established from the standard geological column (based on the kinds of fossils found). There is also a problem with the average deposition rate for the formation of 0.55 mm per year, which was based on magnetostratigraphic data.7 The long-age paradigm has a time problem. Where is the time represented in the geological section? How could animals be buried and preserved at such a slow sediment accumulation rate?Towards the end of the inundation stageWithin a creation framework, that is, the historically documented eye-witness account of history, the sediments would have been laid down as a result of the Flood. It’s clear that they do not represent events during Creation because there was no death or suffering at that time, hence no fossils. It’s also clear that they do not represent sediments deposited before or after the Flood because of the sheer geographical extent and physical thickness of the sediments. We can conclude that the sediments were deposited as the floodwaters were rising on the earth, because the land animals were still alive, as indicated by the assemblages of dinosaur trackways found in the area.8 It’s likely that these sediments were deposited just before the time when the floodwaters covered the entire earth.9The new dinosaur find from Mexico and the associated investigations of the geology provide a new and exciting window onto past events. They reveal vivid insights into the conditions and devastation associated with the largest watery catastrophe of all time—Flood—and into the sorts of animals that were caught up in that event.

Beware the bubble’s burstIncreased knowledge about cavitation highlights the destructive power of fast-flowing water

by David CatchpoolePublished: 24 October 2007(GMT+10)

This is the pre-publication version which was subsequently revised to appear in Creation 31(2):50–51.

Cavitation damage to a ship’s propellerWhen Britain’s Royal Navy ships were suffering considerable and unexplained damage to their ships’ propellers in WWI, physicists worked out that violent ‘bubble cavitation’1 was the cause. This happens because tiny bubbles grow and then collapse as a result of pressure variations in the turbulent water around a

propeller. But nobody knew just how hot the bubbles could get before releasing their destructive energy.However, in recent years researchers have found that temperatures inside the tiny bubbles can rise so high that the bubbles start to glow. In fact, there’s evidence that temperatures can rise as high as 15,000 Kelvin (~15,000ºC; 27,000ºF). 2 This indicates that the collapsed bubble has a hot plasma core, i.e. ‘as hot as the surface of a bright star’.3Little wonder then that fast-flowing water can cut through solid concrete in dam tunnels—as happened at Glen Canyon Dam in 1983.4Unexpected flood rains put such pressure on the dam’s tunnel spillways that after a few days a ‘slight rumbling and vibration’ began to be felt in the abutments and the dam itself. At that time, observers of the jets of water emerging from the tunnel portals noticed debris being forcibly ejected in the flow of water. The debris included ‘chunks of concrete, sections of rebar, and most disturbingly, what looked like pieces of sandstone, arced high above the river’.4With no letup in the rain, Glen Canyon Dam levels rose further, and the discharge from one of the spillway tunnels ‘was turning the whole river below the dam [into] a distinct amber color.’ As one analysis of the event put it: ‘Navajo sandstone was being excavated from within the dam abutment like soil before a placer miner’s hydraulic nozzle.’4Down in the employee dining room, located near the hydroelectric power plant at the base of the dam adjacent to the left abutment, a worker later said that it sounded like the artillery barrages he had experienced in Vietnam.Photo Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Dept of the InteriorGlen Canyon Dam tunnel spillway damage in 1983

Afterwards, inspection of the worst-affected tunnel revealed a hole carved through the reinforced concrete into the sandstone. It was almost 15 metres (50 ft) deep and 45 metres (135 ft) long. A giant boulder (3  metres x 4.5 metres, or 10 ft x 15 ft) was found half-way down the tunnel (i.e. beyond the hole). The other tunnel had less severe damage, but, ‘One-inch [25-mm] rebar had been pulled out of the concrete like bones from a cooked fish.’4The US Department of Interior later reported that it was cavitation that had started the damage, followed by dramatically increasing mechanical erosion. Interestingly, in our 1997 interview with cavitation expert Dr Edmund Holroyd, who is also a creationist, he told us of his strong belief that ‘cavitation is very important in helping us understand how massive erosion would have taken place in the early stages of the Flood’. Dr Holroyd was only too familiar with the potential5 destructiveness of cavitating water:‘When water less than 10 metres deep is flowing at very high speed (say 30 metres a second) and goes over a bump, it can turn into water vapor via the formation of tiny bubbles. These collapse again when the pressure is restored, and they do so at a supersonic speed which creates shock waves with incredible pressures. This pulverizes the surface right next to where the bubbles are collapsing, so it can “eat” rock surfaces away much, much more quickly than normal erosion. In the laboratory, such cavitating water will even rapidly “eat” a steel surface.’6

Given the destructive power of rushing water, can you imagine the legacy of the global Flood? As we look around the earth’s landscape today, it’s easy to find leftover ‘signs’ of the cataclysmic inundation described in  . The world is full of steep-sided gorges, canyons and ravines, eroded by the enormous floodwaters as they receded off the continents!

The riddle of paleokarst solvedby Emil Silvestru

The concept of ‘paleokarst’, or ancient buried landscape, is applied increasingly to soluble rock horizons of all ages from Precambrian to Mesozoic. However, such interpretations are hasty, and made on very few, unreliable features. In all probability ‘paleokarst’ does not exist because any primary morphology initially enclosed inside soluble rocks could not have been preserved for millions or even hundreds of millions of years. Rather, it would have been reshaped by later karst activity, even if deeply buried. Modern karst processes, i.e. the transport of surface waters through the lithostructural units hosting karsts, can penetrate and destroy soluble rock features 1,800 m underground. At greater depths, diagenetic processes would destroy any buried relief.

