BASICS IN THE FLOOD GEOLOGY

Flood models: the need for an integrated approach .....3

Flood models .. .. . ....8

Wild, wild floods! ... 16

Pre-Flood relics on the bottom of the Black Sea? 19

Flood! ...118

How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood? .......7
IS THE GLOBAL FLOOD FEASIBLE
Hypercanes: rainfall generators during the Flood? . 10

After devastation the recovery ...13

WHAT SORT OF DAMAGE WOULD A GLOBAL FLOOD CAUSE
Australias drought exposes drowned town .. 17
WAS THE GLOBAL FLOOD REALLY JUST A LOCAL FLOOD IN THE BLACK SEA ARE
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 Giants 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 measurespart 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 bubbles 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
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 Noahs 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 approach

by 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.
Introduction
Traditionally, 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 tectonicsall 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 model
The 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
Whitcombs later The World that Perished (1996) explain this view.2 The vapour canopy theory is that the Earths
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 airbreathing creatures and that most of the fossils found
on the Earth were buried by post-Flood catastrophes.
Calculated vertical temperature profile for a vapor canopy model
Here we seek to show that to regard the geological
of the Earths atmosphere compared with the temperature profile
column as a true chronological record is at best a
today (after Rush and Vardiman).50 Theoretical models of
questionable assumption. We agree with Froede that
postulated pre-Flood vapour canopies are used to explore whether
there needs to be a complete rethink of how to
it is feasible to postulate significant quantities of water in the
interpret the geological layering so evident in the
atmosphere above the Earth. In this example, only 50 cm of
rocks.14,15 Woodmorappe rightly points out that the way
precipitable water is stored but this raises the surface temperature
the supposed ten periods are assigned can be quite
of the Earth to above 100C.

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 creaturesthe so called 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 fossilcontaining 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 model
The 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).1820
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 hypothesis 18,20 is that the Earths
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. Browns 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 Earths 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 earths 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 earths volcano activity. 22
Brown states further:
Shifts of mass upon the earth created stresses and ruptures in and just beneath the earths 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 earths 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 Earths 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 Earths 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 lava10 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 lateFlood and post-Flood disasters as the waters receded. Thus the
Recoil phase of the hydroplate model for the geological
Grand Canyon may well have been formed when a vast natural
events of the flood (from Brown). 51Rupture of the crust
inland lake (left behind after the Flood receded) burst its banks
allows steam and sediment to be ejected as a fountain
and scoured out the canyon. In this process, vast quantities of
into the atmosphere, returning to the Earth as rain. The
silt and debris would be carried to the Pacific coastcontinents start to move apart.
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 Helens 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 subduction
The 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 increasedand 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 Earths crust. This in turn would cause
strong convection currents in the Earths 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 Earths 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.
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
Runaway subduction of the oceanic plate into the Earths mantle
mechanism then comes into play. As the cold upper
drives metres-per-second motion of the rigid lithospheric plates in the
boundary layer of the Earths mantle sinks into the
catastrophic plate tectonic model of the Flood.
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
todays 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-floorformed as igneous flows from the Earths
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 Earths 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 Earths mantle under the seas, and
sustaining the disaster for the rest of the Flood year.
The importance of research in sedimentology
Guy Berthault has produced some landmark research into
Temperature
sedimentology. First on a small scale, but more recently on a larger
profiles
scale, he has studied the deposition of heterogeneous mixtures from
associated
flowing water.34 His results indicate that different sediment layers do
with
not deposit one after the other in a vertical direction, but all at the
subduction of
same time horizontally.35 Applying these findings to the Grand
oceanic slab
Canyon, the different layers would have been deposited under
into
the
strong water currents and laid down horizontally,not vertically. Thus
mantle of the
many of the layers of the canyon would have been deposited
Earth (from
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
Berthaults 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 soBaumgardner).52Computer models of the Earths
called geological column is reversed in some parts of the
mantle demonstrate the conditions that would be
world.Furthermore it is interesting to note that the preliminary results
necessary to initiate runaway subduction.
of the work by Baumgardner and Barnette support Berthaults 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 4080 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 Baumgardners approach can both be used as possible driving
mechanisms for the Flood within such a classification.

A possible Flood fossilisation scenario

It 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 waterthere 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 brieflyof 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
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 theoryto allow suggested post-Flood activity), it seems wiser to question whether we have properly
understood the scientific evidence.In his article, Robinson states that Oards post-Cretaceous model for the Flood/postFlood 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. Schevens 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.
Conclusionan integrated approach needed
It 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 todays 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 today
Many of todays 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 todays
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 examplesuggesting 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 fresh3. 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 sterberg sxc.hu
and 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.
Conclusion
There 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 earths mantle of the oceanic plates drives
the motion of the rigid lithosphere at metres per second.
Higher atmospheric or oxygen partial pressure
One 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 todays hyperbaric
chambers. These increase the oxygen partial
pressure16 as per Daltons 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 systemgases 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 (16271691), 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:
P = 2r
where P is excess pressure, or difference between inside and outside; = surface tension; r is bubble radius. This extra
pressure is considerable in tiny bubbles, so the partial pressures would also be increased, according to Daltons 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 didnt
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 doesnt 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 craterstheir 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 theory
The 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 popularfor 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 UVyou 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 theorya water vapour canopy thick enough to provide
more than about a metres worth of floodwater would cook the earth.36
Catastrophic plate tectonics
This 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 supercontinent. 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 jellyfishs 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 supercontinents margins, elsewhere the earths 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 Earths 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 todays 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 havent 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 doesnt explain the whole of the Flood, but only the last half.
Hydroplate
This model of Dr Walter Brown 46 has many passionate supporters. Brown explains:
Before the global flood, considerable water was under the earths 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 Earths 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 Earths gravityabout 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 sunsgravity at the earths orbit, or 42.1 km/sand thats 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 models

