Dr. Andrew A. Snelling

Education PhD, Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 1982

BSc, Applied Geology, The University of New Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours, 1975

Professional Experience

 Field, mine, and research geologist, various mining companies, Australia  , Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Consultant researcher and writer , Australia, 1983–1992  Geological consultant, Koongarra uranium project, Denison Australia PL, 1983–1992  Collaborative researcher and writer, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation (CSIRO), Australia, 1981–1987  Professor of geology, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA, 1998–2007  Staff member, Creation Science Foundation (later Answers in Genesis–Australia), Australia, 1983– 1998  Founding editor, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation), 1984–1998  Researcher and editor, Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth (RATE), 1997–2005  Editor-in-chief, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, 2008  Director of Research, Answers in Genesis, Petersburg, KY, 2007–present Professional Affiliations

Geological Society of Australia /Geological Society of America /Geological Association of Canada/ Mineralogical Society of America /Society of Economic Geologists /Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits / Creation Research Society /Creation Geology Society

Dr. Andrew A. Snelling is perhaps one of the world's leading researchers in flood geology.He worked for a number of years in the mining industry throughout Australia undertaking mineral exploration surveys and field research. He has also been a consultant research geologist for more than a decade to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for internationally funded research on the geology and geochemistry of uranium ore deposits as analogues of nuclear waste disposal sites..His primary research interests include radioisotopic methods for the dating of rocks, formation of igneous and metamorphic rocks, and ore deposits. He is one of a controlled number permitted to take rock samples from the Grand Canyon.He was also a founding member of the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). Andrew completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Geology with First Class Honours at The University of New South Wales in Sydney, and graduated a Doctor of Philosophy (in geology) at The University of Sydney, for his thesis entitled A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium deposit, , Australia. Between studies and since, Andrew worked for six years in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, , Western Australia and the Northern Territory variously as a field, mine and research geologist. Full-time with the Australian creation ministry from 1983 to 1998, he was during this time also called upon as a geological consultant to the Koongarra uranium project (1983–1992). Consequently, he was involved in research projects with various CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) and University scientists across Australia, and with scientists from the USA, Britain, Japan, Sweden and the International Atomic Energy Agency. As a result of this research, Andrew was involved in writing scientific papers that were published in international scientific journals.Andrew has been involved in extensive creationist research in Australia and overseas, including the formation of all types of mineral deposits, radioactivity in rocks and radioisotopic dating, and the formation of metamorphic and igneous rocks, sedimentary strata and landscape features (e.g. Grand Canyon, USA, and Ayers Rock, Australia) within the creation framework for earth history. As well as writing regularly and extensively in international creationist publications, Andrew has travelled around Australia and widely overseas (USA, UK, New Zealand, South Africa, Korea, Indonesia, Hong Kong, China) speaking in schools, churches, colleges and universities, particularly on the overwhelming scientific evidence consistent with the Global Flood and the Creation. BEST FLOOD EVIDENCES  High & Dry Sea Creatures Flood Evidence Number One ………………………………………………………………….4  The World’s a Graveyard Flood Evidence Number Two……………………………………………………………………5  Transcontinental Rock Layers Flood Evidence Number Three…………………………………………………………….7  Sand Transported Cross Country Flood Evidence Number Four………………………………………………………….9  No Slow and Gradual Erosion Flood Evidence Number Five ……………………………………………………………11  Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured Flood Evidence Number Six ……………………………………………………….12

DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF FLOOD GEOLOGY  Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Beds? …………………………………………………………………………..14  A Deeper Understanding of the Flood—A Complex Geologic Puzzle …………………………………………………..17  Did Meteors Trigger the Flood?...... 18  Noah`s Lost World …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20  Rapid Opals in the ………………………………………………………………………………………………….22  Yosemite Valley—Colossal Ice Carving Geology …………………………………………………………………………24  Hoodoos of Bryce Canyon Bryce Canyon, Utah…………………………………………………………………………...24  Emeralds—Treasures from Catastrophe Geology ………………………………………………………………………...26  The Geology of Israel Within the Creation-Flood Framework of History: 1. The Pre-Flood Rocks1. The pre-Flood Rocks …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..27  The Geology of Israel within the Creation-Flood Framework of History: 2. The Flood Rocks ……………………….43  Iceland’s Recent “Mega-Flood” An Illustration of the Power of the Flood …………………………………………….71  and Kata Tjuta: A Testimony to the Flood …………………………………………………………………………..72  Startling Evidence for Global FlooD Footprints and Sand ‘Dunes’ in a Grand Canyon !...... 75

PLATE TECTONICS  A Catastrophic Breakup A Scientific Look at Catastrophic Plate Tectonics ……………………………………………78  Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology?...... 80  Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History ………………………………………………….83

SEDIMENTS  Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up! ………………………………………………………………...89  Regional Metamorphism within a Creation Framework: What Garnet Compositions Reveal ………………………..90  Thirty Miles of Dirt in a Day …………………………………………………………………………………………………..96  The Case of the ‘Missing’ Geologic Time …………………………………………………………………………………..97  The First Atmosphere—Geological Evidences and Their Implications…………………………………………………..99

THE FOSSIL RECORD  Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages? ………………………………………………….101  Cincinnati—Built on a Fossil Graveyard …………………………………………………………………………………..105  Criteria to Determine the Biogenicity of Fossil Stromatolites …………………………………………………………...107  Order in the Fossil Record ………………………………………………………………………………………………….121  Fossilized Footprints—A Dinosaur Dilemma ……………………………………………………………………………123  Dating Dilemma: Fossil Wood in “Ancient” Sandstone …………………………………………………………………124  Thundering Burial …………………………………………………………………………………………………………...125  A “165 Million Year” Surprise ………………………………………………………………………………………………127  ‘Instant’ Petrified Wood …………………………………………………………………………………………………….128  Yet Another 'Missing ' Fails to Qualify ……………………………………………………………………………….129  Where Are All the Human Fossils? ……………………………………………………………………………………….132

COAL  How Did We Get All This Coal? ……………………………………………………………………………………………134  Forked Seams Sabotage Swamp Theory ………………………………………………………………………………...135  Coal Beds and Global Flood………………………………………………………………………………………………..136  Coal, Volcanism and Flood…………………………………………………………………………………………………137  The Origin of Oil ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..145  How Fast Can Oil Form?...... 146 High & Dry Sea Creatures Flood Evidence Number One by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on December 7, 2007; last featured September 10, 2008

Shop Now If the Global Flood really occurred, what evidence would we expect to find? The previous article in this series gave an overview of the six geologic evidences for the Flood. Now let’s take a closer look at evidence number one.Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth that are filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Of course, and that’s exactly what we find. Marine Fossils High above Sea Level It is beyond dispute among geologists that on every continent we find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers which today are high above sea level. For example, we find marine fossils in most of the rock layers in Grand Canyon. This includes the topmost layer in the sequence, the Kaibab Limestone exposed at the rim of the canyon, which today is approximately 7,000–8,000 feet (2,130– 2,440 m) above sea level.1Though at the top of the sequence, this limestone must have been deposited beneath ocean waters loaded with lime sediment that swept over northern Arizona (and beyond).Other rock layers exposed in Grand Canyon also contain large numbers of marine fossils. The best example is the Redwall Limestone, which commonly contains fossil brachiopods (a clam-like organism), corals, bryozoans (lace corals), crinoids (sea lilies), bivalves (types of clams), gastropods (marine snails), trilobites, cephalopods, and even fish teeth.2These marine fossils are found haphazardly preserved in this limestone bed. The crinoids, for example, are found with their columnals (disks) totally separated from one another, while in life they are stacked on top of one another to make up their “stems.” Thus, these marine creatures were catastrophically destroyed and buried in this lime sediment.Fossil ammonites (coiled marine cephalopods) like this one are found in limestone beds high in the Himalayas of Nepal. How did marine fossils get thousands of feet above sea level?Marine fossils are also found high in the Himalayas, the world’s tallest mountain range, reaching up to 29,029 feet (8,848 m) above sea level.3 For example, fossil ammonites (coiled marine cephalopods) are found in limestone beds in the Himalayas of Nepal. All geologists agree that ocean waters must have buried these marine fossils in these limestone beds. So how did these marine limestone beds get high up in the Himalayas?We must remember that the rock layers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood, well before these mountains were formed. In fact, many of these mountain ranges were pushed up by earth movements to their present high elevations at the end of the Flood.

The Explanation There is only one possible explanation for this phenomenon—the ocean waters at some time in the past flooded over the continents.Could the continents have then sunk below today’s sea level, so that the ocean waters flooded over them? No! The continents are made up of lighter rocks that are less dense than the rocks on the ocean floor and rocks in the mantle beneath the continents. The continents, in fact, have an automatic tendency to rise, and thus “float” on the mantle rocks beneath, well above the ocean floor rocks.4 This explains why the continents today have such high elevations compared to the deep ocean floor, and why the ocean basins can hold so much water.So there must be another way to explain how the oceans covered the continents. The sea level had to rise, so that the ocean waters then flooded up onto— and over—the continents. What would have caused that to happen? There had to be, in fact, two mechanisms. First, if water were added to the ocean, then the sea level would rise. Scientists are currently monitoring the melting of the polar ice caps because the extra water would cause the sea level to rise and flood coastal communities. The creation model suggests a source of the extra water.The earth’s crust was split open all around the globe and water apparently burst forth as fountains from inside the earth and these fountains were open for 150 days. No wonder the ocean volume increased so much that the ocean waters flooded over the continents. Second, if the ocean floor itself rose, it would then have effectively “pushed” up the sea level. Genesis suggests a source of this rising sea floor: molten rock. The catastrophic breakup of the earth’s crust, , would not only have released huge volumes of water from inside the earth, but much molten rock.5 The ocean floors would have been effectively replaced by hot lavas. Being less dense than the original ocean floors, these hot lavas would have had an expanded thickness, so the new ocean floors would have effectively risen, raising the sea level by more than 3,500 feet (1,067 m). Because today’s mountains had not yet formed, and it is likely the pre-Flood hills and mountains were nowhere near as high as today’s mountains, a sea level rise of over 3,500 feet would have been sufficient to inundate the pre-Flood continental land surfaces.Toward the end of the Flood, when the molten rock cooled and the ocean floors sank, the sea level would have fallen and the waters would have drained off the continents into new, deeper ocean basins. As indicated earlier the mountains being raised at the end of the Flood and the Flood waters draining down valleys and off the emerging new land surfaces. This is consistent with much evidence that today’s mountains only recently rose to their present incredible heights. The Ocean Floor Rises

Marine Life Originally Lives in the Ocean (top) Marine creatures obviously live in the ocean (A). For these creatures to be deposited on the continents, the sea level had to rise. The Ocean Crust Is Heated and Expands (middle) (1)During the Flood molten rock was released from inside the earth and began replacing the original ocean crust. The ocean crust was effectively replaced by hot lavas. (2)Because of the hot molten rock, the ocean crust became less dense and expanded. (3)The molten rock displaced and pushed the original ocean crust below the continent. (A)The sea level rose more than 3,500 feet (1,067 m) and marine creatures were carried onto the continent, buried in sediments, and fossilized. Marine Life Remains on the Continent (bottom) Toward the end of the Flood, the ocean crust cooled and the ocean floor sank. As the waters drained off the continents, the sea level would have fallen, leaving marine fossils (A) above sea level on the continents. Conclusion The fossilized sea creatures and plants found in rock layers thousands of feet above sea level are thus silent testimonies to the ocean waters that flooded over the continents, carrying billions of sea creatures, which were then buried in the sediments these ocean waters deposited. This is how billions of dead marine creatures were buried in rock layers all over the earth.

The World’s a Graveyard Flood Evidence Number Two by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on February 12, 2008; last featured March 5, 2008

Shop Now

If the Flood, as really occurred, what evidence would we expect to find? The first article in this series overviewed the six main geologic evidences that testify to the Flood, while the second article discussed evidence number one (see the list below). Now let’s take a closer look at evidence number two.After noting in Genesis 7 that all the high hills and the mountains were covered by water and all air-breathing life on the land was swept away and perished, it should be obvious what evidence we would expect to find.Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were buried rapidly and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Of course, and that’s exactly what we find. Furthermore, even though the catastrophic geologic activity of the Flood would have waned in the immediate post- Flood period, ongoing mini-catastrophes would still have produced localized fossil deposits. Graveyards Around the World Countless billions of plant and animal fossils are found in extensive “graveyards” where they had to be buried rapidly on a massive scale. Often the fine details of the creatures are exquisitely preserved. For example, billions of straight-shelled, chambered nautiloids (figure 2) are found fossilized with other marine creatures in a 7 foot (2 m) thick layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon (figure 1).1 This fossil graveyard stretches for 180 miles (290 km) across northern Arizona and into southern Nevada, covering an area of at least 10,500 square miles (30,000 km2). These squid-like fossils are all different sizes, from small, young nautiloids to their bigger, older relatives.

Photos courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling To form such a vast fossil graveyard required 24 cubic miles (100 km3) of lime sand and silt, flowing in a thick, soup-like slurry at more than 16 feet (5 m) per second (more than 11 mph [18 km/h]) to catastrophically overwhelm and bury this huge, living population of nautiloids. Hundreds of thousands of marine creatures were buried with amphibians, spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects, and reptiles in a fossil graveyard at Montceau-les-Mines, France.2 More than 100,000 fossil specimens, representing more than 400 species, have been recovered from a shale layer associated with coal beds in the Mazon Creek area near Chicago.3 This spectacular fossil graveyard includes ferns, insects, scorpions, and tetrapods buried with jellyfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and fish, often with soft parts exquisitely preserved. At Florissant, Colorado, a wide variety of insects, freshwater mollusks, fish, birds, and several hundred plant species (including nuts and blossoms) are buried together.4 Bees and birds have to be buried rapidly in order to be so well preserved. Alligator, fish (including sunfish, deep sea bass, chubs, pickerel, herring, and garpike 3–7 feet [1–2 m] long), birds, turtles, mammals, mollusks, crustaceans, many varieties of insects, and palm leaves (7–9 feet [2–2.5 m] long) were buried together in the vast River Formation of Wyoming.5Notice in many of these examples how marine and land-dwelling creatures are found buried together. How could this have happened unless the ocean waters rose and swept over the continents in a global, catastrophic Flood? At Fossil Bluff on the north coast of Australia’s island state of Tasmania (figure 3), many thousands of marine creatures (corals, bryozoans [lace corals], bivalves [clams], and gastropods [snails]) were buried together in a broken state, along with a toothed whale (figure 4) and a marsupial possum (figure 5).6 Whales and possums don’t live together, so only a watery catastrophe would have buried them together! In order for such large ammonites (figure 8) and other marine creatures to be buried in the chalk beds of Britain (figure 6), many trillions of microscopic marine creatures (figure 7) had to bury them catastrophically.7 These same beds also stretch right across Europe to the Middle East, as well as into the Midwest of the USA, forming a global-scale fossil graveyard. In addition, more than 7 trillion tons of vegetation are buried in the world’s coal beds found across every continent, including Antarctica. Exquisite Preservation Such was the speed at which many creatures were buried and fossilized—under catastrophic flood conditions—that they were exquisitely preserved. Many fish were buried so rapidly, virtually alive, that even fine details of fins and eye sockets have been preserved (figure 9). Many trilobites (figure 10) have been so exquisitely preserved that even the compound lens systems in their eyes are still available for detailed study.

Figure 9—Some fish are buried so rapidly that fine details of fins and eye sockets have been preserved. Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling. Figure 10—This trilobite has been so exquisitely preserved that even the compound lens systems in their eyes are still available for detailed study. Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling. Mawsonites spriggi, when discovered, was identified as a fossilized jellyfish (figure 11). It was found in a sandstone bed that covers more than 400 square miles (1,040 km2) of outback South Australia.8 Millions of such soft-bodied marine creatures are exquisitely preserved in this sandstone bed.

Figure 11—Soft-bodied marine creatures, such as this fossilized jellyfish (Mawsonites spriggi), are finely preserved in a sandstone bed. Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling.Consider what happens to soft-bodied creatures like jellyfish when washed up on a beach today. Because they consist only of soft “jelly,” they melt in the sun and are also destroyed by waves crashing onto the beach. Based on this reality, the discoverer of these exquisitely preserved soft-bodied marine creatures concluded that all of them had to be buried in less than a day!Some fish were buried alive and fossilized so quickly in the geologic record that they were “caught in the act” of eating their last meal (figure 12). Then there is the classic example of a female marine reptile, an ichthyosaur, about 6 feet (2 m) long, found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby (figure 13)! One minute this huge creature was giving birth, then seconds later, without time to escape, mother and baby were buried and “snap frozen” in a catastrophic “avalanche” of lime mud.

Figure 12—Many fish were buried alive and fossilized quickly, such as this fish “caught in the act” of eating its last meal. Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling.

Figure 13—This female ichthyosaur, a marine reptile, was found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby. Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling. Conclusions These are but a few examples of the many hundreds of fossil graveyards found all over the globe that are now well-documented in the geological literature.9 The countless billions and billions of fossils in these graveyards, in many cases exquisitely preserved, testify to the rapid burial of once-living plants and animals on a global scale in a watery cataclysm and its immediate aftermath. Often these fossil graveyards consist of mixtures of marine and land-dwelling creatures, indicating that the waters of this global cataclysm swept over both the oceans and the continents.When we again examine the Flood and ask ourselves what evidence we should expect, the answer is obvious—billions of dead plants and animals buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the world. And that’s exactly what we find. The global, cataclysmic Flood and its aftermath was an actual event in history.The next article in this special geology series will examine in more detail the geologic evidence of rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas, caused by the Flood waters .

Transcontinental Rock Layers Flood Evidence Number Three by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on May 7, 2008

What evidence do we have that the Flood, really occurred? This article is the next installment in a series of the six main geologic evidences that testify to the Flood (listed to the right).Genesis 7 explains that water covered all the high hills and the mountains, and that all air-breathing life on the land was swept away and perished. As part of the evidence of the Flood, we would expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime. And that’s exactly what we find. Rapidly Deposited Sediment Layers Spread Across Vast Areas On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. Furthermore, when geologists look closely at these rocks, they find evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly.Consider the layers exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona (Figure 2). This sequence of layers is not unique to that region of the USA. For more than 50 years geologists have recognized that these strata belong to six megasequences (very thick, distinctive sequences of sedimentary rock layers) that can be traced right across North America.1The lowermost sedimentary layers in Grand Canyon are the Tapeats Sandstone, belonging to the Sauk Megasequence. It and its equivalents (those layers comprised of the same materials) cover much of the USA (Figure 3). We can hardly imagine what forces were necessary to deposit such a vast, continent- wide series of deposits. Yet at the base of this sequence are huge boulders (Figure 4) and sand beds deposited by storms (Figure 5). Both are evidence that massive forces deposited these sediment layers rapidly and violently right across the entire USA. Slow-and-gradual (present-day uniformitarian) processes cannot account for this evidence, but the global catastrophic Flood surely can. Another layer in Grand Canyon is the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian) Redwall Limestone. This belongs to the Kaskaskia Megasequence of North America. So the same limestones appear in many places across North America, as far as Tennessee and Pennsylvania. These limestones also appear in the exact same position in the strata sequences, and they have the exact same fossils and other features in them.Unfortunately, these limestones have been given different names in other locations because the geologists saw only what they were working on locally and didn’t realize that other geologists were studying essentially the same limestone beds in other places. Even more remarkable, the same Carboniferous limestone beds also appear thousands of miles east in England, containing the same fossils and other features. Figure 1. The chalk beds of southern England (above) can be traced across France, Germany, and Poland, all the way to the Middle East. Chalk Beds: The chalk beds of southern England are well known because they appear as spectacular white cliffs along the coast (Figure 1). These chalk beds can be traced westward across England and appear again in Northern Ireland. In the opposite direction, these same chalk beds can be traced across France, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, southern Scandinavia, and other parts of Europe to Turkey, then to Israel and Egypt in the Middle East, and even as far as Kazakhstan.2Remarkably, the same chalk beds with the same fossils and the same distinctive strata above and below them are also found in the Midwest USA, from Nebraska in the north to Texas in the south. They also appear in the Perth Basin of Western Australia.

Click to enlarge. Coal Beds: Consider another feature— coal beds. In the northern hemisphere, the Upper Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) coal beds of the eastern and Midwest USA are the same coal beds, with the same plant fossils, as those in Britain and Europe. They stretch halfway around the globe, from Texas to the Donetz Basin north of the Caspian Sea in the former USSR.3In the southern hemisphere, the same coal beds are found in Australia, Antarctica, India, South Africa, and even South America! These beds share the same kind of plant fossils across the region (but they are different from those in the Pennsylvanian coal beds). Evidence of Rapid Deposition Sloped Beds of Sandstone

Figure 6. The Coconino Sandstone layer in Grand Canyon contains sloped layers of sandstone called cross beds. These beds are remnants of the sand waves produced by water currents during the Flood.The buff-colored Coconino Sandstone is very distinctive in the walls of Grand Canyon. It has an average thickness of 315 feet (96 m) and covers an area of at least 200,000 square miles (518,000 km2) eastward across adjoining states.4 So the volume of sand in the Coconino Sandstone layer is at least 10,000 cubic miles (41,682 km3). This layer also contains physical features called cross beds. While the overall layer of sandstone is horizontal, these cross beds are clearly visible as sloped beds (Figure 6). These beds are remnants of the sand waves produced by the water currents that deposited the sand (like sand dunes, but underwater) (Figure 7). So it can be demonstrated that water, flowing at 3–5 miles per hour (4.8–8 km/h), deposited the Coconino Sandstone as massive sheets of sand, with sand waves up to 60 feet (18 m) high.5 At this rate, the whole Coconino Sandstone layer (all 10,000 cubic miles of sand) would have been deposited in just a few days!Strong, fast-flowing water currents move sands across the ocean floor as sand waves or dunes (Figure 7a). As the sand grains are swept over the dune crests, they fall on the advancing dune faces to produce sloping sand beds, and on top of the trailing edges of the dunes in front. The dunes thus advance over one another, resulting in stacked sand layers (Figure 7b) with internal sloping beds (cross beds).

Ayers Rock (or Uluru) in central Australia consists of coarse-grained sandstone beds that are almost vertical, tilted at about 80º (Figure 8). The total thickness of these sandstone beds, outcropping in Ayers Rock and found under the surrounding desert sands, is 18,000–20,000 feet (5,500–6,100 m).6 The minerals in the sand grains are distinctive, and the closest source of them is at least 63 miles (101 km) away. Under the microscope the sand grains appear jagged and are of different sizes (Figure 9). One of the minerals is called feldspar, and it appears to be still unusually fresh in the sandstone. These features imply rapid transport and deposition of all this sand, before the feldspar grains could disintegrate or the sand grains could be worn down into round pebbles or sorted by size.7 Distinctive & Jagged Minerals within Sandstone Ayers Rock in central Australia (Figure 8 above) consists of coarse- grained sandstone beds that are almost vertical, tilted at about 80°. The distinctive minerals in the sand grains appear jagged and are different sizes (Figure 9 below) when viewed under the microscope. These features imply rapid transportation and deposition of all this sand before it had time to be worn smooth.

So soup-like slurries of sediment, known as turbidity currents, which travel at speeds of up to 70 miles per hour (113 km/h), must have transported all this sand, 18,000–20,000 feet thick, a distance of at least 63 miles and deposited it as the Uluru Sandstone beds in a matter of hours! This defies evolution ideology but fits with the Creation/Flood history of.Sediment layers that spread across vast continents are evidence that water covered the continents in the past. Even more dramatic are the fossil-bearing sediment layers that were deposited rapidly right across many or most of the continents at the same time. To catastrophically deposit such extensive sediment layers implies global flooding of the continents. This brief article describes just a few of the many examples of rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.8As the Flood catastrophically swept over all the continents to form a global ocean we would expect the waters to deposit fossil-bearing sediment layers rapidly across vast areas around the globe. And that is exactly what we find—further evidence that the global cataclysmic Flood was an actual event in history.

Sand Transported Cross Country Flood Evidence Number Four by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on August 25, 2008; last featured May 19, 2010

We find layers of thick sandstone around the earth. Where did the sand come from? Evidence indicates it was carried across entire continents by water circling the globe. Genesis 7 says that all the high hills and the mountains were covered by water, and all air- breathing life on the land was swept away and perished. After reading this passage, wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Yes, and that’s exactly what we find. Sediment Transported Long Distances In previous articles we have already seen the evidence that rapidly deposited sediment layers containing rapidly buried plant and animal fossils are found spread across vast areas, often high above sea level. No known slow-and-gradual geologic processes in the present world are currently producing such fossiliferous sediment layers spread across continents. Though evolutionary geologists are loath to admit it, only a global flood in which the ocean waters flooded over the continents could have done this.Now it logically follows that, when the Flood waters swept over the continents and rapidly deposited sediment layers across vast areas, these sediments had to have been transported long distances. In other words, the sediments in the strata had to come from distant sources. And that’s exactly the evidence we find.For example, in the previous issue we discussed the Coconino Sandstone, seen spectacularly in the walls of the Grand Canyon (Figure 1). It has an average thickness of 315 feet (96 m), covers an area of at least 200,000 square miles (518,000 km2), and thus contains at least 10,000 cubic miles (41,700 km3) of sand.1 Where did this sand come from, and how do we know?The sand grains are pure (a natural glass mineral), which is why the Coconino Sandstone is such a distinctive buff color. Directly underneath it is the strikingly different red-brown Hermit Formation, consisting of siltstone and shale. Sand for the Coconino Sandstone could not have come from the underlying Hermit Formation. The sloping remnants of sand “waves” in the Coconino Sandstone point to the south, indicating the water that deposited the sand flowed from the north.2 Another clue is that the Coconino Sandstone thins to zero to the north in Utah, but the Hermit Formation spreads farther into Utah and beyond. So the Coconino’s pure quartz sand had to come from a source even farther north, above and beyond the red-brown Hermit.Grand Canyon has another set of layers with sand that must have

come from far away—the sandstone beds within the Supai Group strata between the Hermit Formation and the Redwall Limestone. In this case, the sand “wave” remnants point to the southeast, so the sand grains had to have been deposited by water flowing from a source in the north and west. However, to the north and west of Grand Canyon we find only Redwall Limestone underneath the Supai Group, so there is no nearby source of quartz sand for these sandstone beds.3 Thus an incredibly long distance must be postulated for the source of Supai Group sand grains.4 Other Sediment Even Transported Across the Continent A third layer of sandstone higher in the strata sequence gives us a clue. The Navajo Sandstone of southern Utah, best seen in the spectacular mesas and cliffs in and around Zion National Park (Figure 2), is well above the Kaibab Limestone, which forms the rim rock of the Grand Canyon. Like the Grand Canyon , this sandstone also consists of very pure quartz sand, giving it a distinctly brilliant white color, and it also contains remnants of sand “waves.”Within this sandstone, we find grains of the mineral zircon, which is relatively easy to trace to its source because zircon usually contains radioactive uranium. By “dating” these zircon grains, using the uranium-lead (U-Pb) radioactive method, it has been postulated that the sand grains in the Navajo Sandstone came from the Appalachians of Pennsylvania and New York, and from former mountains further north in Canada. If this is true, the sand grains were transported at least 1,800 miles (3000 km) right across North America.5This “discovery” poses somewhat of a dilemma for conventional uniformitarian (slow-and- gradual) geologists, because no known sediment transport system is capable of carrying sand across the entire North American continent during the required millions of years. It must have been water over an area even bigger than the continent. All they can do is postulate that some unknown transcontinental river system must have done the job. But even in their scientific belief system of earth history, it is impossible for such a river to have persisted for millions of years.Yet the evidence is overwhelming that the water was flowing in one direction. More than half a million measurements have been collected from 15,615 North American localities, recording water current direction indicators throughout the geologic record. The evidence indicates that water moved sediments across the entire continent, from the east and northeast to the west and southwest throughout the so-called Paleozoic.6 This general pattern continued on up into the Mesozoic, when the Navajo Sandstone was deposited. How could water be flowing across the North American continent consistently for hundreds of millions of years? Absolutely impossible!The only logical and viable explanation is the global cataclysmic Flood. Only the water currents of a global ocean, lasting a few months, could have transported such huge volumes of sediments right across the North American continent to deposit the thick strata sequences which blanket the continent.7The geologic record has many examples of sediments that did not come from erosion of local, underlying rocks. Rather, the sediments had to have been transported long distances, in some cases even across continents. This is confirmed by water current direction indicators in these sedimentary layers, which show a consistent uni-directional flow. However, conjectured transcontinental river systems could not have operated like that for hundreds of millions of years. Instead, only catastrophic global flooding of the continents over a few months can explain the huge volumes of sediments transported across the continents. We would expect to find that these global waters eroded sediments and transported them across whole continents to be deposited in layers covering vast areas. We have now seen that this is exactly what we find across North America, so there is no excuse for claiming there is no evidence of a global flood. The global cataclysmic Flood actually happened in the earth’s history. No Slow and Gradual Erosion Flood Evidence Number Five by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on November 12, 2008; last featured July 21, 2010

If the violent global Flood, described really occurred, what evidence would we expect to find? Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth that are filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Yes, and that’s exactly what we find. This article covers the fifth of six main geologic evidences that testify to the Flood. We’ll look more closely at a feature that is often overlooked—the boundaries between rock layers. What should they look like, if laid down during a single, global Flood?The dominant view today is that slow and gradual (uniformitarian) processes, similar to the processes we observe in the present, explain the thick, fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers all over the earth. These slow geologic processes would require hundreds of millions of years to deposit all the successive sediment layers. Furthermore, this popular view holds that slow weathering and erosion gradually wore away the earth’s surface to produce its relief features, such as hills and valleys.This view has a problem, however. If the fossil-bearing layers took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate, then we would expect to find many examples of weathering and erosion after successive layers were deposited. The boundaries between many sedimentary strata should be broken by lots of topographic relief with weathered surfaces. After all, shouldn’t millions of years worth of weathering and erosion follow each deposition?On the other hand, the cataclysmic global Flood would lead us to expect something much different. Most of the fossil-bearing layers would have accumulated in just over one year. Under such catastrophic conditions, even if land surfaces were briefly exposed to erosion, such erosion (called sheet erosion) would have been rapid and widespread, leaving behind flat and smooth surfaces. The erosion would not create the localized topographic relief (hills and valleys) we see forming at today’s snail’s pace. So, if the Flood caused the fossil-bearing geologic record, then we would only expect evidence of rapid or no erosion at the boundaries between sedimentary strata.So what evidence do we find? At the boundaries between some sedimentary layers we find evidence of only rapid erosion. In most other cases, the boundaries are flat, featureless, and knife-edge, with absolutely no evidence of any erosion, which is consistent with no long periods of elapsed time, as would be expected during the global, cataclysmic Flood. Examples in Grand Canyon Grand Canyon in the southwestern United States offers numerous examples of strata boundaries that are consistent with deposition during the Flood.1 However, we will focus here on just four, which are typical of all the others. These boundaries appear at the bases of the Tapeats Sandstone, Redwall Limestone, Hermit Formation, and Coconino Sandstone (Figure 1). Below Tapeats Sandstone The strata below the Tapeats Sandstone has been rapidly eroded and then extensively scraped flat (planed off). We know that this erosion occurred on a large scale because we see its effects from one end of the Grand Canyon to the other. This massive erosion affected many different underlying rock layers— and metamorphic rocks, and tilted sedimentary strata.

Photos courtesy Dr. Andrew Snelling There are two evidences that this large- scale erosion was rapid. First, we don’t see any evidence of weathering below the boundary2 (Figure 2). If there were weathering, we would expect to see soils, but we don’t. Second, we find boulders and features known as “storm beds” in the Tapeats Sandstone above the boundary3 (Figure 3). Storm beds are sheets of sand with unique internal features produced only by storms, such as hurricanes. Boulders and storm beds aren’t deposited slowly. Below Redwall Limestone Below the base of the Redwall Limestone the underlying Muav Limestone has been rapidly eroded in a few localized places to form channels (Figure 4). These channels were later filled with lime sand to form the Temple Butte Limestone. Apart from these rare exceptions, the boundary between the Muav and Redwall Limestones, as well as the boundary between the Temple Butte and Redwall Limestones, are flat and featureless, hallmarks of continuous deposition.Indeed, in some locations the boundary between the Muav and Redwall Limestones is impossible to find because the Muav Limestone continued to be deposited after the Redwall Limestone began.4 This feature presents profound problems for uniformitarian geology. The Muav Limestone was supposedly deposited 500–520 million years ago,5 the Temple Butte Limestone was supposedly deposited about 100 million years later (350–400 million years ago),6 and then the Redwall Limestone deposited several million years later (330–340 million years ago).7 Based on the evidence, it is much more logical to believe that these limestones were deposited continuously, without any intervening millions of years. Below the Hermit Formation Another boundary at Grand Canyon—the boundary between the Hermit Formation and the Esplanade Sandstone—is often cited as evidence of erosion that occurred over millions of years after sediments had stopped building up.8There is a problem, however. The evidence indicates that water was still depositing material, even as erosion occurred. In places the Hermit Formation silty shales are intermingled (inter-tongued) with the Esplanade Sandstone (Figures 5), indicating that a continuous flow of water carried both silty mud and quartz sand into place. Thus there were no millions of years between these sedimentary layers.9 Below the Coconino Sandstone Finally, the boundary between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation is flat, featureless, and knife-edge from one end of the Grand Canyon to the other. There is absolutely no evidence of any erosion on the Hermit Formation before the Coconino Sandstone was deposited. That alone is amazing.Yet somehow a whole extra layer of sediment was dumped on top of the Hermit Formation before the Coconino Sandstone, without time for erosion. In places in central and eastern Arizona, almost 2,000 feet (610 m) of sandstone, shale, and limestone (the Schnebly Hill Formation) sits on top of the Hermit Formation, supposedly representing millions of years of deposition before the Coconino Sandstone was deposited on top of them.10But where is the evidence of the supposed millions of years of erosion at this boundary in the Grand Canyon area while this deposition was occurring elsewhere (Figure 6)? There is none! So there were no millions of years between the Coconino Sandstone and Hermit Formation, just continuous deposition. Conclusion The fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record consists of tens of thousands of feet of sedimentary layers, of which about 4,500 feet (1,372 m) are exposed in the walls of Grand Canyon. If this enormous thickness of sediments was deposited over 500 or more million years, as conventionally believed, then some boundaries between layers should show evidence of millions of years of slow erosion, when deposition was not occurring, just as erosion is occurring on some land surfaces today.On the other hand, if this enormous thickness of sediments was all deposited in just over a year during the Flood, then the boundaries between the layers should show evidence of continuous rapid deposition, with only occasional rapid erosion or no erosion at all. And that’s exactly what we find, as illustrated by strata boundaries in the Grand Canyon.The account of the Flood describes the waters sweeping over the continents to cover the whole earth. The waters flowing right around the earth would have catastrophically eroded sediments from some locations, transported them long distances, and then rapidly deposited them. Because the waters flowed “continually” ,erosion, transport, and deposition of sediments would have been continually rapid.Thus billions of dead plants and animals were rapidly buried and fossilized in sediment layers that rapidly accumulated, with only rapid or no erosion at their boundaries because they were deposited just hours, days, or weeks apart. So the evidence declares that the Flood actually happened, being a major event in the earth’s history.

Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured Flood Evidence Number Six by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on April 1, 2009

If the global Flood, really occurred, what evidence would we expect to find? Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth that are filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Yes, and that’s exactly what we find.This article concludes a series on the six main geologic evidences that testify to the Flood.The fossil-bearing geologic record consists of tens of thousands of feet of sedimentary layers, though not all these layers are found everywhere around the globe, and their thickness varies from place to place. At most locations only a small portion is available to view, such as about 4,500 feet (1371 m) of strata in the walls of the Grand Canyon.Uniformitarian (long-age) geologists believe that these sedimentary layers were deposited and deformed over the past 500 million years. If it really did take millions of years, then individual sediment layers would have been deposited slowly and the sequences would have been laid down sporadically. In contrast, if the global cataclysmic Flood deposited all these strata in a little more than a year, then the individual layers would have been deposited in rapid succession, one on top of the other.Do we see evidence in the walls of the Grand Canyon that the sedimentary layers were all laid down in quick succession? Yes, absolutely!The previous article in this series documented the lack of evidence for slow and gradual erosion at the boundaries between the sediment layers. This article explores evidence that the entire sequence of sedimentary strata was still soft during subsequent folding, and the strata experienced only limited fracturing. These rock layers should have broken and shattered during the folding, unless the sediment was still relatively soft and pliable. Solid Rock Breaks When Bent

Solid Rock Breaks not Bends (Figure 1)When solid, hard rock is bent (or folded) it invariably fractures and breaks because it is brittle. Rock will bend only if it is still soft and pliable, like modeling clay. If clay is allowed to dry out, it is no longer pliable but hard and brittle, so any attempt to bend it will cause it to break and shatter.When solid, hard rock is bent (or folded) it invariably fractures and breaks because it is brittle (Figure 1).1 Rock will bend only if it is still soft and pliable—“plastic” like modeling clay or children’s Playdough. If such modeling clay is allowed to dry out, it is no longer pliable but hard and brittle, so any attempt to bend it will cause it to break and shatter.When water deposits sediments in a layer, some water is left behind, trapped between the sediment grains. Clay particles may also be among the sediment grains. As other sedimentary layers are laid on top of the deposits, the pressure squeezes the sedimentary particles closer together and forces out much of the water. The earth’s internal heat may also remove water from the sediment. As the sediment layer dries out, the chemicals that were in the water and between the clay particles convert into a natural cement. This cement transforms the originally soft and wet sediment layer into a hard, brittle rock layer.This process, known technically as diagenesis, can be exceedingly rapid.2It is known to occur within hours but generally takes days or months, depending on the prevailing conditions. It doesn’t take millions of years, even under today’s slow-and- gradual geologic conditions. Folding a Whole Strata Sequence Without Fracturing ADVERTISEMENTS

Examples of Bent Rock Layers (Figures 2–4) Figure 2. The boundary between the Kaibab Plateau and the less uplifted eastern canyons is marked by a large step-like fold, called the East Kaibab Monocline (above). Figure 3 and 4. It is possible to see these folded sedimentary layers in several side canyons. All these layers had to be soft and pliable at the same time in order for these layers to be folded without fracturing. The folded Tapeats Sandstone can be seen in Carbon Canyon (top) and the folded Mauv and Redwall Limestone layers can be seen along Kwagunt Creek (bottom). The 4,500-foot sequence of sedimentary layers in the walls of the Grand Canyon stands well above today’s sea level. Earth movements in the past pushed up this sedimentary sequence to form the Kaibab Plateau. However, the eastern portion of the sequence (in the eastern Grand Canyon and Marble Canyon areas in northern Arizona) was not pushed up as much and is about 2,500 feet (762 m) lower than the height of the Kaibab Plateau. The boundary between the Kaibab Plateau and the less uplifted eastern canyons is marked by a large step-like fold, called the East Kaibab Monocline (Figure 2).It’s possible to see these folded sedimentary layers in several side canyons. For example, the folded Tapeats Sandstone can be seen in Carbon Canyon (Figure 3). Notice that these sandstone layers were bent 90° (a right angle), yet the rock was not fractured or broken at the hinge of the fold. Similarly, the folded Muav and Redwall Limestone layers can be seen along nearby Kwagunt Creek (Figure 4). The folding of these limestones did not cause them to fracture and break, either, as would be expected with ancient brittle rocks. The obvious conclusion is that these sandstone and limestone layers were all folded and bent while the sediments were still soft and pliable, very soon after they were deposited.Herein lies an insurmountable dilemma for uniformitarian geologists. They maintain that the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone were deposited 500–520 million years ago3; the Redwall Limestone, 330–340 million years ago4; then the Kaibab Limestone at the top of the sequence (Figure 2), 260 million years ago.5 Lastly, the Kaibab Plateau was uplifted (about 60 million years ago), causing the folding.6 That’s a time span of about 440 million years between the first deposit and the folding. How could the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone still be soft and pliable, as though they had just been deposited? Wouldn’t they fracture and shatter if folded 440 million years after deposition?The conventional explanation is that under the pressure and heat of burial, the hardened sandstone and limestone layers were bent so slowly they behaved as though they were plastic and thus did not break.7However, pressure and heat would have caused detectable changes in the minerals of these rocks, tell-tale signs of metamorphism.8 But such metamorphic minerals or recrystallization due to such plastic behavior9is not observed in these rocks. The sandstone and limestone in the folds are identical to sedimentary layers elsewhere.The only logical conclusion is that the 440-million-year delay between deposition and folding never happened! Instead, the Tapeats-Kaibab strata sequence was laid down in rapid succession early during the year of the global cataclysmic Flood, followed by uplift of the Kaibab Plateau within the last months of the Flood. This alone explains the folding of the whole strata sequence without appreciable fracturing. Conclusion Uniformitarian geologists claim that tens of thousands of feet of fossiliferous sedimentary layers have been deposited over more than 500 million years. In contrast, the global cataclysmic Flood leads creation geologists to believe that most of these layers were deposited in just over one year. Thus, during the Flood many different strata would have been laid down in rapid succession.In the walls of the Grand Canyon, we can see that the whole horizontal sedimentary strata sequence was folded without fracturing, supposedly 440 million years after the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone were deposited, and 200 million years after the Kaibab Limestone was deposited. The only way to explain how these sandstone and limestone beds could be folded, as though still pliable, is to conclude they were deposited during the Flood, just months before they were folded.In this special geology series we have documented that, when we accept the Flood as an actual event in earth history, then we find that the geologic evidence is absolutely in harmony with the creation model. As the ocean waters flooded over the continents, they must have buried plants and animals in rapid succession. These rapidly deposited sediment layers were spread across vast areas, preserving fossils of sea creatures in layers that are high above the current (receded) sea level. The sand and other sediments in these layers were transported long distances from their original sources. We know that many of these sedimentary strata were laid down in rapid succession because we don’t find evidence of slow erosion between the strata.

DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF FLOOD GEOLOGY

Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Beds? by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on April 1, 1994 Originally published in Journal of Creation 8, no 1 (April 1994): 11-15. Abstract By working from what is known to occur today, even if rare and catastrophic by today’s standards, we can realistically calculate production of thick chalk beds within the conditions of the Flood. Most people would have heard of, or seen (whether in person or in photographs), the famous White Cliffs of Dover in southern England. The same beds of chalk are also found along the coast of France on the other side of the English Channel. The chalk beds extend inland across England and northern France, being found as far north and west as the Antrim Coast and adjoining areas of Northern Ireland. Extensive chalk beds are also found in North America, through Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee (the Selma Chalk), in Nebraska and adjoining states (the Niobrara Chalk), and in Kansas (the Fort Hayes Chalk).1The Latin word for chalk is creta. Those familiar with the geological column and its evolutionary time-scale will recognize this as the name for one of its periods—the Cretaceous. Because most geologists believe in the geological evolution of the earth’s strata and features over millions of years, they have linked all these scattered chalk beds across the world into this so-called ‘chalk age’, that is, a supposedly great period of millions of years of chalk bed formation. So What Is Chalk? Porous, relatively soft, fine-textured and somewhat friable, chalk normally is white and consists almost wholly of calcium carbonate as the common mineral calcite. It is thus a type of limestone, and a very pure one at that. The calcium carbonate content of French chalk varies between 90 and 98%, and the Kansas chalk is 88–98% calcium carbonate (average 94%).2 Under the microscope, chalk consists of the tiny shells (called tests) of countless billions of microorganisms composed of clear calcite set in a structureless matrix of fine-grained calcium carbonate (microcrystalline calcite). The two major microorganisms whose remains are thus fossilised in chalk are foraminifera and the spikes and cells of calcareous algæ known as coccoliths and rhabdoliths.How then does chalk form? Most geologists believe that ‘the present is the key to the past’ and so look to see where such microorganisms live today, and how and where their remains accumulate. The foraminifera found fossilised in chalk are of a type called the planktonic foraminifera, because they live floating in the upper 100–200 metres of the open seas. The brown algæ that produce tiny washer-shaped coccoliths are known as coccolithophores, and these also float in the upper section of the open seas.The oceans today cover almost 71% of the earth’s surface. About 20% of the oceans lie over the shallower continental margins, while the rest covers the deeper ocean floor, which is blanketed by a variety of sediments. Amongst these are what are known as oozes, so-called because more than 30% of the sediment consists of the shells of microorganisms such as foraminifera and coccolithophores.3 Indeed, about half of the deep ocean floor is covered by light-coloured calcareous (calcium carbonate-rich) ooze generally down to depths of 4,500–5,000 metres. Below these depths the calcium carbonate shells are dissolved. Even so, this still means that about one quarter of the surface of the earth is covered by these shell — rich deposits produced by these microscopic plants and animals living near the surface of the ocean.Geologists believe that these oozes form as a result of these microorganisms dying, with the calcium carbonate shells and coccoliths falling slowly down to accumulate on the ocean floor. It has been estimated that a large 150 micron (0.15mm or 0.006 inch) wide shell of a foraminifer may take as long as 10 days to sink to the bottom of the ocean, whereas smaller ones would probably take much longer. At the same time, many such shells may dissolve before they even reach the ocean floor. Nevertheless, it is via this slow accumulation of calcareous ooze on the deep ocean floor that geologists believe chalk beds originally formed.

Microfossils and microcrystalline calcite—Cretaceous chalk, Ballintoy Harbour, Antrim Coast, Northern Ireland under the microscope (60x) (photo: Dr. Andrew Snelling)

The ‘Problems’ For Flood Geology This is the point where critics, and not only those in the evolutionist camp, have said that it is just not possible to explain the formation of the chalk beds in the White Cliffs of Dover via the geological action of the Flood (Flood geology). The deep-sea sediments on the ocean floor today average a thickness of about 450 metres (almost 1,500 feet), but this can vary from ocean to ocean and also depends on proximity to land.4 The sediment covering the Pacific Ocean Basin ranges from 300 to 600 metres thick, and that in the Atlantic is about 1,000 metres thick. In the mid-Pacific the sediment cover may be less than 100 metres thick. These differences in thicknesses of course reflect differences in accumulation rates, owing to variations in the sediments brought in by rivers and airborne dust, and the production of organic debris within the ocean surface waters. The latter is in turn affected by factors such as productivity rates for the microorganisms in question, the nutrient supply and the ocean water concentrations of calcium carbonate. Nevertheless, it is on the deep ocean floor, well away from land, that the purest calcareous ooze has accumulated which would be regarded as the present-day forerunner to a chalk bed, and reported accumulation rates there range from 1–8cm per 1,000 years for calcareous ooze dominated by foraminifera and 2– 10 cm per 1,000 years for oozes dominated by coccoliths.5Now the chalk beds of southern England are estimated to be around 405 metres (about 1,329 feet) thick and are said to span the complete duration of the so-called Late Cretaceous geological period,6 estimated by evolutionists to account for between 30 and 35 million years of evolutionary time. A simple calculation reveals that the average rate of chalk accumulation therefore over this time period is between 1.16 and 1.35cm per l,000 years, right at the lower end of today’s accumulation rates quoted above. Thus the evolutionary geologists feel vindicated, and the critics insist that there is too much chalk to have been originally deposited as calcareous ooze by the Flood.But that is not the only challenge creationists face concerning deposition of chalk beds during the Flood. Schadewald has insisted that if all of the fossilised animals, including the foraminifera and coccolithophores whose remains are found in chalk, could be resurrected, then they would cover the entire planet to a depth of at least 45cm (18 inches), and what could they all possibly have eaten?7 He states that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit the earth from supporting that much animal biomass, and with so many animals trying to get their energy from the sun the available solar energy would not nearly be sufficient. Long-age creationist Hayward agrees with all these problems.8Even creationist Glenn Morton has posed similar problems, suggesting that even though the Austin Chalk upon which the city of Dallas (Texas) is built is little more than several hundred feet (upwards of 100 metres) of dead microscopic animals, when all the other chalk beds around the world are also taken into account, the number of microorganisms involved could not possibly have all lived on the earth at the same time to thus be buried during the Flood.9Furthermore, he insists that even apart from the organic problem, there is the quantity of carbon dioxide (CO2) necessary to have enabled the production of all the calcium carbonate by the microorganisms whose calcareous remains are now entombed in the chalk beds. Considering all the other limestones too, he says, there just couldn’t have been enough CO2 in the atmosphere at the time of the Flood to account for all these calcium carbonate deposits. Creationist Responses Two creationists have done much to provide a satisfactory response to these objections against Flood geology—geologists Dr Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute (Loma Linda, California) and John Woodmorappe. Both agree that biological productivity does not appear to be the limiting factor. Roth10 suggests that in the surface layers of the ocean these carbonate-secreting organisms at optimum production rates could produce all the calcareous ooze on the ocean floor today in probably less than 1,000 or 2,000 years. He argues that, if a high concentration of foraminifera of 100 per litre of ocean water were assumed,11 a doubling time of 3.65 days, and an average of 10,000 foraminifera per gram of carbonate,12 the top 200 metres of the ocean would produce 20 grams of calcium carbonate per square centimetre per year, or at an average sediment density of 2 grams per cubic centimetre, 100 metres in 1,000 years. Some of this calcium carbonate would be dissolved at depth so the time factor would probably need to be increased to compensate for this, but if there was increased carbonate input to the ocean waters from other sources then this would cancel out. Also, reproduction of foraminifera below the top 200 metres of ocean water would likewise tend to shorten the time required.Coccolithophores on the other hand reproduce faster than foraminifera and are amongst the fastest growing planktonic algæ, 13 sometimes multiplying at the rate of 2.25 divisions per day. Roth suggests that if we assume an average coccolith has a volume of 22 x 10–12 cubic centimetres, an average weight of 60 x 10-12 grams per coccolith,1420 coccoliths produced per coccolithophore, 13 x 106 coccolithophores per litre of ocean water,15 a dividing rate of two times per day and a density of 2 grams per cubic centimetre for the sediments produced, one gets a potential production rate of 54cm (over 21 inches) of calcium carbonate per year from the top 100 metres (305 feet) of the ocean. At this rate it is possible to produce an average 100 metre (305 feet) thickness of coccoliths as calcareous ooze on the ocean floor in less than 200 years. Again, other factors could be brought into the calculations to either lengthen or shorten the time, including dissolving of the carbonate, light reduction due to the heavy concentration of these microorganisms, and reproducing coccoliths below the top 100 metres of ocean surface, but the net result again is to essentially affirm the rate just calculated.Woodmorappe16 approached the matter in a different way. Assuming that all limestones in the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary divisions of the geological column are all chalks, he found that these accounted for 17.5 million cubic kilometres of rock. (Of course, not all these limestones are chalks, but he used this figure to make the ‘problem’ more difficult, so as to get the most conservative calculation results.) Then using Roth’s calculation of a 100 metre thickness of coccoliths produced every 200 years, Woodmorappe found that one would only need 21.1 million square kilometres or 4.1% of the earth ’s surface to be coccolith-producing seas to supply the 17.5 million cubic kilometres of coccoliths in 1,600-1,700 years, that is, in the pre-Flood era. He also made further calculations by starting again from the basic parameters required, and found that he could reduce that figure to only 12.5 million square kilometres of ocean area or 2.5% of the earth’s surface to produce the necessary exaggerated estimate of 17.5 million cubic kilometres of coccoliths.

Scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of coccoliths in the Cretaceous chalk, Brighton, England (photo: Dr Joachim Scheven) ‘Blooms’ During The Flood As helpful as they are, these calculations overlook one major relevant issue — these chalk beds were deposited during the Flood. Creationist geologists may have different views as to where the pre-Flood/Flood boundary is in the geological record, but the majority would regard these Upper Cretaceous chalks as having been deposited very late in the Flood. That being the case, the coccoliths and foraminiferal shells that are now in the chalk beds would have to have been produced during the Flood itself, not in the 1,600–1,700 years of the pre-Flood era as calculated by Woodmorappe, for surely if there were that many around at the outset of the Flood these chalk beds should have been deposited sooner rather than later during the Flood event. Similarly, Roth’s calculations of the required quantities potentially being produced in up to 1,000 years may well show that the quantities of calcareous oozes on today’s ocean floors are easily producible in the time-span since the Flood, but these calculations are insufficient to show how these chalk beds could be produced during the Flood itself.Nevertheless, both Woodmorappe and Roth recognize that even today coccolith accumulation is not steady-state but highly episodic, for under the right conditions significant increases in the concentrations of these marine microorganisms can occur, as in plankton ‘blooms’ and red tides. For example, there are intense blooms of coccoliths that cause ‘white water’ situations because of the coccolith concentrations,11 and during bloom periods in the waters near Jamaica microorganism numbers have been reported as increasing from 100,000 per litre to 10 million per litre of ocean water. 18 The reasons for these blooms are poorly understood, but suggestions include turbulence of the sea, wind, 19 decaying fish,20 nutrients from freshwater inflow and upwelling, and temperature.21Without a doubt, all of these stated conditions would have been generated during the catastrophic global upheaval of the Flood, and thus rapid production of carbonate skeletons by foraminifera and coccolithophores would be possible. Thermodynamic considerations would definitely not prevent a much larger biomass such as this being produced, since Schadewald who raised this as a ‘problem’ is clearly wrong. It has been reported that oceanic productivity 5–10 times greater than the present could be supported by the available sunlight, and it is nutrient availability (especially nitrogen) that is the limiting factor.22 Furthermore, present levels of solar ultraviolet radiation inhibit marine planktonic productivity.23Quite clearly, under cataclysmic Flood conditions, including torrential rain, sea turbulence, decaying fish and other organic matter, and the violent volcanic eruptions associated with the ‘fountains of the deep’, explosive blooms on a large and repetitive scale in the oceans are realistically conceivable, so that the production of the necessary quantities of calcareous ooze to produce the chalk beds in the geological record in a short space of time at the close of the Flood is also realistically conceivable. Violent volcanic eruptions would have produced copious quantities of dust and steam, and the possible different mix of gases than in the present atmosphere could have reduced ultraviolet radiation levels. However, in the closing stages of the Flood the clearing and settling of this debris would have allowed increasing levels of sunlight to penetrate to the oceans.Ocean water temperatures would have been higher at the close of the Flood because of the heat released during the cataclysm, for example, from volcanic and magmatic activity, and the latent heat from condensation of water. Such higher temperatures have been verified by evolutionists from their own studies of these rocks and deep-sea sediments,24 and would have also been conducive to these explosive blooms of foraminifera and coccolithophores. Furthermore, the same volcanic activity would have potentially released copious quantities of nutrients into the ocean waters, as well as prodigious amounts of the CO2 that is so necessary for the production of the calcium carbonate by these microorganisms. Even today the volcanic output of CO2 has been estimated at about 6.6 million tonnes per year, while calculations based on past eruptions and the most recent volcanic deposits in the rock record suggest as much as a staggering 44 billion tonnes of CO2 have been added to the atmosphere and oceans in the recent past (that is, in the most recent part of the post-Flood era).25 The Final Answer The situation has been known where pollution in coastal areas has contributed to the explosive multiplication of microorganisms in the ocean waters to peak concentrations of more than 10 billion per litre.26 Woodmorappe has calculated that in chalk there could be as many as 3 x 1013 coccoliths per cubic metre if densely packed (which usually isn’t the case), yet in the known bloom just mentioned, 10 billion microorganisms per litre of ocean water equates to 1013 microorganisms per cubic metre.Adapting some of Woodmorappe’s calculations, if the 10% of the earth’s surface that now contains chalk beds was covered in water, as it still was near the end of the Flood, and if that water explosively bloomed with coccolithophores and foraminifera with up to 1013 microorganisms per cubic metre of water down to a depth of less than 500 metres from the surface, then it would have only taken two or three such blooms to produce the required quantity of microorganisms to be fossilised in the chalk beds. Lest it be argued that a concentration of 10 13 microorganisms per cubic metre would extinguish all light within a few metres of the surface, it should be noted that phytoflagellates such as these are able to feed on bacteria, that is, planktonic species are capable of heterotrophism (they are ‘mixotrophic’). 27 Such bacteria would have been in abundance, breaking down the masses of floating and submerged organic debris (dead fish, plants, animals, etc.) generated by the flood. Thus production of coccolithophores and foraminifera is not dependent on sunlight, the supply of organic material potentially supporting a dense concentration.Since, for example, in southern England there are three main chalk beds stacked on top of one another, then this scenario of three successive, explosive, massive blooms coincides with the rock record. Given that the turnover rate for coccoliths is up to two days, 28 then these chalk beds could thus have been produced in as little as six days, totally conceivable within the time framework of the flood. What is certain, is that the right set of conditions necessary for such blooms to occur had to have coincided in full measure to have explosively generated such enormous blooms, but the evidence that it did happen is there for all to plainly see in these chalk beds in the geological record. Indeed, the purity of these thick chalk beds worldwide also testifies to their catastrophic deposition from enormous explosively generated blooms, since during protracted deposition over supposed millions of years it is straining credulity to expect that such purity would be maintained without contaminating events depositing other types of sediments. There are variations in consistency (see Appendix) but not purity. The only additional material in the chalk is fossils of macroscopic organisms such as ammonites and other molluscs, whose fossilisation also requires rapid burial because of their size (see Appendix).No doubt there are factors that need to be better quantified in such a series of calculations, but we are dealing with a cataclysmic Flood, the like of which has not been experienced since for us to study its processes. However, we do have the results of its passing in the rock record to study, and it is clear that by working from what is known to occur today, even if rare and catastrophic by today’s standards, we can realistically calculate production of these chalk beds within the time framework and cataclysmic activity of the Flood, and in so doing respond adequately to the objections and ‘problems’ raised by the critics. A Deeper Understanding of the Flood—A Complex Geologic Puzzle by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on April 1, 2014

The details of the Flood have profound implications for explaining the geology of the earth today. In the 1960s secular geologists discovered a broad pattern in the rock layers that has puzzled them. Shop Now The forces that the flood unleashed tore apart the entire world, destroying all land-dwelling animals in a complex sequence of events that is hard to imagine.No other catastrophe has ravaged the earth on this scale, so we have little to compare it to. For that reason it’s all the more important to interpret the creation chronology of events correctly if we hope to understand the complex geology that the Flood produced and we observe today.Some people interpret Genesis to mean that heavy rains caused the sea level to rise steadily for 150 days, and then drop steadily until the end of the Flood, on day 371. But a closer look indicates that another sequence is more likely—the waters peaked on day 40, and then rose and fell until the end.This sequence of events could help solve one of the greatest mysteries in geology, megasequences (described below), which has long puzzled geologists, both evolutionists and creationists. Possibility of Rising and Falling Waters One of two things is possible: the sea level fluctuated until day 150 and then steadily decreased to day 371, or it began decreasing right after day 40. More study is needed. But either way, the violent currents had many months to sweep around the globe in a complex, shifting pattern of alternating high-energy and lower-energy waves, depositing the complex sequence of layers we see today. A Solution to Megasequences The intense, worldwide exploration for oil has produced an incredibly detailed picture of the interior of the crust, the earth’s outer skin. The large-scale pattern that oil companies have found continues to mystify geologists. In 1963 a landmark paper proposed the fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock layers across North America had been deposited in at least four large “packages” of layers called megasequences.1 During the early 1980s the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) conducted a massive project to line up and match the rock layers in all the local sequences across North America, determined from drill-holes and the rock layers that are exposed on the surface.2 The outcome was an overwhelming confirmation that these strange megasequences exist.For geologists who believe in local floods, it was strange to find large-scale deposits, thousands of feet thick, covering the entire continent. Consider closely what they found. A megasequence is a package of sediment layers of a continental scale bounded above and below by flat, eroded surfaces, called unconformities. Between these eroded surfaces are layers of sediments, which show a distinct pattern from bottom to top. Generally, the sediment grains become smaller and smaller the higher you go. At the bottom are large boulders and rocks (conglomerates), then sands, mud, and finally limestone. This is especially evident on the AAPG charts.This decreasing size suggests that the energy of the water was very intense at the beginning and then decreased throughout the rest of the process. At the beginning, when the rushing water had the highest energy, it eroded across the surfaces of the continents to produce the unconformity. As the energy decreased, large pieces of rocks (conglomerates) began dropping out, but the rapid currents still carried the finer sediments. Next the sand dropped out, then the mud, and finally limestone (which is formed in relatively lower-energy solutions, when molecular-size minerals form crystals).This pattern creates a quandary for secular geologists. A megasequence is usually interpreted as the sediments left behind when the ocean rose and advanced across the continent, depositing a large package of sediment layers before retreating. But how could the ocean cover entire continents by the conventional slow-and-gradual (uniformitarian) model?The Flood model provides the answer. The pattern suggests the water levels were high from early in the Flood, with vertical fluctuations in between. Most of the erosion would have occurred between megasequences, as the high-energy ocean waters advanced over the continents. But the dropping waters represented a time of relatively lower energy, when rocks and grains began dropping out of the currents (Figure 1).3 What Is a Megasequence? The quest for oil has produced an incredibly detailed picture of the earth’s outer rock layers. In the 1960s geologists discovered a large-scale pattern in North America, called megasequences, that still mystifies them. Nobody expected to find large-scale deposits, thousands of feet thick, covering the entire continent.A megasequence is a package of sediment layers bounded above and below by flat, eroded surfaces, called unconformities. The layers of sediments show a distinct pattern with grains becoming smaller and smaller the higher up you go.

Figure 1 In a megasequence the grains decrease in size from boulders at the bottom (conglomerates) to tiny grains of lime at the top. This “fining upward” suggests the ocean currents were very intense at first, and then the waters slowed down. The heaviest material dropped out first, followed by lighter materials (sand and then clay), until only the finest grains (lime) were left. But why did this happen several times? Did the Flood Cause Megasequences? Geologists have discovered that powerful forces eroded the entire North American continent, and then deposited the debris over the whole continent. This was repeated several times. How is this possible? The obvious answer is the Flood. Secular geologists have found a clear pattern in the rock layers that point to the Flood. At the bottom is bedrock (usually labeled “”), which was eroded and planed off by the Flood. As ocean waters tore across the continents, they laid down several megasequences (Cambrian through the Upper Cretaceous). The rise and fall of the ocean level during the Flood may help explain these megasequences.

Figure 2 Several Megasequences. Megasequences are separated by flat, eroded surfaces, called unconformities. To erode a flat surface across the entire continent means the ocean water was incredibly energetic. As the waters slowed down, they deposited another megasequence on top of the unconformity. This process was repeated. Figure 3 Rise and Fall of Ocean Levels? Secular geologists have discovered evidence that the ocean level rose and fell between each unconformity. While they assume this occurred over millions of years, creationists believe it happened during the Flood. The preserved rock record across North America readily reflects at least four of these megasequences, separated by unconformities (Figure 2).4 Within these megasequences we usually find mass burials of creatures that were caught up in the Flood waters.These megasequences show clear evidence of the Flood waters rising to advance across the continent, sweeping away creatures, and burying them in sediment layers. This process explains why we now see ocean creatures buried in layers across the continent.5 It is even possible to trace individual layers of rapidly deposited marine fossils right across the continent. We see from these megasequences that the Flood was anything but a tranquil affair. Raging waters swept across the continent and back again as water levels apparently fluctuated up and down many times (Figure 3). But what geologic mechanism could have caused such fluctuations, and when did they occur within the sequence of events in the creation account? Catastrophic Plate Tectonics That’s where another clue comes in. In 1859 a Christian geologist noticed the coastlines of the continents on either side of the Atlantic Ocean fit like a jigsaw puzzle.6 He thus proposed that a pre-Flood supercontinent had been broken up and the continental fragments then sprinted apart during the Flood to open up the Atlantic Ocean.Thus was born the catastrophic plate tectonics model, which gives a physical mechanism for the Flood.7 If all the waters of the pre-Flood world had been gathered together into one place ,it is reasonable to conclude there was a pre-Flood supercontinent. Much geologic data is consistent with that.8So when the fountains of the great deep were broken up at the initiation of the Flood ,that event could have ripped apart the pre-Flood supercontinent. Then the continental fragments dashed across the earth’s surface.This geologic disaster would also explain the rise of the ocean waters. When the supercontinent ripped apart, humungous volumes of lavas also spewed out from inside the earth.9 Since hot rocks expand, the new volcanic rocks on the ocean floor rose, raising sea level and pushing the ocean waters over the continents.Today we can visit places like the coastlines of eastern Canada and the British Isles to see where some of the fossil-bearing sediment layers and volcanic rocks match between continents.10 This is powerful evidence that the continents were originally joined but are now thousands of miles apart.These earth movements and the earthquakes they generated would have produced many cataclysmic tsunamis that swept over the continents, contributing to relatively minor water-level fluctuations within the larger-scale surges that deposited the megasequences. When Did It End? Plate tectonics not only helps us explain when the megasequences were deposited, it also helps us understand when they ended.As the water was depositing these major sediment packages during the Flood, the continental fragments occasionally slammed into one another. The collisions produced crumpled mountain belts, such as the Appalachians and the European Alps. Since these mountains already contained fossil-bearing layers before they were crumpled, the mountains must have formed after some megasequences were deposited.Geologists have learned that these fossil-bearing mountains formed when the African and Arabian Plates collided with the Eurasian Plate. So by that time the Flood’s megasequences were already deposited, and most continental movement had ceased.

Did Meteors Trigger the Flood? by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on January 1, 2012; last featured December 12, 2012

Geologists are uncovering mounting evidence of asteroids and meteorites that struck the earth during the past. Are these extraterrestrial missiles somehow related to the initiation of the Flood? Have you ever wondered what triggered the Flood? Most creation geologists believe that the opening of “the fountains of the great deep” refers to the breakup of the earth’s crust into plates.1 The subsequent rapid, catastrophic movement of these plates would have released huge quantities of hot subterranean waters and molten rock into the ocean. As the hot water gushed through the fractured seafloor, the water flashed into superheated steam and shot high into the atmosphere as supersonic steam jets, carrying sea water that eventually fell as rain.But what catastrophe might cause the earth’s crust —many miles thick—to crack? Some have suggested a meteorite or asteroid impact of unprecedented size and scope.2 Do we find any evidence? Geologists have discovered some gargantuous remnant craters and piles of debris, leftover from massive impacts that easily fit the bill. A Smoking Gun in Australia? One example of an impact powerful enough to trigger the Flood is the 56-milewide (90 km) Acraman in South Australia. It apparently resulted from a 2.5-mile-wide (4 km) asteroid that slammed into the Outback at almost 16 miles per second (26 km/s) (Figure 1).3 The explosion would have been equivalent to the detonation of 50,000–100,000 hydrogen bombs all at once! The impact blasted some of the pulverised pre-Flood crystalline basement rocks to sites 280 miles (450 km) away, and the debris accumulated in a layer 16 inches (40 cm) thick within some of the earliest Flood deposits.4 An asteroid impact—or several simultaneous impacts —that triggered the Flood may also have been part of an ongoing, solar-system-wide catastrophe that lasted for months or years.5 If so, we would expect to find evidence of many other meteorites that subsequently hit the earth duringthe flood. Two lines of evidence can be used to support this inference: (1) the rapid rate of past cratering during the Flood, and (2) the fields of meteorites left by this bombardment. Impact Crater Early in the Flood (Figure 1) A massive asteroid, perhaps 2.5 miles (4 km) wide, slammed into the earth at the start of the Flood, leaving a 56-mile-wide (90 km) impact crater in South Australia. Did this explosion, which equaled 50,000–100,000 hydrogen bombs, help trigger the Flood? Continuing Impacts Throughout the Flood Many meteorite impact craters have now been identified across the earth’s surface. These have been imprinted and preserved in layers deposited by the Flood6 and are also visible on today’s post-Flood land surface, such as the famous Meteor Crater just east of Flagstaff in northern Arizona.

A History of Craters: Two Interpretations (Figure 2) Geologists have found over a hundred impact craters on earth. On this table 39 of the 110 impacts were deposited in the uppermost rock layers, and the rest were spread over the many lower layers. If all these layers were deposited slowly over millions of years, then impacts have been more common in recent times. But if most layers were deposited during the year-long Flood, 71 impacts occurred during only one year. The other 39 were spread over the next 4,500 years.The impact “ages” of 110 craters (as estimated using the secular dating methods) are tabulated in Figure 2.7 Secular geologists thus believe that large meteorites crashed into the earth at a rate of 1–8 every 30 million years, but that the rate was much higher in recent times. However, those scientists who believe that the bulk of the fossil record was deposited during the Flood reach a very different conclusion. According to the Flood model, the first 71 of these 110 impacts would have occurred during the year of the Flood, and the other 39 were spread out over the 4,500 years since the Flood.The rate during the Flood was catastrophic—71 in one year versus an average of only one impact every 115 years. Even most of those 39 post-Flood impacts likely occurred in the first few decades after the Flood, as the catastrophic processes that triggered the Flood slowed to today’s snail’s pace. Fossil Meteorites in Sweden Not surprisingly, fossil meteorites have been discovered in various layers of the Flood’s geologic record. One of the most meteorite-dense areas in the world known to date is found in limestone beds in central and southern Sweden.8 These deposits are among the earliest laid down by the Flood.Forty fossil meteorites have been identified over the area within the Thorsberg quarry at Kinnekulle, southern Sweden.9 They vary in size from 0.28 x 0.40 inches (7 mm x 10 mm) to almost 6 x 8 inches (15 cm x 20 cm), and were recovered from a quarry area of almost 65,000 square feet (6000 m2). So far, no impact crater has been found associated with these fossil meteorites. Numerous chemical analyses have determined that these are all ordinary chondrite meteorites.10 Roughly 80% of meteorites that have fallen to the earth since the Flood are also chondrite meteorites.These forty fossil meteorites were recovered from Ordovician marine limestone beds, which are part of the Orthoceratite Limestone that was deposited across at least 100,000 square miles (250,000 km2) of the Baltic-Scandinavian region. The quarried section holding the meteorites is 10.5 feet (3.2 m) thick and has been divided into twelve named beds (Figure 3). “Meteorite Fall” During the Flood (Figure 3) At a quarry in Sweden, over forty meteorites have been found in a 10-foot (3 m) section of limestone. The fragments are scattered in twelve thin beds deposited early in the Flood. They share the same metallic qualities, as though they came from one meteor, which exploded when it entered the earth’s atmosphere.According to secular dating methods, these beds are estimated to have accumulated over 1.75 million years at an average rate of only 0.08 inches (2 mm) per 1,000 years. Interestingly, many of these forty fossil meteorites were discovered embedded at the contact surfaces between layers where secular geologists claim that nothing was being deposited for periods ranging from 100 to 1,000 years. Thus, secular geologists suggest that these meteorites fell on at least twelve different occasions.However, entombed with these fossil meteorites are abundant fossilized straight-shelled nautiloids, many up to about 16 inches (40 cm) long and about 2.5 inches (6 cm) thick. This begs the question—how could these fragile nautiloid shells be buried and preserved with their internal anatomy intact, and exhibit no signs of decay or erosion during such long periods when no sediments were being deposited?And how could water deposit these limestone beds and their fossil contents so evenly over such a vast area of at least 100,000 square miles (250,000 km2)? Even though the fossilized nautiloid shells show no particular orientation, they had to be buried rapidly to be so well preserved. Such rapid sedimentation over such a wide area requires a catastrophic flooding event.Furthermore, since all these fossil meteorites are essentially the same, and all likely accumulated during rapid sedimentation and catastrophic flooding, they could easily represent the remains of one meteorite fall. Such a catastrophic meteorite bombardment is consistent with the Global Flood.

Noah`s Lost World by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on April 1, 2014; last featured May 3, 2015 Shop Now That land was destroyed. In fact, it appears that the original continent was broken up and the pieces separated by thousands of miles. There were no Alps, Rockies, or snow-covered Himalayas; no Mississippi River rolling down into the Gulf of Mexico; no Amazon spilling into the Atlantic. The geography of the pre-Flood world was completely changed.It appears that the whole planet was different. Geologists have stumbled across tantalizing clues that allow them to begin reconstructing the sequence of events necessary to produce the dramatic features on earth today. This ongoing work is exciting for creationists. Though the details are fragmentary, a picture is emerging of what may have been the supercontinent .These findings point to Scripture, which makes much better sense of the catastrophic evidence than slow processes over millions of years. Continental Fragments from an Earlier Time Have you ever wondered what world was like before the Flood? The fragments that survived the Flood make it possible to begin piecing together the puzzle, at least in broad terms.Evidence indicates that the continents have moved around, broken apart, and crashed together, but the basic pieces have remained fairly constant. Violent catastrophes tore off slivers from the edges of the continents, but the core pieces seem to have survived.Geologists call the cores of these pieces “cratons.” They seem to have remained stable throughout history. At one time they appear to have been joined together, but violent forces—unleashed during the Flood—tore them into many fragments.The core of North America appears to be one of these cratons. In fact, most geologists believe it was a major component of the early earth’s supercontinent. Moving Around the Pieces

Rodinia (left) Our modern continents are made out of pieces from the original earth, which broke apart during the Flood. These core pieces are called cratons. Certain features within these pieces and on their edges can be lined up, helping us put them back together. We call this original continent Rodinia, but so much has been lost that many puzzles remain. Pangaea (middle) After the original continent broke apart during the Flood, the pieces crashed together temporarily, forming a supercontinent known as Pangaea. How do we know this? The pieces were already covered with fossil-containing sediment layers when they crashed together. In the impact zones, these layers were pushed into folded mountains that we still see today. Today (right) Today the earth consists of many separate continents, formed out of pieces from the first supercontinent. Only the cores survived. The rest of our modern continents were filled in by mud and sand that the Flood stripped from the earth’s surface. Geologists are studying the original pieces to see how the edges originally aligned. Coastlines of a Super Continent? One of the biggest clues for the original configuration of continents is evident on any world map. In 1859 creationist geologist Antonio Snider-Pellegrini noticed the jigsaw puzzle fit of North and South America with Europe and Africa if the Atlantic Ocean basin were closed up.1 He also realized that the landmass was probably a supercontinent. Then that supercontinent broke apart during the Flood and continental sprint opened up today’s Atlantic Ocean.Thus was born the catastrophic plate tectonics model, which provides a physical mechanism for the Flood.2 At the initiation of the Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up ripping apart the pre-Flood supercontinent. The upwelling molten rock from the underlying mantle then helped to propel the continental fragments across the globe, opening up new ocean basins and colliding to produce today’s mountains.Much geologic data is consistent with this scenario, although the rapid movement of plates is a separate topic.3 By locating the remnants of the original pre-Flood supercontinent we can project the movements of those fragments back to their original positions to potentially reassemble the lost world.

Pangaea Was Not The Lost pre-Flood World However, there is a complication that has sometimes caused misunderstandings. The supercontinent Snider-Pellegrini reconstructed became known by geologists as Pangaea (sometimes spelled Pangea), after the ancient Greek words panmeaning “entire” and Gaia meaning “Mother Earth.” We now know Pangea could not have been the pre-Flood supercontinent. Something must have occurred earlier to produce the features on Pangaea.When we remove the Atlantic Ocean and put the pieces back together again, we find a long mountain chain that ran from North America through Europe. The problem is that this chain, known as the Appalachian-Caledonian mountains, is made out of fossil-bearing sediments that were deposited earlier during the Flood. The only known way to form a mountain chain like this is for one continent to collide with another continent. This means that the Flood had to deposit fossil-bearing layers in North America and Europe before they crashed into each other to form Pangaea.Thus Pangaea cannot have been the pre-Flood supercontinent. It could only have been a temporary merger of continental fragments during the Flood, lasting no more than a few weeks. Pangaea was a supercontinent during the Flood, but it was completely underwater. How Do We Know Pangaea Is Not the Created Continent?