Rather than the product of surface water transport, the characteristic ‘paleokarst’ morphology is better explained as the product of fluid and gas seeps—i.e. as pseudokarst. Seeps are widespread geographically and produce significant geomorphic features. Within months of its burial, the organic material destroyed during the Flood provided an abundant source of gas, causing fluid seeps. Seep signatures such as pockmarks, piping and precipitates formed during and after the Flood and have been preserved in the geologic record with a striking resemblance to ‘paleokarst’.The Iglesiente karst fills in Sardinia, Italy and the sulfate karst in the Guadelupe Mountains New Mexico-Texas, are examples of marine and continental seep signatures respectively that developed during and after the Flood.‘Paleokarst’, or ancient buried landscape, is nowadays considered as a marker of past continental conditions. Hence, paleokarst is highly relevant for Flood geology. It would seem logical that, when considering the pre-Flood/Flood boundary, the oldest paleokarst should be taken as pre-Flood. As we have previously discussed,1 the earliest alleged ‘paleokarst’ features are Lower Proterozoic (we shall adopt the standard geologic column for reasons of communication only). Thus, we could assume that the beginning of the Flood should be placed within the first global-scale marine sediments immediately after that paleokarst. But then there are alleged ‘paleokarsts’ in the Upper Proterozoic, Cambrian, Ordovician, at the Devonian/Carboniferous boundary, in the Permian, Middle and Upper Triassic and finally, at the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary.1 Following this line of reasoning, the Flood could also be placed in the Silurian, in the Jurassic (the Lower Triassic is widely continental) or after the Cretaceous. As for the Flood/post-Flood boundary, these alleged ‘paleokarsts’ lead to same kind of conclusions: the Silurian/Devonian boundary or the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary or after the Tertiary.Clearly, it is of utmost importance to discern true paleokarst features in the geological record from features that look similar, but are not true karst (i.e. pseudokarst).Conserved or reshaped?My 30-plus years of experience show that most paleokarst features—once the lithostructures housing them emerged—amplify the subsequent processes of karstification and cryptokarstification2 irrespective of their position with respect to the water table. For a given lithostructure, the paleokarst features inside represent a marked anisotropy, and karstification processes specifically exploit such anisotropies. The consequence is usually an extensive underground drainage system that remains active for an indefinite duration, continuously adapting to the new dynamics of the lithostructure. If close enough to the surface, such cryptokarst can influence or even generate surface karst features.3,4 One instructive case is the formation of modern dolines associated with bauxite ore bodies inside limestones (which mark an alleged paleokarst of Berriasian-Valanginian age) in the Padurea Craiului Mountains in Romania. Here dolines are present whenever a bauxite ore body is close enough to the surface.5 These dolines do not occur right above the bauxite but always downstream with respect to the local underground drainage, revealing a direct and dynamic link between surface and subsurface karst. It is considered that enhanced chemical activity associated with the bauxite bodies magnifies the karstification processes.5One would expect that, if buried deep enough, especially when covered by thick impervious rocks, paleokarst features would be kept beyond the reach of corrosive ground waters. However, there are many examples that cast doubt on such an assumption. Let’s briefly look at some.The territory between the Danube and the Black Sea in Romania, called Dobrogea (the lowest land in Romania), is built in its southern third of a thick pile of various types of sedimentary carbonates resting on Paleozoic crystalline formations and covered by Quaternary deposits (mainly loess). The sedimentary formations accommodate two karst aquifers: one in Jurassic-Barremian (Mesozoic) limestones (400 to 1,000 m thick) which lie directly on the Paleozoic formations, and an artesian aquifer in Sarmatian (Upper Neogene) limestones. 6 The two aquifers are separated by Aptian (Mid-Cretaceous) clays. The lower aquifer revealed unexpected characteristics. Boreholes drilled through the entire sedimentary structure encountered voids at a depth of 450 m (400 m below sea level) with intense fresh water circulation and even quartz sand eruptions from the same depth.7 Water circulation at that depth must be very strong since it broke away a drill bit together with more than a meter of piping. It also carried sand. The karst aquifer is fed by aerial infiltration some 90 km away in the pre-Balkan region in Bulgaria.8 Isotope dating of the water in this aquifer next to the Black Sea yielded ‘ages’ up to 25,000 years,8 which corresponds to a ground water flow of 3.6 m/year. Obviously, such tranquil velocities could not destroy drilling equipment.On the other hand, such a rapid, massive local flow of water would normally occur above the water table in the vadose zone,9 implying an extensive cave system. According to Bleahu,10 the existence of karst drainages inside this aquifer cannot be attributed to a paleokarst that was buried under thick Miocene and Quaternary sediments because pre-Miocene voids could not survive under the lithostatic pressure (there are no syngenetic fillings of the voids). However, let’s suppose Bleahu is wrong (not my personal point of view). If these voids were really

generated during an ancient karstification phase, they were clearly reused by the recent karst aquifer. Whatever traces of paleokarst might have existed would have been wiped away by recent karstification.A similar case, but much more grandiose in scale, is the Floridan karst. Though the relief is very flat (never more than 100 m above sea level) the karst aquifer follows the limestone layers to a depth of 2,400 m.11 The hydraulic pressure is incredible; it generates an artesian aquifer with a hydraulic head of over 700 m (remember the maximum relief energy is 100 m!). Caves have been bored through at as deep as 1,800 m, way under the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. 11 No valid explanation has been offered so far for either the huge hydraulic pressure or the mechanism that can generate caves at a depth of 1,800 m inside a dynamic karst aquifer and under the bottom of the ocean. Nor has anyone reasonably explained how karst waters can still be unsaturated at such depth when they have allegedly been confined inside the limestones for more than 21,000 years.12 As for where all the water goes, there are no answers thus far. To the Flood geologist, such active karst deep underground and under the ocean floor is very important. Its existence supports the idea that buried paleokarst has little chance of remaining beyond the reach of corrosive subterranean waters. It also strongly suggests that there is something wrong with the huge ages attributed to such features.Similar cases are encountered even in metamorphic lithostructures. In Northern Romania, the Rodnei Mountains are mostly comprised of crystalline formations. There is an important carbonate sequence (marble) over 1,500 m thick. Inside the sequence, mining activities have encountered various karst aquifers. One of these is located in a crystalline limestone sequence lying on and overlain by moderately metamorphosed schists with garnets. The limestones have no lateral connection with the surface 150 m above. Under these conditions, one would expect that these limestones would be thoroughly sealed from infiltration water. That however is not the case. A multitude of faults, fractures and associated joints were encountered which were (and still are) draining freshwater, sometimes under high pressure. Flows of up to 60 l/s were recorded.13 No karst features have been opened by mining activities yet. It is obvious that if paleokarst features had somehow survived the metamorphism, they would be highly active in organising karst drains. Where does all the water come from to penetrate into this apparently sealed lithostructure? Obviously the faults and fractures in the overlaying schists (normally considered impervious) are the only reasonable source.Derek Ford, undoubtedly one of greatest world authorities, appears to confirm the above problems with paleokarst stating:‘Preservation of recognisable karst features in the buried rock is a matter of chance. It is best where karst processes are overwhelmed by rapid deposition, especially terrigenous rocks, succeeded by prolonged subsidence.Much paleokarst has been buried by marine transgressive facies with little or no intervening terrigenous deposition. Such karst is often trimmed by wave action and, if it is of small to intermediate scale may be removed entirely from localities where wave energy was high. This exacerbates problems of stratigraphic correlation of paleokarst horizons.’14

Summing up his vast experience with one of the classical European paleokarsts—the one in Bohemia—Pavel Bosák admits:‘To distinguish what is ancient from what could have been remodelled in recent times is very difficult. The rejuvenation of karst making the conserved fossil record degraded and unreadable is caused by numerous factors generally leading to the renewal of the hydrological function of the karst and of karst water circulation.’15

Figure 1. Global distribution of modern and ancient fluid seeps. Modern seep and pockmark distributions are from Hovland and Judd,21 with additions from Moore.17

Click here for larger viewConsidering these facts (as opposed to theoretical models), I find it difficult to accept the idea that paleokarst features have been preserved unchanged for millions or even hundreds of millions of years. Consequently, whatever ‘paleo’ morphology is identified today, I seriously doubt an age can be discerned with an acceptable degree of certitude. Such would require clear sedimentary ‘sandwiching’ (i.e. the paleokarst features resting on and covered by precisely datable sediments) of such features (which, as we shall further see, is not generally the case). I

believe any primary morphology initially preserved inside soluble rocks would be subsequently reshaped by karstification or cryptokarstification or, if buried at greater depth, by diagenetic processes.With the above in mind, the practice of assigning the origins of primary morphologies to karst processes on the grounds of morphology and substratum (soluble rocks) alone is, in my view, at least questionable. As I have already pointed out, 1 karst features are morphological expressions of a dynamic process—the transit of water through lithostructural units. Consequently, before we can scientifically call a feature a paleokarst, we must establish that the surface and subsurface paleomorphologies are clearly connected to the subterranean water circulation or to the storage paleofeatures.Alternative mechanismsIf karst-like features are found in the geological record without being associated with proper karstification processes, what other genetic mechanisms could we invoke? For one thing, local acidification cannot be so widely spread in space and time. I believe that part of the answer is provided by what was initially considered by most scientists as isolated ‘curiosities’—oil and gas seeps.16Using remotely operated submersibles in the 1980s and 1990s, scientists established that seep sites

extend far beyond hydrocarbon provinces. Seeps are located on practically the whole of the continental margins and represent a general feature of the geohydrologic system (Figure 1).17 Seeps are also found the continents and in some cases, submarine seeps are connected hydrologically to terrestrial groundwater systems. Many seeps support chemosynthetic biological communities. The output from seeps includes natural gas, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, other gases and oil. Perhaps the most spectacular source of seeps is methane hydrates—gas molecules trapped within crystalline lattices formed by frozen water molecules.18,19