Flood 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 Walkers Geology model
Figure 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
historyfrom 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 proofthat would be a logical fallacy
called affirming the consequent.1
Conclusion
The 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 moisturebearing 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 earths 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
principle2 (emphasis added)uniformitarianism.But why should creationists follow Huttons 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 directionaccording 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 earths 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 earths 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 (2530C, as in a tropical ocean), but scalding hot (near 50C, or about
120F). 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 50C. But an underwater volcano wouldif 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 enoughsay 50 km in diametertheory 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 context
If 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 worlds 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 hypercaneinduced precipitation.
Survival of life though the Flood
My 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 worlds arsenals to kill the worlds 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 counterintuitively, 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 firearound 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 storms
We 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 dont? 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 bubbleof 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 globalcatastrophic 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, counterintuitively, 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
Conclusions
Hypercanes 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 recovery
An 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
lifetime2 and speculating that it would even be impossible
for insects to recover at all.3
Gloomy predictions wrong
Scientists 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.
Lifes returnthe details
However, 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 surviveoften 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 icecovered 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. birds 18) 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 Flood
Observing 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 worldwide Flood were cataclysmic geologic events
involving extreme volcanism ,flooding, and the destruction of lifeone 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 Zealands Moa that could have lost the ability to fly through
mutation (loss of genetic information) were able to survive in apparently large numbersuntil 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 amazednot 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 speciesplants, microbes, insects, amphibians and aquatic creaturessurvived 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 creation
The 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 Swenson

Keith Swenson

U.S. Geological Survey

The death and rebirth of Spirit Lake
On 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. Ovenhot flows of volcanic debris boiled into the lakes 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 1020
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 (10C = 50F) and clear, became
warm (over 32C = 90F) 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 millilitrea 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 statea 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 Scheldtrivers 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, 23 m deep and 1015 km long.1The
flooding discharged an estimated 1106 m3 s1 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 repeated
This 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
Antarcticas 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 Lyells lingering ghost of which the late Derek Ageran 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-eastsouth-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 Pyrenes, Alps, Tatras and Carpathians created a massive eastwest 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 event 16) 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!
Conclusion
Clearly, 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 episode 13,18 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 thats needed!
Australias 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 Australias major water
storages have fallen to unprecedented lows.Lake
Eucumbenes 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 capacitythe 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 Eucumbenes water level so low, old
Adaminabys Denison St makes a great boat ramp! (click for larger image)We couldnt 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 Johns Church of England were dismantled stoneby-stone and rebuilt.) About one-third of the old towns
residents chose to live in new Adaminabythe 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-timerhe 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 watermute
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.Its sad and it makes me a bit
nostalgic, he said. We had some good times there and its 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 quicklyone 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 Floods 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 Floodan 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 theres 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 Floodcreatures 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 Adaminabys 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 earths topography. The pre-Flood land could have been literally
washed away or buried under hundreds of metres of sediment
eroded from elsewhere.
Insights from Adaminaby
All 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 dont 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 topographytherefore its 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 Adaminabys Denison Stafter 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, CMIAustralia
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 years 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. Usshers 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, Icelands mega-flood).
Conclusion
It 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 Ballards reports of definite signs of
human habitation beneath the water.But the link with the Global Flood is wrongnothing but wild, unsubstantiated
speculation.. That doesnt 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 Noahs Flood. About 550 feet below the surface, they found evidence of a
sudden, catastrophic flood around 7,500 years agothe 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 Noahs 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 Pitmans 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 Noahs flood, whos 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 Noahs Flood. You see, in
order to justify their assertion, they declare that the record of Noahs 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 worlds 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 worldview
Hancock 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 peaks
Bringing our focus back to the UK, because of the wealth of geological information, we start with England. Englands highest
peak is Sca Fell, in the Lake District, at just short of 1,000 metres. The area is one of structural complexity 13 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.15,16Scotlands 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 Rayners 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 draughtsmans 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 8090 % 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 Ma 22 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 Earths history, much further than Hancock and Rawson 19 estimated.The depth of the ocean when chalk was
being deposited is considered to have been 100600 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 dont 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 study 10 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 time
There 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. 34 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 Flood
The 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 conelike 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 Lewins 33). 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 UKs 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 (CornubiaCn 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 1030 Ma from Earths 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 age
Figure 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
preCretaceous rocks, were preCretaceous 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 2030 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 world
Figure 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 challenges
We 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 UKs mountains were once under water. Then
we identified geological maps which show that at a time called Late Cretaceous, 8090% of our present UK land did not
exist.Although these conservative maps suggest that only 8090% 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 Walker
Countries 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 tsunami 2 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.
NOAA
The 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 comparison
The 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 (65100 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 earths
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?
DigitalGlobe
A part of Banda Acehbefore and after.
A wall of water
Onlookers 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 worlds 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 eyewitness

Rip-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
finea 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 sea
The 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 past
Tas 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 unheeded
Waverly Person of the USGS National Earthquake
Information Center said that many people could have been
saved if the countries most severely affectedincluding
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indiahad 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

Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid

Response Team, NASA/GSFC
American heartbreak
On 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.

This tree was stripped of its bark up

to a height of 1.5 metres by the
force of the waves.
The power of water
During the worldwide Flood, massive movements in the earths 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
Australias
Uluru:
Evidence
suggests it is much younger than
was thought.To the tourist industry,
its 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 Australias most famous landmarks. Situated in
Australias 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 earths surface. Feldspar
minerals break down relatively rapidly when
exposed to the suns 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 suns 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 suns
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. Twidales 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 Flood
by Andrew Snelling
Abstract
Mount Isa orebodies show evidence of recent, rapid formation.
Mount Isa in north-west Queensland, Australia, is one of the
worlds largest concordant base metal deposits, with both silverlead-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 silverlead-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.

