http://creation.com/continent-wide-sedimentary-strata... British 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.
- He 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.5 Its 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. Layers of sediment blanketing such huge areas point to something unusual happening in the past.
- 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.
Jones, D.C. and Clark, N.R., Geology of the Penrith 1:100,000 sheet 9030, NSW Geological Survey, Sydney, p.3, 1991.
Branagan, D.F and Packham, G.H., Field Geology of New South Wales, Department of Mineral Resources, Sydney, p.38, 2000.
Sloss, L.L.(ed.), The Geology of North America, Vol. D-2, Sedimentary Cover—North American Craton: U.S., The Geological Society of America, ch. 3, p. 47–51, 1988.
Ager, D., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, MacMillan, pp. 1–13, 1973.
Assessment of Groundwater Resources in the Broken Hill Region, Geoscience Australia, Professional Opinion 2008/05, ch. 6, 2008;
http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/environmental/groundwater/broken-hill.html.
Day, R.W., et al., Queensland Geology: A Companion Volume, Geological Survey of Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 127–128, 1983.
---
The Geologic Column: Does it exist?
http://creation.com/does-geologic-column-existConclusions
There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field.
- Secondly, those locations where it has been possible to assign all ten periods represent less than 0.4% of the earth’s surface, or 1% if the ocean basins are excluded. Obviously it is the exception, rather than the rule, to be able to assign all of the ten Phanerozoic periods to the sedimentary pile in any one location on the earth. It does not engender confidence in the reality of the geological column when it is absent 99% of the time.
Thirdly, even where the ten periods have been assigned, the way in which they were assigned can be quite subjective. It is a well known fact, for example, that many unfossiliferous Permian rocks are ‘dated’ as such solely because they happen to be sandwiched between faunally-dated Carboniferous and faunally-dated Triassic rocks. Without closer examination, it is impossible to determine how many of the ‘ten Phanerozoic systems superposed’ have been assigned on the basis of index fossils (by which each of the Phanerozoic systems have been defined) and how many have been assigned by indirect methods such as lithological similarity, comparable stratigraphic level, and schematic depictions. Clearly, if the periods in these locations were assigned by assuming that the geological column was real, then it is circular reasoning to use the assigned ten periods to argue the reality of the column.
---
Genesis and Historical Geology: A Personal Perspective GUY BERTHAULT
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j12_2/j12_2_213-217.pdfABSTRACT
Sedimentation experiments using heterogeneous mixtures of particles carried by flowing water have shown that the strata and sedimentary layers produced are generally distinct from one another, contrary to the stratigraphic principles of superposition and continuity. These principles overlook the hydraulic conditions necessary for sediment transport in transgressions. However, the relationships between observed contemporaneous hydraulic conditions and sedimentary structures can be used to determine the hydraulic conditions responsible for the sedimentary deposits of the geological record. Thus further flume experiments are now being undertaken in the hydraulics laboratory at the Colorado State University (Fort Collins) to produce a data set of 10,000 results from which the relationship between current speed and particle size can be determined. By these means it is already possible to show that the diluvial conditions of the year-long Biblical Flood were sufficient to deposit the sedimentary sequences of the geological record (for example, of the Grand Canyon region, USA). My religious instruction started when I was 10 years old. I believed in the historical reality of Genesis. Shortly afterwards, in a secular school, I commenced a course of natural science which included historical geology. This taught a long chronology of the Earth and corresponding evolution of the species, which seemed to me to contradict Genesis. Subsequently, I received a scientific education at the French Ecole Polytechnique, then pursued a professional business career. I have never forgotten the feeling these contradictions had on me in my youth. Some years ago, I again studied geological history based upon stratigraphy.
PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY
A stratum is defined as a lithological unit between limit surfaces in sedimentary rocks. It often provides evidence of sorting of the particles of which it is composed, with their size decreasing from bottom to top of the stratum. The limit surfaces are:- (1) separations between the fine particles at the top of one stratum and the large ones at the bottom of the stratum which covers it; (2) bedding planes which can separate two strata; and (3) those corresponding to a mechanical removal of sediments due to erosion. The thickness of strata varies from less than a millimetre to more than a metre. A series of superposed strata having the same lithological content, for example, sand, clay or limestone, constitutes a facies. For two centuries, since stratigraphy was founded, and without formal proof, superposed strata, and on a larger scale facies, have been identified as successive sedimentary layers. As a result, superposed strata were used to define relative chronology. The principles of stratigraphy arose from the belief that strata and facies are successive layers. The first principle, that of superposition, is defined in France (which with England was the cradle of stratigraphy) as: Layers (strata) having been deposited horizontally, one upon the other, each layer is older than the one which covers it. 1 The first part of the principle, layers (strata) having been deposited horizontally, assumes a horizontal area of deposition, and the average velocity of sedimentation having to be uniform across the deposit area, for each CEN Tech. J., vol. 12, no. 2, 1998 213 stratum to be horizontal. This latter condition is not met in contemporary sedimentation, where the velocity of sedimentation is variable as a function of the place and the depth of water. Secondly, the principle of continuity:- Each layer (stratum) has the same age at any point. This principle excludes the existence of ocean currents which cause the particles composing the layer to deposit successively in the direction of the current. Consequently, the layer is not the same age at all points. Oceans today are traversed by currents. These two principles provided the base upon which geologists, at the end of the eighteenth century and beginning of the nineteenth, established age correlations between sedimentary rock sites separated by distances exhibiting the same series of superposed fades. Later, the age correlations were established from fossils, which gave rise to the third principle, that of palaeontological identity:- Two layers with the same palaeontological content are the same age. This is another expression of the principle of continuity, and similarly excludes the effect of ocean currents, which as with particles, cause organisms to be swept along and deposited successively in the sediments forming the layer in which they become fossils. In consequence they, too, would not necessarily have the same age. Constituted in this way, time in the geological time- scale was only relative. The fourth principle of uniform- itarianism had to be added. This claimed that the rate of sedimentation in the past was the same as today, so that by calculating the time necessary for the sedimentary formations to form, an absolute scale of time could be obtained. The first illustration of such a scale was given by Charles Lyell. 2 Now in the twentieth century, the absolute ages of sedimentary rocks are evaluated by measuring the radioactive elements in intrusions and in eruptive material. The ages so obtained have been used to show concordance with those from the geological time-scale. However, John Woodmorappe has listed more than 300 absolute radiometric dates that are totally discordant with the geological time-scale. 3
WALTHER'S AND MCKEE'S OBSERVATIONS
In 1970 my interest in sedimentology was aroused by reading the reports of the Geological Society of America on the underwater drilling campaigns of the American ship Glomar Challenger. It was from these reports that I learned about the works of the German geologist Johannes Walther, 4 who should be considered as one of the principal founders of sedimentology. At the end of the last century, in the Gulf of Naples, he studied the formation of contemporaneous sedimentary deposits which prograded, or developed, from the coast towards the open sea. By drilling into the sediments, he observed the same succession 214 of facies, from the surface downwards, as from the coast towards the sea, The existence of facies, juxtaposed and superposed at the same time in a deposit area, could also be seen during coastal marine floods. Sedimentary rocks also display superposed and juxtaposed facies. The objective of sequence stratigraphy, originating from Walther's observations, is to determine whether a given sequence corresponds to a marine progradation, transgression or regression. The principal proponents of sequence stratigraphy, widely used today, are the Americans, Vail, Van Wagoner and Posamentier. 5 It should be noted that facies in sequences, superposed and juxtaposed at the same time, do not follow the principles of superposition and continuity. In 1970, I also received a report from the American geologist Edwin McKee of his 1965 observations of sediments deposited following a river in Colorado overflowing its banks at Bijou Creek due to 48 hours of torrential rain upriver. 6 The stratified deposits, reaching a thickness of 12 feet, exhibited particle sorting and bedding joints. Such bedding planes are generally interpreted by classical stratigraphy as the result of interruptions in sedimentation followed by hardening of the sedimentary surface of the lower surface of the plane.