Figure 2. Sketch of a seep structure from Smooth Ridge in Monterey Bay (based on Moore).17Diameter of sample is about 30 cm. These features probably form in the shallow subsurface and are exhumed by submarine erosion. Once buried in deeper sediment and subjected to recrystallisation, they could easily look like stalagmites and stalactites (especially when the central canal is preserved).Click here for larger view

Seeps produce a variety of ocean bottom morphologies such as seep precipitates (carbonatesand hydrates), pockmarks, piping and rills, ranging in scale from metres to kilometres. From a sedimentary point of view, some of the most significant seep signatures are carbonate bodies such as irregular mounds, dykes and flat hardground-type surfaces. Many of these features are aligned along fault lines. Sometimes, small-scale parallel, ring and columnar structures, resembling speleothems, are present inside these carbonate bodies.17 Cylindrical to conical structures were identified recently at some seep locations on the ocean bottom (Figure 2). The structure of many paleoseep carbonate bodies is practically identical with modern ones, potentially permitting paleoclimate, hydrological, chemical and biological reconstructions. Paleoseeps seem to have a definite life span, being buried by newer sediments after ‘death’.As we consider alternative mechanisms for karst-like features, seep morphologies such as pockmarks, piping and rills and seep precipitates are most relevant. Another significant seep feature is the endogenous cave—a cave generated by corrosive fluids ascending through the sedimentary deposits rather than by water percolating from the surface.Pockmarks are crater-like depressions ranging from less than 1 m to 700 m across, and from 1 m to 30 m in depth.19,20 Their density may be as high as 240 per km2 .21 Such densities of dolines are also present in modern karst areas (Table 1). My investigations in the Padis Plateau area (Romania),22 based on extrapolating measurements from areas smaller than one square kilometre, have revealed densities up to 280 per km 2 .At such a density, subsequent evolution of the ocean-bottom could easily shape the pocked surface into what would appear to be an incipient cockpit, mogote or tower karst.23 Once seep activity ceased, such features would be buried and preserved. If at some later stage they were uplifted and emerged, karstification processes would certainly exploit such ‘inherited’ conditioning and true tower karst would form very quickly. Sometimes such features have survived on steep subterranean slopes without being buried. For example, grooves and pitting have been identified at depths ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 m off the Iberian Peninsula.24 This is far too deep to be explained by eustatic sea level fluctuations during Quaternary.There is a secondary feature associated with tower karst that has not been satisfactorily explained by normal karstification processes. This is the case-hardening of residual hills and limestone surfaces.25 However, it is easily explained by seep activity. Case-hardening is an induration of highly porous, weak limestone on the slopes of tower karst. It is currently interpreted as a secondary feature, although230Th/234U dating has failed to yield interpretable ages.25 Explaining case-hardening as a seep-generated carbonate deposit on the slopes of pockmarks (syngenetic in other words) is logical and elegant. Obviously, radiometric dating on such features would be of very little use, if possible at all.

Table 1. Doline density per square kilometre in some karst areas of the world (after Silvestru).3

Click here for larger view.Finally, it is worth mentioning that standard karst interpretations try to relate ‘buried karsts’ to plate tectonics, since most large carbonate deposits were laid down on passive continental margins.26 Yet, by interpreting ‘buried karsts’ as seep-induced pseudokarst, keeping in mind the distribution of ocean bottom seeps presented above, we find that, once again, logic and common sense make the choice of a genetic mechanism an easy task. This syngenetic, seep scenario dramatically reduces the time-scale for the karstification processes, making it easier to incorporate the entire issue within the one-year Flood. Let it be emphasized once more that all paleokarsts are interpreted from their surficial appearance only, without establishing whether there is any connection to subterranean paleodrains.Most signature-relevant seeps are hydrocarbon-generated. Thus, one may assume that seeps could only occur since the accumulation of what Walker calls ‘Biotic’ rocks.27 This raises an interesting question: since fluid seeps appear to be confined to the continental margins, where were the continental margins during the Flood? Should we associate Flood seep signatures with continental margins? In the same line of reasoning, we may presume that during the Flood, seep signatures were rapidly and repeatedly buried by the enormous amounts of sediments associated with the cataclysm. When

present in carbonate formations, it is easy to understand why seep signatures are usually associated with what is called intrastratal karst.1 In reality, however, these signatures are simply pseudokarst.We would expect that during the final stages of the Flood, paroxystic methane and other decomposition gases would seep through the sediments deposited earlier in the Flood. Such seepage would disturb the sedimentary structures, making the efforts of stratigraphers today pretty much guesswork. The formation of gas hydrates after the Flood would not have been possible until ocean temperatures dropped significantly. However, given the immense amount of organic material buried in Flood sediments, non-gas-hydrate seeps would have been intensely active. Once ocean temperatures dropped (possibly 500 years after the Flood, around the glacial maximum as Oard suggested28) methane hydrates could have formed and stored part of the methane. This would have diminished the seep intensity.Since the Flood, much less organic material has accumulated in sediments. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, after a maximum seep intensity sometime after the Flood, a steady decrease in seep activity has occurred. The activity we see today is just a fraction of the intense seep activity during the Ice Age. Indeed, the methane released into the atmosphere at that time may have triggered a global warming and initiated deglaciation.A creation frameworkIf we are to understand karstification from a creation perspective, we need to start with the creation timeline; Creation, the pre-Flood era, the year-long Flood, and the 4,300-year post-Flood era.27The initiation of the Flood29 probably involved major lithological changes to the pre-Flood carbonate rocks. Hot brines and associated hydrothermal solutions welling up across the entire lithosphere would have transformed carbonates into a highly plastic rock prone to ultra-rapid pseudokarstification—mainly of the mechanical type. The ‘karst’ features would have been generated by mechanical displacement of rock by fluid and gas flow and slumping. The west to east ‘migration’ of ‘paleokarsts’ I previously described 1 could be explained by a progressive upwelling around the globe. It probably began in the Western Hemisphere and gradually made its way to the Eastern Hemisphere. The pseudokarst features followed closely behind. As Flood sediments began to accumulate, increasing seep activity produced seep signatures as part of the sedimentary record, signatures that underwent a series of diagenetic and morphologic changes after burial.It is likely that the rapidly accumulating Flood sediments periodically emerged. The resultant degassing and dewatering of waterlogged sediments, along with the associated chemical changes, would have developed a wide range of negative relief in a matter of days. Such features would mimic karst landforms, especially when pseudokarst features emerged. Once buried, the features, preserved on carbonate sediments, would have been chemically enlarged and reshaped by corrosive fluids originating within the earth (rather than infiltrated from the surface), especially those liberated by diagenesis. This has been called endogenous karstification,30 and is particularly