Today’s continents were once joined together because some mountain chains, such as the Appalachians (US) and Caledonians (UK and Scandinavia), are now separated by thousands of miles. But these mountains were not on the original supercontinent because they are made out of Flood deposits.The only way such mountain chains could form is for the original supercontinent to break apart, the plates get covered by layers containing dead animals, and then crash together temporarily. As these plates moved again, they took with them pieces of the mountain chain formed by the collision, one piece in the US and one piece in the UK and Scandinavia. Clues to Realign the Pre-Flood Continental Fragments Today geologists are trying to identify the edges of the continental fragments (or cratons), and then line them up in their original configuration. This helps them reconstruct the appearance of the original landmass.The Pangaean rearrangement is generally agreed on, but speculation increases as we go further back in time. For example, secular geologists find rock layers with large salt and sand deposits and assume these came from deserts that were close to the equator. However, Flood geologists know those sand layers were deposited underwater, apparently stripped from postulated coastal beaches around the world at that time.Even though speculation increases the further we go back in time, several reliable clues have come to geologists’ aid. Paleomagnetism One clue is called paleomagnetism. Don’t let the term intimidate you. Since the earth has a magnetic field, minerals that are magnetic will tend to line up with the earth’s magnetic poles. Whenever lava cools, for instance, those minerals will align themselves with the points of the compass.Once the rocks harden, geologists can use their alignment to determine the latitude where the rocks formed. If the landmass is moving quickly over hundreds of miles, different lavas will align in different magnetic directions as they harden. Rock Types Another clue is the physical content of the rocks. There are thousands of different types of rocks, such as huge piles of certain lavas that can be matched between some continents, and hundreds of ways to measure different rock contents, including the type of fossils they contain and the radioactive decay within certain minerals. Based on these clues, geologists can often determine which large deposits once lay next to each other, even after they have moved thousands of miles apart. Debris Deposits Perhaps the most significant clue to line up the continents is the type of sedimentary rock layers that the Flood initially deposited at the edges of the cratons. These deposits, just above the “basement” rocks, have some distinctive characteristics that can be lined up between continents.The basement rocks do not have multicellular fossils in them. They appear to be the originally created rocks, and sediment layers deposited in the pre-Flood world. The remnants are all that we have left after the Flood waters shaved off the surfaces of the continents.4 The boundary between the pre-Flood and Flood rocks usually has a distinctive erosion surface, sometimes associated with huge broken fragments of rocks.The huge fragments, sometimes measuring up to two-thirds of a mile across, represent places where the edge of the pre-Flood supercontinent collapsed at the initiation of the Flood.5 Huge slabs broke off and cascaded down into deeper waters. The initial Flood sediments then piled up on top of these debris deposits. The same deposits can be traced along the edge of the pre-Flood North American fragment.6Others have also noticed these same debris deposits at many other places around the globe at the same level in the strata sequence.7 They help define the edges of the pre-Flood supercontinent. The Pre-Flood Super Continent Rodinia So is there geologic evidence of an earlier supercontinent, which broke apart and its fragments subsequently collided and coalesced together to form Pangaea, which then broke apart into today’s continents that sprinted into their present positions? Yes! This earlier supercontinent, which was thus likely the lost pre-Flood world, has been called Rodinia (from the Russian word rodina, meaning “The Motherland”).What then did Rodinia look like? Geologists are fairly certain about the basic configuration of the core cratons, but they are still unsettled about many of the details. There are multiple ways to fit together the fragmentary continental pieces of the puzzle. Remember, we are looking at scattered, damaged, and altered rocky remnants of the pre-Flood world.Several reconstructions of Rodinia have been published.8 Yet all consider the North American fragment to be the central piece of the puzzle, and Australia and Eastern Antarctica are placed along the western edge. So far, nobody can agree on how much of the edges are missing, or the precise location of some fragments, such as South China or Australia.9 Reconstructing the lost world is very complex. No reconstruction is yet able to produce the one coherent supercontinent from all the fragments. All such reconstructions must have an element of speculation because so much was destroyed by the Flood cataclysm.But we do have a reasonable picture of what happened at the catastrophic initiation of the Flood. Huge plumes of molten rock blasted the underside of the earth’s crust like massive blow- torches.10 Eventually the crust was ripped apart, and steam and molten rock burst forth. The supercontinent collapsed, with slivers of land sliding into the ocean at the margins.11 It must have been horrific.

Rapid Opals in the Outback by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on July 1, 2014; last featured May 20, 2015 Only one place on Earth holds a treasure trove of precious opals—Australia’s Outback. Far from requiring millions of years, the unique conditions necessary to produce these beauties point to the Flood. Precious opal, with its dazzling display of brilliant blues, greens, yellows, and fiery reds, is one of the most recognizable Australian icons. More than 95 percent of the world’s opals are mined in this one country, explaining why it is the national gemstone. In fact, most gem-quality opals come from one locale in Australia—the Great Artesian Basin.So what is so unique about Australia’s Great Artesian Basin that it produces so many precious opals? The answer is revealing because it hints at unique circumstances that dovetail perfectly with the closing stages of the global cataclysmic Flood .It is also revealing to see how quickly opals can form. Laboratories can “grow” them within weeks using the right ingredients.1 When such experiments grow opals within the same kind of rock material that contains natural opals, the rapidly grown opal is virtually identical to the natural stones. Furthermore, commercial production of high-quality imitation opals has flooded the market, and these gems, too, are often difficult to distinguish from natural opals.2The ease of making opals—and their limited locale —points to the special conditions in Australia at the end of the Flood. What Are Opals? Opal is made out of silica, known in chemical terms as silicon dioxide (SiO 2). When this chemical compound crystallizes, it forms the common mineral known as quartz, found all over the Earth; in its manmade form, this material is window glass. But opals aren’t crystallized like quartz, and unlike quartz they have a high water content, usually 6–10 percent. This indicates that a different process formed the opals than quartz.Precious opal does have some structure, however. It is made of a regular three-dimensional array of uniformly sized silica spheres. When light passes through these orderly packed spheres, it diffracts and produces mesmerizing colors.3Common opal, unlike precious opal, does not have this structure, so it is generally milky white or gray with a waxy, translucent sheen. Nothing colorful here.Most quartz crystals were forged in relatively high temperatures and pressures—common conditions throughout the upper crust during the Flood. The less- structured opals, however, required a rarer, cooler setting, near the Earth’s surface. Where Are Precious Opals Found and Formed? With the exception of one location, all Australian precious opals are found at the same relative levels within 164 feet (50 m) of the ground surface. These deeply weathered layers are Lower Cretaceous sedimentary rocks located in the Great Artesian Basin.4 In fact, miners discovered a plesiosaur (sea creature) whose bones had turned to opal!The most productive mines in the basin are located at the edge, mainly at Coober Pedy and Andamooka (see map). Many famous white (or milky) opals were found here, such as the Queen’s Opal (or the Andamooka Opal), given to Queen Elizabeth II in 1954. The largest known opal came from Coober Pedy—the Olympic Australis, weighing in at a whopping 17,000 carats (7.6 pounds)! Other precious opal mines dot the Winton Formation in the interior of the basin, such as the mines at Lightning Ridge, which produce prized black opals.At the time these sediments were deposited, a huge basin, or “bowl” sat in the center of Australia. Water from the ocean flooded into this region, becoming a shallow extension of the deep sea. To the east on the edge of the Australian continent, huge volcanoes were belching out copious quantities of volcanic ash.5 Much of this volcanic ash mingled with fragments of mineral feldspar, organic debris, and pyrite (iron sulfide, FeS2), as these sedimentary layers were deposited across the Great Artesian Basin (Figures 1–2).Following deposition of these layers, the center of the continent uplifted, causing sea waters to rush off the continent and erode the recently laid sediments. Intense drying out of the landscape followed (conventional geology suggests a desert,). The climate was relatively cold in the interior of this southerly continent, and deep weathering occurred.6 A unique environmental interplay then formed the precious opals (Figure 3).7 In the Right Place at the Right Time Australia experienced a unique combination of circumstances that allowed gem-quality opals to form in abundance, unlike any other place on Earth. This took place during the Flood when a shallow “bowl” formed in the interior, known as the Great Artesian Basin. It is now ringed with rich opal mines. First, Massive Sediments Were Laid with a Mix of Special Ingredients During the Flood, a shallow sea formed in the Artesian Basin, where the floodwaters dumped a special combination of iron- rich and organic sediments.

Second, Volcanic Ash Was Mixed with the Top Layer of Sediments As the Flood deposited its final sediments in the Artesian Basin, an arc of volcanoes belched ash into the shallow sea, which mixed with the sediments, which included pyrite, feldspar, and organic debris.

Third, the Layers Were Lifted Up, Dried, and Weathered Quickly A complicated sequence of chemical reactions then occurred. First, water percolated down and reacted with the pyrite, making the water acidic. This acidic water then reacted with the feldspar to release the silica (the basic ingredient in opals). Conditions around 164 feet (50 m) became just right (alkaline, not acidic) for the minerals to break down further. The silica could precipitate as precious opal (*) only in tight spaces, such as along fractures and faults. The sequence of events and chemical reactions necessary to form opal gets quite complicated. But here is a summary. First, as surface water percolated deep downward through porous sandstones and faults, oxygen reacted with the pyrite in the sedimentary layers. As a result, the water became acidic. Then the acidic groundwater reacted with the feldspar and volcanic ash to produce a clay mineral known as kaolinite, along with sulfate minerals and silica.The minerals trapped in the confined spaces, fractures, and faults began to break down. Something very significant happened at the water level where the chemical conditions became alkaline (not acidic), around 164 feet (50 m) deep: further mineral breakdowns left iron oxides and even more silica, which precipitated as precious opal.In summary, the formation of precious opal required a unique combination of conditions. First it needed sediments that contained silica. Then it needed a chemical environment with strong acidic conditions to release the silica. Yet this silica had to appear in confined places so the acid and base could react (called neutralization) to produce the solid gems (by precipitation). This final step could occur only under alkaline conditions, as opposed to the acidic conditions that prevailed earlier. Without the final alkaline conditions, only common opal is formed. What a rare combination of events!Chemical “fingerprinting” of opals has confirmed that the Great Artesian Basin provided all these conditions—in the necessary sequence. The different precious opal deposits have different trace elements, depending on the local sediments where they came from. Other trace elements in the opals reflect the volcanic ash that later became part of the gems.8How could the Flood explain all these events? Massive sediments were deposited, with copious amounts of volcanic debris mixed into them, followed by a period of intense drying out and weathering. At the same time, all the right conditions at the right time had to be met to rearrange various chemical compounds in the weathered rock layers to produce Australia’s precious opals. Where Does Opal Formation Fit in the Flood Account? From what may be gleaned from the sedimentary layers of the rock record, it appears that the Earth’s sea level rose and peaked during the laying of the first Flood deposits (the Cambrian). The ocean then fluctuated up and down until the final deposits were laid, reaching the last peak when the Upper Cretaceous layers (highest dinosaur layers) were laid.10Thus it seems possible that the water level peaked for the last time when these deposits were laid. This certainly makes sense of the wiping out of the last dinosaurs as they scrambled to find a safe place to survive the rising waters and left footprints in the Winton Formation (among the main Cretaceous deposits where opals are now found).11The Flood waters then retreated from off the Australian continent, leaving the ground to dry out and intensely weather. During this intense drying phase at the very end of the Flood the unique combination of materials and environmental and chemical conditions produced the precious opals. None of these events required millions of years, as modern experiments confirm.

Yosemite Valley—Colossal Ice Carving Geology by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on January 1, 2015 Yes, it’s beautiful. The spacious skies and mountain majesties direct our thoughts toward our Maker. Yet none of these landscapes is the way they were originally created it. The beauty resulted from catastrophic processes that reshaped the planet. Consider Yosemite Valley, one of the most popular tourist sites in California. This spectacular U-shaped valley is carved into the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 150 miles (240 km) east of San Francisco. It stretches 7.5 miles (11 km), with an average width of about 1 mile (1.6 km) and sheer cliffs towering 3,000–4,000 feet (900–1,200 m) on either side. Creeks cascade from hanging side valleys down into the main valley.If this beautiful valley wasn`t created in the very beginning, how did it happen?The story behind most land features is more complicated than simply “water ran off the continent at the end of the Flood.” In the centuries following the Flood, the earth endured a series of major catastrophic adjustments as the land settled back into relative quiet. Continents rose and valleys fell. Even the climate changed, producing a brief Ice Age with massive glaciers that scoured the earth. The Rapid Power of Water and Ice at Yosemite The Flood deposited sedimentary layers across North America. Meanwhile, tectonic plates collided on the West Coast, forcing melted deep rocks (granites) to be squeezed up into the sediments. The layers buckled and uplifted, producing the mountains and valleys of the Sierra Nevadas. As the Flood waters retreated, they removed most of the sediments and exposed the hard granite. 1 of 3 Post Flood: Heavy rainfall in the decades after the Flood caused the granite to erode and weather quickly along parallel fractures.

Hoodoos of Bryce Canyon Bryce Canyon, Utah by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on July 1, 2014 The visitor overlooks at Bryce Canyon, Utah, provide a breathtaking spectacle of row upon row of towering columns painted pink, red, white, and orange. Together, these columns were formed in a series of horseshoe-shaped amphitheaters, cut into the surrounding cliffs. The largest and most spectacular is Bryce Amphitheater, about 12 miles (19 km) wide and 800 feet (245 m) deep, sporting thousands of columns.

duha127 | Thinkstockphotos.com Standing guard along the rim of a natural amphitheater is an army of tall columns, called hoodoos. Conditions were just right after the flood to form them rapidly. It is hard to capture in photographs the exquisite beauty of such a vast and devastated landscape. Particularly stunning are the delicate hoodoos, slender columns with balancing “hats” on them that look ready to fall, and sometimes do!Native American legends say these statues were the Legend People—animals that took on human form but committed a wicked deed and were turned into stone. Some were standing in rows, some sitting, and some clutching each other. You can still see the red paint on their faces.Evolutionists and Flood geologists both say these colorful layers formed at the bottom of a lake and that tectonic forces later pushed up the layers, exposing them to erosion. Evolutionists say this erosion occurred over millions of years.How Did It Really Happen?Yes, these layers were deposited by water, and catastrophic earth movements exposed them to rapid erosion. Before looking at the details, it is important to understand that Bryce is not, strictly speaking, a canyon! It’s actually the edge of a high plateau (Paunsaugunt Plateau, an arm of the even greater Colorado Plateau). This plateau rose up at the end of the Flood as the last waters receded, and Bryce was eroded into its side.The top of this plateau consists of the pink and white layers of the Claron Formation. The pink is due to the iron and manganese in the sediments, which reacted with oxygen. The hoodoos were carved out of these layers.The Claron Formation was likely among the first sediment layers deposited in the very early post-Flood period immediately after the last Flood waters receded. This plateau region was rising up around the same time, creating natural dams that produced massive lakes in the continent’s interior (including the Green River lakes of Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado). The waters eventually broke through the dams, surging away from the edges of the Paunsaugunt Plateau (see figure).1 Subsequently the water draining out of the bases of the plateau would have completed the carving of the cliffs and amphitheaters at Bryce (a process of headward erosion technically known as sapping).2Conditions at the edges of these cliffs are optimal for erosion. The layers of the Claron Formation vary in hardness, with softer mudstones alternating with harder sandstones or limestones. When the mudstones wash away, other rocks collapse more readily and wash away, too. The steep slopes increase the speed and energy of the rainwater running off the top. In the early years after the Flood, superstorms ravaged the earth and eroded it much faster than we see today. As the rain passes through the atmosphere, it becomes weakly acidic. That acid eats away at the sediments, especially the limy layers. Furthermore, the sedimentary layers at Bryce contain several sets of parallel cracks called joints. Water enters these cracks, where it freezes at night and thaws during the day—today the region experiences 200 freeze-thaw cycles per year—further weakening the rock layers.As the water flows downward, it picks up debris and scours any softer rocks it encounters, creating gullies. The gullies widen into canyons, exposing more surfaces to erosion along their vertical cracks. Further freeze-thaw cycles expand the cracks and peel off side layers, especially of the softer rocks. Normally we would expect weathered rocks to collapse into piles, rather than leaving behind tall, slender columns. The key to producing these marvels is putting a harder rock layer (a “cap”) on top of the soft layers. This prevents the soft rocks from wearing away so quickly. The “caps” on Thor’s Hammer and The Hunter, for example, are made of harder rock. How Were Hoodoos Formed?

The Flood left behind massive lakes in the continent’s interior, where thick deposits settled at the bottom. Later, these lakes broke free, catastrophically draining away the edges of the lakes.Water continued to seep out of the lower rocks at the edge of the plateau, taking more rock material with them (a process called sapping). The steep walls eroded quickly, without losing their shape.The steep slopes increased the speed of rainwater, which fell in heavy downpours after the Flood. The acidic water entered cracks and ate away the soft layers. Freeze-thaw cycles expanded the cracks and peeled off the sides. Normally weathered rocks would collapse into piles. But a harder top layer (“cap”) kept the softer layers from wearing away so quickly, leaving behind slender hoodoos.

The Sierra Nevadas Consider the landscape one step at a time. First, where did the Sierra Nevadas come from before the U-shaped valley was carved into them? During the Flood many sedimentary rock layers were deposited right across the North American continent, as the ocean waters rose and flooded it. Late in the Flood, the moving tectonic plates shoved some of the new Pacific Ocean floor down under the western edge of North America. As the ocean floor sank (subducted), the heat at depth caused the adjacent rock above to melt, producing granite magmas. The compression in this collision zone squeezed the granite magmas into the sediment layers above. At the same time, the layers were being buckled and uplifted, producing the Sierra Nevadas.When the granite magmas squeezed up into the buckled sedimentary layers, they cooled and crystallized in large bulbous masses, about 30,000 feet (9,150 m) below the surface. These cooling granites also contracted, resulting in parallel fractures at right angles to one another.As the Flood waters retreated, catastrophic erosion scoured the uplifting mountains. Most of the sedimentary layers were removed by the retreating water and exposed the more resistant bulbous granite masses. Despite all this erosion, the uplifted Sierra Nevadas still rose to over 14,000 feet (4,270 m) above sea level.The fractures influenced the direction of the weathering and erosion of the granite masses. Another factor was the peeling off (spalling) of sheets on the surface of the granites, often leaving behind large granite domes. In the early post-Flood decades, heavy rainfall eroded the deep Merced River Valley. The water, which was flowing in tributaries, could not cut into the more resistant granite walls and thus tumbled over waterfalls into the valley. The Yosemite Valley With the onset of the post-Flood Ice Age, the rapidly accumulating thick snows high in the Sierra Nevadas moved down the slopes to collect in valleys and grow into glaciers. As the glaciers then moved down from the tributaries into the Merced River Valley, rock debris within the ice underneath and at the edges of the thick glaciers scoured the valley floors and sides. Thus, what became the Yosemite Valley deepened dramatically. The valley floor was flattened so that the high granite cliffs on either side of the valley produced the U-shaped profile. And the tributaries became hanging valleys, with waterfalls today cascading over the now-towering granite cliffs down to the deep valley floor.At its peak the glacier in Yosemite Valley was nearly half a mile deep (at least 2,000 feet [600 m] thick). The weathering and erosive power of this glacier was immense. Almost half of one granite dome on the valley’s edge eroded away. After the glacier melted away at the end of the Ice Age, it left behind today’s famous Half Dome.Similar glacially eroded U-shaped valleys are found in the Rockies, the mountainous regions of Montana, the Scottish Highlands, Scandinavia, New Zealand, Canada, the European Alps, and the Himalayas.Though beautiful, these landforms remind us that catastrophe has marred a beautiful world that was once untouched by sin, and we look forward to a new heaven and earth with even more indescribable beauty to come.

Emeralds—Treasures from Catastrophe Geology by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on October 1, 2011; last featured August 22, 2012 Diamonds, rubies, and emeralds—the most treasured gems on earth. Each has unique qualities that require special conditions to form. Emeralds, prized for their color, are the most unlikely of all. What unique forces brought this gem to the earth’s surface for us to enjoy? Awesome Science Volumes 1 - 10 Shop NowDiamonds may get all the attention, but green emeralds, like red rubies and blue sapphires, are rarer and just as valuable.Such rich beauty, produced by a mixture of plain ingredients, has always fascinated mankind. How were these gems produced? Can we duplicate that process?To find clues, geologists have carefully investigated the rocks where emeralds are found. But since no human beings were present to observe how these gems were formed, finding the answers requires the correct starting assumptions. While secular geologists have done a good job cataloguing the physical clues found in the rocks, they have difficulty fully explaining the timing of the unlikely combination of chemicals and conditions that were necessary to form emeralds. What Are Emeralds? Emerald is the clear green gem and a rare variety of the relatively rare mineral beryl.1 This fairly hard mineral is composed of four elements—beryllium, aluminum, silicon, and oxygen (Be3Al2Si6O18).The emerald’s beautiful color is due to trace amounts of two other elements—chromium and/or vanadium.2 These elements give emerald a red fluorescence that enhances the luminosity (brightness) of its blue-green color.Emerald is the third most valuable gemstone, after diamond and ruby. The highest price paid for an emerald is U.S. $1.5 million for an exceptional 10.11-carat Colombian specimen in 2000.3 Unlike other gemstones, the color of an emerald is more highly valued than its clarity or brilliance.The leading source of emeralds is the Colombian highlands—the same place where the Aztecs and Incas got their gems. Even today, after centuries of production, Colombia still supplies an estimated 60% of the world’s emeralds, some 5.5 million carats per year worth more than U.S. $500 million.4 Although the African nation of Zambia is considered the world’s second most important source of emeralds by value, Brazil currently accounts for 10% of the world’s bulk emerald production. Emeralds have also been mined in the Middle East (Egypt and Afghanistan), Australia, Europe (Austria, Bulgaria, and Spain), Asia (China and India), a few other African nations (Madagascar, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe), and the United States (North Carolina). Where Are the Necessary Ingredients Found? Explaining the origin of this gem is a challenge because three conditions must be met. First, you need the mineral beryl, but it is rarely found near the surface of the earth’s continents. Beryllium tends to be concentrated in the base rock of the continents—granites. It is also found in large granitic veins called pegmatites and a clay-rich sedimentary rock known as black shale, which is rich in organic matter. Another source of beryl is the metamorphosed versions of these rocks, which have been transformed by great heat and pressure (thus they are called metamorphic rocks).The two other ingredients of emeralds, chromium and vanadium, are concentrated in a completely different kind of rock— and related rocks. These rocks are found on and beneath the ocean floors, but they are also found near the earth’s surface wherever earth movements have pushed ocean-floor rocks up onto the continents and transformed them by heat and pressure. Chromium and vanadium are found in these types of rocks, as well as some sedimentary rocks, particularly black shales.Since the essential ingredients are found in different rocks, unusual geologic conditions and processes had to have occurred for the beryllium to meet chromium and/or vanadium to make emeralds. And the key transport and mixing agent was hot water. Beryl, and therefore emerald, has been shown experimentally to form at temperatures of only 400–650°F (200–350°C) in the presence of water, depending also on the pressures and the coexisting minerals.5

ADVERTISEMENTSMaranatha Baptist UniversityPensacola Christian CollegeMasters College Three Scenarios Careful investigations of the rocks in the small mines from which emeralds are extracted have revealed three scenarios to explain how most emeralds formed.

In the first scenario, molten rock (magma) deep in the earth’s interior, containing beryllium and water, forced its way upward toward the earth’s surface and was squeezed into near-surface rocks, where it crystallized and cooled as granite. The last stage of this process produced pegmatite veins, which were rich in water and often beryllium. Wherever the molten granite and pegmatite veins (particularly the latter) came into contact with black shales and other rocks rich in chromium and vanadium, the hot water mixed the three essential ingredients to form emeralds.In Colombia there is no evidence of these granites or pegmatites. Instead, the emeralds are found within veins and fractured rocks along faults. The process of forming these high-quality emeralds began when hot groundwaters mixed with salt beds deep in the earth, causing the water to become highly alkaline and salty. Then the hot water, filled with various dissolved elements like beryllium, moved up along the faults and fractures into the shales.The third scenario took place as sedimentary rocks were crumpled and squeezed by earth movements. Water was already in these sediment layers, as the heat and pressure metamorphosed the rocks into schists. Fault zones developed during these earth movements, which provided conduits for heated waters to dissolve the required elements and form emeralds. When Were Emerald Formed? It is clear that the formation of emeralds was closely linked to major earth movements and rising waters during mountain- building. But the required beryllium also needed to be concentrated near the hot waters and then brought into contact with chromium and vanadium. This rare juxtaposition explains why emerald deposits occurred in so few places.These findings help us to place emerald deposits within the Creation-Flood framework of earth history. The global Flood involved a series of catastrophic plate movements and collisions, each step of which would explain the different scenarios to form these gems.6When the Flood event began, the pre-Flood supercontinent was torn into pieces. The catastrophic collision of these jostling crustal plates caused new mountains to rise, with the accompanying formation of the granites and metamorphic rocks associated with the creation of new emeralds.7The first mountains built early in the Flood year would have been deeply eroded, as the subsequent water movements scoured all previous sedimentary deposits. Any emerald deposits were then exposed and washed into new locations. This may explain why there are so few emeralds within early Flood deposits, such as those in Madagascar, Australia, and the United States, and why these are so small.On the other hand, the emeralds in mountains built late in the Flood, even though partially eroded by the Flood waters retreating off the continents, would be more likely to survive. This is the case in Colombia, where the shales were formed so late in the process that they were not even metamorphosed. In this marvelous way, post-Flood peoples would have access to this precious stone, despite the cataclysmic destruction of the old earth.Since emeralds are likely products of the Flood, they aren’t mentioned in the Scriptures until the time of the Exodus. By then, post-Flood populations had migrated from Babel to places where they found emeralds.If this interpretation is correct, the creation worldview explains why emeralds are so rare. It also may explain another reason why emeralds were in John’s vision of the New Jerusalem. Three scenarios have been proposed to explain how the necessary ingredients of emeralds came together . . .Rise of Magma To Form Granite Veins: Molten rock deep in the earth’s interior, containing beryllium and water, squeezes into near-surface rocks. Emeralds form wherever the magma comes into contact with black shales and other surface rocks rich in chromium and vanadium. Rise of Hot Groundwater Along Faults: Hot groundwaters mix with salt beds deep in the earth. Then the hot water, filled with dissolved elements like beryllium, moves up along faults and fractures into shales and other rocks containing chromium and vanadium. Fracturing of Metamorphic Rocks: Water erodes different rocks that contain the necessary minerals, and then the water deposits them in sediments. Pressure from earth movements converts these sedimentary layers into metamorphic rocks. Continuing earth movements then fracture these rock layers, creating conduits for heated water to dissolve and mix the ingredients. . . . and the global Flood provided the mountain-building forces necessary for all three scenarios!

The Geology of Israel Within the Creation-Flood Framework of History: 1. The Pre-Flood Rocks 1. The pre-Flood Rocks by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling and Dallel Gates on September 8, 2010

Abstract Precambrian (pre-Flood) schists, , and related metamorphic rocks, intruded by granites outcrop in the Elat area of southern Israel. Their radioisotope ages range from 800–813 Ma to 600 Ma. Also, just to the north of Elat is the Timna Igneous Complex, a 610–625 Ma series of granitic intrusions. All these rock units across this region were then intruded along fractures by swarms of dikes. Together these metamorphic and igneous rocks form the northernmost part of the Arabian-Nubian Shield, which would have likely been a section of the pre- Flood supercontinent Rodinia, established during the creation. It is thus envisaged that this cataclysmic rate of formation of these rocks during an episode of accelerated radioisotope decay accounts for their apparent long history when wrongly viewed in the context of today’s slow process rates. Unconformably overlying these Precambrian crystalline basement rocks are terminal Precambrian conglomerates, arkoses and interbedded, explosively-erupted volcanics that were obviously deposited by catastrophic debris avalanches as the pre-Flood supercontinent began to break up, with accompanying igneous activity that coincided with the bursting forth of the fountains of the great deep. It is envisaged that another episode of accelerated radioisotope decay must have begun months previously, the released heat progressively increasing so as to initiate the igneous activity that ultimately triggered the renting apart of the pre-Flood supercontinent at the onset of the Flood cataclysm. The pre-Flood/Flood boundary in southern Israel is thus determined as the major unconformity between the Precambrian crystalline basement and the overlying terminal Precambrian conglomerates, arkoses and volcanics, almost identical to that boundary as determined in the U.S. Southwest. The few 210Po radiohalos found in some of the basement granitic rocks are likely due to the basinal fluids that flowed from the basal Flood sediments when heated by burial under the overlying thick, rapidly-accumulated sequence of Flood sediments. Shop Now Keywords: Israel, geology, pre-Flood, Precambrian, schists, gneisses, granites, dikes, radioisotope ages, radiohalos, Arabian-Nubian Shield, conglomerates, volcanics, accelerated radioisotope decay, unconformity, pre- Flood/Flood boundary Introduction Of the many countries whose geology would be useful to understand within the creation-Flood framework of earth history it would be Israel. Israel is the land in which so many post-Flood events occurred. Understanding the geology of Israel would thus provide background to those events, and potential insights as to where and how they happened. However, there is also the possibility some of the early post-Flood events may correspond to geologic events responsible for specific rock formations, and therefore date those rock layers within the creation chronology. The land of Israel certainly did not exist in its present form prior to the Flood, which totally restructured and re-shaped the earth’s crust and surface. For example, the Dead Sea trough and Jordan River valley lie along a major north-south fault zone, a narrow system of faults called the Dead Sea Transform Fault, which is the primary geologic structure in Israel (fig 1). This fault system extends today from the major fold mountains of southern Turkey southward through Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the Gulf of Aqaba to the zone of pronounced rift faulting in the Red Sea and beyond into Africa. The Dead Sea Transform Fault marks the boundary between two enormous lithospheric plates, the Arabian plate to the east, and the African plate to the west (fig. 1). Rock types and geologic structures on both sides of this enormous horizontal-slip fault suggest that the Arabian plate has moved northward horizontally by about 95 km (60 miles) relative to its original position against the African plate. It is because of this and other dramatic evidence of major movements of the earth’s lithospheric plates in the past having shaped the earth’s surface geology, composed in many places on the continents of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers which were deposited by the Flood, that the Flood must have been a global tectonic catastrophe. Therefore, the model for the Flood event adopted here is catastrophic plate tectonics (Austin et al. 1994; Baumgardner 2003). A fuller treatment of the application of that model to the geologic record within the creation-Flood framework of earth history is provided by Snelling (2009). That treatment also includes discussion of the criteria for determining the pre-Flood/Flood boundary in the geologic record, which is also applicable to the descriptive overview here of the pre-Flood geology of Israel.

Fig. 1. Geologic structure map of Israel and its adjoining neighbors showing major faults and folds (after Garfunkel 1978). Pre-Flood Rock Units Fig. 2 is a fairly detailed map of the geology of the southern half of Israel (Sneh et al 1998) where pre-Flood rocks outcrop. Fig. 3 is a generalized stratigraphic chart showing the succession of rock units across Israel (Bartov and Arkin 1980; Ilani, Flexer, and Kronfeld 1987). The only Precambrian crystalline basement rocks at the base of the stratigraphic succession are in the extreme south of Israel, around Elat. A more detailed geological map of that area is shown in Fig. 4. These pre-Flood crystalline basement rocks consist of granitic and metamorphic rocks. Garfunkel (1980) provides a comprehensive description of these rocks, dividing them into the Elat and Roded associations (or terrains), and the Timna Igneous Complex (table 1). The Elat Association (or Terrain) Just to the south and west of Elat (fig. 4) outcrops consist of Elat Schist, the Taba , the Shahmon Metabasites, the Elat Granite Gneiss and the Elat Granite (Garfunkel 1980; Halpern and Tristan 1981; Kröner, Eyal and Eyal 1990) (table 1). The relationships between these rock units are depicted in the cross-section in Fig. 5. The Elat Schist has been determined stratigraphically as the oldest rock unit, which has been confirmed by an Rb-Sr isochron age determination of 807±35 Ma (Halpern and Tristan 1981), and by zircon U-Pb age determinations of 800±13 Ma and 813±7 Ma (Eyal, Eyal, and Kroner 1991; Kröner, Eyal, and Eyal 1990). It is a monotonous formation which consists primarily of a mosaic of quartz, plagioclase (oligoclase-andesine), biotite, and some muscovite in variable proportions, with minor intercalations of impure quartzitic layers up to 10 cm thick. Mineralogical and geochemical data support a pelitic or shaly-graywacke (semipelitic) origin for most of this unit (Eyal 1980), which is estimated to be 5–10 km thick normal to the strike of the schistosity, and which has experienced prograde regional metamorphism well into the amphibolite facies, but of the low pressure (Abukuma) type, similar to other parts of the Arabian-Nubian Shield (Shimron and Zwart 1970). The lowest grade rocks, within the biotite isograd, occur in the north and are biotite-muscovite-chlorite garnet-bearing schists. Most of the Elat Schist consists of rocks within the garnet (almandine) isograd and does not contain primary chlorite. A small area is within the staurolite isograd, while cordierite occurs in even smaller areas. Andalusite occurs in the latter two zones, while primary muscovite is uncommon, in contrast to the lower grade rocks. The cordierite-staurolite assemblage of the highest grade rocks indicates maximum temperatures in the range of 550–650°C, and pressures of 2–5 kbar, equivalent to a depth of about 7–15 km (Ganguly 1972; Winkler 1979). Mineral analyses have been used by Matthews et al. (1989) to calculate, on the basis of continuous reaction exchange geothermobarometry (Mg/Fe between garnet and biotite; Ca between garnet and plagioclase), that conditions for a segment of the pressure-temperature path of the high grade staurolite-cordierite- sillimanite zone assemblages were 580–600°C and 3.8–4.6 kbar. The schists bear evidence of four stages of mineral growth and deformation. The Elat Schist was intruded by a variety of plutonic rock units, now mostly gabbroic to granitic orthogneisses, the most prominent being the Taba Gneiss and the Elat Granite Gneiss. Fig. 2. Detailed geologic map of the southern half of Israel, from the Dead Sea to Elat on the Red Sea and encompassing the Negev (left) (after Sneh et al. 1998). The only Precambrian (pre-Flood) rocks are found in the outlined areas enlarged in Figs. 4 and 6. Details of most of the rock units on the map are listed in the legend (below).

The Taba Gneiss is a foliated and lineated, medium-grained quartz-diorite gneiss (fig. 4 and table 1), consisting of quartz (25%), plagioclase (oligoclase) (50–60%), and biotite, rarely with some hornblende or microcline (Garfunkel 1980; Halpern and Tristan 1981). The rock is usually uniform, but occasionally has an indistinct coarse layering. Contacts with the schists are sharp. Its texture is dominated by elongated aggregates of the main constituent minerals, which produce the pronounced lineation and moderate to weak foliation. Grain sizes are very variable. The texture seems to indicate formation from a coarse-grained tonalitic pluton, followed by metamorphism and incomplete post-deformational recrystallization. To the west of Elat this gneiss is intensely deformed in a broad shear zone so the rock has a schistose appearance and has been mapped as a “tectonic schist” (Kröner, Eyal, and Eyal 1990). Ages have been determined by zircon U-Pb analyses at 780±10 Ma and 770±9 Ma for this gneiss and this schist respectively (Kröner, Eyal, and Eyal 1990), and of 779±8 Ma and 782±9 Ma for the gneiss and 768±9 Ma for the schist (Eyal, Eyal, and Kröner 1991). These ages are indistinguishable within the error margins, so this confirms the field interpretation that the tectonic schist represents a strongly sheared variety of the Taba Gneiss.

Fig. 3. A generalized stratigraphic chart showing the succession of rock units (their names and geologic ages) across Israel from south (right) to north (left) (after Bartov and Arkin 1980; Ilani et al. 1987). The Elat Granite Gneiss was formed from granitic plutons emplaced into the pelitic Elat Schist and the Taba Gneiss, and also from small tabular bodies emplaced in the Taba Gneiss (Garfunkel 1980; Halpern and Tristen 1981). It is composed of about equal amounts of quartz, plagioclase (oligoclase) and alkali feldspar, with biotite accounting for 5– 15% of the rock. The main minerals, especially quartz and biotite, tend to form elongated aggregates. The texture is very variable and displays varying grades of recrystallization due to deformation (Heinmann et al. 1995). The contacts with the surrounding rocks are generally concordant, and often accompanied by feldspathization of the adjacent rocks. This aureole, and the occurrence in places of schist xenoliths, indicates that the original granite was emplaced into already metamorphosed Elat Schist. Foliation and lineation vary from indistinct to very prominent, but lineations are generally better developed. Both the lineations and foliations of the gneiss are parallel to the contacts and to structures in the enclosing rocks. Single grain zircon U-Pb determinations yield a mean 207Pb/206Pb age of 744±5 Ma, slightly younger than the Taba Gneiss and thus confirming the field relationships. The Shahmon Metabasites intrude the Elat Schist and comprise a suite of coarse- to medium-grained metamorphosed plutonic rocks that originally consisted of a layered and differentiated intrusion a few hundred meters thick. They form a diverse range of compositions, from hornblende metagabbro to biotite hornblende metadiorite (Heinmann et al. 1995), but commonly consist of plagioclase (andesine-labradorite) and amphiboles. Variations in the amounts of these minerals and in grain size produce bands and layers less than 1 cm to many meters thick. A border zone consists of well-layered rocks having a biotite- and quartz-dioritic composition, and near the borders the metabasites contain interbeds of schist. This banding, layering and border facies are interpreted as a result of crystal accumulation and gross differentiation of the original intrusion. The occurrence of actinolite and plagioclase, but no epidote, in these rocks indicates metamorphism of them reached low amphibolite facies, which is compatible with their position close to the almandine isograd in the surrounding schists. Foliation and mineral orientation are poorly or moderately developed, except in the mica-rich layers and in the border zone where the structure is concordant with that of the enclosing schists. Originally thought to be the oldest plutonic assemblage of the area with primary igneous layering well preserved, abundant elongated xenoliths of foliated Elat Schist indicate that the diorite-gabbro intrusion post dated at least part of the schist deformation. This is confirmed by single-grain zircon U-Pb age determinations of 640±12 to 644±11 Ma (Kröner, Eyal and Eyal 1990), and of 640±10 Ma (Eyal, Eyal and Kröner 1991). Amphiboles from this metabasite also yielded a mean Ar-Ar plateau age of 632 Ma (Heimann et al. 1995) and an imprecise Ar-Ar isochron age of 625±88 Ma (due to the presence of excess Ar) (Cosca, Shimron, and Caby 1999). These age determinations are thus consistent with the field evidence that this suite of mafic plutonic rocks intrudes and crosscuts the foliation of the older host Elat Schist, even though these metabasites show varying degrees of deformation and recystallization that occurred subsequent to their intrusion. Fig. 4. The Precambrian (pre-Flood) crystalline basement (metamorphic and igneous) rocks in the Elat area of southernmost Israel (after Garfunkel 1980; Sneh et al. 1998). The locations of the samples collected from Shehoret Canyon for the radiohalos study are shown in the far north of the map area. Straight and rather steeply- dipping bands of lineated hornblende-bearing schistose rocks cross all rock types already described above. They are up to a few meters wide and a few hundred meters long, strike E-W to NE-SW, and tend to form swarms. Bentor (1961) interpreted these bands as metamorphosed dikes. They consist now of plagioclase (andesine) (up to 60%), biotite (20–30%), and hornblende (10–20%), with quartz minor or absent, and sphene, apatite, and iron oxides as usual accessories. This mineralogy indicates metamorphism in the low amphibolite facies, which is generally not much different from the grade of the enclosing pelitic schists. Cohen et al. (2000) and Katz et al. (2004) determined that the original chemical composition of these dikes was andesite, which was little changed by this metamorphism, except where hot fluids had caused minor alteration, mainly along the contacts with the host rocks. The texture consists of a granoblastic mosaic, with the mafic minerals arranged in layers or sheaves. Grain size is uniform. Lineation is very well developed and mostly parallel to that in the enclosing rocks. Good foliation is sometimes developed. The fabrics are conspicuously parallel to the walls of the dikes, but sometimes are deformed and deviate by up to 20°–30° from the walls. These relationships indicate that the dikes were intruded after the development of the schistosity, and after folding of the contact with the granitic gneiss. Subsequently a penetrative lineation was imposed on all rocks. This lineation was clearly produced during metamorphism of the dikes, and is thus younger than the foliation of the pelitic schists. This late deformation was inhomogeneous, being very strong in the dikes themselves, and often also in the adjacent granitic gneiss, but mild in the pelitic schists even immediately adjacent to the dikes where the older schistosity survived. Heimann et al. (1995) obtained 40Ar/39Ar total-gas ages of 495–592 Ma for amphiboles and 446 Ma and 316–336 Ma (average 327 Ma) for biotites, compared with 40Ar/39Ar plateau ages of 546±3 Ma to 596±2 Ma (amphiboles) and 369±2 Ma to 389±1 Ma (biotites). Such a broad range of ages was interpreted as implying two thermal events affecting these dikes subsequent to their intrusion—the first coinciding with intrusion of the Elat Granite (recorded by the amphiboles), and a much later thermal event (recorded by the biotites). However, there are two generations of these metamorphosed andesite dikes in the Roded area, one which is discordant to the metamorphic structure of the country rocks and which intrudes the Roded Quartz- Diorite, and the other which is concordant to the metamorphic structure but which does not intrude the Roded Quartz-Diorite (Katz et al. 1998, 2004). Since this diorite yields zircon U-Pb ages of 634±2 Ma (Katz et al. 1998) and 630±3 Ma (Stein and Goldstein 1996), these andesite dikes must have been intruded respectively just prior to, and just after, ~632 Ma (Katz et al. 2004). Fig. 5. A schematic geologic cross-section depicting the relationships between the various metamorphic and igneous Precambrian (pre-Flood) basement rock units in the Elat area of southernmost Israel (after Garfunkel 1980). The symbols and colors for the rock units are the same as in Fig. 4. The Elat Granite, which outcrops to the west and north of Elat (fig. 4), forms several undeformed plutons of red porphyritic granite consisting of very sodic plagioclase (up to 50%), microcline (15–30%), and quartz (about 25%), with small quantities of biotite and some muscovite, and apatite, zircon and iron oxides as minor accessories (Garfunkel 1980; Halpern and Tristen 1981). The texture of this calc-alkaline granite is generally equigranular, with no foliation and almost no mineral lineation. The coexistence of sodic plagioclase with non-perthitic microcline (K-feldspar) indicates sub-solvus crystallization at pressures exceeding 3–5 kbar, that is, at a depth of 10–15 km (Seck 1971). At such pressures crystallization of plagioclase before quartz indicates a low (few %) water content (Wyllie et al. 1976). The granite near the contacts is very contaminated. Migmatites are developed along some contacts with the schists, while contacts with the metabasites and Taba Gneiss are characterized by fracturing of the host rocks which are invaded by apophyses of granite. Feldpathization is common along the contacts. The plutons of the Elat Granite are grossly concordant with the regional structure of the enclosing rocks in spite of small scale complications of contacts. The metamorphics tend to dip away from the granite plutons, suggesting some shouldering aside of the country rocks by the granite bodies, which were thus intruded after deformation of the schists and gneisses (fig. 5). This is confirmed by Rb-Sr age determinations (Halpern and Tristen 1981). Several whole-rock analyses of the granite plotted on a 590 Ma reference isochron, while the constituent minerals yielded a mineral isochron age of 597±1 Ma. Subsequently, Stein and Goldstein (1996) obtained a Rb-Sr isochron age for the Elat Granite of 600 Ma, while Cosca, Shimron, and Caby (1999) obtained an Ar-Ar plateau age of 597±1 Ma for biotite from the Elat Granite. The Roded Association (or Terrain) This rock suite has been relatively little studied. Garfunkel (1980) reported that there are hardly any rock types in common with the spatially adjacent Elat Association. Furthermore, the structural trend in the Roded Association rocks is close to N-S, almost perpendicular to that found in the rocks of the Elat Association. The distribution of the main Roded rock types is shown in Fig. 4 and their spatial relationships in Fig. 5. The undifferentiated metamorphics include schists, gneisses, and migmatites. Table 1 lists the main Roded rock types. The schists are variable in composition. In the north they consist essentially of plagioclase (andesine), biotite and hornblende, though some layers contain little or no biotite. In the south the schists consist of sodic plagioclase, quartz, biotite, and some muscovite, while hornblende is rare or absent. Garnet is often present. Some beds contain more than 50% quartz. Secondary epidote, chlorite and sericite are widespread. The texture consists of equigranular granoblastic mosaics. The southern schists are obviously pelitic metasediments somewhat similar to those of the Elat Association and have even been designated as Elat Schist by Gutkin and Eyal (1998), whereas those in the north are quite different and may be meta- volcanics. K-Ar dating of biotite from a schist sample yielded an age of 715±9 Ma (Katz et al. 1998). Table 1. Precambrian crystalline basement rock units in southern Israel. Geographic Rock Units Constituents Radioisotope Ages Region

Plagioclase, orthoclase, quartz and biotite, with599.3±2.0 Ma Quartz monzodiorite some hornblende (zircon U-Pb)

609±10 Ma (zircon U-Pb) Alkali granite Perthite, orthoclase, albite and quartz, with biotite 592±7 Ma (Rb-Sr isochron)

610±8 Ma (zircon U-Pb) Monzodiorite Plagioclase, orthoclase, amphibole and biotite 592±7 Ma (Rb-Sr isochron)

Olivine norite Olivine, orthopyroxene, amphibole, biotite,611±10 Ma (gabbro) magnetite and accessories (zircon U-Pb)

Timna Igneous Plagioclase, orthoclase, quartz, perthite and some Complex Porphyritic granite biotite 625±5 Ma (zircon U-Pb)

Elat Association 597±1 Ma (Rb-Sr mineral isochron) (or Terrain) Sodic plagioclase, microline and quartz, with biotite600 Ma (Rb-Sr isochron) Elat Granite and some muscovite 597±1 Ma (Ar-Ar plateau age)

596±2 Ma (amphibole Ar-Ar Plagioclase, biotite and hornblende, with quartzplateau age) Schistose dikes minor or absent ~632 Ma (host’s zircon U-Pb)

642 Ma and 640±10 Ma (zircon U-Pb) Shahmon Hornblende metagabbro to biotite hornblende632 Ma (mean amphibole Ar-Ar Metabasites metadiorite plateau age)

Elat Granite Quartz, oligoclase and alkali feldspar, with 5–15%744±5 Ma Gneiss biotite (zircon U-Pb)

Taba Gneiss Quartz, oligoclase and biotite, rarely with768±9 Ma to 782±9 Ma hornblende or microcline (zircon U-Pb)

807±35 Ma (Rb-Sr isochron) Quartz, oligoclase-andesine, biotite and some800±13 Ma to 813±7 Ma (zircon U- Elat Schist muscovite Pb)

634±2 Ma (zircon U-Pb) Oligoclase-andesine, quartz, biotite and617±11 Ma and 647±20 Ma Roded Quartz-Dioritehornblende, with minor microcline (amphibole and biotite K-Ar)

Melanosomes—Quartz, plagioclase and biotite, sometimes with garnet or muscovite Leucosomes720 Ma Migmatites —Quartz and plagioclase (zircon U-Pb)

Amphibolites and Hornblende and plagioclase, with biotite and724±7 Ma mafic schists sometimes quartz (amphibole K-Ar)

Plagioclase, quartz and biotite, frequently with Gneisses hornblende Roded Association Andesine, biotite, hornblende and quartz,715±9 Ma (or Terrain) Schists sometimes with garnet and muscovite (biotite K-Ar) Several types of gneisses occur, mainly to the west of the schists. They generally have a quartz-dioritic or tonalitic composition, with up to 15% biotite, and frequently also some hornblende which may contain quartz inclusions. Secondary chlorite, epidote and iron oxides have developed mainly at the expense of the mafic minerals, and rarely does secondary muscovite occur. Some relatively large rectangular plagioclase crystals may be relicts of an igneous protolith. However, most plagioclase crystals are polygonal and form granoblastic mosaics, or slightly elongated aggregates. The mafic minerals often form aggregates which produce the foliation and lineation. Locally the gneisses are folded on a scale of a centimeter to several meters. In places the gneisses are banded, mainly close to the migmatite areas. Often the normal simple mineral mosaics here pass into crystals with complicated shapes and variable sizes, sutured textures very characteristic of migmatites. The gneisses were probably derived from rather homogeneous quartz-dioritic to tonalitic plutons.The migmatites are widespread in several locations, occurring on the periphery of the Roded Quartz-Diorite pluton (fig. 4 and below). The rock consists of schist layers, often feldspathized, and quartz-plagioclase layers from 1 mm to several centimeters thick. Biotite layers are common. In one area the schist beds are often without quartz. The grain size is very variable, and sutured textures are very common. Intricate mesoscopic folding is very conspicuous. In another area this Roded Migmatite has been subdivided into two types—mildly folded migmatites and intensely folded migmatites (Gutkin and Eyal 1998). They are described as dark, banded rocks showing well-developed layers of leucosomes and melanosomes ranging in thickness from a few millimeters to tens of centimeters. The melanosomes consist of quartz (30–40%), plagioclase (20–30%) and biotite (20–40%), but in the mildly folded migmatites up to 15% garnet is present, whereas it is rare in the intensely folded migmatites, which instead contain 10–20% muscovite. The leucosomes are predominantly quartz and plagioclase. The absence of K-feldspar from the leucosomes is inconsistent with derivation as a partial melt of the neighboring biotite-bearing rocks (Winkler 1979). Thus the migmatites were probably formed by metamorphic differentiation calculated to have occurred at approximately 600°C and 4.5 kbar, based on the analysed compositions of garnets and the muscovite-plagioclase geobarometer respectively (Gutkin and Eyal 1998). Zircon U-Pb dating of the migmatites has yielded an age of 720 Ma (Gutkin and Eyal 1998).Regular bands of biotite-quartz-plagioclase schists, hornblende-biotite schist and amphibolites cross the gneisses or are adjacent to them (Katz et al. 1998). These have been interpreted as probably metamorphosed dikes, similar to those in the Elat Association. In some places separate small bodies of metagabbro and amphibolite have been mapped (Gutkin and Eyal 1998). Their foliation and lineation are parallel to their walls. Furthermore, the gneisses contain a variety of irregular schist inclusions which may range from mica schists through hornblende schists to amphibolites. They are often deformed. These may be in part xenoliths or metamorphosed and dismembered minor intrusions. K-Ar dating of amphibole from an amphibolite sample yielded an age of 724±7 Ma (Katz et al. 1998).The Roded Quartz-Diorite (figs. 4 and 5, and table 1) consists of variable amounts of plagioclase (oligoclase-andesine) (50–70%), quartz (up to 20%), biotite (up to 25%), hornblende (up to 15%), and minor microcline (up to 5%). Chlorite, iron oxides, epidote, sericite and sometimes calcite replace the mafic minerals and plagioclase. The mafic minerals form aggregates, which are often elongated, while tabular plagioclase crystals sometimes tend to be oriented. These features may produce a weak foliation which trends roughly N-S. In at least one area this unit has been divided into a quartz-diorite gneiss and a quartz-diorite, even though both are homogeneous and have similar mineralogical and chemical compositions (Gutkin and Eyal 1998). Mafic stringers and elongated xenoliths, locally quite abundant, are arranged parallel to the foliation. In places there are abrupt and cross- cutting contacts between varieties of quartz-diorite. The xenoliths are medium- to fine-grained igneous or foliated rocks, all having a mela-quartz-dioritic to mela-dioritic composition. As already described above, migmatites occur along much of the borders of the Roded Quartz-Diorite pluton (fig. 4). They contain tongues, often discordant, of a somewhat foliated rock similar to the quartz-diorite, only richer in mafic minerals. The eastern border of the pluton is grossly parallel to the structural grain of the adjacent metamorphics, but to the north and south the transition is along strike, though contacts are largely masked by faults. This quartz-diorite body is interpreted as having been formed by anatexis, and did not move far from its place of origin (Garfunkel 1980). The mosaics of polygonal quartz and untwinned plagioclase crystals and poikilitic hornblende crystals in the quartz-diorite that resemble those found in the gneisses, and the stringers of mafic minerals and the xenoliths, are probably relicts of the source rocks. The heterogeneity of the pluton suggests incomplete mixing and production of many batches of partial melt. It is also possible that a portion of the melt moved still further upwards in the crust at that time, so the present rock is a residue left behind. The bordering migmatites, though most probably formed by metamorphic differentiation, must be genetically linked to the pluton because of their spatial relationship. The foliation of the quartz-diorite probably formed by flow during emplacement. Zircon U-Pb dating of the quartz-diorite has yielded a crystallization age of 634±2 Ma, while K-Ar dating of amphiboles and biotites from the same rock gave ages of 617±11 Ma and 647±20 Ma respectively (Katz et al. 1998). Thus the intrusion of this quartz-diorite is regarded as occurring at around 632 Ma (Katz et al. 2004).Schistose dikes, which were originally andesite (Cohen et al. 2000, Katz et al. 2004), also cut across the Roded Quartz-Diorite and are discordant to the metamorphic structure of the country rocks. Other such dikes which are concordant with the metamorphic structure do not intrude the quartz-diorite (Katz et al. 2004). Thus, due to the dating of the quartz-diorite (Katz et al. 1998; Stein and Goldstein 1996) these dikes must have been intruded just prior to, and just after, ~632 Ma (Katz et al. 2004).A porphyritic granite (or granite ) occurs in the northern part of the Roded terrain (fig. 4). This rock has many features resembling the quartz-diorite, being heterogeneous, and rich in xenoliths and in bands of mafic minerals. However, this porphyritic granite contains abundant microcline (K-feldspar) as phenocrysts, often perthitic, enclosing plagioclase, quartz and mica crystals, and it is also common in the matrix. The latter resembles the matrix of the quartz- diorite, but is richer in quartz and microcline, has a lower color index, and no hornblende. Myrmekite and replacement of plagioclase by K-feldspar are common. Migmatites are also developed along the border of this granite and contain K-feldspar in the leucosome, in contrast to the neighboring migmatites developed on the northern periphery of the quartz-diorite.Small irregular stocks, dikes or veins of leuco-granites intrude all of already-described rock units, with sharp contacts. The compositions of these leuco-granites are quite variable, and are characterized by a low color index and a high content of K-feldspar (25–50%). The plagioclase is albite-oligoclase. The leuco-granites and the enclosing rocks are crossed by numerous fractures with displacements of less than a meter and by cataclastite bands.The Roded Quartz-Diorite and porphyritic granite plutons, which are heterogenous, charged with inclusions, somewhat foliated and associated with migmatites, resemble deep-seated plutons, whereas the Elat Granite plutons are of the high-level type (Buddington 1959; Hutchinson 1970). This suggests that the Roded Association (or terrain) was formed deeper in the crust, which is consistent with geothermometry studies based on analysed mineral chemistries in the schists, gneisses and amphibolites (Katz et al. 1998). The peak metamorphic pressure-temperature conditions were inferred to have been about 650°C and less than 5 kbar, probably attained by 725 Ma. Both the Elat and Roded suites of rocks though appear to record an overall similar history. In both terrains metamorphosed dikes probably distinguish an older metamorphic complex, including metasediments and completely reconstituted intrusions, from young unmetamorphosed intrusions. Timna Igneous Complex The most northerly outcrops of the Precambrian crystalline basement rocks are in the Timna area north of Elat (fig. 2). The intrusive rocks of the Timna Igneous Complex consists of five major plutonic and various hypabyssal lithologies (fig. 6 and table 1) (Beyth 1987; Beyth et al. 1994a; Shpitzer, Beyth, and Matthews 1991). The plutonic variants include:Cumulates of olivine norite (gabbro), with up to 40% olivine, 7% orthopyroxene, 15% amphibole, 14% plagioclase, 10% biotite, 8% magnetite (and sulfides), and 6% accessories (apatite and zircon). Minor pyroxene hornblende peridotite accompanies the olivine norite.Amphibole diorite, monzodiorite and monzonite, collectively mapped as monzodiorite (fig. 6), with 32–38% plagioclase, 5–35% orthoclase, 11–35% amphibole, 5–19% biotite, 4–5% magnetite (and sulfides), and 1–3% accessories. Quartz monzodiorite, with 40% plagioclase, 23% orthoclase, 15% quartz, 3% hornblende, 11% biotite, 5% magnetite (and sulfides), and 3% accessories.Porphyritic granite, with 44% plagioclase, 25% orthoclase, 23% quartz, 3% perthite, 3% biotite, and 2% accessories.Alkali granite (pink), accompanied by alkali syenite, with 24–57% perthite, 23% orthoclase, 11– 25% albite, 22–24% quartz, 3–4% biotite, 1–3% magnetite (and sulfides), and 1-2% accessories. The hypabyssal rocks include dikes of rhyolite, andesite (potassic trachyandesites and shoshonites) (Beyth and Peltz 1992), and (dolerite), as well as composite andesite-rhyolite dikes (fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Location and general geologic maps of, with two geologic cross-sections through, the Timna Igneous Complex in the Mt. Timna area of southernmost Israel (after Beyth et al. 1994a). The locations of the samples collected for the radiohalos study are shown.The Timna Igneous Complex is exposed over an area of about 20 km2 around Mt. Timna (fig. 6). The alkali granite (and syenite) make up the majority of these exposures, occupying the topographically elevated parts. The lower elevations surrounding the alkali granite are built of olivine norite blocks, typically 30 × 30 meters, which are most probably xenoliths, engulfed by monzodiorite with diffuse contacts. The monzodiorites are very heterogeneous and appear to be differentiated from olivine norite to amphibole monzonite (Shpitzer, Beyth, and Matthews 1991). These are associated with small alkali granite stocks, while the massive part of the alkali granite and syenite overlie the monzodiorite. All these rocks are intruded into the porphyritic granite (fig. 6), which occurs as blocks of varying sizes. The youngest plutonic rock is the quartz monzodiorite which contains numerous xenoliths of all the previously mentioned (earlier) rock types. The dikes intrude this plutonic complex in three distinctive generations (Beyth et al. 1994a). The oldest one is in a N-S direction, the intermediate and dominant one is in an ENE direction, and the youngest in a NW direction (fig. 6). Zircon U-Pb dating determinations confirm the sequence in which the intrusions were emplaced (table 1) as gleaned from the field evidence outlined above. The porphyritic granite yielded an age of 625±5 Ma, and is thus clearly the oldest unit exposed at Timna (Beyth et al. 1994a). Similar ages were obtained for the olivine norite (611±10 Ma), monzodiorite (610±8 Ma), and the alkali granite (609±10 Ma), consistent with the interpretation that these are comagmatic (Beyth et al. 1994a). The quartz monzodiorite, the youngest plutonic intrusive based on the field evidence, yielded a zircon U-Pb age of 599.3±2.0 Ma, averaged from 14 grains (Beyth and Reischmann 1996). Rb-Sr data for samples of the 610 Ma olivine norite, monzodiorite and alkali granite yield an apparent isochron age of 581 Ma with a high MSWD of 8.5 (Beyth et al. 1994a), which is very similar to the 592±7 Ma Rb-Sr isochron age obtained by Halpern and Tristan (1981) for Timna granitic rocks.Based on whole-rock major, trace and rare earth element, and isotopic, geochemical analyses, Beyth et al. (1994a) concluded that the 625 Ma porphyritic granite is a typical calc-alkaline I-type subsolvus granite with volcanic arc or collisional affinities, which was probably generated by anatexis of slightly older crust. After an apparent transitional period from such an orogenic collisional tectonic regime, a crustal extensional tectonic regime was initiated, in which a mantle-derived monzodiorite, or sanukitoid (Stern, Hansen, and Shirey 1989), magma intruded the porphyritic granite at 610 Ma, forming a stratified magmatic cell. Olivine norite formed as cumulates at the bottom of the cell and were later brought up as xenoliths by late monzodioritic injections into this cell. The alkali granite formed by fractionation from this mantle-derived, LILE- enriched sanukitoid magma.This interpretation that the olivine norite, monzodiorite and alkali granite are comagmatic is based on their field relationships and on several other lines of evidence (Beyth et al. 1994a ; Shpitzer, Beyth, and Matthews 1991). First, these are the same 610 Ma age, within the analytical uncertainty. Second, their Nd and Pb isotopic compositions are consistent with the interpretation of consanguinity. Lastly, their ancillary chemical data support this interpretation. These include similar K/Rb in both the monzodiorite and alkali granite, both of which are distinct from the older porphyritic granite. Furthermore, incompatible element abundances such as Nb, Ta, Th, and Yb are inversely correlated as indices of fractionation. Thus it was concluded that the alkali granite was fractionated from the monzodiorite magma, either as a consequence of crystal fractionation or liquid immiscibility. Additionally, geothermobarometric studies using mineral chemistries indicate temperatures in the range 500–600°C and pressures less than 5 kbar for all these rock types (Shpitzer et al. 1991).The quartz monzodiorite, which is the youngest plutonic rock in the complex, suggests that this monzodioritic intrusion event ended with the intrusion of the rhyolite, andesite and rhyolite/andesite (composite) dikes (Beyth et al. 1994a). These younger hypabyssal intrusions have chemical compositions that plot with the monzodiorite and alkali granite respectively, so it is inferred that the fractionation relationship between the alkali granite and the monzodiorite was repeated on a small scale between the magmas responsible for the rhyolite and andesite dikes, and is especially well expressed in the composite ones. These dikes, which were probably feeder dikes for volcanic rocks that were later eroded, have been dated in the nearby Sinai area as 590 Ma (Stern and Manton 1987).The major diabase (dolerite) dike intruded the alkali granite, which at the time had previously been fractured and intruded by rhyolite, andesite and andesite-rhyolite composite dikes (fig. 6), so it is the youngest igneous event in the Timna complex (Beyth and Heimann 1999). This has been confirmed by whole-rock K-Ar and Ar-Ar determinations. The mean K-Ar age obtained, based on two samples, was 546.3±10.1 Ma (Beyth and Heimann 1999). The total Ar-Ar age of one sample was 527.2 Ma, whereas its Ar-Ar plateau age was 531.7±4.6 Ma. Based on the argument that the plateau age is the best estimate of a sample’s age, it was concluded that this diabase dike was intruded at 531.7±4.6 Ma (532 Ma). Geochemically similar diabase dikes are also found at Mt. Amram, where alkali granite, monzonite and quartz monzonite are also exposed 13 km south of Mt. Timna (Beyth et al 1994b; Kessel, Stein and Navon 1998), elsewhere in the Sinai (Friz-Topfer 1991) and in nearby Jordan (Jarrar, Wachendorf and Saffarini 1992). The dikes in Jordan, though, yielded a K-Ar age of 545±13 Ma, similar to the K-Ar age of 546.3±10.1 Ma obtained for the Timna diabase dike. Nevertheless, the ages for these dikes are close to 542 Ma, the defined date of the Cambrian/Precambrian boundary (Gradstein, Ogg, and 2004), although Jarrar, Wachendorf, and Zachmann (1993) compiled an age of 530±10 Ma for the Cambrian/Precambrian peneplain boundary in this Sinai-Jordan region. That the diabase dike at Timna was intruded before this peneplanation occurred is confirmed by the lack of any contact metamorphism in the overlying lower Cambrian sandstone of the Amudei Shelomo Formation (Beyth and Heimann 1999).All the intrusive rocks of the Timna Igneous Complex have subsequently been subtly altered. A chemical remnant magnetic direction similar to the sub-recent field ( to present) was identified in the olivine norite, monzodiorite, quartz monzodiorite and dikes of various compositions (Marco et al. 1993). The magnetic mineral assemblage of magnetite and Ti- magnetite in these rocks was thus found to have been altered by oxidation and hydration to secondary hematite and goethite. Subsequent investigations (Beyth et al. 1997; Matthews et al. 1999) showed that these alteration processes had also resulted in significant modification of both the mineralogy and the oxygen and hydrogen isotope compositions of these Precambrian igneous rocks, consistent with hydrothermal alteration under warm conditions (<200°C) at low to medium water/rock ratios, followed by weathering or supergene alteration by local meteoric waters. This hydrothermal activity occurred before uplift and erosion exposed these basement rocks during the early stages of tectonic activity along the Dead Sea rift in the middle Miocene, presumably at the very end of the Flood event. The most likely fluid source would have been the basinal brines in the overlying Flood-deposited sedimentary rocks, the movement of which into the Precambrian basement rocks below was triggered by onset of the Dead Sea rifting. This also resulted in uplift, so the retreating Flood waters would then have eroded away some of these sedimentary rocks, exposing the Precambrian igneous rocks to weathering to produce the present outcrops. General latest Precambrian igneous activity Within the Elat and Roded terrains are found isolated remnants of latest Precambrian igneous activity that likely coincides with the progressive emplacement of the Timna Igneous Complex, especially the hypabyssal dikes. Kessel, Stein, and Navon (1998) delineated three distinct swarms of dikes that cut across both the Elat massif (which includes both the Elat and Roded terrains) and the Amram massif (which is situated between the Elat massif and the Timna Igneous Complex to the north). The oldest dike suite consists of andesitic to rhyolitic dikes that strike N-S and geochemically are calc-alkaline. The second group strikes NE-SW and contains tholeiitic basaltic to rhyolitic dikes that cross-cut the older calc-alkaline dikes. Both these suites of dikes are commonly 0.5–5.0 m wide, and have not been dated. However, dikes of similar chemistry and stratigraphic emplacement from nearby massifs show a range of ages between 600 and 540 Ma (Beyth et al. 1994a ; Bielski 1982), the calc-alkaline dikes likely corresponding to the last phase of the emplacement of the Elat Granite. Finally, the youngest group of dikes, not represented in the Elat massif, consists of two NW-SE striking alkali basaltic dikes approximately 60 m wide in the Amram massif. These diabase (dolerite) dikes are similar in orientation, appearance and chemical composition to the diabase (dolerite) dike in the Timna massif which also cuts across dikes of two older swarms similar to the calc-alkaline and tholeiitic dikes in the Elat and Amram massifs (Beyth et al. 1994a, b). Beyth and Heimann (1999) concluded that Timna diabase dike was intruded at 532 Ma.Gutkin and Eyal (1998) also recognized the same older two suites of dikes in the Mt. Shelomo area, 5 km northwest of Elat, as described by Kessel et al. (1998). The first (oldest) group forms a swarm of hundreds of dikes, a few meters thick, which in many cases cross one another, but are usually only tens of meters long. These dikes similarly range from andesite or andesitic basalt to dacitic and rhyolite-dacitic. The second (younger) swarm cross-cuts all the metamorphic and plutonic country rocks as well as the earlier dikes, and consists of a few large rhyolitic dikes, one of which is 10–30 m thick and more than 3 km long.Garfunkel (1980) noted a volcanic neck in the southern part of the Ramat Yotam area about 2 km west of Elat, containing tuffs and surrounded by a hydrothermally- altered breccia of Taba Gneiss. Subsequently, Eyal and Peltz (1994) mapped the structure of what they recognized as a deeply eroded ash-flow caldera, now called the Ramat Yotam Caldera. Although faulted after eruption, when restored to its original position this elliptically-shaped caldera would have had a diameter of about 2 × 3 km. Composed mainly of silicic ignimbrites, the thickness of the exposed composite section is about 250 m. These silicic ignimbrites of the Ramat Yotam Caldera are the southernmost representatives of the silicic Elat volcanic field (Eyal and Peltz 1994), remnants of which are exposed further north in the Shehoret Canyon area and at Mt Amram, as well as to the northwest at Mt. Neshef. These outliers of the Elat volcanic field cover some 13 km2. Garfunkel (1980) claimed that the Ramat Yotam Caldera could have been the source of these dacitic or rhyodacitic ignimbrites found further north, so Bielski (1982) dated many of these tuffs and obtained a whole-rock Rb-Sr isochron age of 548±4 Ma. Segev (1987) though regrouped these and other similar volcanic rocks according to their individual sites and recalculated their Rb-Sr isochron ages, obtaining ages of 529±12 Ma (Mt. Neshef), 548±4 Ma (Shelomo area), and 532±7 Ma (for Mt. Neshef and three other nearby sites in northeastern Sinai and southwestern Jordan combined). Clearly, given the spatial and temporal proximity of these explosively-erupted silicic volcanic rocks to the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary and therefore the beginning of the Flood event (see below), and the unreliability of the radioisotope dating methods (Snelling 2000; Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin 2005), it is quite likely that the explosive eruption of these rhyolitic volcanics and ignimbrites, and the intrusion of the associated dikes, were related to the initiating stage of the “breaking up” of the “fountains of the great deep.” The Arabian-Nubian Shield These Precambrian basement granites and metamorphics in southern Israel (and in neighboring Jordan) are recognized as the northernmost exposed extent of the Arabian-Nubian Shield. This Precambrian shield area outcrops along the coastlines of the Gulf of Elat (or Aqaba) and across into the Sinai Peninsula (Kröner, Eyal, and Eyal 1990), and extends along either side of the Red Sea. On the African coastline is the Nubian Shield of Egypt and Sudan that also extends through Eritrea into northern Ethiopia, while along the opposite Red Sea coastline is the Arabian Shield of Saudi Arabia that extends into Yemen (Be’eri-Shlevin et al. 2009; Stacey and Hedge 1984; Sultan et al. 1990). That these two shield areas were once joined together as the Arabian-Nubian Shield has been established by reconstructing the pre-Red Sea opening configuration, the two areas matching along the Red Sea rift line.The geochronologic and isotopic evidence available confirms that the Arabian-Nubian Shield was originally part of the Precambrian supercontinent Rodinia. The oldest rock so far established is a granodiorite in Saudi Arabia that has yielded a Paleoproterozoic zircon U-Pb concordia age of 1,628±200 Ma (Stacey and Hedge 1984), which was concluded to probably be its emplacement age. Furthermore, the Pb isotopes show that these 1,630 Ma crustal rocks could have inherited material from an older, probably Archean, source at the time of their formation. This is consistent with contemporaneous addition of mantle material that considerably modified the Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd systems so that they now yield similar, or only slightly older, 1,600–1,800 Ma apparent ages.In the northernmost Arabian- Nubian Shield in the Sinai Peninsula, detritral zircons within a schist, coupled with whole-rock Nd isotopic analyses, have provided evidence of pre-Neoproterozoic crust (Be’eri-Shlevin et al. 2009). The detrital zircon age population was bimodal, with concordia ages in the 1,000–1,100 Ma range. The whole-rock Nd isotopic value was significantly lower than for juvenile Neoproterozoic rocks in the region, which was interpreted as implying that 1 Ga age crust was incorporated into the northernmost Arabian-Nubian Shield. The δ18O (zircon) values were also consistent with supracrustal recycling being involved in the formation of this 1,000–1,100 Ma crust.The Arabian-Nubian Shield, consisting of a diverse variety of metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocks intruded by granitic and other plutonic rocks, thus has an apparent long history somewhat similar to the Precambrian crystalline basement rocks exposed in the inner gorges of the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona (Beus and Morales 2003). The initially created and formed earth, likely with an initial crust divided from the mantle and core, and then subsequently further formed and structured the crust to produce the dry land, likely as a supercontinent, perhaps that identified as Rodinia by the conventional geologic community. The Arabian-Nubian Shield would have been a part of the pre-Flood supercontinent, thus designating these Precambrian crystalline basement rocks exposed in southern Israel as likely Creation Week rocks, similar to their equivalents in the Grand Canyon (Austin 1994). If some credence is given to the radioisotope age determinations of these Precambrian metamorphic and granitic rocks of the Elat area in southern Israel (fig. 4 and table 1) as already detailed, then, due to the systematic pattern of radioisotope ages that would result from an episode of accelerated nuclear decay during the Creation Week (Snelling 2005b; Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin 2005), there are significant differences between these rocks and their equivalents in the Grand Canyon. There is no doubt that they form the crystalline basement foundations to the stratigraphic succession of sedimentary rock units in Israel (fig. 3). However, they yield radioisotope ages of 800–813 Ma for the Elat Schist to 600–625 Ma for the Elat Granite and Timna Igneous Complex, placing them according to Snelling (2009) in the pre-Flood era between Creation Week and the Flood, at the time when the Neoproterozoic Chuar Group sediments were being deposited in the Grand Canyon area (Austin 1994). In the Grand Canyon the basement metamorphic and granitic rocks yield Paleoproterozoic radioisotope ages of 1.73–1.75 Ga (metamorphics) and 1.84 Ga and 1.66–1.74 Ga (granites) (Beus and Morales 2003), placing them in the early part of the Creation Week (Austin 1994; Snelling 2009), and are overlain by the Mesoproterozoic Unkar Group sediments and lavas that were likely mid-late Creation Week rocks. Thus if these metamorphic and granitic rocks in southern Israel are to be placed in the creation framework of earth history based only on their radioisotope ages, then they would have to represent metamorphism and magmatism that occurred during the pre- Flood era, while people and animals were living elsewhere on the supercontinental land surface. This seems unlikely, so clearly using relative radioisotope ages is not always a reliable indicator of where rock units should be placed in the creation framework of earth history, as mixing and inheritance are still processes that can perturb the radioisotope systems (Snelling 2000, 2005b). Indeed, crustal recycling of radioisotopes and mixing of mantle components in the Arabian-Nubian Shield is well documented (Be’eri-Shlevin et al. 2009; Kröner, Eyal, and Eyal 1990; Stacey and Hedge 1984; Sultan et al. 1990), as already indicated above. Radiohalos It hardly seems necessary to defend the catastrophic formation of these metamorphic and granitic rocks in southern Israel if they were formed. However, it can be demonstrated that both regional metamorphism and granite magmatism are catastrophic processes (Snelling 1994, 2007, 2009). One important indicator that imposes severely short time constraints on these processes is the formation within these rocks of polonium radiohalos (Snelling 2005a, 2007, 2008b, c; Snelling and Armitage 2003; Snelling and Gates 2009). So it is to be expected that polonium radiohalos would be present in these Precambrian granitic rocks in southern Israel.The Roded Porphyritic Granite and the Timna Igneous Complex’s monzodiorite and alkali granite were sampled (five samples from each area) (see figs. 4 and 6). Outcrops sampled in the Shehoret Canyon and Timna areas respectively are shown in Fig. 7. The samples were processed and biotite flakes mounted for microscope examination to count their contained radiohalos according to the method outlined by Snelling and Armitage (2003). Fig. 8 provides photo-micrographs of the different sampled rock units showing their mineralogy and textures, while Fig. 9 shows some of the radiohalos found in the biotites of these samples. All five samples of the Roded Porphyritic Granite contained 210Po radiohalos, while three samples each contained a 238U radiohalo, with an abundance range of 0.06–0.76 radiohalos per slide in the separated and mounted biotite flakes (table 2). In contrast, only two samples from the Timna Igneous Complex, both monzodiorite, contained radiohalos, but both 210Po and 238U radiohalos, with a higher abundance range of 1.30–1.50 radiohalos per slide (table 2).The ratios of 210Po:238U radiohalos are high and typical of Precambrian (pre- Flood) granitic rocks, as are the low radiohalos abundances (Snelling 2005a). This is because these granitic rocks have likely had all the radiohalos that formed in them initially, when the original magmas crystallized and cooled, subsequently annealed by temperatures of 150°C and above generated by their burial below the thick overlying sedimentary rock sequence deposited during the Flood (Snelling 2005a). Thus the radiohalos now observed in these granitic rocks were likely formed by the passage of further hydrothermal fluids through them during the Flood, for which there is abundant evidence in them, namely, the chloritization of biotites and sericitization of feldspars, as observed in the thin sections (fig. 8). Fig. 7 (below). Outcrops sampled for the radiohalos study (locations shown in Figs. 4 and 6). (a) General view of Shehoret Canyon, looking “upstream.” (b) Sample IGR-1 collection site from the Roded Porphyritic Granite exposed in Shehoret Canyon. (c) Sample IGR-3 collection site from the Roded Porphyritic Granite in Shehoret Canyon. (d) The Roded Porphyritic Granite at the sample IGR-5 collection site showing the dark enclaves of mafic minerals. (e) General view of the alkali granite of the Timna Igneous Complex, in the Timna mountains, opposite and above the sample IGR-10 collection site. (f) The alkali granite of the Timna Igneous Complex at the sample IGR-6 collection site. (g) The monzodiorite of the Timna Igneous Complex at the sample IGR-7 collection site. (h) the monzodiorite of the Timna Igneous Complex at the sample IGR-10 collection site. Fig. 8 (below). Photo-micrographs of some of the samples examined in the radiohalos study. All are at the same scale (20× or 1 mm = 40 mm) and as viewed under crossed polars, (a) Roded Porphyritic Granite, sample IGR-1: plagioclase (with multiple twinning), microcline, and biotite (colored flakes showing alteration). (b) Roded Porphyritic Granite, sample IGR-4; plagioclase (partly extinguished), microcline, biotite (altered), and quartz (small grains). (c) Roded Porphyritic Granite, sample IGR-5: plagioclase, microcline, and biotite. (d) Timna alkali granite, sample IGR-6: perthite (intergrown plagioclase and orthoclase), biotite (altered), and orthoclase. (e) (f) Timna monzodiorite, sample IGR-7: plagioclase, orthoclase, perthite, biotite, and magnetite (black). (g) (h) Timna monzodiorite, sample IGR-10: plagioclase, orthoclase, biotite, amphibole (altered) and magnetite.