FLUME EXPERIMENTS
The rains having lasted 48 hours, and the supply of sediment being continuous throughout the period, it was impossible to identify the strata in the deposit as successive layers of sediment, with interruptions in sedimentation producing partings. This led me to do some experiments on stratification. The first were in France with limited material, the subsequent ones in the USA at the well- equipped Colorado State University with hydraulically- controlled flowing water transporting sand through flumes. The flume experiments demonstrated the mechanical nature of stratification, whereby: (1) Segregation of particles according to their size, when exposed to a current of variable velocity, gave rise to sorting. (2) Desiccation of deposits caused bedding planes or partings. (3) Under both dry and water conditions, stratification of the deposit formed parallel to the slope of the initial area of deposit which could exceed 30°. This fact invalidates the first part of the principle of superposition as defined. (4) The strata resulting from particle segregation were distinct from sedimentary layers deposited between two consecutive times. The discovery of this fundamentally important distinction provided an entirely new conception of strata formation. (5) Due to the presence of a current, strata were formed vertically and laterally at the same time in the direction of the current (see Figure 1). CEN Tech. J., vol. 12, no. 2, 1998 Figure 1. Schematic formation of graded-beds. The stratified deposits formed in the flume experiments showed that where there was a current, the principles of superposition and continuity did not apply to their formation. Reports of the experiments in France were published by the French Academy of Sciences 7 in 1986 and 1988 respectively, and those in the USA in the Journal of the Geological Society of France 8 in 1993. The reports were translated and published in Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 911 The flume experiments were repeated in 1993 in a larger flume and filmed for the production of a video entitled Fundamental Experiments in Stratification, which was integrated into the video Drama in the Rocks. 12 This latter video now forms an integral part of the updated version of Evolution, Fact or Belief? 13
DEPOSITION OF GRAND CANYON SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
In 1994 the Institute for Creation Research produced a book on the Grand Canyon, 14 which included items by geologists Kurt Wise and Steve Austin. The latter contributed an item entitled 'A creationist view of Grand Canyon strata' which made reference to two papers, one by Rubin on the relation between hydraulic conditions and stratified structures in the Bay of San Francisco, 15 and the other by Southard which summarised 39 series of flume experiments on the same relations. 16 Rubin summarised these relations by means of a three- dimensional diagram (see Figure 2). The co-ordinates it features, producing the different depositional structures, are the velocity of current, depth of water and size of sedimentary particles. Having recognised the same structures in the Grand Canyon sedimentary rocks, Steve Austin applied them to the Tonto Group. This formation extends for 800 km from east to west, and corresponds to a transgressive sequence of three facies, superposed and juxtaposed. He determined the hydraulic conditions that existed when the sediments were deposited which gave rise to the rock facies of the Tonto Group. These were principally the velocities of currents of the ocean transgression, which rose to more than 2,000 m above today's ocean level. The maximum velocity was that which corresponded to the initial erosion of the subjacent rocks by the invading marine waters. It was greater than 2 m/s, and might well have reached 22 m/s. With such current velocities, the 800 km margin of the continent could have been submerged by invading ocean water within several days. The velocities decreased as the transgression reached its peak and before the waters started to subside. It should be noted that the velocities are of the same magnitude as those in our flume experiments. Logically, therefore, the strata in the Tonto Group facies probably formed similarly, that is, vertically and laterally in the direction of the current. As the velocity of the current decreased the particles deposited were finer and finer, giving rise to the three superposed and juxtaposed facies of the Tonto Group: sandstone, clay and limestone. The sedimentation was therefore rapid, not only during the marine invasion, but all the time that the ocean stayed at its highest level when there was little or no current. In the absence of a current, the finest particles would have been deposited at a speed of 2 cm/day. As soon as the waters started to subside, the renewed current interrupted the sedimentation of the finer particles. During the marine regression, the inversed currents would have reached CEN Tech. J., vol. 12, no. 2, 1998 Figure 2. Three-dimensional plot of bed phase and sand-wave height as a function of velocity, sediment size, and depth, generalised from bay data and flume data cited in text. 215 Figure 3. The curves for erosion and deposition of a uniform material. velocities sufficient to have eroded deep valleys in the non- consolidated sediments deposited during the transgression. The Tonto Group is attributed to the Cambrian period which, according to the geological time-scale, lasted 70 million years. It can be seen, therefore, to what extent Steve Austin's model, which is founded not upon the Biblical Flood, but on the previously mentioned experimental data, 1516 at least condenses the time required for a major part of the geological time-scale.