visible in the Rodnei Mountains, Romania.13,31One must appreciate that this environment was a highly dynamic one, with the chemical elements in continuous circulation, absorbing some minerals, depositing others, and transforming the rocks in the process. Metamorphic processes are similar, and quartz, for example, can migrate for long distances in the metamorphic zone through the rocks. In such an environment, any void or discontinuity could play a significant role in mobilising or fixing the various elements.Separation of non-carbonate components during this process was probably continuous and widespread, and these accumulated especially in voids, producing deposits such as red clays, shales, shale partings and bauxites. Some of these deposits may have emerged briefly and been affected by subaerial processes. All would have been altered after burial by diagenesis. Fossils or decaying dead creatures would sometimes end up with these accumulations, their remains bearing clear evidence of water transport, as in the case of the dinosaur bones inside a bauxite lens in Padurea Craiului in Romania.32Whenever the newly deposited sediments emerged they would have produced isotopic, diagenetic, and even hydrodynamic changes in the sediments below, thus superimposing a new set of patterns in the still hardening rocks. Again, the behaviour of carbonates was probably highly distinctive. When the mega-processes accompanying the Flood ceased, further diagenesis would have affected the buried relief.During the Recessive stage of the Flood,27 the general pattern of the modern hydrographic network was rapidly eroded onto the unconsolidated waterlogged rocks. Water would remain trapped in the sediments until sufficient hydraulic head developed to promote flow. Consequently, only after the first valleys were shaped into the landsurface—many as deep gorges and canyons—would water be released from the sediment, leaving voids of various sizes. The longer this drainage was delayed, the harder the rocks and consequently the more likely that voids would survive, even if they were large. This dynamic adaptation of the underground waters and the resulting voids to surface flow created the pattern for future karst drainage, cave systems and individual caves. In my view, the standard models for karst development, as presented in the classical treatises, only apply after the post-Flood hydrosphere and atmosphere reached equilibrium.I believe this Flood/post-Flood model explains why large cave systems exist side-by-side with unrelated, synchronous, narrow ones. One typical case is the Somesul Cald area in the Apuseni Mountains, where a small limestone area (about 4 km2) hosts a huge cave system—called Valea Firii—over 27 km long, with 12 rooms more than 100 m long, the longest reaching 600 m.33 Within the same area, there is a series of long, yet very narrow cave systems and individual caves. It is clear that the large rooms were formed during the Recessive stage27 of the Flood, while the small system is post-Flood.After the Flood, the development of the continental ice sheets during the early Quaternary would have added to the lithostatic pressure, compacting and sometimes obliterating the existing subterranean karst and buried pseudokarst. Subsequently, as the ice sheets melted, vast quantities of freshwater would have penetrated the deeper structures, further shaping the remaining pseudokarst and cryptokarst features. Water infiltration would have been assisted by a reduction of lithostatic pressure as the ice caps vanished. This effect would have been pronounced under and around the proposed Lake Agassiz in Norh America, 34,35 an area in which important paleokarst features are described.

Figure 3. Salle de la Verna, the largest subterranean room in Europe. Almost perfectly round, this huge void was generated by solution and breakdown along a unique passageway, with no junctions (from Maire and Quinif).37

Click here for larger view.Uniformitarians base their explanation for the large karst rooms on a vadose river passage junction and repeated rockfalls that are subsequently removed by solution.4 Yet, on closer scrutiny, such an explanation has little to do with reality. Large rooms do not occur at every junction inside the same cave. Actually, most of the very large rooms I have visited are not at important junctions. Many are just dramatically enlarged passages. For example, the famousSalle de la Verna in the Pierre-Saint-Martin System—at 45,310 m3 the largest subterranean room in

Europe36,37—has nothing to do with passage junctions (Figure 3). Inside the Romanian cave system mentioned above, many huge piles of broken rock sit on the cave floor without any trace of vadose activity.38 Many experienced karstologists tacitly agree that the standard explanation for such large subterranean voids is far from reasonable.Dewatering and degassing of unconsolidated sediments in the Recessive stage is a simple and logical explanation for cave formation. Once the general features of the surface hydrographic networks were established (controlled by gravity and water/sediment friction), the water contained in the sediments could flow by gravity towards the surface drains. Initially the water moving through the sediments may not have generated voids at the distal end of each subterranean drain if the sediments were very soft. Even so, the flow probably left scars in the sediment, which ended up as unconformities—one of the most favoured paths for karstification. These proto-drains inside the unconsolidated sediments would have continued to grow larger as the floodwater continued to recede and the baselevel (the water level at the cave outlet) continued to fall. Thus, the large rooms, or reservoirs, formed underwater and the buoyancy of the water filling the rooms would have helped to support them. Provided the rooms remained intact, once baselevel fell below the cave entrance, the voids would have emptied of water and become large subterranean rooms or even gorges.Significantly, most large cave systems have a major vertical development associated with the lowering of baselevel. The largest rooms always occur nearest to the outlet. The Salle de la Verna is the last and lowest room in the famous Pierre-Saint-Martin system, connected via a man-made tunnel to the surface, at the level of the valley of Kakouetta. Vertical sections of the valley show that the flows and rates of karstification are much less now than in the past. Clearly, the largest rooms should be associated with those past conditions.However, uniformitarians try to explain the largest room as the product of the present, but inadequate karstification cycle. The Flood mechanism I present here makes better sense, suggesting that Kakouetta Valley was cut rapidly, mostly as a narrow gorge. Incredibly, in 1991 heavy rainfall, restricted to the upper circular basin of the valley and lasting less than 2 hours, generated a 15-m high flood that cleaned the gorge of sediments. The beautiful lake at the exit of the gorge was completely filled and vanished. Two years later when I visited the gorge, the effects of the flood were perfectly visible. The large blocks of travertine that had accumulated at the cave outlets had been broken and carried hundreds to thousands of metres downstream by the flood. I couldn’t help thinking that, once buried by sediment, these blocks would mislead future karstologists about where they came from and how they got there.Not all reservoirs were dewatered. Deep under baselevel many pocket-and conduit-shaped voids survived and remained waterlogged. As diagenesis proceeded, these voids collected the insolubles expelled by lithifying limestones. Once diagenesis was complete these filled cavities lost their water, mostly to clay formation. When opened up, either by karstification or by humans, they reveal pocket and conduit shapes filled with argillites, red clays and even bauxite. The majority of paleokarsts described in the literature are pockets and small conduits filled with argillites and red clay, and are found in the walls of man-made excavations in limestones. Their mineralogy differs little, if at all, from soils on limestones. This is not surprising since they form more or less in the same way, through the separation of insolubles from

the limestone and the selective accumulation of insolubles in the rock. There is little chance that any trace of biotic activity (the most reliable evidence for pedogenesis) could survive diagenesis. All this makes me sceptical of claims about paleosoils on, or inside, limestones because such claims are generally assessed on mineralogy only. The same applies to paleokarst fills. Again, common sense requires that, before such claims are made, the geology should be properly analysed for reliable karst indicators, in particular a minimal reconstruction of karst drains.The Iglesiente paleokarstic fills in Sardinia, ItalyThe contrast between the evolutionary and creation scenarios is best illustrated by field examples. The first example demonstrates what the evolutionary paradigm can make of field data, regardless of obvious problems with the million-year time frame. Although the geological setting is complex with superimposed and recurrent sedimentary, igneous and geomorphic episodes, it is highly representative.Located in the southwestern part of Sardinia, the Iglesiente lead, zinc, barite and fluorite mining area is built of rocks ranging from Cambrian to Quaternary. The paleokarst features are located in the Gonessa Formation (dolomites and fossil-rich limestones about 700 m thick) of the Middle-Upper Cambrian overlain by Upper Cambrian nodular limestones and slates.39 The underlying Nebida Formation (Lower-Middle Cambrian) is rich in fossils (stromatolites, echinids, brachiopods, trilobites, oncolites, stenotecoids and algae). The top of the Gonessa Formationappears to have been karsted in a period of emergence during the Caledonian orogeny.39 During the Hercynian orogeny granites were emplaced in the adjacent area. Volcanic activity was present during the Late Oligocene and the Miocene.