Introduction
Mount Isa is one of the worlds 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. 2044 S, long. 13929 E (See Fig. 1) in Middle Proterozoic sediments of the Precambrian shield
region of north-west Queensland, Mount Isa is one of the worlds 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 65W (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 setting
Fig 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 (18002000
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 subdivided 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 mineralisation
The 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 (CuFeS 2) 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-leadzinc 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 latters 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.18 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 21N) rift zones 1014 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 silverlead-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 Flood
Evidence for recent rapid formation of the Mount Isa orebodies during
the Flood falls into two categories:
Evidence for recent formation during the Floodthe presence of fossils
and carbonaceous (organic) matter; and
Evidence for rapid formationanalysis of the cyclicity in the sulphides
and sediments, leading to calculation of the deposition rate.
(A) Evidence for recent formation
In the creation framework of creationist geology, the Flood
(approximately 4,300 years ago) was the event responsible for most of
the fossils in the earths 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 Saxby 24 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 Zimmerman 26 believed to be the remains of
organisms.Because of the ensuing debate as to the origin of the pyrite grains, Love and Amstutz 28 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 Zimmerman 26 had found both single-and doublewalled 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, Muir 29 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 Russell 30 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 formation
Examination 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, and
fine-grained pyrite-rich.
Fig. 3 Double-walled cells as part of a large algal colony, Urquhart Shale, Mount Isa. (Scale bar = 5/m)
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 80100 m from the copper ores
give way to 3% 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 copperbearing 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. FinlowBates3 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 datalaterally 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, silverlead-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, FinlowBates3 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. Backer 31 has calculated a deposition rate
of 1 metre/1,000 years for the Red Sea deposits referred to earlier. Finlow-Bates 3 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 X0X,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!!
Discussion
The 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 movements 36 is
the most attractive model to account for this periodicity. Smith 37 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 pyrrhotites 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
waters 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-Bates 3cites 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 processlead isotope evidence. Richards 39 reports that the silver-leadzinc 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 Richards 40 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.
Conclusionsa creationist interpretation
It 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 creationists 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-leadzinc 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 work 48 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, Australia
by 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. Its pervasive. At the tourist sites in South East Queensland signs are posted that
present just one particular view.2 Its 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 lions share of the story is based on the shared beliefs and opinions of those
within the professional geological communitybeliefs that are widely accepted but rarely examined or questioned. Lets
briefly look at how these geological histories are created.
How geological history is developed
A geological history is a story. Its 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.Lets 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 areas 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 300400
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 dont 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.

Figures 26 prepared by Tas Walker.

After some time, of the order of weeks,

tectonic movements in the earths 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 wasnt
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 mapfigure 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
Figure 2. Eastern Australia fold belts.
the ocean.
Volcanoes erupted violently around this time.
Its 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
Figure 3. Galilee, Cooper, Bowen and Sydney basins, as well as the smaller these events were connected. Some of the
molten rock erupted over the landscape, now
Ipswich Basin.
forming the Brisbane Tuff, which is beautifully
exposed in the Kangaroo Point Cliffs.14 Other
molten rock pooled under the earths 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
Figure 4. Sediments connected with Great Artesian Basin as they exist
Brisbane was also deposited around this time
today. Their geographical extent was greatly eroded as the waters of the
(figure 3). Willmott describes this process as
Flood receded.
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.

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. Its
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 1dont 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.
Conclusion
Once we understand how to link geological evidence to the creation model, its 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 area 18 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. Its variations on a theme.

More than a pile of stones

The real meaning of the Giants Causeway and structures formed during the Flood
By Phil Robinson
Published: 28 August 2014 (GMT+10)
The battle over worldviews rages
I recently purchased a fridge magnet at the Giants 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 Noahs Flood and the significance of the reddish interbasaltic beds at Giants Causeway.The information leaflet that is
handed to visitors at the Causeways visitors centre states that
the columns are, an epic 60 million yearold 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 lessons
In 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&As. What
are you doing to take back the stones where you live?
Giants Causeway Tours!With this message in mind, CMI
(UK/Europe) and Creation Outreach Ministries have jointly arranged for CMI-Australias Dr Tas Walker to take groups
on geological field trips at the Giants 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 visitsand CMI has a range of ministry programs
to help your church or organisation.
Fascinating flower pots
The Global Flood explains Hopewell Rocks, Canada
by 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
Lovers 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 biostratigraphythe Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary
by 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 preFlood 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 postFlood 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) 13 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 Earths 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 postFlood baramin representatives would follow a
sweepstakes
pattern
of
opportunistic
migration and inhabitation of the new postFlood 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, preFlood 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.
Methods
Selection of North American mammals
Ideal 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 charts
North 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 ages
I 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 Woodburnes
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 analysis
The 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 411, see online supplement 14) 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 onefourth 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 12 14), 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.
Conclusions
The biostratigraphic analysis presented here for North American mammalian families makes placement of the Flood/postFlood 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
% Crossing
Boundary

Artiodactlya

Antilocapridae
Bovidae
Camelidae
Cervidae
Tayassuidae

17
16
30
10
11

4
1
5
4
2

23.5
6.3
16.7
40.0
18.2

Carnivora

Canidae
Felidae
Hyaenidae
Mustelidae
Procyonidae
Ursidae

25
15
3
40
7
13

3
9
1
7
3
4

12.0
60.0
33.3
17.5
42.9
30.8

Edentata/Xenarthra

Dasypodidae
Glyptodontidae
Megalonychidae
Megatheriidae
Mylodontidae
Nothrotheriidae
Pampatheriidae