FURTHER EXPERIMENTS
Determination of initial hydraulic conditions from sedimentary rock structures, resulting from sediment- ological data is, therefore, a research priority. In this connection, my colleague Pièrre Julien presented a paper in May 1997 to the Third Powders and Grains Conference at Durham, North Carolina, a re-published copy of which follows this paper. The conclusions from our current programme, which is admittedly ambitious, will unfortunately not be available until next year. The experimental work described below is, however, completed. In the report of our stratification experiments, published in the Journal of the French Geological Society, 8 reference was made to Filip Hjulstrom. 17 From his observations of the morphological activity of rivers, he produced the diagram (see Figure 3) where, with regard to the average velocities of currents given in ordinates, and the size of particles in abscissas, the zones of erosion, transport and sedimentation of sedimentary particles are represented. From the size of a sedimentary particle, therefore, the velocities of currents which eroded, transported and deposited sediments can be evaluated. Although the erosion and transport have been carefully measured, the velocities of sedimentation have been estimated empirically by Hjulstrom as two-thirds of the 216 erosion velocities. The object of our new experimental programme is to determine these velocities. Two complementary series of experiments have been carried out in a flume using small glass and steel balls of different sizes. In the first series, a smooth-bottomed flume was traversed by a water current carrying the balls along with it. The velocity of current, corresponding to the deposit of a ball according to its size and density, was noted. In the second series, the movement of a ball in the same flume was studied up to when it stopped. This time the flume was dry and sloped. Its bottom was roughened by particles of calibrated sand, the size of which was changed for each experiment. From the 10,000 pieces of data obtained, a synthesis is being made of the two series of experiments studying the complete movement of a ball (its fall, and its roll on the rough surface of particles previously deposited, up to when it stops). This synthesis, to be completed next year, should enable the formulation of an experimental relationship between velocity of current and size of particle, which will allow for greater precision in determining the hydraulic conditions pertaining when the sediments giving rise to sedimentary rocks were deposited.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
In conclusion, regarding the principles of superposition and continuity, it has been shown that: (1) Facies in sequences do not follow each other but are deposited simultaneously, according to sequential stratigraphy initiated by Walther; (2) They do not apply to the resultant stratified deposits formed in the flume experiments when there was a current; and (3) Hjulstrom's observations on fluviatile sedimentation, and submarine observations, such as Rubin's, and Southard's flume experiments, establish the relation between hydraulic conditions (depth, current velocity) and structures (grain diameters) of the deposits. These deposit structures are found in sedimentary rocks. From them, the original hydraulic conditions, and particularly the velocity of the current, can be determined, as Steve Austin did in the Tonto Group. In the absence of a current, the conditions defined by the principles of stratigraphy apply. When there is a transgression, regression or progradation, there is automatically a current and the principles no longer apply. If a principle, having world-wide application, and used as a basis for scientific reasoning, is shown by one experiment not to apply, the principle must be abandoned. This is particularly the case for the principles of stratigraphy upon which the geological time-scale was founded, since they did not take hydraulic conditions into account. The abandonment of principles upon which the geological time-scale is founded, and the recognition of initial hydraulic conditions, are likely to involve important changes in the conception of the scale.
CEN Tech. J., vol. 12, no. 2, 1998
An illustration is the correlation used in the Grand Canyon to correspond the Flood of 370 days with the 460 million years formation of the Cambrian to the Jurassic according to the geological time-scale. This was made possible because the initial diluvial conditions had not been taken into account by the time-scale. The question remains whether with the failure of stratigraphic dating, radiometric dating is a viable method. The CEN Technical Journal recently published a report on the radiometric dating by the potassium/argon method of a dacite sample formed in 1986 when Mt St Helens last erupted. 18 The age obtained was 350,000 years. Part of the sample was subjected to a magnetic separation of the dacite into its constituent parts. The ages obtained were respectively :- 340,000 years for feldspar 900,000 years for amphibole 2,800,000 years for pyroxene The report pointed out that the cause of the dating error was the assumption that the argon measured came from the rock after its crystallisation, whereas the lava, before crystallisation, generally contained excess argon generated by radioactive potassium. This assumption led to the attribution of a very old age to a young rock. The same situation applies to other elements whose radioactivity existed in lavas and magmas from which crystallised rocks came. The fact that radiometric dating methods require stable daughter isotopes does not resolve the problem, because these isotopes often also exist in the lavas and magmas. The liquid lavas being constantly mixed, the parent/daughter relationships in a given volume are not constant. As a result, two samples from the same rock unit can have quite different radioactive ages. This phenomenon challenges the validity of radioactive dating of rocks. Finally, what natural phenomenon could have caused the flood conditions? In January 1996, the Journal of the Natural History Museum in Paris published a study by Christian Marchal, 19 Research Director at ONERA (Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales). The conclusion of a calculation in mechanics showed that the uplift of the Himalayas brought about a temporary geographical displacement of the axis of the Earth's rotation, the amplitude of which could have reached 30°. Christian Marchal, in fact, evaluated the displacement at between 60° and 90°. The Earth being an ellipsoid, a tilt in such conditions would inevitably have provoked one or more displacements of the oceans which covered the continents. The summary of the data leads to a geological chronology significantly shorter than that proposed by the geological time-scale, and to a different history to the one taught in our schools. In consequence, the feeling of contradiction experienced in my youth no longer exists. The Flood conditions, which undoubtedly existed, buried many species that had been displaced on account of their palaeontological distribution into superposed biozones. The position of the latter in the fossil record led to the disputable belief of a chronological succession of species and, in consequence, the various theories of evolution.
REFERENCES
1. Aubouïn, J., Brousse, R. and Lehman, J. P., 1968. Precis de Geologie, Vol. 2, pp. 227.
2. Lyell, G, 1832. Principles of Geology, John Murray, London.
3. Woodmorappe, J., 1979. Radiometric geochronology reappraised. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 16(2): 102-129.
4. Walther, J., 1893-1894. Einleitung in die Geologie als historische Wissenschaft, Iena Verlag von Gustav Fisher, Sud. 1055p.
5. Van Wagoner, J. C, Posamentier, H. W., Mitchum, Jr., R. M., Vail, P. R., Sarg, J. R, Loutit, T. S. and Hardenbol, J., 1988. An Overview of the Fundamentals of Sequence Stratigraphy and Key Definitions, S. C. Kendall.
6. McKee, E., Crosby, E. J. and Berryhill, H. L., 1967. Flood deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, 1965, Journal of Sedimentologicai Petrology, 37:829-851.
7. Berthault, G., 1986. C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris, t. 303, Serie II, No. 17 and Serie II, pp. 717-724.
8. Julien, P., Lan, Y. and Berthault, G., 1993. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures. Bulletin of the Society of Geology, France, 164(5):649-660.
9. Berthault, G., 1988. Experiments on lamination of sediments. EN Tech. J., 3: 25-29.
10. Berthault, G., 1990. Sedimention of a heterogranular mixture: experimental lamination in still and running water. EN Tech. J., 4: 95-102.
11. Julien, P. Y., Lan, Y. and Berthault, G., 1994. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures. CEN Tech. J., 8(1): 37-50.
12. Drama in the Rocks, video distributed by Answers in Genesis, PO Box 6302, Acacia Ridge DC Qld 4110, Australia.
13. Evolution: Fact or Belief? Video distributed by Answers in Genesis, Australia, USA and UK.
14. Austin, S. A., 1994. Grand Canyon — Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, California.
15. Rubin, D. M. and McCulloch, D. S., 1980. Single and superimposed bedforms: a synthesis of San Francisco Bay and flume observations. Sedimentary Geology, 26:207-231.