Figure 4. Schematic section of an alleged ‘doline’ in the Santa Barbara mine, Mount Giovanni, Sardinia (from Bini et al.).39

Click here for larger view.The paleokarst features range from karren, pinnacles, pockets and dolines filled with terra rossa, to sediment-filled cracks and larger voids considered caves by the authors.39The Santa Barbara Mine has cut through what is interpreted as a doline carved in the Gonessa Formation‘s fossiliferous limestone (Figure 4). The ‘doline’ is filled with Triassic transgressive sandstones which also appear to be carved by a perfectly overlapping ‘doline’ of unknown age, filled with terra rossa.39 The top of the Triassic sandstones appears to be weathered and covered by a thin layer of sparry calcite, carved by karren and pinnacles. Inside the terra rossa fill, sparry calcite is also present

as conical structures resembling speleothems. According to the authors, this setting is recurrent in the area (Figure 5).The authors claim that the paleokarst was generated during the Lower Ordovician, survived unfilled (or filled and then mysteriously unfilled) for 200 Ma until the Triassic, was filled during that period, karsted again and filled again with terra rossa of unidentified age. The same explanation is given for a number of cave-like cavities that are now completely filled with sediment. About these caves the authors conclude:‘while these caves developed mostly during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic … the sediments have been deposited after the Cenozoic volcanic activities … ’

Figure 5. The Gonnesa Formation with recurrent doline-like depressions similar to the one in Figure 4. Note the ‘paleorelief’ on top of the Gonnesa Formation—conformably covered by the Cabitza nodular limestones. Also note the distribution of paleoseep signatures throughout the Gonnesa Formation as pseudodolines. Such a setting is consistent with a paleoseep signature (after Bini et al.).39

Click here for larger view.This uniformitarian explanation has many problems.If the Triassic fill of the ‘doline’ in Figure 4 is transgressive, then why isn’t the layering more-or-less parallel? The underlying limestones are horizontal and the claimed unconformity is also horizontal. It is not plausible to invoke suffosion (a category of piping through the evacuation of fines by a combination of solution and downwashing40) as there is no trace of subjacent voids into which fines could be washed. Such a stratigraphic pattern is easily explained if the sandstones were initially deposited horizontally over a seep area and after degassing, the still-plastic sediments slumped into the newly created void, to be rapidly cemented by the seep precipitates. The same seep precipitates generated the irregular sparry calcite layer and, it appears, the conical speleothem-like formation in the terra rossa fill.The carbonate sequence of the Gonessa Formation covers the middle and upper part of the Lower Cambrian—supposedly a period of some 12 Ma. Yet, as shown by the stratigraphic column in Figure 5, the alleged dolines formed throughout this entire period. This implies repeated emergence and karsting but there are no unconformities inside the limestones or dolomites. A syngenetic origin for the ‘dolines’ is more reasonable and the most likely mechanism is paleoseep activity as presented above. This rules out a long duration of genesis by karst

processes.If the intense, recurrent and chemically variable magmatism occurred after the caves had formed, then why is there no sign of hydrothermal fill? All the cave fills described by the authors are of the classical karst type. There are no hydrothermal fills described at all. Yet, all the economically significant mineralizations are located inside the limestones. Furthermore, there is no mention of any secondary migration of any cations (Pb, Zn, Ba) towards the paleokarstic voids. This is most unusual and ungeological. It all makes sense, however, if the ‘paleokarst’ is younger than the igneous rocks, so young that leaching and migration of the cations towards the voids has not occurred.A creationist interpretation of IglesienteThe Gonessa Formation was deposited during the Flood and subject to recurrent paleoseep activity originating from the underlying, organic rich Nebida Formation. This produced pockmarks, sometimes overlapping, and incorporated various seep precipitates. Subsequent diagenesis preserved the pockmarks as features, which are strikingly similar to paleodolines.Towards the end of the Ice Age, a classical karst began developing on the island and as the climate became warmer and more humid, autochthonous and allochthonous sediments began filling the karstic voids. The rapidly rising sea level

restricted the formation of large cave systems to the higher elevations. However, the small cavities at lower levels might have been subjected to marine invasion and erosion.The Guadelupe Mountains karstThe Guadelupe Mountains karst illustrates that caves can be generated by agencies originating under, rather than above, the ground. Such caves are called endogenous30 or hypogene.40 Many famous caves are located in the Guadelupe Mountains (New Mexico, Texas) such as the Carlsbad Caverns, its neighbour Lechuguilla Cave (probably the most beautiful cave in the world), and 30 other major caves.40 This karst system is outstanding for its large rooms and passages, its blind pits, and its abundant, splendidly crystallized, evaporite speleothems.41Apparently there is no significant connection with the surface except for the entrances, which were opened by erosion.Karstologists are split about how the Guadelupe karst formed, because the caves contain huge calcite and evaporite speleothems. Some support per ascensum genesis by H2S that originated from the underlying Permian oil and gas fields. They interpret the calcite speleothems as secondary features.41 Others, such as Ford and Williams,42 invoke a classical karstification process of which the calcite speleothems are by-products. Nevertheless, these authors propose a polygenetic origin, proposing that there was some H 2S involvement, especially in a late phase, when H2S-rich backwater ponding generated the enormous evaporite speleothems. Regardless of the scenario, all authors agree that the Guadelupe karst is relatively old—probably pre-Quaternary.Similar karst has been identified in Italy (Grotte di Frasassi)42 and the Republic of Georgia (Akhali Atoni Cave).43 Interestingly, some consider the latter to be of hydrothermal origin.44

A creationist interpretation of the Guadelupe Mountains karstOn rare occasions, continental seep signatures may develop way beyond tar ponds, like the famous Rancho La Brea, or mud volcanoes, like those at Pâclele Mari in Romania. I believe the supporters of the per ascensum, hypogene formation of this karst are correct to claim that the karst was carved mainly by sulfuric acid. They propose that H2S originated from the subjacent Permian oil and gas fields, rose to the water table, and oxidized to H2SO4. Naturally, corrosion by H2SO4 is much faster than classical CO2-driven corrosion. The general chemical reactions are:41

H2S + 2O2 → H2SO4 (1)CaCO3 + H2SO4 + H2O → CaSO4 •H2 O (gypsum) + H+ + HCO3

– (2)It has been calculated that the amount of H2S required to generate Carlsbad Cavern’s Big Room (in excess of 106 m3) is less than 10% of one year’s commercial production from the nearby gas fields in New Mexico.41 No one has calculated the actual increase in the rate of limestone dissolution by H2SO4, but it is generally believed to be much higher than for CO2. Furthermore, Bakalowicz45 pointed out that the aggressiveness of sulfuric acid solutions can be further increased by CO2 generated in the limestone as follows:CaCO3 + 2H+ → Ca2+ + CO2 + H2O (3)Under such circumstances, given the vast amounts of gas seep in the period immediately after the Flood, I believe the Guadelupe karst could have been excavated in several centuries. Development would have been especially rapid around glacial maximum, when the extra pressure of the North American ice sheet increased seep activity, and while water flow in the surface drainage system was significantly reduced due to the periglacial surface conditions. Increased seep activity and reduced water infiltration (as generally accepted among karstologists) meant that sulfuric acid karstification prevailed.This situation changed once the ice sheet started to retreat, relieving the lithostatic pressure and reducing seep activity. Increased volumes of surface waters in the river systems and lakes (like Missoula, Hopi, Canyonlands, and Vernal 46) would favour infiltration. Thus, the balance reversed and classical karsting processes took over briefly until the climate of the area became arid. However, the only significant by-products of this infiltration, which is still active today, are calcite speleothems, some of which are huge. In my experience there is little, if any, connection between the size and age of speleothems and I hope to demonstrate this in future papers.ConclusionsCurrently, geologists tend to interpret as ‘paleokarst’ any paleorelief in soluble rocks of the Precambrian, Paleozoic and Mesozoic. Such interpretations are hasty and are based on very few, mostly morphologic arguments. Paleokarst should not be assumed unless careful investigation has revealed true karstic features. In particular, unless clear surface-to-subsurface genetic connections are identified revealing the basic function of karst systems (the transit of water through lithostructures), the features are most likely pseudokarst, not paleokarst.All ‘paleokarst’ interpretations are to be treated with caution because true paleokarst is unlikely to have been preserved for the length of time implied. A paleokarst would represent a marked anisotropy inside a limestone sequence and provide preferential access for corrosive, karsting water. Consequently, the older the paleokarst, the less chance it has of surviving.Paleokarst would not survive, irrespective of its depth of burial. If it were buried deeply (greater than 1,800 m), then lithostatic pressure and diagenesis would destroy it. If it were not buried deeply, then corrosive water would reach it and alter it.The recently discovered geomorphic features associated with fluid and gas seeps provide a coherent explanation for alleged ‘paleokarsts’. Within a creation geological framework, recurrent seep signatures together with occasional emergence during the Flood elegantly explain the various pseudokarst horizons in the geological record.There is little, if any, chance of using ‘paleokarst’ to locate the pre-Flood/Flood boundary, since old ‘paleokarst’ would not have survived. However, paleokarst can help determine the Flood/post-Flood boundary. Since there are non-karstic (pseudokarstic) explanations for all alleged ‘paleokarsts’ older than Quaternary, the post-Flood boundary must occur after the Tertiary. Future investigations into speleogenesis and speleothems may provide more arguments and better estimates.