2
2
2
1
3
1
1

1
2
1
1
1
1
1

50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0
33.3
100.0
100.0

Insectovora

Talpidae

18

22.2

Lagomorpha

Leporidae
Ochotonidae

14
7

6
2

42.9
28.6

Marsupialia

Didelphidae

100.0

Perissodactlya

Equidae
Rhinoceratidae
Tapiridae

27
17
8

1
0
1

3.7
0.0
12.5

Probocidia

Elephantidae
Gomphotheriidae
Mammutidae

1
9
2

1
2
1

100.0
22.2
50.0

8 Orders

28 Families

303 genera

70 boundary-crossing 23.1%
of
genera
genera
cross boundary

Table 1. Genus-level mammalian survivorship across the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary in North America.
Granite formation was catastrophic
In 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 areas 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 cant 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 earths crust. Thats right, the granite balloon, like a single towering body, rose
through solid rockSlowly, 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 deposits
Answering criticisms
by Stef Heerema
Published: 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 presentation 2 of a lecture he
gave on the magmatic model. Kevin Nelstead has posted a critique of Heeremas magmatic model on his blogsite. 3 Stef
Heerema here responds to that critique.
Sodaliteraw stone
I 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 Kevins 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 Kevins 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 Kevins 67 km of evaporated seawater is even more unlikely.
Kevin states that there have not been sandy barriers between oceans and basins
The 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 environments
He 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 formations
Firstly, 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 state
I 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 dont see the significance.
Kevin states that there is no evidence that something like a salt magma has ever existed in the earth
He is not well informed then. The salts Carbonatite and Anhydrite 5 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 Depression
No, 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 analogy
Firstly, 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 coal
The 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 rocks
That 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 through
He 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 provided
The 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
seawater
TNOGeological Survey of the Netherlands
3D 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 overpressured 9 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 halite
Correct. 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 fails
His 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 didnt slip through failing peer reviews. As long as science
doesnt 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 (MgCl 26H2O)
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.
Conclusion
Kevin Nelsteads 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 Giants Causeway, Northern Ireland: colossal volcanic eruptions during the Global Flood
by Tas Walker

Geologic cross-section
Only a very small portion of the total volume of lava erupted is visible in the
cliffs at Giants 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 Giants 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.
Giants Causeway from the Global Flood?

Its 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 4050 cm (1520 in)
across and create a fascinating honeycomb pattern.
But people do not realize that geologists cannot
measure the ages of rocks directly. Its 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 dont 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
someones opinion, we can look at the evidence in a different light. And the evidence of the Causeway points to a largescale watery catastrophe, much bigger than anything we see today. Its consistent with the Flood. One indication is the
cataclysmic size of the lava eruptions.
Huge volcanic eruptions
The 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
Photo of Anna and Alistair Wylie, by Alistair Photo by Alistair Wylie
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
The Harp and The Chimney Tops
visible all around the
The Organ
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 Giants
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 everywhere
Evidence of water is another indication that Giants 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.

A different light
Giants 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 eventthe 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 rockstarting at the
top and bottom.Cooling continues and the solidified rock contracts. Starshaped 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.
Shipwrecks
The 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 dating
Giants 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 180001, gave potassiumargon (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 vegetation
One 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 1012 metres (3040 ft)
thick and composed of soft, friable, red and brown
material. Technically, its called the Interbasaltic Bed
i.e. the bed between the basalts.1,2The Interbasaltic Bed
contains a soft, brown coal called lignite. Thats simply
vegetation altered chemically by heat in a wet, oxygenfree 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 alder3species 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
How did the Causeway form?
cooled, groundwater percolated through the soft
material and continued the chemical alteration,
As the floodwaters
producing a thick bed of soft material.
peaked,
several
.
months into the Flood,
Lyle, P., A Geological Excursion Guide to The
thick limestone strata
Causeway Coast, W&G Baird, Antrim, Northern
were deposited over
Ireland,.
large areas of Europe,
including (what is now)
Ireland.

Volcanoes erupted as
the earths 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.

Legend of giants

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 birds-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.
Huttons ideas inspired Darwin4 and gave him the eons of time he needed for his theory of evolution.
Figure 2. Huttons 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 saw
At 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 thats 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 rocks
The 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 otherwithout any sign of a break in depositionindicating 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 fastflowing water generates sand waves on the
bottom. The thickness of the beds indicates
the speed and depth of the water.
Folding and eroding
Not 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 rocks
Geologists 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 highenergy 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 Huttons imagination.
A geological icon
So, 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 continuedrapidly 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 cornfield

by Jonathan OBrien
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. Arabiasexact 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 catastrophism

Published: 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 Lyells gradualism won
the dayit was the dominant
paradigm in geology for 150 years.
However, Cuviers 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 neocatastrophismwhy is this important to
Flood geology? discusses some of the opportunities. Nick L. from the United States writes in response to this article, and
CMIs 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 wasnt before.
True, but neither was the article implying that. The point is just that catastrophe is back on the table for discussion where it
wasnt before. At least now we dont 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 Lyells hold on geology? Lyell understood just
how destructive the notion of catastrophe was to his entire historical frameworkwithout 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 its why secular catastrophism must always anchor itself in something Lyellianit 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 youll most likely
be left trying to launch a positivistic1 critique against a worldview that shuns positivism in any sort of historical study. (This
doesnt mean we leave no room for science, only that science doesnt 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 NWSE 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 Bretzs impact on the
gradualism/catastrophism debate. Carl Froede finds the
catalyst for mainstream geologys 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 Bretzs
lead. There are disagreements over the number of floods that
formed the scablands, but the flood hypothesis remains the
constraining paradigm.And what do Bretzs ideas about cave
development have to do with his Missoula Flood hypothesis?
Just because one of his ideas was (presumably) wrong
doesnt 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 dont know how
this article engendered an accusation of an ostrich mentality
against usyouve cited something irrelevant to the impact of
Bretz in relation to the articles 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 dont
simply cite studies that support our views. Second, its not as simple as this study supports our ideas; this one doesnt. 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
questionsjust 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 considerationwithin 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 wellwe wouldnt run a peer
reviewed publication if we didnt (and I personally speak as a member of the editorial team)! However, peer review is far
from perfectsee Creationism, science and peer review for more details.
The creation framework is very different from anything youll 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. Woolley
New 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 Grich-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 threekilometer 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 steles 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

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 crosssection. 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 roots
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 crosssectional 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 crosssection 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 meterlong 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 roots
Stigmarian 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 po

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 authors fieldwork was done in bituminous regions. Not a single case of
slumped rootlets was found in this region. The authors 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 ontogeny
The 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 submergednot an unreasonable situation if
it were naturally righting itselfthen 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 onesthe 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 GrandEury
(shown from a hypothesized reproduction of it in figure 15b 26). 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 16. Bottom portion of a