Fig. 9 (below). Photo-micrographs of some of the radiohalos identified and counted in the radiohalos study (see table 2). All are at the same scale (40× or 1 mm =20µm) and as viewed in plane polarized light. (a) Roded Porphyritic Granite, sample IGR-1, slide 32, three 210Po radiohalos and one 238U radiohalo (top). (b) Roded Porphyritic Granite, sample IGR-1, slide 32, three 210Po radiohalos. (c) Roded Porphyritic Granite, sample IGR-2, slide 15, three 210Po radiohalos and one partial 238U radiohalo (to the left on the edge of the grain). (d) Timna Monzodiorite, sample IGR-7, slide 7, one 210Po radiohalo (upper left), three 238U radiohalos (bottom center and right), and several elongated fluid inclusions. (e) Timna Monzodiorite, sample IGR-7, slide 13, four 210Po radiohalos plus fluid inclusions. (f) Timna Monzodiorite, sample IGR-7, slide 13, one 210Po radiohalo (lower left), one 238U radiohalo (upper right) and fluid inclusions. (g) Timna Monzodiorite, sample IGR-10, slide 30, three 210Po radiohalos, with one of them around a fluid inclusion. (h) Timna Monzodiorite, sample IGR-10, slide 24, two 210Po radiohalos, with one around a fluid inclusion.

Even though all the rock units sampled (table 2) show the effects of alteration subsequent to their original crystallization, there are obvious differences in their radiohalo abundances. The Timna alkali granite contains no radiohalos, the Roded Porphyritic Granite a few radiohalos, and the Timna monzodiorite many more radiohalos. Assuming that all these granitic rock units after crystallization were subject to temperatures above 150°C, due to subsequent deeper burial by thick overlying Flood-deposited sedimentary sequences, so that all the radiohalos produced in them when they originally crystallized were annealed, then these relative differences in radiohalo abundances in these rock units could be due to them subsequently experiencing different quantities of hydrothermal fluids during the Flood event. That greater abundances of radiohalos are produced by greater quantities of hydrothermal fluids has been well established and verified, both in granitic rocks (Snelling 2005a, 2008c; Snelling and Gates 2009) and in metamorphic rocks (Snelling 2008a, b). Table 2. Radiohalos in the Precambrian Elat Granite, and alkali granite and monzondiorite from the Timna Igneous Complex. Radiohalos Number Sampl Number of Numbe 210 of e Po 210 238 Location Rock Unit r of - Radiohal Ratio Po: U Numbe 214 218 238 232 Radiohalos Slides Po Po U Th os per r P per Slide o Slide

IGR-1 50 37 — — — — 0.74 0.74 —

IGR- 2 50 4 — — — — 0.08 0.08 —

IGR- 3 50 3 — — — — 0.06 0.06 —

IGR- 4 50 11 — — — — 0.22 0.22 —

ShehoretCany IGR- on Elat Granite 5 50 8 — — 1 — 0.18 0.16 8:1

Timna alkali granite IGR-6 50 — — — — — — — —

Timna monzodior ite IGR-7 50 62 — — 1 — 1.26 1.24 62:1

Timna alkali granite IGR-8 50 — — — — — — — —

IGR-9 50 — — — — — — — — Timna Park, Timna and Timna monzodior IGR- Mountains ite 10 50 72 — — 3 — 1.50 1.44 24:1 It can easily be demonstrated that these granitic rock units in southern Israel were buried under thick sedimentary sequences during the Flood. In the areas where these samples were obtained, the unconformity between these granitic rock units and the overlying Flood-deposited sedimentary sequence is exposed (fig. 10). Thus at some stage during the Flood, as or after the overlying sedimentary sequence was deposited, the basinal brines in these deeply buried basal (Cambrian) sediments just above the unconformity would likely have been heated sufficiently to become hydrothermal fluids. This has been confirmed by evidence that temperatures in the overlying Cambrian sandstone reached as high as 200°C (Vermeesch, Avigad, and McWilliams 2009). These hydrothermal fluids would then have circulated down into the underlying Precambrian crystalline basement rocks. That this has certainly occurred in the Timna Igneous Complex rocks has been confirmed by paleomagnetic and isotopic evidence (Beyth et al. 1997; Marco et al. 1993; Matthews et al. 1999). And since it occurred at the end of the Flood during the early triggering stages of tectonic activity along the Dead Sea rift, which is adjacent to both sampled areas, then most of the Precambrian granitic and metamorphic rocks would have been affected similarly. However, Beyth et al. (1997) showed that the monzodiorite was more altered than the alkali granite by these circulating hydrothermal fluids. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that the degree of alteration corresponds to the volume of hydrothermal fluids which circulated through these rocks. This in turn would be consistent with the earlier proposal that the greatest abundance of radiohalos in the monzodiorite is due to a greater volume of hydrothermal fluids circulating through it during the Flood. If this conclusion is correct, then it would imply that the Roded Porphyritic Granite in the Shehoret Canyon area, with its consistent low radiohalos abundance, had slightly more hydrothermal fluid-flow through it than the Timna alkali granite with its complete lack of radiohalos.

Fig. 10. The unconformity between the Precambrian (pre-Flood) crystalline basement rocks and the overlying Cambrian sandstone at the base of the Flood sediment sequence. (a) (b) Above Shehoret Canyon (c) (d) Below Solomon’s Pillars in the Timna area, close by the sample IGR-7 collection site (see fig. 6 for location).Biotite, which hosts the radiohalos in the Roded Porphyritic Granite and the Timna monzodiorite and alkali granite, is also present to abundant in the Elat Schist, the Taba Gneiss, the Elat Granite, and the Elat Granite Gneiss, as well as the metadiorites of the Shahmon Metabasites, of the Elat Association, in the schist, gneisses and quartz-diorite of the Roded Association, and in the Timna Igneous Complex’s olivine norite, quartz monzodiorite, and porphyritic granite. Since radiohalos are known to be abundant in similar Precambrian schists, gneisses and granitic rocks (Snelling 2005a), especially the equivalent of the pelitic Elat Schist in the Grand Canyon, it is anticipated that both 210Po and 238U radiohalos would be relatively abundant in these metamorphic and granitic rocks in southern Israel. Their presence could further confirm the catastrophic formation of these granitic rocks, and the catastrophic mode and rate of the regional metamorphism that formed these schists and gneisses (Snelling 1994, 2005a, 2008b). The pre-Flood/Flood Boundary and the Terminal Precambrian Austin and Wise (1994) suggested five discontinuity criteria for determining the position of the pre-Flood/Flood boundary in the strata record of any region. These were a mechanical-erosional discontinuity, a time or age discontinuity, a tectonics discontinuity, a sedimentary discontinuity, and a paleontological discontinuity. In applying these criteria to the Grand Canyon- Desert region of the U. S. Southwest, they identified the boundary as just below the terminal Precambrian Sixtymile Formation just below the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon, but within the Neoproterozoic Kingston Peak Formation in the Mojave Desert, with a considerable thickness of terminal Precambrian sedimentary layers above that boundary. In both places there are thick Neoproterozoic sedimentary units sitting on the crystalline basement below this boundary, but in the Grand Canyon the Paleozoic strata sequence immediately overlies the Sixtymile Formation. This is because the terminal Precambrian sedimentary sequence, the earliest deposits of the Flood, thickens westwards from off the higher-standing pre- Flood crystalline basement exposed in the Grand Canyon.

Fig. 11. The generalized stratigraphic sequence across Israel, extending from the Mediterranean coast in the northwest to Arabia in the southeast (after Freund 1977). The relationships between the major rock units of Israel’s geology are depicted, with the heavy lines representing the regional unconformities separating six major stratigraphic “packages” of strata. The conventional ages of the tops and bottoms of these strata “packages” are designated. Dotted areas indicate clastic rocks; bricks indicate shales and non-clastic (mainly calcareous) rocks; vs indicate volcanics.A similar situation appears to apply in southern Israel (figs. 3 and 11). In the Elat area the fossiliferous Cambrian sedimentary strata of the early Flood sit directly on the eroded surface of the crystalline basement of the northernmost Arabian-Nubian Shield (Karcz and Key 1966) (figs. 10, 11 and 12), a remnant of the pre-Flood supercontinent that broke apart at the beginning of the Flood (Austin et al 1994). However, to the north beyond the northern edge of the exposed crystalline basement of the Arabian-Nubian Shield (figs. 11 and 12) the sedimentary strata sequence thickens, and at its base are terminal Precambrian units (Garfunkel 1978). These include unmetamorphosed Neoproterozoic sediments, mainly immature coarse clastics interpreted as molasse-type debris that was deposited on the flanks of the crystalline basement complex as it was eroded and shaped at the end of the Precambrian (Bentor 1961; Picard 1943).In the Elat region coarse conglomerates (the Elat Conglomerate) interbedded with minor intermediate-rhyolitic volcanics are exposed in small grabens (figs. 4 and 5) that pre-date the erosion of the peneplain surface on the crystalline basement (Bentor 1961; Garfunkel 1978). These sediments consist of coarse, poorly sorted, polymictic conglomerates with a matrix of lithic arkose rich in dark minerals (Garfunkel 1999). The conglomerates are well cemented, with subangular to slightly rounded pebbles and boulders ranging in size from a few centimeters to 1.0 meter (Gutkin and Eyal 1998). Rock units presented as fragments in this conglomerate include all rock units known from the adjacent Precambrian crystalline basement. Indeed, the relative amount of pebbles of any rock unit within the conglomerate increases with proximity to the in situ outcrop of this rock unit, which indicates the transport distance during conglomerate deposition must have been very short and therefore deposition was very rapid. Even pebbles derived from the “youngest” andesite and rhyolite dikes on which the conglomerate sits unconformably are one of the main constituents of this Elat Conglomerate (Garfunkel 1999; Gutkin and Eyal 1998). However, a few dikes are intruded into the Elat Conglomerate, indicating both a younger event of dike intrusion post-dating deposition of this conglomerate, and the very short duration of the conglomerate deposition during this continuing sequence of dike intrusions.

Fig. 12. Schematic stratigraphic cross-section of southern Israel, indicating the major unconformities and the relationships of the terminal Precambrian sediments and the overlying Flood sediments to the Precambrian crystalline basement of the Arabian-Nubian Shield (ANS) (after Veermeesch, Avigad, and McWilliams 2009). The inset map shows the location of this cross-section.Distinct from the Elat Conglomerate, but also unconformably overlying all the eroded crystalline basement rocks including the dikes, is a 200–400 m thick volcano-conglomeratic series that is also preserved in small grabens (Garfunkel 1999) (figs. 4 and 5). This series begins with a basal conglomerate layer similar to that of the Elat Conglomerate, and in the Shelomo area most of its pebbles consist of local quartz-diorite gneiss and migmatite (of the Roded Association) (Gutkin and Eyal 1998). The rest of the series in that area, about 320 m thick, is mainly composed of andesitic-basaltic lavas and pyroclastic flows alternating with several conglomerate layers, and is intruded by hypabyssal andesitic bodies and quartz-porphyry dikes. A few arkose layers are also in this series. Contained boulders are usually big (0.2–1.0 m) and rounded, but comprise only a small percent (2–3%) of the rock’s volume.These exposures of the Elat Conglomerate and the volcano-conglomeratic series probably represent the margins of a large basin known from the subsurface via drilling (Garfunkel 1978), in which the terminal Neoproterozoic Zenifim Formation, more than 2.8 km thick in the Ramon-1 well, accumulated (Garfunkel 1999; Weissbrod 1969) (fig. 11). This formation consists of arkoses, similar to the matrix of the exposed conglomerates, some conglomerates, and small amounts of finer clastics, as well as andesitic volcanics and diabase intrusives, one of which (in the Hameishar-1 well) yielded a K-Ar age of 609±9 Ma (Garfunkel 1999). The available subsurface data from drilling suggests that this terminal Precambrian Zenifim basin which formed north of the Elat area was 150–200 km wide and received the outwash from an uplifted area exposing mainly granitoids and/or gneisses, though some igneous activity also contributed to the basin fill. The source area was probably situated to the south where the northernmost Arabian-Nubian Shield is now exposed in the Elat area and the nearby Sinai, because the grain size of the basin sediments generally tends to decrease northwards.Applying the five discontinuity criteria of Austin and Wise (1994) to determine the pre-Flood/Flood boundary in southern Israel, there are only two possibilities: the unconformity at the base of the fossiliferous Cambrian strata sequence, or the unconformity between the crystalline basement and the terminal Neoproterozoic coarse clastics with interbedded volcanics (figs. 11 and 12). In any case, these two unconformities merge at the exposed erosion surface on the crystalline basement, which certainly represents a mechanical-erosional discontinuity. There is only a very short time or age discontinuity at both unconformities, and both unconformities represent tectonic discontinuities. So far there is no data on whether the Zenifim Formation contains any fossils, but due to it consisting of coarse immature clastics, the depositional conditions would not have been conducive for fossilization.Very little data pertaining to the Zenifim Formation is available apart from that obtained in boreholes, so a definitive determination is problematical. However, given some clear similarities between the coarse, poorly sorted, polymictic conglomerates and immature lithic arkoses of the Zenifim Formation (and the Elat Conglomerate and volcano-conglomeratic series) and both the Sixtymile Formation in Grand Canyon and the Kingston Peak Formation in the Mohave Desert, it is considered that on balance the Zenifim Formation (and the related conglomerates) likely represent the initial Flood deposits in southern Israel. With the breaking up of the “fountains of the great deep” triggering the onset of the Flood, massive erosion of the crystalline basement would have occurred, with submarine debris avalanches rapidly accumulating these sediments catastrophically on the flanks of the rifting edges of the pre-Flood supercontinent (Austin et al. 1994; Austin and Wise 1994; Sigler and Wingerden 1998; Wingerden 2003). The presence of interbedded volcanics and contemporaneous explosive volcanism would be testimony to the volcanic activity likely accompanying this breaking up process. Thus the pre-Flood/Flood boundary in southern Israel would be the unconformity between the terminal Proterozoic Zenifim Formation and the erosion surface across the crystalline basement. However, in some places the fossiliferous Cambrian strata sequence sits unconformably directly on that erosion surface across the Precambrian crystalline basement.Unlike the Grand Canyon-Colorado Plateau area where there is a very large radioisotope time gap between the last igneous activity (the Cardenas Basalt and related diabase sills conventionally regarded as ~1.1 Ga) and the onset of the Flood event near the terminal Precambrian-Cambrian unconformity (Austin 1994; Austin and Wise 1994; Beus and Morales 2003), in the northernmost Arabian-Nubian Shield area of southern Israel, repeated, almost continuous igneous activity seems to have spanned the last 100 million years or so of the Precambrian right up to, and on into, the onset of the Flood event. The physical manifestation at the earth’s surface that the Flood was beginning was the catastrophic “breaking up” of “the fountains of the great deep”, but the creation account doesn’t indicate what precursors may have been occurring inside the earth, even for years before, which triggered that “breaking up.” From a geophysical perspective, igneous activity had to have built up molten rock and accompanying steam inside the earth under confining pressure until the magma and steam were cataclysmically released by the renting apart of the earth’s surface. Thus the rocks resulting from this igneous activity throughout the terminal Precambrian in southern Israel may be the record of this precursor build-up inside the earth that eventually triggered the Flood event. Indeed, the latest igneous activity from about 610 Ma onwards has been described as occurring in a crustal extension or rifting tectonic regime, with the intrusion of the Timna alkali granite and monzodiorite followed by the multiple generations of dike swarms, and the initiation of catastrophic erosion and depositional of the Zenifim Formation (Beyth et al. 1994a; Garfunkel 1999).As for the radioisotope timescale involved, Vardiman et al. (2005) reported five independent evidences that demonstrate a lot of nuclear decay occurred during the Flood event at grossly accelerated rates. A significant biproduct of this accelerated radioisotope decay would have been a huge amount of heat, which would have rapidly increased as the radioisotope decay exponentially accelerated. If this acceleration of radioisotope decay was initiated months before the Flood event began on the earth’s surface, then the heat which rapidly accumulated as a result would have begun melting upper mantle and lower crustal rocks. The intrusive igneous rocks produced within those few months would have “aged” radioisotopically by tens of millions of years due to the accelerating nuclear decay, while the pressure confining the molten rock and steam would have built up until they could not be held “in” any longer, so “the fountains of the great deep” were broken up. Such an initiation process would thus explain the close spatial and temporal relationship between the terminal Precambrian igneous activity in the pre-Flood crystalline basement of southern Israel and the tectonic upheaval and catastrophic erosion and deposition which marked the beginning of the cataclysmic Flood event.

The Geology of Israel within the Creation-Flood Framework of History: 2. The Flood Rocks by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on December 15, 2010

Abstract The sedimentary strata that cover most of Israel are an obvious record of the Flood. A major erosion surface (unconformity) at the base of the sedimentary sequence cut across the Precambrian (pre-Flood) crystalline basement rocks. This resulted from the catastrophic passage of the Flood waters as they rose in enormous tsunami-like surges over the continental land at the initiation of the Flood event. These rising Flood waters transported sediments and marine organisms over the continental land. Many thousands of meters of marine sediments were thus deposited on a vast scale across Israel, rapidly burying myriads of marine organisms in fossil graveyards. Land organisms were similarly overwhelmed by the Flood waters, their remains buried with the marine organisms. The global extent of some of these sedimentary layers in Israel is confirmed by correlations of strata across and between continents, such as the sandstone with pebbles at the base of the Flood sequence, and the massive pure chalk beds at the top. The creation account of the Flood describes the formation of mountains from halfway through to the end of the year-long Flood event. Thus late in the Flood powerful tectonic upheaval processes overturned and upthrust Flood-deposited sedimentary strata to form these mountains. Simultaneous isostatic adjustments also resulted in restoring continental land surfaces as the Flood waters receded and drained into new deep ocean basins. In Israel this great regression is marked by the end of the widespread “marine” sedimentation and an erosion surface across the country. The subsequent minor local continental sedimentation represents residual post-Flood geologic activity. The end of the Flood also coincided with the commencement of the rifting that opened the Red Sea and the Dead Sea-Jordan River rift valley, as well as the uplifting of the Judean Mountains and the upthrusting of Mt. Hermon. Shop Now

Keywords: Israel, geology, Flood, sedimentary strata, fossils, erosional unconformities, e-Flood/Flood boundary, Flood/post-Flood boundary Introduction

Fig. 1 (pp. 268–271). Detailed geologic map of Israel, in two adjoining sheets, from the mountains of Lebanon in the north (northern sheet) to the Negev and Red Sea in the south (southern sheet) (after Sneh et al. 1998). The only Precambrian (pre-Flood) rocks are found in the far south of the country near Elat. Otherwise most of Israel is covered by Flood rocks. Details of most of the rock units on the map are listed in the legend.Furthermore, because some post-Flood events likely affected the geology of Israel, identifying those effects may aid our alignment of the global geologic record within the creation framework of history.The year-long global catastrophic Flood is the event which divides the global geologic record into its three main sections—pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood rocks. Snelling (2010a) identified and discussed the pre- Flood rocks of Israel, found only in the Elat area in the far south of the country. The unconformity across the top of the Precambrian igneous and metamorphic basement rocks was suggested as marking the onset of the Flood, which also included the rapid deposition of coarse clastic sediments (arkose and arkosic conglomerate) accompanied by volcanics (basalt flows, some erupted under water, and explosively erupted tuffs and other pryoclastics) (Garfunkel 1980), consistent with the breaking up of the pre-Flood crust as waters of the fountains of the great deep erupted.The initiation of this breaking up of the pre-Flood crust triggered the catastrophic plate tectonics that provides a coherent, all embracing model for the Flood event and its contribution to the global geologic record (Austin et al. 1994; Baumgardner 2003). A fuller treatment of the application of that model to the geologic record within the creation-Flood framework of earth history is provided by Snelling (2009b). That treatment also includes presentation and discussion of the details of the Flood event and the evidences of catastrophic deposition of the Flood sediments, all of which is relevant to the descriptive overview here of the Flood rocks of Israel. Flood Rock Units Much of Israel consists of exposed Flood-deposited fossiliferous sedimentary strata, from the far north of the country down through the central “spine” of the Judean Hills to the Negev in the south (Freund 1978; Garfunkel 1978). Fig. 1 (in two parts) is a detailed geologic map of the whole country (Sneh et al. 1998). Figs. 2 and 3 are two depictions of the stratigraphic succession of the rock units across Israel (Bartov and Arkin 1980; Freund 1977; Ilani, Flexer and Kronfeld 1987). Fig. 2 provides more details of the rock types, while Fig. 3 is more stylistic and includes subsurface information obtained in boreholes.In southern Israel the flat-lying sedimentary strata (sandstone, limestone and shale) stacked above the unconformity representing the beginning of the Flood are about 1.6 km (1 mi.) thick, similar to the strata sequence exposed in the Grand Canyon (Austin 1994; Beus and Morales 2003). It was originally expected that this approximately 1.6 km (1 mi.) thick Cambrian through sedimentary sequence in southern Israel would be persistent in thickness into central and northern Israel, being concealed there beneath the widespread cover of Cretaceous limestone and chalk. However, at Makhtesh Ramon in the central Negev, where over 915 m (3,000 ft) of , Jurassic and Cretaceous sedimentary strata are exposed, drilling penetrated another 2,000 m (6,560 ft) of sedimentary strata before reaching the unconformity with the pre-Flood crystalline basement (Austin 1998a). Furthermore, at Ramallah (only 24 km or 15 mi. north of Jerusalem) drilling and seismic refraction profiling indicate that there is about 7,000 m (22,960 ft) of sedimentary strata down to the same unconformity. Similarly, drilling on the coast near Gaza penetrated some 6,000 m (19,680 ft.) of sedimentary strata before reaching the basement granite. Therefore, there is more than a three-fold thickening of Flood-deposited sedimentary strata in the subsurface beneath central and northern Israel and northwestward into the Mediterranean Sea basin. And given that these sedimentary layers contain abundant marine fossils, the ocean waters clearly rose and prevailed during the Flood, covering the region.

Fig. 2. A generalized stratigraphic chart showing the succession of rock units (their names and geologic ages) across Israel from south (right) to north (left) (after Barton and Arkin 1980; Ilani, Flexer and Kronfeld 1987). Fig. 3. The generalized stratigraphic sequence across Israel, extending from the Mediterranean coast in the northwest to Arabia in the southeast (after Freund 1977). The relationships between the major rock units of Israel’s geology are depicted, with heavy lines representing the regional unconformities separating six major straigraphic “packages” of strata. The conventional ages of the tops and bottoms of these “megasequences” are designated. Dotted areas indicate clastic rocks; bricks indicate shales and non-clastic (mainly calcareous) rocks; vs indicate volcanics. Zenifim Formation(uppermost Neoproterozoic, terminal Precambrian) As argued by Snelling (2010a), the first of the Flood rock units was likely the sediments and volcanics of the Zenifim Formation (fig. 3). In the Elat area polymictic conglomerates and volcanics outcrop in several small grabens (Bentor 1961; Garfunkel 1980). They lie on the eroded surface of the metamorphic and granitic basement rocks. The conglomerates contain clasts of all those older crystalline rocks, including the dikes. The matrix of the conglomerates is rich in lithic fragments and mafic minerals. Both clasts and matrix of these conglomerates are derived locally, indicating catastrophic erosion and nearby burial before fragile and weathering-prone minerals could disintegrate. These coarse conglomerates are interbedded with basalt and spilite flows (the latter indicating eruption under water), intermediate-acid volcanics, tuffs and pyroclastics (indicative of violent eruptions).Grouped together informally as the Elat conglomerate, these conglomerates with interbedded volcanics have been correlated with the very similar Saramuj Conglomerate in Jordan, southwest of the Dead Sea and in Israel west of the Avara Valley, and with the Zenifim Formation, known only from boreholes in the Negev. Indeed, the outcropping Elat and Saramuj conglomerates are regarded as representing the margins of a large subsurface basin in which the Zenifim Formation, more than 2,800 m (9,180 ft) thick in the Ramon-1 well, accumulated (Garfunkel 1978; Wiessbrod 1969). This formation consists of arkose, similar to the matrix in the exposed conglomerates, and small amounts of finer clastics as well as volcanics.While it has been argued (Snelling 2010a) that these conglomerates and the Zenifim Formation arkose and volcanics bear some resemblance positionally to the terminal Neoproterozoic Sixtymile Formation in the Grand Canyon and the Kingston Peak Formation and overlying units in the Mojave Desert (California) (Austin and Wise 1994) as the initial Flood deposits, a closer correlative may be the Mount Currie Conglomerate and Uluru Arkose of central Australia (Snelling 1998; Sweet and Crick 1992; et al. 1970). The Mount Currie Conglomerate is also a coarse polymitic conglomerate with an arkose matrix identical to this unit’s lateral equivalent, the Uluru Arkose, which together are up to 6,000 m (19,680 ft) thick. These were once interpreted as glacial deposits ( 1965). Similarly, Garfunkel (1980) describes the Elat conglomerate as sometimes “not unlike glacial deposits”. Instead, all these named and other rock units are excellent examples of the results of catastrophic submarine debris avalanches when the edges of the pre-Flood supercontinent collapsed as the break-up of the fountains of the great deep triggered the initiation of catastrophic plate tectonics (Austin et al. 1994; Austin and Wise 1994; Sigler and Wingerden 1998; Wingerden 2003). Furthermore, both the Zenifim Formation arkose and conglomerates in Israel, and the Mount Currie Conglomerate and Uluru Arkose in central Australia (Snelling 1998), are added testimony to the catastrophic erosion and deposition at the onset of the Flood cataclysm responsible for the rapid local accumulation of such enormous thicknesses of the immature sediments that were immediately buried by ongoing Flood sedimentation. The underwater and explosively erupted volcanics interbedded with the Zenifim Formation arkose and conglomerates are also consistent with the breaking up of the pre-Flood crust explosively releasing lavas as well as steam when the Flood began. Yam-Suf Group (Cambrian–Devonian) The exposed upper surface on the Precambrian metamorphic and granitic basement in southern Israel is a regular peneplain that extends over hundreds of square kilometers (Garfunkel 1978). In the Elat region the uppermost few meters of these basement rocks appear to have been deeply weathered before being covered by sediments. However, this weathering profile may have originally been up to hundreds of meters deep in the pre-Flood world, so that what remains is just a remnant after the severe deep erosion across this crystalline basement at the onset of the Flood. While the peneplain is usually a featureless plain, there is some local relief, sometimes quite rugged, amounting to 100–150 m (328 ft–492 ft) in the Elat area (Karcz and Key 1966).

Fig. 4. The bedding in the sedimentary strata overlying the crystalline basement is parallel to the erosion surface across it. (a) The cliff- forming Amudei Shelomo Formation of the Cambrian Yam-Suf Group at Solomon’s Pillars, Timna. Note that the erosion surface (unconformity) across the crystalline basement is at the base of these cliffs. (b) The sedimentary strata sequence in the Timna area, with the Yam-Suf Group in the lower half of this cliff.The overlying sedimentary strata are parallel to the surface of the basement (fig. 4). However, because their conventional age varies from place to place, from early Cambrian near Elat and south of the Dead Sea (the Amudei Shelomo Formation of the Yam-Suf Group) to late Carboniferous in the subsurface of the Negev, it is claimed that this peneplain was shaped during various periods in different places, supposedly over some 230 million years (Garfunkel 1978). Even its primary shaping during the early Cambrian in the Elat-Sinai region is suggested to possibly have taken 10–20 million years. But to suggest this vast flat peneplain was little modified over such a vast period is totally inconsistent with erosion processes and rates even in the present. It is far more reasonable for a single catastrophic erosive event to have swept across the region to shape the peneplain, such as the devastating tsunamis generated by the cataclysmic earthquakes as the pre-Flood crust broke up at the initiation of the Flood, that must have swept up and onto the pre-Flood land surface, deeply stripping weathered rock off it in a matter of hours to days. The different ages of the sediments then deposited onto that peneplained surface in different places would simply have been due to the successive sediment-laden tsunamis sweeping inland and depositing the various sediment layers in different places over the ensuing days of the Flood event.

Fig. 5. Stratigraphic section of the Cambrian of southern Israel (after Segev 1984; Vermeesch, Avigad and McWilliams 2009). The deeply weathered and eroded upper Proterozoic granitic basement is unconformably overlain by lower Cambrian pebbly arkoses (sandstones) of the Amudei Shelomo Formation, subarkoses and carbonates of the Timna Formation, and fine-grained subarkoses and quartz- arenites of the Shehoret and Netafim Formations, all together making up the Yam-Suf Group.The first rock units deposited on this exposed peneplain are those of the 300 m (984 ft) thick Cambrian– Lower Ordovician Yam-Suf Group, which is comprised of four formations (fig. 5). The first of these is the Amudei Shelomo Formation, which is up to 90 m (295 ft) thick and consists of brown, red and gray, relatively immature arkose to subarkosic sandstone, with fine- to grit-sized, rounded and poorly-sorted grains, with lenses or beds of quartzitic polymictic pebble conglomerate, often present at its base (Segev 1984; Vermeesch, Avigad and McWilliams 2009). Fig. 4a shows the full thickness of the flat-lying Amudei Shelemo Formation sandstone with its bedding paralleling the peneplained unconformity surface on top of the Precambrian crystalline basement, while Fig. 6 is a closer view of the unconformity at the same location. Fig. 7 shows the basal conglomerate at the unconformity, while Fig. 8 shows crossbedding within the arkosic sandstone. Both the basal conglomerate and the cross-bedding in the arkosic sandstone, together with the poorly- sorted mixture of mineral grains (especially feldspars) and rock clasts, are indicative of very rapid transport and deposition of this formation, consistent with the initial Flood conditions.Unconformably overlying the Amudei Shelomo Formation is the Timna Formation, which consists of two members—the Hakhlil Member overlain by the Sasgon Member (fig. 5). The Hakhlil Member is in turn composed of four sub-units. At its base is a conglomerate comprising pink to brown polymictic, poorly- sorted, angular quartz porphyry fragments, which are up to 20 cm (8 in.) (in diameter (Segev 1984; Segev and Sass 1989). Overlying it are laminar red, fine-grained to coarse subarkosic sandstones (fig. 9). These are overlain by beds of fine- grained sandstone to grit cemented by calcite and dolomite, and sandy dolomite layers which alternate with red, purple and green siltstones and shales. The cemented sandstone beds exhibit cross-stratified internal structures and ripples. The uppermost subunit is composed of varicolored shales and siltstones containing thin beds and lenses of limestone and dolomite.

Fig. 6. The peneplained unconformity (erosion surface) on top of the Precambrian (pre-Flood) crystalline basement rocks beneath the Cambrian Amudei Shelomo Formation sandstone (arkose) at the base of the Flood sequence, Solomon’s Pillars, Timna. Fig. 7. The basal conglomerate in the Amudei Shelomo Formation, just above the unconformity with the Precambrian (pre- Flood) crystalline basement rocks, above Shehoret Canyon.The upper part of the 45–50 m (147–164 ft) thick Timna Formation is the Sasgon Member, which is characterized by complicated lateral relationships between three distinctive lithofacies (fig. 5). These were originally defined as separate members, but the frequent and irregular transitions between them and the inability to map them has led to them being grouped together into the Sasgon Member. It is this member that hosts copper mineralization (Segev and Sass 1989), which was originally exploited by the Egyptians, and some uranium mineralization (Segev 1992). The first of these three lithofacies is a dolomitic lithofacies up to 28 m (92 ft) thick which is mainly composed of well-bedded brown to gray sandy dolomite with a few interbeds of shale, sandstone and limestone (Segev 1984, 1992; Segev and Sass 1989). Sedimentary structures include lamellar (rippled-form) stromatolites, gentle cross-stratification, ripple marks and trace fossils. Copper-rich horizons typify the base of this lithofacies (fig. 10). The main copper minerals in the dolomites are copper sulfides, but copper carbonate (malachite) also occurs in the sandstones (fig. 10). It has been proposed that intense weathering of the copper porphyry granites and quartz-porphyry dikes of the Timna Igneous Complex during the late Precambrian (late pre-Flood) provided the source of copper incorporated into these sediments (Shlomovitch, Bar-Matthews and Matthews 1999). The sandy lithofacies is distinguished by fine-grained to gritty subarkoses cemented by manganese and clay minerals. It is generally 5–7 m (16–23 ft) thick, reaching a maximum thickness of 21 m (69 ft). The upper part is laminar and contorted, the laminar structure reflecting regular alternation of variation in the content of black manganese oxides. The unit is commonly brecciated, mainly along intra-formational faults, with collapse structures, and copper and manganese mineralizations are dispersed throughout. The transitions between these two lithofacies is either abrupt, gradual or in the form of interfingering tongues (fig. 5). Blocks of the dolomitic lithofacies, in a wide range of sizes, are commonly found in the sandy lithofacies. The shaly lithofacies, which overlies both the dolomitic and sandy lithofacies, is usually only 2 m (6.6 ft) thick and is composed of light green, red or brown shales, siltstones and fine-grained subarkoses containing manganese and copper mineralizations.

Fig. 8. Cross-bedding sets in the arkosic sandstone of the Amudei Shelomo Formation, which indicate rapid water transport of the sand (a) Solomon’s Pillars, Timna. (b) Above Shehoret Canyon.

Fig. 9. The laminar red, fine-grained to coarse subarkosic sandstones of the Hakhlil Member of the Timna Formation can be seen just above halfway up this cliff near Shehoret Canyon.

Fig. 10. Green malachite (copper carbonate) in the coarse sandstone of the Sasgon Member of the Timna Formation, within old mining tunnels first dug by the Egyptians in the Timna area. (a) Fine malachite grains following the laminations of cross-bedding in the sandstone. (b) Coarser malachite in a band within the sandstone.Unconformably overlying the Timna Formation are the Shehoret and Netafim Formations, which together complete the Yam-Suf Group (fig. 5). The Shehoret Formation is up to 148 m (485 ft) thick and consists of fine- to coarse-grained subarkosic sandstones, which have been informally subdivided into a lower multi- colored unit, a middle white unit and an upper variegated unit (Segev 1984; Vermeesch, Avigad and McWilliams 2009). The 22 m (72 ft) thick Netafim Formation comprises fine-grained quartz arenite with alternating layers of siltstone and claystone. There is some disagreement over whether the Netafim Formation is upper Cambrian only, or transitional into the lower Ordovician.The Cambrian designation of the Yam-Suf Group was established principally due to its basal position in the sedimentary strata sequence of Israel, where it sits directly and unconformably on the Precambrian crystalline basement. This is confirmed conventionally by the presence of both lower Cambrian brachiopods and trilobites found in the Timna Formation (Cooper 1976; Parnes 1971)—trilobites in both the Hakhlil Member and the sandy lithofacies of the Sasgon Member, and brachiopods in the dolomitic lithofacies of the Sasgon Member. These fossils would conventionally indicate that these rocks and the overlying formations are younger than 520 Ma (Landing et al. 1998). Some age information has also been obtained from 40Ar/39Ar and U-Pb radioisotope dating of detrital K-feldspar and zircon grains respectively (Avigad et al. 2003; Kolodner et al. 2006; Vermeesch, Avigad and McWilliams 2009) (figs. 11 and 12). The detrital K-feldspar grains were obtained from a sample of the Shehoret Formation subarkosic sandstone, considered to have a depositional age of about 500 Ma. Fifty single-grain, K-feldspar, laser total-fusion extractions yielded a population of ages that tightly clustered around 535 Ma (lower Cambrian), indicating a single provenance and thermal history. About half of the grains yielded apparent ages that overlap with the very latest phase of igneous activity in the Precambrian basement, while all the grains are older than the depositional age. The 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum produced by step-heating yielded late Neoproterozoic to Cambrian apparent ages between 520 and 580 Ma, and a plateau age of about 560 Ma. However, none of these 40Ar/39Ar apparent ages is likely to represent the provenance age of these detrial K-felspar grains, as the oldest zircon U-Pb ages for suitable, close enough, source rocks are 580 Ma for an alkaline pluton intruding the Neoproterozoic Saramuj conglomerate (Jarrar, Wachendorf and Zellmer 1991; Jarrar, Wachendorf and Zachmann 1993), and 610 Ma for a Timna alkaline granite (Beyth et al. 1994).

Fig. 11. Detrital grain-age distribution and density estimate of K- feldspar 40Ar/39Ar data (after Vermeesch, Avigad and McWilliams 2009). Note the logarithmic scale on the time axis of the main graph. A linear version of the hightemperature data is shown as an inset (left). Abbreviations: n= number of grains; f = smallest fraction sampled with >95% certainty. The detrital zircon U-Pb ages (fig. 12) are more revealing. Avigad et al. (2003) extracted and analyzed detrial zircon grains from four sandstone samples, one from each of the four formations comprising the Yam-Suf Group, including one sample from the basal section of the Amudei Shelomo Formation. On the other hand, Kolodner et al. (2006) just focussed on the same sandstone sample Avigad et al. (2003) had collected from the Shehoret Formation. Nevertheless, the spread of detrital zircon U-Pb ages in the resultant histograms (fig. 12) was similar. The majority of grains yielded U-Pb ages less than 900 Ma, consistent with the conventional ages of the nearby underlying Neoproterozoic igneous and metamorphic basement rocks of the northern Arabian-Nubian Shield (Beyth et al. 1994; Halpern and Tristan 1981; Kröner, Eyal and Eyal 1990). However, there were also grains with Mesoproterozoic, Paleoproterozoic, and even Archean U-Pb ages, up to 3100 Ma. Indeed, the three groupings at 900–1100 Ma, 1650–1850 Ma, and 2450–2700 Ma represent about 30% of the total zircon grains analysed. These ages coincide with the crystalline basement rocks of the Saharan Metacraton of north Africa, the southeastern portion of the Arabian-Nubian Shield in Saudi Arabia, and granitoids in central Africa, which has led to the suggestion that some of these detrital zircon grains may have been transported up to 3,000 km (1,864 mi.) before deposition and burial in these Cambrian sandstones of southern Israel.

Fig. 12. Histogram showing age distribution of detrital zircons from the Cambrian siliciclastic section of southern Israel (after Avigad et al. 2003). Total number of zircons = 200. 157 grains yielded concordant ages. 206Pb/238U ages are used for zircons younger than 0.8 Ga;207Pb/206Pb ages are quoted for older grains. 43 discordant grains are plotted on the basis of their 207Pb/206Pb ages.Such an agreed long distance of sand transport by braided streams in littoral and shallow marine environments (Garfunkel 1978; Vermeesch, Avigad and McWilliams 2009) may be somewhat inconceivable, but during the onset of the global Flood cataclysm it is expected. Furthermore, the context of these sandstones is totally inconceivable unless their deposition was during the Flood. Garfunkel (2002) describes the widespread distribution of early Paleozoic sediments right across north Africa to Arabia as “the largest sediment body preserved on earth” (Burke and Kraus 2000; Choubert and Faure-Mauret 1975; DeWitt et al. 1988). This 2,000 km (1,243 mi.) wide platform of far-traveled mature clastic sediments stretches from the west coast of north Africa to central Saudi Arabia, although only large “pockets” remain as a result of the subsequent erosion and reworking of those sediments. In southern Jordan and northwest Saudi Arabia this strata sequence thickens, and so extends up through the Ordovician and Silurian into the Devonian (Garfunkel 2002; Picard 1943; Weissbrod 1969). The same Cambrian–Silurian sedimentary layers also outcrop in both Syria and Turkey, and are easily recognized as “Nubian” sandstone in Egypt and Libya. Only relics remain as much of this vast and voluminous sediment body, comprising “the largest body of sediments ever deposited”, was eroded already before the Permian in Saudi Arabia and late Cretaceous in the Negev, with the detritus probably being swept as far south as the Karoo basins of southern Africa (Garfunkel 1978).Such scales for a single vast and voluminous sediment body are not observed for any sediments being deposited today, nor such 3,000 km (1,864 mi.) long distances of sediment transport, to deposit, or to erode and carry away, such sediments. Yet these scales are to be expected in the global Flood cataclysm. Furthermore, a similar vast and voluminous body of sandstone, with a similar basal conglomerate, is found on another continent, and also sitting unconformably on a Precambrian crystalline basement. The Tapeats Sandstone in the Grand Canyon is the basal lithosome of the Sauk Megasquence, which covers, or once covered, much of North America (Austin 1994; Sloss 1963). As well as a basal conglomerate, with boulders up to 4.5 m (15 ft) wide, the base of the Tapeats Sandstone is often subarkosic, with K-feldspar grains ripped up from granites in the underlying Precambrian basement on which it sits unconformably (Austin 1994; Beus and Morales 2003). And Cambrian trilobites are found in the transition zone between the Tapeats Sandstone and the overlying, laterally deposited, Bright Angel Shale.The similarity of the Amudei Shelomo Formation sandstone (figs 4, 6 and 7) to the Tapeats Sandstone is remarkable, given they now outcrop on different continents thousands of kilometers apart. Yet there is no question that they correlate as direct equivalents, both in their stratigraphic position and in their make-up. There is also the enormous scale of these continent- wide sand deposits, which were formed at the same time and in the same way. This is not to suggest they could have been the same single deposit of sand. Rather, they are consistent with a single global event forming them both at the same time in the same way. Nothing like this is happening today, so the present is not the key to the past, as conventionally thought. Today’s slow-and-gradual geologic processes are not depositing the same uniform sand beds with basal conglomerates on an unconformity surface right across two continents at the same time. These two very similar, equivalent and enormous sandstone layers are instead remarkable testimony to the onset of the global Flood cataclysm. With the breaking up of the pre-Flood crust, both oceanic and continental, and the initiation of catastrophic plate tectonics, the margin of the pre-Flood supercontinent collapsed, and the rising ocean waters energized into repeated tsunamis by the catastrophic earthquakes swept up onto and right across the continental plates, bringing sand and other sediments with them scraped off the shallow ocean floors, and eroded off the pre-Flood crystalline basement to produce more sand and other sediments, which were then deposited across that eroded and peneplaned, continent-wide unconformity surface (Austin et al. 1994; Austin and Wise 1994; Baumgardner 2003; Snelling 2009a). Negev Group (upper Carboniferous–lower Triassic) There is an erosive unconformity at the top of the upper Cambrian (-lower Ordovician?) Netafim Formation sandstone of the Yam-Suf Group in southern Israel (figs. 5 and 13). The equivalents of the Yam-Suf Group in southern Jordan and northwest Saudia Arabia are much thicker because they also include Ordovician, Silurian and lower Devonian sedimentary layers (fig. 13) (Garfunkel 2002; Picard 1943; Weissbrod 1969). And the same Cambrian– Silurian strata outcrop in Syria and Turkey, so it is likely that this whole thicker strata sequence was originally deposited right across Israel. Subsequently much of it was eroded from across Israel, leaving this truncated remnant in southern Israel, with just the erosive unconformity at the top as testimony to the enormous erosion that occurred. The scale of this erosion was continent-wide, with the detritus transported very long distances, for example, right across Africa to the south (Garfunkel 1978).

Fig. 13. Correlation chart of the Cambrian–Silurian stratigraphic units of Israel and surrounding countries (after Garfunkel 2002). This again is only consistent with the scale of geologic processes during the Flood cataclysm. After the initial surges of the rising ocean waters across the continental plates, the water levels over the sediments on the continents would have dramatically fluctuated, due to the ebbs and surges caused by repeated tsunamis, and the tides which now resonated on a global ocean ( and Voss 1990; Snelling 2009b). Combined with rapid movements of the sediment-laden surfaces as the continental plates now moved at meters per second (Austin et al. 1994), any rapid continental-scale regression of the Flood waters would have catastrophically eroded into the previously deposited sediment layers on a massive scale, both in area and depth. Then with the next transgression as the Flood waters again surged across the continents, further erosion into the previously-deposited sediment layers would have occurred, followed close behind by the next cycle of rapid sedimentation. As this next “packet” of sediments was deposited, it would be inevitable that the layers deposited could involve lateral “facies” changes across the continents within the same megasequence, due to the mixture of sediment types in the surges, the water flow speeds, and how long the supply of the different sediment types lasted as they were water transported across the continents. Conventionally, these lateral “facies” have resulted in the different “facies” layers being given different formation names, when in fact such formations are lateral equivalents deposited at the same time from the same surges of Flood waters.In southern Israel the Yam-Suf Group is overlain unconformably by quartzose sandstones of unknown age, though they are likely to still be Paleozoic (Weissbrod 1969). This is because the next cycle of sedimentation is known to have begun with upper Carboniferous sediments, based on sedimentary strata of upper Carboniferous and Permian conventional ages found in the subsurface of southern Israel, but also exposed around the northern part of the Gulf of Suez, in west central Sinai, and east of the Dead Sea (Garfunkel 1978; Wiessbrod 1969). In the subsurface of the Negev three formations have been defined: The Sa’ad Formation is essentially sandy, is upper Carboniferous, and lies unconformably on the terminal Precambrian (very earliest Flood) Zenifim Formation, or on volcanics.The Arqov Formation is upper Carboniferous-Permian and consists of alternating shales and carbonates, with few sandstones under the northern Negev, but becoming essentially sandy under the central Negev.The Yamin Formation is Permian, and consists mainly of carbonates, but sandstone is abundant in the south.The total thickness of these sedimentary layers is 400–500 m (1,312–1,640 ft) (Garfunkel 1978; Weissbrod 1969). Together they have been grouped into the Negev Group (fig. 3). In the south they are truncated by the lower Carboniferous unconformity. Too little is known about these upper Carboniferous-Permian sedimentary layers in Israel and adjacent countries, but as their conventionally interpreted marine character becomes more pronounced to the north and northwest, it is presumed that the Permian transgression came from that direction. The Permian-Triassic boundary is not exposed, but probably occurs on top of the Yamin Formation. It is thus not clear whether there is a hiatus at that level. However, overlying the Yamin Formation, and exposed in Makhtesh Ramon in the central Negev, is the lower Triassic Zafir Formation, which consists mainly of shales with variable quantities of limestone. It has been also included in the Negev Group (Wiessbrod 1969). Its inclusion increases the total thickness of the sedimentary layers in this group to up to 600 m (1,968 ft) (Freund 1977). Ramon Group (Triassic) Triassic sedimentary rock units are well exposed in the central Negev, primarily in Makhtesh Ramon, a huge elongated crater-like erosional structure that has been called the “Grand Canyon” of Israel (Austin 1998a), where over 1,000 m (3,280 ft) of socalled Mesozoic strata are exposed (fig. 14). There are five Triassic named formations, the lowermost Zafir Formation (mainly shales and sandstones with variable quantities of limestone) being assigned to the Negev Group. The remaining four Triassic formations constitute the Ramon Group (Garfunkel 1978) (fig. 14): The Ra’af Formation consists mainly of limestones, with some dolomite, and siltstone and shale layers, with a rich marine fossil fauna. The rocks are mostly micrites and biomicrites.The Gevanim Formation is relatively rich in clastics—sandstones and siltstones in lower parts, and shales and siltstones in upper parts, which also contain fossiliferous limestones. The amount of shales and carbonates increases northward, in the subsurface.The Saharonim Formation consists mainly of carbonates, with lesser amounts of claystones and mudstones, and some sulfates (especially anhydrite and gypsum). The carbonates in the lower part are micrites, both biomicrites and grain-supported biomicrites. The amount of dolomite increases up the section, and so does the amount of sulfates. These are associated with fossil stromatolite beds and some flat pebble conglomerates. Concurrently the formation becomes less fossiliferous.The Mohilla Formation is characterized by a great development of anhydrite and gypsum (in exposures only) which are associated with dolomites and some shales. Oolites and beds with an impoverished fossil fauna are also present. This formation is characterized by abrupt facies changes, in contrast with the underlying formations in which facies changes are gradual. Fig. 14. Composite stratigraphic section of the Triassic sediment layers in southern Israel (after Parnes, Benjamini and Hirsch 1985). The locations from where exposed outcrops and boreholes were used to construct this composite stratigraphic section are shown in the inset location map.Where well developed, the Triassic strata range in total thickness from 500 m (1,640 ft) to 1,100 m (3,608 ft). The Ra’af Formation is 70 m (230 ft) thick in the Ramon-1 borehole, but only 27 m (89 ft) of it are exposed at Har ‘Arif to the south of Makhtesh Ramon (fig. 14) (Parnes, Benjamini and Hirsch 1985). In Makhtesh Ramon the Gevanim Formation is 270 m (886 ft) thick (although only the upper 130 m (426 ft) are exposed), and the Saharonim Formation is 153–170 m (502–558 ft) thick (Benjamini, Druckman, and Zak 1993; Parnes, Benjamini and Hirsch 1985). The known thickness and facies variations of the Triassic formations are compatible with a pattern of NE–SW belts, and the distribution of the clastics, mainly sandstones, is compatible with a southeasterly provenance (Druckman 1974). However, a southwesterly provenance is equally probable, as paleocurrent measurements in the sandstones of the Gevanim Formation indicate the predominant direction of sediment transport was to the northeast (Karcz and Braun 1964; Karcz and Zak 1965, 1968). These paleocurrent measurements were derived from cross-beds that consistently dip at 15– 25°, which is consistent with water transport of those sands (Austin 1994; Visher 1990).The nature of the Ramon Group sediments themselves and their fossil contents (fig. 14) clearly indicate that ocean waters had flooded over the area, although the postulated depositional environments all involved only shallow waters (Garfunkel 1978). Carbonates are present in most of the Triassic sequence, with clastics (sandstones and shales) important in the lower part, and evaporites (precipitites) becoming common in the upper part (fig. 14). Open marine, shallow marine (subtidal, intertidal and supratidal), restricted (brackish to hypersaline), and continental depositional environments have all been postulated (Druckman 1974). Within the exposed stratigraphic section in Makhtesh Ramon, from the upper half of the Gevanim Formation through the Saharonim Formation to the Mohilla Formation, it is claimed there is evidence for some five coupled transgressive/regressive cycles (Benjamini, Druckman and Zak 1993), but these can be interpreted as representing oscillations in the Flood conditions.Seven successive levels of ammonites are present in the Ramon Group, through the Ra’af, Gevanim and Saharonim Formations, which are useful for correlating these strata around the Mediterranean region (Parnes 1965; Parnes, Benjamini and Hirsch 1985). But these are not the only marine creatures fossilized in these rock units. The Saharonim Formation particularly has rich micro- and macrofossiliferous horizons, including the ammonites, with conodonts, bivalves, nautiloids, brachiopods, other molluscs, cephalopods, crinoids and echinoderms (Benjamini, Druckman and Zak 1993). Near the base of the formation is a limestone bed with a great many preserved cephalopods, with other nautiloids, and some ammonites. Sponges and corals are notably absent. Fossilized burrows are the main trace fossils, while foraminifers are the main microfauna. Algal structures are found in the limestone beds, and stromatolites increase in abundance upwards in the dolomite and evaporate (precipitite) beds through the Saharonim and Mohilla Formations. Some of these stromatolites are domal structures up to 2 m (6.6 ft) in diameter.The Mohilla Formation is more than 200 m (656 ft) thick in Makhtesh Ramon, so this massive deposition of dolomite and gypsum/anhydrite evaporites (precipitites) warrants explanation. Rather than the conventional interpretation of a hypersaline environment in which these dolomites and sulfates slowly accumulated by evaporation, within the global Flood the catastrophic expulsion of hot saline hydrothermal fluids into the cold Flood waters can explain these deposits via rapid precipitation (Hovland et al. 2006; Snelling 2009b). Such hydrothermal fluids would have been associated with, and produced by, nearby magmatic and volcanic activity.It is thus significant that also exposed in Makhtesh Ramon are a composite gabbro laccolith up to 90 m (295 ft) thick (Rophe, Eyal and Eyal 1993), basaltic and trachytic dikes and sills (Baer 1993), and stocks, bosses, dikes and sills of quartz syenite (Itmar and Baer 1993), all of which are indicative of prolonged and intense magmatic and volcanic activity in this region coinciding with the deposition of the sedimentary strata. The gabbro laccolith has been K-Ar dated at being emplaced between 136±4 Ma and 129±4 Ma (Lang et al. 1988), while the quartz syenite intrusions have been Rb-Sr dated at 107±12 Ma (Starinsky, Bielski and Steinitz 1980) and K-Ar dated at 130±5 Ma (Lang and Steinitz 1985). Such conventional early Cretaceous dates are consistent with these intrusions being younger than the sedimentary strata they intrude. The gabbro laccolith was emplaced between gypsum beds in the upper Triassic Mohilla Formation, and the quartz syenite intrusions are variously emplaced in the middle Triassic Gevanim Formation and Jurassic strata overlying the Ramon Group, while the basaltic and trachytic dikes and sills (also regarded as early Cretaceous) intruded into the Triassic Gevanim, Saharonim and Mohilla Formations and the overlying lower Jurassic units.Conventionally, therefore, there could be no connection between this magmatic and volcanic activity and the deposition of the Mohilla Formation sulfate precipitites. On the other hand, however, within the year-long Global Flood there would have been only up to a few weeks between deposition of the Triassic strata and the lower Cretaceous emplacement of the intrusives. Thus the magma chambers that fed these intrusives had to already have been emplaced and active in the weeks preceding emplacement of the intrusives, so that the hot saline hydrothermal fluids associated with this magmatic activity could have been escaping along fractures into the Flood waters above to rapidly precipitate their dissolved salts to deposit the Mohilla Formation sulfates. Indeed, it is likely the intrusives were subsequently emplaced along the fractures and pathways the growing magma chambers produced during catastrophic expulsion of the saline hydrothermal fluids.That abundant saline hydrothermal fluids were associated with these intrusives is evident from the hydrothermal alteration present especially in the quartz syenite bodies, and from the contact metasomatic alteration and brecciation of the sedimentary rocks immediately adjacent to the intrusives (Itamar and Baer 1993). Furthermore, polymetallic hydrothermal mineralization occurs as veins and lenses within phreato-magmatic breccia zones at the roofs of the quartz syenite intrusions close to their contacts with the overlying sedimentary rocks. This polymetallic hydrothermal mineralization consists of Ag, Pb, Zn, Cd, Cu, Co, Ni and Fe sulfides, arsenides and sulfo-arsenides plus native Sn in a gangue-dominated by quartz and abundant anhydrite and gypsum, with rare K-feldspar and fluorite. K-Ar dating of this gangue K-feldspar at 125±2 Ma indicates that this hydrothermal veining was the last stage in the magmatic activity (Itamar and Steinitz 1988). Significantly, the calculated oxygen and sulfur isotopic compositions of the hydrothermal fluids, based on analyses of oxygen isotopes in the gangue quartz and sulfur isotopes in the vein sulfides (Itamar and Matthews 1988), indicate that the hydrothermal fluids and the sedimentary connate waters had the same composition, consistent with mixing of the two. Thus there is sufficient evidence of a causal relationship within the timeframe of the Flood between the hydrothermal fluids generated and expelled by all this magmatic activity and the deposition via precipitation of the sulfates within the Ramon Group sediments, particularly the Mohilla Formation. Fig. 15. Columnar stratigraphic section of the layers exposed in the Makhtesh Ramon and Nahal Neqarot areas (after Ben- David 1993). Fig. 16. Generalized stratigraphic section of the upper Jurassic Arad Group and lower Cretaceous Kurnub Group strata sequence exposed in the southeastern slope of Mt. Hermon, northern Israel (after Freund 1978). Arad Group (Jurassic) The Jurassic rocks of the Arad Group are also exposed in the erosional cirques in the Negev (fig. 15) and in neighboring northern Sinai and Jordan, as well as being encountered in many boreholes (Garfunkel 1978). The stratigraphy in the Negev was established by Goldberg and Friedman (1974), while the paleontology was studied by Hudson (1958). This Jurassic sequence extends into central and northern Israel, being exposed only in a small area in Samaria (Freund 1978), but is widely exposed on Mt. Hermon (figs. 1, 16 and 17) and in Lebanon.In all places the top of the Jurassic sequence was eroded, this sequence being completely removed in the central Negev, before deposition of lower Cretaceous rocks. The contact with the upper Triassic rocks in the Negev is unconformable, and marks a brief hiatus in deposition. The upper surface of the Triassic rocks was eroded, apparently weathered and covered by a few to 30 m (98 ft) of kaolinitic clays, often with iron oxides, and having a pisolitic structure. These comprise the Mishor Formation (fig. 15). In spite of the claim that this formation was produced by a prolonged weathering episode, it is admitted that at least some of its material was allochthonous (transported into position) (Garfunkel 1978). This formation occurs in a 50 km (31 mi.) wide belt, which is truncated to the south, where it contains dolomite beds consistent with water-transported deposition. The Jurassic Arad Group sequence of the Negev is divided into the following formations (fig. 15): The Mishor Formation, a few to 30 m (98 ft) thick accumulation of kaolinitic clays with iron oxides and a pisolitic structure, and some dolomite beds.The Ardon Formation consists of limestone, shale and dolomite, and in the subsurface also contains some evaporites (precipitites).The Inmar Formation is mainly sandstones, some with cross-bedding, but in the subsurface further north it contains some shale and carbonate beds. The formation is rich in plant remains and contains a few thin coal beds.The Daya (Mahmal) Formation consists of alternating fossiliferous limestones, sandy limestones, and shales and some sandstones. The carbonate sediments are claimed to have been dolomitized subsequent to deposition then dedolomitized, but such claims expose the inability in conventional thinking to satisfactorily explain the process responsible for forming dolomites. It is more likely that these carbonate sediments were deposited as dolomites due to the chemistry of saline hydrothermal fluids mixing with the Flood waters, with de-dolomitization occurring subsequent to deposition as connate waters leached and removed magnesium.The Sherif Formation resembles the Daya (Mahmal) Formation but also contains much disseminated pyrite, and carbonized plant remains, as well as coal beds.The Zohar Formation consists predominantly of fossiliferous limestone, marl and shale, with subordinate amounts of silt and sand. Locally it contains marine fossil accumulations in structures claimed to be fossilized reefs, but these can be better explained as depositional features (Snelling 2009b). Some dolomitization and de-dolomitization is also claimed to have taken place, but again the evidence can be interpreted as primary dolomite deposition from saline hydrothermal fluids mixing in the Flood waters, followed by post-depositional leaching and removal of magnesium.The Sherif and Zohar Formations are not exposed in Makhtesh Ramon because of their non-deposition or erosion in that area and further south (Garfunkel 1978). To the north and northwest the original thickness of Jurassic sediments increases considerably from about 1,000–1,300 m (3,280–4,265 ft) in the northern Negev to about 3,000 m (9,842 ft) under the coastal plain. Most of the thickness difference was produced during deposition of the Ardon and Inmar Formations, although in the northern Negev three additional upper Jurassic formations were deposited on top of the Zohar Formation, the uppermost unit of the Arad Group: The Kidod Formation consists predominantly of shales with a few carbonate layers. It is rich in pyrite and plant debris, while marine fossils are abundant especially in the limestone beds and lower shale beds.The Sheva and Halutsa Formations consist of alternations of fossiliferous limestones, which are sometimes dolomitic, and shales, with subordinate sandstone in the upper part of the section.

Fig. 17. Upper Jurassic Arad Group limestone at Banias on the slopes of Mt. Hermon, northern Israel.Marine fossils are common throughout this Jurassic sequence (Barzel and Friedman 1970; Hudson 1958). These include pelecypods, gastropods, echinoids, crinoids, corals, sponges, brachiopods, ammonites, stromatoporoids, calcareous algae and ubiquitous foraminifers. They are found sporadically scattered throughout the sequence, with some forms more common that others at different levels. Typically they are only preserved as skeletal fragments, such as loose tests, shells, plates, spicules and spines, embedded haphazardly in a micrite or sparite matrix (Barzel and Friedman 1970). Many fossil fragments are coated with algal crusts, and pellets (fecal or mud aggregates) are sporadic. Quartz grains, making up to at least 7% by volume of the fragments embedded in the matrix, are scattered through the rocks. These textural features and this fossil content is fully consistent with rapid water-transported deposition of these rocks.North of the Negev in central and northern Israel was a domain of continuous calcareous deposition, so there most of these formations (except the upper Jurassic ones) lose their identity (Garfunkel 1978). The Arad Group in northern Israel is composed of limestone with some shale in a 2,000–3,000 m (6,560–9,842 ft) thick sequence (figs. 3 and 16). At the base of the sequence in a downfaulted block in the Carmel area just south of Haifa deep boreholes encountered a volcanic sequence about 2,500 m (8,202 ft) thick consisting predominantly of flows and pyroclastics (Garfunkel 1989). Called the Asher Volcanics, petrographic and geochemical studies have shown that the fresh rocks are alkali olivine basalts (Dvorkin and Kohn 1989), with rare earth elements and Sr and Nd isotopic signatures resembling ocean island and other intraplate basalts, but spilitized rocks are also common. K-Ar dating has yielded ages in the range of about 190–205 Ma (uppermost Triassic–lower Jurassic) for the relatively fresh basalts (Lang and Steinitz 1987), which is consistent with these volcanics overlying upper Triassic limestones. Kurnub Group (lower Cretaceous) Cretaceous rocks are exposed very extensively in Israel (figs 1 and 2) and in neighboring regions. They lie unconformably on upper Jurassic to Cambrian rocks, and even on the Precambrian crystalline basement farther south. This unconformity was obviously due to major erosion as a result of the Flood waters temporarily retreating off the region. This coincided with relatively accentuated earth movements (Garfunkel 1978). This makes sense, because by this time in the Flood year such earth movements would be the beginnings of the final phase in which today’s mountains were starting to be built as a result of crustal isostatic adjustments. Earth movements catastrophically raising sections of the earth’s continental crust would cause rapid retreat en masse of the Flood waters as a sheet over wide regions, resulting in massive sheet erosion. Though large volumes of rocks were removed across Israel and beyond, the unconformity at the base of the Cretaceous strata always appears as a smooth surface, both in outcrop and in the subsurface, which is consistent with catastrophic water retreat and sheet erosion (not over 20–30 million years as conventionally claimed).However, the Flood waters rapidly returned to advance again across the whole of Israel and surrounding regions, progressively depositing a thick blanket of Cretaceous sediments (Sass and Bein 1982) (figs. 2 and 3). In most of the Negev, and especially in outcrops, the lower Cretaceous sequence is predominantly sandstone, which has been designated as the Hatira Formation of the Kurnub Group (Garfunkel 1978) (figs. 3 and 15). Much of this formation consists of variegated, poorly cemented, sometimes cross-bedded, sandstone, which may contain small quartz pebbles, as well as some beds of finely laminated siltstone and marly claystone. The remains of fossil plants are widespread, including fossilized logs exposed by erosion of the Hatira Formation sandstone in Makhtesh Hagadol (fig. 18). In the central Negev the coarse Arod Conglomerate, consisting of quartzite pebbles, occurs at the base of the section (fig. 15). In the nearby eastern Sinai, the Arod Conglomerate is commonly 5 m (16 ft) thick, but ranges from 0–15 m (0–49 ft), as it also does in Makhtesh Ramon (Bartov et al. 1980). The pebbles in it are of various quartzites, reach a size of 30 cm (1 ft) or more, and are embedded in friable sandstone, which is locally limonitic and calcareous at the base.

Fig. 18. A fossilized log exposed by erosion from the lower Cretaceous Kurnub Group’s Hatira Formation sandstone on the floor of Makhtesh Hagadol in the Negev, southern Israel. (a) A wide view showing the fossilized log on the floor of Makhtesh Hagadol with the overlying strata exposed behind in the cliffs of the Makhtesh. (b) A closer view of the fossilized log.These lower Cretaceous Hatira Formation sandstones with the basal Arod Conglomerate are somewhat similar, significantly, to the lower Cambrian Amudei Shelomo Formation of the Yam-Suf Group at the base of the Flood sedimentary sequence, which was deposited by the on-rush of the Flood waters surging onto and over the continents at the beginning of the Flood, similar to, and at the same stratigraphic level as, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon (Beus and Morales 2003) and its equivalents across North America (Sloss 1963). However, the Hatira Formation and its basal Arod Conglomerate are the products of what appears to be the last major surge of the Flood waters over the continents prior to the Flood waters finally retreating into today’s new ocean basins. And the presence of one–four interfingering “marine” beds within the Hatira Formation is certainly confirmation of that. The uppermost of these has the greatest extent, reaching the Makhtesh Ramon area 100 km (62 mi.) from the present coast (Garfunkel 1978). These “marine” strata (designated as such because of their contained marine fossils) compromise sandstones, fossiliferous limestones and shales.Within Makhtesh Ramon angiosperm-like macrofossils and angiospermous pollen grains are found in the lower Hatira Formation sandstones, which also contain marine intercalations with invertebrate fossils, and are topped by the Ramon basalts. The conformable upper Hatira Formation is exposed in the northern slopes of Makhtesh Ramon, and consists of variegated cross-bedded sandstones with lenticular, finely laminated siltstones and marly claystones containing occasional marine fossils and locally abundant terrestrial plant debris. The fossil plant assemblages consist of ferns, ginkgophytes, conifers and the “earliest” angiosperm macrofossils in the stratigraphic sequence (Krassilov et al. 2007). Trunks, roots, fronds and particulate debris of the fern Weichselia are numerically dominant. Next in abundance are narrow angiospermous leaves of several morphotypes, often forming mat-like bedding-plane accumulations that are constantly associated with Weichselia. The other angiosperms are broad-leafed morphotypes, such as the peltate (shield-shaped) Nelumbites or those with sub-peltate platanoid leaves all of which are relatively infrequent, poorly preserved and “apparently” allochthonous (transported), together with occasional leaves and cone scales of araucariaceous conifers. Not only is the evidence that this fossil plant debris was water-transported, but the presence of impressions of insect egg sets on some of the leaf blades (up to 250 eggs on one leaf) indicate transport, deposition, burial and fossilisation had to be rapid, as it would have been under Flood conditions.In the subsurface of the very northern part of the Negev, the lower Cretaceous Kurnub Group sequence becomes increasingly “marine” (that is, contains marine fossils), and the amount of shales and carbonates increases considerably at the expense of sandstones (Garfunkel 1978). Under the southern coastal plain the sequence is largely marine. The thickness of the Hatira Formation increases from about 200 m (656 ft) in the central Negev to about 400 m (1,312 ft) in the Hatira cirque to the east, while under the southern coastal plain the lower Cretaceous beds are 1,100 m (3,609 ft) thick. In central and northern Israel this mainly clastic Kurnub Group sequence is 800–1,000 m (2,625–3,280 ft) thick. The upper part of the sequence is exposed in several places in central Galilee, while the whole sequence is exposed on the southeastern slopes of Mt. Hermon (fig. 16) and in a small area of the Samaria (fig. 19) (Freund 1978). The sequence begins with alkaline lavas and tuffs, followed by variegated sandstones with fossilized tree remains (figs 16 and 19). A limestone cliff, referred to as “Muraille de Blanche”, marks the middle of the Kurnub Group, which terminates with about 250 m (820 ft) of yellow fossiliferous marls containing some beds of oolitic iron oxides.As already indicated, during deposition of the lower Cretaceous Kurnub Group sedimentary rocks there was a brief period of magmatism and volcanism in Israel and neighboring areas (Garfunkel 1978).

Fig. 19. Columnar stratigraphic section of the upper Jurassic Arad Group and lower Cretaceous Kurnub Group strata exposed at Wadi Malik in Samaria, central Israel (after Freund 1978).This included the gabbro laccolith, quartz syenite plutons and other intrusions exposed in Makhtesh Ramon in the central Negev, the basalt and trachyte dikes and sills, and the basalt flows referred to above as the Ramon basalt (Baer 1993; Garfunkel 1989; Itamar and Baer 1993; Rophe, Eyal and Eyal 1993). These have been radioisotope dated, yielding various lower Cretaceous ages (Lang et al. 1988; Lang and Steinitz 1985; Lang and Steinitz 1987; Starinsky, Bielski and Steinitz 1980). The intrusions were primarily emplaced in the Triassic Ramon Group and the Jurassic Arad Group, producing metasomatic alteration of the host limestones, for example, in the Saharonim and Ardon Formations (fig. 15). A pavement of the Jurassic Inmar Formation sandstone in Makhtesh Ramon, on a hill known locally as “The Carpentry,” consists of prismatic pillars of hard quartzite, with 3–8 facets, which are 3–12 cm (1.2–4.7 in.) wide and 20–80 cm (7.9–31.5 in.) long (fig. 20) (Mazor 1993). These pillars occur in beds with a total thickness of about 6 m (20 ft), outcropping along 60 m (197 ft). This and other such “carpentries” in the Inmar Formation within the Makhtesh Ramon occur near emplaced magmatic bodies, but they have no direct contact with the pillars, so it has been suggested that these quartzitic pillars were formed by hot fluids that accompanied the igneous intrusions infiltrating into the sandstone. The basalt dikes may have been the conduits from which the Makhtesh Ramon basalts flowed (fig. 15), interrupting deposition of the Hatira Formation sandstones of the lower Cretaceous Kurnub Group. The Arod Conglomerate at the base of the Kurnub Group also contains trachyte pebbles eroded from the trachyte dikes (Garfunkel 1989). The lower Cretaceous basalts seem to have only covered a relatively small area in the central Negev, and neighboring east Sinai (Bartov et al. 1980), but a small basalt plug intruded into Cambrian beds at Timna has a lower Cretaceous K-Ar age (Beyth and Segev 1983), suggesting these basalt flows may have originally extended much further southwards.

Fig. 20. The “pavement” of upper Jurassic Arad Group Inmar Formation sandstone in Makhtesh Ramon known locally as “The Carpentry.” (a). A wide view showing the vertical prismatic pillars of hard quartzite (baked sandstone), with 3–8 facets, in beds about 6 m (20 ft) thick. (b) An end on view showing that most of the pillars have 5–6 facets, and are generally about 6–8 cm (2.4–3.2 in.) wide.In the Samaria-Galilee area, considerable magmatism also occurred, known mainly from the subsurface (Garfunkel 1989). Drillholes which reached below the Cretaceous sequence penetrated up to 400 m (1,312 ft) of extrusives, mainly olivine basalts and tuffs, known as the Tayasir Volcanics. They also outcrop in Wadi Malih in the Somron area, some 10 km (6 mi.) west of the Jordan Valley in northeastern Samaria, where they are 230 m (755 ft) thick (fig. 19) (Freund 1978; Lang and Mimran 1985; Mimran 1972). Within the tuffs are thin beds of laminated shales that are slightly calcareous and contain plant remains, well-preserved skeletons or prints of fish up to 10 cm (4 in.) long, fossil tadpoles and ostracodes. The eastward extension of this volcanic field, offset by the Dead Sea transform fault, is exposed in the south of Mt. Hermon (Garfunkel 1989). There numerous small basalt intrusions cross the upper Jurassic beds, extrusives occur at the base of the lower Cretaceous Kurnub Group sequence (fig. 16) (Freund 1978), and several vents delimited by faults are present (Garfunkel 1989). Geochemical studies show these basalts range from thoeliitic to alkaline and form a typical intraplate suite with a geochemical signature similar to ocean island basalts. K-Ar dating of rocks from both the Wadi Malih and Mt. Hermon outcrops yielded uppermost Jurassic to lower Cretaceous ages (Lang and Mimran 1985; Shimron and Lang 1988). Judea Group (middle Cretaceous) The middle Cretaceous sedimentary units of the Judea Group are widely exposed in southern Israel, where in Makhtesh Ramon in the central Negev they are collectively up to 520 m (1,706 ft) thick (fig. 21). To the north of the Negev, outcrops of the Judea Group form the backbone of the mountains of Israel, where the group is about 800 m (2,625 ft) thick and dominated by dolomite. There are facies changes laterally, so that the stratigraphic subdivisions and their names have been defined differently in the Negev (fig. 21) compared with in the Judean Hills to the north (fig. 22).In the Negev, the Judea Group sequence has been divided into the following formations (fig. 21) (Avni 1993; Bartov, et al. 1972; Bartov and Steinitz 1977; Garfunkel 1978):The Hazera Formation consists predominantly of fossiliferous limestone, dolomite and marl. It has been subdivided into five members. The transition between the sandstones of the Hatira Formation on which the carbonate sequence of the Hazera Formation always sits is quite abrupt. Compared with the Hazera Formation sequence in the central Negev (in the Makhtesh Ramon area) towards the south, especially in the Elat area, shale and sandstone become increasingly abundant. To the north and northwest the sequence (especially its lower part) becomes thicker and increasingly dolomitic. Thus near the Dead Sea, in Judea and under the southern coastal plain it consists of a predominantly dolomitic sequence, with some sandstone in the latter region (Arkin and Hamaoui 1967).The predominantly marly Derorim Formation is only developed in part of the northern Negev, and is characterized by a rich ammonite fauna.The Shivta Formation overlies the Derorim Formation, or the Hazera Formation where the latter is absent. It consists of poorly bedded fossiliferous limestones, occasionally with chert concretions. It often contains fossil rudists, which are large horncoral-like pelecypods (bivalve molluscs) (Moore, Lalicker and Fischer 1952), especially in its upper part where other fossils are also common.The Nezer Formation consists of well-bedded limestone, mostly micritic, and occasionally contains sandstones.The Ora Formation, developed only in the Makhtesh Ramon area and to the south, consists mainly of marl and shale with some limestone interbeds. Oolitic limestone, gypsum and sandstone occur near its top. Its basal beds are rich in and often packed with ammonites, as seen in the “Ammonite Wall” exposed in the southern side of Makhtesh Ramon (fig. 23). This dramatic display of large ammonites all lying flat and regularly spaced at the same level in the same upturned bed is clearly testimony to their catastrophic transport and burial by the Flood waters, as well as to the rapid deposition of the argillaceous dolomite bed that encloses them. These basal beds are equivalent to the Derorim Formation, while higher ammonite-bearing beds and the overlying parts of the Ora Formation which contain them are the lateral equivalents of the Shivta Formation.The cliff- forming Gerofit Formation (fig. 24) overlies the Ora Formation, and consists predominantly of limestone, dolomite, and minor chert, marl and shale. Sometimes this formation contains “banks” of accumulated fossil rudists, with fossil hydrozoa, gastropods (fig. 25) and other pelecypod fragments present, that have been interpreted as “bioherms” (Bartov et al. 1972), but instead would be the result of the rapid pile-up of such broken organic debris by the Flood waters.The Zihor Formation occurs above the Gerofit Formation only in the southern half of the Negev (Lewy 1975). It consists of a variety of fossiliferous limestones, marls, sandy limestones and some dolomite. The dolomite is coarse-grained and sandy, and like the sandy limestones often exhibits depositional structures such as planar crossbedding and ripple marks (Bartov et al. 1972), which are consistent with clastic deposition by the fast-moving Flood waters. The Zihor Formation forms a soft landscape above the cliffs of the Gerofit Formation. Some confusion has existed over its classification. Because it resembles the underlying beds and its top is an unconformity, it is usually included in the Judea Group. However, due to its claimed fossil age, where its upper boundary is indistinct it has sometimes been included in the overlying upper Cretaceous– Mt. Scopus Group.The fossiliferous sections in the lower Judea Group sequence in the Negev contrast with the dolomite-rich sections north of it, indicating different depositional conditions and source materials. The sandstone occurrences are compatible with sediment transport from the south and southwest (Garfunkel 1978). Sedimentation patterns then changed in response to differential subsidence, so that by the time the upper Judea Group was deposited the northern part of the Negev had become a relatively uplifted area, on which reduced thicknesses of sediments were deposited. South of it much thicker sections accumulated in a relatively subsiding area. There was an influx of clastics, so argillaceous sedimentation extended over much of the Negev. The occurrences of fossil ammonites seem to outline several depositional “belts”, which have been interpreted as a result of structurally controlled depressions in which the waters were deeper than in nearby areas (Freund 1961). However, these belts in the Negev may not have just been associated with marked thickness variations, as facies changes may also have been involved, such as the calcareous sedimentation in the northernmost Negev and beyond, in contrast to the marly-shaly sedimentation in the central and southern Negev. The distribution of upper Judea Group sandstones indicates a southwesterly provenance. Fig. 21. Composite stratigraphic section for the western area of Makhtesh Ramon with a detailed legend (p. 143) (after Avni 1993). The hard strata of the thick middle Cretaceous Judea Group are prominent.