A gorge in three days!by Shaun Doyle

Published: 10 October 2007(GMT+10)This is the pre-publication version which was subsequently

revised to appear in Creation 31(3):32–33.

Canyon Lake, TexasHow do you turn a recent flood into a tourist attraction? Simple! Start giving tours of the gorge which that flood created in a matter of days. This Saturday just such a new gorge, Canyon Lake Gorge, which was cut into the ground by local floodwaters in just a few days in 2002, is set to open to the public in Texas for tours. The tours are apparently already booked up for the next six months.1Canyon Lake Gorge was formed when Canyon Lake in Texas overflowed five years ago, and a torrent of water cut a

gash in the ground of what was a nondescript valley covered in mesquite and oak trees. The overflow was caused when the upper part of the Guadalupe River catchment received nearly 900 mm (35 in) of rain in a week. The runoff poured into an already above-normal Canyon Lake, which caused the spillway to overflow. The discharge at the peak of the flood was about 1,900 m3/s (67,000 ft3/s). The spillway’s normal flow is 9.9 m3/s (350 ft3/s). Over the space of three days the rushing water gouged out a canyon 2.4 km (1.5 mi) long and up to 24 m (80 ft) deep. This canyon now sits behind the emergency spillway of Canyon Lake.2A gorge like this forming so quickly is a surprise to most people. Most people still believe that gorges form by rivers (usually found at the bottom of the gorge) slowly eroding the landscape over millions of years. But this is just one of a number of examples of gorges and canyons that have been created over a very short time by catastrophic flooding (See A canyon in six days! and Canyon creation).Events such as this have caused geologists who think in terms of ‘long ages’ to change their stories on how canyons, gorges and other similarly eroded rock features, can form. For example, the main hypothesis on how the Grand Canyon formed was that the Colorado River had gouged it out slowly over a period of 50–70 million years (Ma), and this idea held sway for over 50 years mostly without question.3 However, geologists have in recent times drastically revised their timescale down to 6 Ma. Moreover, they postulate that a large proportion of the Grand Canyon eroded through catastrophic dam breaching, which they believe occurred over the last 2 Ma.4They have acknowledged that only short periods of time were needed to carve canyons such as Canyon Lake Gorge (i.e. canyons which they can’t deny have been formed quickly, because they have observed it themselves). However, they still believe that other canyons, which were not observed while being formed, needed long periods of time to form. Certainly they’ve substantially lessened their estimated ages for some geological features, e.g. the ‘long-age’ timeframe for the formation of the Grand Canyon has been reduced dramatically from 50–70 Ma to 6 Ma. Nevertheless, millions of years of erosion are still invoked to explain the Grand Canyon despite a lack of evidence to suggest it (other than the existence of the Canyon, of course).5 Why do they persist in invoking millions of years when they acknowledge most of the erosion happened through catastrophic flooding? Simply this: millions of years are the foundation of uniformitarian geology.The news article spells out the significance rather well: ‘Geologic time has a different meaning when it comes to Canyon Lake Gorge. You could say it dates to around the end of the Enron era.’ If this is the case with geological formations we have observed forming, why is the orthodox meaning of ‘geologic time’ (i.e. millions of years) necessary to explain geological formations we haven’t observed forming?So the challenge left before us is this: are canyons formed by a little water over a long period of time, or a lot of water over a little period of time?6 Considering every event of canyon formation (especially through solid rock) observed by humans has happened with a lot of water over little time, what is more likely for canyons and gorges we haven’t observed forming? It makes perfect sense to apply that same principle to canyons that were not observed while being formed, such as the Grand Canyon.

Colossal CrystalsIt was like entering the mouth of an enormous shark with row upon row of piercing teeth

by Tas WalkerWhen he scrambled into the cavern deep below the surface of the earth, professional photographer Richard Fisher was awestruck. ‘It is like walking into the Land of the Giants.’1

Before him in the torch light were the largest crystals he had ever seen. Their faceted surfaces gleamed like translucent columns in moonlight. Some crystals were as large as mature pine trees, more than 15 metres (50 ft) long and 1.2 metres (4 ft) across—now among the largest crystals known on Earth. They are composed of the mineral selenite, a crystalline form of gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O).Two brothers, Elroy and Javier Delgardo, working with the Naica silver and lead mine of central Chihuahua, Mexico, discovered the caverns in April 2000. They were blasting a new tunnel 300 m (1,000 ft) below the surface at the time.2The cavern was crammed full of monstrous crystals, some long and slender, most short and pointed.Inside the cavern, the heat is unbearable. It is 65°C (150°F) and 100% humidity, and a human can only function for five or ten minutes before passing out.The caverns sit within the same body of limestone that hosts the silver, lead and

zinc deposits. Geologists envisage a huge chamber of superheated molten rock, kilometres beneath the mountain, forced mineral-rich fluids up through faults to the surface. The hydrothermal fluids enlarged joints and dissolved great caverns in the limestone. Some caverns filled with ore minerals. Others, more isolated and calm, became nurseries for gypsum crystals, which grew while the fluid completely filled them.Most people imagine such large crystals would take many thousands of years to grow, perhaps millions. Not so. To grow in the liquid so evenly, conditions within the cavern would have to remain stable. According to mine exploration superintendent, Roberto Villasuso, the crystals probably would have taken between 30 to 50 years to grow.Romanian cave expert, Dr Emil Silvestru (see Creation   21 (3):10–15, 1999) agrees that the crystals grew quickly. ‘A huge cavern in such circumstances could not remain isolated for long.’ Emil added, ‘Any movement of water would have altered the crystallization patterns and the final form of the crystals. Given their clarity and size, I believe the crystals took much fewer than 30 years to form.’The idea that large crystals can grow rapidly may astonish many folk.

Kata Tjuta: an astonishing storyby Tas Walker

From Yulara tourist resort in the middle of Australia, the mysterious silhouette of Kata Tjuta looms in the west, rising 546 m (1,790 ft) above the flat, sandy horizon. These domed shaped rock outcrops, just 30 km (20 miles) west of Uluru (Ayers Rock), were once known as the Olgas, but now they have the indigenous name of ‘many heads’, or Kata Tjuta.