Mesozoic lycopsid shoot with
stigmarian-like branching. On the
Figure 15b. Stigmariopsis Grand Eury schematic sideshoot itself are the scars of
and bottom views (after Hirmer, ref. 4, p. 297), the most leaves; on the root branching are
unusual lycopod-like root base from the Pennsylvanian
Figure 15a. Stigmaria ficoides Brongniartknow to the author (shown from a hypothesizedthe stigmata of the rootlets (after
Williamson32).
from the Carboniferous of Yorkshire, UK,reproduction of it).
31
side and bottom views (after Williamson ).
Conclusions
There 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 measurespart 3: a mathematical test of lycopod root structure
by 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 paper 2 concentrated on presenting
new fossil and field evidence directly bearing on the elastic and vacuous nature of those fern trees. The authors 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 test
A 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 being the bifurcation angle, then a and b are
related explicitly through the following equation:
a = b ( [ 1 + 2 ] sin [ /2 ] cos [ /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 Kentuckys 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 Berkeleys 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 lycopods
Despite 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
departments 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
worlds 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
anFigure
5. A
questionable
reproduction
of
an
uprooted Stigmaria with rootlets, as displayed at theuprooted Stigmaria with rootlets (note absence of rootlets on
Pennsylvania State Museum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
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 Kuntzes 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 Chaloners review.12 The upper part of it gives a typically
disingenuous,
asymmetrical
view
of
generally
noncrossing 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 perpendicularlywithout 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 havent 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?
Conclusions
The 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 neocatastrophismwhy 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, gradualisms 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 Bretzs work on the Channeled Scablands 1 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 ones professional career by defending some aspect of catastrophism,
one needs to look no further than the extensive disclaimer in Derek Agers classic book, The New Catastrophism.2 Thanks
to Lyells 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 causeimpact glass
spherules and tsunami depositswere 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 cause
Mounting 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, Cuviers catastrophism has triumphed over Lyells 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 conclusions
The 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,
todays 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 Australia
ABCs Catalyst program reports Kimberley dinosaur footprints
by Tas Walker
Published: 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, Youve 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 thats
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 longa
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 afterbefore it had gone very firm. Steve Salisbury describes the tracks of a stegosaurus:
Its got four stubby little fingers on the hand and then quite a fat three-toed foot, and that combination is really characteristic
of stegosaurs. hes gone for a bit of a slip down there. It looks like theres a double stephes kind of slid for a bit and
then had to gain his grip, and got to the bottom there and probably quite relieved that hes 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. Thats righta 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).Its
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 Flood
by 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 Walker
Published: 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 bornof 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 Gondwanas break-up
Unlike the Karoowhere 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 Periodsthe 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 Walker
Published: 26 July 2012 (GMT+10)
Maroon mudstone beds and buff
sandstone
beds
alongside
Chapmans Peak Drive south of
Cape Town.In the steep road cut
alongside Chapmans 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 Chapmans 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 Chapmans 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 dont 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 forward 7 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 mudstone 8). 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 interpretation
There 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. Its 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 Flood
by Tas Walker
Published: 3 July 2012 (GMT+10)

Chapmans 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 roadChapmans 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, Chapmans 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 blanket 1 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 thicknessmore 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
Chapmans 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 Scheele
Many 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 theory
Contrary 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 Earth
Besides 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
earths 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 explained
Feature 1: The GC is carved
through the higher points in the landscape
Figure 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 500600 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 15). 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 GC
Image 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 channellike 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 GC
As 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 groundone 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 GC
Image 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 outlet
Allen 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 GC
As 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 GC
The 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 wasnt 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 direction
Some 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). Brown 1 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 doesnt 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 Scenario
We 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.
Conclusions
There 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 presentday 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 blankets
Visual 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 earthmuch 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 wallsthe 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 image

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. Like a blanket, they are
relatively thin compared with the area they cover.
Click for larger image
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.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 edgesat 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 didnt take millions of years.

80 whales buried mysteriously in Chilean desert

Marine graveyard is evidence for the Global Flood
by Tas Walker
Published: 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 its 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
Figure 2. Photo illustrates the extent and thickness of caught news headlines with one reporting Fossil Bonanza Poses
the outcrop containing the whale fossils. Larger cobbles Mystery. Another asked, How did 75 whales end up in the
and pebbles are seen at the base of the outcrop behind desert?Interestingly, some of those posting comments on these
the person crouching, and on the top of the cut on the news reports suggested the creatures perished in the Flood.
other side of the road. Coarser lenses, possibly of Robert Raeburn of Western Australia said, The whales probably
pebbles or shells, are visible in the embankment behind swam there when the whole world was covered in water, about
the man. Image from Daily Mail.3 Click for larger image. 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? Its 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 wasnt 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 agothat is early Pliocene
to early Miocene (according to the International Stratigraphic
Figure 3. Whales overlapping one another. Image from Chart7). But where did they get those ages from?
13
io9

Figure 4. Late Cenozoic sedimentary basins on the west coast of northern Chile. From Feldmann et al.11Click for larger
image
First, 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 uniformitarianisma 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 buriedtoward 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 Walker
Published: 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 islands 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.2Geological 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 Woolamaithe 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. Its 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 awaylikely 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. Its 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. Its 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 fables
Louisiana fish kill destroys fossil formation ideas
by Shaun Doyle
Published: 18 January 2011 (GMT+10)

Figure 1. Massive floating fish grave in Louisiana shows fish bodies dont 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 its 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
theyre not lying on the riverbed waiting to be covered in sediment and fossilized. The scavengers and bacteria dont 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 bonesjust 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 dont 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 record
by 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 results
The results of the study indicate that:
ten filter-feeding individuals could take as long as 115 yr to churn a 1 m 2plot 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 record