Fig. 21. Legend. North of the Negev, the Judean Hills, together with the Hebron Hills to the south of them and Samaria further to the north, form the central hilly area of Israel. Outcrops of the Judea Group form the backbone of this hilly area, where the group is about 800 m (2,625 ft) thick and dominated by dolomite. Hard, pure, white, very fine-grained, durable limestone in the Judea Group has been valued for three millennia as a building stone, being used to construct Solomon’s Temple. Much of Jerusalem itself sits on the uppermost beds of the Judea Group, including the Temple Mount (fig. 26). The rock units making up the Judea Group in the Judean Hills are represented schematically in Fig. 22 (Freund 1978; Sass and Bein 1982). The sequence between the Giv’at Ye’arim and Weradim Formations is dominantly dolomitic, but displays distinct vertical and lateral facies changes, no doubt due to the controls on sedimentation, such as water depth and sediment supply.The variety of dolomitic rocks in the Judean Hills area can be classified into two main facies, which tend to occur in separate formations. First, there are the thickly bedded to massive, coarse to medium crystalline dolomites which occur in the Giv’at Ye’arim, Kesalon, Amminadev and Weradim Formations. Features such as dedolomitization, transitions to limestones and chalks, association with coarsely crystalline silicified rocks, and karstic features are common to these formations. Second, there are well bedded, finely crystalline dolomites which characterize the Soreq and Beit Me’ir (western facies) Formations. These formations are usually poor in calcite, include varying amounts of interbedded clays and marls, and contain siliceous rocks in the form of chert nodules and quartz geodes.

Fig. 22. Lithostratigraphic relationships within the middle Cretaceous Judea Group strata in the Judean Hills (after Sass and Bein 1982). Limestones and dolomites predominate.Three distinct types of siliceous rocks are closely associated with specific carbonate facies, and thus seem to be related to the depositional conditions. First, there are coarse to medium crystalline silicified rocks termed quartzolites (fig. 22). These usually contain well-preserved skeletal fragments, where the fossil fragments are silicified either selectively or differently from the matrix. On the basis of textural and mineralogical criteria, the formation of these quartzolites and their crystal fabrics is considered to be early diagenetic (Sass and Bein 1982). They are characteristically associated with the coarsely crystalline dolomites. Second, chert occurs as nodules and thin layers, and is quite common in the Soreq and Beit Me’ir Formations (fig. 22). Cherts are rarely associated with the quartzolites, indicating different modes of formation. Third, there are quartz geodes which contain minor anhydrite inclusions, with relics of original anhydrite nodules. They occur sporadically in, and are a characteristic of, the Soreq and Beit Me’ir Formations, and thus are only associated with the finely crystalline dolomites.The Motza Formation (fig. 22) marks a stratigraphic break between the underlying sequence of dominantly finely crystalline, well-bedded dolomites and the overlying coarsely crystalline dolomites. It is the only non-dolomitic unit in the Judea Group with a widespread areal distribution, consisting mainly of marl and claystone, with some limestone intercalations and rich marine fossil assemblages.

Fig. 23. The “Ammonite Wall” consists of a fossil graveyard of large ammonites on an exposed surface of upturned Ora Formation marl (middle Cretaceous Judea Group) in the southern side of Makhtesh Ramon. (a) A general view of the wall, with a boy for scale in the top right corner. Hundreds of regularly spaced fossilized ammonites can be seen. (b) A closer view of several of the fossilized ammonites. Since the lens cap is 5 cm (2 in.) across, many of these ammonites are 30–48 cm (12–19 in.) across, although there are smaller ones visible. Since these are all the same species in a range of sizes, these represent a living population that perished in a catastrophe, being buried en masse.Some of the formations display characteristic facies changes, such as the Kefar Sha’ul Formation, which is chalk in the central and eastern Judean Hills, but is calcitic dolomite to the west (fig. 22). Generally speaking, dolomitic facies are better developed in the western Judean Hills, while limey facies are more abundant in the central or eastern part. Because of the observation that dolomites only form today in shallow water evaporitic environments (Kendall 1992) it is claimed that when these dolomites in the Judea Group were deposited the area must have constituted a wide shelf lagoon covered only by shallow hypersaline sea waters (Sass and Bein 1982). Furthermore, relatively deeper waters supposedly existed at different times and places to explain the lateral facies changes from dolomites to chalks and limestones. The diversity of skeletal fossil forms in the chalks and limestones, as well as the planktonic foraminifers and ammonites, is said to indicate close-to-normal salinities prevailed in those depositional areas. However, it is argued here that the dolomites, cherts and anhydrite in the quartz geodes can be better explained as precipitites, whereby contemporaneous magmatic and volcanic activity (for which there is much evidence throughout Israel) contributed copious quantities of hot saline waters and hydrothermal fluids to the cooler Flood waters, that consequently became supersaturated in salts, resulting in deposition of precipitites (Snelling 2009b). Under such Flood conditions the lateral and vertical facies variations in the Judea Group would have resulted from rapid fluctuations in the supply of sediments and salts, and the fluctuations and oscillations in the levels, volumes and flow rates of the Flood waters moving over the continental plates, as they too moved rapidly across the globe due to catastrophic plate tectonics. Fig. 24. The cliff-forming Gerofit Formation of the middle Cretaceous Judea Group, as seen here above the highway just below the northern rim of Makhtesh Ramon. The light-colored strata are limestones and dolomites, whereas the dark-colored layers are shale. Fig. 25. Fossilized coiled gastropods (marine snails) in a slab of Gerofit Formation limestone (middle Cretaceous Judea Group) on display outside the Makhtesh Ramon Visitors Center. For so many of the one species to be buried together en masse like this in a fossil graveyard is again evidence of catastrophic burial.

Fig. 26. The Temple Mount (Mt. Moriah), Jerusalem, as seen from the Mount of Olives. The golden Dome of the Rock can be seen top right, and the southeastern corner of the wall of the Old City to the left, with the Kidron Valley below. The Old City is built on the uppermost beds of limestones and dolomites of the Judea Group (middle Cretaceous), which are exposed beneath the wall. The boundary with the overlying Mt. Scopus Group chalk beds is in the Kidron Valley.Of particular significance is the presence of fossilized dinosaur tracks in the Soreq Formation (fig. 22) at Beit Zeit, a few kilometers west of Jerusalem (Avnimelech 1962, 1966). Over an 80 m2 (860 ft2) area, in the top of an exposed pavement of dolomite, are more than 20 footprint impressions in a continuous row almost 20 m (66 ft) long (fig. 27a). They belong apparently to a single individual. On both sides of this row there are more prints, smaller and less distinct. Each of the footprints in the row show three toes, of which the middle one is 24–26 cm (9–10 in.) long, while the side toes average 20 cm (8 in.) length (fig. 27c). The angle between the toes is about 40°. The distance between the successive alternate footprints is about 80 cm (31 in.) (fig. 27b), so that the distance between one print and the next made by the same foot is around 160 cm (63 in.) or 1.6 m (5.2 ft). Evidently the animal was a bipedal dinosaur, with long and strong hind-feet and probably short fore-feet. On the basis of these data it has been concluded that the hind legs of this theropod dinosaur were approximately 120 cm (47 in.) or 1.2 m (4 ft) high, and that the length of this individual’s entire body with its big tail and expanded neck was 2.5 m (8 ft) or more, making its normal erect posture about 2 m (6.6 ft) tall.It is because of these fossilized dinosaur footprints that it is envisaged the Soreq Formation dolomites, with minor marls and cherts, were deposited in very shallow water under evaporitic conditions. However, such slow-and-gradual depositional conditions today do not preserve footprint impressions. Nor would dinosaurs have lived in shallow salty water where there was no food to eat! Moving shallow water today will degrade the “walls” of such impressions soon after being made in wet dolomitic sands and muds, and any prolonged period of exposure would obliterate them. On the other hand, the making of these fossilized dinosaur footprints can be explained under the prevailing conditions during the Flood (Snelling 2010b). As already indicated, the dolomitic sands and muds would have been precipitated from hot Mg-carbonate- rich hydrothermal fluids, mixing with the colder Flood waters. During a very brief tidal drop in the water level, this theropod dinosaur (that had earlier been swept away in the Flood waters, in which it was then floundering) was able to walk across a rapidly and temporarily exposed (or semi-exposed) surface of the dolomitic sand/mud leaving its footprints behind. That surface would have been firm due to the cohesiveness of the semi-wet dolomite, where a chemical reaction would start to “set” the dolomite, just as occurs today in very similar man-made cement, retaining the footprint impressions. However, this would have occurred in the brief timeframe before the next tidal surge raised the water level again and swept away the dinosaur, and rapidly covered the footprints with more dolomitic sediments to preserve them. This entire sequence had to have occurred within hours, with its rapid burial and with hardening of the dolomite pavement completed by the weight of the overlying layers squeezing the water out of it, or else these dinosaur footprints would not have been fossilized. Nothing like this happens under today’s conditions. And if this shallow water evaporitic depositional environment had been proximal to where this dinosaur supposedly lived, its bones should be found buried nearby. On the contrary, this dinosaur was swept away in the Flood waters to eventually perish, any trace of its bones likely being buried far away from its footprints, and much higher in the rapidly deposited strata sequence (Brand and Florence 1982; Snelling 2009b).

Fig. 27. Fossilized dinosaur footprints in a trackway in an exposed pavement of Soreq Formation dolomite (middle Cretaceous Judea Group) in the village of Beit Zeit, just a few kilometers west of Jerusalem. (a) Three of the 20 or more fossilized footprints in the trackway, a right-left-right set in the direction of walking. (b) A closer view of two of these fossilized footprints, the distance between them being about 88 cm (35 in.). (c) An enlarged view of one fossilized footprint clearly shows the three toes, the middle toe being about 24 cm (9 in.) long and the side toes about 20 cm (8 in.) long. The angle between the side toes is about 40°.To the northwest of the Judean Hills is an isolated hilly belt of Judea Group strata in the Carmel area south of Haifa (fig. 1). Frequent thickness and facies changes in the strata sequence have made mapping and stratigraphic correlations very difficult. This heterogeneity of facies appears unusual, and is likely due to the area being proximal to the edge of the active deposition of these sediments. The different defined and named rock units in the stratigraphic sequence of the Carmel area is shown schematically in Fig. 28 (Sass and Bein 1982).Dolomites are again by far the dominant rock units in the Judea Group of the eastern Carmel area, the same types as encountered in the Judean Hills, but with a proliferation of different formation names due to the frequent lateral and vertical facies changes (fig. 28). Those limestones present consist mostly of micrites with fragments of foraminifers, and a few with skeletal fragments of other marine invertebrates. Lenses (50–100 m [164–328 ft] thick and several kilometers wide) of chalk and marl occur in the dolomites, usually with ammonites, echinoids and oysters (Freund 1978). Claimed reef structures and “banks” of fossil rudists,Chondrodonta and Nerinea, which are large horn-coral-like pelecypods (Freund 1978; Moore, Lalicker and Fischer 1952), are here present throughout the entire sequence in various forms (fig. 28). Further to the west the rock units consist mainly of limestones and chalks with some chert. These limestones are mostly calcareous muds (calcilutites) made up of minute allochthonous (transported) skeletal debris, and occasionally foraminifers become an abundant constituent. “Banks” of fossilized oysters are often interbedded in the limestones.

Fig. 28. Lithostratigraphic relationships within the middle Cretaceous Judea Group strata in the Mt. Carmel area south of Haifa (after Sass and Bein 1982). Though dominated by limestones and dolomites, there are frequent intertonguing lateral and vertical facies changes, locally interbedded volcanics, and some claimed “fossil reef” structures that simply represent mounds of limestone debris with fossils (see figs. 29–32).Intertonguing with the Judea Group even further to the west along the coast is the Talme Yafe Formation (Bein and Weiler 1976; Sass and Bein 1982) (fig. 28). This unit is a huge prism- shaped accumulation (more than 3,000 m (9,842 ft) thick, about 20 km (12 mi.) wide, and at least 150 km (93 mi.) long) of a homogeneous sequence of calcareous detritus deposited primarily as calcilutites (calcareous mudstones) and laminites (turbidites), which are made up of alternating calcilutite and fine calcarenite (calcareous sandstone) laminae. Thin chert horizons are quite abundant. The calcareous detritus consists of minute skeletal fragments of rudistids, echinoids, abraded foraminifers and probably various molluscs, and of carbonate rock clasts. The residue is mostly clays, and siliceous faunal remains such as sponge spicules. Calcirudites (calcareous conglomerates) are found at the base of the sequence. The main extension of these sediments is found in the subsurface of the western part of the coastal plain and offshore, and a small part is exposed in the northwestern Carmel area. This prism (or wedge) is interpreted as being deposited off the continental margin of the northwestern Arabian Craton (Israel) on the continental slope and beyond at its base, the transport of all this carbonate debris from the shelf platform over the edge onto the slope probably being done by storms and tidal currents. Downslope movement would have been in water layers with suspended sediments (debris flows) and gravity-induced (turbidity) currents. Fig. 29. Generalized north-facing cross-section through the claimed Nahal Hame’arot “fossil reef” complex in the upper Judea Group (middle Cretaceous) strata of the southwestern Carmel area (after Freund 1978). Note that this is only one possible interpretation of the outcrop. Karstic caves are depicted in this north-facing cliff face (see fig. 31), the most famous of which is the Tabun cave where Neanderthal remains were found above stone tools in the sediments on the cave floor. All the carbonate clastic materials and the tiny skeletal fragments in the thick Talme Yafe Formation are claimed to have been derived from the rudistid “reefs” built on the edge of the continental platform, often as barriers that accumulated dolomites and limestones behind them across the platform. Many other similar examples are found around the world (James and Bourque 1992). But were these really barrier and platform reefs that therefore required countless years to be built, a timeframe inconsistent with the global Flood year? A typical good example of one of these rudistid reef structures is found at Nahal Hame’arot, near the southern end of the Carmel Hills (Freund 1978) (figs 29 and 30). It is said to consist of a rudist Chondrodonta and Nerinea reef core, fore-reef talus, and back-reef “lagoonal” dolomites (Bein 1976). Also present in this example are karstic caves that were inhabited by early post-Babel human settlers (for example, Neanderthals in the Tabun cave) (figs 29 and 31). Fig. 30. The south- facing cliff section through the claimed “fossil reef” complex, as exposed by the erosion of the Nahal Hame’arot valley. (a) A view of the actual outcrop. (b) The signboard showing the interpreted “fossil reef” complex. Note that the rugged outcrop with almost vertical sides in the center of (a) is interpreted as the “reef core” in (b), depicted with a jumble of fossilized rudists (the “horn” shapes). However, the so-called reef core is made up of a jumbled mass of these fossilized rudists (large horncoral-like pelecypods), in places only fragmented rudists, set in a biomicrite matrix, that is, a matrix of fine mud-sized calcareous particles consisting of biological debris derived from the violent destruction of other molluscs, echinoids, ammonites, foraminifers, and more (fig. 32). The “fore-reef” talus consists of biosparites (skeletal fragments set in a lime cement) and biosparrudites (conglomerates made up of biosparite clasts set in a biosparite matrix) which are usually well-sorted and well-rounded and are considered to be reef-debris material that accumulated on the “reef” flanks (Sass and Bein 1982). Such debris beds often dip at about 25°–30°. It is also significant that these so-called reefs only consist of rudists and lack the variety of encrusting organisms inhabiting almost all modern reefs (Bein 1976; James and Bourque 1992). Yet it is claimed that the framework stability of these “reefs” was achieved solely through the “unique growth-pattern” of the rudists (Bein 1976). Such a claim cannot be sustained by observations of the framework construction of modern reefs by numerous varieties of corals, pelecypods, sponges, echinoids and more in growth positions, compared to these rudist-only “reefs” where the rudists are not in growth positions, but are in a jumbled mass cemented by a matrix of biological debris. Thus the evidence emphatically does not support the claim these are grown-in-place reefs. Rather, these are mounds of transported and piled up calcareous debris derived from the violent destruction of other molluscs, echinoids, etc., the larger rudists having survived largely intact by the sorting action of the Flood waters to be buried in these debris piles, all possibly within hours to days due to raging water currents during violent storms.

Fig. 31. View of the north- facing cliff section through the claimed “fossil reef” complex (compare with fig. 29). The Tabun cave where the Neanderthal remains were found is the karstic cave on the far right. A man-made roof structure can be seen on the top of the hill above the cave to cover where the cave roof is open. Fig. 32. Fossils in the Nahal Hame’arot “fossil reef” complex. (a) Within the El Wad cave to the far lower left of the Tabun cave (see figs. 29 and 31), the interpreted “reef core” is exposed. Seen here it consists of a jumbled mass burial in a fossil graveyard of large rudists, horn-corallike pelecypods. (b) A closer view of the fossil rudists. The jumbled nature of these horn-shaped rudists is not how they lived. Instead, it is clear they were catastrophically buried en masse by fine mud-sized calcareous particles in a mounded pile. (c) A jumbled mass burial of other molluscs in this same fossil graveyard. This view is of the outcrop just to the right of the rugged section with almost vertical sides in the center of Fig. 30(a), about halfway up the hill, just above the shadow. There was also contemporaneous volcanic activity in the Carmel area and nearby during all this middle Cretaceous carbonate sedimentation (Sass 1980), which could well have been the source of the hot saline waters that contributed a lot of the carbonates as precipitites. Most of these volcanic rocks consist of mafic pyroclastics, which are associated with basaltic lavas in a few cases only (fig. 1). They form lenticular bodies at various levels in the Judea Group stratigraphic sequence (fig. 28). Three types of pyroclastics rocks have been recognized, each bearing a close relationship to its distance from the eruption center and to its accumulation rate. The first type are black and gray pyroclastics that are usually massive, agglomeratic in places, contain large volcanic bombs and xenoliths, and accumulated in the necks of volcanoes and their immediate vicinities. Next are the variegated pyroclastics, consisting of well-bedded tuffs, lapilli tuffs and agglomerates, containing small volcanic bombs and xenoliths. Their inclination relative to the underlying or overlying beds reaches up to 30°, and their original dips are away from the eruption centers, suggesting these rocks represent the steep flanks of ancient volcanoes, up to 1.0–1.5 km (0.6–0.9 mi.) away from the vents. The maximum thickness of these pyroclastics does not exceed 60 m (197 ft), which has been suggested was controlled by water erosion of the original cones before deposition of the overlying carbonates, meaning the waters at the time were up to 60 m (197 ft) deep across this area. And the third type are yellow tuffs, forming wide, well-bedded blankets which may reach a thickness of 20 m (66 ft), but are usually only a few meters thick. At some locations, marine fossils are in these tuffs, consistent with their distal accumulation.In the northern part of the mountain backbone of Israel which extends further north into Lebanon, beyond the Judean Hills, is the Galilee region (fig. 1). The area is structurally deformed by gentle folding and intensive faulting which divides the area into a rather complex pattern of horsts, grabens and tilted blocks. The stratigraphic sequence in the Judea Group in the Galilee region is similar to that in the Judean Hills and the Carmel area, but there are also differences due to facies changes. It is schematically shown in Fig. 33 (Freund 1965; Kafri 1972).The lower part of the sequence, the Kesulat and Yagur Formations, consists of dolomites that are relatively homogeneous in thickness and lithology over the entire area, excluding some claimed local fossil rudist patch reefs. On the other hand, in the upper part of the sequence many facies changes occurred, so the lithologies and thicknesses of the different rock units are both vertically and laterally heterogeneous (fig. 33). The main change is from dolomites to chalky limestones consisting of calcilutites or very fine-grained limestones (the Rosh Haniqra Member of the Sakhnin Formation). Transitional facies, either dolomitic or calcitic (the Ya’ara Member of the Sakhnin Formation, and the Yanuch Formation) are found locally. Simultaneously with the deposition of the upper part of the dolomite section of the Sakhnin Formation, a sequence of claimed rudist reefs (Freund 1965), marls (the Yirka Formation), calcarenites (calcareous sandstones) composed of carbonate rock clasts (the Kishk Formation), and micrites, composed of fine-grained skeletal fragments, was locally deposited.

Fig. 33. Lithostratigraphic relationships within the middle Cretaceous Judea Group strata in the Galilee region (after Sass and Bein 1982). Dolomite and chalk beds predominate.The claimed reef complexes are again open to an alternative Flood interpretation. The long and narrow, massive “reef cores” are surrounded by steep (25°) or gentle (10°) “foreset” beds (Freund 1965). The shells of the “framework builders” (rudists and gastropods) were mostly disintegrated, supposedly due to the boring activity of sponges and algae, so that hardly any of the few rudists (Durania) found are in what might be interpreted as the original growth position. It has even been admitted that these “fossil reefs” cannot be compared with modern coral reefs. The “reef cores” in fact consist of fragmental biogenic limestone, and one of them is capped by a calcareous conglomerate. The claimed “foreset beds” flanking the “reef cores” are in fact cross-bedded pelletal and sandy limestone units that are admitted to have likely formed by erosion and vigorous water currents. Thus the evidence instead favors the interpretation that these so-called reef complexes are in fact simply depositional features due to the rapid and varied actions of the Flood waters, vigorous currents piling up this biogenic and carbonate rock debris. Mt. Scopus Group (upper Cretaceous–Paleocene) Overlying the Judea Group locally in erosional and angular unconformity on the east and west sides of the Judean Hills are the “soft” chalk and marl, with some chert beds, of the Mt. Scopus Group. Conventionally these layers are regarded as uppermost Cretaceous to Paleocene (lowermost Tertiary). The Mt. Scopus Group ranges in thickness from 0–500 m (0– 1,640 ft) according to the structural position on pre-depositional folds and fault blocks (Freund 1978). It averages about 300 m (984 ft) thick. In Jerusalem the boundary between the uppermost Judea Group limestone beds and the overlying softer chalk beds of the Mt. Scopus Group dips eastward along the Kidron Valley, with the latter beds outcropping on the Mount of Olives to the east of the old city (fig. 34). The chert component in this group increases southwards. There are four formations recognized in the Mt. Scopus Group in the Negev (Garfunkel 1978) (figs. 15 and 21):The Menuha Formation, primarily consisting of chalk, disconformably overlies the Zihor or Nezer Formations in the Negev. Thus the stratigraphic position of its base varies (Lewy 1975). Where the formation’s sequence is complete, the middle part contains a bed of phosphate, somewhat sandy, which in the south contains chert and marl. The thickness and stratigraphic scope of this formation strongly depend on its structural position, so that in the Makhtesh Ramon area of the central Negev the formation is from 0–97 m (0–318 ft) thick.The Mishash Formation lies conformably on the Menuha Formation, or unconformably on older beds. It is characterized by massive chert beds, accompanied by variable amounts of porcellanite, chalk, marl, claystone, fossiliferous and concretional limestone and phosphorite (Kolodny 1967). Two facies within the formation have been distinguished. The Haroz facies, in which the formation consists of flint only, is developed in part of the northern Negev. It passes laterally into the Ashosh facies in which the additional lithologies are prominent. To the west and northwest the Mishash Formation passes into a continuous chalky facies (Flexer 1968).The Sayyarim Formation is the southern equivalent of the Menuha and Mishash Formations (fig. 35). A tongue of chert, marl, limestone and dolomite appears in the Menuha Formation in the southern Negev, and near Elat sandstone (sometimes quartzitic) becomes important. Still farther south the distinct identity of the Mishash Formation is also lost (Bartov and Steinitz 1977).The Ghareb Formation consists of yellowish, slightly phosphatic chalk and marl, with minor quantities of dolomite. These rocks are often bituminous. Unlike the underlying formations, this formation’s lithologies are rather uniform over wide areas, though they wedge out over structural highs.The lowermost Tertiary (Paleocene) Taqiye Formation is a distinct unit between the Ghareb Formation and the overlying Avedat Group in some locations (Bartov et al. 1972; Bartov and Steinitz 1977; Flexer 1968). The base of the Taqiye Formation, which is up to 50 m (164 ft) thick, is defined as the first appearance of green shales. Calcareous shales and marls, rich in limonite concretions which have a pyritic core, gradually pass upwards into argillaceous chalks and chalky limestones.

Fig. 34. The Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, looking across the Kidron Valley from beneath the wall of the Old City next to the Temple Mount (fig. 26). The chalk of the Mt. Scopus Group can be seen outcropping in the foreground, just above the boundary with the Judea Group. The Mt. Scopus Group commonly attains a thickness of 100–200 m (328–656 ft), but variations are common. It predominantly consists of biomicritic, bituminous, poorly-bedded, white foraminiferal chalk, which forms a characteristic landscape of soft hills. Hard calcareous chalks, biorudites and detrital sandy limestones usually occur at the base, and soft white marly chalks and shales terminate the sequence. Flint is abundant, and occurs as massive brecciated brown cliffs or thin continuous or nodular layers. Flexer (1968) distinguished three lithofacies within the Mt. Scopus Group mainly on the basis of the distribution and quantity of flint within the sequence. The Elat lithofacies in southernmost Israel, consisting of chalk alternating with flint, is characterized by large amounts of detrital components, such as quartz sand beds, reworked quartzite and chert pebbles (fig. 35). The Zin lithofacies in the Negev and northwards beyond the Dead Sea area to Galilee is built of chalk and flint beds which gradually intertongue with the pure chalk sequence of the Zefat lithofacies found right along the coastal region of Israel northwards. Certain horizons within the Mt. Scopus Group are very rich in fossil ammonites, lamellibranchs (bivalves), gastropods and sponges, while the chalks are built mainly of foraminiferal tests, ostracods, valves and nannoplankton plates.

Fig. 35. Composite columnar stratigraphic section of the Mt. Scopus Group in the Elat area in southernmost Israel (after Flexer 1968). The three cycles depicted for the - are together named the Sayyarim Formation, the lateral equivalent of the Menuha and Mishash Formations in the Makhtesh Ramon area to the north (figs. 15 and 21).Of particular interest are the bedded cherts (and flint nodules) within the chalk, and phosphorites of the Menuha, Mishash and Sayyarim Formations in the Negev particularly (Kolodny 1967, 1969; Steinitz 1977). Indeed, cherts, porcellanites and silicified carbonate rocks and phosphorites form the bulk of the upper Cretaceous Mishash Formation. The four main rock types are homogeneous chert, chert spheroids, heterogeneous (brecciated) cherts, and porcellanites (Kolodny 1969). The dominant component of the homogeneous chert is micro- and crypto-crystalline quartz. Silicified fossils are beautifully exposed, ghosts of foraminiferal tests are common, and foraminiferal cavities are infilled with coarser quartz. The chert is usually brown, with the centers of beds or nodules often being black due to the higher (up to 1.3%) content of organic matter. The spheroids vary from almost spherical to disclike, the latter lying parallel to bedding planes, their diameters varying between a few centimeters (<1 in.) and half a meter (19.7 in.). The concentric appearance is caused by alternation of broad (2–5 cm) (< 1–2 in.) brown micro-crystalline quartz bands with thin (0.1–2 mm) (0.0039–0.079 in.) transparent chalcedonic bands. The heterogeneous chert consists of what appear to be chert fragments set in a chert matrix or cement, both components being micro-crystalline quartz. Usually the matrix is finer grained, is much richer in pigmented materials, phosphate detritus and foraminifera, and is more enriched in Ti, Fe, Mg, V and organic matter relative to the fragments. The porcellanite is an impure, usually opaline rock having the texture and appearance of unglazed porcelain. Abundant microfossils in the porcellanite are infilled by micro-crystalline quartz. The porcellanite consists of a-crystobalite (30–80%), the rest being calcite and quartz. Phosphate minerals are abundant throughout the entire Mishash Formation, as are interbedded carbonates (usually sparse biomicrites). The concentration of phosphate increases from the bottom upwards and culminates in the uppermost phosphorite unit. The major phosphate mineral is francolite (apatite, or calcium phosphate, with >1% F and appreciable CO 2), which occurs as bone fragments and pellets. The cement is calcite (micrite or sparite), but sometimes is siliceous.Based on the textures observed in these Mishash cherts, Kolodny (1969) concluded some of the cherts formed by replacement of carbonates (principally chalk), while others precipitated as primary silica, most likely in a silica-saturated environment. Steinitz (1977) reported indications of primary or diagenetic evaporite minerals within the cherts are rare and dispersed, both stratigraphically and geographically. These included the sulfate minerals gypsum and anhydrite (Ca), and celestine (Sr), as well as dolomite (Mg, Ca carbonate). It is thus clear that saline conditions were necessary for both the cherts and these “evaporite” minerals to form. However, it is incorrect to assume these minerals formed by evaporation. Instead, these silica, sulfate and carbonate minerals readily precipitate from saline fluids, particularly hot saline fluids (Hovland et al. 2006). Thus it can be envisaged that these cherts and associated minerals precipitated as saline to saturated hydrothermal fluids, emanating from deep magmas and hot basement rocks via fissures, made contact and mixed with the cooler sediment-carrying Flood waters transgressing the continental crustal surfaces (Snelling 2009b).These same hot saline to saturated (hydrothermal) fluids are also the key to explaining the rapid Flood accumulation of the chalk beds themselves (Snelling 1994, 2009b). The modern analog for the chalk beds is the calcareous ooze dominated by similar coccoliths now accumulating on the ocean floors at a rate of 2–10 cm (0.79–4 in.) per thousand years (Kukal 1990). At that rate, 200 m (656 ft) thickness of Mt. Scopus Group chalk beds would have taken 2–10 million years to accumulate, which has been cited as an obvious problem for Flood geology (Hayward 1987). However, even today coccolith accumulation is not steady-state but highly episodic, with significant increases occurring in plankton “blooms,” red tides, and in intense white water coccolith blooms in which microorganism numbers experience a two orders of magnitude increase (Seliger et al. 1970; Sumich 1976). Though poorly understood, the suggested reasons for these blooms include turbulence of the sea, wind, decaying fish, nutrients from freshwater inflow and upwelling, and temperature (Ballantyne and Abbott 1957; Pingree, Holligan and Head 1977; Wilson and Collier 1955). There is also experimental evidence that low Mg/Ca ratios and high Ca concentrations in seawater, similar to the levels in so-called Cretaceous seawater from which the chalk beds formed, promote exponential growth rates of coccolithophores (Stanley, Ries and Hardie 2005). Quite clearly, all these necessary conditions for explosive blooming of coccolithophores would have been present during the cataclysmic global upheavals of the Flood. Torrential rain, sea turbulence, decaying fish and other organic matter, and the violent volcanic eruptions on the ocean floor and on land causing steam, carbon dioxide, Ca, and other elements and salts to be spewed into the Flood waters, would have resulted in explosive blooms of coccolithophores on a large and repetitive scale. Furthermore, the ocean water temperatures would have been higher towards the end of the Flood when these Cretaceous chalk beds were deposited because of all the heat released by all the catastrophic, global volcanic and magmatic activity. Thus the rapid production of the necessary quantities of calcareous ooze to form the thick chalk beds in a matter of days to weeks toward the end of the Flood year is realistically conceivable (Snelling 1994, 2009b). Indeed, the extreme purity of the chalk beds, usually >90% CaCO 3 (Pettijohn 1957), argues for their rapid deposition and formation, and the chert (and the associated “evaporite” minerals) in them are direct evidence of the hot saline to saturated fluids involved.However, investigations have shown that once these Mt. Scopus Group chalk beds were deposited the biogenetic fragments were cemented together to make chalky limestone by sparry calcite precipitated from fresh water (Magaritz 1974). This evidence would seem to be contrary to the claim above that the biogenetic debris which constitutes the chalk beds accumulated as a result of the rapid production of coccolithophores in explosive blooms in warm Flood waters being injected with hot saline fluids from violent volcanic eruptions and magmatic activity on a global scale. To the contrary, this fresh water appears to have come from the aquifer below these chalk beds some time after deposition of the biogenetic debris. It is only the lower section of the chalk beds that have been lithified into chalky limestone by the introduction of sparry calcite to infill the foraminiferal tests and pores. And the main indication that lithification was due to sparry calcite precipitated from fresh water is the difference in the oxygen and carbon isotope composition, and the Sr, Fe2O3 and non-carbonate contents, between the chalky limestone and the overlying chalk (Magaritz 1974). But such evidence is not necessarily definitive, and such lithification occurred sometime subsequent to the catastrophic deposition during the Flood, most likely after the Flood waters retreated and the groundwater systems were established by infiltration of post-Flood rainfall. Avedat Group ()

Fig. 36. Cliffs of Avedat Group (Eocene) chalk beds on either side of Wadi Zin at En Avedat, on the northern fringes of the Avedat Plateau in the northern Negev south of Beer Sheva.Conformably overlying the Taqiye Formation of the Mt. Scopus Group is the Avedat Group, conventionally assigned to the Eocene Series (figs. 15 and 21). Composed of 400–500 m (1,312–1,640 ft) thickness of limestone and chalk beds, the Avedat Group also contains marine fossils. Somewhat harder than the underlying Mt. Scopus Group, it tends to form more resistant ridges and elevated plateaus above the Mt. Scopus strata. Named after the Avedat Plateau south of Beer Sheva (fig. 36) (Bartov et al. 1972), the Avedat Group strata are especially common in structurally low areas, and remnants extend from the Elat area in the south through the Negev to northern Israel. Cliffs of Avedat Group chalk beds occur near Beer Sheva (fig. 37) and also stand beside the valley of Elah (fig. 38) where Goliath challenged the army of Israel, above the brook where David chose five smooth stones (1 Samuel 17). In the Elat area all four formations within the group, as defined in the Avedat area, can be recognized (fig. 21) (Bartov et al. 1972; Garfunkel 1978). Where the group is complete here it is quite thick at approximately 210 m (689 ft), and consists of chalk, and limestone with variable amounts of chert. Characteristically it is poor in macro-fossils, but is rich in planktonic and benthonic foraminifers. Large foraminifers, like nummulites, are common. The four formations of the Avedat Group in this complete section near Elat are:The Mor Formation, 105 m (344 ft) thick, consists mostly of white chalk with black chert occurring in thin to medium lenticular layers. Most of the chert is homogeneous, but some is breccoidal. The chalk often contains dolomite rhombs and phosphate grains, and is silicified. In places, limestone concretions are present within the chalk, their size varying from a few centimeters to 1 m (3.3 ft). The Nizzana Formation is 65 m (213 ft) thick, and is composed of alternating yellowish-brown detrital (bioclastic) limestones, phosphoritic limestones, concretionary limestone layers and chalk, with beds and lenses of chert nodules. The limestones are rich in fossil fragments, and sometimes contain macro-fossils. Intraformational conglomerates (calcirudites) and slump structures are common. The overlying Horsha Formation, 35 m (115 ft) thick, is composed of white, massive chalk beds with limonitic impregnations topped by variegated shales, alternating with platy chalky limestones. This marly-chalky formation contains some glauconite, today found in marine environments. Its non-carbonate fraction contains clinoptilolite (a zeolite mineral), opal and palygorskite (a clay mineral) associated with montmorillonite (another clay mineral), all indicative of original volcanic components, now altered. The overlying Matred Formation is only 15 m (49 ft) thick, and is composed of yellowish, hard, dense and coarse crystalline limestones with abundant nummulites. Chert and some glauconite also occur. The limestones often show cross-bedding, indicative of swift water-current deposition of lime sand in sand waves (Austin 1994).

Fig. 37. Thick, massive Avedat Group (Eocene) chalk beds in a road cut just to the northwest of Beer Sheva. Note the purity of the chalk, which is consistent with rapid deposition and accumulation.

Fig. 38. Laminated Avedat Group (Eocene) chalk beds in the cliffs bordering the Valley of Elah, where Goliath challenged the army of Israel. In the foreground is the brook from where David chose five smooth stones (1 Samuel 17).The Avedat Group, a 400–500 m (1,312–1,640 ft) thick sequence of lower to middle Eocene “marine” sediments, was deposited in pre-existing synclinal basins (Freund 1978). It lies unconformably, usually with green glauconite beds, on older elevated structures. In the eastern regions of Israel and the Negev the group is dominated by hard limestones composed of benthonic foraminifera, while in the western regions the facies is chalk composed of planktonic foraminifera. This east-west distribution occurs only in the northern part of Israel and not in the Negev, and towards the coastal plain the Avedat Group strata are so chalky they resemble the underlying Mt. Scopus Group chalk beds. Chert is more abundant in the chalky facies in the west than in the limestones to the east and south. The Flood/post-Flood Boundary With the widespread deposition of the Avedat Group marine sediments completed, “the continuous marine sequence of the country comes to an end” (Freund 1978). A major regression began in the upper Eocene with the retreating of ocean waters off the country (Garfunkel 1978). Upper Eocene sediments are very rare, mostly being confined to the present coastal plain and bordering foothills. The original extent of these upper Eocene sediments remains unknown, but they could have extended quite a way into structural lows in the Negev (Sakal, Raab and Reiss 1966). For example, there is a small outcrop of upper Eocene Qezi’ot Formation (calcareous muds and clays with marine fossils) overlying the middle Eocene Matred Formation of the Avedat Group in the Menuha anticline area in the southeast Negev (fig. 39). Overlying it on an erosional unconformity is the Miocene Hazeva Formation. Similarly, the Qezi’ot Formation (upper Eocene) also outcrops in the western Makhtesh Ramon area, where it largely consists of chalk (fig. 21). In the same area the Har Agrav Formation (also upper Eocene) marine limestone beds overlie the Qezi’ot Formation. Again, there is then an erosional unconformity above these Eocene strata, with the thin continental sediments of the Miocene Hazeva Formation overlying it.This regression during and after the upper Eocene was followed by a period of extensive erosion, which produced a rather flat landscape (Garfunkel and Horowitz 1966). Fig. 2 shows the extent of this massive erosional unconformity right across Israel from south to north, apart from some minor continuous deposition of chalk, marl, limestone and shale through the Oligocene on the coastal plain adjacent to the Mediterranean basin, to where the Flood waters would have retreated. Five principal stages in the development of the Negev have been distinguished (Garfunkel and Horowitz 1966), of which the first and the last were mainly erosional, while the others left Miocene continental sediments—the Hazeva Formation which interfingers with Mediterranean marine sediments, the Arava Conglomerate in the deepened Dead Sea rift, and the HaMeshar Formation on wide floodplains. It is noteworthy that these Miocene and later continental sediments lie on rocks which now build the landscape, which shows that many relics of the middle Tertiary topography are still preserved (Garfunkel 1978). Fig. 39. Generalized stratigraphic column for the Tertiary part of the strata sequence exposed in the Menuha anticline area in the southeast Negev (after Sakal, Raab and Reiss 1966). Note the erosional unconformity above the marine Eocene Qezi’ot Formation, the likely Flood/post-Flood boundary because the Miocene Hazeva Formation above consists of continental deposits.It is because these Miocene sedimentary rocks above the Eocene “marine” Avedat Group are continental in origin, are of relatively small volume, and are very restricted in extent, that Austin (1998a) implied they are post-Flood. These are the same criteria, namely, continental sediments of relatively small volume and very restricted in extent, that Austin et al. (1994) used to place the Flood/post-Flood boundary globally at the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary in the geologic record. Similarly, Whitmore and Garner (2008) listed criteria such as local sedimentary units, lacustrine and fluvial (continental) deposits, and true desiccation cracks, evaporites and bioturbation as indicative of post-Flood sedimentary rocks. It was using these (and other) criteria that the Eocene Green River Formation of Wyoming was classified as post-Flood (Oard and Whitmore 2006; Whitmore 2006a, b, c; Whitmore and Garner 2008).However, Whitmore and Garner (2008) also allowed for the residual deposition of marine sediments on the continents after the Flood, presumably in the regressive sequences they list as a criterion for post-Flood sedimentary units. Austin (1998a) also argued for marine sediments still to be deposited on the continents in regressive sequences as the Flood waters retreated, because he stated that: As the ocean retreated, nutrient-rich waters allowed coccoliths to flourish as massive algal blooms contributed oozes to the ocean floor . . . (so that) marine sedimentation of chalk continued into the post-Flood period in Israel.The chalk sedimentation he referred to could only be the chalk beds that dominate the Mt. Scopus and Avedat Groups (figs. 2 and 21). However, these groups span the interval from the upper Cretaceous through to the upper Eocene with continuous deposition of thick chalk beds, with some cherts and marls, and minor limestones right across Israel (fig. 2). These certainly represent marine sediments deposited on the continent, but their massive nature (figs. 2 and 3) and fairly uniform thickness right across Israel do not suggest they belong to a regressive sequence.To the contrary, rather than placing the Flood/post- Flood boundary in the geologic record of Israel at the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary in the middle of where there was continuous chalk deposition, it makes more sense to place it between the Eocene and Miocene. At the end of the Eocene there is a major well-defined and recognized regression right across Israel due to the retreating of the ocean (Flood) waters off the country (Garfunkel 1978), followed by a period of extensive erosion in the Oligocene (Garfunkel and Horowitz 1966), before the arguably post-Flood isolated minor continental sediments were deposited in the Miocene (fig. 2).Furthermore, the originally continuous Arabo-African craton was only rifted apart in the to form the present plate boundaries in Israel and nearby countries (Garfunkel 1978). Rifting began only in the Oligocene in the southern Red Sea area to begin opening it, but most of the opening of the Red Sea was contemporaneous with the slip on the Dead Sea rift, the majority of which was probably during the Miocene (Freund, Zak and Garfunkel 1968). At the same time this rifting formed the Dead Sea basin, the Jordan valley, the Sea of Galilee and the Hula basin (another lake-filled depression north of Galilee), drag and frictional forces along the Dead Sea Transform Fault caused the thick sequence of Flood strata in central and northern Israel, including the limestone and chalk beds of the middle Cretaceous to Eocene Judea, Mt. Scopus and Avedat Groups, to be arched upward to form the Judean Mountains and the adjoining foothills to the west (Austin 1998a).Since the geologic processes which were occurring at catastrophic rates during the Flood are still operating today at a snail’s pace (for example, plate tectonics and volcanism), it is likely that as the Flood ended these geologic processes did not stop abruptly, but rapidly decelerated. This is confirmed by the declining eruption power of post-Flood volcanoes (Austin 1998b). Thus it is likely there were residual local catastrophes in the early post-Flood years that produced some sedimentary layers in local basins and dramatically eroded some impressive landscape features. And in some places marine sediments could still have been deposited on continental land surfaces marginal to today’s ocean basins, because the Flood waters had not then fully retreated to today’s coastlines.It could thus be argued from the above considerations that the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the geologic record of Israel, could still be at the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary within the Mt. Scopus Group strata, in keeping with the Austin et al. (1994) positioning of the Flood/post-Flood boundary from a global perspective, because the Flood waters had not fully retreated from off the land of Israel. However, given that there is strong, well-recognized evidence of the ocean (Flood) waters having finally retreated from off the land of Israel to approximately the present coastline immediately after continuous (uninterrupted) deposition of the thick “marine” limestone, dolomite and chalk beds of the middle Cretaceous-Eocene Judea, Mt. Scopus and Avedat Groups, accompanied by subsequent extensive erosion and drying of the land surface, it seems more reasonable to place the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the geologic record of Israel in the Oligocene, or at the end of it. This placement of the boundary still requires some residual local geologic activity to have rapidly occurred in Israel (tectonic adjustments, erosion, sedimentation and volcanic eruptions) during the early decades of the post-Flood period before post-Babel people migrated into the land ahead of Abraham’s subsequent arrival. Conclusion The sedimentary strata that comprise and cover most of Israel provide an obvious record of the Flood, in keeping with the geologic evidences as outlined by Austin (1994), Snelling (2007), and elaborated on subsequently (for example, Snelling 2008a, b, c). And the geologic record of the Flood in Israel has many similarities to that in the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area of the U.S. Southwest (Austin 1994, 1998a).The major erosion surface at the base of the sedimentary strata sequence which was cut across the Precambrian (pre-Flood) crystalline basement rocks (metamorphics and granites), and which could be called the “Great Unconformity” of Israel, appears to mark the catastrophic passage of the Flood waters as they rose onto the pre-Flood continental surface at the initiation of the Flood event. The ocean (Flood) waters thus rose over the continental land, as evidenced by the myriads of marine organisms buried and fossilized in sediment layers deposited across Israel (Snelling 2008a). Many thousands of meters of “marine” sediments were deposited on a vast scale. Israel appears to have been on the northern margin of part of the pre-Flood continent, with an ocean basin to the north which was a gigantic dumping ground for the northward-thickening wedge of sedimentary strata across Israel (fig. 3) (Austin 1998a). Even Mt. Hermon, the highest elevation in Israel, is composed of limestone beds, containing marine fossils. The accumulation of this thick sediment sequence was rapid, as evidenced by mass graveyards of fossils (Snelling 2008b), such as the ammonites now exposed in the upturned layer in Makhtesh Ramon (the “Ammonite Wall”). Molluscs (rudists) were not fossilized in a gigantic, organically-bound reef complex near Mt. Carmel, but are distributed within a matrix of fine- grained lime sediment that was transported, “dumped” in a big “heap”, and rapidly buried (Austin 1998a). Lamination and bedding are distinctive of layering of sedimentary rocks without significant evidence of burrowing and disruption features, implying rapid sedimentation, not enormously long periods of slow accumulation.At the initiation of the Flood when the ocean waters catastrophically rose and advanced over the pre-Flood supercontinent as it broke apart, eroding the crystalline basement, the first sediment layer to be deposited in Israel and widely across surrounding regions was a sandstone with a conglomeratic base, identical to the Tapeats Sandstone in the Grand Canyon whose equivalents were deposited right across North America. Similarly, late in this Flood inundation of Israel the waters were nutrient rich, likely due to the addition of chemical-rich hot waters from associated volcanism, allowing coccoliths to flourish as massive algal blooms that then rapidly accumulated as oozes to become thick chalk beds. These were not just a local phenomenon, as these chalk beds in Israel can be traced west across Europe to England and Ireland, and east to Kazakhstan, with other remnants in the Midwest of the USA and in southern Western Australia. Both these examples powerfully illustrate the global Flood deposition of transcontinental rock layers (Snelling 2008c).The formation of mountains would have required powerful tectonic upheaval processes that overturned and upthrusted sedimentary strata. Simultaneous isostatic adjustments would also have resulted in restoring the continental land surfaces as the Flood waters drained off into new deep ocean basins. In Israel this great regression, as the Flood waters receded and widespread marine sedimentation ended, also coincided with the commencement of the rifting that opened up the Red Sea and the Dead Sea-Jordan River rift valley along the Dead Sea Transform Fault, as well as the uplifting of the Judean Mountains along a north-south axis of folding (the Judean Arch), and the thrust faulting that created Israel’s highest peak, Mt. Hermon (2,814 m) (9,232 ft), all of which marked the end of the Flood event.

Iceland’s Recent “Mega-Flood” An Illustration of the Power of the Flood by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 1, 1999 Originally published in Creation 21, no 3 (June 1999): 46-48. Icelanders will long remember November 5, 1996. Shop Now On that day the largest flood in living memory swept from the terminus (bottom end) of Skeidarár Glacier. Icelanders call such sudden drainage events jökulhlaups, literally, “glacier bursts.” It is these that lead to mega-scale flooding with devastating consequences. Sitting astride the mid-ocean ridge in the North Atlantic Ocean, Iceland is volcanically one of the most dynamic parts of the Earth’s surface. Fresh eruptions occur on average every five years. Yet, because of its high latitude, some 11% of Iceland is covered by glacial ice.2 Indeed, the largest currently glaciated area is called Vatnajökull, meaning “water glacier,” so common is major flooding around its margins. The mega-flood cycle The western half of Vatnajökull covers part of a volcanic belt (Figure 2), the heat from which maintains a melted lake, even beneath the glacial ice. Known as Lake Grímsvötn, the subglacial water is stored within a large, bowl-shaped volcanic depression formed by the continual heat flow and periodic eruptions. As surrounding ice melts, Lake Grímsvötn gradually enlarges over a few years. Ultimately it melts through an ice dam at a low point in the confining landform and drains into a subglacial tunnel. The water usually flows southwards beneath the 8.6-km (5.4 mile)-wide Skeidarár Glacier, discharging at its margin some 50 km (30 miles) away as a mega-flood4(Figure 2). The cycle starts again as the lake begins to refill.

Figure 2. The Vatnajökull ice- cap covers the Bárdarbunga and Grímsvötn volcanoes. Streams radiate from the glacier’s margin, draining normal meltwater. The Skeidarár Glacier flows south. The newly completed highway rings Iceland. The 1996 fissure eruption filled Lake Grímsvötn, which discharged by the subglacial flood route shown. The area flooded by the November 1996 jökulhlaup (glacier burst) is indicated.The 1996 volcanic eruptionAt the end of 1995, fresh volcanic action beneath Bárdarbunga volcano accelerated Lake Grímsvötn’s normal cycle. Magma at over 1100°C moved sideways. It eventually erupted between Bárdarbunga and Lake Grímsvötn on September 30, 1996. A 6-km (4 mile)-long fissure opened through the 450-metre (1500 feet)-thick glacier. In just 13 days, the hot lava melted some 3 cubic km (0.73 cubic miles) of ice. As the ice melted, the water drained rapidly along a narrow channel under the glacier into Lake Grímsvötn. Apprehension grew as the subglacial lake swelled some 60 meters (200 feet) higher than its usual trigger level.6 Over four cubic km (one cubic mile) of water had accumulated.7 It was inevitable that the lake would overflow and release the water, instigating a mega-flood. But when? Weeks passed as scientists and journalists watched and waited. The November 1996 jökulhlaup Late on November 4, a steady ground vibration signaled that the glacier on the south-eastern edge of Lake Grímsvötn had moved. Lake drawdown had started.8 Beneath the Skediarár Glacier the water crept at less than walking pace down the 50- km (30 miles)-long tunnel. However, once it emerged from the end of the glacier, about 8 AM next day, the water swept down the alluvial plain in a flood wave. In less than two days, a volume of 3.6 cubic km (0.9 cubic miles) discharged from the glacier, laden with sediment and transporting huge blocks of broken ice. The November 1996 jökulhlaup was truly catastrophic compared with the usual mega-floods observed in the last 60 years. A normal mega-flood can take 12 days to peak and last for 17 days, whereas this gigantic jökulhlaup peaked in 20 hours and lasted just two days. The peak discharge thus reached 55,000 cubic meters (two million cubic feet) per second, more than five times the normal mega-flood rate. It was the largest ever recorded in Iceland. It was over twenty times the flow rate of Niagara Falls. In fact, the peak discharge rivaled the flow of the Congo River, the second largest river in the world. Floodwater surged from the ice margin as new outlets developed. Blocks of ice were ripped out, cutting huge chasms into the end of the glacier. Obstructed by inadequate flow channels behind a major ridge of glacial rubble (terminal moraine) which largely blocked the flow like a wall, water levels leapt higher, overflowing along new paths. Within a few hours an enormous gorge was excavated through this ridge, at least doubling its previous size. Downstream, a huge new channel system over 3 km (2 miles) wide was cut into the alluvial plain. The consequences During this flood, huge volumes of ice-blocks were detached from the glacier and swept along in the raging waters. Depending on their size, some ice-blocks floated, others rotated, bounced, skipped and slid down-channel. The biggest were 10–15 meters (33–50 feet) high and estimated to be up to 1,000 tonnes in weight. Many huge 200-tonne blocks were strewn across the alluvial plain. Sediment up to 9 meters (30 feet) thick was deposited over an area of 500 square km (200 square miles)—all in less than two days. Collisions by moving ice-blocks caused considerable damage. A 10-km (6-mile) segment of the premier highway that rings Iceland disappeared (Figure 2). The reinforced-concrete bridge over the Gígja River was totally swept away. The 900 meter (3000 feet) Skeidará River Bridge was severely damaged, even though its foundations were buried to a depth of 15 meters (50 feet) to withstand mega-floods. Iceland’s main high-tension power-lines were severed, and the telephone cables ripped apart. Relevance Icelandic history records about 60 such cataclysms since the Vikings arrived in the ninth century. However, scientists were skeptical of the previous awesome descriptions of fantastic floods. Now that this mega-flood has been observed, many times larger than previously measured, it is considered that these stories are probably true. At 55,000 cubic meters (two million cubic feet) per second, Iceland’s deluge was of apocalyptic proportions. It destroyed reinforced-concrete bridges, swept along 1000-tonne blocks of ice, eroded 3-km-wide canyons and dumped 9 meters of sediment over 500 square km. Mercifully, it lasted only two days. Yet, on a world scale this was only a local flood. It affected only a small part of one tiny island on our planet. What would the global, year-long Flood have achieved? Iceland’s devastating November 1996 jökulhlaup testifies to the power of the Global Flood and that it can easily explain the building of the geological record.Skeptics who deny the historicity of the creation account need to learn from Iceland’s latest mega-flood. Just because past eyewitnesses describe processes larger than we have observed does not mean they were exaggerating. We need to recognize the limitations of our experience. We have not observed all the geological processes that actually fashioned this planet.

Uluru and Kata Tjuta: A Testimony to the Flood by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on March 1, 1998 Originally published in Creation 20, no 2 (March 1998): 36-40. No visit to Central Australia is complete without seeing two of Australia's most famous landmarks-Uluru and Kata Tjuta. These geological formations are stunning in their beauty, and awesome in their abrupt contrast to the surrounding flat, barren plains.

Uluru Uluru rises steeply on all sides to a height of about 340 metres (1,114 feet) above the desert plain, its summit 867 metres (2,845 feet) above sea level. An isolated rock-mass, it measures nine kilometres (5.6 miles) around its base. Uluru may look like a giant boulder sitting in the desert sand, but it is not (Figure 2, below). Instead, it is like the ‘tip of the iceberg’, an enormous outcrop with even more of the same rock under the ground and beneath the surrounding desert sand.Uluru consists of many layers or beds of the same rock tilted and standing almost up on end (dipping at 80–85°). The cumulative thickness of these exposed beds is at least 2.5 kilometres (1.6 miles), but the additional layers under the surrounding desert sand bring the overall thickness to almost six kilometres (3.75 miles).Uluru consists of a type of coarse sandstone known technically as arkose, because a major component is grains and crystal fragments of the mineral feldspar. This pink mineral, along with the rusty coatings on the sand grains in the rock surface generally, gives Uluru its overall reddish colour. Closer inspection of this arkose reveals that the mineral grains are fresh in appearance, particularly the shiny faces of feldspar crystals, some quite large. The rock fabric consists of large, medium, small, and very small grains randomly mixed together, a condition geologists describe as ‘poorly sorted’ (see photomicrograph). Furthermore, the grains themselves are often jagged around their edges, not smooth or rounded. Kata Tjuta Kata Tjuta, about 30 kilometres (18 miles) west of Uluru, consists of a series of huge, rounded rocky domes (Figure 3, below). The highest, Mt Olga, reaches 1069 metres (3,507 feet) above sea level and about 600 metres (1,970 feet) above the desert floor. Separated by narrow gorges, these spectacular domed rock- masses cover an area of about eight kilometres (five miles) by five kilometres (three miles). The rock layers here only dip at angles of 10–18° to the southwest, but are enormous. Their total thickness is six kilometres (3.75 miles), and they extend under the desert sands to other outcrops for over 15 kilometres (9.5 miles) to the north-east and for more than 40 kilometres (25 miles) to the north-west.These rock layers making up Kata Tjuta are collectively called the Mount Currie Conglomerate, named after the outcrop at Mount Currie, about 35 kilometres (22 miles) north-west of Kata Tjuta. A conglomerate is a poorly sorted sedimentary rock containing pebbles, cobbles, and boulders of other rocks held together by a matrix of finer fragments and cemented sand, silt, and/or mud. In this one, the boulders (up to 1.5 metres or five feet across), cobbles, and pebbles are generally rounded and consist mainly of granite and basalt, but some sandstone, rhyolite (a ), and several kinds of metamorphic rocks are also present. The matrix is mostly dark greyish-green material that was once fine silt and mud, though lenses and beds of lighter coloured sandstone also occur.The Uluru Arkose and the Mount Currie Conglomerate appear to be related by a common history. Though their outcrops are isolated from one another, the evidence clearly suggests that both rock units were formed at the same time and in the same way.

Figure 2. Cross-section through Uluru showing the tilted layers of arkose continuing under the surrounding desert sand.

Figure 3. Cross-section through Kata Tjuta showing the slightly tilted layers of Mount Currie Conglomerate. The evolutionary ‘history’ Most geologists believe that between about 900 and 600 million years ago, much of Central Australia lay at or below sea- level, forming a depression, an arm of the sea, known as the Amadeus Basin. Rivers carried mud, sand, and gravel into the depression, building up layers of sediment. Other types of sedimentary rocks also formed. Then, they say, about 550 million years ago, in the so-called Cambrian Period, the south-western margin of the Amadeus Basin was raised above sea-level, the rocks were squeezed, crumpled and buckled into folds, and fractured along faults in a mountain-building episode.During the later stages of this episode, ‘rapid’ erosion carved out the Petermann and Musgrave Ranges. The Uluru Arkose and Mount Currie Conglomerate are the products of this erosion, being deposited in separate so-called alluvial fans (Figure 4A). Though uniformitarian (slow-and-gradual) geologists believe the arkose and conglomerate were deposited ‘relatively rapidly’, they still allow up to 50 million years for the occasional flash floods to have scoured the mountain ranges south and west of the Uluru area and carried the rubble many tens of kilometres out on to the adjoining alluvial flats. Thus in two separate deposits, layer upon layer of arkose and conglomerate accumulated respectively.By about 500 million years ago, it is claimed, the region was again covered by a shallow sea and the alluvial fans of Uluru Arkose and Mount Currie Conglomerate were gradually buried beneath layers of sand, silt, mud and limestone (Figure 4B). Then about 400 million years ago a new period of folding, faulting and uplift began and supposedly continued for around 100 million years. The layers of Uluru Arkose and Mount Currie Conglomerate, which had been buried by hundreds or even thousands of metres of younger Amadeus Basin sediments, were strongly folded and faulted (Figure 4C). The originally horizontal Uluru Arkose layers were rotated into a nearly vertical position, while the Mount Currie Conglomerate at Kata Tjuta was only tilted 10–18°. It is thus believed that the Uluru-Kata Tjuta area has probably remained above sea-level since that time—for some 300 million years. Initially the land surface would have been much higher than the top of Uluru and Kata Tjuta, but as erosion continued, today’s shapes of Uluru and Kata Tjuta were gradually carved out (Figure 4D). By 70 million years ago the area was covered in forests indicating a very wet, tropical environment. Today’s arid climate and desert sands have only developed since the very recent ‘ice age’, a few thousand years ago. No!—A recent catastrophic flood origin Figure 4. The likely geological history or sequence of events leading to the formation of Kata Tjuta and Uluru (irrespective of any evolutionary assumptions). A. The 'alluvial fans' of Mount Currie Conglomerate (left—red) and Uluru Arkose (right—yellow) deposited on a basement of folded and eroded earlier sediments (orange) and granites (grey-green). B. The Mount Currie Conglomerate and Uluru Arkose are buried by other sediments (blue). C. The sediment layers are floded, faulted, tilted and then eroded. D. Further erosion lowers the ground surface still more and carves out Kata Tjuta and Uluru as they are today.Now that all sounds like an interesting story, but in fact, the evidence in these rock layers doesn’t agree with it! At Uluru particularly, the ubiquitous fresh feldspar crystals in the arkose would never have survived the claimed millions of years. Feldspar breaks down when exposed to the sun’s heat, water, and air (e.g., in a humid tropical climate), and relatively quickly forms clays. If the arkose was deposited as sheets of sand only centimetres (an inch or two) thick spread over many tens of square kilometres to dry in the sun’s heat over countless thousands of years, then the feldspar crystals would have decomposed to clays. Likewise, if the arkose had been exposed to the destructive forces of erosion and tropical deep chemical weathering even for just a few million years, as is claimed, then the feldspar crystals would have long ago decomposed to clays. Either way, the sandstone fabric would have become weakened and then collapsed, as the clays and remaining unbound mineral grains would have easily disintegrated and been entirely washed away, leaving no Uluru at all!Furthermore, sand grains which are moved over long distances and periodically swept further and further over vast eons of time would lose their jagged edges, becoming smooth and rounded. At the same time, the same sand grains being acted upon by the moving water over those claimed long periods of time should also be sorted; the smaller grains are carried more easily by water, so would be separated from the larger grains. Thus if the Uluru Arkose had taken millions of years to accumulate as evolutionary geologists claim, then the rock today should have layers of either small or large grains. So fresh, shiny feldspar crystals and jagged, unsorted grains today all indicate that the Uluru Arkose accumulated so rapidly the feldspar did not have enough time to decompose, nor the grains to be rounded and sorted.What of the Mount Currie Conglomerate? Even geologists who believe in slow-and-gradual sedimentation over millions of years have to admit that the waters which carried such large boulders (some over 1.5 metres or five feet across) had to be a swiftly-flowing, raging torrent. Such catastrophic conditions would also need to be widespread in order to erode such a variety of rock types from the large mountainous source region, and to produce the resultant mixture of particle sizes—from mud (pulverized rock) and silt to pebbles, cobbles, and boulders which, because of their size, were also rounded and smoothed by the violence of their rapid transport over tens of kilometres.All this evidence is far more consistent with recent catastrophic deposition of the arkose and conglomerate under raging flood conditions. In the exposures at Uluru and Kata Tjuta respectively, the rock compositions and fabrics are uniformly similar throughout (2.5 kilometres or 1.6 miles thick in the case of Uluru) and the layering extremely regular and parallel. If deposition had been episodic over millions of years, there ought to be evidence of erosion (e.g., channels) and weathering surfaces between layers, while some compositional and fabric variations would be expected. Staggering The implications are absolutely staggering. One only has to consider the amount and force of water needed to dump some 6,000 metres (almost 20,000 feet) thickness of sand, and a similar thickness of pebbles, cobbles, boulders, etc., probably in a matter of hours, after having transported these sediments many tens of kilometres, to realise that such an event had to be a catastrophic flood. And this traumatic event had to be recent, otherwise the feldspar crystals in the arkose would not be as fresh (unweathered) as they are today. The Uluru Arkose as seen under a geological microscope. Note the mixtures of grain sizes and the jagged edges of the grains. Since the layers of arkose and conglomerate are now tilted, the arkose almost vertically, it is also obvious that after being deposited these sediment layers were compressed and began to be cemented (hardened) while still water-saturated, and then pushed up by earth movements. Those experts in landscape-forming processes, who have intensively studied Uluru, Kata Tjuta, and other Central Australian landforms, are convinced that these shapes were carved out by water erosion in a hot, humid tropical climate, and not by wind erosion as in today’s dry desert climate.This is easily explained if the modern landforms of Uluru and Kata Tjuta developed as the same catastrophic flood waters, which dumped the arkose and conglomerate in the vast depression they occupied, began to retreat away from the emerging land surface of rising, tilted layers, eroding the still relatively soft sediments to leave behind the shapes of Uluru and Kata Tjuta. Following the retreat of those flood waters from the Australian continent, the landscape began to dry out. The chemicals in the water still trapped between grains of sand, pebbles, boulders, etc. continued to form a binding and hardening material similar to cement in concrete. Conclusion The evidence overall does not fit the story of evolutionary geologists, with its millions of years of slow-and-gradual processes. Instead, the evidence in the rock layers at Uluru and Kata Tjuta is much more consistent with the scientific model based on a recent, rapid, massive, catastrophic flood. Uluru and Kata Tjuta are therefore stark testimony to the raging waters of the global Flood. Startling Evidence for Global Flood Footprints and Sand ‘Dunes’ in a Grand Canyon Sandstone! by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling and Dr. Steve Austin on December 1, 1992 Originally published in Creation 15, no 1 (December 1992): 46-50. Footprints and sand ‘dunes’ in a Grand Canyon sandstone provide startling evidence for Gobal Flood. Shop Now‘There is no sight on earth which matches Grand Canyon. There are other canyons, other mountains and other rivers, but this Canyon excels all in scenic grandeur. Can any visitor, upon viewing Grand Canyon, grasp and appreciate the spectacle spread before him? The ornate sculpture work and the wealth of color are like no other landscape. They suggest an alien world. The scale is too outrageous. The sheer size and majesty engulf the intruder, surpassing his ability to take it in.’1Anyone who has stood on the rim and looked down into Grand Canyon would readily echo these words as one’s breath is taken away with the sheer magnitude of the spectacle. The Canyon stretches for 277 miles (446 kilometres) through northern Arizona, attains a depth of more than 1 mile (1.6 kilometres), and ranges from 4 miles (6.4 kilometres) to 18 miles (29 kilometres) in width. In the walls of the Canyon can be seen flat-lying rock layers that were once sand, mud or lime. Now hardened, they look like pages of a giant book as they stretch uniformly right through the Canyon and underneath the plateau country to the north and south and deeper to the east.