16. Boguchwal, J. A. and Southard, J., 1990. Bed configuration in steady unidirectional waterflows, part 2. Synthesis of flume data, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 60(5): 658-679.
17. Hjulstrom, F., 1935. The morphological activity of rivers as illustrated by river Fyris, Bulletin of the Geological Institute Uppsala, 25, chapter 3.
18. Austin, S. A, 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. CEN Tech. J., 10(3):335-343.
19. Marchal, C, 1996. Earth's polar displacements of large amplitude: a possible mechanism. Bulletin du Museum National d'Historie Naturelle, Paris, 4em ser. 18, section C. no. 203, pp. 517-554.
Guy Berthault is a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique, France, and a keen student of geology, particularly the deposition of sediments as a guide to the understanding of structures that we find in sedimentary rocks. He resides at 28 Boulevard Thiers, 78250 Meulan (Paris), France.
CEN Tech. J., vol. 12, no. 2, 1998 217
---
Mount St Helens— exploding the old-earth paradigm
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_45-46.pdfTJ 18 (1) 2004 46 Book Reviews
Michael Oard
The significance of the Mount St Helens eruptions to catastrophism and Flood geology are explained at a layman’s level in this brilliantly illustrated book. Creationists, indeed all geologists, around the world can learn much from the events, which began on 18 May 1980, at this now- famous mountain. And thanks to the detailed investigations carried out by many scientists, the recent geological and geomorphological events at Mount St Helens can provide insightful analogs for past earth-shaping events, which are evident in the rocks and fossils. These analogies defy the principle of uniformitarianism—the guiding light for mainstream geological interpretation—and have fuelled the ideas of the neo-catastrophists, who have brought back catastrophism into secular geological thinking (although not on the scale of the Genesis Flood). Creationists can use neo-catastrophic ideas and research about the eruptions of Mount St Helens to better understand Flood and post-Flood catastrophic processes.
Catastrophic analogs
Rapid deposition is clearly evident from the historical record at Mount St Helens. During the initial and subsequence eruptions, about 180 m of stratified sediment were rapidly laid A review of Footprints in the Ash: the explosive story of Mount St Helens by John Morris and Steven A. Austin Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2003 down by dynamic processes (air blast, landslide, lake waves, pyroclastic flows, mudflows, air fall and stream water). These sediments contain dead plants and animals, some of which are now fossilizing. Cross-bedded and graded strata were formed rapidly and some of the strata were sufficiently lithified (within five years) to stand at near vertical slopes. Clastic dikes, which also indicate rapid deposition—to allow for soft sediment intrusion—were noted at several locations. A pyroclastic flow, moving at 150 kph, deposited thousands of finely laminated layers in a few hours. Without the documented history, uniformitarian geologists would consider these strata to have taken long periods of time to form. For example, as the mode of sediment transport (pyroclastic or water lain) is often indistinguishable, couplets of such laminated layers would normally be considered varves, each thought to have formed during one year. But Mount St Helens demonstrated that layered sediment can form catastrophically within hours. The events at Mount St Helens also show that many landforms can form quickly by catastrophic action. A 30-metre deep canyon (Lower Loowit Canyon) was cut in hard basalt as rock avalanched from the crater. Grooves and striations were formed on solid bedrock by avalanche and ‘blast clouds’ that tore loose boulders and dragged them with great force across the exposed rock. (Such grooves and striations— found all over the earth—are normally interpreted to be the result of an ancient glaciation.) Craters were formed as steam exploded from superheated ice, which had been buried by hot sediments. Subsequent sloughing of sediments into these ‘explosion pits’ resulted in the rapid formation of badlands topography. Normally such topography would be interpreted as being formed by slow erosion over hundreds of thousands of years. Of great interest is the 19 March 1982 mudflow, which produced a 43- meter deep canyon in one day. This canyon is a one-fortieth scale model of the Grand Canyon of Arizona. After seeing this happen, we can now easily envision how large canyons could have been formed rapidly at the end of Noah’s Flood.
Spirit Lake
An extremely energetic wave in Spirit Lake, north of the volcano, sloshed 260 m up the side of the adjacent mountain, with the return flow dumping one million trees into the lake. As these floating trees rubbed against each other, bark was dislodged and sunk to the bottom of the lake. Such bark, covered over with sediments, mimics a layer of peat that can turn into a coal seam, with subsequent sedimentation and time. This is a modern example of the creationist log mat model for the formation of coal. Many of the trees in Spirit Lake have sunk into a vertical position, at different levels on the lake bottom. One can imagine, if Spirit Lake filled with sediments and was subsequently eroded, we would see many levels of vertical trees. These could easily be interpreted as multiple fossil forests that formed over tens of thousands of years. But they are not forests and they formed quickly. This amazing process provides insights into how the famous multiple levels of fossil trees found in vertical positions at Yellowstone National Park and at Joggins, Nova Scotia, also formed quickly. Although Mount St Helens has continued to show signs of activity, the landform has remained fairly stable since 1982. In the post-catastrophic period, vegetation and animals have returned rapidly to the surrounding area. This recolonization provides us with useful clues to understanding the rapid repopulating of the earth after the devastation of the Genesis Flood.
Radiometric dating
Mount St Helens also provided an opportunity to check radiometric dating methods. Samples of newly formed rock from the lava dome within the crater were dated up to 2.4 million years old by the K-Ar method, which is supposed to register the time since solidification of the lava. This is contrary to the known history of the lava cooling between 1980 and 1986. Such old dates for recent lava flows have been documented numerous times. Something is certainly wrong with the old ages derived from the radiometric dating methods. Conclusion Mount St Helens adds up to a real- life laboratory to understand a number of processes that occurred on a much larger scale, during Noah’s Flood. At Mount St Helens, these processes were observed to rapidly form a wide range of geological features, in contrast to the thousands to millions of years assumed by mainstream scientists. Mount St Helens demonstrates that when we bring the Flood back into our thinking, a large percentage of the uniformitarian time challenges melt away. This book wonderfully illustrates the many catastrophic events, which occurred at Mount St Helens, which can be used to improve our thinking about the catastrophic events that occurred during the Flood.