If 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 MeridianFigure 4. This image shows Cruziana traces created as
7
Sand from Campbell Mountain, Alabama. Note the vertical tocasts on the base of a sandstone layer. This type of
subvertical traces in the sand filled by gray clay. Conditions were sediment stirring activity would rapidly destroy any
optimum for trace maker activity and the amount of time necessarypreexisting sedimentary fabric. This outcrop is located
to create these traces could be measured in months, not years or alongside Lookout Mountain, Georgia (USA). Scale in
decades. Sediment deposition during this portion of the Flood was inches and centimeters.
low enough to allow the bioturbation of the sediments and the
destruction of any preexisting sedimentary fabric. 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
subvertical 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 crossbedding 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.
Conclusions
Recent 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 concretean idea proposed
two decades ago by Joseph Davidovits, professor and director of
Frances 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 leastalong with
the Sphinx and other Egyptian monumentsmust 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.4In 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 firstin stark contrast to evolutionary teaching, which says early man was
primitive.
Mining mountains in West Virginia
by Tas Walker

Like so many people today, miners in West Virginia often commute to work, but thats where the comparison ends. Their
travel is deep inside the earth below the mountains of the mountain State, famous for its coal.
Its not unusual for coal miners to descend 350m (1,200ft) down slope before travelling for 2030 minutes out into the mine.
When you work inside a mine, you discover that its 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. Its 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 eventfossils for example.

At first, red hats are fascinated to find the remains of

trees, leaves, shells and sometimes fish so far
underground. Its 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,

Kettle bottomsdeadly tree roots

Sometimes, 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. Its 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 warninga 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 didnt. 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):1821,
1999;
<creation.com/yellowstone>.
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 coal
Calamites 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 dont 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 leveltoo 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 timeno tilting or folding.
It is a tall order.

Coal doesnt take millions of years to form

Other problems with the swamp idea include:
It does not take millions of years for vegetation
Sandstone layers, or strata, sometimes with faint diagonal markings
to transform into coal. You can do it in 19
called cross-beds, frequently sit above or below the seams, indicating it
months using simple ingredients. Put some
was deposited from flowing water.
wood in a strong sealed container with water
Thin layers of clay only centimetres thick, called clay bands or partings,
and a catalyst (such as clay). Heat it to 150C
run through the coal, often extending for kilometres.
(300F) to get brown coal.1 Turn up the
The fossils immediately above and below the coal are very well
temperature for black coal.
preserved, indicating rapid burial.
It just takes heat and pressure. Time is not
There are sharp contacts between the coal and the sand/silt/clay below
that important.
and above.
Hayatsu, R., et al., Artificial coalification study:
Fossils of broken tree trunks are sometimes in standing positions
preparation and characterization of synthetic
above, below, and occasionally through the coal, pointing to very rapid
macerals, Organic Geochemistry 6:463471,
2
burial of the layers.
1984; see also Walker, T., Coal: memorial to
Logs immediately above the coal seams are often very large, pointing
the
Flood,Creation 23(2):2227,
2001;
to watery transport, whereas trees growing on thick peat today are
<creation.com/coal>.
stunted due to lack of nutrients.
Coal points to the vegetation being dumped by a huge watery
catastrophestrong evidence to the reality of the global Flood just 4,500 years ago.

A river like no other

by 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 Americas 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 sandit 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 River
Rio 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 rivers 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
lakes 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 flooding
The 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 Andes 7 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

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 hypothesis

Geologists today believe that glacial meltwater floods carved unusual landscapes like the Channeled Scablands in
Washington State, USA. A larger flood in Canada drained Lake Agassizs 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 Britainironically 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 glaciers
When 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 Agassizs 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 antievolutionist. As we all know today, Agassiz was right about glaciers and the Ice Age; Darwin was wrong.
Conclusion
Darwins Beagle voyage, in addition to his basic geological training and Lyells book, Principles of Geology, made him an
experienced field geologist. Exploring the Santa Cruz River played an important role in developing Darwins geological
views. It reinforced his belief in deep geological timeand, 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 establishmentdespite the
massive evidenceit 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?Lets 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.Lets 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. Its 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 persons 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 dataeven 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 dont add up, but these are generally
overlooked).
Picture Gorge shouts sudden cataclysm
by Steve Wolfe
Probably you have heard the expression, Seeing is believing, but is that always true? In fact, quite often its 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 gap 1 called Picture Gorge. Its 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 dont 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 Flood
by 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. Its a fascinating experience to dig a smooth gold
nugget out of its ancient resting place and ponder its history.

How gold formed during the Flood

by Tas Walker
Gold was known before the Flood. Most of the gold produced during the creation
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 Flood

by Tas Walker
Figure 1. The rocks forming the gorge, orientated almost vertically,
are cut across almost horizontally by the plateau.
Visualizing the receding floodwaters
Signature of the Recessive stage of the Flood
Figure 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 todays landscapes and have been given a
namepeneplanes, 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 itdiscordant 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 megarivers draining the Flood, todays rivers and streams are much smaller than
the valleys they occupy. These rivers have also even been given a nameunderfit 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, Australia
Armidale, 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. Its 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.
Conclusion
The 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 deposition

by 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 Oards1 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 icecore 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 layers
A 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 12% range.
There are, in addition, numerous short breaks due to core loss (usually <10 years), over the inferred period of 3,0009,000
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 18O
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 18O as an indicator of past changes in climate. However, the annual to decadal correspondence between the
cores, in terms of 18O 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 disagreement6 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.Southons2 revealing study continues with a correlation of the GISP2 beryllium isotope ( 10Be)
concentration with the 14C 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 3,40011,300 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 (accordioningthe 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 18O variance, between
GISP2 and GRIP, for the 1,800 BP5,200 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, either5 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 18O 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 BP12,670 BP interval in GRIP is believed to correlate with the expanded (400 year) GISP2
interval occurring at 12,500 BP12,900 BP.10 Even then, the correspondence of peaks and valleys is not particularly
convincing.
Some cold facts on 18O
Uniformitarians try to correlate the decadal peaks and valleys in 18O 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 18O values of the water from the icecap.
Clearly, the uniformitarian chronologies developed from measured 18O 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 18O 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 reexamined in the light of high oxygen isotope mobility.
Scientific creationist implications
According 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 worlds ice cores.
New evidence of the Global Flood from Mexico
Dinosaur dig reveals dramatic insights into the degree of devastation, not so long ago
by Tas Walker