Figure 1. A panoramic view of the Grand Canyon from the South Rim at Yavapai Point. The Coconino Sandstone is the thick buff-coloured layer close to the top of the canyon walls. Compare with Figure 2. Figure 2. Grand Canyon in cross-section showing the names given to the different rock units by geologists. The Coconino Sandstone To begin to comprehend the awesome scale of these rock layers, we can choose any one for detailed examination. Perhaps the easiest of these rock layers to spot, since it readily catches the eye, is a thick, pale buff coloured to almost white sandstone near the top of the Canyon walls. Geologists have given the different rock layers names, and this one is called the Coconino Sandstone (see Figures 1 and 2). It is estimated to have an average thickness of 315 feet (96 metres) and, with equivalent sandstones to the east, covers an area of about 200,000 square miles (518,000 square kilometres).2 That is an area more than twice the size of the Australian State of Victoria, or almost twice the area of the US State of Colorado! Thus the volume of this sandstone is conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles (41,700 cubic kilometres). That’s a lot of sand! Figure 3. Cross beds (inclined sub-layering) within the Coconino Sandstone, as seen on the Bright Angel Trail in the Grand Canyon.What do these rock layers in Grand Canyon mean? What do they tell us about the earth’s past? For example, how did all the sand in this Coconino Sandstone layer and its equivalents get to where it is today?To answer these questions geologists study the features within rock layers like the Coconino Sandstone, and even the sand grains themselves. An easily noticed feature of the Coconino Sandstone is the distinct cross layers of sand within it called cross beds (see Figure 3, right). For many years evolutionary geologists have interpreted these cross beds by comparing them with currently forming sand deposits — the sand dunes in deserts which are dominated by sand grains made up of the mineral quartz, and which have inclined internal sand beds. Thus it has been proposed that the Coconino Sandstone accumulated over thousands and thousands of years in an immense windy desert by migrating sand dunes, the cross beds forming on the down-wind sides of the dunes as sand was deposited there.3

Figure 4: A fossilized quadruped trackway in the Coconino Sandstone on display in the Grand Canyon Natural History Association’s Yavapai Point Museum at the South Rim.The Coconino Sandstone is also noted for the large number of fossilized footprints, usually in sequences called trackways. These appear to have been made by four-footed vertebrates moving across the original sand surfaces (see Figure 4, left). These fossil footprint trackways were compared to the tracks made by reptiles on desert sand dunes,4 so it was then assumed that these fossilized footprints in the Coconino Sandstone must have been made in dry desert sands which were then covered up by wind-blown sand, subsequent cementation forming the sandstone and fossilizing the prints.Yet another feature that evolutionary geologists have used to argue that the Coconino Sandstone represents the remains of a long period of dry desert conditions is the sand grains themselves. Geologists have studied the sand grains from modern desert dunes and under the microscope they often show pitted or frosted surfaces. Similar grain surface textures have also been observed in sandstone layers containing very thick cross beds such as the Coconino Sandstone, so again this comparison has strengthened the belief that the Coconino Sandstone was deposited as dunes in a desert.At first glance this interpretation would appear to be an embarrassment to creation geologists who are unanimous in their belief that it must have been a Global Flood that deposited the flat lying beds of what were once sand, mud and lime, but are now exposed as the rock layers in the walls of the Canyon.Above the Coconino Sandstone is the Toroweap Formation and below is the Hermit Formation, both of which geologists agree are made up of sediments that were either deposited by and/or in water. 5,6 How could there have been a period of dry desert conditions in the middle of the Flood year when ‘all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered’ by water?This seeming problem has certainly not been lost on those, even from within the Christian community, opposed to Flood geologists and creationists in general. For example, Dr Davis Young, Professor of Geology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in a recent book being marketed in Christian bookshops, has merely echoed the interpretations made by evolutionary geologists of the characteristics of the Coconino Sandstone, arguing against the Flood as being the agent for depositing the Coconino Sandstone. He is most definite in his consideration of the desert dune model: ‘The Coconino Sandstone contains spectacular cross bedding, vertebrate track fossils, and pitted and frosted sand grain surfaces. All these features are consistent with formation of the Coconino as desert sand dunes. The sandstone is composed almost entirely of quartz grains, and pure quartz sand does not form in floods … no flood of any size could have produced such deposits of sand …’7 Those footprints The footprint trackways in the Coconino Sandstone have recently been re-examined in the light of experimental studies by Dr Leonard Brand of Loma Linda University in California.8 His research program involved careful surveying and detailed measurements of 82 fossilized vertebrate trackways discovered in the Coconino Sandstone along the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon. He then observed and measured 236 experimental trackways made by living amphibians and reptiles in experimental chambers. These tracks were formed on sand beneath the water, on moist sand at the water’s edge, and on dry sand, the sand mostly sloping at an angle of 25 degrees, although some observations were made on slopes of 15deg; and 20° for comparison. Observations were also made of the underwater locomotion of five species of salamanders (amphibians) both in the laboratory and in their natural habitat, and measurements were again taken of their trackways.A detailed statistical analysis of these data led to the conclusion, with a high degree of probability that the fossil tracks must have been made underwater. Whereas the experimental animals produce footprints under all test conditions, both up and down the 25° slopes of the laboratory ‘dunes’, all but one of the fossil trackways could only have been made by the animals in question climbing uphill. Toe imprints were generally distinct, whereas the prints of the soles were indistinct. These and other details were present in over 80% of the fossil, underwater and wet sand tracks, but less than 12% of the dry sand and damp sand tracks had any toe marks. Dry sand uphill tracks were usually just depressions, with no details. Wet sand tracks were quite different from the fossil tracks in certain features. Added to this, the observations of the locomotive behaviour of the living salamanders indicated that all spent the majority of their locomotion time walking on the bottom, underwater, rather than swimming.Putting together all of his observations, Dr Brand thus came to the conclusion that the configurations and characteristics of the animals trackways made on the submerged sand surfaces most closely resembled the fossilized quadruped trackways of the Coconino Sandstone. Indeed, when the locomotion behaviour of the living amphibians is taken into account, the fossilized trackways can be interpreted as implying that the animals must have been entirely under water (not swimming at the surface) and moving upslope (against the current) in an attempt to get out of the water. This interpretation fits with the concept of a global Flood, which overwhelmed even four-footed reptiles and amphibians that normally spend most of their time in the water. Not content with these initial studies, Dr Brand has continued (with the help of a colleague) to pursue this line of research. He recently published further results,9 which were so significant that a brief report of their work appeared inScience News10 and Geology Today. 11 His careful analysis of the fossilized trackways in the Coconino Sandstone, this time not only from the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon but from other trails and locations, again revealed that all but one had to have been made by animals moving up cross bed slopes. Furthermore, these tracks often show that the animals were moving in one direction while their feet were pointing in a different direction. It would appear that the animals were walking in a current of water, not air. Other trackways start or stop abruptly, with no sign that the animals’ missing tracks were covered by some disturbance such as shifting sediments. It appears that these animals simply swam away from the sediment.Because many of the tracks have characteristics that are ‘just about impossible’ to explain unless the animals were moving underwater, Dr Brand suggested that newt-like animals made the tracks while walking under water and being pushed by a current. To test his ideas, he and his colleague videotaped living newts walking through a laboratory tank with running water. All 238 trackways made by the newts had features similar to the fossilized trackways in the Coconino Sandstone, and their videotaped behaviour while making the trackways thus indicated how the animals that made the fossilized trackways might have been moving.These additional studies confirmed the conclusions of his earlier researches. Thus, Dr Brand concluded that all his data suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil tracks should not be used as evidence for desert wind deposition of dry sand to form the Coconino Sandstone, but rather point to underwater deposition. These evidence from such careful experimental studies by a Flood geologist overturn the original interpretation by evolutionists of these Coconino Sandstone fossil footprints, and thus call into question their use by Young and others as an argument against the Flood. Desert ‘dunes’? The desert sand dune model for the origin of the Coconino Sandstone has also recently been challenged by Glen Visher12, Professor of Geology at the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma, and not a creationist geologist. Visher noted that large storms, or amplified tides, today produce submarine sand dunes called ‘sand waves’. These modern sand waves on the sea floor contain large cross beds composed of sand with very high quartz purity. Visher has thus interpreted the Coconino Sandstone as a submarine sand wave deposit accumulated by water, not wind. This of course is directly contrary to Young’s claims, which after all are just the repeated opinions of other evolutionary geologists.Furthermore, there is other evidence that casts grave doubts on the view that the Coconino Sandstone cross beds formed in desert dunes. The average angle of slope of the Coconino cross beds is about 25° from the horizontal, less than the average angle of slope of sand beds within most modern desert sand dunes. Those sand beds slope at an angle of more than 25°, with some beds inclined as much as 30° to 34°, the angle of ‘rest’ of dry sand. On the other hand, modern oceanic sand waves do not have ‘avalanche’ faces of sand as common as desert dunes, and therefore, have lower average dips of cross beds.Visher also points to other positive evidence for accumulation of the Coconino Sandstone in water. Within the Coconino Sandstone is a feature known technically as ‘parting lineation’, which is known to be commonly formed on sand surfaces during brief erosional bursts beneath fast-flowing water. It is not known from any desert sand dunes. Thus Visher also uses this feature as evidence of vigorous water currents accumulating the sand, which forms the Coconino Sandstone.Similarly, Visher has noted that the different grain sizes of sand within any sandstone are a reflection of the process that deposited the sand. Consequently, he performed sand grain size analyses of the Coconino Sandstone and modern sand waves, and found that the Coconino Sandstone does not compare as favourably to dune sands from modern deserts. He found that not only is the pitting not diagnostic of the last Process to have deposited the sand grains (pitting can, for example, form first by wind impacts, followed by redeposition by water), but pitting and frosting of sand grains can form outside a desert environment.13 For example, geologists have described how pitting on the surface of sand grains can form by chemical processes during the cementation of sand. Sand wave deposition

Figure 5. Schematic diagram showing the formation of cross beds during sand deposition by migration of underwater sand waves due to sustained water flow.A considerable body of evidence is now available which indicates that the Coconino Sandstone was deposited by the ocean, and not by desert accumulation of sand dunes as emphatically maintained by most evolutionary geologists, including Christians like Davis Young. The cross beds within the Coconino Sandstone (that is, the inclined beds of sand within the overall horizontal layer of sandstone) are excellent evidence that ocean currents moved the sand rapidly as dune-like mounds called sand waves. Figure 5 (right) shows the way sand waves have been observed to produce cross beds in layers of sand. The water current moves over the sand surface building up mounds of sand. The current erodes sand from the ‘up-current’ side of the sand wave and deposits it as inclined layers on the ‘down-current’ side of the sand wave. Thus the sand wave moves in the direction of current flow as the inclined strata continue to be deposited on the down-current side of the sand wave. Continued erosion of sand by the current removes both the up-current side and top of the sand wave, the only part usually preserved being just the lower half of the down-current side. Thus the height of the cross beds preserved is just a fraction of the original sand wave height. Continued transportation of further sand will result in repeated layers containing inclined cross beds. These will be stacked up on each other.Sand waves have been observed on certain parts of the ocean floor and in rivers, and have been produced in laboratory studies. Consequently, it has been demonstrated that the sand wave height is related to the water depth.15 As the water depth increases so does the height of the sand waves which are produced. The heights of the sand waves are approximately one-fifth of the water depth. Similarly, the velocities of the water currents that produce sand waves have been determined.Thus we have the means to calculate both the depth and velocity of the water responsible for transporting as sand waves the sand that now makes up the cross beds of the Coconino Sandstone. The thickest sets of cross beds in the Coconino Sandstone so far reported are 30 feet (9 metres) thick.16 Cross beds of that height imply sand waves at least 60 feet (18 metres) high and a water depth of around 300 feet (between 90 and 95 metres). For water that deep to make and move sand waves as high as 60 feet (18 metres) the minimum current velocity would need to be over 3 feet per second (95 centimetres per second) or 2 miles per hour. The maximum current velocity would have been almost 5.5 feet per second (165 cm or 1.65 metres per second) or 3.75 miles per hour. Beyond that velocity experimental and observational evidence has shown that flat sand beds only would be formed.Now to have transported in such deep water the volume of sand that now makes up the Coconino Sandstone these current velocities would have to have been sustained in the one direction perhaps for days. Modern tides and normal ocean currents do not have these velocities in the open ocean, although deep-sea currents have been reported to attain velocities of between 50 cm and 250 cm (2.5 metres) per second through geographical restrictions. Thus catastrophic events provide the only mechanism, which can produce high velocity ocean currents over a wide area.Hurricanes (or cyclones in the southern hemisphere) are thought to make modern sand waves of smaller size than those that have produced the cross beds in the Coconino Sandstone, but no measurements of hurricane driven currents approaching these velocities in deep water have been reported. The most severe modern ocean currents known have been generated during a tsunami or ‘tidal wave’. In shallow oceans tsunami-induced currents have been reported on occasion to exceed 500 cm (5 metres) per second, and currents moving in the one direction have been sustained for hours.17 Such an event would be able to move large quantities of sand and, in its waning stages, build huge sand waves in deep water. Consequently, a tsunami provides the best modern analogy for understanding how large-scale cross beds such as those in the Coconino Sandstone could form. Gobal Flood? We can thus imagine how the Flood would deposit the Coconino Sandstone (and its equivalents), which covers an area of 200,000 square miles (518,000 square kilometres) averages 315 feet (96 metres) thick, and contains a volume of sand conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles (41,700 cubic kilometres). But where could such an enormous quantity of sand come from? Cross beds within the Coconino dip consistently toward the south, indicating that the sand came from the north. However, along its northern occurrence, the Coconino rests directly on the Hermit Formation, which consists of siltstone and shale and so would not have been an ample source of sand of the type now found in the Coconino Sandstone. Consequently, this enormous volume of sand would have to have been transported a considerable distance, perhaps at least 200 or 300 miles (320 or 480 kilometres). At the current velocities envisaged sand could be transported that distance in a matter of a few days!Thus the evidence within the Coconino Sandstone does not support the evolutionary geologists interpretation of slow and gradual deposition of sand in a desert environment with dunes being climbed by wandering four- footed vertebrates. On the contrary, a careful examination of the evidence, backed up by experiments and observations of processes operating today indicates catastrophic deposition of the sand by deep fast-moving water in a matter of days, totally consistent with conditions envisaged during the Flood. PLATE TECTONICS A Catastrophic Breakup A Scientific Look at Catastrophic Plate Tectonics by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on March 20, 2007 When you look at a globe, have you ever thought that the earth looks cracked? Or, maybe the continents have reminded you of a giant jigsaw puzzle, with the coastal lines of South America and Africa seeming to fit together almost perfectly. But what did this “puzzle” of land masses look like in the past? Was the earth one big continent long ago? What caused the continents to move to their present locations? How did the global Flood impact the continents?Global investigations of the earth’s crust reveal that it has been divided by geologic processes into a mosaic of rigid blocks called “plates.” Observations indicate that these plates have moved large distances relative to one another in the past, and that they are still moving very slowly today. The word “tectonics” has to do with earth movements; so the study of the movements and interactions among these plates is called “plate tectonics.” Because almost all the plate motions responsible for the earth’s current configuration occurred in the past, plate tectonics is an interpretation or model of what geologists envisage happened to these plates through earth’s history (Figure 1).As hot mantle rock vaporizes huge volumes of ocean water, a linear column of supersonic steam jets shoot into the atmosphere. This moisture condenses in the atmosphere and then falls back to the earth as intense global rain.Slow-and-Gradual or Catastrophic?Most geologists believe that the movement of the earth’s plates has been slow and gradual over eons of time. If today’s measured rates of plate drift—about 0.5–6 in (2–15 cm) per year—are extrapolated into the past, it would require about 100 million years for the Atlantic Ocean to form. This rate of drift is consistent with the estimated 4.8 mi3 (20 km3) of magma that currently rises each year to create new oceanic crust.1On the other hand, many observations are incompatible with the idea of slow-and-gradual plate tectonics. Drilling into the magnetized rock of the mid-ocean ridges shows that a matching “zebra-striped” pattern of the surface rocks does not exist at depth, as Figure 2 implies.2 Instead, magnetic polarity changes rapidly and erratically down the drill-holes. This is contrary to what would be expected with slow-and-gradual formation of the new oceanic crust accompanied by slow spreading rates. But it is just what is expected with extremely rapid formation of new oceanic crust and rapid magnetic reversals during the Flood.

Figure 1: Cross-sectional view of the earth

Figure 1: Cross-sectional view through the earth. The general principles of plate tectonics theory may be stated as follows: deformation occurs at the edges of the plates by three types of horizontal motion—extension (rifting or moving apart), transform faulting (horizontal shearing along a large fault line), and compression, mostly by subduction (one plate plunging beneath another). Figure 2: Magnetic reversals Figure 2: The magnetic pattern on the left side of the ridge matches the pattern on the right side of the ridge. Note there are “bands” of normally magnetized rock and “bands” of reversely magnetized rock. This sequence of illustrations shows how the matching pattern on each side of the mid-ocean ridge may have formed. In the Catastrophic Plate Tectonic model, the magnetic reversals would have occurred rapidly during the Flood. Figure 3: Model of catastrophic plate tectonics after 15 days Figure 3: Snapshot of 3-D modeling solution after 15 days. The plot is an equal-area projection of a spherical mantle surface 40 mi. (65 km) below the earth’s surface in which color denotes absolute temperature. Arrows denote velocities in the plane of the cross-section. The dark lines denote plate boundaries where continental crust is present or boundaries between continent and ocean where both exist on the same plate. Figure 4: Model of catastrophic plate tectonics after 25 days

Figure 4: Snapshot of the modeling solution after 25 days. For a detailed explanation of this calculation, see Dr. Baumgardner’s paper, “The Physics behind the Flood” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, pp. 113-136, 2003. Furthermore, slow-and-gradual subduction should have resulted in the sediments on the floors of the trenches being compressed, deformed, and faulted; yet the floors of the Peru- Chile and East Aleutian Trenches are covered with soft, flat-lying sediments devoid of compressional structures.3 These observations are consistent with extremely rapid motion during the Flood, followed by slow plate velocities as the floodwaters retreated from the continents and filled the trenches with sediment. A catastrophic model of plate tectonics (as proposed by creation scientists) easily overcomes the problems of the slow and gradual model (as proposed by most evolutionist scientists). In addition, the catastrophic model helps us understand what the “mechanism” of the Flood may have been.4 A 3-D supercomputer model demonstrates that rapid plate movement is possible.5 Even though this model was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling technique is acknowledged as the world’s best.6 Catastrophic Plate Tectonics The catastrophic plate tectonics model of Austin et al. described in this article begins with a pre-Flood supercontinent surrounded by cold ocean-floor rocks that were denser (heavier) per unit volume than the warm mantle rock beneath.7To initiate motion, this model requires a sudden trigger large enough to “crack” the ocean floor adjacent to the supercontinent, so that zones of cold, heavy ocean-floor rock start sinking into the upper mantle.In this model (Figures 3 and 4), as the ocean floor (in the areas of the ocean trenches) sinks into the mantle, it drags the rest of the ocean floor with it, in a conveyor-belt-like fashion. The sinking slabs of cold ocean floor produce stress in the surrounding hot mantle rock. These stresses, in turn, cause the rock to become hotter and more deformable, allowing ocean slabs to sink even faster. The ultimate result is a runaway process that causes the entire pre-Flood ocean floor to sink to the bottom of the mantle in a matter of a few weeks. As the slabs sink (at rates of feet-per-second) down to the mantle/core boundary, enormous amounts of energy are released.8The rapidly sinking ocean-floor slabs cause large-scale convection currents, producing a circular flow throughout the mantle. The hot mantle rock displaced by these subducting slabs wells up to the mid-ocean rift zones where it melts and forms new ocean floor. Here, the liquid rock vaporizes huge volumes of ocean water to produce a linear curtain of supersonic steam jets along the entire 43,500 mi (70,000 km) of the seafloor rift zones.These supersonic steam jets capture large amounts of water as they “shoot” up through the ocean into the atmosphere. Water is catapulted high above the earth and then falls back to the surface as intense global rain, which is perhaps the source for the “floodgates of heaven”.As the ocean floor warms during this process, its rock expands, displacing sea water, forcing a dramatic rise in sea level. Ocean water would have swept up onto and over the continental land surfaces, carrying vast quantities of sediments and marine organisms with them to form the thick, fossiliferous sedimentary rock layers we now find blanketing large portions of today’s continents. Rocks like this are magnificently exposed in the Grand Canyon, for example. Slow-and- gradual plate tectonics simply cannot account for such thick, laterally extensive sequences of sedimentary strata containing marine fossils over such vast interior continental areas high above sea level. Conclusion Many creationist geologists now believe the catastrophic plate tectonics concept is very useful as the best explanation for how the Flood event occurred within the creation framework for earth’s history. This concept is still rather new, but its explanatory power makes it compelling. Additional work is underway to further refine and detail this geologic model for the Flood event, especially to show that it provides a better scientific explanation for the order and distribution of the fossils and strata globally than the failed slow-and-gradual belief. Adapted and condensed from Chapter 14, “Can Catastrophic Tectonics Explain Flood Geology?” New Answers Book by Dr. Andrew Snelling, November 2006.

A Short History of Plate Tectonics Antonio Snider’s original illustration of the continents rapidly separating during the time of the Flood.

The formerly joined continents before their separation.

The continents after the separation. The idea that the continents have drifted apart was first suggested in 1859 by the French creationist geographer Antonio Snider.9 He theorized a supercontinent based on his interpretation of Genesis 1:9–10. He noticed a resemblance between the coastlines of western Africa and eastern South America and proposed the breakup and rapid drifting of the pieces catastrophically during the Flood (right). It wasn’t until 1915 that the theory of continental drift was acknowledged by the scientific community, partly due to the research published by German meteorologist Alfred .10 However, most geologists spurned the theory because Wegener could not provide a workable mechanism to explain how the continents could “plow” through the ocean basins. Between 1962 and 1968 the current theory of plate tectonics was developed. Four independent observations were cited: (1) discovery of the seafloor’s dynamic topography; (2) discovery of magnetic field reversals in a “zebra-striped” pattern adjacent to the mid-ocean ridges (Figure 2); (3) the “timing” of those reversals; and (4) accurate pinpointing of the locations of earthquakes.11 Most geologists became convinced of plate tectonics during this short time because the concept elegantly explained these and other apparently unrelated observations.11

Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology? by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on November 8, 2007; last featured March 3, 2014 How could a massive, global flood be triggered? Do plate tectonics provide a valid mechanism? Geologist Andrew Snelling answers. Shop Now What Is Plate Tectonics? The earth’s thin rocky outer layer (3–45 mi [5–70 km] thick) is called “the crust.” On the continents it consists of sedimentary rock layers—some containing fossils and some folded and contorted—together with an underlying crystalline rocky basement of granites and metamorphosed sedimentary rocks. In places, the crystalline rocks are exposed at the earth’s surface, usually as a result of erosion. Beneath the crust is what geologists call the mantle, which consists of dense, warm- to-hot (but solid) rock that extends to a depth of 1,800 mi (2,900 km). Below the mantle lies the earth’s core, composed mostly of iron. All but the innermost part of the core is molten (see Figure 1). Investigations of the earth’s surface have revealed that it has been divided globally by past geologic processes into what today is a mosaic of rigid blocks called “plates.” Observations indicate that these plates have moved large distances relative to one another in the past and that they are still moving very slowly today. The word “tectonics” has to do with earth movements; so the study of the movements and interactions among these plates is called “plate tectonics.” Because almost all the plate motions occurred in the past, plate tectonics is, strictly speaking, an interpretation, model, or theoretical description of what geologists envisage happened to these plates through earth’s history.

Figure 1. Cross-sectional view through the earth. The two major divisions of the planet are its mantle, made of silicate rock, and its core, comprised mostly of iron. Portions of the surface covered with a low-density layer of continental crust represent the continents. Lithospheric plates at the surface, which include the crust and part of the upper mantle, move laterally over the asthenosphere. The asthenosphere is hot and also weak because of the presence of water within its constituent minerals. Oceanic lithosphere, which lacks the continental crust, is chemically similar on average to the underlying mantle. Because oceanic lithosphere is substantially cooler, its density is higher, and it therefore has an ability to sink into the mantle below. The sliding of an oceanic plate into the mantle is known as “subduction,” as shown here beneath South America. As two plates pull apart at a mid-ocean ridge, material from the asthenosphere rises to fill the gap, and some of this material melts to produce basaltic lava to form new oceanic crust on the ocean floor. The continental regions do not participate in the subduction process because of the buoyancy of the continental crust.The general principles of plate tectonics theory may be stated as follows: deformation occurs at the edges of the plates by three types of horizontal motion—extension (rifting or moving apart), transform faulting (horizontal slippage along a large fault line), and compression, mostly by subduction (one plate plunging beneath another).1Extension occurs where the seafloor is being pulled apart or split along rift zones, such as along the axes of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the East Pacific Rise. This is often called “seafloor spreading,” which occurs where two oceanic plates move away from each other horizontally, with new molten material from the mantle beneath rising between them to form new oceanic crust. Similar extensional splitting of a continental crustal plate can also occur, such as along the East African Rift Zone.Transform faulting occurs where one plate is sliding horizontally past another, such as along the well-known San Andreas Fault of California.Compressional deformation occurs where two plates move toward one another. If an oceanic crustal plate is moving toward an adjacent continental crustal plate, then the former will usually subduct (plunge) beneath the latter. Examples are the Pacific and Cocos Plates that are subducting beneath Japan and South America, respectively. When two continental crustal plates collide, the compressional deformation usually crumples the rock in the collision zone to produce a mountain range. For example, the Indian-Australian Plate has collided with the Eurasian Plate to form the Himalayas. History of Plate Tectonics The idea that the continents had drifted apart was first suggested by a creationist, Antonio Snider.2 He observed from the statement in Genesis 1:9–10 about God’s gathering together the seas into one place that at that point in earth history there may have been only a single landmass. He also noticed the close fit of the coastlines of western Africa and eastern South America. So he proposed that the breakup of that supercontinent with subsequent horizontal movements of the new continents to their present positions occurred catastrophically during the Flood.However, his theory went unnoticed, perhaps because ’s book, which was published the same year, drew so much fanfare. The year 1859 was a bad year for attention to be given to any other new scientific theory, especially one that supported a creation view of earth history. And it also didn’t help that Snider published his book in French.It wasn’t until the early twentieth century that the theory of continental drift was acknowledged by the scientific community, through a book by Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist.3 However, for almost 50 years the overwhelming majority of geologists spurned the theory, primarily because a handful of seismologists claimed the strength of the mantle rock was too high to allow continents to drift in the manner Wegener had proposed. Their estimates of mantle rock strength were derived from the way seismic waves behave as they traveled through the earth at that time.For this half-century the majority of geologists maintained that continents were stationary, and they accused the handful of colleagues who promoted the drift concept of indulging in pseudo-scientific fantasy that violated basic principles of physics. Today that persuasion has been reversed—plate tectonics, incorporating continental drift, is the ruling perspective.What caused such a dramatic about-face? Between 1962 and 1968 four main lines of independent experiments and measurements brought about the birth of the theory of plate tectonics:4 Mapping of the topography of the seafloor using echo depth-sounders; Measuring the magnetic field above the seafloor using magnetometers; “Timing” of the north-south reversals of the earth’s magnetic field using the magnetic memory of continental rocks and their radioactive “ages;” and Determining very accurately the location of earthquakes using a worldwide network of seismometers.An important fifth line of evidence was the careful laboratory measurement of how mantle minerals deform under stress. This measurement can convincingly demonstrate that mantle rock can deform by large amounts on timescales longer than the few seconds typical of seismic oscillations.5Additionally, most geologists became rapidly convinced of plate tectonics theory because it elegantly and powerfully explained so many observations and lines of evidence: The jigsaw puzzle fit of the continents (taking into account the continental shelves); The correlation of fossils and fossil-bearing strata across the ocean basins (e.g., the coal beds of North America and Europe); The mirror image zebra-striped pattern of magnetic reversals in the volcanic rocks of the seafloor parallel to the mid-ocean rift zones in the plates on either side of the zone, consistent with a moving apart of the plates (seafloor spreading); The location of most of the world’s earthquakes at the boundaries between the plates, consistent with earthquakes being caused by two plates moving relative to one another; The existence of the deep seafloor trenches invariably located where earthquake activity suggests an oceanic plate is plunging into the mantle beneath another plate; The oblique pattern of earthquakes adjacent to these trenches (subduction zones), consistent with an oblique path of motion of a subducting slab into the mantle; The location of volcanic belts (e.g., the Pacific “ring of fire”) adjacent to deep sea trenches and above subducting slabs, consistent with subducted sediments on the tops of down-going slabs encountering melting temperatures in the mantle; and The location of mountain belts at or adjacent to convergent plate boundaries (where the plates are colliding). Slow-and-Gradual or Catastrophic? Because of the scientific community’s commitment to the uniformitarian assumptions and framework for earth history, most geologists take for granted that the movement of the earth’s plates has been slow and gradual over long eons. After all, if today’s measured rates of plate drift—about 0.5–6 in (2–15 cm) per year—are extrapolated uniformly back into the past, it requires about 100 million years for the ocean basins and mountain ranges to form. And this rate of drift is consistent with the estimated 4.8 mi3 (20 km3) of molten magma that currently rises globally each year to create new oceanic crust.6On the other hand, many other observations are incompatible with slow-and-gradual plate tectonics. While the seafloor surface is relatively smooth, zebra-stripe magnetic patterns are obtained when the ship-towed instrument (magnetometer) observations average over mile-sized patches. Drilling into the oceanic crust of the mid-ocean ridges has also revealed that those smooth patterns are not present at depth in the actual rocks.7 Instead, the magnetic polarity changes rapidly and erratically down the drill-holes. This is contrary to what would be expected with slow-and-gradual formation of the new oceanic crust accompanied by slow magnetic reversals. But it is just what is expected with extremely rapid formation of new oceanic crust and rapid magnetic reversal during the Flood, when rapid cooling of the new crust occurred in a highly nonuniform manner because of the chaotic interaction with ocean water.Furthermore, slow-and-gradual subduction should have resulted in the sediments on the floors of the trenches being compressed, deformed, and thrust- faulted, yet the floors of the Peru-Chile and East Aleutian Trenches are covered with soft, flat-lying sediments devoid of compressional structures.8 These observations are consistent, however, with extremely rapid subduction during the Flood, followed by extremely slow plate velocities as the floodwaters retreated from the continents and filled the trenches with sediment.If uniformitarian assumptions are discarded, however, and Snider’s original proposal for continental “sprint” during the Flood is adopted, then a catastrophic plate tectonics model explains everything that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics does, plus most everything it can’t explain.9 Also, a 3-D supercomputer model of processes in the earth’s mantle has demonstrated that tectonic plate movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for mantle rocks is included.10 And, even though it was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.11The catastrophic plate tectonics model of Austin et al.12 begins with a pre-Flood supercontinent surrounded by cold ocean-floor rocks that were denser than the warm mantle rock beneath. To initiate motion in the model, some sudden trigger “cracks” the ocean floors adjacent to the supercontinental crustal block, so that zones of cold ocean-floor rock start penetrating vertically into the upper mantle along the edge of most of the supercontinent.13These vertical segments of ocean-floor rock correspond to the leading edges of oceanic plates. These vertical zones begin to sink in conveyor-belt fashion into the mantle, dragging the rest of the ocean floor with them. The sinking slabs of ocean plates produce stresses in the surrounding mantle rock, and these stresses, in turn, cause the rock to become more deformable and allow the slabs to sink faster. This process causes the stress levels to increase and the rock to become even weaker. These regions of rock weakness expand to encompass the entire mantle and result in a catastrophic runaway of the oceanic slabs to the bottom of the mantle in a matter of a few weeks.14The energy for driving this catastrophe is the gravitational potential energy of the cold, dense rock overlying the less dense mantle beneath it at the beginning of the event. At its peak, this runaway instability allows the subduction rates of the plates to reach amazing speeds of feet-per-second. At the same time the pre-Flood seafloor was being catastrophically subducted into the mantle, the resultant tensional stress tore apart (rifted) the pre-Flood supercontinent (see Figure 2). The key physics responsible for the runaway instability is the fact that mantle rocks weaken under stress, by factors of a billion or more, for the sorts of stress levels that can occur in a planet the size of the earth—a behavior verified by many laboratory experiments over the past forty years.15The rapidly sinking ocean-floor slabs forcibly displace the softer mantle rock into which they are subducted, which causes large-scale convectional flow throughout the entire mantle. The hot mantle rock displaced by these subducting slabs wells up elsewhere to complete the flow cycle, and in particular rises into the seafloor rift zones to form new ocean floor. Reaching the surface of the ocean floor, this hot mantle material vaporizes huge volumes of ocean water with which it comes into contact to produce a linear curtain of supersonic steam jets along the entire 43,500 miles (70,000 km) of the seafloor rift zones stretching around the globe. These supersonic steam jets capture large amounts of liquid water as they “shoot” up through the ocean above the seafloor where they form. This water is catapulted high above the earth and then falls back to the surface as intense global rain. Figure 2(a). Snapshot of 3-D modeling solution after 15 days. The upper plot is an equal area projection of a spherical mantle surface 40 mi (65 km) below the earth’s surface in which color denotes absolute temperature. Arrows denote velocities in the plane of the cross-section. The dark lines denote plate boundaries where continental crust is present or boundaries between continent and ocean where both exist on the same plate. The lower plot is an equatorial cross-section in which the grayscale denotes temperature deviation from the average at a given depth.This catastrophic plate tectonics model for earth history 16 is able to explain geologic data that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics over many millions of years cannot. For example, the new rapidly formed ocean floor would have initially been very hot. Thus, being of lower density than the pre-Flood ocean floor, it would have risen some 3,300 ft. (1,000 m) higher than its predecessor, causing a dramatic rise in global sea level. The ocean waters would thus have swept up onto and over the continental land surfaces, carrying vast quantities of sediments and marine organisms with them to form the thick, fossiliferous sedimentary rock layers we now find blanketing large portions of today’s continents. This laterally extensive layer-cake sequence of sedimentary rocks is magnificently exposed, for example, in the Grand Canyon region of the southwestern U.S.17 Slow-and-gradual plate tectonics simply cannot account for such thick, laterally extensive sequences of sedimentary strata containing marine fossils over such vast interior continental areas—areas which are normally well above sea level.Furthermore, the whole mantle convectional flow resulting from runaway subduction of the cold ocean-floor slabs would have suddenly cooled the mantle temperature at the core-mantle boundary, thus greatly accelerating convection in, and heat loss from, the adjacent outer core. This rapid cooling of the surface of the core would result in rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field.18These magnetic reversals would have been expressed at the earth’s surface and been recorded in the zebra-shaped magnetic stripes in the new ocean-floor rocks. This magnetization would have been erratic and locally patchy, laterally as well as at depth, unlike the pattern expected in the slow-and-gradual version. It was predicted that similar records of “astonishingly rapid” magnetic reversals ought to be present in thin continental lava flows, and such astonishingly rapid reversals in continental lava flows were subsequently found.19This catastrophic plate tectonics model thus provides a powerful explanation for how the cold, rigid crustal plates could have moved thousands of miles over the mantle while the ocean floor subducted. It predicts relatively little plate movement today because the continental “sprint” rapidly decelerated when all the pre-Flood ocean floor had been subducted. Figure 2(b). Snapshot of the modeling solution after 25 days. Grayscale and arrows denote the same quantities as in Figure 2(a). For a detailed explanation of this calculation, see Baumgardner, 2003.Also, we would thus expect the trenches adjacent to the subduction zones today to be filled with undisturbed late-Flood and post-Flood sediments. The model provides a mechanism for the retreat of the floodwaters from off the continents into the new ocean basins, when at the close of the Flood, as plate movements almost stopped, the dominant tectonic forces resulted in vertical earth movements. Plate interactions at plate boundaries during the cataclysm generated mountains, while cooling of the new ocean floor increased its density, which caused it to sink and thus deepen the new ocean basins to receive the retreating floodwaters.Aspects of modeling the phenomenon of runaway behavior in the mantle20 have been independently duplicated and verified.21 The same modeling predicts that since runaway subduction of the cold ocean-floor slabs occurred only a few thousand years ago during the Flood, those cold slabs would not have had sufficient time since the catastrophe to be fully “digested” into the surrounding mantle. Evidence for these relatively cold slabs just above the core-mantle boundary, to which they would have sunk, therefore should still be evident today, and it is (see Figure 3).22Figure 3. Distribution of hot (light-shaded surfaces) and cold (darker-shaded surfaces) regions in today’s lower mantle as determined observationally by seismic tomography (imaging using recordings of seismic waves), viewed from (a) 180° longitude and (b) 0° longitude. The very low temperature inferred for the ring of colder rock implies that it has been subducted quite recently from the earth’s surface. The columnar blobs of warmer rock have been squeezed together and pushed upward as the colder and denser rock settled over the core. (Figure courtesy of Alexandro Forte)Moreover, whether at the current rate of movement—only 4 in (10 cm) per year—the force and energy of the collision between the Indian- Australian and Eurasian Plates could have been sufficient to push up the Himalayas (like two cars colliding, each only traveling at .04 in/h [1 mm/h]) is questionable. In contrast, if the plate movements were measured as feet-per-second, like two cars each traveling at 62 mph (100 km/h), the resulting catastrophic collision would have rapidly buckled rock strata to push up those high mountains. Conclusion Many creationist geologists now believe the catastrophic plate tectonics concept is very useful as the best explanation for how the Flood event occurred within the biblical framework for earth’s history. Even though Genesis does not specifically mention this concept, it is consistent with the creation account, which implies an original supercontinent that broke up during the Flood, with the resultant continents obviously then having to move rapidly (“sprint”) into their present positions. This concept is still rather new, and of course radical, but its explanatory power makes it compelling. Additional work is now being done to further detail this geologic model for the Flood event, especially to show that it provides a better explanation for the order and distribution of the fossils and strata globally than the failed slow-and-gradual belief.

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History by Dr. Larry Vardiman, Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, Dr. John Baumgardner, Kurt Wise, and Dr. Steve Austin on October 27, 2010 Abstract In 1859 Antonio Snider proposed that rapid, horizontal divergence of crustal plates occurred during Flood. Modern plate tectonics theory is now conflated with assumptions of uniformity of rate and ideas of continental “drift.” Catastrophic plate tectonics theories, such as Snider proposed more than a century ago, appear capable of explaining a wide variety of data— including creationists and geologic data which the slow tectonics theories are incapable of explaining. We would like to propose a catastrophic plate tectonics theory as a framework for Earth history. Geophysically, we begin with a pre-Flood earth differentiated into core, mantle, and crust, with the crust horizontally differentiated into sialic craton and mafic ocean floor. The Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic floor broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre- Flood continental margins. Deformation of the mantle by these slabs raised the temperature and lowered the viscosity of the mantle in the vicinity of the slabs. A resulting thermal runaway of the slabs through the mantle led to meters-per-second mantle convection. Cool oceanic crust which descended to the core/mantle boundary induced rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field. Large plumes originating near the core/mantle boundary expressed themselves at the surface as fissure eruptions and flood basalts. Flow induced in the mantle also produced rapid extension along linear belts throughout the sea floor and rapid horizontal displacement of continents. Upwelling magma jettisoned steam into the atmosphere causing intense global rain. Rapid emplacement of isostatically lighter mantle material raised the level of the ocean floor, displacing ocean water onto the continents. When virtually all the pre-Flood oceanic floor had been replaced with new, less-dense, less-subductable, oceanic crust, catastrophic plate motion stopped. Subsequent cooling increased the density of the new ocean floor, producing deeper ocean basins and a reservoir for post-Flood oceans. Sedimentologically, we begin with a substantial reservoir of carbonate and clastic sediment in the pre-Flood ocean. During the Flood hot brines associated with new ocean floor added precipitites to that sediment reservoir, and warming ocean waters and degassing magmas added carbonates—especially high magnesium carbonates. Also during the Flood, rapid plate tectonics moved pre-Flood sediments toward the continents. As ocean plates subducted near a continental margin, its bending caused upwarping of sea floor, and its drag caused downwarping of continental crust, facilitating the placement of sediment onto the continental margin. Once there, earthquake-induced sea waves with ocean-to-land movement redistributed sediment toward continental interiors. Resulting sedimentary units tend to be thick, uniform, of unknown provenance, and extend over regional, inter- regional, and even continental areas. Shop Now This paper was originally published in the Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, pp. 609–612 (1994) and is reproduced here with the permission of the Creation Science Fellowship of Pittsburgh (www.csfpittsburgh.org). Keywords: catastrophe, Flood model, plate tectonics, subduction, thermal runaway, convection, spreading, fountains of the great deep, windows of heaven, volcanoes, earthquakes, sediments, precipitites, magnetic reversals, isostasy, climate, Ice Age Introduction Early in the history of geology, it was common to appeal to the Flood described in Genesis to explain the origin of most or all rocks and fossils (for example, Burnet,1 ,2 Whiston,3 Woodward4). In such theories the Flood was typically recognized as a catastrophic event of global proportions. The earth’s crust was typically pictured as dynamic and capable of rapid vertical and horizontal motions on local, regional, and global scales. However, especially with the influential works of Hutton5,6 and then ,7 the Flood began to play an increasingly less important role in historical geology during the nineteenth century. Theories of gradualism increased in popularity as theories of catastrophism waned. Ideas of past catastrophic geology were replaced with ideas of constancy of present gradual physical processes. Ideas of global-scale dynamics were replaced with ideas of local erosion, deposition, extrusion, and intrusion. Ideas of rapid crustal dynamics were replaced by ideas of crustal fixity—with only imperceptibly slow vertical subsidence and uplift being possible. So complete was the success of gradualism in geology that ideas of flood geology were nowhere to be found among the English-speaking scientists of the world by 1859,8 or rarely found at best.9One of the last holdouts for flood geology was a little-known work published by Antonio Snider-Pellegrini10—ironically enough the same year Darwin published the Origin of Species. Intrigued by the reasonably good fit between land masses on either side of the Atlantic ocean, Snider proposed that the earth’s crust was composed of rigid plates which had moved horizontally with respect to one another. Snider may have been the first to propose some of the main elements of modern plate tectonics theory. Snider also proposed that the horizontal divergence had been rapid and had occurred during the Flood. It appears, then, that the first elaboration of plate tectonics theory was presented in the context of catastrophic flood geology. It also seems that a substantial amount of the twentieth century opposition to plate tectonics was due to the fact that geologists were, by then, firmly predisposed to believe that the earth’s crust was horizontally fixed. The catastrophism school of geology was the first to propose plate tectonics; the gradualist school was the first major opponent to plate tectonics. However, by the time plate tectonics was finally accepted in the United States in the late 1960s, gradualism had become a part of plate tectonics theory as well. Rather than Snider’s rapid horizontal motion an the scale of weeks or months, modern geology accepted a plate tectonics theory with horizontal motion on the scale of tens to hundreds of millions of years.Because of the enormous explanatory and predictive success of the plate tectonics model (reviewed in Wise11,12), we feel that at least some portion of plate tectonics theory should be incorporated into the creation model. It appears that taking the conventional plate tectonics model and increasing the rate of plate motion neither deprives plate tectonics theory of its explanatory and predictive success, nor does it seem to contradict any passages of Genesis. Therefore, following the example of Antonio Snider we would like to propose a model of geology which is centered about the idea of rapid, horizontal divergence of rigid crustal plates (that is, rapid plate tectonics) during the Flood. We feel that this model is not only capable of the explanatory and predictive success of conventional plate tectonics, but is also capable of clarifying a number of scriptural claims and explaining some physical data unexplained by conventional plate tectonics theory. It is important to note, however, that our model is still in its formative stages, and is thus incomplete. What is presented here is a basic framework upon which more theory can be built. We anticipate that a substantial amount of work is still needed to explain all the salient features of this planet’s rocks and fossils. Additionally, although the authors of this paper have all had some association with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the model presented in this paper is a composite perspective of the authors and not necessarily that of the ICR. Pre-Flood Geology Any flood model must begin by speculating on the nature of the pre-Flood world. Virtually every flood event and product is in some way or another affected by characteristics of the pre-Flood world. A partial list of flood events determined at least in part by pre-Flood conditions would include: global dynamics of the crust (by the pre-Flood structure and nature of the earth’s interior); magnetic field dynamics (by the pre-Flood nature of the magnetic field); tectonic activity and associated earthquakes (by the pre-Flood structure and dynamics of the crust); volcanic activity and emplaced igneous rocks (by the pre-Flood nature of the earth’s interior); formation of clastic sediments (by the pre-Flood sediments available for redeposition and rocks available for erosion); formation of chemical sediments (by the pre-Flood ocean chemistry); formation of fossils (by the nature of the pre-Flood biota); distribution of sediments and fossils (by the pre-Flood climate and biogeography); and the dynamics of the inundation itself (by pre-Flood topography). The more that is determined about the nature of the pre- Flood world, the more accurate and specific our flood models can be. Our initial inferences about the pre-Flood world include the following. Pre-Flood/Flood boundary We agree with many previous theorists in flood geology that the pre-Flood/Flood boundary should stratigraphically lie at least as low as the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary (for example, Steno13, Whitcomb and Morris14). Currently there is discussion about how close (Austin and Wise15, Wise16) or far (Snelling17) below the Cambrian rocks this boundary should be located. For our purposes here, it is provisionally claimed that at least many of the Archean sediments are pre-Flood in age. Pre-Flood earth structure We believe that the pre-Flood earth was differentiated into a core, mantle, and crust, very much as it is today. We conclude this for two major reasons. The first is that under any known natural conditions, core/mantle differentiation would destroy all evidence of life on earth completely. The current earth has a core/mantle/crust division according to the successively lower density of its components. If this differentiation had occurred by any natural means, the gravitational potential energy released by the heavier elements relocating to the earth’s interior would produce enough heat to melt the earth’s crust and vaporize the earth’s oceans. If differentiation of the earth’s elements did occur with its associated natural release of energy, it is reasoned that it most certainly occurred before the creation of organisms (at the latest Day 3 of the Creation week). Secondly, even though such a differentiation could have been performed without the “natural” release of gravitational potential energy, the already-differentiated earth’s interior also provides a natural driving mechanism for the rapid tectonics model here described.The earth’s mantle appears to have been less viscous than it seems to be at present (Baumgardner18,19,20). This is to allow for the thermal runaway instability which we believe produced the rapid plate tectonic motion we are proposing.21With regard to the earth’s crust, we believe that there was a distinct horizontal differentiation between oceanic and continental crust, very much as there is today. First, we believe that before the Flood began, there was stable, sialic, cratonic crust. We have three major reasons for this conclusion: much Archean sialic material exists which probably is below the pre-Flood/Flood boundary. This would indicate that sialic material was available in pre-Flood times; the existence of low-density, low temperature “keels” beneath existing cratons22 implies that the cratons have persisted more or less in their present form since their differentiation. It also argues that little or no mantle convection has disturbed the upper mantle beneath the cratons; andif the pre-Flood cratons were sialic and the pre-Flood ocean crust was mafic, then buoyancy forces would provide a natural means of supporting craton material above sea level—thus producing dry land on the continents.Second, we believe that the pre-Flood ocean crust was mafic—most probably basaltic. Once again three reasons exist for this inference: pre-Flood basaltic ocean crust is suggested by ophiolites (containing pillow basalts and presumed ocean sediments) which are thought to represent pieces of ocean floor and obducted onto the continents early in the Flood; if, as claimed above, the pre-Flood craton was sialic, then buoyancy forces would make a mafic pre-Flood ocean crust into a natural basin for ocean water. This would prevent ocean water from overrunning the continents; and if, as claimed above, the continents were sialic, mafic material would be necessary to drive the subduction required in our Flood model. Pre-Flood sediments We believe that there was a significant thickness of all types of sediments already available on the earth by the time of the Flood. We have three reasons for this position: biologically optimum terrestrial and marine environments would require that at least a small amount of sediment of each type had been created in the Creation week; Archean (probable pre-Flood) and Proterozoic sediments contain substantial quantities of all types of sediments; and it may not be possible to derive all the Flood sediments from igneous and/or metamorphic precursors by physical and chemical processes in the course of a single, year-long Flood. We believe that substantial quantities of very fine detrital carbonate sediment existed in the pre-Flood oceans. This is deduced primarily from the fact that not enough bicarbonate can have been dissolved in the pre-Flood ocean (and/or provided by outgassing during the Flood—see below) to have produced the Flood carbonates. Such quantities of carbonate as we believe to have existed in the pre-Flood ocean would mean that there was a substantial buffer in the pre-Flood ocean—perhaps contributing to a very stable pre-Flood ocean chemistry. The existence of large quantities of mature or nearly mature pre-Flood quartz sands might explain the otherwise somewhat mysterious clean, mature nature of early Paleozoic sands. Flood Dynamics Initiation There has been considerable discussion—both reasonable and fanciful—about what event might have initiated the Flood. Considerations range from the direct hand of Intelligent Designer (Baumgardner23,24, Morton25,26,27,28,29,30,31); the impact or near-miss of an astronomical object or objects such as asteroids,32 meteorites,33 a comet,34,35 a comet or Venus,36 Venus and ,37 Mars,38 Mars, Ceres, and Jupiter,39 another moon of earth,40 and a star;41 some purely terrestrial event or events, such as fracturing of the earth’s crust due to drying42 or radioactive heat buildup,43 rapid tilting of the earth due to gyro turbulence44 or ice sheet buildup,45 and natural collapse of rings of ice;46,47 or various combinations of these ideas. We feel that the Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic crust broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins. We are, however, not ready at this time to speculate on what event or events might have initiated that subduction. We feel that considerable research is still needed to evaluate potential mechanisms in the light of how well they can produce global subduction. Subduction At the very beginning of plate motion, subducting slabs locally heated the mantle by deformation, lowering the viscosity of the mantle in the vicinity of the slabs. The lowered viscosity then allowed an increase in subduction rate, which in turn heated up the surrounding mantle even more. We believe that this led to a thermal runaway instability which allowed for meters-per-second subduction, as postulated and modeled by Baumgardner.48,49 It is probable that this subduction occurred along thousands of kilometers of continental margin. The bending of the ocean plate beneath the continent would have produced an abrupt topographic low paralleling the continental margin, similar to the ocean trenches at the eastern, northern, and western margins of the Pacific Ocean. Because all current ocean lithosphere seems to date from Flood or post-Flood times,50 we feel that essentially all pre-Flood ocean lithosphere was subducted in the course of the Flood. Gravitational potential energy released by the subduction of this lithosphere is on the order of 1028 J.51 This alone probably provided the energy necessary to drive Flood dynamics. The continents attached to ocean slabs would have been pulled toward subduction zones. This would produce rapid horizontal displacement of continents—in many cases relative motion of meters per second. Collisions of continents at subduction zones are the likely mechanism for the creation of mountain fold-and-thrust-belts, such as the Appalachians, Himalayas, Caspians, and Alps. Rapid deformation, burial, and subsequent erosion of mountains possible in the Flood model might provide the only adequate explanation for the existence of high-pressure, low-temperature minerals such as coesite (for example, Chopin,52 Hsu,53 Shutong, Okay, Shouyuan, and Sengor,54 Smith,55 Wang, Liou, and Mao56) in mountain cores. Mantle-Wide flow As Baumgardner57,58 assumed in order to facilitate his modeling, rapid subduction is likely to have initiated large-scale flow throughout the entire mantle of the earth. Seismic tomography studies (for example, Dziewonski,59 and as reviewed by Engebretson, Kelley, Cushman, and Reynolds60) seem to confirm that this in fact did occur in the history of the earth. In such studies velocity anomalies (interpreted as cooler temperature zones) lie along theorized paths of past subduction. These anomalies are found deep within the earth’s mantle—well below the phase transition zones thought by some to be barriers to mantle-wide subduction. In fact, the velocity anomalies seem to imply that not only did flow involve the entire depth of the mantle, but that ocean lithosphere may have dropped all the way to the core/mantle boundary.One important consequence of mantle-wide flow would have been the transportation of cooler mantle material to the core/mantle boundary. This would have had the effect of cooling the outer core, which in turn led to strong core convection. This convection provided the conditions necessary for Humphreys’ model of rapid geomagnetic reversals in the core.61,62 As the low electrical conductivity oceanic plates subducted, they would be expected to have split up the lower mantle’s high conductivity. This in turn would have lessened the mantle’s attenuation of core reversals and allowed the rapid magnetic field reversals to have been expressed on the surface. Humphreys’63,64 model not only explains magnetic reversal evidence (as reviewed in Humphreys65) in a young-age Creation timescale, but uniquely explains the low intensity of paleomagnetic and archeomagnetic data, the erratic frequency of paleomagnetic reversals through the Phanerozoic, and, most impressively, the locally patchy distribution of sea-floor paleomagnetic anomalies.66 It also predicted and uniquely explains the rapid reversals found imprinted in lava flows of the Northwest.67,68,69,70 Spreading As ocean lithosphere subducted, it would have produced rapid extension along linear belts on the ocean floor tens of thousands of kilometers long. At these spreading centers upwelling mantle material would have been allowed to rise to the surface. The new, molten mantle material would have degassed its volatiles71 and vaporized ocean water72,73 to produce a linear geyser of superheated gases along the whole length of spreading centers. This geyser activity, which would have jettisoned gases well into the atmosphere. As evidenced by volatiles emitted by Mount Kilauea in Hawaii,74 the gases released would be (in order of abundance) water, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, argon, and oxygen. As the gases in the upper atmosphere drifted away from the spreading centers they would have had the opportunity to cool by radiation into space. As it cooled, the water—both that vaporized from ocean water and that released from magma—would have condensed and fallen as an intense global rain. It is this geyser-produced rain which we believe is primarily responsible for the rain which remained a source of water for up to 150 days of the Flood. The rapid emplacement of isostatically lighter mantle material raised the level of the ocean floor along the spreading centers. This produced a linear chain of mountains called the mid-ocean ridge (MOR) system. The now warmer and more buoyant ocean floor displaced ocean water onto the continents to produce the inundation itself. Continental modification The events of the Flood would have made substantial modifications to the thickness of the pre-Flood continental crust. This would have been effected through the redistribution of sediments, the moving of ductile lower continental crust by subducting lithosphere, addition of molten material to the underside of the continental lithosphere (underplating), stretching (for example, due to spreading), and compression (for example, due to continental collision). These rapid changes in crustal thickness would produce isostatic disequilibrium. This would subsequently lead to large-scale isostatic adjustments with their associated earthquakes, frictional heating, and deformation. Since many of those tectonic events would have involved vertical rock motions, Tyler’s75 tectonically-controlled rock cycle might prove to be a useful tool in understanding late Flood and post-Flood tectonics. Atmosphere The magma at spreading centers degassed, among other things, substantial quantities of argon and helium into the earth’s atmosphere. Both of these elements are produced and accumulated due to radioactive decay. However, the current quantity of helium in the atmosphere is less than that which would be expected by current rates of radioactive decay production over a four to five billion years of earth history,76,77,78,79,80,81 so perhaps what is currently found in the atmosphere is due to degassing of mantle material during the Flood. The same may also be found to be true about argon.82 Flood waters Several sources have been suggested for the water of the Flood. Some creationists83,84 have proposed that the “waters above the firmament” in the form of an upper atmosphere water canopy provided much of the rain of the Flood. However, Rush and Vardiman85,86 and Walters87 argue that if the water was held in place by forces and laws of physics with which we are currently familiar, 40 feet of water is not possible in the canopy. Perhaps, they argue, the canopy could have held a maximum of only a few feet of water. This is insufficient water to contribute significantly to even 40 days of rain, let alone a mountain-covering global flood. A second source suggested by Whitelaw88 and Baumgardner89,90 is condensing water from spreading center geysers. This should provide adequate water to explain up to 150 days of open “windows of heaven.” Another substantial source of water suggested by this model is displaced ocean water.91,92 Rapid emplacement of isostatically lighter mantle material at the spreading centers would raise the ocean bottom, displacing ocean water onto the continents. Baumgardner93 estimates a rise of sea level of more than one kilometer from this mechanism alone. Cooling of new ocean lithosphere at the spreading centers would be expected to heat the ocean waters throughout the Flood. This heating seems to be confirmed by a gradual increase in 18O/16O ratios from the pre-Flood/Flood boundary through the Cretaceous (for example, Vardiman94). Sedimentary production Precipitites—sediments precipitated directly from supersaturated brines—would have been produced in association with horizontal divergence of ocean floor rocks. Rode95 and Sozansky96 have noted rock salt and anhydrite deposits in association with active sea-floor tectonics and volcanism and have proposed catastrophist models for their formation. Besides rock salt and anhydrite, hot-rock/ocean-water interactions could also explain many bedded chert deposits and fine- grained limestones. Contributions to Flood carbonates probably came from at least four sources: carbon dioxide produced by degassing spreading center magmas; dissolved pre-Flood bicarbonate precipitated as ocean temperatures rose during the Flood (given that carbonate dissolution rates are inversely related to temperature); eroded and redeposited pre-Flood carbonates (a dominant pre-Flood sediment); andpulverized and redeposited pre-Flood shell debris. Precipitation of carbonate may explain the origin of micrite,97so ubiquitous in Flood sediments, but of an otherwise unknown origin.98 Until pre-Flood ocean magnesium was depleted by carbonate precipitation, high-magnesium carbonates would be expected to be frequent products of early Flood activity (see Chillinger99 for interesting data on this subject). Sedimentary transport As Morton100 points out, most Flood sediments are found on the continents and continental margins and not on the ocean floor where one might expect sediments to have ended up. Our model provides a number of mechanisms for the transportation of ocean sediments onto the continents where they are primarily found today. First, subducting plates would transport sediments toward the subduction zones and thus mostly towards the continents in a conveyor-belt fashion. Second, as the ocean plates were forced to quickly bend into the earth’s interior, they would warp upward outboard of the trench. This would raise the deep sea sediments above their typical depth, which in turn reduces the amount of work required to move sediments from the oceans onto the continents. Third, rapid plate subduction would warp the continental plate margin downward. This again would reduce the amount of energy needed to move sediments onto the continent from the ocean floor. Fourth, as more and more of the cold pre-Flood ocean lithosphere was replaced with hotter rock from below, the ocean bottom is gradually elevated. This again reduces the work required to move sediments from the oceans to the continents. Fifth, as ocean lithosphere is subducted, ocean sediments would be scraped off, allowing sediments to be accreted to and/or redeposited on the continent. Sixth, wave (for example, tsunami) refraction on the continental shelf would tend to transport sediments shoreward. Seventh, it is possible that some amount of tidal resonance may have been achieved.101,102,103 The resulting east-to-west-dominated currents would tend to transport sediments accumulated on eastern continental margins into the continental interiors. Resulting sedimentary units have abundant evidence of catastrophic deposition104, and tend to be thick, uniform, of unknown provenance, and extending over regional, inter- regional, and even continental areas.105 Volcanic activity The volcanism associated with rapid tectonics would have been of unprecedented magnitude and worldwide extent, but concentrated in particular zones and sites. At spreading centers magma would rise to fill in between plates separating at meters per second, producing a violent volcanic source tens of thousands of kilometers in length.106Based upon two- dimensional experimental simulation107,108 and three-dimensional numerical simulation, subduction-induced mantle flow would generate mantle plumes whose mushroom heads would rise to and erupt upon the earth’s surface. These plumes would be expected to produce extensive flood basalts through fissure eruptions, such as perhaps the plateau basalts of South Africa, the Deccan Traps of India, the Siberian flood basalts,109 and the Karmutsen Basalt of Alaska/Canada.110 Correlations between plume formation and flood basalts have already been claimed (for example, Weinstein111). At the same time, the heating and melting of subducted sediments should have produced explosive sialic volcanism continent-ward of the subduction zone (such as is seen in the Andes Mountains of South America, the Cascade Mountains of the United States, and the Aleutian, Japanese, Indonesian, and New Zealand Islands of the Pacific). Earthquake activity The rapid bending of elastic lithosphere and rapid interplate shear of plates at subduction zones as well as abrupt phase transitions as subducting plates are rapidly moved downward would be expected to produce frequent, high-intensity earthquakes at the subduction zones. There is also earthquake activity associated with explosive volcanism, isostatic adjustment, continental collision, etc. This earthquake activity would facilitate thrust- and detachment-faulting by providing energy to aid in breaking up initially coherent rock blocks; an acceleration to aid in the thrusting of rock blocks; and vibration which reduces the frictional force resisting the motion and thrusting of rock blocks. Termination When virtually all the pre-Flood oceanic floor had been replaced with new, less-dense, less-subductable rock, rapid plate motion ceased. The lack of new, hot, mantle material terminated spreading-center-associated geyser activity, so the global rain ceased. This is very possibly the 150-day point in the Genesis chronology when it appears that the “fountains of the great deep were stopped and the windows of the heaven were closed”.After the rapid horizontal motion stopped, cooling increased the density of the new ocean floor producing gradually deepening oceans112—eventually producing our current ocean basins. As the waters receded (the “Great Regression”) from off of the land the most superficial—and least lithified— continental deposits were eroded off the continents. This would leave an unconformity on the continent not reflected in ocean stratigraphy. The absence of these most superficial continental deposits may explain the absence of human as well as most mammal and angiosperm fossils in Flood sediments.113 Sheet erosion from receding Flood waters would be expected to have planed off a substantial percentage of the earth’s surface. Such planar erosion features as the Canadian shield and the Kaibab and Coconino plateaus might well be better explained by this than by any conventional erosional processes. Post-Flood Dynamics Flood/post-Flood boundary The definition of the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the geologic column is a subject of considerable dispute among creationists. Estimates range from the Carboniferous114 to the .115,116 For our purposes here we would like to define the Flood/post-Flood boundary at the termination of global-scale erosion and sedimentation. Based upon a qualitative assessment of geologic maps worldwide, lithotypes change from worldwide or continental in character in the Mesozoic to local or regional in the Tertiary. Therefore, we tentatively place the Flood/post-Flood boundary at approximately the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary. We believe further studies in stratigraphy, paleontology, paleomagnetism, and geochemistry should allow for a more precise definition of this boundary. Post-Flood geology After the global effects of the Flood ended, the earth continued to experience several hundred years of residual catastrophism.117 A cooling lithosphere is likely to have produced a pattern of decreasing incidence118 and intensity of volcanism (such as appears to be evidenced in Cenozoic sialic volcanism in the Western United States.119 The large changes in crustal thicknesses produced during the Flood left the earth in isostatic disequilibrium. lsostatic readjustments with their associated intense mountain uplift, earthquake, and volcanic activity would have occurred for hundreds of years after the global affects of the Flood ended (for example, Rugg120). In fact, considering the current nature of the mantle, there has not been sufficient time since the end of the Flood for complete isostatic equilibrium to be attained. As a result, current geologic activity can be seen as continued isostatic readjustments to Flood events. Modern earthquake and volcanic activity is in some sense relict Flood dynamics.Because of the frequency and intensity of residual catastrophism after the Flood, post-Flood sedimentary processes were predominantly rapid. The local nature of such catastrophism, on the other hand, restricted sedimentation to local areas, explaining the basinal nature of most Cenozoic sedimentation. Post-Flood climate By the time Flood waters had settled into the post-Flood basins, they had accumulated enough heat to leave the oceans as much as twenty or more degrees centigrade warmer than today’s oceans (fig. 1). These warmer oceans might be expected to produce a warmer climate on earth in the immediate post-Flood times than is experienced on earth now.121 More specifically, a rather uniform warm climate would be expected along continental margins,122,123,124permitting wider latitudinal range for temperature-limited organisms125—for example, mammoths (for example, Schweger et al.126), frozen forests (for example, Felix127), and trees.128 This avenue in turn may have facilitated post-Flood dispersion of animals.129,130 Also expected along continental margins would be a rather high climatic gradient running from the ocean toward the continental interior.131,132 This might explain why some Cenozoic communities near the coasts include organisms from a wider range of climatic zones than we would expect to see today—for example, communities in the Pleistocene133,134 and the Gingko Petrified Forest in Oregon.135

Fig. 1. Cooling of polar bottom water after the Flood (after Vardiman139). Data from Kennett et al.140 and Shackleton and Kennett.141 Oard136,137,138 suggested that within the first millennium following the Flood, the oceans (and earth) would have cooled as large amounts of water were evaporated off of the oceans and dropped over the cooler continental interiors. Although Oard’s model needs substantial modification (for example, to include all the Cenozoic), quantification, and testing, we feel that it is likely to prove to have considerable explanatory and predictive power. The predicted cooling142,143 seems to be confirmed by oxygen isotope ratios in Cenozoic foraminifera of polar bottom144,145,146 (fig. 1), polar surface, and tropical bottom waters, and may contribute to increased vertebrate body size (Cope’s Law147) throughout the Cenozoic. Oard148 suggests that the higher rates of precipitation may provide a unique explanation for a well-watered Sahara of the past,149,150,151 rapid erosion of caves, and the creation and/or maintenance of large interior continental lakes of the Cenozoic. Examples of the latter include pluvial lakes,152,153 Lakes Hopi and Canyonlands, which may have catastrophically drained to produce Grand Canyon,154,155,156 and the extensive lake which produced the Eocene Green River deposits. We would expect floral and faunal communities to have tracked the cooling of the oceans and the corresponding cooling and drying of the continents. Such a tracking seems to explain the trend in Cenozoic plant communities to run from woodland to grassland and the corresponding trend in Cenozoic herbivores to change from browsers to grazers.According to Oard’s157,158 model, by about five centuries after the Flood, the cooling oceans had led to the advance of continental glaciers and the formation of polar ice caps (see also Vardiman159). Oard160 suggests that rapid melting of the continental ice sheets (in less than a century) explains the underfitness of many modern rivers161 and contributed to the megafaunal extinctions of the Pleistocene.162,163,164 It may also have contributed to the production of otherwise enigmatic Pleistocene peneplains. Conclusion We believe that rapid tectonics provides a successful and innovative framework for young-age creation modeling of earth history. We feel that this model uniquely incorporates a wide variety of creationist and non-creationist thinking. It explains evidence from a wide spectrum of earth science fields—including evidence not heretofore well explained by any other earth history models. Predictions This model, like many Flood models, predicts the following: a consistent, worldwide, initiation event in the geologic column; most body fossils assigned to Flood deposits were deposited allochthonously (including coal, forests, and reefs); most ichnofossils assigned to Flood deposits are grazing, moving, or escape evidences, and not long-term living traces; and sediments assigned to the Flood were deposited subaqueously without long-term unconformities between them. Since Flood models are usually tied to young-earth creationism, they also claim that it is possible on a short timescale to explain the cooling of plutons and ocean plate material; regional metamorphism (see, for example, Snelling165,166); canyon and cave erosion; sediment production and accumulation (including speleothems and precipitites); organismal accumulation and fossilization (including coal, fossil forests, and reefs); fine sedimentary lamination (including varves); and radiometric data. This particular model also predicts a lower earth viscosity in pre-Flood times; degassing-associated subaqueous precipitate production during the Flood; (possibly) east-to-west dominated current deposition during the Flood; (possibly) degassing-produced atmosphere argon and helium levels; a decrease in magnitude and frequency of geologic activity after the Flood; flood basalts that correlate with mantle plume events; a sedimentary unconformity at the Flood/post-Flood boundary on the continents not reflected in ocean sediments; current geologic activity is the result of relict, isostatic dynamics, not primary earth dynamics; and a single ice age composed of a single ice advance. Future research The Flood model presented here suggests a substantial number of research projects for young-earth creationists. Besides the further elaboration and quantification of the model, the predictions listed above need to be examined. Most significantly, we still need to solve the heat problem167,168 and the radiometric dating problem.169 As creationists we could also use the services of a geochemist to develop a model for the origin of carbonates and precipitites during the Flood. It is also important that we re-evaluate the evidence for multiple ice ages (as begun by Hughes170 and Oard171) and multiple ice advances (as begun by Molén172 and Oard173,174).In addition to testing claims of the model, there are a number of other studies which could help us expand and refine the model. Successful studies on the nature of the pre-Flood world, for example, are likely to aid us in placing better parameters on our model. Events and factors postulated in the initiation of the Flood also need to be re-examined to determine which are capable of explaining the available data and the beginning of plate subduction. It is also important that we evaluate the role of extraterrestrial bombardment in the history of the earth and Flood, since it was most certainly higher during and immediately after the Flood than it is now (Gibson175, Whitelaw176). The suggestion that the earth’s axial tilt has changed (for example, Noone,177 Overn,178 Setterfield179) needs to be examined to determine validity and/or impact on earth history. It is also important that we determine how many Wilson cycles are needed to explain the data of continental motion (Mann and Wise,180 Wise, Stambaugh, and Mann181), and thus whether more than one phase of runaway subduction is necessary. More than one cycle may be addressed by partial separation and closure during one rapid tectonics event, and/or renewed tectonic motion after cooling of ocean floor allowed for further rapid tectonics. Finally, it will also be important to determine more precisely the geologic position of the initiation and termination of the Flood around the world in order to identify the geologic data relevant to particular questions of interest.

SEDIMENTS Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up! by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on August 1, 1997 Originally published in Journal of Creation 11, no 2 (August 1997): 125-126.

Abstract Readers of Nature could have read all about it more than a decade ago in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal.Back in 1988 we published in this journal the English translation of a significant paper1 that was originally presented to the French Academy of Sciences in Paris on November 3, 1986 and then published in the Academy’s Proceedings.2 This was followed with our publication of a subsequent paper3 in 1990 that had also been initially presented to the French Academy of Sciences in Paris on February 8, 1988 and published in the Academy’s Proceedings.4The author on both occasions was Guy Berthault, and his important experiments have demonstrated how multiple laminations form spontaneously during sedimentation of heterogranular mixtures of sediments in air, in still water, and in running water (see Figure 1). In subsequent research Berthault has teamed up with Professor Piérre Julien in the Engineering Research Center of the Civil Engineering Department at Colorado State University, Fort Collins (USA). We published their results in 1994,5 after their research had been published by the Geological Society of France.6 Their sedimentation experiments are continuing. Figure 1: Experimental multiple lamination of a heterogranular mixture of sediments due to dry flow at a constant rate. Figure 2: Fine layering was produced within hours at MT St Helens on June 12, 1980 by hurricane velocity surging flows from the crater of the volcano. The 25-foot thick (7.6 m), June 12 deposit is exposed in the middle of the cliff. It is overlain by the massive, but thinner, March 19,1982 mudflow deposit, and is underlain by the air-fall debris from the last hours of the May 18, 1980, nine-hour eruption. The significance of this research has been repeatedly pointed out by creationist geologists. On June 12, 1980 a 25 foot (7.6 m) thick stratified pyroclastic layer accumulated within a few hours below the Mt St Helens volcano (Washington, USA) as a result of pyroclastic flow deposits amassed from ground-hugging, fluidised, turbulent slurries of volcanic debris which moved at high velocities off the flank of the volcano when an eruption plume collapsed (see Figure 2).7 Close examination of this layer revealed that it consisted of thin laminae of fine and coarse pumice ash, usually alternating, and sometimes cross-bedded. That such a laminated deposit could form catastrophically has been confirmed by Berthault’s sedimentation experiments and applied to a creationist understanding of the Flood- deposition of thinly laminated shale strata of the Grand Canyon sequence.8 Berthault’s experimental work and its implications have also been featured on videos.9,10Now Nature has finally caught up! That is, the weekly international science journal Nature, arguably the world’s leading scientific publication, has just published and commented upon the results of experiments similar to those performed by Berthault,11,12 thus finally acknowledging what a creationist researcher has been demonstrating for more than ten years. However, not surprisingly, Berthault’s work is neither mentioned nor referenced in the Nature articles.And what did the Nature authors discover? Makse et al. found that mixtures of grains of different sizes spontaneously segregate in the absence of external perturbations; that is, when such a mixture is simply poured onto a pile, the large grains are more likely to be found near the base, while the small grains are more likely near the top.13 Furthermore, when a granular mixture is poured between two vertical plates, the mixture spontaneously stratifies into alternating layers of small and large grains whenever the large grains have a larger angle of repose than the small grains. Application—the stratification is related to the occurrence of avalanches.Fineberg agrees.14 Both the stratification and segregation of a mixture of two types of grains can be observed to occur spontaneously as the mixture is poured into a narrow box, the mixture flowing as the slope of the ‘sandpile’ formed steepens. When the angle of repose of the larger grains is greater than that of the smaller grains, the flow causes spontaneous stratification of the medium to occur, and alternating layers composed of large and small particles are formed, with the smaller and ‘smoother’ (lower angle of repose) grains found below the larger and ‘rougher’ grains (there was a beautiful colour photo in Nature). Even within the layers, size segregation of the grains occurs, with the smaller grains tending to be nearer the top of the pile.We are naturally heartened by this ‘high-profile’ confirmation of Berthault’s experimental results, but readers of Naturecould have read all about it more than a decade ago in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. However, what this also confirms is that creation scientists do undertake original research, in this case, research on sedimentation that is applicable to the catastrophic processes of deposition during the Flood, contrary to the establishment’s uniformitarian (slow-and-gradual) interpretation of the formation of such sedimentary strata. And furthermore, creation scientists not only do original research applicable to Flood geology (even if Nature doesn’t recognise it), but the type of research they do is valid and good enough to be published in peer-reviewed secular scientific journals.

Regional Metamorphism within a Creation Framework: What Garnet Compositions Reveal by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 23, 2010

Abstract Keywords: regional metamorphism, grade zones, garnets, compositional zoning, sedimentary precursors This paper was originally published in the Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, pp. 485–496 (1994), and is reproduced here with the permission of theCreation Science Fellowship of Pittsburgh (www.csfpittsburgh.org).

The “classical” model for regional metamorphic zones presupposes elevated temperatures and pressures due to deep burial and deformation/tectonic forces over large areas over millions of years—an apparent insurmountable hurdle for the creationist framework. One diagnostic metamorphic mineral is garnet, and variations in its composition have long been studied as an indicator of metamorphic grade conditions. Such compositional variations that have been detected between and within grains in the same rock strata are usually explained in terms of cationic fractionation with changing temperature during specific continuous reactions involving elemental distribution patterns in the rock matrix around the crystallizing garnet. Garnet compositions are also said to correlate with their metamorphic grade. However, contrary evidence has been ignored. Compositional patterns preserved in garnets have been shown to be a reflection of compositional zoning in the original precursor minerals and sediments. Compositional variations between and within garnet grains in schists that are typical metapelites at Koongarra in the Northern Territory, Australia, support this minority viewpoint. Both homogeneous and compositionally zoned garnets, even together in the same hand specimen, display a range of compositions that would normally reflect widely different metamorphic grade and temperature conditions during their supposed growth. Thus the majority viewpoint cannot explain the formation of these garnets. It has also been demonstrated that the solid-solid transformation from a sedimentary chlorite precursor to garnet needs only low to moderate temperatures, while compositional patterns only reflect original depositional features in sedimentary environments. Thus catastrophic sedimentation, deep burial and rapid deformation/tectonics with accompanying low to moderate temperatures and pressures during, for example, a global Flood and its aftermath have potential as a model for explaining the “classical” zones of progressive regional metamorphism. Introduction Of the two styles of metamorphism, contact and regional, the latter is most often used to argue against the young-earth creation-Flood model. It is usually envisaged that sedimentary strata over areas of hundreds of square kilometers were subjected to elevated temperatures and pressures due to deep burial and deformation/tectonic forces over millions of years. The resultant mineralogical and textural transformations are said to be due to mineral reactions in the original sediments under the prevailing temperature-pressure conditions.Often, mapping of metamorphic terrains has outlined zones of strata containing mineral assemblages that are believed to be diagnostic and confined to each zone respectively. It is assumed that these mineral assemblages reflect the metamorphic transformation conditions specific to each zone, so that by traversing across these metamorphic zones higher metamorphic grades (due to former higher temperature-pressure conditions) are progressively encountered. Amongst the metamorphic mineral assemblages diagnostic of each zone are certain minerals whose presence in the rocks is indicative of each zone, and these are called index minerals. Garnet is one of these key index minerals. Across a metamorphic terrain, the line along which garnet first appears in rocks of similar composition is called the garnet isograd (“same metamorphic grade”) and represents one boundary of the garnet zone. With increasing metamorphic grade and in other zones, garnet continues to be an important constituent of the mineral assemblages. Garnet Compositions Variation in garnet compositions, particularly their MnO content, was for a long time used as an estimator of regional metamorphic grade. Goldschmidt1 first noted an apparent systematic decrease in MnO content with increase in metamorphic grade, a relationship which he attributed to the incorporation of the major part of the rock MnO in the earliest formed garnet. Miyashiro2 and Engel and Engel3 also followed this line of thought, Miyashiro suggesting that the larger Mn2+ ions were readily incorporated in the garnet structure at the lower pressures, whereas at higher pressures smaller Fe2+ and Mg2+ were preferentially favored. Thus it was proposed that a decrease in garnet MnO indicated an increase in grade of regional metamorphism. Lambert4 produced corresponding evidence for a decrease in garnet CaO with increasing metamorphic grade. Sturt5 demonstrated in somewhat pragmatic fashion what appeared to be a general inverse relationship between (MnO + CaO) content of garnet and overall grade of metamorphism, a scheme which was taken up and reinforced by Nandi.6Not all investigators, however, agreed with this line of thinking. Kretz7 demonstrated the possible influence of coexisting minerals on the composition of another given mineral. Variation in garnet composition was seen to depend not only on pressure-temperature variation but also to changes in the compositions of the different components within its matrix as these responded to changing metamorphic grade. Albee,8 like Kretz and Frost,9 examined elemental distribution coefficients in garnet-biotite pairs as possible grade indicators, but concluded that results were complex and equivocal, and suggested that metamorphic equilibrium was frequently not attained. Similarly, Evans10suggested caution in the interpretation of increasing garnet MgO as indicating increasingly higher pressures of metamorphism. He pointed out that the volume behavior of Mg-Fe exchange relations between garnet and other common silicates indicates that, for given bulk compositions, the Mg-Fe ratios in garnet will decrease with pressure.With the advent of the electron probe microanalyzer, it became possible to detect compositional variations even within mineral grains including garnet, where often it was found that traversing from cores to rims of grains, the MnO and CaO contents decreased with a concomitant increase in FeO and MgO.11 Hollister12 concluded that this zoning arose by partitioning of MnO in accordance with the Rayleigh fractionation model between garnet and its matrix as the former grew. Perhaps more importantly he drew attention to the preservation of such zones that remained unaffected by diffusion, and hence unequilibrated, throughout the later stages of the metamorphism that was presumed to have induced their growth. Concurrently, Atherton and Edmunds13 suggested that the zoning patterns reflected changing garnet-matrix equilibrium conditions during growth and/or polyphase metamorphism, but that, once formed, garnet and its zones behaved as closed systems unaffected by changes in conditions at the periphery of the growing grain.Through his own work, and that of Chinner14 and ,15 Atherton16 drew attention to the presence of garnets of quite different compositions in rocks of similar grade, and sometimes in virtual juxtaposition. His conclusion was that the MnO content, and indeed the whole divalent cation component, of garnet was substantially a reflection of host rock composition and that any simple tie between garnet composition and metamorphic grade was unlikely. Subsequently Atherton17 suggested that zoning and progressive changes in garnet compositions were due to changes in distribution coefficients of the divalent cations with increase in grade, and considered that “anomalies in the sequence (were) explicable in terms of variations in the compositions of the host rock.”Müller and Schneider18 found that the MnO content of garnet reflected not only metamorphic grade and chemistry of the host rocks, but also their oxygen fugacity. They rejected Hollister’s Rayleigh fractionation model and concluded that decrease in Mn, and concomitant increase in Fe, in garnet with increasing grade stemmed from a progressive reduction in oxygen fugacity. Hsu,19 in his investigation of phase relations in the Al-Mn-Fe-Si-O-H system, had found that the stability of the almandine end-member is strongly dependent on oxygen fugacity, and is favored by assemblages characterized by high activity of divalent Fe. In contrast, the activity of divalent Mn is less influenced by higher oxygen fugacity. Thus Müller and Schneider20 concluded that the observed decrease in Mn in garnet with increasing metamorphic grade is due to the buffering capacity of graphite present near nucleating garnets. With increasing grade the graphite buffer increasingly stabilizes minerals dependent on low oxygen fugacity, that is, almandine is increasingly formed instead of spessartine. Müller and Schneider also noted that some of their garnets were not zoned, but exhibited inhomogeneities distributed in irregular domains throughout the garnet grains.Miyashiro and Shido,21 in a substantially theoretical treatment, concluded that the principal factor controlling successive garnet compositions is the amount and composition of the garnet already crystallized, since the matrix will be correspondingly depleted in the oxides present in the earlier-formed garnet. Also using a theoretical approach, Anderson and Buckley22 showed that, for “reasonable diffusion coefficients and boundary conditions,” observed zoning profiles in garnets could be explained quite adequately by diffusion principles: that given original homogeneities in the parent rock, the interplay of diffusion phenomena could explain variation of zoning profiles in separate grains of an individual mineral species in domains as small as that of a hand specimen.Tracy, Robinson, and Thompson23 noted that garnets from metamorphosed pelitic assemblages show, in different metamorphic zones,element distribution patterns that are complex functions of rock bulk composition, specific continuous reactions in which garnet is involved, P-T history of the rock, homogeneous diffusion rates with garnet, and possibly also the availability of metamorphic fluids at the various stages of garnet development. They applied preliminary calibrations of garnet-biotite and garnet-cordierite Fe-Mg exchange reactions and several Fe-Mg- Mn continuous mineral reactions to the results of very detailed studies of zoned garnets in order to evaluate changing P-T conditions during prograde and retrograde metamorphism in central Massachusetts (USA).Stanton,24,25,26,27 in his studies of Broken Hill (New South Wales, Australia) banded iron formations, suggested that the garnets represented in situ transformation of somewhat manganiferous chamositic septachlorite, and that any zoning reflected the original oolitic structure of the sedimentary chamosite. In a further study, Stanton and Williams28concluded that, because compositional differences occur on a fine (1–2 mm) scale in garnets within a simple one-component matrix (quartz), garnet compositions must faithfully reflect original compositional variations within the chemical sediments, and not represent variations in metamorphic grade.McAteer29 demonstrated the presence in a garnet-mica schist of two compositionally and texturally distinct garnet types, which she attributed to a sequence of mineral reactions that proceeded with changing thermal history of the rock. Of the two types, one was coarse-grained and zoned (MnO and CaO decreasing towards grain margins), while the other was fine-grained and essentially uniform in composition. Attainment of chemical equilibrium between all garnets and their rock matrix, but maintenance of disequilibrium within large garnets, appears to have been assumed.In a review of research on compositional zoning in metamorphic minerals, Tracy30 ignored Stanton’s demonstration that the compositional zoning in garnets can only be explained in some metamorphic rocks as faithful reflections of original compositional variations within the precursor minerals and sediments, and not as a function of variations in metamorphic grade or cationic supply during crystal growth. Instead, Tracy summarized the various models already proposed—cationic fractionation particularly of Mn (resulting in variations in the supply of cations) with changing temperatures during progressive metamorphism, and reaction partitioning of cations which depends upon the exact mineralogical composition of the reservoir or matrix surrounding any one garnet grain, especially relative proportions of matrix minerals that are in direct reaction relation with a garnet grain. These models both correlate changes in garnet composition with increasing metamorphic grade, relying on mineral reactions and diffusion of cations to explain compositional zoning trends, which it is envisaged change as mineral reactions and temperatures change.This is still the consensus viewpoint. Loomis,31 Spear,32 and Spear, Kohn, Florence, and Menard,33 for example, insist that metamorphic garnets undergo a form of fractional crystallization which involves fractionation of material into the interior of a crystallizing garnet grain with consequent change in the effective bulk composition, the zoning profile preserved in the garnet being a function of the total amount of material that has fractionated. Furthermore, Spear insists that because intracrystalline diffusion is so slow at these conditions, the interior of the garnet is effectively isolated from chemical equilibrium with the matrix. Spear then points to the work of Yardley34 to insist that with increasing temperatures intracrystalline diffusion within garnet grains becomes more rapid until eventually all chemical zoning is erased. Indeed, Yardley claimed to have found that at the temperatures of staurolite and sillimanite grade metamorphism internal diffusion of cations within garnet grains is sufficient to eliminate the zoning that developed during earlier growth.Yardley also rightly pointed out that the fractionation models for garnet zoning assume that that diffusion is negligible at lower metamorphic grades. That there is negligible cationic diffusion in garnet at lower grades is amply demonstrated in the garnets described by Olympic and Anderson,35 whose pattern of chemical zoning coincided with textural (optical) zones, clearly representing distinct presumed growth stages. Nevertheless, even where textural (optical) zones are not evident, there may still be chemical zoning, as found by Tuccillo, Essene, and van der Pluijm.36Indeed, confusing the picture somewhat, Tuccillo, Essene, and van der Pluijm found that the chemical zoning in their garnets under study, though from a high-grade metamorphic terrain, was not only preserved but was the reverse in terms of cations to that normally expected, and this they attributed to a diffusional retrograde effect.However, the work of Stanton and Williams,37 who found marked compositional changes from one garnet to the next on a scale of 1–2 mm in finely bedded banded iron formations in the high-grade metamorphic terrain at Broken Hill (New South Wales, Australia), has been ignored. They found thatin view of the minuteness of the domains involved it appears evident that compositional variation cannot be attributed to variations in metamorphic pressures, temperatures or oxygen fugacities. Neither can they be attributed to variation in garnet-matrix partition functions, as most of the garnets occur in one simple matrix—quartz. They therefore concluded that in spite of the high (sillimanite) grade of the relevant metamorphism, any equilibration of garnet compositions, and hence any associated inter-grain metamorphic diffusion, has been restricted to a scale of less than 1 mm; that garnet compositions here reflect original rock compositions on an ultra-fine scale, and have no connotations concerning metamorphic grade; that, hence, the garnets must arrive from a single precursor material, earlier suggested to be a manganiferous chamositic septachlorite; and that the between-bed variation: within-bed uniformity of garnet composition reflects an original pattern of chemical sedimentation—a pattern preserved with the utmost delicacy through a period of approximately 1800 × 106 years and a metamorphic episode of sillimanite grade.38 These findings are clearly at odds with the claims of other investigators, yet Stanton39,40 has amassed more evidence to substantiate his earlier work. To test these competing claims, therefore, a suitable area of metamorphic terrain with schists containing garnet porphyblasts was chosen for study. The Koongarra Area The Koongarra area is 250 km east of Darwin (Northern Territory, Australia) at latitude 12°52′S and longitude 132°50′E. The regional geology has been described in detail by Needham and Stuart-Smith41 and by Needham,42,43while Snelling44 describes the local Koongarra area geology.The Archean basement to this metamorphic terrain consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Lower Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (estimated to represent conditions of 5–8 kb and 550–630 °C) at 1800–1870 Ma. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism. The Lower Proterozoic Cahill Formation flanking the Nanambu Complex has been divided into two members. The lower member is dominated by a thick basal dolomite and passes transitionally upwards into the psammitic upper member, which is largely feldspathic schist and quartzite. The uranium mineralization at Koongarra is associated with graphitic horizons within chloritized quartz-mica (±feldspar ±garnet) schists overlying the basal dolomite in the lower member.Owing to the isoclinal recumbent folding of metasedimentary units of the Cahill Formation, the typical rock sequence encountered at Koongarra is probably a tectono-stratigraphy (from youngest to oldest): —muscovite-biotite-quartz-feldspar schist (at least 180 m thick) —garnet-muscovite-biotite-quartz schist (90–100 m thick) —sulfide-rich graphite-mica-quartz schist (±garnet) (about 25 m thick) —distinctive graphite-quartz-chlorite schist marker unit (5–8 m thick) —quartz-chlorite schist (±illite, garnet, sillimanite, muscovite) (50 m thick)—contains the mineralized zone Polyphase deformation accompanied metamorphism of the original sediments that were probably dolomite, shales, and siltstones. Johnston45 identified a D2 event as responsible for the dominant S2 foliation of the schist sequence, which dips at 55° to the south-east at Koongarra. Superimposed on the primary prograde metamorphic mineral assemblages is a distinct and extensive primary alteration halo associated with the uranium mineralization at Koongarra. This alteration extends for up to 1.5 km from the ore in a direction perpendicular to the disposition of the host quartz-chlorite schist unit, because the mineralization is essentially stratabound. The outer zone of the alteration halo is most extensively developed in the semi-pelitic schists and is manifested by the pseudomorphous replacement of biotite by chlorite, rutile, and quartz, and feldspar by sericite. Metamorphic muscovite, garnet, tourmaline, magnetite, pyrite, and apatite are preserved. In the inner alteration zone, less than 50 m from ore, the fabric is disrupted, and quartz is replaced by pervasive chlorite and phengitic mica, and garnet by chlorite. Relict metamorphic phases, mainly muscovitic mica, preserve the S2foliation. Coarse chlorite after biotite may also be preserved. Koongarra Garnets Garnets are fairly common in the garnet-muscovite-biotite- quartz schist unit at Koongarra, being usually fresh and present in large quantities, often grouped, within various macroscopic layers. Within the inner alteration halo and the quartz-chlorite schist hosting the mineralization most of the garnets have largely been pseudomorphously replaced by chlorite. Occasionally garnet remnants remain within the pseudomorphous chlorite knots, or the common boxwork textures within these pseudomorphous chlorite knots confirm that the chlorite is pseudomorphously replacing garnets.The garnets are always porphyroblastic, and sometimes idioblastic, indicative of pre-kinematic growth. They may be up to 2 cm in diameter, but most are typically about 0.5 cm across. Often, the garnets also show some degree of rolling and sygmoidal traces of inclusions. These features are usually regarded as evidence for syn-kinematic growth.46 In a few of these cases, rolling is minimal and inclusion traces pass out uninterrupted into the surrounding schist. The schistosity is often draped around these garnet porphryblasts and sometimes the latter are slightly flattened. Thus the last stages of garnet growth occurred during the final stages of the D2 deformation of the prograde metamorphic layering S1, that is, during the development of the predominant S2 schistosity. This, in turn, implies that garnet development and growth took place before and during the deformation of the earlier S1 schistosity, that is, pre- and syn-kinematic to the S2schistosity and D2 deformation.