---
Sedimentation Experiments: Is Extrapolation Appropriate? A Reply
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j11_1/j11_1_65-70.pdf 'As with biotopes, it is a basic statement of far-reaching significance, that only those facies and facies-areas can be superimposed primarily which can be observed beside each other at the present time.' The law applies to progradation of sediments, transgressions and regressions. The video gives illustrations of the application of these movements to both coastal sediments and deep sea sediments. The latter accords with the published data from the 'Glomar Challenger' drilling programme. (3) Visualisation of our experiments in France and in the United States. These include the flume experiments, showing superposed strata depositing at the same time, which confirm Walther's Law. (4) My own comments, in which I emphasise that our experiments invalidate the basis of the geological time- scale. Some of my remarks are based upon sequence stratigraphy, and not on the results of our experiments, although the latter have an indirect application. It should be noted that the experiments liberate sequence stratigraphy from the limits of bedding plane partings. The latter need no longer be considered as chronological markers, arising simply from sedimentary hiatuses. It is shown that they can arise by desiccation subsequent to the deposit, and therefore have no chronological significance. I would refer Hoskin, who makes no comment on sequence stratigraphy, to the paper on that topic by Froede. 24 Considering the possibility that the sedimentation giving rise to sedimentary rocks could have resulted from successive tidal waves moving across the oceans, as I suggested in Drama in the Rocks, does not seem to me incompatible with the Noahic Flood. The recognition by Steve Austin of lateral currents of 90 to 15 cm/s at the time of formation of cross- beds in the Grand Canyon lends some support to the hypothesis. The determination of initial hydraulic conditions from the stratification of rocks, in association with sequence stratigraphy, should, I think, shed light upon the problem of compatibility of the Noahic Flood with the new stratigraphy.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND PRESSING ISSUES
Once again Hoskin uses his own interpretation of the mechanism of non-horizontal layers to see if it can account for the stratification of the Grand Canyon. He thinks not, and asks whether in fact 'sedimentation would not operate many times on small packages of sediments'. The response to this dilemma does not come directly from our experiments, but rather more from sequence stratigraphy. Knowing that a transgressive series 68 corresponds from bottom to top to a superposition, such as sandstone-siltstone-shale-limestone, and the reverse position for a regressive series, an analysis of the geologic block diagram of the Grand Canyon 25 starting from Tapeats can be made. First, a marine transgression from Tapeats to Redwall, followed by a regression from Redwall to Supai. Then comes a transgressive-regressive cycle from Supai to Coconino, followed by a final transgression prior to the waters retreating. McKee 26 made an interesting study of the Supai Group to determine the directions of the currents corresponding to these transgressions and regressions. The transgressive and regressive series follow Walther's Law. The direction of the current, and to some extent its speed, can be ascertained from the slope of the cross- stratification in the sandstones (Tapeats, Supai, Coconino). This speed is highly variable and determines the sizes of the deposited particles. Graded-beds are created in these conditions, with the sediments depositing upward and downstream. The Figure 2 is a diagram by Vincent 27 of a marine transgression. When the ocean is at A, the sedimentary layer deposited is a; when at B, b; when at C, c. In a vertical direction from A, the deposit of pebbles, sandstone and marl superpose when the ocean level is at C. But when the ocean level is at C, the pebbles deposit at C, the sandstone at B, the marl at A. Figure 2. Diagram of a marine transgression showing the sequential deposition of the various facies. The diagram illustrates Walther's Law of Facies: pebbles, sandstone and marl are seen to be superposed and juxtaposed in the area of the deposit. It is in this way, therefore, on the scale of facies, that stratification in the Grand Canyon has to be interpreted. (2) and (3) Hoskin mentions the case of juxtaposed rocks having different stages of oxidation and different cements. This seems to be a question of chemical action having taken place subsequent to sedimentation, which would accord with Walther's Law. (4) Hoskin then refers to evaporitic salts. Again I would refer him to Walther's Law. These salts occur in shallow waters which arise in the final stage of a transgressive series, or the first stage of a succeeding regressive series, following Walther's Law. (5) I have read the report of the Boguchwal and Southard experiments showing the incidence of temperature on CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 1, 1997 the conditions of sedimentation. 28 In our experiments we did not vary the temperature, although I agree that it could have had some effect. It would not, however, have fundamentally altered the results obtained. (6) Hoskinasks, 'Why are the majority of graptolite fossils found on desiccation cracks and not disseminated throughout the sediment itself?' Aubouin 29 specifies that graptolites are mainly found in schists, which under tectonic strain produce an axial- plane foliation which coincides with the bedding planes. Thus, joints in schists would result from mechanical action of strain rather than from desiccation. Why graptolite fossils are found in these joints or cracks remains to be explained. I don't know. Hoskin's two final questions can be summarised as follows: why, if bedding plane partings result from desiccation, do they occur in the middle of large uniform deposits? The same question can, of course, be asked regarding vertical cracks found in sandstone and limestone. I have never said that desiccation is the only factor creating bedding plane partings. But the postulate of stratigraphy that these partings are sedimentary hiatuses has been shown by my experiments to not necessarily apply. Desiccation has been shown experimentally to be a factor. In my view it is wiser to rely on observable repeatable experiments than on interpretations unsupported by facts.
CONCLUSIONS
Our experiments have invalidated the identification of superposed rock strata with successive sedimentary layers. Consequently, the experiments invalidate the principles of superposition and continuity upon which the geological time-scale was founded. They shed light upon the mechanism of stratification. Our laboratory work contributes to discoveries in sedimentology in the domain of observation and experimentation. Our new series of experiments currently taking place, has as its objective for 1997-1998 the development of an understanding of sedimentary mechanics. Despite what is said to the contrary, 'the present is the key to the past' if contemporary sedimentary mechanisms can be used to explain those which created the sedimentary rocks. The first contribution to sedimentology came from Johannes Walther, whose observations of contemporary sedimentation led to sequence stratigraphy and the recognition of transgressive and regressive series. Our flume experiments demonstrate that Walther's Law, which applies to facies series, also applies to the internal strata of facies. The experiments have also shown that bedding plane partings are not necessarily sedimentary hiatuses, but could be due to desiccation. In which case, it would mean that there would be no discontinuity between superposed sequences. These facies series have up until now only been studied CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 1, 1997 locally. No account has been taken of their relationship with each other. A marine transgression or regression, however, should be recognisable throughout its extent wherever it deposited its sediments. This is why observations, such as those of Rubin and McCulloch, and those in our flume experiments, ascertaining the relations between hydraulic conditions and stratification are so important. It is from them that the stratification of rocks can, within certain limits, determine the initial hydraulic conditions at depth, and the speed and direction of transgressive and regressive currents. With the aid of sequence stratigraphy, the entire extent of these transgressions and regressions can be reconstituted, as well as their succession in time. Taken together, all of this provides a more exact view of the history of geological time. When, therefore, in the video I spoke of successive tidal waves, it was certainly in anticipation of the results of this reconstitution. This anticipation, however, which is coherent with the results already known that I have recapitulated above, does not, in my opinion, merit the term 'extrapolation'. Regarding the Noahic Flood, might not these successive tidal waves result from 'the fountains of the deep'?