Artist rendering of Velafrons coahuilensis

A 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 factorthe Flood. Its a bit
like trying to explain the history of Europe
without reference to the Second World
War.
Rapid sedimentation
The 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 crossstratification 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.
Its 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 lizardsthat 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 found
The 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 stage
Within 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. Its clear that they do not represent events during Creation because there was no
death or suffering at that time, hence no fossils. Its 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 Its 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 timeFloodand into the sorts of animals
that were caught up in that event.
Beware the bubbles burst
Increased knowledge about cavitation highlights the destructive power of fast-flowing water
by David Catchpoole
Published: 24 October 2007(GMT+10)
This is the pre-publication version which was subsequently revised to appear in Creation 31(2):5051.
Cavitation damage to a ships propeller
When Britains Royal Navy ships were suffering considerable and unexplained
damage to their ships propellers in WWI, physicists worked out that violent
bubble cavitation1 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,
theres evidence that temperatures can rise as high as 15,000
Kelvin (~15,000C; 27,000F). 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 tunnelsas happened at Glen
Canyon Dam in 1983.4Unexpected flood rains put such pressure
on the dams 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 miners 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 Interior
Glen 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 potential 5 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 earths
landscape today, its 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 solved

by 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 seepsi.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 preFlood. 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 featuresonce 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. Lets 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, lets 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 paleokarststhe one in BohemiaPavel Bosk 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 view
Considering 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 processthe 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 mechanisms
If 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
hydratesgas 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 cavea 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 km 2 .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, although 230Th/234U dating has failed to yield interpretable ages. 25 Explaining casehardening 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 suggested 28) 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 framework
If 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 Flood 29 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 landsurfacemany as deep gorges and canyonswould 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 km 2) hosts a huge cave systemcalled Valea Firiiover 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 stage 27 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
Systemat 45,310 m3 the largest subterranean room in
Europe36,37has 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 unconformitiesone 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
couldnt 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, Italy
The 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 Formations 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
Formationconformably 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 isnt 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 downwashing 40) 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 Cambriansupposedly 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 Iglesiente
The 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 karst
The 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 oldprobably 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 karst
On rare occasions, continental seep signatures may develop way beyond tar ponds, like the famous Rancho La Brea, or
mud volcanoes, like those at Pclele 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 H 2S originated from the
subjacent Permian oil and gas fields, rose to the water table, and oxidized to H 2SO4. 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 H 2S required to generate Carlsbad Caverns Big Room (in excess of 10 6 m3) is less
than 10% of one years 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 H 2SO4, but it is generally believed to be much higher than for CO 2.
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.
Conclusions
Currently, 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):3233.
Canyon Lake, Texas
How 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 spillways normal flow is 9.9 m 3/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 5070 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 cant 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 theyve
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 5070 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 havent
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 havent
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 Crystals
It was like entering the mouth of an enormous shark with row upon row of piercing teeth
by Tas Walker
When 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 65C (150F) 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):1015, 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 story
by 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 water
Circle 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 earths 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) Im 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 Tjuta 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 Flood
The 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 Flood
The 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 wasnt 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 wasnt 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 system
by John H. Whitmore
Back to Forum contents page
Evidence from lithology, sedimentology, paleontology,
ecology, taphonomy, geochemistry and structural
geology suggests the Green River Formation (GRF)
was a large lake system. Certain featuressuch as
multiple horizons of exploded fish, disarticulated fish
and stromatolitessuggest 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.

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)

Introduction
It 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 Morris 1 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 Morriss 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 dont 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 the

inescapable conclusion that these rocks represent lacustrine deposits. As stated in the introduction to this forum, I dont
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 sedimentology
The 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.511
Table 1. Summary of lithofacies patterns in Fossil Basin.4,54 The lithofacies in this table match those in figure 12.
Kerogen-rich
Kerogen-poor
Partly burrowedBioturbated
Dolomicrite
Sandstone and
laminated micritelaminated micritelaminated micritemicrite
(DM)
siltstone
(KRLM)
(KPLM)
(PBLM)
(BM)
(SS)
Total
organic2-14 %
<2%
<2%
<2%
2-14 %
no data
carbon
Sedimentary
laminated
laminated
same as KPLM,structureless
laminae
oftentrough and ripple
structures
(alternating
(alternating
horizontal
andmicrite, abundantdisrupted by saltcross beds, up to
calcite
andcalcite
andvertical burrowsmacro burrows,casts,
soft4 m thick cross
kerogen)
kerogen),
up to 2 cm inbioturbation
sediment
beds,
loading
kerogen laminaediameter
increases towarddeformation
structures
much
less
margin
features,
mud
distinct
cracks
Grain size
clay
clay
clay
clay matrix, someclay
fine to coarse
sand to pebble
grained
sand,
sized
angular
carbonate
clasts
interclasts
Mineralogy
calcite with minorsame as KRLM,same as KPLM same as KPLM dolomite, someprimarily quartz
amounts
ofexcept
calcite
units may containand
feldspar,
dolomite, quartz,content is higher
some
quartz,some clay
feldspar, and clay
feldspar, clay and
calcite
Paleontology
abundant
fish,abundant fish
abundant fish
gastropods,
some
unitsgastropods,
leaves, insects
pelecypods,
contain abundantpelecypods,
ostracods,
andostracods, No
burrows
fish
fish

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 Whitmores26 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
23
27
and lizards, birds and many other features.28Carbonate
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)
spring mounds (tufa and travertine) with silica-rich cores are
known to occur at several locations within the Green River