Photos by Tas and Lorraine Walker

The alluring faces of Kata Tjuta intrigue tourists, drawn from many countries around the world to the mysterious land ‘down under’. Rising from the bushy plains in central Australia, these fascinating domes first caught the interest of the indigenous Australians who live in the area. They point to a time when the world was very different.Lots of waterCircle south around the outcrops and you can see the tilted layers of sediment (left top). These were deposited when water once flowed across the area. We are told that a depression formed in the earth’s crust about 900 million years ago, a length of time we cannot imagine. But was it really so long ago? We need to remind ourselves that these dates are not measured facts but based on beliefs about the past. And what we see at Kata Tjuta shows us that these rocks did not form over millions and millions of years.Surprise. When we arrive at Kata Tjuta and walk between the massive domes, we discover it is a huge heap of boulders. Here (left bottom) I’m sitting by an outcrop pointing to an oblong rock lying almost flat. These boulders indicate the way the water was flowing when they were so rapidly deposited.All the tourists I met expressed amazement at these rocks. During my visit I spoke to many people and often asked this question: ‘How do you think these rocks were deposited? Was it by a little bit of water over a long time, or a huge flow of water over a short time?’ Everyone I asked would chuckle and say, ‘A lot of water, of course!’The domes of Kata Tju ta are crammed full of rounded rocks and their steep walls extend for hundreds of metres overhead. The bouldery deposit also extends many hundreds of metres under the ground.1Some of the rocks exposed in the walls are huge. One that I noted was about 2 m (6 ft) long and 0.5 m (1.5 ft) wide, and angular in shape, rather than rounded. Such massive chunks of rock are common, and illustrate the power of the water that carried them along and deposited them in place.Deposited during the Global FloodThe boulders demonstrate the immense power of the currents that ripped up the rocks and carried them to a new location as it flowed across the land. It was fast and vast. The belief that these rocks were deposited in rivers over millions of years does not match the evidence. No wonder the multitudes of tourists who visit Kata Tjuta each year are astonished by what they see. Kata Tjuta is dramatic evidence of the huge watery catastrophe that engulfed this globe about 4,500 years ago.Photo by Tas and Lorraine Walker

Where did all the eroded material go?Although the Olgas stand so tall above the plain, much of the original deposit has been eroded away. Only the spectacular domes are left. We are told that erosion happened slowly over millions of years, but did it really take that long?If erosion happened so slowly, where has all the material gone? Those boulders would hardly be carried away by the wind. Look at how little we find at the base of the rocks (left).If erosion had been happening over millions of years we would expect to find the eroded rock material all around. Near the wall we would find it very thick, virtually the same height as the domes. Further away the debris would taper away to nothing in the distance.But when we inspect the area, all we find is a thin apron of debris around the base. Notice the large boulders scattered on the apron.I would not want to be around when one of these boulders tumbled down, but there are only a few of them on the apron. Close up (right) they are massive, and give a good indication of how well the rock is cemented together. When they fell, they did not smash into pieces but stayed in one lump. Clearly it would take a long time for these to weaken and disintegrate in the weather.Eroded during the FloodThe effects of the Flood easily explain how Kata Tjuta was eroded. As the floodwaters were receding off the continent of Australia, during the Recessive stage,2 the basic shape of the Olgas was eroded by the fast flowing energetic waters. These waters carried the eroded material out of the area.In the 4,500 years since the Flood, the sharp edges of the Olgas have been rounded by heat, cold, wind and water. The relatively small amount of material eroded since the Flood remains where it has fallen, at the base of the domes. And occasionally some large rocks fall off and these are scattered on the ground.If it wasn’t for the millions of years

Kata Tjuta now glows orange under the hot desert sun, but once it was covered with raging waters. If it wasn’t for the millions-of-years mantra in all the interpretive literature and posted on billboards around the site, people would be more likely to make the connection between the rocks in the desert and the Flood.Yes, Kata Tjuta tells an amazing story, one that conflicts with the idea of millions of years, but one that

is consistent with the true Australian history.

The Green River Formation: a large post-Flood lake systemby John H. Whitmore

Back to Forum contents pageEvidence from lithology, sedimentology, paleontology, ecology, taphonomy, geochemistry and structural geology suggests the Green River Formation (GRF) was a large lake system. Certain features—such as multiple horizons of exploded fish, disarticulated fish and stromatolites—suggest the passage of more than the one year of time allowed for by the Flood. Since these deposits have multiple lacustrine characteristics, are relatively undeformed compared to the underlying basins on which they rest and since the GRF is near the top of the geologic rock record, it is argued that the GRF represents a post-Flood lacustrine deposit.

IntroductionIt is apparent that the floodwaters did not retreat from the earth as fast as they had covered it . As the floodwaters returned to the ocean basins ,it is likely that large lakes formed in enclosed continental basins, worldwide. Some of these lakes may have been relatively short lived due to tectonic readjustments and drainage basin development, but some have likely remained until today (the Great Salt Lake in Utah, for example). The idea of immediate and large post-Flood lakes is not a new one. Whitcomb and Morris1 and Morris2 suggested this possibility, although they did not cite the Eocene GRF as an example. Rather, they believed it was formed during the Flood.1

The question as to where the Flood/post-Flood boundary occurs has been a difficult question for creationists to answer. Because of the geologically catastrophic beginning of the Flood , its location in the geologic record is easier to recognize than its end. Consequently, geologic criteria for recognition of its beginning are easier to make.3 Since the publication of the  Flood, many creationists have taken Whitcomb and Morris’s approach to include all of the Cenozoic rock record in the Flood, except for Pleistocene and later deposits. In this paper, I argue that the Eocene GRF is a post-Flood lake deposit—one that formed and persisted as the floodwaters retreated. The Eocene is the second epoch of the Cenozoic in the standard geologic time column. It is important to recognize that I don’t believe all Eocene and later deposits are post-Flood! Likewise, I am not arguing that all pre-Eocene deposits are Flood deposits. I am arguing something much different. Flood geologists need to use sedimentological criteria to recognize when the Flood ended in a particular part of the world. These criteria should probably be independent (at least initially) of the paleontological criteria (index fossils) that are often used to place a particular formation within the geologic time column.In this paper, I argue that the lithology, sedimentology, paleontology, ecology, taphonomy, geochemistry and structural geology of the GRF, when considered as a whole, forces

Figure 12. Fossil Basin lithofacies map developed by Buchheim and Eugster.4The map represents lithofacies during the time of the ‘Lower Sandwich Bed’, an isochronous (ash bounded) layer near the base of the Fossil Butte Member, Green River Formation, Wyoming. (click image for larger view)

the inescapable conclusion that these rocks represent lacustrine deposits. As stated in the introduction to this forum, I don’t believe that millions of years are represented by the sediments of the GRF, but that they have accumulated since the time of the Flood, only a few thousands of years ago.Lithology and sedimentologyThe stratigraphy of Fossil Basin is well known. Buchheim has developed a lithofacies map4 showing concentric relationships between various laminated micrites and siliciclastics (figure 12*, table 1). This map could be developed because of vertical relationships within numerous measured sections and lateral relationships within ash-bounded beds, like the ‘Lower Sandwich Bed’ near the base of the Fossil Butte Member (figure 13). In general, siliciclastics occur around the margin of Fossil Basin. These are followed by bioturbated micrites (figure 14), partly bioturbated micrites, kerogen-poor laminated micrites and kerogen rich laminated micrites (sometimes called ‘oil shales’) in the very centre of the basin (figure 6). At some stratigraphic levels, kerogen-rich to kerogen-poor dolomicrite replaces the calcimicrites. Stratigraphic cross-sections and lithofacies analyses of other Green River basins have shown similar concentric patterns.5–11