Fig. 1. Plot of (CaO + MnO) versus (FeO + MgO) variations in all analyzed Koongarra garnets, after the style of Nandi.47 His line of best fit for his data is shown, plus his boundaries between garnet compositions of each metamorphic zone. The line of best fit through the Koongarra data is shown, as are the sample/garnet numbers of all the homogeneous garnets. The analytical data are from Snelling.48Thirteen garnet-containing samples were chosen from three of the schist units: the ore-hosting quartz-chlorite schist (three samples), the sulfide-rich graphite-mica-quartz schist (five samples), and the garnet-muscovite-biotite-quartz schist (five samples). These 13 samples contained a total of 33 garnets that were all analyzed using an electron probe microanalyzer. Composite point analyses were made where garnets were of uniform composition, while traverses revealed compositional zoning when present. All results are listed in Snelling.49All the garnets are essentially almandine, the Fe2+ end-member, with varying amounts of spessartine (Mn2+), pyrope (Mg2+) and grossularite (Ca2+) structural units/end-members substituting in the crystal lattices. Tucker50 reported an analysis of a Koongarra Fe-rich 3+ garnet with an Fe203 content of 6.22%, implying that the substitution of the andradite (Fe ) end-member may be quite substantial. The compositional variations in Fe, Mn, Ca, and Mg both between and within the analyzed garnets were plotted in ternary diagrams, and from these it was determined that two principal substitutions have occurred—Mn for Fe and Mg for Ca, though the latter is very minor compared to the former. Nevertheless, these Koongarra garnets revealed the general inverse relationship between (CaO + MnO) and (FeO + MgO), which can be seen clearly in Fig. 1. Of the 33 garnets analyzed, 22 had homogeneous compositions and only 11 were compositionally zoned. In the three samples from the ore-hosting quartz-chlorite schist unit, five garnets were analyzed and all were compositionally homogeneous, whereas in the overlying sulfide-rich graphite-mica-quartz schist unit, the five selected samples contained 16 garnets, analyses of which revealed that 11 were compositionally homogeneous and the other five were compositionally zoned. Furthermore, four of the ten samples from the two garnet-bearing schist units overlying the ore-hosting quartz- chlorite schist contain both compositionally homogeneous and zoned garnets in a ratio of six zoned to eight homogeneous, without any textural evidence to distinguish between the two. The other samples in these schist units either had all compositionally homogeneous garnets or all compositionally zoned garnets.

Fig. 2. A line profile across a zoned garnet grain in sample 173 from the garnet-muscovite-biotite-quartz schist unit at Koongarra, showing the variations in FeO, CaO, MgO, and MnO. Data from Snelling.51 Fig. 3. Plan view of a compositionally zoned garnet grain in sample 101 from the sulfide-rich graphite-mica-quartz schist unit at Koongarra showing the FeO, MgO, MnO, and CaO contents at each analyzed point. Compositional contours have been drawn in for FeO and MnO. The data are from Snelling.52 Traverses of point analyses across the compositionally zoned garnets enabled the compositional zoning to be quantified. The most pronounced zoning is with respect to MnO, with cores generally having higher MnO relative to rims, and as FeO substitutes for MnO, FeO follows an inverse trend (figs. 2 and 3). Zonation with respect to CaO and MgO is not pronounced, but generally CaO follows the MnO trend and MgO follows FeO. This is understandable in terms of the ionic radii for the ions involved.53 Fig. 4 shows the geochemical trends of all the analyzed zoned garnets from cores to rims, the strong compositional differences following the same inverse relationship between (CaO + MnO) and (FeO + MgO) as the compositionally homogeneous garnets. Discussion Garnets analyzed in the Koongarra schists are typical of garnets from metapelites, the compositional trends between and within garnet grains being almost identical to those obtained from garnets in metapelites in metamorphic terrains in other parts of the world.54 The (CaO + MnO) versus (FeO + MgO) plot in Fig. 1 has marked on it the line of best fit and compositional subdivisions based on the typical zones of progressive regional metamorphic grade as determined by Nandi.55 The Koongarra data are distributed along their own line of best fit and straddle the garnet, kyanite, and sillimanite zones of Nandi’s data.Nandi’s contention was that (CaO + MnO) content of garnets decreased with increasing metamorphic grade, as originally proposed by Sturt56but challenged by Bahnemann.57 Bahnemann studied garnet compositions in facies gneisses of the Messina district in the Limpopo Folded Belt of Northern Transvaal and found compositional variations that were comparable to those found by Nandi, but which scattered across the metamorphic zones of Nandi’s diagram. However, Bahnemann was able to show, from earlier work on the same rocks58,59and by using Currie’s cordierite- garnet geothermometer,60 that whatever the precise temperature-pressure conditions may have been during the formation of the garnets, they were high and uniform over much of the Messina district. Thus Bahnemann concluded that the (CaO + MnO) versus (FeO + MgO) trends on the plot reflected host rock chemistry, and that metamorphic isograds cannot be inferred from the position of points on such a line. Bahnemann nevertheless noted that his line of best fit differed slightly from that of Nandi and suggested that his own line may be characteristic for the garnets from the area he had studied. Fig. 4. Plot of (CaO + MnO) versus (FeO + MgO) variations in all analyzed zoned garnets at Koongarra after the style of Nandi.61 Again, his line of best fit for his data is shown, plus his boundaries between garnet compositions of each metamorphic zone. Core to rim compositions are plotted with lines linking them between their intermediate compositions. Sample/garnet numbers are shown. The data are from Snelling.62The (CaO + MnO) versus (FeO + MgO) plots of the garnets at Koongarra (Figs. 1 and 4) also define a line of best fit that differs from that of Nandi. The Koongarra schists contain some graphite, which could be an additional factor in the growth of the zoned garnets, the iron-rich rims presumably being produced by graphite buffering as the temperature of metamorphism increased. However, in four of the thirteen samples there are both homogeneous and compositionally zoned garnets side-by-side. Furthermore, in one instance (sample 173) there is a compositionally zoned garnet with a core that has almost three times the (CaO + MnO) content of its rim, yet the latter’s composition is very similar to the two other adjoining homogeneous garnet grains. If the presence of graphite buffering the metamorphic reactions was needed to produce the zoned garnet, then why the adjoining homogeneous garnets? A far more logical explanation is that the zonation and compositional variations are due to chemical variations in the original precursor minerals and sedimentary rocks, as suggested by Stanton.63,64When Nandi produced his original plot, he used compositional data of 84 samples of garnets belonging to different grades of regionally metamorphosed pelitic rocks that he compiled from six papers in the then current literature. One of these, Sturt,65 drew on some of the same data, which comes from metamorphic terrains such as the Stavanger area of Norway, the Gosaisyo-Takanuki area of Japan, the Adirondacks of the USA, and the Moine and Dalradian of Scotland. When garnet porpyroblasts of quite different compositions from the different metamorphic terrains were plotted on a (CaO + MnO) versus (FeO + MgO) diagram Nandi found that they grouped along a line of best fit in subdivisions that reflected the different metamorphic grade zones from which they came—garnet, kyanite, and sillimanite (see Figs. 1 and 4). Nandi showed virtually no overlap in the compositions of garnets from different grades at the boundaries he drew across his line of best fit, yet on Sturt’s similar plot with garnet data from the same and other metamorphic terrains, there was considerable overlap of compositions between garnets from the different metamorphic grades. Furthermore, those garnets that Sturt recorded as coming from garnet grade metapelites almost exclusively plotted in Nandi’s kyanite grade grouping, so the picture is far from being clear-cut as Nandi originally reported it. In other words, these data do not show that garnet compositions systematically change with increasing metamorphic grade.As Bahnemann found in the Limpopo Folded Belt, where garnets from a number of different granulite facies host-rocks showed a wide range of composition yet reflected the same general pressure-temperature conditions of metamorphism, the data here from the Koongarra schists show widely divergent garnet compositions, even within individual grains, yet the schists are typical metapelites of a classical garnet zone within an amphibolite grade metamorphic terrain. The presence of garnet in these schists without either kyanite and/or sillimanite confirms that these schists fall within the garnet zone, although kyanite has been observed with staurolite in equivalent Cahill Formation schists to the south.66 Nevertheless, it is inconceivable that there would be any appreciable variation in metamorphic temperature-pressure conditions over the approximate 370 m of strike length and 90 m of stratigraphic range from which the studied samples came. Indeed, even in the stratigraphically lowermost ore-hosting quartz-chlorite schist unit, the five compositionally homogeneous garnets in the three samples at that stratigraphic level almost spanned the complete compositional range in Fig. 1, from extremely high (CaO + MnO) content in the supposedly lower temperature end of the garnet zone to a lower (CaO + MnO) and high (FeO + MgO) content at the supposedly high temperature end of the kyanite zone.Yet if any of these schist units at Koongarra should have been at a higher prograde metamorphic temperature, it would have been this quartz-chlorite schist unit, because it is stratigraphically closer to the Nanambu Complex basement towards which the metamorphic grade increased, causing some of the metasediments closest to it to be accreted to it. Similarly, one of the samples from the sulfide-rich graphite-mica-quartz schist unit (sample 101) has in it a garnet whose core could be regarded as being of garnet zone composition, while its rim is supposedly indicative of the sillimanite zone.These numerous “anomalies” must indicate that garnet compositions are substantially a reflection of compositional domains within the precursor sediments and/or minerals, and not metamorphic grade. Stanton67,68 has shown that diffusion during regional metamorphism has been restricted to relatively minute distances (<1 mm) and that there is no clear, direct evidence of prograde metamorphic mineral reactions, so that metamorphic equilibrium does not appear to have been attained through even very small domains. Even though the majority of researchers maintain that compositional zoning in garnets has been due to mineral reactions and cationic fractionation, and that at higher grades the compositional zoning is homogenized by diffusion, Stanton and Williams69 have clearly shown at Broken Hill that at the highest grades of metamorphism the compositional zoning in garnets is neither homogenized nor the result of either mineral reactions or cationic fractionation, but an accurate preservation of compositional zoning in the original precursor oolites in the precursor sediment. Nevertheless, while their conclusion is not questioned, their timescale is, because it strains credulity to suppose that the original pattern of chemical sedimentation could have been preserved with the “utmost delicacy” through a presumed period of 1.8 billion years.What is equally amazing is the discovery by Stanton70 of distinctly hydrous “quartz” in well-bedded quartz-muscovite-biotite-almandine-spinel rocks also in the Broken Hill metamorphic terrain. He comments that it seems “remarkable” that this silica should still retain such a notably hydrous nature after 1.8 billion years that included relatively high-grade (that is, high temperature-pressure) metamorphism! Not only does this discovery confirm that metamorphic quartz has been produced by dehydration and transformation in situ of precursor silica gel and/or chert, but that the temperatures, pressures and timescales normally postulated are not necessarily required.Stanton71 maintains that it has long been recognized that particular clays and zeolites derive in many instances from specific precursors. Likewise, it is self-evident and unavoidable that many metamorphosed bedded oxides (including quartz), together with carbonates and authigenic silicates, such as the feldspars, have derived from sedimentary/diagenitic precursors, and the establishment thereby of this precursor derivation for at least some regional metamorphic minerals is a principle, not an hypothesis. What Stanton then proceeds to show is how this principle applies to the broader spectrum of metamorphic silicates, including almandine garnet.He points to his earlier evidence72,73 that almandine has derived directly from a chamositic chlorite containing very finely dispersed chemical SiO2, and suggests that dehydration and incorporation of this silica into the chlorite structure induces in situ transformation to the garnet structure. Furthermore, instability induced by Mn, and perhaps small quantities of Ca, in the structure may predispose the chlorite to such transformation. Any silica in excess of the requirements of this process aggregates into small rounded particles within the garnet grain—the quartz “inclusions” that are almost a characteristic feature of the garnets of metapelites, including the garnets at Koongarra. Stanton then supports his contention with electron microprobe analyses of several hundred chlorites, from metamorphosed stratiform sulfide deposits in Canada and Australia, and of almandine garnets immediately associated with the chlorites. These analyses plot side-by-side on ternary diagrams, graphically showing the compositional similarities of the chlorites in these original chemical sediments to the garnets in the same rock that have been produced by metamorphism. This strongly suggests that the process was one of a solid-solid transformation, with excess silica producing quartz “inclusions.” As Stanton insists, why should these inclusions be exclusively quartz if these garnets had grown from mineral reactions within the rock matrix, because the latter contains abundant muscovite, biotite, and other minerals in addition to quartz, minerals that should also have been “included” in the growing garnet grains?Stanton and Williams74 have conclusively demonstrated that the compositional zones within individual garnet porphyroblasts reflect compositional zoning in precursor sedimentary mineral grains. Thus, if primary (depositional) compositional features have led to a mimicking of metamorphic grade,75,76 then it has been shown77,78,79 that the classical zones of regional metamorphic mineral assemblages may instead reflect facies of clay and clay-chlorite mineral sedimentation, rather than variations in pressure-temperature conditions in subsequent metamorphism. Stanton80goes on to say that if regional metamorphic silicates do develop principally by transformation and grain growth, the problem of the elusive metamorphic reaction in the natural milieu is resolved. There is no destabilizing of large chemical domains leading to extensive diffusion, no widespread reaction tending to new equilibria among minerals. Traditionally it has been supposed that as metamorphism progressed each rock unit passed through each successive grade, but the common lack of evidence that “high-grade” zones have passed through all the mineral assemblages of the “lower-grade” zones can now be accounted for. The real metamorphic grade indicators are then not the hypothetical intermineral reactions usually postulated, but the relevant precursor transformations, which may be solid-solid or in some cases gel-solid. Stanton concludes that it would be going too far to maintain that there was no such thing as a regional metamorphic mineral reaction, or that regional metamorphic equilibrium was never attained, but the role of metamorphic reactions in generating the bulk of regional metamorphic mineral matter is “probably, quite contrary to present belief, almost vanishingly small.”The other key factor in elucidating regional metamorphic grades, zones, and mineral compositions besides precursor mineral/sediment compositions would be the temperatures of precursor transformations, rather than the temperatures of presumed “classical” metamorphic mineral reactions. It is thus highly significant that dehydration and incorporation of silica into the chlorite structure induces in situ transformation to garnet at only low to moderate temperatures and pressures that are conceivable over short time-scales during catastrophic sedimentation, burial, and tectonic activities. Indeed, the realization that the “classical” zones of progressive regional metamorphism are potentially only a reflection of variations in original sedimentation, as can be demonstrated in continental shelf depositional facies today, provides creationists with a potential scientifically satisfying explanation of regional metamorphism within their time framework, which includes catastrophic sedimentation, deep burial and rapid deformation/tectonics with accompanying low to moderate temperatures and pressures during, for example, the global Flood and its aftermath.81 Conclusions Garnets in the amphibolite grade schists at Koongarra show wide compositional variations both within and between grains, even at the thin section scale, a pattern which is not consistent with the current consensus on the formation of metamorphic garnets. Rather than elevated temperatures and pressures being required, along with fractionational crystallization, elemental partitioning, and garnet-matrix reaction partitioning, the evidence at Koongarra and in other metamorphic terrains is consistent with solid-solid transformation at moderate temperatures of precursor sedimentary chlorite, complete with compositional variations due to precursor oolites, into garnet such that the compositional variations in the precursor chlorite are preserved without redistribution via diffusion. These compositional variations in garnets contradict the “classical” view that particular compositions represent different metamorphic grade zones, since at Koongarra the compositional variations even in single garnets span wide ranges of presumed metamorphic temperatures and grades. Thus the “classical” explanation for progressive regional metamorphism, different grade zones being imposed on original sedimentary strata over hundreds of square kilometers due to elevated temperatures and pressures resulting from deep burial and deformation/tectonic forces over millions of years, has to be seriously questioned. A feasible alternative is that these zones represent patterns of original precursor sedimentation, such as we see on continental shelves today. Creationists may thus be able to explain regional metamorphism within their time framework on the basis of catastrophic sedimentation, deep burial and rapid deformation/tectonics, with accompanying low to moderate temperatures and pressures, during, for example, the global Flood and its aftermath.

Thirty Miles of Dirt in a Day by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on August 26, 2008; last featured August 25, 2008

Shop Now It may come as a surprise to some, but not all rock layers were laid down during Flood. In fact, the evidence indicates that more geologic layers may have been formed during Creation than during the Flood. What Do We See in the Geologic Record? When most people visit Grand Canyon in northern Arizona, their eyes are riveted on the spectacular walls, which display about 4,000 feet (1.2 km) of flat-lying sedimentary rock layers (limestones, sandstones, and shales) (Figure 1).2Filled with the buried remains of plants and animals, these layers must have been deposited during the Flood.

Figure 1. Grand Canyon In northern Arizona, the flat-lying sedimentary rock layers of Grand Canyon sit on top of tilted sedimentary and volcanic rock layers, sitting on top of folded and metamorphosed layers of both sedimentary and volcanic rocks (schists) intruded by granites.Underneath these layers—near the bottom of the canyon—are many other layers that do not contain plant or animal fossils. Violent processes, including volcanoes and rapidly moving mud and sand, must have created these layers. Many tilted sedimentary and volcanic rock layers (about 13,000 feet [4 km] thick) sit on top of other folded and metamorphosed layers of both sedimentary and volcanic rocks (estimated to have been originally about 40,000 feet [12 km], thick).3After these metamorphic rocks formed, hot granites from deeper in the earth must have intruded into them (Figure 1). Because the folded and metamorphosed sedimentary layers, and most of the tilted sedimentary layers above them, contain no plant or animal fossils, it is likely these were nearly all deposited catastrophically during the erosion and deposition of Creation event.4

Figure2.Australia Almost two-thirds of Australia consists of thick sedimentary layers below the fossil-bearing sedimentary layers deposited by the Flood.3 In two of these basins, the Hamersley and Bangemall Basins, the total cumulative thickness of the sequence of successive sedimentary and volcanic layers is approximately a staggering 115,500 feet (almost 22 miles)!4 In Australia, as well as elsewhere around the globe, geologists have found even thicker sedimentary layers below the fossil- bearing layers deposited by the Flood. Indeed, almost two-thirds of the Australian continent consists of such rocks (Figure 2), sitting on a basement of metamorphic rocks and granites.5 These thick, fossil-free sediment layers have been preserved in depositional basins (places where volcanic eruptions and moving sediment deposited layers in sequences, one basin on top of the previous one). In just two locations in Western Australia, the Hamersley and Bangemall Basins (Figure 2), the total cumulative thickness of the layers is approximately a staggering 115,500 feet (almost 22 miles [35 km])!6 So Why Would the Designer Lay Down Thirty Miles of Sediment in a Day? There is at least one good reason we know of. These rock layers contain enormous resources of metals that man has used to carry out the God-given dominion mandate. In Australia’s Hamersley Basin, and similar sedimentary basins elsewhere, are special layers called banded iron formations that contain countless billions of tons of iron ore from which we make steel, one of the basic components of our world’s infrastructure. Much of the world’s comes from sediment layers in South Africa’s Witwatersrand Basin. And we also find copper deposits, which even our pre-Flood ancestors must have utilized to craft utensils and tools.

The Case of the ‘Missing’ Geologic Time by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 1, 1992 Originally published in Creation 14, no 3 (June 1992): 30-35. Traditional evolutionary geology maintains that the deposition of sediments to form major rock layers often takes long periods of time. Once deposited, the sedimentation period involved is believed to have closed with a major change in climate and/or uplift of the ocean floor to form a new land surface. There often then followed, it is claimed, a lengthy time in which erosion of that land surface may have then removed large amounts of the previously deposited sediments. Such an eroded surface should be evidenced by gullies, stream and river canyons and valleys, and such like at the top of each major rock layer or layers.Then it is supposed a new climatic regime began and/or the land subsided to again be covered by the ocean. Thus a new rock layer of perhaps an entirely different kind of sediment was then deposited. This new layer would be expected to bury and preserve much of the previously eroded surface at the interface between the lower rock layer and this newly deposited layer above. In the Grand Canyon Therefore, this accepted scenario for earth history involves many uplifts and subsidences of land surfaces. So where the rock layers of the earth’s surface are exposed to view, as they are in the Grand Canyon of Northern Arizona (USA), where there are numerous different sedimentary rock layers laid down one upon another, there ought to be many buried erosion surfaces found at the boundaries between the various individual rock layers. Indeed, the display on the Grand Canyon in the Museum of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff diagrammatically shows how the land surface in the Grand Canyon area must have subsided, been covered by the sea while sediments were being deposited, and then uplifted again with erosion taking place. This is depicted as happening at least five times during the development of the 4,000 feet (1,220 metres) of horizontal sedimentary rock layers now exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon.Creationists do recognize significant erosion surfaces between rock strata in the Grand Canyon, but unlike evolutionary geologists have concluded that these erosion breaks do not represent large time breaks. Indeed, evolutionists currently assign more time to these erosion breaks, where strata may have been eroded away on these erosion surfaces and therefore are now missing, than to all the 4,000 feet (1,220 metres) of horizontal rock strata present in the Grand Canyon today!Where erosion can clearly be seen to have occurred at these breaks between rock strata in the Grand Canyon, creationists maintain that the erosion was very rapid, facilitated in many cases by erosion occurring in soft, ‘non-hardened’ rock. Consequently, rather than having a land surface exposed for enormous periods of time after an ocean retreated, the same Flood processes responsible for depositing the sedimentary layers were also capable of eroding significant thicknesses of both loose sediment and consolidated rock.The nature of the debate concerning these so-called erosion breaks (technically known as unconformities) is brought into sharp focus in statements made by representatives of each viewpoint. For example, Dr. Davis Young, Professor of Geology at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, a Christian geologist who opposes the special creation/Flood approach, writes:‘The presence of each unconformity is physical evidence that the Colorado Plateau (the area taking in the Grand Canyon) experienced consolidation of sediments, uplift, and possibly gentle tilting, weathering of the uplifted surface to form soil, and erosion by streams and wind before the sediments of the next formation (rock layer) were deposited. There must have been several of these episodes of consolidation, uplift, weathering, and erosion—a conclusion clearly at variance with the theory that the sediments were deposited during a year-long global flood.'1On the other hand, Dr. Ariel Roth, Director of the Geoscience Research Institute at Loma Linda University, California, has written:‘The difficulty with the extended time proposed for these gaps is that one cannot have deposition, nor can one have much erosion. With deposition, there is no gap, because sedimentation continues. With erosion, one would expect abundant channelling and the formation of deep gullies, canyons and valleys; yet, the contacts are usually "nearly planar." Over the long periods of time envisaged for these processes, erosion would erode the underlying layers and much more. One has difficulty envisaging little or nothing at all happening for millions of years on the surface of our planet. The gaps seem to suggest less time… The assumed gaps in the sedimentary layers witness to a past that was very different from the present. In many ways, that difference is readily reconciled with catastrophic models such as the Global flood that proposes the relatively rapid deposition of these layers.’2 Figure 1. Grand Canyon in cross-section showing the names given to the different rock units by geologists. The Redwall-Muav Contact One of the most dramatic of these so called erosional breaks in the Grand Canyon strata is that between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone beneath (see Figure 1). The Redwall Limestone is assigned by evolutionary geologists to the so-called Mississippian Period (or the Lower Carboniferous to Europeans and Australians), said to have been 310-355 million years ago,3 whereas the Muav Limestone is said to belong to the so- called Cambrian Period, believed to be 510-570 million years ago.4 That means that where the Redwall Limestone rests directly on top of the Muav Limestone there is said to be a time gap of at least 155 million years during which the land surface was supposed to have been exposed to the forces of weathering and erosion. In many parts of the Grand Canyon and upstream in Marble Canyon there is a thin limestone layer known as the Temple Butte Limestone lying at this so-called erosion surface between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone. The boundary between the Redwall and the Temple Butte is generally planar (that is, ‘flat’ like the top of a table), and the Temple Butte Limestone has been assigned by evolutionists to the Upper Devonian Period, said to be 355- 375 million years ago.5 On the other hand, there is often good evidence of erosion, such as gullies and stream channels at the boundary between the Temple Butte and the Muav, as depicted in Figure 1 and illustrated in Figure 2. Note that there is an alleged time gap between the Temple Bulk and Muav Limestones of over 135 million years during which the Muav land surface is alleged to have been exposed to those forces of erosion which made the channels and gullies. This raises questions as to why the Temple Butte Limestone is in channels and gullies in the Muav Limestone in some places, is a thin bed with planar boundaries with both the Redwall Limestone and Muav Limestone in other places, and yet is totally absent in many other places. Evolutionists would of course argue that where the Temple Butte is absent it has been eroded away before deposition of the Redwall Limestone. On the North Kaibab Trail Figure 2. A channel eroded into the Muav limestone and filled with Temple Butte Limestone. The Redwall Limestone can be seen above the channel-filled Temple Butte Limestone (Marble Canyon, upstream from Grand Canyon). However, there is one place in the Canyon where diligent search has failed to find any evidence of erosion between the Redwall and Muav Limestones. The supposed 155 million years of geological time is not only ‘missing’, but appears to have never existed! The site is found on the North Kaibab Trail, which starts at Phantom Range on the Colorado River and climbs northward up to the North Rim of the Canyon. The trail crosses the boundary between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone, the spot being signposted by the National Park Service. The sign reads: An Unconformity ‘Rocks of Ordovician and Silurian Periods are missing in Grand Canyon. Temple Butte Limestone of Devonian age occurs in scattered pockets. Redwall Limestone rests on these Devonian rocks or on Muav Limestone of much earlier Cambrian age.’ The sign also indicates by arrow that at this locality on the North Kaibab Trail the Redwall Limestone lies directly on Muav Limestone, the Temple Butte Limestone appearing to be absent.Dr. Clifford Burdick was the first to point to the problems for evolutionists at this locality.6 Subsequently, a team sponsored by the Creation Research Society visited the area in 1986 to conduct investigations, and their report was published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly.7They concluded that the supposed unconformity between Redwall Limestone and Muav Limestone is not at all apparent when one attempts to trace the contact along the North Kaibab Trail. Indeed, commencing from an area approximately 100 metres north of the National Park Service sign and investigating southwards about 100 metres past the sign, the two rock layers seemingly interfinger with one another. Their findings are summarized diagrammatically in Figure 3.

Click on image to enlarge. Figure 3. The Contact between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone on the North Kaibab Trail, Grand Canyon, as surveyed by Waisgerber, Howe and Williams (Reference 7).If in fact this time break of more than 155 million years had occurred between the deposition of the Muav and Redwall Limestones, during which time erosion had taken place (including the deposition and removal of the Temple Butte Limestone that appears at this boundary in other parts of the Grand Canyon), then some or all of the following features should be in evidence: obvious erosion features incised into the top of the Muav Limestone; boulders and cobbles of eroded Muav Limestone at the base of the Redwall Limestone; the layering (bedding) in the Muav Limestone dipping at an angle to the layering in the overlying Redwall Limestone; the layering in the Muav Limestone being somewhat more folded than the layering in the Redwall Limestone: more complex joint systems developed in the Muav Limestone than in the Redwall Limestone; more faulting (that is, fracturing and displacement of the layering along fractures) in the Muav Limestone than in the Redwall Limestone; anda noticeable difference in the sedimentary material within each of the two limestones due to changes in the regional environments between the times of deposition of each of these two limestones. So what is observed at the boundary between the Muav and Redwall Limestones on the North Kaibab Trail? As shown in Figure 3, below the signposted boundary layers of Muav Limestone occur within further layers of Redwall Limestone, as well as mottled Muav Limestone and a mica-bearing shale. Furthermore, the interlayered mica-bearing shale. Muav and Redwall Limestones grade abruptly southwards into other layers which are obviously Muav Limestone, by descriptive definition, and without any tell-tale signs of faulting that would have meant the Muav Limestone had been ‘pushed’ into that position. On the contrary, not even one of the seven expected features listed above can be seen at this supposed boundary. Instead, the actual observational evidence in the field supports the contention that continuous deposition occurred as the Redwall Limestone was deposited on top of the Muav Limestone, there being some interfingering and fluctuations during the postulated ‘changeover’ period. There is no buried erosion surface evident, so the facts strongly suggest that the Redwall Limestone was deposited immediately after, and about the same time as, the Muav Limestone. Consequently, at least 155 million years of geological time are ‘missing’ at this location. Baffled Evolutionary Geologists Now if it is apparent from the observational evidence that there is no break here at all, then what have geologists said about this boundary in the geological literature? Being on a long-established, well-used trail which is signposted by the National Park Service, one would have expected that a lot has been written about this location in the geological literature. However, only a few scattered remarks and one close-up diagram can be easily located.Walcott in 1888 wrote, concerning various places where he saw Redwall Limestone resting directly on what today is called the Muav Limestone, that: ‘The line of unconformity is slight and often none exists except to the eye of the geologists looking at that exact horizon for it.’8 Notice the frank admission that no unconformity exists except to the geologist who is looking for it—another way of saying that often there is no unconformity at all!Schuchert claimed in 1918 that: ‘The Redwall usually reposes disconformably on the Muav member of the Tonto formation of Cambrian age…’9.Note that a disconformable relationship exhibits many of the seven features listed previously, but none is evident here on the North Kaibab Trail. McKee and Gutschick in 196910 merely quoted Stoyanow’s 1948 one sentence statement: ‘The overlap of the Redwall Limestone on the Cambrian platform is well shown in the Grand Canyon sections.’ 11 McKee and Gutschick published a diagram of the North Kaibab Muav-Redwall contact showing a surface with wavy undulations, claiming that it was an ‘unconformity’ with an ‘irregular wavy surface of Muav Limestone’ having ‘relief of 1-2 feet in areas of channelling’.12 Yet field observations made by Waisgerber, Howe, and Williams indicate no such irregular wavy surface or chanelling relief.13 Fossil Dating at Fault It would be very surprising if this Redwall-Muav contact on the North Kaibab Trail has not been studied by other geologists. However, no other reference to this location can easily be found in the geological literature. So why then do these evolutionary geologists insist there is a time break between these two limestones of at least 155 million years? The answer is, of course, that the Redwall and Muav Limestones have been dated according to the fossils they contain, which have already been assigned an evolutionary age. Dunbar and Rodgers state: ‘The relative importance of a hiatus is immediately evident if the beds above and below bear fossils by which they can be assigned their proper position in the instances this is the final and the only criterion that gives quantitative results for the large unconformities. In the Grand Canyon walls, for example, where Redwall limestone can be dated as Lower Mississippian and the underlying Muav limestone as Middle Cambrian, we know that the paraconformity [that is. the suspected erosion surface—A.A.S.] represents more than three geologic periods, yet the physical evidence for the break is less obvious than for that which separates the Toroweap and the Kaibab limestones, both of which are Middle Permian. Many large unconformities would never be suspected if it were not for such dating of the rocks above and below.’14 Similarly, Noble in 1914 experienced great difficulty trying to determine just where the Cambrian strata stopped and the Mississippian began in Bass Canyon (a side canyon to Grand Canyon) because fossil and rock data failed to suggest an unconformity: ‘Because of the lack of fossils and the failure to detect the line of erosion that would mark a division between the Muav Limestone and the Redwall in Bass Canyon it has been necessary to fix tentatively the base of the Redwall by means of lithology [rock type—A.A.S.]. The Muav Limestone is here overlain by alternating layers of calcareous [lime-bearing—A.A.S.] sandstone and dense blue-grey crystalline limestone, which have a thickness of 110 feet. These layers are taken arbitrarily as the base of the Redwall.’15 No Geological ‘Ages’, Just A Global Flood It is obvious that in Bass Canyon, as well as along the North Kaibab Trail, this contact line is not easily discerned. Indeed, if it wasn’t for the fossil content being interpreted as indicative of evolutionary ages, then line field evidence would overwhelmingly indicate that at these locations in Grand Canyon deposition of the Redwall Limestone followed immediately on from deposition of the Muav Limestone and thus at least 155 million years of so-called geological time is ‘missing’, because it never occurred!Furthermore, if this is the case in these two locations in Grand Canyon, that is, if there was no significant time break between deposition of the Muav Limestone and the Redwall Limestone above it, then in those places throughout the rest of the Grand Canyon where the Temple Butte Limestone occurs between the Muav and the Redwall, the Temple Butte Limestone must have been deposited rapidly. Similarly, where there is evidence of erosion at the boundary between the Muav and Temple Butte, and the Temple Butte and Redwall, elsewhere through the Grand Canyon, then the forces of erosion responsible must equally have been of short duration.‘Thus the observational evidence firmly indicates that at least 155 million years of so-called geological time never happened, invalidating the evolutionists’ whole concept of the geological column and the evolutionary progression of life. On the other hand, this evidence confirms the conclusions of creationists that these breaks and boundaries between rock layers in Grand Canyon represent very little time at all, and in some cases continuous deposition, as would be expected of events during the year-long Flood. Acknowledgements I am indebted to the Institute for Creation Research for several opportunities to visit the Grand Canyon to study the strata first hand. ICR Professor of Geology Dr. Steve Austin has been of particular assistance, as has been his field guide, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (ICR Field Study Tour Guidebook), which I thoroughly recommend.

The First Atmosphere—Geological Evidences and Their Implications by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on November 1, 1980 Originally published in Creation 3, no 4 (November 1980): 46-52. In Ex Nihilo (v3n3, August 1980) David Denner discussed the composition of the Earth’s primitive atmosphere as advocated by evolutionists. He concluded that: The reason for the widespread adherence to the belief in a primitive reducing atmosphere, in spite of much evidence to the contrary, is the same reason for which it was postulated. If you are to believe many of the theories of chemical evolution at all, you simply have to believe the Earth’s atmosphere was once radically different from its composition today.Most geologists accept the assertion that the early Earth had a reducing atmosphere. The concept that the Archaean (> 2.3 billion Arbitrary Geologic Years (A.G.Yr.3) atmosphere contained practically no free oxygen has had its roots in the threefold division of the geological column based on abundance of macrofossils: Phanerozoic (Cambrian to Recent), Oroterozoic, and Archaean. Lack of obvious Archaean life has popularly been attributed to a hostile environment rich in toxic, reduced volcanic gases. Lack of Archaean sulfates and red beds has similarly been attributed to peculiar atmospheric and hydrospheric compositions. These arguments have been convincingly presented by scientists such as Cloud,1, 2 Eriksson and Truswell,3 and Schidlowski.4 The strongest support for an oxygen-poor Archaean atmosphere came with Holland’s5 calculation of the maximum partial pressure of oxygen for uraninite (UO2) stability, and his interpretation that the Archaean uraninite placer deposits of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, and Elliot Lake, Canada, could not have formed under a significantly oxidizing atmosphere. This was followed by a variety of genetic models for the formation of the ubiquitous Archaean banded iron formations, such models depending upon an oxygen-poor atmosphere.6, 7, 8, 9However, there is now substantial evidence against these interdependent concepts. Dimroth and Kimberley10unequivocally state: In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well preserved sedimentary rocks (emphasis mine). They went on to explain that: The sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, and ferric and ferrous iron depend greatly upon ambient oxygen pressure and should reflect any major change in proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere or hydrosphere. The similar distributions of these elements in sedimentary rocks of all ages are here interpreted to indicate the existence of a Precambrian atmosphere containing much oxygen. Elsewhere11 they concluded: We know of no evidence which proves orders-of-magnitude differences between Middle Archaean and subsequent atmospheric compositions, hydrospheric compositions, or total biomasses. Sedimentary carbon Dimroth and Kimberley10 found that: Organic carbon contents and distributions are similar in Precambrian and Quaternary sedimentary rocks and sediments, although distributions in both would have been sensitive to variations in rates of organic productivity and atmospheric oxygen pressure. Carbon occurs in two ways in sedimentary rocks: (a) within the carbonate radical of carbonate minerals, and (b) in a myriad of organic compounds. The latter is termed organic carbon and is the decay product of living matter. It is found even in Archaean rocks.11 Organic carbon compounds are found in virtually all well preserved shales and mudstones of any age.10Abundant Archaean organic carbon is a residual product of photosynthetic oxygen production. Microorganisms have been reported from carbonaceous rocks of the Fig Tree Group of Swaziland (3.4 billion A.G.Yr. old)12 and blue-green algae remains occur in the 2.6 billion A.G. Yr. old Veal Reef Carbon Seam of the Witwatersrand Sequence.13 Archaean and Lower Proterozoic shales and mudstones sampled to date average 0.7 wt % and 1.6 wt. % organic carbon respectively.14 This compares with the average amount of 0.5 wt. % organic carbon in Phanerozoic shales and mudstones.15Furthermore the spatial pattern of Archaean—carbon distribution does not differ in any obvious way from that of the Late Precambrian or Phanerozoic.11 This rules out the possibility that Archaean sediments repeatedly survived weathering and resedimentation cycles as a result of any postulated low rate of atmospheric oxygen production. An even stronger argument against this recycling of organic carbon is the strong correlation, obvious in the field, between organic carbon and pyrite (FeS2) contents in all Precambrian sedimentary rocks, particularly in Archaean rocks.10 Since diagenetic pyrite formation depends upon the presence of readily metabolizable organic compounds,16 it is clear that this organic carbon was in organic matter not long dead at the time of deposition.Not only is the mass distribution of carbon between organic molecules and carbonate minerals relevant to atmospheric oxygen levels but also isotopic fractionation between these two reservoirs.17 In the hydrosphere-atmosphere system comparable organic and carbonate carbon isotopic ratios in sedimentary rocks of all ages would indicate a consent rate of separation between the two reservoirs, and hence an unchanging rate of free oxygen production. Available analyses indeed indicate constancy with time for the isotopic ratios of sedimentary carbonate and organic carbon.18, 19, 20, 21After discounting the effects of additional carbon supplied in volcanic emissions, Demroth and Kimberley10 still concluded that:The constancy of carbon isotopic fractionation in sedimentary rocks is, in fact, an indication of relative constancy of free-oxygen production.And thus the composition of the Archaean atmosphere was similar to that of the present day atmosphere. Sedimentary sulfur Kimberley and Dimroth11 found that: The distribution of sulfur in Archaean and Proterozoic rocks is similar to that in Phanerozoic rocks of comparable type. The distribution of sulfur in recent sediments, like that of organic carbon, is largely a function of primary and diagenetic redox reactions16 and is correspondingly sensitive to variations in atmospheric oxygen pressure. There are two major sources of sulfide sulfur in present-day sediments—seawater sulfate reduced bacterially and organic sulfur released during decay; and two minor sources—volcanically exhaled sulfur and detrital pyrite.The preservation potential of detrital pyrite in present day sedimentary environments is now being eliminated largely by biochemical oxidation and oxidative corrosion. In a few cases, detrital pyrite may survive diagenesis, provided deposition is rapid and reducing biogenic conditions are established rapidly after deposition. By contrast, pyrite should have been a consistent and important component of sediments deposited under a hypothetical oxygen-deficient atmosphere. Pyrite is common in all source rocks but detrital pyrite is just as rare in Proterozoic and Archaean sedimentary rocks as it is in present day sediments. Absence of pyrite from many Proterozoic and Archaean sandstones, for instance, despite the common presence of the mineral in the source rocks, is evidence for oxidation during transport and/or diagenesis. Part Two Most sulfide sulfur in recent sediments has formed by the action of sulphate-reducing bacteria and is closely associated with bituminous and carbonaceous shales. Sedimentary pyrite is almost invariably closely associated with organic carbon in sedimentary rocks of any age. Some Precambrian pyrite occurs as laminae like some of the recent diagenetic pyrite,16 but much is nodular, more obviously diagenetic. Carbonaceous snares and mudstones of all ages are richly pyritic and basal sandstones of all elastic sequences are commonly cemented by pyrite.11 Pyrite content increases linearly with increasing organic carbon content in Archaean shales and mudstones, a similar relationship to that seen in sulfur and carbon contents.14 This consistency of the sulfide sulphur-carbonaceous shale/mudstone association, which is so characteristic of Precambrian as well as Phanerozoic rock associations, is evident for: (a) the continually abundant presence of sulfate in the oceans and (b) the continual diagenetic bacterial reduction of that sulfate, since deposition of the earliest known Precambrian sediment.10 Volcanic exhalations generally include hydrogen sulfide gas. Under present conditions most of the exhaled hydrogen sulfide is rapidly oxidized and precipitation of heavy metal sulfides occurs only under exceptional conditions. In the presence of atmospheric oxygen, the products of volcanic exhalation would have differed, particularly if it is assumed most of the , , primordial ocean had been saturated with respect to siderite (FeCO3).7 8 9 All hydrogen sulfide exhaled by submarine volcanos would have precipitated as iron sulfide close to the volcanic vents. Volcanoaenic sulfide deposits should be many orders of magnitude more voluminous in Precambrian volcanic sequences than in Phanerozoic volcanic sequences, and they should occur around all Archaean submarine volcanic centers. In fact, none of these or other inferred differences between volcanogenic sulfide deposits of Precambrian and Phanerozoic age are consistently found.10 Massive sulfide deposits certainly did not form around every Archaean volcanic center nor do Archaean sulfide deposits appear to be more voluminous than sulfide deposits in comparable Phanerozoic volcanic belts. The distribution of volcanic exhalation sulfide deposits in Archaean terrains does not appear to differ substantially from the Phanerozoic distribution, and the hypothesis that the Early Precambrian primordial ocean was saturated with respect to siderite is similarly unsubstantiated.10Scarcity of Precambrian evaporites has been cited as evidence against substantial sulfate concentrations in sea water and an oxidizing atmosphere. However, most Archaean sedimentary rocks are in sequences which do not normally contain evaporites. Most Archaean sedimentation apparently occurred on tectonically active, steep slopes surrounding volcanic piles, a setting not conducive to evaporite deposition or preservation.10 On the other hand, there is now abundant evidence that evaporites were present in many Proterozoic sequences, for example, in Northern Australia.22,23 Survival of the actual evaporite minerals is claimed to be rare in Precambrian sediments because presently exposed rocks have been fairly close to the surface since the end of Precambrian time and have experienced prolonged groundwater flow. In conclusion, the apparent disproportionate distribution of evaporites between Archaean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic sedimentary sequences cannot be used as an argument in favor of a primitive reducing atmosphere. Uranium One of the strongest arguments used to support the theory of a primitive reducing atmosphere is the character of uranium deposition, which is presumed to have changed with time, resulting in the apparent time-related or time-bound occurrence of the various types of uranium deposits.24, 25Based on Holland’s5 calculation of the maximum partial pressure of oxygen for uraninite (UO2) stability, it was concluded that the Archaean uraninite placer deposits of the Witwatersrand, South Africa and Elliot Lake, Canada could not have formed under a significantly oxidizing atmosphere. While controversy regarding the origin of these two deposits has raged for many years, most geologists now accept the placer hypothesis whereby detrital uraninite was deposited in the quartz pebble conglomerates of alluvial fan or placer under reducing atmospheric conditions. It is argued that because the uraninite appears to be detrital and only stable under reducing conditions, then atmospheric conditions, at the time of transport and deposition must have been reducing.25,26 However, the remarkable similarity between the subeconomic concentrations of detrital uraninite in the present day Indus Valley27 and that of the Witwatersrand, as well as other evidence, invalidates any such concept.It would appear quite unnecessary to postulate a reducing atmosphere for the transportation of detrital uraninite.28Furthermore, Kimberley and Dimroth10, 11 present evidence against this placer hypothesis, comparing many of the characteristics of other major uranium occurrences undisputably deposited under oxygen-rich atmospheric conditions to those of the Witwatersrand and Elliot Lake ores. Direct evidence of mobility of uranium in solution has been found in uranite-replaced organisms within Witwatersrand ores,29 which negates the case for a reducing atmosphere put by Robertson et al,25 as seen in the diagram. 25 Dimroth and Kimberley conclude: Although it is thermodynamically possible that this mobility could have occurred at exceedingly low oxygen pressures, it is more likely that the carbonaceous replacements indicate an oxygenic groundwater atmosphere system more like that at present.10Similarly Simpson and Bowles28 state: The retention of sulfate and uranyl ions in solution . . . suggests that the atmosphere was oxidizing at the time of deposition.In reality, therefore, the distribution of uranium deposits within sediments of all ages has nothing to do with changes in atmospheric conditions which were oxidizing throughout the Phanerozoic, Proterozoic and the Archaean. Rather the distribution is dependent on the availability of uranium in the sediment source rocks.The high uranium content of crystalline Archaean source rocks is the probable main reason for uranium concentrations in the Lower Proterozoic, Tertiary mantles on uplifted, crystalline Precambrian rocks like the Shirley Basin of Wyoming are similarly rich in stratiform deposits of uraninite.11 Conclusion and implications Dimroth and Kimberley10 concluded that the distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium and iron in Precambrian sedimentary rocks are similar to those in Phanerozoic sedimentary rocks, and that therefore the earth’s atmosphere has always been oxidizing. This conclusion is devastating to all theories of chemical evolution which require a reducing atmosphere, and it has important implications for the creation-flood model.First and foremost the abundance of organic carbon in so-called Archaean and Proterozoic sedimentary rocks is initially surprising, but also suggests that these rocks, including many metamorphic (ex-sedimentary) rocks, were also deposited during the Flood. We must remember that the geological column and associated time-scale is itself assumptive, so that flood geology need not be bound to the same depositional order of strata and certainly cannot adopt the same nomenclature and terminology. These organic carbon-rich Archaean and Proterozoic sedimentary rocks contain the remains of life, albeit microscopic life by the myriads, and algae, destroyed in the same catastrophe as the invertebrates and vertebrates of the so-called Phanerozoic. The terms Archaean and Proterozoic only place these rocks early within the evolutionary time-scale, a position rejected by flood geologists.Secondly, the similar distribution of carbon, sulfur, uranium and iron within sedimentary rocks of all uniformitarian geological ages is in fact more compatible with the flood geology model in which all fossiliferous sedimentary rocks and associated strata were deposited during the Flood and since. Because the created atmosphere has always been oxygen rich (in the Garden of Eden as well as during the Flood) it is to be expected that the nature and chemistry of the Flood sediments would reflect this.Thirdly, since Precambrian sedimentary and metamorphic rocks contain globally important ore deposits these same ores were either deposited as an integral part of the enclosing sediments during the Flood, or, as in the case of some uranium ores, formed during or after the Flood following deposition of the sediments which enclose them.Finally, these conclusions and implications are in direct conflict with the uniformitarian geological time scale. This conflict is highlighted by the many radiometric age dates for these rocks and ores (particularly uranium ores). What I am asserting is that all major fossiliferous strata, regardless of their geologic age, were deposited during the Flood about 5,000 years ago or consequent to it, and that the evidence is entirely consistent with this thesis. THE FOSSIL RECORD

Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages? by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on September 9, 2010; last featured February 25, 2014

The fossil record is hardly “the record of life in the geologic past” that so many scientists incorrectly espouse, assuming a long prehistory for the earth and life on it. Shop Now Fossils are the remains, traces, or imprints of plants or animals that have been preserved in the earth’s near-surface rock layers at some time in the past.1 In other words, fossils are the remains of dead animals and plants that were buried in sedimentary layers that later hardened to rock strata. So the fossil record is hardly “the record of life in the geologic past” that so many scientists incorrectly espouse,2 assuming a long prehistory for the earth and life on it. Instead, it is a record of the deathsof countless billions of animals and plants. The Fossil Record For many people, the fossil record is still believed to be “exhibit A” for evolution. Why? Because most geologists insist the sedimentary rock layers were deposited gradually over vast eons of time during which animals lived, died, and then were occasionally buried and fossilized. So when these fossilized animals (and plants) are found in the earth’s rock sequences in a particular order of first appearance, such as animals without backbones (invertebrates) in lower layers followed progressively upward by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, birds, and finally mammals (e.g., in the Colorado Plateau region of the United States), it is concluded, and thus almost universally taught, that this must have been the order in which these animals evolved during those vast eons of time.However, in reality, it can only be dogmatically asserted that the fossil record is the record of the order in which animals and plants were buried and fossilized. Furthermore, the vast eons of time are unproven and unproveable, being based on assumptions about how quickly sedimentary rock layers were deposited in the unobserved past. Instead, there is overwhelming evidence that most of the sedimentary rock layers were deposited rapidly. Indeed, the impeccable state of preservation of most fossils requires the animals and plants to have been very rapidly buried, virtually alive, by vast amounts of sediments before decay could destroy delicate details of their appearance and anatomy. Thus, if most sedimentary rock layers were deposited rapidly over a radically short period of time, say in a catastrophic global flood, then the animals and plants buried and fossilized in those rock layers may well have all lived at about the same time and then have been rapidly buried progressively and sequentially.Furthermore, the one thing we can be absolutely certain of is that when we find animals and plants fossilized together, they didn’t necessarily live together in the same environment or even die together, but they certainly were buried together, because that’s how we observe them today! This observational certainty is crucial to our understanding of the many claimed mass extinction events in the fossil record. Nevertheless, there is also evidence in some instances that the fossils found buried together may represent animals and plants that did once live together (see later). Mass Extinctions In the present world, when all remaining living members of a particular type of animal die, that animal (or plant) is said to have become extinct. Most scientists (incorrectly) regard the fossil record as a record of life in the geologic past. So, when in the upward progression of strata the fossils of a particular type of animal or plant stop occurring in the record and there are no more fossils of that animal or plant in the strata above, or any living representatives of that animal or plant, most scientists say that this particular creature went extinct many years ago. Sadly, there are many animals and plants that are extinct, and we only know they once existed because of their fossilized remains in the geologic record. Perhaps the most obvious and famous example is the dinosaurs.There are distinctive levels in the fossil record where vast numbers of animals (and plants) are believed to have become extinct. Evolutionists claim that all these animals (and plants) must have died, been buried, and become extinct all at the same time. Since this pattern is seen in the geologic record all around the globe, they call these distinctive levels in the fossil record mass extinctions. Furthermore, because something must have happened globally to wipe out all those animals (and plants), the formation of these distinctive levels in the fossil record are called mass extinction events. However, in the context of catastrophic deposition of the strata containing these fossils, this pattern would be a preserved consequence of the Flood.Now geologists have divided the geologic record into time periods, according to their belief in billions of years of elapsed time during which the sedimentary strata were deposited. Thus, those sedimentary strata that were supposedly deposited during a particular time period are so grouped and named accordingly. This is the origin of names such as Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and more.There are some 17 mass extinction events in the fossil record recognized by geologists, from in the late Precambrian up until the late Neogene, “just before the dawn of written human history.” However, only eight of those are classed as major mass extinction events—end-Ordovician, late-Devonian, end-Permian, end-Triassic, early-Jurassic, end- Jurassic, middle-Cretaceous, and end-Cretaceous. Most people have probably heard about the end-Cretaceous mass extinction event, because that’s when the dinosaurs are supposed to have been wiped out, along with about a quarter of all the known families of animals. However, the end-Permian mass extinction event was even more catastrophic, because 75 percent of amphibian families and 80 percent of reptile families were supposedly wiped out then, along with 75 to 90 percent of all pre-existing species in the oceans. Asteroid Impacts and Volcanic Eruptions So what caused these mass extinction events? Evolutionary geologists are still debating the answer. The popularized explanation for the end-Cretaceous mass extinction event is that an asteroid hit the earth, generating choking dust clouds and giant tsunamis (so-called tidal waves) that decimated the globe and its climate, supposedly for a few million years. A layer of clay containing a chemical signature of an asteroid is pointed to in several places around the globe as one piece of evidence, and the 124-mile (200 km) wide Chicxulub impact crater in Mexico is regarded as “the scene of the crime.” However, at the same level in the geologic record are the massive remains of catastrophic outpourings of staggering quantities of volcanic lavas over much of India, totally unlike any volcanic eruptions experienced in recent human history. The Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991 blasted enough dust into the atmosphere to circle the globe and cool the following summer by 1–2°C, as well as gases which caused acid rain. Yet that eruption was only a tiny firecracker compared to the massive, catastrophic Indian eruption. Furthermore, volcanic dust has a similar chemical signature to that of an asteroid. Interestingly, even more enormous quantities of volcanic lavas are found in Siberia and coincide with the end- Permian mass extinction event. The Creationists Perspective What then should creationists make of these interpretations of the fossil and geologic evidence? Of course, we first need to recognize that both creationists and evolutionists start with presupposed assumptions, which they then use to interpret the presently observed evidence. So this difference of interpretations cannot be “religion vs. science,” as it is so often portrayed.Furthermore, it needs to be noted that in the geologic record there are very thick sequences of rock layers, found below the main strata record containing prolific fossils, which are either totally devoid of fossils or only contain very rare fossils of microorganisms and minor invertebrates. In the creation framework of earth history, these strata would be classified as creation and pre-flood. Also, a few fossils may also have been formed since the flood due to localized, residual catastrophic depositional events, so flood geologists do not claim all fossils were formed during the flood.As already noted, the only dogmatic claim which can be made is that the geologic strata record the order in which animals and plants were buried and fossilized. Indeed, fossilization under present-day conditions is exceedingly rare, so evolutionary geologists applying “the present is the key to the past” have a real problem in explaining how the vast numbers of fossils in the geologic record could have formed. Thus, the global destruction of all the pre-Flood animals and plants by the year-long Flood cataclysm alone makes sense of this fossil and geologic evidence (though as noted above, a small percent of the geological and fossil evidence is from post-Flood residual catastrophism).Indeed, not only did the animals and plants have to be buried rapidly by huge masses of water-transported sediments to be fossilized, but the general vertical order of burial is also consistent with the flood. The first fossils in the record are of marine animals exclusively, and it is only higher in the strata that fossils of land animals are found, because the Flood began in the ocean basins (“the fountains of the great deep burst open”) and the ocean waters then flooded over the continents. How else would there be marine fossils in sedimentary layers stretching over large areas of the continents? Added to this, “the floodgates of heaven” were simultaneously opened, and both volcanism and earth movements accompanied these upheavals.In a global watery cataclysm, therefore, there would be simultaneous wholesale destruction of animals and plants across the globe. The tearing apart of the earth’s crust would release stupendous outpourings of volcanic lavas on the continental scale found in the geologic record. The resultant “waves” of destruction are thus easily misinterpreted as mass extinction events, when these were just stages of the single, year-long, catastrophic global flood.It is also significant that some fossilized animals and plants once thought to be extinct have in fact been found still alive, thus demonstrating the total unreliability of the evolutionary time scale. The last fossilized coelacanth (a fish) is supposedly 65 million years old, but coelacanths are still here, so where did they “hide” for 65 million years? The Wollemi pine’s last fossil is supposedly 150 million years old, but identical living trees were found in 1994. The recent burial and fossilization of these animals and plants, and the extinction of many other animals and plants, during the single flood thus makes better sense of all the fossil and geologic evidence. Accounting for the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Even though the order of strata and the fossils contained in them (sometimes extrapolated and interpolated) has been made the basis of the accepted millions-of-years system of geochronology and historical geology, the physical reality of the strata order and the contained fossils is generally not in dispute. Details of local strata sequences have been carefully compiled by physical observations during field work and via drill-holes. Careful correlations of strata of the same rock types have then been made between local areas and from region to region, often by physical means, so that the robustness of the overall fossil order and strata sequence of the geologic record has been clearly established.Indeed, it is now well recognized that there are at least six thick sequences of fossil-bearing sedimentary strata, known as megasequences, which can be traced right across the North American continent and beyond to other continents.3Such global-scale deposition of sediment layers (e.g., chalk and coal beds) is, of course, totally inexplicable to uniformitarian (long-ages) geologists by the application of only today’s slow-and-gradual geologic processes that only operate over local to regional scales. But it is powerful evidence of catastrophic deposition during the global flood. Thus, it is not the recognized order of the strata in the geologic record that is in dispute, but rather the millions-of-years interpretation for the deposition of the sedimentary strata and their contained fossils.It is true that the complete geologic record is hardly ever, if at all, found in any one place on the earth’s surface. Usually several or many of the strata in local sequences are missing compared to the overall geologic record, but usually over a given region there is more complete preservation of the record via correlation and integration. However, quite commonly there is little or no physical or physiographic evidence of the intervening period of erosion or non-deposition of the missing strata systems, suggesting that at such localities neither erosion nor deposition ever occurred there. Yet this is exactly what would be expected based on the creation account of the flood and its implications. In some areas one sequence of sedimentary strata with their contained fossil assemblages would be deposited, and in other areas entirely different strata sequences would be deposited, depending on the source areas and directions of the water currents transporting the sediments. Some strata units would have been deposited over wider areas than others, with erosion in some areas but continuous deposition in others, even when intervening strata units were deposited elsewhere. Thus, as a result of the complex interplay of currents, waves, and transported sediments with their entombed organisms, a variety of different types of sedimentary rocks and strata sequences would have been laid down directly on the pre-Flood strata sequences and the crystalline basement that probably dates back to the creation itself. Thus the pattern of deposition of the strata sequences and their contained fossils is entirely consistent with the strata record the Flood might be expected to have produced. In contrast, by using the present to interpret the past, evolutionary geologists have no more true scientific certainty of their version of the unobservable, unique historic events which they claim produced the geologic record.Nevertheless, if the general order of the strata and their contained fossil assemblages is not generally in dispute, then that order in the strata sequences still must reflect the geological processes and their timing responsible for the formation of the strata and their order. If, as is assiduously maintained here, the order in the fossil record does not represent the sequence of the evolutionary development of life, then the fossil record must be explainable within the context of the tempo of geologic processes burying these organisms in the sediment layers during the global flood cataclysm. Indeed, both the order of the strata and their contained fossils could well provide us with information about the pre-Flood world, and evidence of the progress of different geological processes during the Flood event. There are a number of factors that have been suggested to explain the order in the fossil record in terms of the Flood processes, rather than over the claimed long ages. Pre-Flood Biogeography If we look at today’s living biology, we find that across mountains such as the Sierra Nevada of California, or in a trip from the South Rim of the Grand Canyon down to the Colorado River, there are distinct plant and animal communities in different life or ecology zones that are characteristic of the climates at different elevations. Thus, we observe cacti growing in desert zones and pines growing in alpine zones rather than growing together. Therefore, just as these life/ecology zones today can be correlated globally (all deserts around the world have similar plants and animals), so too some fossil zones and fossil communities may be correlated globally within the geologic record of the Flood.Thus it has been suggested that there could well have been distinct biological communities and ecological zones in the pre-Flood world that were spatially and geographically separated from one another and that that were then sequentially inundated, swept away, and buried as the Flood waters rose. This ecological zonation model for the order of fossils in the geologic record4 would argue that the lower fossiliferous layers in the strata record must therefore represent the fossilization of biological communities at lower elevations and warmer climates, while higher layers in the geologic record must represent fossilization of biological communities that lived at higher elevations and thus cooler temperatures.Based on the vertical and horizontal distribution of certain fossil assemblages in the strata record, it has been concluded that the pre-Flood biogeography consisted of distinct and unique ecosystems which were destroyed by the Flood and did not recover to become re-established in the post-Flood world of today. These include a floating-forest ecosystem consisting of unique trees called lycopods of various sizes that contained large, hollow cavities in their trunks and branches and hollow root-like rhizomes, with associated similar plants. It also includes some unique animals, mainly amphibians, that lived in these forests that floated on the surface of the pre- Flood ocean.5 Spatially and geographically separated and isolated from this floating-forest ecosystem were stromatolite reefs adjacent to hydrothermal springs in the shallow waters of continental shelves making up a hydrothermal-stromatolite reef ecosystem.6In the warmer climates of the lowland areas of the pre-Flood land surfaces, dinosaurs lived where gymnosperm vegetation (naked seed plants) was abundant, while at high elevations inland in the hills and mountains where the climate was cooler, mammals and humans lived among vegetation dominated by angiosperms (flowering plants).7 Thus these gymnospermdinosaur and angiosperm-mammal-man ecosystems (or biomes) were spatially and geographically separated from one another on the pre-Flood land surfaces. In chapter 2, the river coming out of the Garden of Eden is described as dividing into four rivers, which may imply the Garden of Eden (with its fruit trees and other angiosperms, mammals, and man) was at a high point geographically, the rivers flowing downhill to the lowland swampy plains bordering the shorelines where the gymnosperms grew and the dinosaurs lived. This would explain why we don’t find human and dinosaur fossil remains together in the geologic record, dinosaurs and gymnosperms only fossilized together, and angiosperms only fossilized with mammals and man higher in the record separate from the dinosaurs and gymnosperms.It can therefore be argued that in a very general way the order of fossil “succession” in the geologic record would reflect the successive burial of these pre- Flood biological communities as the Flood waters rose up onto the continents. The Flood began with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep (the breaking up of the pre-Flood ocean floor), so there would have been a sudden surge of strong ocean currents and tsunamis picking up sediments from the ocean floor and moving landward that would first of all have overwhelmed the stromatolite reefs in the shallow seas fringing the shorelines. This destruction of the protected lagoons between the stromatolite reefs and the shorelines by these severe storms would have then caused the strange animals that probably were unique to these stromatolite reefs to be buried and thus preserved in the lowermost Flood strata directly overlaying the burial of the stromatolites.Increasing storms, tidal surges, and tsunamis generated by earth movements, earthquakes, and volcanism on the ocean floor would have resulted in the progressive breaking up of the floating-forest ecosystem on the ocean surface, and thus huge rafts of vegetation would have been swept landward to be beached with the sediment load on the land surfaces being inundated. Thus, the floatingforest vegetation would have been buried higher in the strata record of the Flood, well above the stromatolites and the strange animals that lived with them. Only later, in the first 150 days of the Flood, as the waters rose higher across the land surface, would the gymnosperm-dinosaurs ecosystem be first swept away and buried, followed later by the angiosperm-mammal-man ecosystem that lived at higher elevations. People would have continued to move to the highest ground to escape the rising Flood waters, and so would not necessarily have been buried with the angiosperms and mammals. Thus the existence of these geographically separated distinct ecosystems in the pre-Flood world could well explain this spatial separation and order of fossilization in the geologic record of the Flood. Early Burial of Marine Creatures The vast majority by number of fossils preserved in the strata record of the Flood are the remains of shallow-water marine invertebrates (brachiopods, bivalves, gastropods, corals, graptolites, echinoderms, crustaceans, etc.).8 In the lowermost fossiliferous strata (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian), the contained fossils are almost exclusively shallow- water marine invertebrates, with fish and amphibian fossils only appearing in progressively greater numbers in the higher strata.9 The first fish fossils are found in Ordovician strata, and in Devonian strata are found amphibians and the first evidence of continentaltype flora. It is not until the Carboniferous (Mississippian and Pennsylvanian) and Permian strata higher in the geologic record that the first traces of land animals are encountered.Because the Flood began in the ocean basins with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, strong and destructive ocean currents were generated by the upheavals and moved swiftly landward, scouring the sediments on the ocean floor and carrying them and the organisms living in, on, and near them. These currents and sediments reached the shallower continental shelves, where the shallow- water marine invertebrates lived in all their prolific diversity. Unable to escape, these organisms would have been swept away and buried in the sediment layers as they were dumped where the waters crashed onto the land surfaces being progressively inundated farther inland. As well as burying these shallow-water marine invertebrates, the sediments washed shoreward from the ocean basins would have progressively buried fish, then amphibians and reptiles living in lowland, swampy habitats, before eventually sweeping away the dinosaurs and burying them next, and finally at the highest elevations destroying and burying birds, mammals, and angiosperms. Hydrodynamic Selectivity of Moving Water Moving water hydrodynamically selects and sorts particles of similar sizes and shapes. Together with the effect of the specific gravities of the respective organisms, this would have ensured deposition of the supposedly simple marine invertebrates in the first-deposited strata that are now deep in the geologic record of the Flood. The well-established “impact law” states that the settling velocity of large particles is independent of fluid viscosity, being directly proportional to the square root of particle diameter, directly proportional to particle sphericity, and directly proportional to the difference between particle and fluid density divided by fluid density.10 Moving water, or moving particles in still water, exerts “drag” forces on immersed bodies which depend on the above factors. Particles in motion will tend to settle out in proportion mainly to their specific gravity (or density) and sphericity.It is significant that the marine organisms fossilized in the earliest Flood strata, such as the trilobites, brachiopods, etc., are very “streamlined” and quite dense. The shells of these and most other marine invertebrates are largely composed of calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, and similar minerals which are quite heavy (heavier than quartz, for example, the most common constituent of many sands and gravels). This factor alone would have exerted a highly selective sorting action, not only tending to deposit the simpler (that is, the most spherical and undifferentiated) organisms first in the sediments as they were being deposited, but also tending to segregate particles of similar sizes and shapes. These could have thus formed distinct faunal “stratigraphic horizons,” with the complexity of structure of deposited organisms, even of similar kinds, increasing progressively upward in the accumulating sediments.It is quite possible that this could have been a major process responsible for giving the fossil assemblages within the strata sequences a superficial appearance of “evolution” of similar organisms in the progressive succession upward in the geologic record. Generally, the sorting action of flowing water is quite efficient, and would definitely have separated the shells and other fossils in just the fashion in which they are found, with certain fossils predominant in certain stratigraphic horizons, and the supposed complexity of such distinctive, so-called “index” fossils increasing in at least a general way in a progressive sequence upward through the strata of the geologic record of the Flood.Of course, these very pronounced “sorting” powers of hydraulic action are really only valid generally, rather than universally. Furthermore, local variations and peculiarities of turbulence, environment, sediment composition, etc., would be expected to cause local variations in the fossil assemblages, with even occasional heterogeneous combinations of sediments and fossils of a wide variety of shapes and sizes, just as we find in the complex geological record.In any case, it needs to be emphasized that the so-called “transitional” fossil forms that are true “intermediates” in the strata sequences between supposed ancestors and supposed descendants according to the evolutionary model are exceedingly rare, and are not found at all among the groups with the best fossil records (shallow- marine invertebrates like mollusks and brachiopods).11 Indeed, even evolutionary researchers have found that the successive fossil assemblages in the strata record invariably only show trivial differences between fossil organisms, the different fossil groups with their distinctive body plans appearing abruptly in the record, and then essentially staying the same (stasis) in the record.12 Behavior and Higher Mobility of the Vertebrates There is another reason why it is totally reasonable to expect that vertebrates would be found fossilized higher in the geologic record than the first invertebrates. Indeed, if vertebrates were to be ranked according to their likelihood of being buried early in the fossil record, then we would expect oceanic fish to be buried first, since they live at the lowest elevation.13 However, in the ocean, the fish live in the water column and have great mobility, unlike the invertebrates that live on the ocean floor and have more restricted mobility, or are even attached to a substrate. Therefore, we would expect the fish to only be buried and fossilized subsequent to the first marine invertebrates.Of course, fish would have inhabited water at all different elevations in the pre-Flood world, even up in mountain streams, as well as the lowland, swampy habitats, but their ranking is based on where the first representatives of fish are likely to be buried. Thus it is hardly surprising to find that the first vertebrates to be found in the fossil record, and then only sparingly, are in Ordovician strata. Subsequently, fish fossils are found in profusion higher up in the Devonian strata, often in great “fossil graveyards,” indicating their violent burial.A second factor in the ranking of the likelihood of vertebrates being buried is how animals would react to the Flood. The behavior of some animals is very rigid and stereotyped, so they prefer to stay where they are used to living, and thus would have had little chance of escape. Adaptable animals would have recognized something was wrong, and thus made an effort to escape. Fish are the least adaptable in their behavior, while amphibians come next, and then are followed by reptiles, birds, and lastly, the mammals.The third factor to be considered is the mobility of land vertebrates. Once they become aware of the need to escape, how capable would they then have been of running, swimming, flying, or even riding on floating debris? Amphibians would have been the least mobile, with reptiles performing somewhat better, but not being equal to the mammals’ mobility, due largely to their low metabolic rates. However, birds, with their ability to fly, would have had the best expected mobility, even being able to find temporary refuge on floating debris.These three factors would tend to support each other. If they had worked against each other, then the order of vertebrates in the fossil record would be more difficult to explain. However, since they all do work together, it is realistic to suggest that the combination of these factors could have contributed significantly to producing the general sequence we now observe in the fossil record.In general, therefore, the land animals and plants would be expected to have been caught somewhat later in the period of rising Flood waters and buried in the sediments in much the same order as that found in the geologic record, as conventionally depicted in the standard geologic column. Thus, generally speaking, sediment beds burying marine vertebrates would be overlain by beds containing fossilized amphibians, then beds with reptile fossils, and, finally, beds containing fossils of birds and mammals. This is essentially in the order: -Increasing mobility, and therefore increasing ability to postpone inundation and burial; -Decreasing density and other hydrodynamic factors, which would tend to promote later burial; and Increasing elevation of habitat and therefore time required for the Flood waters to rise and advance to overtake them. This order is essentially consistent with the implications account of the Flood, and therefore it provides further circumstantial evidence of the veracity of that account. Of course, there would have been many exceptions to this expected general order, both in terms of omissions and inversions, as the water currents waxed and waned, and their directions changed due to obstacles and obstructions as the land became increasingly submerged and more and more amphibians, reptiles, and mammals were overtaken by the waters.Other factors must have been significant in influencing the time when many groups of organisms met their demise. As the catastrophic destruction progressed, there would have been changes in the chemistry of seas and lakes from the mixing of fresh and salt water, and from contamination by leaching of other chemicals. Each species of aquatic organism would have had its own physiological tolerance to these changes. Thus, there would have been a sequence of mass mortalities of different groups as the water quality changed. Changes in the turbidity of the waters, pollution of the air by volcanic ash, and/ or changes in air temperatures, would likely have had similar effects. So whereas ecological zonation of the pre-Flood world is a useful concept in explaining how the catastrophic processes during the Flood would have produced the order of fossils now seen in the geologic record, the reality was undoubtedly much more complex, due to many other factors. Conclusions In no sense is it necessary to capitulate to the vociferous claim that the order in the fossil record is evidence of the progressive organic evolution to today’s plants and animals through various transitional intermediary stages over millions of years from common ancestors. While there are underlying thick strata sequences which are devoid of fossils and were therefore formed during creation and the pre-flood era, most of the fossil record is a record of death and burial of animals and plants during the flood, as described in the creation account, rather than being the order of a living succession that suffered the occasional mass extinction.Asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions accompanied other geological processes that catastrophically destroyed plants, animals, and people, and reshaped the earth’s surface during the Flood event. Rather than requiring long ages, the order of fossils in the rock record can be accounted for by the year-long Flood, as a result of the pre-Flood biogeography and ecological zonation, the early burial of marine creatures, the hydrodynamic selectivity of moving water, and the behavior and higher mobility of the vertebrates. Thus, the order of the fossils in the rock record doesn’t favor long ages, but is consistent with the global, catastrophic, year-long flood cataclysm, followed by localized residual catastrophism.