REFERENCES
1. Hoskin, W., 1997. Sedimentation experiments: is extrapolation appropriate? CENTech. J., 11(1):
2. Berthault, G., 1986. Experiments on lamination of sediments. Compte Rendus Académie des Sciences Paris, t.303, Série II, no. 17:1569- 1574; and EN Tech. J., 3:25-29(1988).
3. Berthault, G., 1988. Sedimentation of a heterogranular mixture: experimental lamination in still and running water. Compte Rendus Acadéinie des Sciences Paris, t. 306, Série 11:717-724; and EN Tech. J., 4:95-102 (1990).
4. Julien, P. Y., Lan,Y. and Berthault, G., 1993. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures. Bulletin of the Geological Society of France, 164(5):649-660; and CEN Tech. J., 8(l):37-50 (1994).
5. Berthault, G., 1995. Drama in the Rocks. Video, Creation Science Foundation Ltd, Australia.
6. Julien, P. Y. and Berthault, G., 1994. Fundamental Experiments on Stratification. Video, Sarong Ltd, Monaco.
7. Julien et al., Ref. 4, p. 37.
8. Berthault, Ref. 2.
9. Berthault, Ref. 3.
10. Julien et al., Ref. 4.
11. Julien et al., Ref. 4, p. 37.
12. Berthault, Ref. 3.
13. Julien and Berthault, Ref. 6.
14. Southard, J. B. and Boguchwal, L. A., 1980. Bed configurations in steady unidirectional water flows. Part 2. Synthesis of flume data. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 60(5):658-679 (Table I).
15. Berthault, Ref. 3, p. 100.
16. Rubin, D. and McCulloch, D. S., 1980. Single and superposed bedforms: a synthesis of San Francisco Bay and flume observations. Sedimentary Petrology, 26:207-231.
17. Austin, S., 1994. Interpreting strata of Grand Canyon. In: Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, California, pp. 21-51.
18. Rubin and McCulloch, Ref. 16, p. 207.
19. Walther, J., 1893-1894. Enleitung in die Geologie als historische Wissenschaft, Iena Verlag von Gustav Fisher, three volumes, 1055p. 69
20. Walther, J., 1910. Die Sedimente des Taubenbank in Golf von Neapel, Berlin-Akad. Wiss Abh könig — press, 49p.
21. Walther, Ref. 19.
22. Walther, Ref. 20.
23. Middleton, G., 1973. Johannes Walther's law in the correlation of facies. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 84:979-988.
24. Froede, C. R. Jr., 1994. Sequence stratigraphy and creation geology. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 31: 138-144.
25. Austin, Ref. 17.
26. McKee, E. D., 1979. Characteristics of the Supai Group in Grand Canyon, Arizona. In: Carboniferous Stratigraphy in the Grand Canyon Country, Northern Arizona and Southern Nevada, S. S. Beus and R. R. Rawson (eds), American Geological Institute, Fall Church, Virginia, pp. 110-112.
27. Vincent, P., 1962. Sciences Naturelles, Vuibert
28. Boguchwal, L. A. and Southard, J. B., 1990. Bed configurations in steady unidirectional water flows. Part 1. Scale model study using fine sand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 60:649-657.
29. Aubouin, J., 1967. Précis de Géologic, Dunod, Tome I, p. 413; Tome II, p. 130.
---
The mountains rose
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_40-43.pdfA review of The Origin of Mountains Edited by Cliff Ollier and Colin Pain Routlege, London 2000 TJ 16 (3) 2002 41
Book Reviews
Michael J. Oard
This is a book with a controversial message on the origin of mountains— controversial that is to uniformitarian geologists. Cliff Ollier and Colin Pain are well known geomorphologists from Australia who apply geomorphology, the study of the origin and development of the Earth’s surface features, to Earth science problems. Their decades of international experience give them insights into the origin of mountains that are valuable to creationists attempting to model the details of the Genesis Flood.
Strata first folded
Many geologists and geophysicists assume that the mountain building process of horizontal compression caused the folds we see in the mountains today. But the authors state: ‘There is no direct evidence that folding was accompanied by mountain building’ (pp. 274–275). The main reason for this radical deduction is ‘the certain knowledge that the strength of rocks is insufficient to permit folds to be created by lateral compression’ (p. 275). The authors believe that most folds, as well as thrusts, were caused when huge masses of rock slid down slope under the influence of gravity, an idea denied by most geologists today. To back up their contention, they provide some impressive modern analogues from the continental slope and rise, including the huge Agulhas Slump off southeast Africa, the distal Bengal Fan, and the Niger Delta. Tensional and compressional structures, similar to those found in mountains, have formed in these areas during downslope mass movement. Seismic sections of ancient folded sediments from all over the world, especially along convergent plate margins, look similar to these modern marine sediments found along the continental margins. It is my opinion that another mechanism for folding also is valid, and that is differential vertical tectonics, as propounded by S. Warren Carey. 1 For example, there are quite a number of anticlines in Montana and other areas of the Rocky Mountains of North America that are cored by granitic rocks. 2 The sedimentary rocks form drapes over these plutonic cores. Although it is generally believed such basement-cored anticlines were produced by horizontal compression, it is easier to believe they were produced by upward vertical tectonics, especially since mid and upper crustal rocks are likely to fail upon compression and not produce folds.
Strata next planed worldwide in about the Miocene of the geological time scale
Ollier and Pain show that after the strata were folded by these tectonic events, they were planed down to form flat surfaces, called planation surfaces, on all the continents, including Antarctica (p. 214). This global planation process cut across previously folded sedimentary rocks and smoothed both the hard and soft rocks evenly. Even massive granite was planed over many areas, as in the Tien Shan Mountains of central Asia (p. 144). Planation is assumed to have occurred subaerially by the kinds of erosional processes that we observe today on the continents. The surfaces were planed down to what is called base level, which is usually considered to have been sea level (p. 3). It is interesting that one planed area, the area that is now occupied by the Apennines Mountains of Italy, was planed below sea level (p. 72)! In some areas the planation surfaces are very flat, such as the plains of Australia and Africa (p. 1). Below these plains the sedimentary rocks are generally folded. Ollier and Pain marvel how such planation could have occurred at all and that is was so widespread: ‘The remarkable thing is that plains of great perfection are ever made, despite all the obvious possibilities of complications. But they are real, and planation surfaces were widespread before the uplift of the many mountains of Plio-Pleistocene age’ (p. 302). They are surprised, of course, because the observed surfaces are inconsistent with their uniformitarian worldview. Erosional processes today do not produce the flat landscapes that were produced in the past. Present processes roughen surfaces, forming rills, coulees and valleys. Today, we observe that previously-planed surfaces are dissected. Planed surfaces do not develop today, except on a very local scale when perhaps a river suddenly shifts its course and moves across tilted sedimentary rock.