Table 1. Summary of lithofacies patterns in Fossil Basin.4,54 The lithofacies in this table match those in figure 12.  Kerogen-rich

laminated micrite(KRLM)

Kerogen-poor laminated micrite(KPLM)

Partly burrowed laminated micrite(PBLM)

Bioturbated micrite(BM)

Dolomicrite(DM)

Sandstone and siltstone(SS)

Total organic carbon

2-14 % < 2 % < 2 % < 2 % 2-14 % no data

Sedimentary structures

laminated (alternating calcite and kerogen)

laminated (alternating calcite and kerogen), kerogen laminae much less distinct

same as KPLM, horizontal and vertical burrows up to 2 cm in diameter

structureless micrite, abundant macro burrows, bioturbation increases toward margin

laminae often disrupted by salt casts, soft sediment deformation features, mud cracks

trough and ripple cross beds, up to 4 m thick cross beds, loading structures

Grain size clay clay clay clay matrix, some sand to pebble sized angular clasts

clay fine to coarse grained sand, carbonate interclasts

Mineralogy calcite with minor amounts of dolomite, quartz, feldspar, and clay

same as KRLM, except calcite content is higher

same as KPLM same as KPLM dolomite, some units may contain some quartz, feldspar, clay and calcite

primarily quartz and feldspar, some clay

Paleontology abundant fish, leaves, insects

abundant fish abundant fish gastropods, pelecypods, ostracods, and fish

some units contain abundant ostracods, No fish

gastropods, pelecypods, burrows

Figure 13. The Lower Sandwich Bed of Fossil Basin, Fossil Butte Member, Green River Formation, Wyoming. The bed is ‘sandwiched’ between two volcanic ash beds (indicated by arrows) and can be traced throughout Fossil Basin, giving excellent stratigraphic control. Several other prominent ash beds also occur throughout the vertical section. This location is Whitmore’s26 FBQ site (marked on figure 2) at Fossil Butte National Monument, Wyoming. Scale bar is 10 cm. (click image for larger view)

Where sandy or conglomerate facies do not occur along the basin margins, carbonate mudstone facies often abound. These facies contain features interpreted as mud cracks,10,17,18 nesting sites of birds and other animals,19,20 ripples (figure 16),21 flat pebble conglomerates,10 animal tracks,22,23 stromatolites,24 caddisfly mounds,25 fish fossils (often disarticulated),8,26 crocodiles and lizards,23 birds27 and many other features.28Carbonate

spring mounds (tufa and travertine) with silica-rich cores are known to occur at several locations within the Green River

Figure 16. Current ripples within a marginal facies on the Delany Rim, Washakie Basin. Bird tracks can also be found in this facies. (click image for larger view)

Figure 17. A fish (Knightia) collected near the margin of Fossil Basin at the Warfield Springs Quarry (Whitmore’s26WSQ site on figure 2). Note that it is well-preserved, but some of the scales came loose and were scattered before the fish was completely buried and preserved. The specimen was exposed on the bottom long enough for the scales to come loose, but then was buried, preventing further disarticulation. The scale bar is 1.0 cm long. Specimen WSQ 21–7. Warfield Springs is a private quarry. (click image for larger view)

Figure 18. A fish (Knightia) collected from near the centre of Fossil Basin from the Clear Creek Quarry (Whitmore’s26 CCQ site on figure 2). Note that it is fairly well-preserved. The scale bar is 1.0 cm long. Specimen CCQ 1.5–1. This quarry is on BLM property and a permit was obtained to collect it. (click image for larger view)

Figure 19. Stromatolites on the Delany Rim, Washakie Basin. Multiple layers of stromatolites can be found at this location and many others within the Green River Formation. The pen is 14 cm long. (click image for larger view)

Figure 20. Tufa encrusted logs in the Wasatch Formation, Washakie Basin at base of Delany Rim. Rock hammer is 28 cm long.

Figure 21. Structures interpreted to be caddisfly cases25 (centre) surrounded by digitate stromatolites (perimeter). The hollow cases are tube-like structures several mm in diameter and about 10 mm long. Northern Green River Basin, near LaBarge, Wyoming. The penny is 1.9 cm in diameter. (click image for larger view)

Figure 22. Red’s Cabin Monocline, Green River Formation at Whitehorse Creek near Oregon Buttes, Wyoming. The picture was taken looking south-east, down the axis of the monocline, which is near the centre of the photo. The near-horizontal beds on the right, dip steeply towards the left, and plunge into the valley below. The structure was formed as result of movement of faults along the base of the Wind River Mountains. (click image for larger view)

Figure 23. An exploded fish (Knightia) collected from near the margin of Fossil Basin (Whitmore’s26 HCCRT site on figure 2). This quarry is on BLM property and a permit was obtained to collect it. Specimen HCCRT 5–7. Scale in cm. (click image for larger view)

Figure 32. Intrastratal hydroplastic flow in the Laney Member of the Green River Formation, just above the Orange Marker Bed. The location is near Chicken Springs Draw, Flaming Gorge, Wyoming. The ‘blebby’ nature of this bed may have been the result of liquefaction during tectonic activity. During shaking, the middle layer became temporarily ‘liquid’ and clasts of the upper, darker layer sank into the middle layer. Regardless of how the intraformational deformation occurred, the outcrop shows the carbonate muds were not yet lithified when deformation took place, indicating a short time lapse between deposition and deformation. Intrastratal hydroplastic flow is also indicated by contorted beds along this same horizon. The U.S. penny is 1.9 cm in diameter. (click image for larger view)

Figure 34. Pluvial lakes in the western United States during the ‘Ice Age’. Could these lakes have been contemporary with the Green River Formation lakes? (After Oard).45

Figure 37. The Eocene Pass Peak Formation is interpreted to be an alluvial fan and plain gravels that interfinger with the Wasatch Formation, which in turn, interfinger with the fine grained sediments of the Greater Green River Basin, to the south.9 This photo was taken near Hoback Jct., Wyoming. (click for larger image)

* Figures are numbered continuously through all the articles in this forum.

Figure 38. A large overturned stromatolite head found in a cross-bedded channel. The channel is not shown in this picture, but was clearly evident in the larger outcrop. The stromatolite head is about 80 cm in diameter. Southern Washakie Basin (figure 1), Delany Rim, Wyoming. Overturned stromatolite heads in the GRF have also been seen by the author in Douglass Pass, Colorado. (click for larger image)

Figure 39. Stromatolite mounds in mudstone, Green River Formation, Douglas Pass, Colorado. Douglas Pass is located between the Uinta and Piceance Creek Basins (figure 1). At this location, multiple layers of large stromatolites occur with associated shallow water indicators. Note that the mud layers above must have come after the growth of the stromatolites, since they are undeformed. The coin in the centre of the picture is a U.S. penny, 1.9 cm in diameter. (click for larger image)

Figure 40. This Diplomystus is preserved in the dorsal view. After the fish settled to the bottom, it appears to have exploded, ejecting elements from the right lateral gastric region. Note the scales and bones directionally scattered towards the bottom of the photo. Also note that the vertebral column was contorted towards the top of the photo as a result of the explosion towards the bottom of the photo. Additional evidence for the gastric eruption is that rib elements occur on top of scales. Scales would have been ejected away from the fish first, followed by interior elements (ribs). Gas build-up did not cause it to float because it may have adhered onto the bottom via various micro-organisms. The specimen was collected from Whitmore’s16 HCCRT site (figure 2). This quarry is on BLM property and a permit was obtained to collect it. Specimen HCCRT 6–8. Scale is in cm. (click for larger image)