Cincinnati—Built on a Fossil Graveyard by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on July 1, 2011; last featured November 16, 2014

Many of us go about our daily lives, going to work and back home, without realizing we live atop massive graveyards, often covering hundreds of square miles. Cincinnati—the region where the Creation Museum was built—is just one such locale. Shop Now A dark and stormy night, a series of violent deaths, a mass grave later discovered by construction workers who unearthed piles of dismembered body parts—it sounds like the makings of a gruesome detective story. These circumstances are repeated in various locales all over our planet, but we are oblivious to the mysteries that lie under our feet, waiting to be explored and explained. The Creation Museum, for example, was built on top of one of the most wellstocked and uniquely well-preserved “fossil graveyards” on the planet. Fossil hunters from around the world travel here specifically to hunt for trilobites and other strange sea creatures found in these rock layers. It’s easy to find these fossils in the exposed rocks along the banks of the Ohio River and its tributaries. But they are best found in road cuts along the interstate highways and along many side roads. Several puzzles immediately strike even the most casual observer, begging for explanation. Piles of Marine Body Parts—500 Miles from the Ocean One puzzle is that these layers contain untold trillions and trillions of fossilized body parts, all belonging to creatures that once lived at the bottom of a shallow sea. What catastrophe ripped apart all these animals, and how did they end up in the center of the continent, 500 miles (800 km) from the nearest ocean? Before we consider the possible answer, let’s look at the facts. These fossils came from a bizarre menagerie of mostly extinct creatures that once filled the shallow seas. These were invertebrates (creatures without backbones). Scientists give them strange-sounding names, but many of them look very much like modern creatures, such as lampshells (brachiopods) (Figure 1), lace corals (bryozoans), and sea lilies (crinoids), along with trilobites.1 When you pick up broken limestone slabs on the roadside, you usually don’t see whole creatures.2 Often all that is visible of the coral-like bryozoans are stacks of broken “stems” (Figure 2). Similarly, often all that is preserved of the sea lilies (crinoids) are the columnals (“stems”) and small discs from these broken-up columnals (Figure 3). The trilobites, too, are mostly found only as fragments. How did this jumble of sea creatures end up in Cincinnati, far from the sea? Broken and Buried Sea Life Some sort of catastrophe destroyed the shallow sea communities where trillions and trillions of trilobites and other strange sea creatures once lived. Their fossilized body parts are now found jumbled together in exposed rocks all along Cincinnati’s highways (as shown in the author’s photos below).

Photos courtesy Dr. Andrew Snelling BRACHIOPODS (Figure 1) “Lampshells” are sea animals with hard shells that were hinged at the rear. The Flood ripped the shells apart, burying piles of them in slabs of limestone. BRYOZOANS (Figure 2) “Lace corals” were colonies of sea animals that lived together in connected modules, called zooids. The Flood tore apart these colonies, leaving only piles of broken “stems” and “branches.” CRINOIDS (Figure 3) “Sea lilies” were animals that attached to the seafloor on long columns. The Flood tore apart their bodies, leaving only piles of broken pieces of the stems, called “columnals.” A Testimony to the Global Flood Catastrophe. The dumping of such a vast number of body parts in one place is consistent with a massive, violent catastrophe that destroyed these creatures’ habitat and then rapidly buried their remains in layer after layer of clay and lime muds. All the secular fossil hunters who have investigated the Cincinnati fossil layers have come to the same conclusion—they were deposited under storm-dominated conditions! Indeed, their studies suggest that the layers were deposited when the Cincinnati area was being repeatedly battered by hurricanes and severe storms. They say that the ocean had advanced over the North American continent from the northeast, burying this region underwater, just offshore of the resultant coastline. But creationists have a more logical explanationAs the fountains of the deep broke up, hot magma rose to erupt on the seafloor and pushed the ocean water up and out. The surging water destroyed the nearby seafloors and then rolled forward until it rose over the continents, in wave after wave, depositing the remains of the different habitats as it went. 3, 4 The fossils in the Cincinnati region are found in a series of rock layers labeled conventionally as upper Ordovician. The layers are relatively low in the fossil record, just above the Cambrian (also full of trilobites and other sea creatures). This location means that these creatures must have been among the first destroyed and buried by the Flood. (The dinosaurs and other land animals weren’t buried until later, which explains why we find them higher in the fossil record.5) There is a general pattern to the fossil content, consistent with the order that creatures were likely buried. First are smaller creatures that were attached to the seafloor, followed by larger and more mobile creatures.6 Cycles of Thin Rock Layers Another puzzling feature, as you drive down Cincinnati’s roads, is the alternating sequence of thin limestone followed by thin shale beds, stacked right on top of one another (Figure 4). The beds of limestone are made of lime muds that cemented together the remains of sea creatures, while the beds of shale are made of softer clay muds from the seafloor and have weathered away. Catastrophic Storms at Sea How did this jumble of sea creatures ever end up in Cincinnati, far from the sea? Fossil experts agree that a series of ocean storms ripped apart these creatures’ homes. As the turbulent waves advanced over portions of the continent’s interior, they rapidly buried these animals’ remains in layer after layer of clay and lime muds.

Photo courtesy Dr. Andrew Snelling FIGURE 4—On Cincinnati’s roadsides you will see alternating thin layers of limestone (the hard rock protruding from the wall) and shale (softer, eroded layers) (from theFairview Formation). Consequently many slabs of limestone have broken off and fallen along the roadsides. These slabs are covered with fossils, making the roadsides ideal locations to collect fossils. You find some interesting patterns as you investigate these layers. Within the lowest layers, collectively known as the Kope Formation, the shale beds average 7.5 inches (19 cm) thick and account for almost three- quarters of the volume of rock. The limestone layers average 2.5 inches (6 cm) in thickness and account for most of the remaining volume. So it appears that most of these lower layers consist of clay muds, with some animals. In the Fairview Formation, which is the next set of layers, the limestone beds comprise about half the thickness of the formation. The beds at this level are slightly thicker than the Kope beds, averaging 3 inches (8 cm). They are also more closely spaced. This is what you would expect to find, as creatures struggled to dig out of the initial deposits but eventually succumbed to the continually rising mud deposits. Even the casual observer can see this cyclic pattern of limestone and shale layers. Several detailed studies have confirmed the regularity of this pattern, although some disagree over the interpretation of details of the depositional cycles. Testimony to Colossal Storms during the Flood. Despite the differences about the details, all the secular investigators have come to the same basic conclusion—these alternating limestone and shale beds were deposited as colossal storms battered the coastline of North America, which was largely underwater. The conventional argument is that the rising and falling water levels sent water over the continent, depositing limestone and shale layers over millions of years, particularly as the storm surges waxed and waned. But contrary to this interpretation, there is evidence that strong water currents were flowing over these sediment deposits as would have occurred if the whole earth were underwater, leaving telltale signs like megaripples, which are visible today. This storm-winnowing process could also explain the variations in fossil content. Storms sweeping across the ocean floor would “uproot” the brachiopods, bryozoans, and crinoids and then bury them as debris in the accumulating sediment layers. These conditions and processes would be expected during the global catastrophic Flood described in the Scriptures. The thin alternating coarse-grained limestone and fine-grained shale layers could be deposited quickly under such catastrophic conditions. On a smaller scale, a volcanic eruption at Mt. St. Helens in 1980 deposited a 25-foot bed of volcanic ash—with lots and lots of alternating coarse and fine layers—in less than a day.12 Survey of Microbial Composition and Mechanisms of Living Stromatolites of the Bahamas and Australia: Developing

Criteria to Determine the Biogenicity of Fossil Stromatolites by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling and Dr. Georgia Purdom on December 18, 2013

Abstract A stromatolite is typically defined as a laminated and lithified structure that is the result of microbial activity over the course of time. Fossil stromatolites are relatively abundant; however, modern living stromatolites are rare. Two well-studied examples of living stromatolites include those found in the Exuma Cays of the Bahamas and Shark Bay in Australia. Depending on dominant chemical reactions by bacteria and environmental conditions, accretion and lithification of the stromatolite occurs at intervals. Each layer or lamina of a stromatolite represents a former surface mat of bacteria. As long as cyanobacteria (or other phototrophs) colonize the top surface of the stromatolite, growth is likely to continue. Understanding microbial composition and mechanisms of living stromatolites is crucial to determining the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites. Although there is a paucity of fossilized bacteria in fossil stromatolites, their structural features closely resemble those of living stromatolites. A set of criteria from the study of living and fossil stromatolites has been developed to aid determination of the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites. It was concluded that there is now sufficient evidence for the biogenicity of many stromatolites, even as early as 3.5 Ga, so these need to be understood within the creationists framework of earth history. Discernment of genuine stromatolites in the geologic record may help determine boundaries between Creation, pre-flood and flood strata. In addition, understanding how various living stromatolites form in different environments provides insight into the pre-Flood environments in which fossil stromatolites grew. Keywords: Living stromatolites, fossil stromatolites, biogenicity, cyanobacteria, endolithic, heterotrophic, lithification, lamination, calcium carbonate, accretion, precipitation, mineralization, organomineralization, Exuma Cays, Hamelin Pool, extrapolymeric substance (EPS), sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB), Precambrian strata, Flood strata, microfossils, Creation, pre-Flood era This paper was originally published in the Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism (2013) and is reproduced here with the permission of the Creation Science Fellowship of Pittsburgh.

Introduction Stromatolite definitions, although varied, typically refer to an organosedimentary laminated and lithified structure produced by sediment trapping, binding, and/or precipitation as a result of the growth and metabolic activity of microorganisms, principally cyanobacteria and heterotrophic bacteria over the course of time (Chivas et al. 1990; Reid et al. 1995; Visscher et al. 1998; Papineau et al., 2005). The word stromatolite comes from the Greek stromat meaning to spread out and lithos meaning stone (Riding, 2000). Fossil stromatolites, though sparse in the geologic record, are nevertheless relatively abundant in terms of the number of occurrences (Semikhatov & Raaben 1996; Grotzinger & Knoll 1999; Schopf, 2004); however, modern living stromatolites are rare. Although by definition stromatolites are biogenic, some scientists have questioned whether these structures are exclusively biogenic and might instead be the result of abiogenic mechanisms (Lowe 1994; Hladil, 2005; Brasier et al., 2006). Understanding microbial composition and mechanisms of living stromatolites is crucial to determining the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites. Fossil stromatolites have been found mainly in Archean (3500–2500 Ma) and Proterozoic (2500–541 Ma) strata, with comparatively minuscule numbers in Phanerozoic (541 Ma–Present) strata (Gradstein et al., 2012). Geologists and paleontologists have questioned the biogenicity of the oldest Archean stromatolites due to the difficulties of identifying signatures of life, such as microfossils, in rock layers that are dated to 3.5 billion years old (Awramik & Grey, 2005). For scientists believing in an earth that is 4.5 billion years old, a biogenic origin for early Archean stromatolites is problematic because it leaves only a scant one billion years for the evolution of cyanobacteria and their major metabolic process of photosynthesis from non-life (Awramik & Grey, 2005). The biogenicity of fossil stromatolites is also problematic for creationists. Stromatolites are believed to form over extended periods of time from hundreds to thousands of years. Archean strata likely represent rocks (Snelling, 2009), so how can stromatolites that evidently take long periods of time to form be present in rocks that were created in less than a week? Proterozoic strata likely represent late Creation and pre-Flood era rocks (Snelling, 2009) and would have formed over a period of approximately 1650 years. The biogenicity of Proterozoic stromatolites is typically not questioned even within the secular scientific community (Hofmann et al. 1999). Structurally there seems to be little difference between Archean and Proterozoic stromatolites (Awarmik & Grey, 2005), leading to the potential conclusion that if Proterozoic stromatolites are biogenic, then so are Archean stromatolites. Fossil stromatolites in Phanerozoic strata are also potentially problematic for creationists because those strata are believed to have formed very rapidly during the global flood (Snelling, 2009). Again, how could structures that appear to take long periods of time to grow form over the course of a year? Could the nature and pattern of occurrence of fossil stromatolites be useful in determining the pre-Flood/Flood/post-Flood boundaries? Studying living stromatolites is absolutely essential to determining the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites and understanding how such structures form and grow. The microstructure of living stromatolites closely resembles that of fossil stromatolites (although there is a paucity of fossilized bacteria in fossil stromatolites) (Reid et al. 1995; Visscher et al. 1998). Thus living stromatolites are potentially a good model for developing criteria to determine the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites. The purpose of this study is to develop a set of criteria from the study of living and genuine fossil stromatolites to aid determination of the biogenicity of other fossil stromatolites. Discernment of genuine stromatolites in the geologic record may help determine boundaries between creation , pre-flood and flood strata. In addition, understanding how various living stromatolites form in different environments provides insights into the pre-Flood environments in which fossil stromatolites grew. Survey of Living Stromatolites Stromatolites consist of “guilds” of bacteria that perform different functions, such that the end metabolic products produced by one bacterial guild provide the starting metabolic products for a different guild (Visscher & Stolz, 2005; Dupraz et al., 2009). This distribution of functions benefits the microbial community and effectively builds the stromatolite. Microbial composition varies, but typically consists of three major bacterial types—cyanobacteria, heterotrophic bacteria, and endolithic cyanobacteria (Baumgartner et al., 2009; Papineau et al., 2005; Goh et al., 2009; Allen et al., 2009). Cyanobacteria are active in photosynthesis and play a major role in the overall growth of the stromatolite. Metabolic activities of heterotrophic bacteria create conditions (in conjunction with environmental factors) that result in the precipitation and mineralization of calcium carbonate leading to lithification of the stromatolite. Endolithic cyanobacteria bore through sand grains of the stromatolite welding together grains and stabilizing the structure of the stromatolite. Lithification (the process of sediments becoming solid rock) results directly from microbial activity performed mainly by heterotrophic bacteria (in conjunction with environmental factors) (Dupraz & Visscher, 2005). However, cyanobacteria are responsible for accretion (addition) of sediment through the trapping and binding of sand grains (Dupraz & Visscher, 2005). Microbial activity consists of a complex set of chemical reactions that result in both the dissolution and precipitation of calcium carbonate (Dupraz & Visscher, 2005). When metabolic processes result in net precipitation/mineralization of calcium carbonate, lithification occurs (Dupraz & Visscher, 2005).

Figure 1. Map of Exuma Cays, Bahamas. Arrows point to locations of stromatolites. Reprinted from Figure 1, Visscher et al., 1998. Depending on dominant chemical reactions by bacteria and environmental factors, accretion and lithification of the stromatolite occurs at intervals (Dupraz et al., 2009). Each layer or lamina of a stromatolite represents a former surface mat of bacteria (Reid et al., 2000). As long as cyanobacteria (or other phototrophs) colonize the top surface of the stromatolite, growth is likely to continue (Reid et al., 2000). Although several studies have been done to estimate the growth rate of stromatolites, no consensus has been reached. However, most living stromatolites are considered to be no more than several thousand years old (Macintyre et al. 1996; Jahnert & Collins, 2012). For the purpose of developing criteria to determine the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites, we will examine two of the most widely studied living stromatolites—those in the Exuma Cays, Bahamas and Hamelin Pool in Shark Bay, Australia. Exuma Cays, Bahamas The Exuma Cays consist of more than 360 islands or cays. Stromatolites grow in an open marine, normal saline environment in subtidal and intertidal areas (Reid et al. 1995) of fringing reefs of the Exuma Cays (Visscher et al. 1998) (Figure 1). The dominant morphology of Bahamian stromatolites is columnar with heights ranging from a few centimeters to 2.5 meters (Andres & Reid, 2006) (Figure 2). Figure 2. Columnar Bahamian stromatolites. Size range of stromatolites in photo is 0.25 to 0.5 m. Reprinted from Plate 4— 1d, Reid et al., 1995. Cyanobacteria are typically thought of as the main microbial contributor to Bahamian stromatolite formation. However, a rich diversity of microbes is necessary for stromatolite growth and lithification. Stromatolites alternate between periods of active sediment accretion and sediment hiatus (no accretion and lithification) (Reid et al., 2000). Three types of surface mats with varying microbial compositions are associated with stromatolites. Type 1 is associated with periods of sediment accretion and Types 2 and 3 are associated with sediment hiatus (Reid et al., 2000). The dominant bacterial species discovered in Bahamian stromatolites belong to the following groups: Cyanobacteria, Bacteroidetes (heterotrophic bacteria), Proteobacteria (heterotrophic bacteria) and Planctomycetes (heterotrophic bacteria) (Baumgartner et al., 2009) (Table 1). Table 1. Representation of cyanobacteria, heterotrophic bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes from the three major types of Bahamian stromatolites and surrounding seawater based on sequence comparisons to known bacteria. Reprinted and adapted from Table 3, Baumgartner et al., 2009. Percentage of Sequences in Library Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Water

Bacteria 95.2 99.2 95.7 100.0

Proteobacteria 41.3 57.4 52.8 66.2

Alphaproteobacteria 32.1a 49.0 41.8 56.3

Deltaproteobacteria 3.2 6.4 6.0

Gammaproteobacteria 6.0 2.0 5.1 9.9

Planctomycetes 14.3 11.2 13.4 1.4b

Cyanobacteria 10.3 14.3 9.9 14.1

Bacteroidetes 17.5 7.6c 6.0d 16.9

Chloroflexi 2.4 2.4 5.7 1.4

Spirochaetes 2.4 0.8 2.8

Verrucomicrobia 2.4 2.4 0.9

Actinobacteria 2.4 0.3

Firmicutes 0.4 1.2 0.3

Chlorobi 0.9

Deferribacteres 0.8

Other Bacteria 2.0 1.2 2.8

Archaea total .8 1.4

Eukarya total 4.4 2.8 Footnotes are used to denote differences between libraries found to be significant by pairwise comparison with Fisher’s exact test: a. Alphaproteobacteria are less abundant in Type 1 mats than in either Type 2 mats (P=0.0002) or water samples (P=0.0003). b. Planctomycetes are less abundant in water samples than in either Type 1 (P=0.0012), 2 (P=0.0086), or Type 3 (P=0.0017) mats. c. Bacteroidetes are less abundant in Type 2 than in Type 1 mats (P=0.0011). d. Bacteroidetes are less abundant in Type 3 mats than in either Type 1 mats (P=0.0001) or water samples (P=0.0056). Foster et al. (2009) analyzed cyanobacteria from a variety of stromatolite types and showed that several of the filamentous cyanobacteria identified exhibited gliding motility in response to light (phototaxis). This characteristic of cyanobacteria is vital following burial of stromatolites by sand or other sediment as the bacteria can move to the surface to capture sunlight necessary for photosynthesis and continued growth of the stromatolite. Type 1 mats are typically caramel colored or light green and are 0.5–1 mm thick (Stolz et al., 2009). These mats exhibit the least microbial diversity with filamentous cyanobacteria as the major microbial component. Schizothrix gebeleiniiwas thought to be the dominant cyanobacteria in Bahamian stromatolites (from morphological studies); however, genetic analysis of DNA libraries derived from Bahamian stromatolites showed no Schizothrix DNA was present (Baumgartner et al., 2009). These stromatolites appear to harbor many novel species of cyanobacteria based on sequence analyses (Baumgartner et al., 2009). Type 2 mats are white or gray-green, mucilaginous (due to abundant amounts of extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) produced by bacteria), somewhat brittle and flaky (due to thin micritic crusts consisting of calcium carbonate crystals <4 μm in diameter), and are 20–100 μm thick (Stolz et al., 2009). They harbor a wide variety of heterotrophic bacteria (Baumgartner et al., 2009). Type 3 mats are white or gray-green, crusty and hard (due to micritic crust formation) and are 50–100 μm thick (Stolz et al., 2009). The major microbial component of these mats is an endolithic coccoid cyanobacteria recognized by morphological studies to be Solentia sp. and Hyella sp. (Stolz et al., 2009). As mentioned previously, different mat types are associated with periods of sediment accretion (Type 1) and hiatal intervals (Types 2 and 3). Mat types have also been shown to alternate with the seasons. Type 1 is common year round, Type 2 is nearly absent in spring and winter but common in summer and fall and Type 3 is present year round but more common in spring and winter (Stolz et al., 2009). The influence of these environmental factors for mat types, and thus formation of stromatolites, has implications to rapidly changing and fluctuating conditions that were present during creation and during and after the Flood. The effects of perturbations, such as those mimicking Flood conditions, are potentially testable since stromatolites can be grown in a lab environment (Havemann & Foster, 2008). Hamelin Pool, Shark Bay, Australia

Figure 3. Map of Hamelin Pool, Shark Bay, Australia. Stromatolites are found in subtidal and intertidal areas near the borders of the pool. Reprinted from Figure 1, Jahnert & Collins, 2012. Hamelin Pool is a shallow, hypersaline embayment that is separated by a grass bank from the rest of Shark Bay on the Western Australian coast (Reid et al., 2003) (Figure 3). High evaporation levels and reduced flow of seawater into Hamelin Pool make the salinity twice that of normal seawater (Goh et al., 2006). Stromatolites are found in both intertidal and subtidal areas covering approximately 100 km of shoreline (Reid et al., 2003). They have a wide range of morphologies including columnar, club, spheroidal, domal, and ellipsoidal (Papineau et al., 2005; Jahnert & Collins, 2012) (Figure 4). Maximum height is approximately 1.5 m (Jahnert & Collins, 2012). Figure 4. Hamelin Pool stromatolites at low tide. Stromatolites in photo are approximately 40 cm high. Reprinted from Plate 45, Figure 1a, Reid et al., 2003. Microbial composition of Hamelin Pool stromatolites shares many similarities to that of Bahamian stromatolites despite differences in their external environments. Genetic analyses of microbial diversity in Hamelin Pool stromatolites have been conducted comparing different morphological types (macroscopic structure) of stromatolites versus microbial diversity among individual mat types as with Bahamian stromatolites (Allen et al., 2009). The reason is that Hamelin Pool stromatolites do not consist of specific mat types associated with dominant bacterial groups (Jahnert & Collins, 2012) (Figure 5). However, macroscopically Hamelin Pool stromatolites still have a laminar appearance.

Figure 5. Proposed sequence of Hamelin Pool stromatolite formation (A=pioneer community to D=climax community). Despite the lack of localization of particular bacterial populations in Hamelin Pool stromatolites, many similarities to Bahamian stromatolites can be found. A is similar in microbial composition to a Type 1 mat in Bahamian stromatolites due to the abundance of cyanobacteria on the top surface. B and C are similar to a Type 2 mat in Bahamian stromatolites due to micritic crust formation. D is similar to a Type 3 mat in Bahamian stromatolites due to the formation of aragonite infilled boreholes. Reprinted from Figure 16 A–D, Jahnert & Collins, 2012. The dominant bacterial species discovered in these stromatolites belong to the following groups: Proteobacteria, Planctomycetes, Actinobacteria (heterotrophic bacteria), and Bacteroidetes (Papineau et al., 2005; Goh et al., 2009; Allen et al., 2009). Most of the groups are the same as those found in Bahamian stromatolites, although individual species may differ between them (Table 1 and Figure 6). For example, Microcoleus sp. is the dominant cyanobacteria in contrast to Schizothrix and/or novel cyanobacteria that are dominant in Bahamian stromatolites (Allen et al., 2009). One of the main microbial contributors appears to be anoxygenic phototrophs like those belonging to the Proteobacteria group (Papineau et al., 2005). Anoxygenic photosynthesis does not result in the production of oxygen and is likely beneficial for the metabolism of heterotrophic bacteria that also play a major role in the formation of stromatolites. Halophilic archaea are also found in Hamelin Pool stromatolites and comprise about 10% of the microbial community (Goh et al., 2009). As with Bahamian stromatolites, Hamelin Pool stromatolites harbor many novel species of bacteria. For example, a novel halophilic archaea, Halococcus hamelinensis, has been identified (Goh et al., 2006).

Figure 6. Microbial diversity of Hamelin Pool stromatolites. A (pustular mat) and B (smooth mat) represent different morphological types of stromatolites. Reprinted from Figure 3, Allen et al., 2009. Role of Microbial Metabolic Activity in the Formation of Stromatolites Metabolic activities will be discussed in relation to Bahamian stromatolites as extensive research has been published in this area. Microbial composition of both Bahamian and Hamelin Pool stromatolites is similar, thus metabolic activities of the microorganisms are also likely similar even if the organization of the microorganisms is different.

Figure 7. Cycling of bacterial communities in Bahamian stromatolites resulting in the formation of Type 1 (a–b), 2 (c– e), and 3 (f–g) mats resulting in PML and stabilization of the stromatolite over time. Reprinted from Figure 2, Reid et al., 2000. Metabolic activities of microorganisms in the three different mat types result in growth of the stromatolite through the processes of precipitation, mineralization, and subsequent lithification (abbreviated PML for the sake of brevity). (Environmental factors also play a role and these will be discussed below.) A cycling process of mat types occurs at the surface of the stromatolite in relation to seasons and sedimentation rates. Type 1 mats represent pioneer communities that colonize the stromatolite surface during periods of sediment accretion (Reid et al., 2000) (Figures 7 and 8). Type 2 mats represent a biofilm community that colonizes the stromatolite surface during sediment hiatus (Reid et al., 2000) (Figures 7 and 8). PML in Type 2 mats results in the formation of micritic crusts.

Figure 8. Cross section of Type 1 mat (A, B), Type 2 mat (C, D), and Type 3 mat (E, F). A, C, and E are stereomicroscope images and B, D, and F are light microscope images. Arrow in C is pointing to the micritized crust formed as a result of the metabolic activity of abundant heterotrophic bacteria in this mat type. Arrow in E is pointing to fused sediment grains due to the boring activity of endolithic bacteria forming boreholes that are subsequently infilled. Reprinted from Figure 1 a–f, Baumgartner et al., 2009 Prolonged periods of sediment hiatus result in Type 3 mats representing a climax community that colonizes the stromatolite surface (Reid et al., 2000) (Figures 7 and 8). PML in Type 3 mats results from the welding or fusing together of sand grains that help stabilize the stromatolite. When sedimentation increases again and a Type 1 mat dominates the surface, Type 2 and 3 mats (now below the surface) are still metabolically active and continue to lithify, and thus stabilize the stromatolite (Visscher et al. 1998).

Figure 9. Cross-section of Bahamian stromatolite showing laminations. C brackets a Type 1 mat on the surface of the stromatolite. M with arrow points to micritic crust associated with a former surface Type 2 mat. F brackets a former surface Type 3 mat with endolithic bacteria. Reprinted from Figure 2 A and B, Visscher & Stolz, 2005.

Figure 10. Cross-section of Hamelin Pool stromatolite showing laminations. Reprinted from Plate 52, Figure 1a, Reid et al., 2003. Over time this cycling of surface mats gives the stromatolite a laminated appearance, with each lamina representing a former surface mat (this is also true for Hamelin Pool stromatolites) (Figures 9 and 10). Both Bahamian and Hamelin Pool stromatolites are believed to grow less than a millimeter a year (Jahnert & Collins, 2012). If the periodicity of the lamination could be determined then age estimates could be made for living stromatolites. Although the oldest living stromatolites are not considered to be more than a few thousand years old (Macintyre et al. 1996; Chivas et al. 1990), the periodicity of lamina formation is highly variable. This also lessens the possibility of determining the time period necessary to form ancient/fossil stromatolites. However, it seems possible that stromatolite formation could occur rapidly under certain environmental conditions that may lend support to their rapid formation during creation and the flood. Photosynthesis and aerobic respiration are the dominant metabolic activities of Type 1 mats (Visscher & Stolz, 2005). Cyanobacteria perform photosynthesis and actively fix carbon dioxide using light energy with the end result being the formation of various sugars. These sugars (polysaccharides) are secreted in copious amounts from the bacteria and form the extrapolymeric substance (EPS) (Riding, 2000). EPS composes the mucilaginous sheaths surrounding individual cyanobacteria. EPS is mucus-like or “sticky” and aids in bacterial attachment to substrates, protection, and nutrient absorption (Riding, 2000). EPS also traps calcium ions and sediments. Photosynthesis and concomitant geochemical reactions in the EPS lead to net calcium carbonate precipitation (Visscher & Stolz, 2005) (Figure 11). Figure 11. Chemical reactions resulting in calcium carbonate precipitation in Type 1 mats. Reprinted from Reaction 1, Visscher et al., 1998. Heterotrophic bacteria perform aerobic respiration and metabolize some of the EPS formed by the cyanobacteria (Visscher & Stolz 2005). Metabolism of EPS and concomitant geochemical reactions cause dissolution of the calcium carbonate (Visscher & Stolz, 2005) (Figure 12). There is little to no net calcium carbonate precipitation in Type 1 mats due to the balance of calcium carbonate precipitation and dissolution (Visscher & Stolz, 2005).

Figure 12. Chemical reactions resulting in calcium carbonate dissolution in Type 1 mats. Reprinted from Reaction 2, Visscher et al., 1998. Sulfate reduction is the dominant metabolic activity of heterotrophic bacteria in Type 2 mats. Sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB) quickly degrade the copious amounts of EPS formed by cyanobacteria (in both Type 1 and 2 mats) as their carbon and energy source. Since Type 2 mats usually form on top of Type 1 mats during a sediment hiatus this rich resource is readily available to them. EPS degradation also releases calcium (Dupraz & Visscher, 2005). Metabolism of EPS by SRB and concomitant geochemical reactions cause net precipitation of calcium carbonate (Dupraz et al., 2009) (Figure 13). Visscher et al. (2000) showed that sulfate reduction is directly correlated with calcium carbonate precipitation and the formation of micritic crusts in stromatolites.

Figure 13. Chemical reactions resulting in calcium carbonate precipitation in Type 2 mats. Reprinted from Reaction 3, Visscher et al., 1998. Lithification could be viewed as disadvantageous to microorganisms as they essentially become entombed in rock. However, there are advantages. In nutrient poor environments such as the open marine environment of the Bahamian stromatolites, this entombment essentially seals in nutrients and protects microorganisms from eukaryotic predators (Visscher & Stolz 2005). Another advantage comes from sulfate reduction and other reactions that result in calcium carbonate precipitation. These reactions result in the release of protons (H+) that form a proton gradient across the bacterial cell membrane (see previous equations). This generates a proton motive force that can be used by the bacteria for energy generation and other cellular processes (McConnaughey & Whelan 1997). The community of microorganisms working together in their respective “guilds” builds and lithifies the stromatolite for the purposes of protection, nutrition, and energy formation allowing microorganisms to survive in very harsh environments.

Figure 14. Light micrograph of Bahamian stromatolite. Arrow 1 points to the micritic crust. Arrow 2 points to a truncated micritized sand grain due to microboring. Arrow 3 points to fused or welded micritized sand grains that are believed to stabilize the stromatolite. Reprinted from Figure 3, Macintyre et al., 2000. Sulfate reduction is the dominant metabolic activity by heterotrophic bacteria in Type 3 mats (Reid et al. 2000) (Figure 13). This activity is closely associated with the boring activity of the endolithic cyanobacteria Solentia sp. Solentia bore through sand grains that have been deposited during periods of sediment accretion (previous surface Type 1 mats) (Figures 14 and 15). The endolithic cyanobacteria leave behind abundant amounts of EPS that are then metabolized by heterotrophic bacteria, mainly SRB, in the boreholes (Reid et al. 2000). This results in calcium carbonate precipitation and the formation of micritized sand grains (Macintyre et al. 2000). The calcium carbonate is typically in the form of aragonite needles that are clearly visible in the infilled boreholes (Macintyre et al. 2000 and Reid et al. 2000). The metabolic activity of the heterotrophs and subsequent precipitation is progressive as the cyanobacteria bore through the sand grains (Macintyre et al. 2000). The micritized sand grains become welded together as Solentia crosses between grains (Macintyre et al. 2000) (Figures 14 and 15). Boring, fusing and infilling are also observed in Hamelin Pool stromatolites (Goh et al. 2009; Jahnert & Collins 2012). Rather than boring being a destructive process it is actually a constructive, stabilizing, and preserving process due to the infilling and welding that accompanies the boring (Macintyre et al. 2000).

Figure 15. Scanning electron micrograph of Hamelin Pool stromatolite showing welding of micritized sand grains. Arrow points to infilled borehole that crosses the fusion point between the grains. Reprinted from Plate 48, Figure 1c, Reid et al., 2003. Role of Environmental Factors in the Formation of Stromatolites Metabolic activities of microorganisms are important factors in determining PML but environmental factors also play a role. A combination of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors leads to precipitation and mineralization resulting in lithification of the stromatolite. Although varied terminology is used to categorize factors leading to mineralization in stromatolites, we will use that of Dupraz et al. (2009) as it is the most comprehensive. Dupraz et al. (2009, p. 144) uses the term organomineralizationsensu lato to refer “to the process of mineral precipitation on an organic matrix, which is not genetically organized.” Organomineralization s.l. can be divided into two subcategories—biologically induced mineralization and biologically influenced mineralization (Dupraz et al. 2009) (Figure 16). and Oren (2005) using the terms active precipitation (biologically induced) and passive precipitation (biologically influenced) suggest a similar division of mineralization processes.

Figure 16. Classification of different types of biologically relevant mineralization. Organomineralization sensu stricto is represented in the first column on the left (not discussed in this paper) and organomineralization sensu lato is represented in the middle column and column on the right. Reprinted and adapted from Figure 2, Dupraz et al., 2009. Biologically induced mineralization is the direct result of microbial metabolism changing the forms and balance of organic carbon (i.e. CO2 and carbohydrates) leading to conditions that result in calcium carbonate precipitation (Dupraz et al. 2009) (Figure 16), and was discussed in the previous section. Biologically influenced mineralization consists of environmental factors that are extrinsic to the microorganisms (Dupraz et al. 2009) (Figure 17). The so-called “alkalinity engine” determines carbonate alkalinity and is a major factor determining calcium carbonate precipitation. It is influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Dupraz et al. 2009) (Figure 17). Intrinsic factors come from the microorganisms themselves (see previous section). Two major extrinsic factors are evaporation of water leading to the formation of evaporites and CO2 degassing (Dupraz et al. 2009) (Figure 17). Evaporites are salt deposits that can be composed of carbonate precipitates (Dupraz et al. 2009).

Figure 17. Effect of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the alkalinity engine resulting in calcium carbonate precipitation and mineralization of the organic matrix mainly composed of the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS). Reprinted from Figure 4, Dupraz et al., 2009. CO2 degassing (removal) causes a shift that favors calcium carbonate precipitation (Dupraz et al. 2009).

Both biologically induced and biologically influenced processes work together to create microenvironments that favor precipitation of calcium carbonate. Interestingly, normal seawater is supersaturated in relation to calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and dolomite (Ca,Mg(CO3)2) and therefore should spontaneously precipitate out of solution (Wright & Oren 2005). This is commonly referred to as the “dolomite problem.” Wright and Oren (2005) point out that certain kinetic barriers (i.e. the high enthalpy of hydration of the Mg2+ and Ca2+ions) are in place to prevent the spontaneous precipitation of calcium carbonate. In the stromatolite it is believed that SRB remove these kinetic barriers and saturate the area around the cells with respect to carbonate (Wright & Oren 2005). This coupled with the release of calcium from the degradation of EPS (again mainly by SRB) and the “alkalinity engine” increasing calcium carbonate alkalinity results in a microenvironment that is favorable to calcium carbonate and dolomite precipitation. Another aspect of the stromatolite microenvironment that mediates precipitation and mineralization is the organic matrix consisting mainly of the EPS (secreted by cyanobacteria). The EPS serves as a template or scaffold on which precipitation nucleates (begins) and grows (Dupraz et al. 2009) (Figure 18). The EPS matrix is replaced with small carbonate nanospherulites that are the result of precipitation and serve as a nucleation point for further crystal growth (Dupraz et al. 2009). Figure 18. Effect of biologically induced and biologically influenced mineralization on the organomineralization of the EPS. Reprinted from Figure 6, Dupraz et al., 2009. The organomineralization of the EPS is affected by biologically induced and biologically influenced factors (Dupraz et al. 2009) (Figure 18). As discussed previously, the EPS is degraded by SRB freeing calcium. In addition, the area in and around the EPS is supersaturated with respect to calcium thus favoring calcium carbonate precipitation (Dupraz et al. 2009) (Figure 18). Distinctive calcium carbonate mineralogies associated with organomineralization (and typically not inorganic processes) are aragonite, calcite, monohydrocalcite, vaterite, and high Mg-calcite to Ca-dolomite (Dupraz et al. 2009). Kawaguchi and Decho (2002) found abundant aragonite needles embedded in the EPS matrix. Distinctive crystal morphologies associated with organomineralization (and not inorganic processes) are smooth rhombs, needles, dumbbells, spherulites, and nanometer spheroids (Dupraz et al. 2009) (Figure 16). These mineralogies and crystal morphologies are abundant in stromatolites indicating again the necessity of microorganisms and biological activity for the formation and lithification of stromatolites. Understanding the processes of precipitation and mineralization resulting in lithification in living stromatolites is essential to develop criteria to determine the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites. For example, precipitation and mineralization occur as a result of degradation and modification of the amorphous EPS. Since precipitation and mineralization are not directly associated with bacterial structures (such as cyanobacterial sheaths) it may greatly diminish the number of microfossils associated with fossil stromatolites. Therefore, the absence of microfossils in fossil stromatolites is not necessarily an indicator that abiogenic processes formed them. Developing Criteria to Determine the Biogenecity of Fossil Stromatolites Given the general absence of microbial fossils within most fossil stromatolitic structures, it clearly is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to prove beyond question that the vast majority of reported fossil stromatolites, even those of the Proterozoic, are assuredly biogenic. Yet the Proterozoic stromatolites are so widespread and abundant (800 taxa in more than 600 stromatolitic rock units are known worldwide [Altermann 2004]), and their biological interpretation now seems to be firmly backed by studies of microbial communities cellularly preserved in Proterozoic cherty stromatolites (e.g., Mendelson & Schopf 1992; Schopf et al. 2005), so that many stromatolite workers believe that most are products of biological activity.

Figure 19. Stromatolite-containing Archean geologic units, the check marks denoting occurrences of conical stromatolites (after Schopf 2006). In the Archean rock record, the problem of proving the biogenicity of such structures presents a greater challenge, due chiefly to the paucity of exposed Archean sedimentary strata (found only in the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia and the Barberton Greenstone Belt of South Africa and Swaziland) and the correspondingly small number of known occurrences of stromatolites (48 thus far) and preserved microbial assemblages (Figure 19) (Schopf et al. 2007). Nevertheless, Archean stromatolites are now established to have been more abundant and decidedly more diverse than was appreciated even a few years ago—40 morphotypes in fourteen Archean rock units (Hofmann 2000; Schopf 2006). Virtually all such structures that have been reported have also been studied in detail in Proterozoic stromatolites. Thus the interpretation of the biogenicity of Archean forms, and the differentiation of such structures from abiotic look-alikes, is based on the same criteria as those applied to stromatolites of documented biogenicity in the younger Precambrian (including analyses of their laminar microstructure, morphogenesis, mineralogy, diagenetic alteration, and more—e.g., Buick et al. 1981; Walter 1983; Hofmann 2000). All 48 occurrences of Archean stromatolites are regarded by those who reported them as meeting the biology- centered definition for stromatolites. Others have also similarly studied living stromatolites in order to establish criteria for determining the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites. Their rationale, like ours, is that the characteristics observed in living stromatolites would be expected to be found in fossil stromatolites. In the geologic record there are of course non-stromatolitic rocks that contain the same bacterial body microfossils as found in some fossil stromatolites, so that begs the question as to whether the bacterial body microfossils always indicate a genetic connection between the bacteria that left the microfossils and the sedimentary and stromatolite structures. So there will always be a measure of subjectivity in using any list of criteria. Nevertheless, the final decision as to whether a fossil stromatolite is of biogenic origin will likely be determined on whether most of the identification criteria have been satisfied. Certainly, the presence of bacterial body microfossils in a fossil stromatolite has been regarded as logically desirable for it to be classed as of biogenic origin. Known living stromatolites generally consist of carbonate sand-sized particles that have micritic laminae and crusts, whereas Precambrian fossil stromatolites generally consist of only very fine-grained micrite (calcium carbonate mud crystals <4 microns in diameter) (Riding 2000). While this difference could be used to question the biogenicity of the Precambrian stromatolites, it should be remembered that this difference is reflected in a comparable difference between the composition and constituents of modern and Precambrian sediments. Indeed, micritic textures are uncommon in most modern environments (not just stromatolite environments), whereas micritic textures are common in most fossil sediments (not just in stromatolites). There have thus been numerous recent attempts to establish a set of criteria by which the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites may be determined, and these are now supported by appropriate diagnostic techniques (Grotzinger & Knoll 1999; Altermann 2004, 2008; Schopf 2004, 2006; Awramik & Grey 2005; Schopf et al. 2007; Noffke 2009). Our study of living stromatolites, and the work done by others to establish the biogenicity of various fossil stromatolites, has been used to assess and compile the following set of criteria. Among the crucial criteria for a fossil stromatolite to be of biogenic origin it must: Show a preferred orientation to the bedding of the sedimentary layer it is in; Show evidence of having been formed penecontemporaneously and synchronously with the sediment in the bed in which it is found, such as the layering within the fossil stromatolite consists of mineral grains that also constitute a major component of the sediments in the host bed; Be found in sedimentary rocks from the appropriate apparent depositional paleoenvironment, such as laminated limestones composed of lime silts, and cherts characteristic of peritidal and evaporitic carbonate environments; Be morphologically similar to living stromatolites in terms of the shape and geometry of its laminae having continuity across other structures; Have present within its laminae fossilized microbes with morphology (appropriate size and shape) consistent with microbes found in modern counterparts; Have associated microbial fossils that have the chemical composition of carbonaceous kerogen (and not graphite); and Have associated microbial fossils that have a carbon isotopic signature which matches the modern organisms with that morphology. A systematic examination of fossil stromatolites applying these criteria to determine which are biogenic and which are not (Snelling, in prep.) is beyond the space and scope of this study. For our present purpose, having determined the suitable criteria to establish the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites, it will suffice to show that a sufficient number of Archean fossil stromatolites, including some of the oldest recognized occurrences, have been reasonably established as of biogenic origin. Those Archean fossil stromatolites of biogenic origin then are critical in understanding all fossil stromatolites of biogenic origin in the creation-flood framework of earth history (see below).

Figure 20. Carbon isotopic values of carbonate and organic carbon measured in bulk samples of the seven oldest microfossiliferous units known (after Strauss & Moore 1992; Schopf 2004). The fossil stromatolites of the 3496 Ma Dresser Formation (in the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia) are the oldest known (Figure 19), and yet they have been established to be of biogenic origin due to their associated microfossils. Furthermore, these associated microbial fossils have the chemical composition of carbonaceous kerogen and have a carbon isotopic signature which matches similar modern microbes (Strauss & Moore 1992; Schopf 2004) (Figure 20), thus fulfilling criteria 5–7 above. Then in the case of the Archean 3430 Ma Strelley Pool chert (also in the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia) (Figure 19) a variety of fossil stromatolite morphotypes occur together in a pattern consistent with an interpreted stromatolitic reef ecosystem (Allwood et al. 2006, 2007). So coupled with the presence of associated fossilized microbes well-established by the chemical composition of the kerogen and their carbon isotopic signature (Figure 20), both of which are diagnostic (Schopf 2004, 2006; Schopf et al. 2007), the biogenicity of these Archean stromatolites would seem to be very firmly established. Conical structures have been recorded in seventeen of the 48 units listed in Figure 19 (Hofmann 2000; Schopf 2006). Present in more than one-third of these deposits, notably including the 3430 Ma Strelley Pool chert (Hofmann et al. 1999; Allwood et al. 2006, 2007) and the Kromberg Formation (in the Barberton Greenstone Belt of South Africa and Swaziland) (Hofmann 2000), such coniform stromatolites appear to constitute a special case, distinctive structures evidently requiring for their formation both highly motile microbial mat builders and penecontemporaneous mineral precipitation (Grotzinger & Knoll 1999; Hofmann et al. 1999; Schopf 2006). Thus, Archean conical stromatolites, especially the conical structures found in the stromatolitic reef of the Strelley Pool chert, that can only have been produced by mat-building microbes because of there being no known sedimentological way of mimicking them, makes the biogenicity of these Archean fossilized stromatolites seem almost certain. For some time stromatolite researchers thought that the microstructure of stromatolites was definitive for determining their biogenicity until more and more abiotic processes were found to create more and more stromatolite-looking textures (Lowe 1994; Grotzinger and Rothman 1996; Hladil 2005; Brasier et al. 2006). As a result, microstructures as a single crucial criterion for the biogenicity of stromatolites have become less and less persuasive, and so they should be considered non- definitive. However, as noted earlier, since precipitation and mineralization are not directly associated with bacterial structures (such as cyanobacterial sheaths) it may greatly diminish the number of microfossils associated with fossil stromatolites, and therefore the absence of microfossils in fossil stromatolites is not necessarily an indicator that abiogenic processes formed them. Thus the similarity in microstructures between modern stromatolites and Precambrian fossil stromatolites can still be a useful guide to gauge whether a fossil stromatolite warrants further investigation to find associated fossil microbes that might then help establish its biogenicity. There is still the problem though of establishing a causal link between the microfossils found in fossil stromatolites and the building of the stromatolites themselves. Instead of the associated fossil microbes being the builders of the fossil stromatolites that enclose them, it could be argued that the original microbes were trapped in the stromatolite structures when they were being built by abiotic sedimentary processes. Nevertheless, the overall morphology (shape and size) of the stromatolites themselves, rather than just their internal microstructures (e.g. laminations), can still be a useful criterion for establishing the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites. For example, Wise and Snelling (2005) described a fossilized stromatolite reef in the Neoproterozoic Kwagunt Formation of the eastern Grand Canyon, consisting of in situ grown stromatolites side- by-side, and they concluded that these stromatolites were of biogenic origin. They did not see the need to demonstrate any causal link between the microfossils also found in the enclosing sediments and the stromatolites in this fossilized reef, because the morphology of the stromatolites and their relationship to one another in the reef were sufficient to establish the biogenicity of these stromatolites. Well-established microfossil and stromatolite associations are found throughout Proterozoic rock sequences, and again, while a causal relationship is difficult to establish, the biogenic origin of most Proterozoic stromatolites by microbial mat activity is not questioned, due to the morphology of the stromatolites in their sedimentary contexts being comparatively similar to modern living stromatolites, even though today’s microbial mat-builders are often not identical to the fossil microbes sometimes found associated with the fossil stromatolites. Thus the listed criteria are not individually diagnostic of the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites. However, collectively they have enabled the likelihood of the biogenicity of many Precambrian stromatolites to be established. This process has been enhanced by the availability of newer technology to detect, identify and analyze the microbial fossils being found associated with an increasing number of fossil stromatolites (Schopf 2004; Schopf et al. 2005; Schopf 2006). Yet even though there are still many Precambrian fossil stromatolites whose biogenicity is thus far not firmly established, the fact that several of the oldest Archean fossil stromatolites have had their biogenicity well-established means that our efforts to understand and place Precambrian fossil stromatolites within the creation framework of earth history is not dependent on establishing the biogenicity of every Precambrian fossil stromatolite. Understanding Fossil Stromatolites in the creation-flood Framework Since the biogenicity of many Archean stromatolites has now been well established in the relevant literature, it is important to grapple with how and where they fit within the creation framework of earth history. Added to that is the compelling evidence of stromatolitic reefs that grew in place due to microbial activity as far back as 3430 Ma in the conventional geologic timescale. Wise and Snelling (2005) discussed the options for when Precambrian fossil stromatolites may have formed and under what conditions. However, in the case of a given stromatolite all three could be true (a created fossil core, an initially created living stromatolite structure, and subsequent post-creation growth). Furthermore, the creation of a “fully functioning entity” would seem, almost by definition to have involved the creation of a fossil core and allowed for post- creation growth. These thus do not seem to be mutually exclusive possibilities. Each of these options has its difficulties. Is it reasonable to assume that Archean stromatolite reef would have been created in fossil form? If such a fossil stromatolites are already created in fossil form, logically it could be postulated that all the fossils are created as they are. Where then in the geologic record would the fossils have changed from those directly created , to those produced by living creatures being buried and fossilized? Yet at some point this must seriously be considered as a possibility in the young-earth creationist model. The second logical possibility is that the stromatolites were created alive as fully functioning entities and then they were buried subsequently by ongoing sedimentary processes. However, given that above the earliest Archean (3.5 Ga) fossil stromatolites in the Western Australian Dresser Formation there is a very thick and extensive Precambrian rock sequence that also contains fossil stromatolites, including stromatolite reef structures spanning from other early Archean stromatolites through to those in the Neoproterozoic (Allwood et al. 2006, 2007; Wise & Snelling 2005), at what point in this strata record ,the first fully functional living stromatolites were created ? If only the earliest fossil stromatolites are created , those in the lower Archean rock units, then it might be argued that all those fossil stromatolites in the overlying rock units in these thick Precambrian rock sequences would have to have formed by “normal” secondary (natural) processes, which would seem to require an enormous timespan. Then again, there is the likelihood that some (or even many) of those overlying sediments were formed by reworking of previous sediments, and thus the stromatolites could similarly be reworked. The third logical possibility is that the mat-building microbes were only created , and they then built the first stromatolites that were then buried and fossilized in the Dresser Formation. This possibility is only a small modification of the second possibility just discussed, with a small step back in time to be created just the mat-building microbes rather than the complete stromatolites in a fully functioning reef. This possibility then requires an enormous timespan for all the subsequent stromatolites and stromatolite reefs fossilized in the thick overlying Precambrian rock sequences to grow and then be buried and fossilized, and/or be reworked. The choice between these options therefore would seem somewhat arbitrary, since a case could be argued for each. But the difficulty of deciphering at what point in the fossil record is the boundary between the created fossils and then the fossils which formed from creatures that lived and were subsequently buried would seem to rule out the first option. Since the second and third options are closely similar, a fully developed completed entities are created that appear to have been produced (according to human experience) by secondary processes ,then it might be considered reasonable to start with the working hypothesis that the first stromatolites are created as fully functioning living entities. This also makes good sense, in that when the soil were created on the land surface the microbes would have also be created in the soil that are part of that fully functioning ecosystem (i.e. as part of the entity they are created in). In the creation geologic model of earth history proposed by Snelling (2009) it is postulated that the earliest rocks of the geologic record were created and put in place along with the earth’s fundamental internal structure. We are not told what was under those globe-covering waters of those first two days, so we can propose the possibility of the first rocks making the earth’s earliest crust, which may have even included marine sediments covering a crystalline basement. Under a global ocean today one would expect marine sediments covering the ocean floor, and in shallower areas these sediments would be carbonates, even containing microbes. So if fully functioning entities were created then it is reasonable to postulate that the first fully functioning stromatolites could have been created with mat-building microbes, quite likely even including stromatolite reefs, with the sediments blanketing the global ocean floor. This is consistent with creating creating soil microbes in the soils . If the gathering of the waters covering the earth into one place and formed the dry land, such actions required catastrophic earth movements to create and uplift a supercontinent. As the supercontinent breached the global ocean, the waters covering the emerging supercontinent were swept aside, and as they drained away they catastrophically eroded that emerging land surface. The sediments carried by those retreating waters in this “Great Regression” would have been deposited at the margins of the supercontinent, with diminishing quantities being spread thinly over the ocean floors around the rest of the globe. Since the emerging land surface would have originally been ocean floor covered in sediments, including carbonates with stromatolites and stromatolite reefs, then these would also have been eroded and reworked. We may thus conjecture the possibility of continued catastrophic deposition from the retreating sediment-laden waters of the Great Regression beyond the continental margins through the the early part of the pre-Flood era. Such catastrophic deposition would accomplish the rapid accumulation of the thick Archean to mid-Proterozoic sedimentary strata sequences, including entombed stromatolites and microbes, before quieter conditions prevailed offshore, where renewed growth of stromatolites and stromatolite reefs began again as mat-building microbes re-established themselves on and in the shallow offshore carbonate sediments. This implies that the immense thick sequences of Precambrian sediments enclosing many repeated levels in which stromatolites are found fossilized over wide geographic areas can be fitted into the time period from the creation through the 1650 or so years of the pre-Flood era. This requires mechanisms for both the accumulation of those thick Precambrian sedimentary strata sequences enclosing and fossilizing many stromatolites, microbes and stromatolite reefs reworked from those created prior to the Regression growing in and on the carbonate sediments of the first global ocean floor, and then for subsequent penecontemporaneous and synchronous growth of stromatolites, microbes and stromatolite reefs in the quieter pre-Flood era offshore conditions, some also being buried and fossilized as pre-Flood sedimentation continued. This proposed scenario then raises the question as to where in the geologic record the pre-Flood era boundary might be placed. The Archean-Proterozoic geologic record preserves evidence of the activities of those springs and fountains (Snelling 2009). If these springs and fountains were initiated by the catastrophic earth movements when the uplifted pre- Flood supercontinent formed and these waters were therefore initially very hot from the magmatic activity associated with those earth movements, then this would be reflected in the geologic record accumulated in this dynamic period through the latter part of the creation. That the waters of these fountains and springs were hot and therefore mineral-laden is evidenced by the uniquely Proterozoic, massive banded iron formations (BIFs), volcanic and volcaniclastic strata, and the thick carbonate sedimentary units with their enclosed fossil stromatolites. Since these BIFs are unique to this section of the geologic record (Snelling 2009), it could be argued that they represent a unique period in earth’s history. And since their arguably rapid accumulation was accompanied by massive outpourings of volcanics and explosive volcaniclastics, it may be feasible to equate these and the BIFs as having accumulated rapidly during the dynamic period of the Great Regression and its aftermath through the remainder of the creation. This would then place the creation-pre-flood era boundary some place in the geologic record above these BIFs, perhaps even as high as the Paleoproterozoic-Mesoproterozoic boundary (1.6 Ga) (Gradstein et al. 2012). Wise (2003) proposed that there were extensive fringing stromatolite reefs around the pre-Flood supercontinent. The reef- to-land “lagoon” was probably at least hundreds of kilometers wide, based upon the distribution of the extensive carbonate platforms on which carbonate sedimentary units accumulated during the Precambrian. These stromatolite reefs constituted a stromatolite-hydrothermal biome that only flourished in the pre-Flood era. The hot waters of the fountains and springs not only provided the nutrients for the rapid growth of the microbes responsible for building these fringing stromatolite reefs and the associated stromatolites that grew within the enclosed shallow lagoon waters, but also the voluminous dissolved minerals that were precipitated to accumulate the thick carbonate sedimentary units that entombed and fossilized the stromatolites. The Neoproterozoic Kwagunt Formation stromatolite reef described by Wise and Snelling (2005) would be the fossilized remains of an example of this pre-Flood stromatolite-hydrothermal biome. The break-up of the pre-Flood supercontinent during the terminal Neoproterozoic at the initiation of the Flood would then have marked the almost complete demise of living stromatolites. The Flood cataclysm began with the breaking up of those fountains of the great deep, the collapse of the margins of the pre-Flood supercontinent, and the rifting of the supercontinent and the ocean basins. The Flood cataclysm then reshaped the earth’s surface as it deposited the Phanerozoic geologic record and entombed macrofossils in it. During the catastrophic conditions of the year-long Flood there were not sufficiently long timespans available for microbial activity on transient surfaces to develop into living and growing stromatolites of any significant thickness or geographic extent. This would explain the almost complete lack of fossil stromatolites of any significant thickness or geographic extent in the Paleozoic-Mesozoic strata record of the Flood catastrophe. The microbes which survived through the Flood then re-established their mat-building activities to again grow stromatolites during the waning stages of the Flood through to the present, as seen in the uppermost part of the Phanerozoic strata and fossil records. In the present world living stromatolite remnants are rare and geographically isolated. Conclusion Today’s rare stromatolites are being built by the metabolism of bacterial microbes in mat communities at the sediment surface-water interface in a few geographically isolated locations. Growth is by sediment grain trapping and binding principally by precipitation of calcium carbonate, resulting in a distinctive cyclical laminar microstructure as the microbial mats repeatedly re-establish themselves at the sediment-water interface. This laminar microstructure and the mat-building microbes are the distinctive features of living stromatolites that are essential criteria in determining whether the relatively abundant Archean-Proterozoic (conventionally 3500–541 Ma) fossil stromatolites are likewise of biogenic origin. A robust set of biogenicity criteria have been established, which include the identification of microbial fossils associated with fossil stromatolites that should be composed of kerogen and have an appropriate carbon isotope signature. Powerful diagnostic techniques that can establish the identity of genuine microfossils have thus confirmed the biogenicity of many genuine fossil stromatolites, and even stromatolitic reefs, as far back in the strata record as the lower Archean (conventionally dated as early as 3496 Ma). Within the creation framework of earth history microbes, fully functioning stromatolites and even stromatolite reefs may have been created, as an integral component of the carbonate sediments on the floor of the global ocean. During the Great Regression those carbonate sediments, stromatolites and stromatolite reefs could have then been eroded and reworked to be deposited in subsequent sedimentary rock layers, thus accounting for their occurrence in the thick Precambrian sequences. Once re-established in the pre-Flood era, mat-building microbes and stromatolites then flourished in reefs fringing the pre-Flood supercontinent and in the wide lagoons they enclosed, first as sediments were rapidly deposited off the pre-Flood supercontinent’s margins after the land emerged, and then continuing on through the pre-Flood era. Their rapid proliferation was facilitated by the mineral-laden hot waters from fountains and springs, which also precipitated the stromatolite-fossilizing extensive thick carbonate strata. The onset of the Flood cataclysm marked the demise of living stromatolites. Unable to establish themselves and grow during the devastation of the Flood, today’s rare stromatolites are still being built by those mat-building microbes that survived in a few isolated places with conditions suitable for their growth. Order in the Fossil Record by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on January 1, 2010; last featured November 3, 2010

Some creationists believe that the geological column is a figment of evolutionists’ imagination. Yet by visiting places like the Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase region, you can literally climb through the rock layers and see the sequence and patterns of the layers firsthand. The rock layers are real and can be explained within the creation framework of earth history. Shop Now Some creationists believe that the fossil record, as depicted in geologic column diagrams, does not represent reality. This assessment is usually based on the unfortunate claim that the geologic column is only theoretical, having been constructed by matching up rock layers from different areas of the world that contain similar fossils.1 They also believe that the layers were arranged based on an assumed evolutionary order of fossils, so they conclude that the whole concept of the geologic column and the order of rock layers must be totally rejected.2 To the contrary, we can walk across various regions of the earth and observe that the rock layers and the fossils contained therein generally match what is depicted in the widely accepted geologic column diagrams. Furthermore, creationists can be greatly encouraged by the fact that the order and patterns of the fossil occurrences are predicted by, and can be explained according to, the creation framework of earth history. The Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase Rock Layers Sequence The best way to begin evaluating these claims is to examine a geographic region where the rock layers and fossils are well exposed and well studied. A spectacular example is the Colorado Plateau of the southwestern USA, and more specifically, the Grand Canyon— Grand Staircase rock layers sequence. The sequence of rock layers in this region is depicted in Figure 1.3, 4 The diagram shows how the topography moves up from the Grand Canyon through a series of cliffs called the Grand Staircase to the Bryce Canyon area at the highest elevation. Some 15,000 feet (4.6 km) of sedimentary layers are stacked on top of one another: 5,000 feet (1.5 km) in the walls of the Grand Canyon and 10,000 feet (3 km) in the Grand Staircase. (The standard geologic column diagram labels the Grand Canyon rock layers as Precambrian and Paleozoic, and the Grand Staircase rock layers as Mesozoic and Cenozoic, as shown on Figure 1.) Order of the Rock Layers is Real, Figures 1 through 3. Click the picture to view a larger, pdf version. The diagrams in Figure 1 provide more details about individual sedimentary rock layers, including the names assigned to them for easy reference. These names usually have two components. The first is a local feature, such as an Indian tribe (e.g., Supai), and the second component is the type of sedimentary rock in the layer, such as limestone, sandstone, or shale. So, for example, the “Redwall Limestone” is named for the distinctive red cliff (or wall) made of limestone. If a layer includes a variety of different sediments at different levels, it is termed a formation, such as “Toroweap Formation.” Walking in the area, we can see other obvious patterns. When similar rock layers are always found together in outcrops and hills, they are called a group. The Supai Group, for example, consists of four other named layers: the Esplanade Sandstone, the Wescogame Formation, the Manakacha Formation, and the Watahomigi Formation. No matter which direction you go in the Colorado Plateau, wherever you find one of these layers, the other three appear in the same sequence as well. It seems trite to say it, but the names for these rock layers represent real places and patterns! Any keen observer could literally hike (and climb) from the bottom of Grand Canyon up its walls and on up the Grand Staircase, inspecting each layer and noting how they are progressively stacked on top of one another all the way to the top of Bryce Canyon. You don’t have to rely on the fossils contained in these sedimentary rock layers, or any evolutionary assumptions, to conclude that this local geologic strata column, as depicted in Figure 1, is tangible and real. These rock layers are observable data, so the diagram is not some figment of evolutionary bias based on “the fossil content of their rocks.”5 The Order in This Fossil Record Now that the physical reality of this local rock column has been established, we must conclude that the fossils contained in these rock layers are also a valid record of the order that creatures were progressively buried within each successive sedimentary layer. At the bottom of the Grand Canyon, the first sedimentary layers are those of the Unkar Group and the Chuar Group (Figure 1, Grand Canyon). These sedimentary layers were deposited on top of the “crystalline basement” rocks, which were created by volcanic activity (granites) and the transformation of other sedimentary and volcanic layers by heat and pressure (metamorphics). Obviously these sedimentary layers of the Unkar and Chuar Groups were horizontal when originally deposited, but subsequent earth movements tilted them. Most creationist geologists believe that upheaval coincides with the onset of the Flood. At the top of all these rocks, running the length of the whole canyon, is a prominent erosion surface, where the Flood waters violently eroded all pre-existing (pre-Flood) rocks, as the water rose up from the oceans to advance over the continents.6 Above this erosion surface is the Tapeats Sandstone, which represents one of the earliest layers of sediment deposited by the Flood. The boulders found at its base (Figure 2) are testimony to the catastrophic violence of the onset of the Flood. Patterns in This Fossil Record If we truly find a clear order of sedimentary layers, then we would expect to be able to look at the fossils contained in each of these layers and find patterns that give us clues about why the creatures were deposited in this particular sequence. The best way to do that is to see a list of the fossils found in each of the main layers, as in Figure 3.7 A careful examination of this list reveals the order in which creatures were buried by the Flood.

Fossil Patterns Show the Order of Flood Deposits, Figures 4 through 6. Click the picture to view a larger, pdf version. Pre-Flood Single-Cell Fossils. It is hardly surprising that the fossils found in the pre- Flood Chuar Group don’t require catastrophic burial to form. The one-celled organisms in these layers, such as algae that form mounds (called stromatolites), required calm environmental conditions for burial and fossilization. Even today, algae build these structures, called stromatolites, only in calm conditions. Shallow Marine Invertebrates of the Seafloor. Trilobites, brachiopods, and other shallow marine invertebrates are the first creatures to be buried in the first sedimentary layers of the Flood—the Tapeats, Bright Angel, and Muav. Fish. It is not until the Temple Butte Limestone that fish remains are found. Note, however, that the marine invertebrates are found buried at almost every level in this fossil record. This is consistent with the ocean waters rising and washing across the continents during the Flood, carrying these marine creatures with the sediments in which they were buried.8 Land Plants and Reptile Footprints. Next note that the first land plants are found buried in the Supai Group, where the fossilized footprints of amphibians and reptiles are also found. Fossils of Land Vertebrates. Interestingly, the first fossilized bodies of land vertebrates (reptiles in the Moenkopi Formation) are not found buried until much higher than the footprints. Dinosaurs are found even higher, in the Moenave Formation. Mammals aren’t found buried until right at the top of this sequence of rock layers. Remember, this is a burial during the Flood. As the Flood waters inundated the continents, the shallow marine invertebrates were first swept from the pre-Flood ocean floors and buried on the continents in rapid succession. After the waters rose over the continents, they progressively encountered different ecological zones at different elevations, which were inundated in rapid succession.9, 10 Evolutionary Order or Flood Sequence? The conventional explanation of the fossil order is progressive evolutionary changes over long periods of time. But this explanation runs into a huge challenge. Evolution predicts that new groups of creatures would have arisen in a specific order. But if you compare the order that these creatures first appear in the actual fossil record, as opposed to their theoretical first appearance in the predictions, then over 95% of the fossil record’s “order” can best be described as random.11 On the other hand, if these organisms were buried by the Flood waters, the order of first appearance should be either random, due to the sorting effects of the Flood, or reflect the order of ecological burial. In other words, as the Flood waters rose, they would tend to bury organisms in the order that they were encountered, so the major groups should appear in the fossil record according to where they lived, and not when they lived. This is exactly what we find, including this fossil record within the Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase. You can also see another interesting pattern that confirms what we would expect from a global Flood. You would expect many larger animals to survive the Flood waters initially, leaving their tracks in the accumulating sediment layers as they tried to escape the rising waters. But eventually they would become exhausted, die, and get buried. What do we find? In the Tapeats Sandstone are fossilized tracks of trilobites scurrying across the sand, but fossilized remains of their bodies do not appear until higher up, at the transition into the Bright Angel Shale (Figure 4). Similarly, we find fossilized footprints of amphibians and reptiles in places that are much lower (in the Supai Group, Hermit Shale, and Coconino Sandstone, Figure 5) than the fossils of their bodies (in the Moenkopi Formation). Conclusion At the Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase strata sequence, both the column of sedimentary rock layers and the fossils are observable and real. The stacked layers throughout this region appear in a definite order. They contain fossils in a recognizable order, too, reflecting the order in which the organisms were buried during the Flood. Indeed, the pattern of first appearances doesn’t fit the expected evolutionary order but instead is consistent with the rising Flood waters, as they inundated the continents. Furthermore, even the pattern of finding tracks before bodies is consistent with creatures surviving in the initial Flood waters before eventually perishing. So the geologic column and the fossils’ order and patterns agree with the creation framework of earth history. Fossilized Footprints—A Dinosaur Dilemma by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on October 1, 2010

Cool! dinosaur tracks! How can today’s slow-and-gradual geologic processes over millions of years explain the preservation of delicate impressions in mud before they are washed away? Does the Flood provide a better explanation? Shop Now Thousands of dinosaur footprints have been found in the geologic record, often in long trackways of successive left and right footprints. With the help of these clues, paleontologists have deciphered many details about the behavior of these fascinating creatures.1 2 3 4 Who Has a Dilemma? Dinosaur footprints create an apparent dilemma for creationists. How could they ever be made and fossilized during the Flood?5 After all, with the Flood waters covering the entire earth, the dinosaurs would have nowhere to walk. Even if they did, the churning waters would erode away any footprints left behind. Secular geologists and skeptics often raise this question and are sometimes scathing in their mockery. creation geologists, on the other hand, say it is the conventional geologists who, in fact, face a dilemma. If geologic change takes place slowly, surely footprints made in mud would be obliterated by wind and rain long before the prints were covered by new sediments and hardened into rock. So who has a dilemma? To find out, let’s explore a specific case of fossilized dinosaur footprints discovered in Israel. A Pertinent Example

Photo courtesy Dr. Snelling Figure 1 Left foot–right foot sequence of fossilized footprints. Just west of Jerusalem is the village of Beit Zeit. There on an exposed rock pavement, a left foot–right foot sequence of fossilized footprints is clearly evident (Figure 1). In a closer view the imprints of three long toes are plainly visible (Figure 2). Perhaps the most interesting clue about the formation of these footprints is the type of rock in which they are found. It is a unique type of carbonate rock similar to limestone, called dolomite. We see various types of limestone forming today, but dolomite requires unique conditions to form, as determined in the laboratory. Dolomite forms today only in small quantities and only in extreme environments where dinosaurs could not possibly have lived, such as hot springs and desert salt flats.6 All other theoretical environments where dolomite might form are likewise not places where dinosaurs could live (such as hyper-salty lakes and oceans with unusual chemistry). So conventional geologists, who believe that the present is the key to the past, would not expect to find dinosaur prints in dolomite. The best explanation they can suggest is that, for some reason, a dinosaur walked across an intertidal mudflat in an arid region (where there was nothing for him to eat!).