Furthermore, the field relationships show that planation in the past mostly occurred in the Late Miocene-Early Pliocene period (p. 302), suggesting that it occurred rapidly : ‘There is nothing very special about the climate in the Late Miocene-Early Pliocene period when there often occurred planation that suggests an increased erosion rate, and in any case the mountains discussed are in a wide range of latitudinal and climatic situations. At present, the cause of the observed high rate of planation remains a mystery.’ Of course, their concept of climate in the Late Miocene-Early Pliocene is based on uniformitarian assumptions, which ignores the effects of the Genesis Flood. A further mystery is that, within the uniformitarian time scale, some planation surfaces are very old, such as the planation surface of the Kimberly Plateau of north central Australia that was planed in the Proterozoic and has apparently not been covered by protecting sediments since then (p. 27). It defies imagination how such a surface could have remained so flat for 600 million years or more, when present processes could dissect a continent and erode it to near sea level in 10 to 33 million years. The presence of such ‘old’ planation surfaces is objective evidence that the dating methods, both fossil and radiomentic, used to date the time of planation are wrong. 3
Mountains uplifted globally in Plio-Pleistocene
Ollier and Pain show that after all the continents were planed, they were uplifted and dissected. The authors essentially conclude that the plains that were once near sea level in the Miocene were uplifted to form the mountains we see today. They believe this is the origin of nearly all mountains and have an impressive amount of evidence to back up their conclusion. In the mountains today we observe all stages of this past dissection. Some planation surfaces were dissected completely during uplift, leaving behind rough mountains with no sign of a planation surface. In other mountains, the planation surface is left on the top as an erosional remnant. Sometimes these planation surfaces are at different altitudes in the mountains due to differential uplift. The evidence for these planation surface remnants is readily observable, even to the untrained eye (pp. 128–130). The highest mountains in Montana, the Beartooth Mountains, are an excellent example of this. They display impressive flat topped granitic peaks at a height of about 4,000 m. 4 The most controversial aspect of the authors’ geomorphological deductions is their contention that practically all the uplift occurred in the Pliocene and Pleistocene, the last two epochs of geological time! The huge Andes Mountains (p. 127) are but one example. Another is the Tibetan Plateau, which is considered to be one vast erosion surface that uplifted in the Pliocene-Pleistocene (pp. 128–129, 137–138). Furthermore they present an impressive table of mountains from all over the world that uplifted during this time frame (pp. 304–306). As the mountains uplifted, the authors point out that some of them spread laterally, thrusting rocks over the surrounding lowlands (p. 12). Another name for this spreading is ‘mushroom tectonics’. This would account for all the thrust faults, if indeed they are real, that we often find at the edge of uplifts. It is also likely that granite mountains were uplifted when the granite was already solid (pp. 184–185). Do the authors, or anybody else, know the cause of such recent vertical tectonics? Does the lack of a mechanism nullify the authors’ field deductions? The answer is no. They provide a list of 20 possible mechanisms for vertical tectonics, none of which can be demonstrated to be occurring today (p. 308). One strong contender is isostasy after erosion, but the authors find much evidence against this suggested mechanism: ‘But most other mountains and plateaus tend to have very distinct edges, suggesting uplift of distinct blocks, and to raise such blocks by isostasy alone seems improbable’ (p. 286).
Plate tectonics explains very few mountains
One of their conclusions is quite controversial, namely that plate tectonics explains very few mountains. Plate tectonics has a difficult time explaining mountains on passive plate margins and even on some spreading sites without the need to incorporate secondary, ad hoc , assumptions into its paradigm (p. 14). Even mountains within plates, such as the Ruwenzori Mountains of Africa (p. 53) and the Ouachita Mountains in the central United States (p. 109), are difficult to explain. They summarize: ‘A great many mountains, plateaus and other landscape features have no apparent relationship to plate tectonics situations’ (p. 297). They are skeptical of the plate tectonic idea for the formation of isostatically balanced mountains by what is called crustal thickening: ‘We do not equate either mountain building or orogeny with crustal thickening, and suspect that few
The Andes mountains in Peru. The authors contend that the huge Andes Mountains uplifted in the Pliocene-Pleistocene. TJ 16 (3) 2002 42 Book Reviews
other workers do so’ (p. 6). Ollier and Pain also assert that plate tectonics has ignored planation and its implications, especially the timing right before the Pliocene. A good example of this is the Alps (p. 63) and the Central Cordillera of Spain (p. 85). The authors attribute the formation of rifts, such as the East African rift (p. 49), to fairly recent vertical tectonics. They even state that the East African rift can be traced to the Carlsberg Mid Ocean Ridge in the Indian Ocean: ‘As noted in a previous section, the formation of swells seems to initiate faulting, rifting and extension, and it is interesting that the rift valley system of Africa can be traced continuously to the Red Sea, and thence to the Carlsberg sub-oceanic ridge’ (p. 52). By this they are implying that vertical tectonics also produced the mid-ocean ridges in the last periods of geological time. Although the authors provide a list of 17 significant problems with plate tectonics (pp. 298–300), they maintain that they still believe in the paradigm: ‘There is overwhelming evidence that the Atlantic Ocean has been formed by the drifting apart of the continents that bound it ... We should make it clear that we have no objection to plate tectonics in general, for it explains many things. But we do object to the simplistic explanation of mountains and their distribution’ (pp. 13, 272). They simply suggest that there are additional processes acting besides plate tectonics (p. 300). It is possible that the concept of catastrophic plate tectonics occurring during the Genesis Flood can explain some of the problems the authors have raised with uniformitarian plate tectonics.