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
Figure
the 32.
rightIntrastratal
lateral gastric
hydroplastic
region. Note
flow the
in scales
the Laney
and
Member
bones
of directionally
the Green River
scattered
Formation,
towardsjust
the above
bottomthe
of
Orange
the photo.
MarkerAlso
Bed.
noteThe
thatlocation
the vertebral
is near
column
Chicken
was
Figure
Springs
contorted
17.
Draw,
A towards
fish
Flaming
(Knightia)
the
Gorge,
top of
collected
Wyoming.
the photo
near
as
The
athe
result
blebby
of
margin
nature
the ofexplosion
Fossil
this bed
Basin
towards
may
at the
have
the Warfield
bottom
been of
the
Springs
the
result
photo.
of
26
Quarry
liquefaction
Additional
Figure
(Whitmores
during
39.
evidence
Stromatolite
tectonic
WSQ
for site
the
activity.
gastric
on
mounds
figure
During
eruption
2).
in shaking,
Note
mudstone,
is thatthe
rib
Figuremiddle
that
37. elements
itThe
Green
is
layer
Eocene
well-preserved,
River
became
occur
Pass
Formation,
on
temporarily
Peak
topbut
ofFormation
scales.
some
Douglas
liquid
ofScales
is
the
and
Pass,
interpreted
scales
clasts
would
Colorado.
ofhave
the
to be an
came
upper,
alluvial
been
Douglas
loose
darker
ejected
fanand
and
Pass
layer
were
away
plain
is located
sank
scattered
gravels
from the
into
between
that
before
fish
the
interfinger
first,
the
middle
thefollowed
Uinta
fish
withlayer.
and
by
Figure
Figure22.
38.Reds
A large
Cabin
overturned
Monocline,
stromatolite
Green River
headFormation
found in a
the Wasatch
was interior
Regardless
Piceance
completely
Formation,
elements
of Creek
how
which
buried
(ribs).
Basins
thein intraformational
and
Gas
turn,
(figure
build-up
interfinger
preserved.
1). At
didthis
with
deformation
not
The
location,
cause
the it
atcross-bedded
Whitehorse Creek
channel.
near
The
Oregon
channel
Buttes,
is notWyoming.
shown inThe
this
fine grained
specimen
occurred,
tomultiple
sediments
float
the
was
because
outcrop
layers
exposed
of the
ofshows
itGreater
large
may
onthe
stromatolites
have
the
Green
carbonate
bottom
adhered
Rivermuds
occur
long
Basin,
ontowere
with
the
picture
picture,was
buttaken
was clearly
looking evident
south-east,
in the
down
larger
theoutcrop.
axis of the
The
9
25
to the
Figure
enough
Figure
not
south.
yet
bottom
associated
19.
lithified
23.
for
21.
This
Stromatolites
An
the
Structures
viaphoto
exploded
when
scales
various
shallow
deformation
was
tointerpreted
micro-organisms.
on
come
fish
water
taken
the
(Knightia)
loose,
indicators.
near
took
Delany
to but
place,
be
Hoback
collected
then
The
caddisfly
Rim,
Note
indicating
was
specimen
Jct.,
that
fromcases
the
near
aFigure
(centre)
monocline,
stromatolite
18. A fishwhich
(Knightia)
headis is
near
about
collected
the centre
80 cm
from
ofinthe
near
diameter.
photo.
the centre
The
Southern
nearof Fossil Basin
16
26
26
Wyoming.
Washakie
Figure
buried,
surrounded
the
short
margin
was
mud
34.
time
preventing
Basin.
collected
Pluvial
layers
(click
lapse
of
by Fossil
Multiple
digitate
above
lakes
between
further
from
Basin
for
must
stromatolites
in
Whitmores
layers
disarticulation.
the
deposition
(Whitmores
have
of
western
larger
stromatolites
come
HCCRT
(perimeter).
and
The
United
after
HCCRT
deformation.
scale
image)
site
the growth
The
(figure
sitehollow
on
from the
horizontal
cases
Washakie
Clear Creek
beds
Basin
Quarry
on the
(figure
(Whitmores
right, 1),
dip steeply
Delany
CCQtowards
Rim,
site onWyoming.
figure
the left,
2). Note that it
can
States
bar
Figure
are
figure
Intrastratal
beis
tube-like
2).
during
of
found
1.0
2).
20.
This
the
This
cm
Tufa
at
quarry
hydroplastic
the
stromatolites,
structures
long.
quarry
this
encrusted
Ice
Specimen
islocation
is
Age.
onon
several
BLM
flow
BLM
logs
since
Could
and
WSQ
property
in
property
mm
isthey
many
the
these
217.
also
inWasatch
and
are
diameter
others
and
lakes
Warfield
indicated
aundeformed.
permit
a permit
Formation,
andwas
by
about
was
is fairly
10
and
Overturned
well-preserved.
mm
plunge into
stromatolite
theThe
valley
scale
heads
below.
bar inis
The
the
1.0structure
GRF
cm long.
have
was
Specimen
also
formed
beenCCQ 1.51.
*
Figures
within
have
Springs
Washakie
long.
obtained
contorted
are
the
been
obtained
The
Northern
numbered
Green
isto
contemporary
beds
coin
Basin
acollect
private
toRiver
along
Green
in
collect
at
continuously
the
it.base
quarry.
Formation.
Specimen
this
River
centre
it.with
of
same
Specimen
(click
Delany
Basin,
the
through
ofhorizon.
HCCRT
The
image
the
Green
Rim.
HCCRT
near
pen
picture
allThe
for
57.
the
River
Rock
isLaBarge,
larger
14
U.S.
articles
68.
Scale
ishammer
apenny
Scale
U.S.
in
Wyoming.
cm.
This
is quarry
as
seen
The
result
is
byon
ofthe
movement
BLM
author
property
inofDouglass
faults
and aalong
permit
Pass,
thewas
Colorado.
base
obtained
of the
(click
Wind
to collect
for
it. (click
45
in this
cm
Formation
view)
28
penny
(click
is
forum.
long.
1.9
cm
ispenny,
image
cm
(click
in
long.
islakes?
1.9
cm.
in image
diameter.
for
1.9
cm
(click
(After
larger
in
cmfor
diameter.
for
inOard).
larger
(click
view)
larger
diameter.
image
view)
(click
image)
(click
for
image
larger
for for
larger
view)
larger
image)
view) imageRiver
larger
for larger
Mountains.
image)
view) (click image for larger view)