Philosophy lessons in science
As a result of the authors’ long experience, involving somewhat controversial ideas, they have learned a number of important lessons in the philosophy of science to which we creationists can certainly relate. They mention how they have observed that ruling paradigms do not tolerate other explanations, even if the originators of these explanations still believe in the paradigm. Ruling paradigms tend to censor anyone who dares to disagree, even a little: ‘Another problem arises from orthodoxy. Anyone who disagrees with the ruling theory is regarded as an ignorant fool by the majority, and authoritarian orthodoxy even goes so far as the suppression of publications that do not fit the orthodox scenario (nowadays plate tectonics) ...’ (p. 314) [parentheses theirs]. First, the authors have had their own work rejected by referees because it was not couched within the language of the paradigm (p. 301). Such pressure to conform also causes researchers to blindly fall in line, like solders on the march. Second, they complain that most data from geomorphology, as well as some from geology and geophysics, is omitted or suppressed ‘in favour of the grandiose tectonic picture’ (p. 123): ‘The latest obstacle to the flow of reason is an increasing disregard for ground truth, or what used to be called field evidence’ (p. 315). They predict that in the study of mountains geomorphology will continue to be ignored (p. 310). This is part of the ruling paradigm error, they say: ‘One of the greatest, and commonest, errors in the history of science is the fallacy of single cause’ (pp. 313–314). Third, in their opinion Earth science has become too concerned with theory, models, and dogma (p. xvii): ‘Indeed, the dead weight of orthodoxy and the preference for models over ground truth that prevails today suggest that we have less reason for optimism, not more’ (p. 312). Fourth, most scientists jump too quickly for an ultimate mechanism with too little data. The authors suggest that a better methodology would be patience to wait for the mechanism to unfold: ‘If we first get the geometry right, then in time, we might work out the kinematics, and if we know that we might, just possibly, venture on the driving force’ (p. 314). To me, this seems a sensible way of finding ultimate causes for the rocks and fossils.
Authors’ field deductions fit well into the Recessive Stage of the Flood
The authors radical field deductions of folding of strata, of worldwide planation before the mid Pliocene, then uplift and dissection of the planation surfaces, fits in neatly within the Flood model, especially the Recessive Stage of the Flood. 5 – 7 The folding of strata can occur mostly during the Inundatory Stage due to rapid sedimentation and tectonics in which huge masses of consolidated to partly consolidated strata slide downslope. It is interesting that the authors find analogs for folded strata from mass movement along the continental margin. In other words, the folds we now see in ancient rocks on the continents likely happened underwater . And, as a bonus for creationists, the authors suggest an origin for the vast amount of carbonate rocks found in the strata: ‘Many lavas are very rich in alkalis, sodium and potassium, and some are rich in carbonate including the remarkable Oldoinyo Lengai in Kenya. Carbonatite is a volcanic rock consisting largely of igneous calcite and suggests vast accumulation of carbonate at the base of the crust’ (p. 180). I know that some creationists have proposed that carbonates were erupted during the ‘fountains of the great deep’ or other tectonic activity. A vast accumulation of carbonates at the base of the crust would not only be radical from a uniformitarian standpoint, but also provide a source for the large volume of carbonates in the sedimentary record. When the water peaked around Day 150, powerful water currents would likely have planed the continental strata, which would have been in relatively shallow water due to recent deposition. These powerful currents would have been caused by a number of mechanisms, including the spin of the Earth acting on huge continents, more than 2,500 km in extent, submerged less than 1,000 m below the sea surface. 8 The beginning of uplift during the Abative Phase would also add a component of flow from the center of rising sediments. With time, that flow would predominate and produce more planation. The authors state that the planation was marine in the Apennines of Italy (p. 72), which is strongly contrary to the prevailing wisdom of subaerial erosion. They also state that most strata, when deposited on a planation surface or in a valley cut on that surface, are marine . These observations were once interpreted as marine planation by a transgressing shoreline, an idea popular in the 19 th century (p. 234). The planation is also supposed to have been rapid, within the uniformitarian system of course. This data hints strongly that maybe all planations occurred rapidly underwater, readily fitting in with the Genesis Flood. Ollier and Pain hint at the radical possibility that granitic rocks were solid when planed and uplifted. This is a deduction that I am entertaining. An indication that uplifted granite masses were solid, and probably never molten, is the existence of planation surface remnants at the tops of many granitic mountains. 4 , 9 In order to be planed during the Flood before the great uplift of the Recessive Stage of the Flood, it is reasonable that these huge granitic masses would have been solid, or at least rigid, before planation. The origin of mountains by great uplift and dissection of the planed strata and granitic bodies is strong support for the Recessive Stage of the Flood. Dissection of the planed surfaces would be explained by a combination of strong currents becoming more channelized and flow becoming predominantly downslope towards the sinking ocean basins as the uplift progressed. 10 It is especially significant that this great mountain uplift from below or near sea level is in the last periods of geological time, dated automatically into the Pliocene and Pleistocene of the uniformitarian time scale. In other words, this great worldwide uplift is the last great geological, tectonic event to have occurred on the Earth (not counting the Ice Age), and it occurred rapidly . The authors admit that such deductions, the results of dozens of years of field observations, are not in accord with the principle of uniformitarianism, which requires geological processes to have occurred continuously through geologic time. The dogma of uniformitarianism, or modifications of it, have dominated geological theory for over 200 years: ‘Uplift occurred over a relatively short and distinct time. Some Earth process switched on and created mountains after a period with little or no significant uplift [to produce the planation]. This is a deviation from uniformitarianism ... . We are seeing the results of a distinct and remarkably young mountain building period. This is a deviation from strict uniformitarianism’ (pp. 303, 306). What powerful support for the Flood, especially the Recessive Stage, these authors have unwittingly provided with their understanding of the origins of mountains.
References
1. Carey, S.W., Theories of the Earth and Universe—A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences , Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 217–224, 1988. 2. Schmidt, C.J., Chase, R.B. and Erslev, E.A. (Eds), Laramide Basement Deformation in the Rocky Mountain Foreland of the Western United States, Geological Society of America Special Paper 280 , 1993. 3. Oard, M.J., Antiquity of landforms: objective evidence that dating methods are wrong, CEN Tech. J 14 (1):35–39, 2000. 4. Oard, Ref. 3, Figure 1, p. 36. 5. Walker, T., A Biblical geological model; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism , Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 581–592, 1994. 6. Oard, M.J., Vertical tectonics and the drainage of Flood water: a model for the middle and late diluvian period—Part I, CRSQ 38 (1): 3–17, 2001. 7. Oard, M.J., Vertical tectonics and the drainage of Flood water: a model for the middle and late diluvial period—Part II, CRSQ 38 (2):79–95, 2001. 8. Barnette, D.W. and Baumgardner, J.R., Patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during Noah’s Flood in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism , Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 77–86, 1994. 9. Oard, Ref. 6, Figure 14–16, pp. 13–14. 10. Oard, Ref. 6, Figure 3, p. 9.
2. Event/Era Stage Duration Phase New-World 4000 years Modern 300 years Residual Flood Recessive 100 days Dispersive 200 days Abative 30 days Zenithic Inundatory 20 days Ascending 10 days Eruptive Lost-World 1700 years Lost-World Creation Formative 2 days Biotic 2 days Derivative Foundational 2 days Ensuing 0 days Original The Biblical geological model as proposed by Tas Walker. Mountain building may have occured during the Recessive Stage of the Flood.
---
Home
Search
Login
Register