Photo courtesy Dr. Snelling Figure 2 Three long toes clearly visible. The problem is complicated by the vast scale of the rock deposits. The dinosaur prints are found in the lower section of a thick sequence of alternating layers of dolomite and limestone, half a mile thick (2,600 feet or 800 m), collectively called the Judea Group.7 Jerusalem sits on the Judea Group, which includes Mount Zion and the Temple Mount (Mount Moriah). A “group” in geology is not based on rocks in a relatively small area but a pile of rocks identifiable over a very large region. Since it is a group, we must conclude that these thick limestones and dolomites in Israel were formed over a vast region.8 The only known way to produce large quantities of limestone, such as we find in the Judea Group, is an ocean environment. The “easiest” way to form widespread dolomites, too, is an ocean, but the water must be of unusual chemistry. So the Judea Group probably formed in a vast ocean sitting over the entire region. This wasn’t an optimum place for dinosaurs to live! The Conventional Wisdom So, how did the dinosaurs make these footprints under the ocean? Everyone agrees that the dinosaurs were land-dwellers. So conventional geologists cannot explain why they were walking across an ocean floor. Furthermore, even if the dinosaurs somehow left footprints in soft dolomite mud on a shallow ocean floor, how would the water-saturated sediment harden to fossilize the footprints? This can be done in only two ways: by exposing the sediment to the air so that the water evaporates from the mud, or by burying the mud so that the overlying sediments squeeze the water out of the mud. Explaining the Dolomite Layers How do Flood geologists overcome all these challenges? First, let’s explain the unusual chemical conditions. The pre-Flood ocean floor would have been littered with the remains of mollusk shells, in the form of lime. (Mollusk shells are made out of calcium carbonate, the main ingredient in lime.) When the fountains of the great deep broke up at the start of the Flood, massive earthquakes9 would have caused the ocean waters to rise and sweep in across the pre-Flood supercontinent, like tsunamis, carrying the lime sediments landwards with them. The water temperature would have progressively increased as hot volcanic waters were added to the ocean. Also, many volcanic eruptions would have added magnesium to the lime-rich Flood waters. This combination of hot water, lime, and magnesium would produce the layers of dolomite.10 Thus, catastrophic plate tectonics can explain the increase in Flood water temperatures, the inundation of the continents, and the formation of enormous amounts of “marine” carbonate sediments on the continents. Explaining the Dinosaur Footprints As the Flood waters swept inland, dinosaurs would have been forced to swim to survive the rising Flood waters.11Elephants today react similarly when faced with rising floodwaters.12 The water level at each location would not have risen at a constant rate. As global sea level rose, water would rise and fall locally with the surge and ebb of tsunamis and the shifting tidal pull of the moon and sun.13 At the same time, earthquakes and continental collisions would raise and lower land at different places and times. Consequently, warm surging waters of the catastrophic Flood might cover a particular lowland area with dolomite layers, only to expose that same area again for a few hours. This cycle could occur several times before the Flood finally covered the area completely. Some dinosaur prints may have been made by fully submerged dinosaurs, others in shallow water, and others on temporarily exposed surfaces. Any brief exposure would probably not provide enough time, however, for the soft dolomite layer, composed of a natural “quick set” cement, to harden sufficiently to preserve the footprints. Instead, the next surge of dolomite sediment would bury the footprints (even if still underwater), and the weight of the overlying layers would squeeze the water out of the dolomite and harden it to rock. The dinosaurs that made the footprints would again be swept away in the Flood waters. Within weeks or months, they would succumb to exhaustion and die, to be buried in Flood sediments higher up in the sequence. This explanation fits what is found in the geologic record. Dinosaur body fossils are invariably found in sediment layers higher in local strata sequences than their fossilized footprints.14

Dating Dilemma: Fossil Wood in “Ancient” Sandstone by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 1, 1999

Originally published in Creation 21, no 3 (June 1999): 39-41. Sydney has its beautiful harbour and famous bridge, its Opera House and golden beaches, but it also has some unique and characteristic rock formations. Shop Now Every major, world-recognized city has its unique landmarks and features. Sydney, Australia’s oldest city (settled in 1788) and largest (more than 3.5 million people), and soon to host the 2000 Summer Olympics, is no exception. It has its beautiful harbour and famous bridge, its Opera House and golden beaches, but it also has some unique and characteristic rock formations. The Hawkesbury Sandstone The Hawkesbury Sandstone, named after the Hawkesbury River just north of Sydney, dominates the landscape within a 100 km (60 mile) radius of downtown Sydney. It is a flat-lying layer of sandstone, some 20,000 sq. km (7,700 sq. miles) in area and up to 250 metres (820 feet) thick.1 Dominated by grains of the mineral quartz2 (which is chemically very similar to window glass, and harder than a steel file), the sandstone is a hard, durable rock which forms prominent cliffs, such as at the entrance to Sydney Harbour and along the nearby coastline. Despite the widespread, spectacular exposures of the Hawkesbury Sandstone, there is a long history of speculation about its origins, going back to Charles Darwin.3 Rather than consisting of just one sandstone bed encompassing its total thickness, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is made up of three principal rock types—sheet sandstone, massive sandstone and relatively thin mudstone.4 Each has internal features that indicate deposition in fast-flowing currents, such as in a violent flood.5 For example, thin repetitive bands sloping at around 20° within the flat-lying sandstone beds (technically known as cross-beds), sometimes up to 6 metres (20 feet) high, would have been produced by huge sandwaves (like sand dunes) swept along by raging water. Fossils in the sandstone itself are rare. However, spectacular fossil graveyards have been found in several lenses (lenticular bodies of only limited extent) of mudstone.6 Many varieties of fish and even sharks have been discovered in patterns consistent with sudden burial in a catastrophe. Some such graveyards contain many plant fossils. The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a Middle Triassic “age” of around 225–230 million years by most geologists.7,8,9 This is based on its fossil content, and on its relative position in the sequence of rock layers in the region (the Sydney Basin). All of these are placed in the context of the long ages timescale commonly assumed by geologists. Fossil wood sample Because of its hardness and durability, the Hawkesbury Sandstone not only provides a solid foundation for downtown Sydney’s skyscrapers, but is an excellent building material. A number of Sydney’s old buildings have walls of sandstone blocks. Today, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is mainly used for ornamental purposes. To obtain fresh sandstone, slabs and blocks have to be carefully quarried. Several quarries still operate in the Gosford area just north of Sydney, and one near Bundanoon to the south-west. In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from the quarry face at Bundanoon (see photo, right).10 Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original character of the wood was still evident. Identification of the genus is not certain, but more than likely it was the forked-frond seed-fern Dicroidium, well known from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.11,12 The fossil was probably the wood from the stem of a frond. Radiocarbon (14C) analysis Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225–230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally- recognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples. The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX–23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis. The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C “age” of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been “13C corrected” by the lab staff, after 13 they had obtained a d CPDB value of –24.0 ‰.13 This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years. Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don’t get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same “age” as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria. Conclusions This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon “age.” However, a 33,720 ± 430 years BP radiocarbon “age” emphatically conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary “age” of 225–230 million years for this fossil wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone. Although demonstrating that the fossil wood cannot be millions of years old, the radiocarbon dating has not provided its true age. However, a finite radiocarbon “age” for this fossil wood is neither inconsistent nor unexpected within a creation/flood framework of Earth history. Buried catastrophically in sand by the raging flood waters only about 4,500 years ago, this fossil wood contains less than the expected amount of radiocarbon, because of a stronger magnetic field back then shielding the Earth from incoming cosmic rays. The flood also buried a lot of carbon, so that the laboratory’s calculated 14C “age” (based on the assumption of an atmospheric proportion in the past roughly the same as that in 1950) is much greater than the true age.14

Thundering Burial by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 1, 1998 Originally published in Creation 20, no 3 (June 1998): 38-41. This fossil graveyard on the Lake Huron coastline of Michigan is thus just another example of the devastation resulting from that catastrophic global Flood. Shop Now In a sunny summer’s day in eastern Lower Michigan (USA), the placid waters of Lake Huron gently lap against the picturesque coastline (Figure 1). By contrast, when storms rage across that vast expanse of open waters, the locals can testify to large waves crashing violently on to those same shores. Yet such storms and waves are minor compared to the scale of the storms, waves, and resultant devastation that must have occurred during the global flood, as seen today in a fossil graveyard exposed on this same coastline. Figure 1: The Lake Huron coastline looking south-east at Partridge Point, near Alpena, eastern Lower Michigan. The limestone shingles on the beach (foreground) contain fossils. Driving north of Bay City along State Route 23, skirting the shores of Lake Huron, one could easily miss the turnoff to Partridge Point just south of Alpena (Figure 2) if one didn’t know that it was there and that Partridge Point had some geological significance.1 However, at Partridge Point are outcrops of a fossil graveyard, one of many fossil deposits found around the world that are significant as examples of the catastrophism during the Flood. Partridge Point is a small peninsula of land which juts south-eastward into Lake Huron, dividing the coastline between Thunder Bay to the north and Squaw Bay to the south (Figure 2).2 The shape and orientation of this peninsula is determined by the rock layers of which it is composed, being roughly parallel to the strike of the strata (their elongation direction)— Figures 2 and 3. The outcrops of interest belong to the Thunder Bay Limestone and are exposed along the shoreline.3 They represent what geologists call the type section of this rock formation—that is, the originally described outcrops of this rock unit that show its features and contents across its thickness, and that then serve as the representative or objective standard against which separated parts of this same rock unit elsewhere may be compared. The outcrops are accessible along the beaches at the water’s edge, and can be reached by crossing vacant land among the private homes and from the unmaintained boat-ramp launch road (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Location map for the Alpena area on the Lake Huron coastline of eastern Lower Michigan (USA), showing Partridge Point and the local extent of the Thunder Bay Limestone. Figure 3: Geologic sketch map for Partridge Point, the type locality of the Thunder Bay Limestone. Outcrops and fossil occurrences along the shingled beaches are shown.

Figure 5: Looking south-east along the main beach at Partridge Point, the type section for the Thunder Bay Limestone (see Figure 3). The limestone shingles contain fossils and the outcrops are to the left, beneath the house and trees. The sequence of rock types in the outcrops making up the Thunder Bay Limestone is shown diagrammatically in Figure 4. Of particular interest are the light-coloured shaly beds and limestone full of fossilized corals and shellfish.4,5 The remains include the skeletons of animals that once lived attached to the rocky bottom of a shallow sea, such as colonial corals (bunches of corals connected to one another like apartments), solitary corals, bryozoans (‘lace corals’), crinoids (‘sea-lilies’), stromatoporoids (extinct sea creatures of uncertain identification, possibly related to the sponges and corals due to similarity of their limey skeletons), brachiopods (‘lamp shells,’ similar to clams, but with a ‘foot’ for attaching themselves permanently to the sea bottom), and blastoids (relatives of the crinoids and the sea urchins). There are also the fossilized remains of more mobile sea creatures, such as conodonts (extinct animals whose only remains are tiny jaw-like bones with serrations like teeth). A detailed description of these rocks, with a complete list of their fossils, has been compiled.6 Figure 4: Idealized composite diagram depicting the type or reference section of the rock types and layers making up the Thunder Bay Limestone along the Lake Huron shoreline at Partridge Point. Most fossils found in the shingles of limestone along the beaches have eroded from the fossiliferous limestone unit, and some of these fossils are listed there. Many of these fossils can be found in pieces of the hard limestone shingles along the beaches (Figure 5). Some of the fossils are shown in Figures 6–8. Of particular interest are the crinoid remains seen in Figure 6, the disks or columnals of the crinoids’ stems or stalks which were once connected and stacked on top of one another.7 After death, crinoids fall apart very quickly, so it is common to find abundant fossilized columnals from broken stalks scattered and jumbled indiscriminately through limestones such as this Thunder Bay Limestone. However, here we also see, thrown together with these crinoid columnals, pieces of ‘lace coral’ (bryozoans—Figure 6), brachiopod shells (Figure 7), and solitary corals (Figure 8). The limestone that now entombs these remains cannot be where these creatures once lived, because they are not found here in their living positions. The solitary coral, for example, is not seen here attached to the sea bottom, with a distinct hard surface visible in the rock mass, but was completely enclosed in what originally was a soft lime mud which only became rock hard after burying the coral.

Figure 6: Crinoid columnals or disks from the stalks (end-on and side-on views) scattered haphazardly through the Thunder Bay Limestone. Also shown is some ‘lace coral’ (a bryozoan).

Figure 7: An entombed brachiopod shell. There is, therefore, only one conclusion which makes sense of the evidence—these sea creatures were buried together suddenly when overwhelmed, carried, and then dumped by moving water filled with lime muds. That’s why geologists call this a fossil graveyard. However, unlike a human graveyard today, where the individual graves are neatly arranged, these fossils in these graveyards are all jumbled—tossed together and buried haphazardly in sediments laid down by moving water. Figure 8: A solitary coral (U.S. penny for scale) surrounded uniformly by what was originally lime mud but now limestone. But the scale is also impressive. Only a tiny portion of the Thunder Bay Limestone is exposed at Partridge Point, whereas these rock layers extend sideways for several hundred miles in each of two directions across what is known as the Michigan Basin.8 At Partridge Point one can see countless thousands of fossilized sea creatures’ remains. But one’s mind is quickly overwhelmed trying to comprehend the countless billions of fossils that must therefore have been buried in these rock layers underneath many hundreds of square miles of Michigan! And this is only one of the fossil graveyards found in Michigan. In fact, similar fossil graveyards are found in many places on every continent all around the globe—‘billions of dead things (fossils) buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.’ This is exactly the evidence we would expect to find based on what the creation model about the flood. This fossil graveyard on the Lake Huron coastline of Michigan is thus just another example of the devastation resulting from that catastrophic global Flood.

A “165 Million Year” Surprise by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on March 1, 1997

Originally published in Creation 19, no 2 (March 1997): 14-15. Shop Now A ‘mysterious network’ of mud springs on the edge of the ‘market town’ of Wootton Bassett, near Swindon, Wiltshire, England, has yielded a remarkable surprise.1 A scientific investigation has concluded that ‘the phenomenon is unique to Britain and possibly the world’. The mud springs Hot, bubbling mud springs or volcanoes are found in New Zealand, Java and elsewhere, but these Wootton Bassett mud springs usually ooze slowly and are cold. However, in 1974 River Authority workmen were clearing the channel of a small stream in the area, known as Templar’s Firs, because it was obstructed by a mass of grey clay.2 When they began to dig away the clay, grey liquid mud gushed into the channel from beneath tree roots and for a short while spouted a third of a metre (one foot) into the air at a rate of about eight litres per second. No one knows how long these mud springs have been there. According to the locals they have always been there, and cattle have fallen in and been lost! Consisting of three mounds each about 10 metres (almost 33 feet) long by five metres (16 feet) wide by one metre (about three feet) high, they normally look like huge ‘mud blisters’, with more or less liquid mud cores contained within living ‘skins’ created by the roots of rushes, sedges and other swampy vegetation, including shrubs and small trees.3 The workmen in 1974 had obviously cut into the end of one of these mounds, partly deflating it. Since then the two most active ‘blisters’ have largely been deflated and flattened by visitors probing them with sticks.4 In 1990 an ‘unofficial’ attempt was made to render the site ‘safe’.5 A contractor tipped many truckloads of quarry stone and rubble totalling at least 100 tonnes into the mud springs, only to see the heap sink out of sight within half an hour! Liquid mud spurted out of the ground and flowed for some 600 metres (about 2,000 feet) down the stream channel clogging it. Worried, the contractor brought in a tracked digger and found he could push the bucket down 6.7 metres (22 feet) into the spring without finding a bottom. ’Pristine fossils’ and evolutionary bias So why all the ‘excitement’ over some mud springs? Not only is there no explanation of the way the springs ooze pale, cold, grey mud onto and over the ground surface, but the springs are also ‘pumping up’ fossils that are supposed to be 165 million years old, including newly discovered species.6 In the words of Dr Neville Hollingworth, paleontologist with the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon, who has investigated the springs, ‘They are like a fossil conveyor belt bringing up finds from clay layers below and then washing them out in a nearby stream.’7 Over the years numerous fossils have been found in the adjacent stream, including the Jurassic ammoniteRhactorhynchia inconstans, characteristic of the so-called inconstans bed near the base of the Kimmeridge Clay, estimated as being only about 13 metres (almost 43 feet) below the surface at Templar’s Firs.8 Fossils retrieved from the mud springs and being cataloged at the British Geological Survey office in Keyworth, Nottinghamshire, include the remains of sea urchins, the teeth and bones of marine reptiles, and oysters ‘that once lived in the subtropical Jurassic seas that covered southern England.’9 Some of these supposedly 165 million year old ammonites are previously unrecorded species, says Dr Hollingworth, and the real surprise is that ‘many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells’.10 According to Dr Hollingworth these ‘pristine fossils’ are ’the best preserved he has seen … . You just stand there [beside the mud springs] and up pops an ammonite. What makes the fossils so special is that they retain their original shells of aragonite[a mineral form of calcium carbonate] … The outsides also retain their iridescence …’11 And what is equally amazing is that, in the words of Dr Hollingworth, ‘There are the shells of bivalves which still have their original organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old’!12 Perhaps what is more amazing is the evolutionary, millions–of–years mindset that blinds hard–nosed, rational scientists from seeing what should otherwise be obvious—such pristine ammonite fossils still with shimmering mother–of–pearl iridescence on their shells, and bivalves still with their original organic ligaments, can’t possibly be 165 million years old. Upon burial, organic materials are relentlessly attacked by bacteria, and even in seemingly sterile environments will automatically, of themselves, decompose to simpler substances in a very short time.13,14 Without the millions–of–years bias, these fossils would readily be recognized as victims of a comparatively recent event, for example, the global devastation of the global flood only about 4,500 years ago. No explanation Even with Dr Hollingworth’s identification of fossils from the Oxford Clay,15 which underlies the Kimmeridge Clay and Corallian Beds, scientists such as Roger Bristow of the British Geological Survey office in Exeter still don’t know what caused the mud springs.16 English Nature, the Government’s wildlife advisory body which also has responsibility for geological sites, has requested research be done. The difficulties the scientists involved face include coming up with a driving mechanism, and unravelling why the mud particles do not settle out but remain in suspension.17 They suspect some kind of naturally–occurring chemical is being discharged from deep within the Kimmeridge and Oxford Clays, where some think the springs arise from a depth of between 30 and 40 metres (100 and 130 feet). So Ian , a hydrogeologist at the Institute of Hydrology in Wallingford, Oxfordshire, is investigating the water chemistry.18 Clearly an artesian water source is involved.19Alternately, perhaps a feeder conduit cuts through the Oxford Clay, Corallian Beds and Kimmeridge Clay strata, rising from a depth of at least 100 metres (330 feet).20 The mud’s temperature shows no sign of a thermal origin, but there are signs of bacteria in the mud, and also chlorine gas.21 But why mud instead of water? Does something agitate the underground water/clay interface so as to cause such fine mixing?22 Conclusion Research may yet unravel these mysteries. But it will not remove the evolutionary bias that prevents scientists from seeing the obvious. The pristine fossils disgorged by these mud springs, still with either their original external iridescence or their original organic ligaments, can’t be 165 million years old! Both the fossils and the strata that entombed them must only be recent. They are best explained as testimony to the global watery cataclysm about 4,500 years ago.

‘Instant’ Petrified Wood by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on September 1, 1995

Originally published in Creation 17, no 4 (September 1995): 38-40. ‘Instant petrified wood’—so ran the heading to the announcement in Popular Science, October 1992. Shop Now ‘Instant petrified wood’—so ran the heading to the announcement inPopular Science, October 1992.1 It’s also the reality of research conducted at the Advanced Ceramic Labs at the University of Washington in Seattle (USA). Researchers have also made wood-ceramic composites that are 20–120% harder than regular wood, but still look like wood. Surprisingly simple, the process involves soaking wood in a solution containing silicon and aluminium compounds. The solution fills the pores in the wood, which is then oven-cured at 44°C (112°F). According to the lab’s research director, Daniel Dobbs, such experiments have impregnated the wood to depths of about 5 millimetres (0.2 inches). Furthermore, deeper penetration under pressure and curing at higher temperature have yielded a rock-hard wood-ceramic composite that has approached petrified wood. Patent 'recipe' for petrification However, priority for the discovery of a 'recipe' for petrification of wood must go to Hamilton Hicks of Greenwich, Connecticut (USA), who on September 16, 1986 was issued with US Patent Number 4,612,050.2 According to Hicks, his chemical 'cocktail' of sodium silicate (commonly known as 'water glass'), natural spring or volcanic mineral water having a high content of calcium, magnesium, manganese, and other metal salts, and citric or malic acid is capable of rapidly petrifying wood. But in case you want to try this 'recipe,' you need to know that for artificial petrification to occur there is some special technique for mixing these components in the correct proportions to get an 'incipient' gel condition. Hicks wrote: 'When applied to wood, the solution penetrates the wood. The mineral water and sodium silicate are relatively proportioned so the solution is a liquid of stable viscosity and is acidified to the incipient jelling [gelling] condition to a degree causing jelling [gelling] after penetrating the wood, but not prior thereto. That is to say, the solution can be stored and shipped, but after application to the wood, jells [gels] in the wood. When its content is high enough, the penetrated wood acquires the characteristics of petrified wood. The wood can no longer be made to burn even when exposed to moisture or high humidity, for a prolonged period of time. The apparent petrification is obtained quickly by drying the wood.'3 The patent indicates that the amount of acid in the solution appears to have a critical effect on the production of the gel phase within the cell structure of the wood, although evaporation also plays its part. Wood thoroughly impregnated, even if necessary by repeated applications or submersions of the wood in the solution, after drying evidently has all the characteristics of petrified wood, including its appearance. Both Hicks and the researchers at the University of Washington lab have suggested potential uses for such 'instant' petrified woods: Fireproofing wooden structures such as houses and horse stables (the horses wouldn't be tempted to chew on the wood either!). Longer-wearing floors and furniture. Greater strength wood for structural uses. Insect, decay and salt water 'proofing' wood in buildings, etc. Rapid natural petrification The chemical components used to artificially petrify wood can be found in natural settings around volcanoes and within sedimentary strata. Is it possible then that natural petrification can occur rapidly by these processes? Indeed! Sigleo4reported silica deposition rates into blocks of wood in alkaline springs at Yellowstone National Park (USA) of between 0.1 and 4.0 mm/yr. From Australia come some startling reports. Writing in The Australian Lapidary Magazine, Pigott5 recounts his experiences in southwestern Queensland: '. . . from Mrs McMurray [of Blackall], I heard a story that rocked me and seemed to explode many ideas about the age of petrified wood. Mrs McMurray has a piece of wood turned to stone which has clear axe marks on it. She says the tree this piece came from grew on a farm her father had at Euthella, out of Roma, and was chopped down by him about 70 years ago. It was partly buried until it was dug up again, petrified. Mac McMurray capped this story by saying a townsman had a piece of petrified fence post with the drilled holes for wire with a piece of the wire attached. 'Petrified wood thousands of years old? I wonder is it so?' Several months later Pearce6 added further to these amazing stories of woods rapidly petrified in the ground of 'outback' Queensland: '. . . Piggott writes of petrified wood showing axe marks and also of a petrified fence post. 'This sort of thing is, of course, quite common. The Hughenden district, N. Q. [North Queensland], has . . . Parkensonia trees washed over near a station [ranch] homestead and covered with silt by a flood in 1918 [which] had the silt washed off by a flood in 1950. Portions of the trunk had turned to stone of an attractive colour. However, much of the trunks and all the limbs had totally disappeared. 'On Zara Station [Ranch], 30 miles [about 48 kilometres] from Hughenden, I was renewing a fence. Where it was dipped into a hollow the bottom of the old posts had gone through black soil into shale. The Gidgee wood was still perfect in the black soil. It then cut off as straight as if sawn, and the few inches of post in the shale was pure stone. Every axe mark was perfect and the colour still the same as the day the post was cut . . . . 'I understand that down in the sandhill country below Boulia [south-western Queensland], where fences are often completely covered by shifting sand, it's a common thing for the sand to shift off after a number of years, leaving stone posts standing erect.' From the other side of the world comes a report of the chapel of of Health (Santa Maria de Salute), built in 1630 in Venice, Italy, to celebrate the end of The Plague. Because Venice is built on watersaturated clay and sand, the chapel was constructed on 180,000 wooden pilings to reinforce the foundations. Even though the chapel is a massive stone block structure, it has remained firm since its construction. How have the wooden pilings lasted over 360 years? They have petrified! The chapel now rests on 'stone' pilings!7 Experimental verification Of course, none of these reports should come as a surprise, since the processes of petrification of wood have been known for years, plus the fact that the process can occur, and has occurred, rapidly. For example Scurfield and Segnit8had reported that the petrification of wood can be considered to take place in five stages: 1. Entry of silica in solution or as a colloid into the wood. 2. Penetration of silica into the cell walls of the wood's structure. 3. Progressive dissolving of the cell walls which are at the same time replaced by silica so that the wood's dimensional stability is maintained. 4. Silica deposition within the voids within the cellular wall framework structure. 5. Final hardening (lithification) by Drying out. Furthermore Oehler9 had previously shown that the silica minerals quartz and chalcedony critically important in the petrification of wood, can be made, rapidly in the laboratory from silica gel. At 300°C (572°F) and 3 kilobars (about 3,000 atmospheres) pressure only 25 hours was required to crystallize quartz, whereas at only 165°C (329°F) and 3 kilobars pressure the same degree of crystallization occurred in 170 hours (about seven days). Similarly, Drum10 had partially silicified small branches by placing them in concentrated solutions of sodium metasilicate for up to 24 hours, while Leo and Barghoorn11 had immersed fresh wood alternately in water and saturated ethyl silicate solutions until the open spaces in the wood were filled with mineral material, all within several months to a year. Likewise, as early as 1950 Merrill and Spencer12 had shown that the sorption of silica by wood fibres from solutions of sodium metasilicate, sodium silicate and activated silica sols (a homogeneous suspension in water) at only 25°C (77°F) was as much as 12.5 moles of silica per gram within 24 hours--the equivalent of partial silicification/petrification. As Sigleo concluded, 'These observations indicate that silica nucleation and deposition can occur directly and rapidly on exposed cellulose [wood] surfaces.'13 Conclusions The evidence, both from scientists' laboratories and the natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures. The process of petrification of wood is now so well known and understood that scientists can rapidly make petrified wood in their laboratories at will. Unfortunately, most people still think, and are led to believe, that fossilized wood buried in rock strata must have taken thousands, if not millions, of years to petrify. Clearly, such thinking is erroneous, since it has been repeatedly demonstrated that petrification of wood can, and does, occur rapidly. Thus the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the creation time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood.

Yet Another 'Missing Link' Fails to Qualify by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 1, 1993

Originally published in Creation 15, no 3 (June 1993): 40-44. A fossil truly ‘in-between’ the crucial fish and amphibian characters is not only hard to conceive, but has never been found. Shop Now After speaking at a recent public meeting on the campus of an Australian university, I was confronted by a palaeontologist from the local, large, publicly funded museum. He was irate at my assertion that the fossil record contained no evidence of major transitional forms or ‘missing links’ required by the evolutionary scenario, such as between fish and amphibians. He insisted that I was blatantly wrong and claimed that a ‘beautiful’ fossil record had been found in Greenland a few years ago which illustrated the fish-to-amphibians transition. This confrontation between us, and the palaeontologist’s claim, were subsequently featured in a write-up in a major Australian newspaper.1 This claim, of course, warranted full investigation. If verified, a series of fossils illustrating the transition between major types of organisms could prove to be a serious embarrassment to those who take God at His Word when He says He created separately the different types of creatures to reproduce only ‘after their kind’ I didn’t expect to find any proof for this claim. Besides, if this claim were true, then surely the evolutionist scientific community would be trumpeting the display of these fossils in every major museum and university, accompanied by bold headlines in major newspapers and popular scientific journals. Of course, neither I nor others have seen such. At the museum I checked in the major Australian museum that employs this palaeontologist. Surely, if his claims were true, he would have featured this fossil series supposedly illustrating this major transition from fish to amphibians in his own museum. Now in this museum there is a gallery on fossils and the geological record. Moreover, there is also a special exhibit entitled ‘Tracks Through Time—The Story of Human Evolution’, which features a section on fossils, including the transition from fish to amphibians. This special exhibition was launched in 1988 after being prepared under the direction of this palaeontologist. Five years later it is still on display in the museum, unchanged. Side-by-side are the rhipidistian fish Eusthenopteron and the amphibian Ichthyostega, the latter fossil having been found in the ‘Upper Devonian’ strata of East Greenland. These fossils (Figure 1) supposedly illustrate how fish evolved into amphibians. However, they fail to show how fins changed into legs. Missing is the claimed ‘beautiful’ fossil record found in Greenland which supposedly better illustrates this transition from fish to amphibians. What the textbooks say Figure 1.

[Top to bottom] (a) the rhipidistian fish Eusthenopteron. (b) The skeleton of the labyrinthodont amphibian Ichthyostega. Both originals were about one meter long. (After Carroll.3) Notice how completely are the fins and legs. To confirm that this fish Eusthenopteron and amphibian Ichthyostega were not the transitional fossils (or ‘missing links’) claimed to have been found recently, I went to the textbooks on vertebrate palaeontology. Colbert,2for example, in 1969 also used these fossils to illustrate the supposed transition from water to land. However, his accompanying diagram only illustrated similarities between the jaws and skulls of these fossils, and ignored the all-important claimed transition from fins to legs. On the other hand, both Carroll3 in 1988 and Stanley4 in 1989 show drawings of the skeletal structures of the fins and legs respectively of these two fossils, making comparisons in order to illustrate how these fossils might represent the transition from the fish’s fin to the amphibian’s leg. Furthermore, in his text, Stanley says: ‘These fossils, many of which are assigned to the genus Ichthyostega, represent creatures that are strikingly intermediate in form between lobe-finned fishes and amphibians: The lobe fin itself is formed of an array of bones resembling that found in amphibians … These features alone strongly suggest that amphibians were derived from lobe-finned fishes, but additional features make the derivation a certainty … Because of this intriguing combination of features, Ichthyostega, which was not discovered until the present century, represents what is commonly termed a “missing link”’.5 A pictorial diorama is then used by Stanley to reinforce this statement. A palaeontologist’s admission Stanley, who is on the staff of The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, USA, cannot be aware of the statement made earlier on this issue of ‘missing links’ by his colleague Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum (Natural History) in London. In 1978 that museum published a book on evolution by Patterson.6 Designed to be a popular book on the subject, it is still being sold in museums, even here in Australia. So it is still regarded as an authoritative presentation on evolution, including the fossil record. Yet, even though fossils are mentioned in a number of places in the book, nowhere does Patterson illustrate any ‘missing links’ between major types of organisms, such as between fish and amphibians. In 1979 American Luther Sunderland read Patterson’s book and noticed this rather obvious lack of even a single photograph or drawing of a transitional fossil. So he wrote to Patterson asking why this omission, and in a letter dated 10 April 1979 Patterson replied in these words: ‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. … Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’7 Greenland fossil finds With this background I scanned the recent literature to see if any relevant new fossils had been found recently which might be the claimed ‘beautiful’ fossil record illustrating this fish to amphibians transition. Sure enough, in 1987 an expedition to Stensiö Berg in East Greenland by British scientists from Cambridge University and Danish scientists supported by the Greenland Geological Survey found very closely associated skulls of a new fossil, Acanthostega, at sites where fossil remains of Ichthyostega were also found.8 Ear bones and breathing The first account of this new fossil material9 presented details of the skull and attempted to show that the middle-ear bone, while related to that in other tetrapods, had a functional part to play not only in hearing but also in breathing, which would make this bone similar to a bone in some fish that helps to pump in water, which is then expelled through the slits.10 It was also claimed that ‘The earliest tetrapods may have retained a fish-like breathing mechanism.’11This naturally evoked scientific correspondence from other researchers,12, 13 with a response from the Cambridge University palaeontologist.14 Fins and limbs Next came a report from palaeontologist Clack and her colleague Coates at Cambridge University on the fossilized limb bones.15 They reported that the forelimb of Acanthostega had eight digits and the hindlimb of Ichthyostega had seven, quite unlike the common pattern of five digits on the feet (or hands) of many amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. They also described some resemblances of the forelimb skeleton of Acanthostega to the pectoral fin skeleton ofEusthenopteron, the similarities being viewed by the researchers in the context of the evolution of the tetrapod limb bones from the fin-bones of lobe-finned fishes (see Figure 2). To account for this variation in digit numbers (from the general norm of five), Cooke16 suggested that conceivably the evolutionary process in the genetics of limb development in these ‘primitive’ amphibians was ‘not even well enough controlled to assure constancy between different individuals within single species’. He thus concluded that the common five- digit structure of tetrapod limb skeletons (the pentadactyl limb) must have become stabilized in a subsequent lineage, or lineages, to produce the common ancestors of today’s classes of tetrapods. Such a statement is clearly based on the assumption of macroevolution, and not on observational evidence of the bones in fins of fish changing into the limb bones of these amphibians and then other tetrapods. A ‘missing link’? In yet another paper Coates and Clack17 reported the discovery of what they regard as a fish-like gill (branchial) skeleton in Acanthostega, with grooves that they claimed are identical to those found in modern fishes. Thus they concluded that ‘Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills … for use in aquatic respiration’.18 This they claimed ‘blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes’ because it supposedly implies that the ‘earliest’ tetrapods were not fully land-dwelling (terrestrial). They further claimed that Acanthostega resembled a gill-breathing lungfish and that its legs with digits must have first evolved for use in water rather than for walking on land.19 They didn’t say it outright, but the implication is that they believe, as does the palaeontologist who confronted me with this example, that Acanthostega thus qualifies as a ‘missing link’ (transitional form). No! A mosaic tetrapod Figure 2. [left to right] (a) Pectoral fin skeleton ofEusthenopteron. (b) Restoration of the forelimb skeleton of Acanthostega. (c)Restoration of the hindlimb skeleton of Ichthyostega. (All are dorsal view, anterior edges to the left, and drawn at a comparative scale only.) (After Coates and Clack. 14) Notice that some of the Acanthostegalimb bones are remotely similar to theEusthenopteron fin bones, but the total limb is after the overall bone patter of fellow amphibian Ichthyostega. Notice also the varying digit numbers. At about the same time, Clack and Coates made the following comment at an international conference: ‘Acanthostega gunnari is an Upper Devonian tetrapod which, like its better known contemporary Ichthyostega, displays a mosaic of fish- and tetrapod-like characters.’20 They also asked, rhetorically: ‘Was this animal secondarily aquatic, or do the fish-like characters indicate retention of the primitive condition? Were its tetrapod-like characters … evolved among more terrestrial tetrapods, or were they originally developed for life in shallow, swampy waters?’21 Clearly, in their minds, and the minds of their fellow evolutionary palaeontologists, this mosaic of fish- and tetrapod-like characters, and the presumed mode of life, make Acanthostega a ‘missing link’, even though they describe it as a tetrapod, that is, a four-legged animal. However, Acanthostega was a fully formed and fully functional four-legged amphibian, with four legs and not four fins, in some respects not unlike amphibians such as salamanders and newts. Mosaics don’t count Their description of Acanthostega as a ‘mosaic’ is significant. Acanthostegais not the first fossil to be called a mosaic, a creature that has characteristics common to two or more other types of creatures. For example, Australia’s platypus has milk glands and fur that classify it as a mammal, but it has a leathery egg, echo-location ability, a duckbill, webbed feet, poison spurs and other features that it shares in common with other animals, not only mammals. LikeAcanthostega, Archaeopteryx has been regarded as an evolutionary intermediate (‘missing link’), but leading evolutionists Gould and Eldredge state that ‘Smooth intermediates … are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).’22 An amphibian nonetheless Godfrey23 lists 41 characteristics that are unique to tetrapods. According to Ritchie,24 who has inspected the actual fossils, Acanthostega ‘fails the tetrapod test’ in eight out of these 41 characteristics, with two other characters not found in Acanthostega and another five not known from the fossil material. Thus Acanthostega still has 26 out of these 41 tetrapod characteristics. Ritchie also suggests that there are three other tetrapod characteristics present inAcanthostega not listed by Godfrey, so if these are included, Acanthostega has 29 out of 44 tetrapod characteristics. A 45th character which could be regarded as an unconventional tetrapod feature is the multi-digit, paddle-like limbs. On the other hand, Ritchie lists Acanthostega as having only eight potential ‘fish-like’ or ‘primitive’ characters. However, the fact remains that Acanthostega has been classified as an amphibian (tetrapod) with a mosaic of tetrapod- and fish-like features. Nevertheless, leading evolutionists such as Gould and Eldredge regard mosaics as not qualifying as ‘missing links’. Interestingly, in his 1990 textbook Cowen25 doesn’t mention Acanthostega, even though reports on its claimed intermediate characteristics had appeared in the scientific literature from 1988 onwards. Made up ‘stories’ So why do evolutionary palaeontologists and other scientists still persist in claiming that ‘missing links’ such asAcanthostega have been found, when some of their eminent colleagues have pronounced these fossils as failing to qualify? Again, Dr Colin Patterson’s comments are telling: ‘As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. … It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.’26 Several months later in an interview, after having been given two creation science books to read,27, 28 Patterson was asked to elaborate, and in part of his response he said, ‘If you ask, “What is the evidence for continuity?” you would have to say, “There isn’t any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind.”’29 In other words, fossils such as Acanthostega are regarded by some evolutionary palaeontologists as ‘missing links’ not because they are, but because they are believed to be. As Patterson says, it is ‘in the mind’, because ‘missing links’ are a philosophical necessity—to somehow provide ‘proof’ for their evolutionary faith. Moreover, ‘The systematic status and biological affinity of a fossil organism is far more difficult to establish than in the case of a living form, and can never be established with any degree of certainty. To begin with, ninety-nine per cent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil.’30 In any case, ‘… anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied upon for evolutionary lineages. Yet palaeontologists persist in doing just this.’31 Furthermore, ‘Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear.’32 Conclusion The fossil record has so far revealed many types of fish, some of which have bones in their fin lobes, serving a useful purpose as in the coelacanth (long believed to be an extinct ancestor of land animals, until it was found alive and well). The fossil record has also revealed many types of amphibians, including Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, in which the limb bones are firmly attached to the backbone and clearly designed for bearing the weight of the body in walking. Anything truly ‘in-between’ these crucial fish and amphibian characters is not only hard to conceive, but has never been found.

Where Are All the Human Fossils? by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on December 1, 1991 Originally published in Creation 14, no 1 (December 1991): 28-33. Shop Now There are some claims and reports of human artefacts and remains in rock layers that are clearly part of the flood sediments. However, many of these claims are not adequately documented in any scientific sense, while those few reports that have appeared in the scientific and related literature remain open to question or other interpretations. For example, the book Ancient Man: A Handbook of Puzzling Artifacts1 looks like an impressive and voluminous collection of such evidence, but on closer examination many of the artefacts, though puzzling archaeologically, still belong to the post-flood era, while other reports and claims are either antiquated or sketchy and amateurish. Often lay scientists claiming to have found human artefacts or fossils have not recorded specific location details, so that professional scientists investigating the claims have had difficulty finding the location from which the sample in question came. ALSO, lay scientists have in the past not kept some of the rock which encloses the fossil or artefact as proof of its in situ occurrence. These two oversights have often made it well nigh impossible to reconstruct and/or prove where fossils or artefacts came from, thus rendering such finds virtually useless. Fossilized hammers and supposed human footprints in ancient geological strata, regarded by evolutionists as deposited millions of years before man evolved, but regarded by creationists as flood deposits, are extremely difficult to document scientifically above reproach and/or with any conclusive finality. (Merely finding rock around an implement does not prove it is pre-flood.) For example, it has been claimed that a gold chain was found in black coal.2 However, the artefact evidently was exhibited as a clean gold chain with no coal clinging to it, so we see no evidence that the chain was actually found in the coal, just the claim that it was. While one would never assume any dishonesty on the part of the people concerned, because proper scientific procedures have not been followed the exhibit has proven to be almost useless in convincing a generally skeptical scientific community and apathetic lay public. Thus, should genuine human fossils or artefacts from the time of the global flood be found, then it is mandatory that proper scientific procedures be followed to document the geological context, in order to guarantee that the scientific significance of such a find is unequivocally demonstrated. Regretfully, of course, the hardened skeptic would still remain unconvinced, but at least such a find may still awaken some in the apathetic public and a few of the more open-minded scientists. What is needed, of course, are actual human bones fossilized in situ as an integral part of rock strata that are demonstrably ancient in evolutionary terms, and therefore are usually flood sediments of the creationist framework for earth history. Yet here is where the real hard unequivocal evidence is lacking and why people ask the question “Where are all the human fossils?” We simply cannot point to the report of a human skull found in so-called Tertiary brown coal in Germany, for there is no definitive scientific report available on this object, even though its existence has been verified by the staff of the Mining Academy in Freiberg.3 If it is a coalified human skull, how is it possible to distinguish it from a clever carving in such a way that it becomes conclusive proof? Even if it were demonstrated as genuine, are we sure that the Tertiary brown coal in question was a flood stratum? In some parts of the world some of the isolated so-called Tertiary sedimentary basins could easily be classified, according to some creationist geological schemes, as post-flood strata. After all, the early flood geologists, prior to the advent of Lyellian uniformitarianism and the evolutionary geological time-scale, applied the term “Tertiary” to those rock strata that they believed to be post-flood. The controversial Guadeloupe skeletons are another case in point.4 Without wishing to take sides in the debate, and in any case the hard data are still inconclusive either way, the fact remains that even if perchance these skeletons were so-called Miocene, that in and of itself would still not prove that the skeletons were in flood sediments and therefore represented the remains of pre-flood people. Being a subdivision of the so-called Tertiary, these Miocene rocks may still be post-flood sediments and so these Guadeloupe skeletons may still not be human fossils from the global flood. Perhaps the fossilized human skeletons that come closest to having been pre-flood humans buried in flood strata are those skeletons found at Moab, Utah (USA).5 In a copper mine there, two definitely human skeletons were found in Cretaceous “age”; sandstone (supposedly more than 65 million years old), the bones still joined together naturally and stained green with copper carbonate. While many regard these bones as recently buried, there still remains the remote possibility that they are pre-flood human “fossils.” We can only concur that there is no definite unequivocal evidence of human remains in those rock strata that can definitely be identified as flood sediments. This realization is at first rather perplexing. But some clues to unravelling this puzzle emerge on investigation. The Nature of the Fossil Record Let’s begin by considering the nature of the fossil record. Most people don’t realize that in terms of numbers of fossils 95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.6 Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects. Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. So comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils, yet so much is often made of them. For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100.7 Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there’s only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!8 In any regional area where vertebrate fossils are found, there is a general tendency for these land animals to be higher up in the rock strata sequence on top of the strata containing marine organisms. This has been interpreted by evolutionists as representing the evolutionary sequence of life from marine invertebrates through fish and amphibians to the land-based vertebrates. However, this same observation can be more reasonably explained by flood geologists as due to the order of burial of the different ecological zones of organisms by the flood waters. For example, shallow marine organisms/ ecological zones would be the first destroyed by the fountains of the great deep breaking open, with the erosional runoff from the land due to the torrential rainfall concurrently burying them. On this basis then we would probably not expect to find human remains in the early flood strata, which would contain only shallow marine organisms. The fossil record as we understand it at the moment certainly fits with this. Additionally, the majority of the few mammal fossils in the fossil record are in the so-called Tertiary strata, which most creationist geologists nowadays regard as post-flood strata. If this is the case, then there really aren’t very many mammal fossils in the late Flood sediments (there are a few mammal fossils in the so-called Mesozoic rocks). Consequently, it’s not only human fossils that are not found in the Flood sediments, but there is a relative lack of other mammal fossils also. Of course, in the post-Flood era humans would have been able to make the necessary decisions to get away from the local residual catastrophes responsible for the post-Flood (Tertiary) strata, so we wouldn’t expect to find humans fossilized in post-Flood sediments like we find other mammals. Another problem in the fossil record is, as we have already seen, the fragmentary nature of what is often found, which makes identification difficult. For example,’a five million year-old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib . . .’9 Such genuine mistakes are inevitable when only fragments of bone are recovered from the rocks. We can’t even be sure that some bone fragments already found in Flood sediments aren’t in fact human remains, having been labelled something else by evolutionists. After all, because of their evolutionary molecules-to-man belief (bias) they don’t expect to find human remains in lower (older) strata. Differential Mobility Another factor to be considered is the differential mobility of humans and many land-dwelling animals compared to much of the abundant marine life, such as corals, barnacles and shellfish. When the Flood began, the rising Flood waters would probably have encouraged humans and mobile land animals to preferentially move away from low lying areas to higher ground. Thus their being swept away by the Flood waters would probably have been postponed (perhaps for weeks) until all the high ground also was covered. Consequently, we would predict that it would be highly unlikely for us to find human fossils now in sediments that were deposited early in the Flood year. Indeed, when we look at the fossil record, as we have already seen, we find that in the so- called Paleozoic strata there is a preponderance of marine creatures, beginning with trilobites, corals, sea anemones, shellfish of all types, etc. This is what we would predict, given that the Flood waters carried sediments from the land out to the sea where they would then be deposited, burying many of the relatively immobile seafloor-dwelling creatures, followed later by destruction and burial of fish. Thus it is not surprising that we see the land-dwelling animals being preserved later in the fossil record, where they would have been buried later in the Flood year as the rising Flood waters finally covered the land surface completely. Destruction of Skeletons The next question to ask is: Would all the people still be alive when the Flood waters finally covered all the land and swept them away to be buried and preserved as fossils in the later Flood sediments? Can we assume that there was no destruction of the people’s bodies in the Flood waters and by other processes operating during the Flood and subsequently? Probably not! The turbulence of the water, even in a local flood, can be horrific, particularly when the fast-moving current picks up not only sand and mud, but large boulders. Under such conditions, human bodies would probably be thrown around like flotsam and would tend to be destroyed by the agitation and abrasion. But even if human bodies were buried in the later Flood sediments, destruction could still occur subsequently (that is, post- deposition). For example, if ground waters permeating through the sediments (such as sandstone) contain sufficient oxygen, then the oxygen would probably oxidize the organic molecules in the buried bodies and so destroy them. (This could be regarded as a type of weathering.) Likewise, chemically active ground waters could also be capable of dissolving human bones, removing all trace of buried people. Many Flood sediments have also undergone chemical and mineralogical changes due to the temperatures and pressures of burial, plus the presence of the water trapped in between the sediment grains. This process of change, known technically as metamorphism, eventually obliterates many fossils in the original sediments, whether they be fossils of shellfish, corals or mammals, particularly with increasing depth of burial, and higher temperatures and pressures. Yet another process that could destroy buried human bodies would be the intrusion of molten (igneous) rock into the Flood sediments, and through them to the surface to form volcanoes and lava flows. Such processes involve heat intense enough to melt rocks and recrystallize them. As the hot molten rock rises through the sediments, the sediments are often baked by the heat, and again chemical and mineralogical changes occur that obliterate many contained fossils. All of these factors greatly lengthen the odds of finding a human fossil today. Differential Suspension Not only would the turbulence of the sediment-laden Flood waters probably destroy some of the human bodies swept away, but differential suspension in the waters could have made it hard to bury those bodies that survived the turbulence. This is because human bodies when immersed in water tend to bloat, and therefore become lighter and float to the surface. This is what is meant by differential suspension. The human bodies floating on the water surface could therefore for some time be carrion for whatever birds were still flying around seeking places to land and food to eat. Likewise, marine carnivores still alive in their watery habitat would also devour corpses. Furthermore, if the bodies floated long enough and were not eaten as carrion, then they would still have tended to either decompose or be battered to destruction on and in the waters before any burial could take place. This could explain why we still don’t find human fossils higher up in the fossil record/geological column, that is, the later Flood sediments. When we take all these factors into account, it would seem unlikely that many of the people present at the time the Flood waters came could have ended up being fossilized. Even if a handful, perhaps a few thousand, were preserved, when such a small number is distributed through the vast volume of Flood sediments, the chances of one being found at the surface are mathematically very, very low, let alone of being found by a professional scientist who could recognize its significance and document it properly. Putting all these factors together and assuming that they are all realistic possibilities, then the probability of finding a human fossil in the Flood sediments today would be very, very small. To date, our investigations of the fossil record indicate that there are no human fossils in Flood strata, so perhaps the above explanations could be some of the reasons why this is so. Conclusions As far as we are aware at the present time, there are no indisputable human fossils in the fossil record that we could say belong to the pre-Flood human culture(s). When we to understand some of the processes that may have occurred during the Flood, and also the real nature of the fossil record, we are not embarrassed by the seeming lack of human fossils. We don’t have all the explanations as to how the evidence came to be that way, and it may be that in the future we will discover some human fossils. However, there is also much about the fossil record that the evolutionists have a hard time explaining. On the other hand, we should also realize that we don’t have all the answers either, and we never will. Because we weren’t there at the time of the Flood we cannot scientifically prove exactly what happened, so there will always be aspects that will involve our faith. However, it is not blind faith. As we have investigated the evidence, we have seen nothing to contradict about a world Flood. We can be satisfied that there are reasonable explanations, for the seeming lack of human fossils in Flood rocks.

COAL

How Did We Get All This Coal? by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on April 1, 2013; last featured April 1, 2014 Thankfully, the earth is filled with huge reserves of coal. But that raises an interesting question if most of this coal was formed during the recent, global Flood. Were enough plants alive at the same time to produce so much coal so quickly? Shop Now The USA has more than seven trillion tons of coal reserves.1 Similar huge coal deposits lie underground in Canada, Australia, China, South Africa, and other countries. In many cases, the coalfields are not just one bed but multiple coal beds stacked between other fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers. Where did all this coal come from?Each coal bed may be inches to feet thick, formed by the accumulation and compacting of thick piles of dead plant material. It has been estimated that, if all the vegetation living on the earth’s surface today were converted to coal, it would amount to only a small fraction— perhaps 3 percent—of the earth’s coal reserves.2So where did all this vegetation buried in the coal beds come from? And if all these coal beds were formed during the year-long Flood only about 4,300 years ago, how did we get all this coal so quickly? The Quantity of Vegetation Required The estimated quantity depends on how thick a pile of vegetation, called peat, needs to be compressed and converted into coal. It is usually claimed that it takes a peat layer 8–10 feet thick to produce each foot of coal.3However, if you compare the energy content of the coal to that of the peat (the calorific value, or energy from burning), or if you compare the weight of equal volumes of coal and peat, in both cases the peat-to-coal compaction ratio would be only about 2 to 1!4Furthermore, studies of coal beds that are in contact with sandstone layers, along with studies of dinosaur tracks where dinosaurs must have walked on top of the peat layers before their burial to eventually form coal beds, demonstrate that peat-to-coal compaction ratios of between 2 to 1 and 1 to 1 are more realistic.5 Such ratios are also consistent with the measured compaction around many coal balls (limestone nodules containing fossils of plants and/or marine snails, clams, or lampshells) and compaction of wood that is sometimes found in coal beds.The estimate that all the vegetation alive on earth today would produce only about 3 percent of the earth’s coal reserves is based on a compaction ratio of somewhere between 10 to 1 and 8 to 1. If that compaction ratio is only between 2 to 1 and 1 to 1, then today’s volume of vegetation would produce 15–30 percent of the known coal reserves. Where did the rest come from? Today’s Sparse Vegetation More than half of today’s land surface is covered by deserts, ice sheets, or only sparse vegetation. Under the central Australian deserts and Africa’s Sahara Desert is evidence of lush vegetation that grew there during the post-Flood Ice Age— a time of both rapid ice sheet accumulation and plentiful rain at and near the earth’s equator. Furthermore, thick coal beds under some of the Antarctic ice sheet suggest that continent was also once covered in lush vegetation.Thus, if all today’s land surface were covered with lush vegetation, as the pre-Flood land surface likely was, then the volume of vegetation would at least double. With minimal compaction, that amount would account for 50 percent or more of the known coal reserves.In today’s world the earth’s surface is roughly 30 percent land and 70 percent ocean. However, the land of Creation, along with evidence that some of this land was later piled into high mountain ranges during the Flood, might imply there was 50 percent land and 50 percent seas in the pre-Flood world. That would almost double the land surface covered in lush vegetation. If true, even more of today’s coal beds would be accounted for. Yet there are other sources of vegetation not seen on earth today. Unique Pre-Flood Vegetation Found in Coal Much of the vegetation found fossilized in the coal beds is very different from today’s vegetation. The “Carboniferous” coal beds of the Northern Hemisphere, which stretch from the Appalachian Mountains in the USA through England and Europe, all the way to the Urals of Russia, consist of fossil lycopod trees (giant relatives of today’s tiny forest-floor plants known as club mosses), giant ferns, conifers, giant rushes, and extinct seed ferns. Clearly, different vegetation grew back then.Most of these plants had hollow stems and roots. Their hollow, lightly-built structures were not designed for growing in soils but for floating on water.6 So these fossil plants appear to represent the remains of a floating-forest biome (or ecosystem), which also included odd reptiles and fish. A small-scale equivalent is found today in quaking bogs (mats of spongy bog vegetation that float over lakes).Thus in the pre-Flood world the oceans once had vast mats of floating forests that apparently grew out from the coastlines, fringing the original supercontinent, particularly where the seas were shallow.7 The volume of this unique vegetation is now preserved in the Northern Hemisphere’s “Carboniferous” coal beds. The extent of these beds would suggest that perhaps as much as half the pre-Flood sea surface was covered with these floating forest mats.If half the planet was once a supercontinent above the ocean and floating forest mats covered half of the ocean itself, then as much as 75 percent of the earth’s pre-Flood surface could have been covered by lush vegetation—more than six times the area covered by vegetation on the present earth’s surface. These calculations would thus indicate there was more than enough lush vegetation growing on the pre-Flood earth surface to provide the volume of vegetation to form today’s coal beds. Converting Vegetation to Coal Once buried, how quickly could this vegetation be compacted and converted to coal? Laboratory experiments have successfully produced coal-like materials rapidly, under conditions intended to simulate the conditions when actual coal beds accumulated.A research team at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois made material resembling coal by heating plant materials with clay minerals at 302°F (150°C) for two to eight months in the absence of oxygen. After a series of such experiments, the team concluded that coal can be produced directly from plant materials via thermal reactions speeded up by the clay minerals in only one to four months.8 Other experiments have also confirmed that clay particles act as chemical catalysts in a rapid coal-forming process.9 It is thus significant that clay minerals often account for up to 80 percent of the non-plant matter in actual coal.Subsequent experiments have more closely simulated natural geologic conditions, with temperatures of only 257°F (125°C) and lower pressures (equivalent to burial under 5,905 feet [1,800 meters] of wet sediments).10 After only 75 days, the original plant and wood materials still transformed into coal material, comparable chemically to coal from the same area of Indonesia.Because these experiments simulated natural conditions, we can be confident that the coal-forming process is rapid and requires only months. So there is no reason to insist that coal formation requires millions of years. How Did pre-Flood World Produce So Much Coal?

Click to enlarge Some people have wondered how the vegetation during the pre-Flood day could produce so much coal, since today’s vegetation would produce only 3% of known coal reserves. To find the answer, we must reexamine the assumptions behind that estimate.First, it is often assumed that around 10 feet of peat is necessary to produce 1 foot of coal. But if you consider the weight of peat and coal, or if you consider the energy content, then 10 feet of vegetation probably produced 5–10 feet of coal.Second, it is mistakenly assumed that the pre-Flood day was much like today. That is not the case. It turns out that the pre-Flood was very lush, producing nearly six times more vegetation than we see today. Conclusion It appears that lush vegetation might have covered up to 75 percent of the pre-Flood world, including the floating forests fringing the land. The Flood waters rose from the oceans and swept over the land, catastrophically destroying and burying all the vegetation in beds between other fossil-bearing sediments. The temperatures and pressures at these depths, aided by the presence of water and clay, converted these beds into coal within months. Thus the huge coal deposits of today’s world can easily be explained.11 The coal formed quickly in the year-long Flood only about 4,300 years ago.

Forked Seams Sabotage Swamp Theory by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 1, 1994

Originally published in Creation 16, no 3 (June 1994): 24-25. Most geologists believe the process of coal formation was slow and gradual, but this is denied by the field evidence. Shop Now Pictured are some thin coal seams or layers near Chignecto Bay (otherwise known as the Bay of Fundy), Nova Scotia, Canada. The geological hammer gives an indication of the scale. The coal seam it is resting against is about 10 centimetres (4 inches) thick, while along the top of the photograph can be seen another coal seam which is about 15cm (6 inches) thick and roughly parallel to the bottom coal seam. Between these two can be seen two thinner coal seams. What is critically sig- nificant is that the uppermost of these two thinner coal seams actually forks or branches, one fork angling acutely upwards through the intervening stratum to merge with the coal seam above. How could this coal have formed? Diagram of z-shaped coal seam. According to the standard theory, remains of plant debris accumulate as a rotting mass called peat in swamps and marshes. Today we know of a number of swamps where peat appears to be accumulating. This peat accumulates slowly and gradually today (estimated at between 1 and 4 millimetres per year), so geologists who believe that ‘the present is the key to the past’ conclude that the plant debris found in coal seams must have formed slowly and gradually from plant debris accumulating as peat in the bottom of swamps.Once the peat is buried under subsequently deposited layers of sand and mud, in the process of coal formation it is compressed down to about a tenth of its original thickness. This means that for a 15 centimetre (6 inch) thick coal seam there could have originally been up to 1.5 metres (5 feet) of peat to be compressed. Accumulating at 1-4mm per year, just this one layer would have supposedly taken up to 1,500 years to accumulate. However, most of these geologists are realistic enough to accept that just as flooding can occur locally today, then local flood events in the past would have deposited layers of sediment in swamps burying the peats. Subsequent regeneration of plant growth would result in more peat then accumulating on that sediment layer, so forming a sequence of successive peat and sediment accumulations within the swamp. Many geologists believe this is the process which produced the layering often observed within individual coal seams. To produce the thicker layers of sediment between coal seams (as seen in the picture here) would have taken much longer and more widespread periods of flooding, which would effectively destroy the swamps for protracted periods of time.Now can this slow and gradual theory explain the situation shown in this photograph of a field exposure? Definitely not! Nowhere do we observe peat forking like this in swamps today. If the intervening sediment layer through which the coal seam forks represents a protracted period of flooding and destruction of the original peat-accumulating swamp, then how could this swamp have continued in this localized area, and on a sloping surface, while at the same time flooding was depositing sediments horizontally to bury the swamp? Clearly, so-called z-junctions like this one are totally inexplicable in terms of the ‘slow and gradual accumulation in a swamp’ theory for coal formation. Furthermore, such z-junctions are found in many coalfields around the world, the forks often passing through many feet or metres of intervening strata over distances of several miles or kilometres. This only compounds the impossibility of the swamp theory explanation.On the other hand, the catastrophic flooding model can explain these occurrences with ease. Vegetation ripped up by flood waters and accumulated as floating mats of debris on the water’s surface progressively became waterlogged and sank to accumulate as a layer below (as in Lake at Mount St Helens1). That then became buried by other sediments, or was caught up and buried within accumulating sediments. As more debris became waterlogged and sank, further layers of debris would accumulate in a progressive alternating sequence of sediments and vegetation debris layers, that were subsequently altered to the coal. In this model the vegetative debris can accumulate and be buried at any angle or relationship to the enclosing sediments. Hence the z-junction seen in the photograph.Thus the field evidence is consistent with catastrophic destruction and burial of vegetation during the Flood, and totally inconsistent with the slow and gradual swamp theory which prevails among geologists committed to the idea that ‘the present is the key to the past’, or geological evolution.The catastrophic flood model can explain the z-junctions where the normal ‘swamp theory’ fails. Picture shows floating log mat in Spirit Lake at Mount St Helens, Washington.

Drained swamp deposit along the coast of Nova Scotia.

Coal Beds and Global Flood by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 1, 1986 Originally published in Creation 8, no 3 (June 1986): 20-21. Coal beds formed from plant debris catastrophically buried by Global Flood about 4,500 years ago? Shop Now Evolutionists believe that the material in coal beds accumulated over millions of years in quiet swamp environments like the Everglades of Florida. Evolutionary geologists often object to the creationists’ explanation of coal bed formation, so what are their arguments and what answers do we give to them?Some geologists have claimed that even if all the vegetation on earth was suddenly converted to coal this would make a coal deposit only 1-3% of the known coal reserves on earth. Hence at least 33 Floods are needed, staggered in time, to generate our known coal beds. Therefore a single Flood cannot be the cause of coal formation.This argument is based on valid estimates of the volume of vegetation currently on today’s land surfaces. But it assumes that at least 12 metres of vegetation are needed to produce one metre of coal (eg. Holmes, 1965). Modern research shows that less than two metres of vegetation are needed to make one metre of coal. Some observations made by coal geologists working in mines (e.g. the compaction of coal around clay ‘balls’ included in some coal beds) suggest that the compaction ratio is probably much less than 2:1 and more likely very close to 1:1. These observations destroy this objection to coal bed formation during Flood, since instead of today’s vegetation volume only compacting down to 1-3% of known coal reserves, today’s vegetation volume would compact down to at least 30% of the known coal reserves. But where did the other 60% come from?Two other factors are very relevant here. The evolutionists’ argument based on the volume of vegetation on today’s land surface ignores the fact that 60% of today’s land surface is covered by deserts or only sparse vegetation. In addition, there are the vast icy wastes of Antarctica beneath which are rock layers containing thick coal beds. So if all of today’s land surface was covered with the lush vegetation suggested by Antarctica’s coal beds, under the influence of a global sub-tropical greenhouse effect before the Flood (the so-called water vapour canopy) and the mist that watered the ground daily (instead of today’s unreliable intermittent rain) - then the volume of such vegetation on today’s land surface would be sufficient to produce at least another 50% of the known coal reserves. So what about the remaining 10%?But this all assumes that the area of land surface available for vegetation growth has always been the same. This assumption simply is not correct. Instead of land masses surrounded by seas (today’s world), in the pre- Flood world there was one sea surrounded by one large land mass.There was probably more land area then on the face of the globe than ‘seas’ (see Taylor, 1982). This being the case therefore, it is likely that there was at least twice as much land area available for vegetation growth in the pre-Flood world compared with today’s world (i.e. at least 60% land versus 40% sea in the pre-Flood world compared with today’s roughly 30% land verses 70% oceans). If then this vast land area was under lush vegetation, then we can account for 100% of the known coal reserves. A Better Way But there is another way of comparing vegetation growth and volume with the known coal beds, a way that is probably far more reliable, and that is by comparing the stored energy in vegetation with that in coal. International authority on solar energy, Mary Archer, has stated that the amount of solar energy falling on the earth’s surface in 14 days is equal to the known energy of the world’s supply of fossil fuels. She also said that only . 03 % of the solar energy arriving at the earth’s surface is stored as chemical energy in vegetation through photosynthetic processes. (Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, Vol. 5, 1975, p. 17) From this information we can estimate how many years of today’s plant growth would be required to produce the stored energy equivalent in today’s known coal reserves: Divide 14 days by .03% i.e. (14 x 100)/.03 days equals 46,667 days or 128 years of solar input via photosynthesis. So we can conclude that only 128 years of plant growth at today’s rate and volume is all that is required to provide the energy equivalent stored in today’s known coal beds! There was, of course, ample time between Creation and the Flood for such plant growth to occur—1600 years, in fact. Conclusion Either way, whether by comparison of energy stored in vegetation growth and in coal (i.e. the time factor), or by vegetation growth, climate, geography, land area and compaction ratio (i.e. the volume factor), we can show conclusively that the evolutionist’s objection is totally invalid. There was ample time, space and vegetation growth for one Flood to produce all of today’s known coal beds.

Coal, Volcanism and Flood by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling and John Mackay on April 1, 1984 Originally published in Journal of Creation 1, no 1 (April 1984): 11-29. Abstract Applying the explosive pyroclastic volcanism model to the formation of coal deposits, it is entirely feasible that all the coal seams were formed by the conditions during the Flood. Shop Now The debate over the origin of coal seams was settled years ago in favour of in situ (or autochthonous) formation from peats formed slowly in swamps of various descriptions. One of the key factors in this ascendancy of the peat swamp model over the various allochthonous (or transported) models was the recognition of so-called ‘fossil forests’—tree stumps with roots and logs in apparent growth positions on top of coal seams. The peat swamp model has not only become the basis of virtually all studies on coal seam formation, but is now also the basis of studies on the coalification of the plant constituents to produce the various coal macerals (e.g. Diessel,1 Stach et al.2). For this reason considerable effort has been directed towards the study of modern peat-forming environments (e.g. Martini and Glooschenko3) as a key to understanding the peat precursors of coal and the coalification process itself. Even so, Prof. Martini of Guelph University (Canada), a noted expert on modern peat-forming environments, while giving his keynote address on the subject to a recent conference (the 1984 18th Newcastle Symposium organized by the Coal Geology Specialist Group of the Geological Society of Australia) came to the question of the relationship between peat and coal, and honestly admitted that he didn’t know what it was!Unfortunately, the ascendancy of the gradualistic peat swamp model has led to neglect of the evidence for the allochthonous, and catastrophic, deposition of coal seams. Even with abundant evidence for contemporaneous volcanism resulting in volcanically derived inter-seam sediments, such coals are still viewed as having formed in peat swamps that were periodically buried by volcanic debris. But the May 18, 1980 catastrophic eruption of Mount St. Helens, U.S.A., provided an opportunity to witness the wholesale destruction of forests by volcanism, and to study the deposition of this forest debris in layers and as stumps with roots and logs in growth positions within pyroclastic sediments, all reminiscent of depositional sequences in some coal basins. Furthermore, recent artificial coalification experiments have been able to rapidly produce high rank coals using clays as catalysts under conditions analogous to those existing in and around volcanic centres. The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption On Sunday morning, May 18, 1980, an estimated 10 megaton explosion blasted over four cubic kilometres of rock material out of Mount St. Helens, U.S.A. The top 400 metres of the mountain were blown away. According to Lipman and Mullineaux4 a ‘directed blast was generated by massive explosions that occurred when an enormous landslide released the confining pressure on a shallow dacite cryptodome and its associated hydrothermal system. Propelled by expanding gases and gravity, the mixture of gas, rock, and ice moved off the volcano as a catastrophic, hot, ground hugging, turbulent pyroclastic cloud at velocities of as much as 300 m/s Within minutes the directed blast had extended about 25 km and carried off or knocked down all trees in its path.’ Over a radius of more than 11 km the surrounding coniferous forests were flattened and a wall of ash, mud and broken trees roared across nearby Spirit Lake and down Toutle River Canyon (Fig. 1). This volcanic debris included enormous quantities of trees which had been devastated and stripped of their branches and leaves.Reporting the event, Fritz5 stated that many of the trees from Mount St. Helens were transported many kilometres down Toutle Canyon by ash and mud flows and deposited upright and at various other angles. Fritz commented (and recorded by photography) that although all the blasted stumps were devoid of branches, many still had large root systems. Some even retained fine rootlets. This was true particularly for the shorter stumps which were deposited upright in an apparent growth position. The longer logs wore often deposited horizontally while some were in diagonal position. As a result of his investigations, Fritz5 concluded: (a) It is wrong to automatically assume that trees discovered in mud or volcanic ash sediments grew in situ just because they are in apparent growth position and show root structures; and (b) The mud and ash-flow deposited trees in Toutle Canyon have much in common with the petrified ‘forests’ of the Eocene Lamar River Formation in Yellowstone National Park. Figure 1. Location map of the Mount St. Helens area, Washington, USA, showing the devastating effects of the May 18, 1980 eruption. Click here for larger image. Thus Fritz postulated that such petrified ‘forests’ could have been formed rapidly by the repetition of similar mechanisms to that observed at Mount St. Helens, that is, they were not formed in situ despite their apparent growth position. Fritz’s observations of the events at Mount St. Helens and his conclusions indicate that the Toutle River event produced large deposits of upright coniferous logs in situations where they could still bleed from their freshly broken surfaces, but be unable to drop leaves or branches, since these had already been blasted off.Returning again to the Mount St. Helens eruption, after the violence had subsided, a gigantic raft of broken logs and stumps floated on nearby Spirit Lake (see Fig. 1).6 Between the logs were the smaller charred remains of bark, broken branches, woody splinters and anything else that had not totally burned in the gas cloud that had poured down Mount St. Helens. The mountain itself was a sterile grey, bare of life and covered only with loose ash and pumice.Comparison of aerial photographs of Spirit Lake taken soon after the eruption with those taken in late 1983 indicated that the size of the log raft had diminished over those three years. Much of the material had become waterlogged and sunk to the bottom. Many of the larger logs and stumps were still floating, and a significant portion of them were floating vertically. This was particularly true of those with large root areas still attached or with larger trunk bases.6The same was true of many of the sunken logs, as investigated by skin divers McMillen and White in late 1983.6 The bottom of Spirit Lake resembled an underwater forest. Those tree stumps resting on the bottom, roots down and trunks vertical, gave the appearance of having grown there. They were very easy to push around, but rapidly returned to their vertical floating position. The skin divers reported that where the lake was less than six metres deep, the bottom was devoid of debris, because the sunken logs and fragments either had accumulated in the deeper parts of the lake, or had been rapidly covered by more volcanic ash being washed into the lake. In fact every new rainfall still brings an abundance of volcanic ash, mud and organic debris into Spirit Lake, because the surrounding mountain-sides are still devoid of new well-established vegetation. Figure 2. Idealized sketches of deposition in Spirit Lake, Mount St. Helens area, Washington, USA. (a) Deposition of debris from, and by, the initial eruptive blast. (b) Deposition of ash and organic debris by subsequent rainfall run-off. Click here for larger image. Figure 2a is an idealized sketch of what the bottom of Spirit Lake is visualized as looking like at present, particularly the deepest parts of the lake. There would first be layers of ash, and rubble from the initial explosion, followed by an accumulation of pine tree fragments such as the more resistant leaf debris, bark and wood splinters which sank after floating for only a short time in the lake, all buried by ash and mud. Much of this pine tree debris would be charred or burnt. On top of this layer of ash would be further ash and mud (from later rainfall) with the larger sheets of bark that have only recently pealed off the floating logs through bacterial action. Logs and stumps, many in the root-down position and with bark peeled or blasted off, would then be resting on the top of these layers with still further ash and mud accumulating around them. It is not hard to visualize how increased run-off, sedimentation, and/or further ash falls would deposit and more organic debris and logs, and so add to this tern of sediment accumulation several times in succession as depicted in Figure 2b.Already one scientific field expedition has commenced investigation of the Spirit Lake area as modern site of coal seam formation. An early report7 has confirmed the essential elements of the model depicted in Figure 2. Many more pine logs are now floating vertically in the waters of Spirit Lake, while the charred remains of other pine tree debris (bark and wood splinters) lie buried in the volcanic ash and mud both on the lake’s bottom and on the lake’s shores. The report indicates that some of this debris appears to have already coalified. Analogue of ancient rapid coal measure formation Newcastle, N S.W, Australia Figure 3. Generalized geological map of the Newcastle Coalfield, NSW, Australia showing the location of Swansea Heads and Quarries Head. Click here for larger image. In the coal measures at Newcastle, NSW, several sediment sequences similar to that in the idealized diagrams of Figure 2 have been identified in outcrops at Swansea Heads and Quarries Head (see Fig. 3).The relevant coal seams in this area are the Upper and Lower Pilot Seams, seen in Figure 4 with tree stumps protruding from them up into tuff beds. These seams are stratigraphically located in the Boolaroo Sub-Group of the Newcastle Coal Measures (Fig. 5). McKenzie and Britten8 describe the Upper and Lower Pilot Seams as a ‘series of thin coal and carbonaceous plies with only generalized groupings into seams, so that the relationship of their thicknesses and those of the interbedded sediments to overlying and underlying seams cannot always be well defined Both seams are characterized by their association with thick tuff beds which normally have a wide range of red, green and black colours. … These tuffs contains abundant flakes of mica. Where the two groupings are identifiable, the intervening Reid’s Mistake Formation mostly consists of the Southampton Sandstone Member with associated shales and minor tuff beds.’ The beds dip between 4° and 8° to the west.9 The Pilot Seams are not of economic significance or quality. The Upper Pilot Seam, for instance, contains up to 28% ash.10Diessel11 has described in detail the section at Swansea Heads and Quarries Head. Figure 6 is his generalized sketch of the relevant section, which may be closely compared to the Quarries Head cliff outcrop shown in Figure 4. Diessel11has divided the Reid’s Mistake Formation between the Lower and Upper Pilot Seams into four tuff sub-units and interpreted them as ash fall, pyroclastic surge, ash flow, and pyroclastic surge deposits respectively, using the pyroclastic (ash) deposits of the May 18, 1980 lens eruption4 as his model.The site at Swansea Heads is a well known tourist spot and is referred to by Diessel,9 who made the comment that ‘one of the most interesting the area is the occurrence of remnants of tree trunks, many of them in growth positions , on top of the Lower Pilot Coal.’ That statement reflects the long-standing view held by many as far David12 that the tree stumps are in growth position. However, is not a universal opinion as Branagan and Packham13 indicate: ‘Some of the stumps appear to be in the position of growth but this may be accidental.’ Figure 4. Tree stumps and logs in apparent growth positions at Swansea Heads (a) (b), and Quarries Head (c). At Swansea Heads the stump (a) and log (b) are in the ryholitic tuff above the Lower Pilot Seam. They are completely silicified, apart from coalification of the former bark on the log. At Quarries Head the logs sit on top of the Lower Pilot Seam (see also Fig. 6).

Figure 5. The stratigraphic sequence in the Newcastle Coal Measures (after Crapp and Nolan10). Click here for larger image. The vast number of tree stumps and logs include many in an upright position as well as those in horizontal positions (see Fig. 4). The horizontal logs are usually coalified and crushed, whilst the vertical logs often have at their bases coalified bark with iron carbonate replacement of the interior woody tissue. The upper trunks of the vertical logs which protrude high into the tuffs are often silicified, the woody tissue being replaced by chalcedony. The tuff around these logs contains coalified specks that have the characteristics of resinite or coalified resin. Historically, the logs and stumps have been regarded as overwhelming evidence of in situ formation of the coal seams, but the following observational evidence argues strongly against the trees being in actual growth position: (a) Whilst many of the stumps and logs are in vertical positions, they rarely exhibit evidence of branching or leaf structures and are commonly fractured at their ends. They are therefore identical to the logs and stumps produced by the Mount St. Helens explosion and deposited with ash in both Spirit Lake and Toutle Canyon. (b) Even as far back as 1907, David12 argued that these trees had-been rapidly buried by an ash fall, and in support of his argument pointed to the presence of resinites in the associated tuff. Since some of the vertical trees he referred to were up to 30 feet or 10 metres tall, their excellent state of preservation indicates that the entire 10 metres of ash and sediment were deposited quickly, that is, the inter-seam sediments between the Upper and Lower Pilot Seams were rapidly and catastrophically deposited, a conclusion acknowledged by Dresser111 by his discussion of the origin of these inter-seam tuffs. (c) The stumps and logs are found on the top of the coal seams and are not in the coal. The root structures of the tree stumps rarely penetrate any depth into the coal seams. David 12 : 293 claimed this was because the precursor trees, which have been identified as Dadaxylon, a relative of the Norfolk, Island Pine, could not grow healthily ‘if immersed in peat’. This is a factual statement which does not assist the argument that the tree stumps are in situ.

Figure 6. Generalized sketch of Reid’s Mistake Formation at Quarries Head south of Newcastle showing its major sub-division (after Diessel11). Click here for larger image. (d) The classification of the stumps and logs as Dadaxylon supports the thesis that the precursor trees were catastrophically destroyed. Dadaxylon is, in fact, the name given to Araucaria pine trees when it is uncertain what specific name should be given to pine trees that are recognized as Araucaria. In this case the reason the name Dadaxylon has been given is that the stumps and logs rarely show any evidence of leaf scars or branches, factors that are necessary for identification of Araucaria.14 The absence of these identifying factors again indicates catastrophe, that is, the precursor trees were stripped of these recognizable features in much the same way as the conifers on the slopes of Mount St. Helens were stripped of their leaves, branches and some bark by the force of the 1980 eruption’s blast. (e) The coal upon which the logs and stumps are lying and the enclosing sediments contain abundant evidence of Glossopteris flora, but a virtual absence of Araucaria forest litter. This is an observation that even David12 commented was strange if the Araucaria actually grew there. (f) The coal and surrounding sediments show no conclusive evidence of bioturbation. Even the commonly referred to vertebraria could be viewed as having been deposited contemporaneously with the sediments. (g) Analyses of the coalified bark of the logs, even those reported by David12 back in 1907, and analyses of the coal in the seams below the tree stumps and logs, indicate that much of the coal in the seams is derived from, or has similar composition to that of, the Araucaria bark. This suggests that the coal, while not containing much evidence of Araucaria forest litter on its surface, does contain much Araucaria bark throughout. Such a situation is inexplicable if the precursor trees are viewed as the terminal growth, or the forest stage, of a peat swamp. Under terminal swamp conditions, the Araucaria bark and litter should only be found on the surface of the peat, since they would be deposited there only after the area had ceased to be a swamp. Thus this evidence is far more consistent with a volcanism model, where the bark debris is deposited throughout the sediments like those in Spirit Lake, than with terminal growth on a forested swamp (refer to David,12 Crapp and Nolan10). Figure 7. Location of the Oakleigh mine in the Rosewood-Walloon Coalfield, Queensland, Australia. Click here for larger image. (h) If Nashar15 is correct when she states that some of the vertical logs of the Lower Pilot Seam originally penetrated up into the next seam of coal, then it is obvious that not only were the inter-seam volcanic sediments deposited rapidly, but so also was the vegetable material in the Upper Pilot Seam. This would have been necessary to ensure that the full lengths of the vertical logs would be preserved, since such logs would not have been preserved if they had been exposed for any length of time while the area slowly subsided and new swamp conditions developed. (i) The occurrence of many crushed and coalified logs in a horizontal position, and sometimes of enormous length, is remarkably similar to the Mount St. Helens situation. (j) Finally, the association of the logs with the coal, and in particular their interpretation as representing the remains of thein situ terminal forest stage of a coal-forming peat swamp, is seriously challenged by the occurrence of the widespread Awaba ‘fossil forest’ marker bed12 below the Great Northern Seam, and approximately 60 m stratigraphically above the Upper Pilot Seam (see Fig. 5). In this bed, silicified stumps and logs are often discovered in apparent growth positions, but without any necessary association with coal, in a chert formation that has great similarities petrologically to the felsic volcanic ash flow in Toutle Canyon. It is clear that the Awaba trees could not have grown in situ. The massive chert formation the logs are in does not represent a ‘fossil’ soil. Furthermore, the absence of any other vegetation or forest litter is another factor which is exceedingly strange if the area is supposed to be a buried forest in which only logs and stumps and no other vegetation whatsoever are preserved. The conclusion is obvious. One cannot assume that simply because coalified plant matter and coalified Dadaxylon logs are found together, they either grew in situ or necessarily had any active on site ecological relationship. In other words, the events at Mount St. Helens, both in Spirit Lake and along Toutle Canyon, imply, as Fritz5 pointed out, that arguments for in situ tree growth cannot in future be based only on the position of logs sediments. Thus it is our contention that the logs and coal seams at Swansea Heads and Quarries Head in the Newcastle area, and the Awaba marker bed above them are more readily and consistently explained by invoking a rapid and catastrophic allochthonous origin using the Mount St. Helens event as a model, rather than the buried peat swamp hypothesis. Oakleigh, Queensland, Australia Figure 8. Generalized stratigraphic column of the Walloon Coal Measures in the Rosewood- Walloon Coalfield (after Cameron16). Click here for larger image. At Oakleigh near Rosewood, Queensland (Fig. 7) coal is mined from the Walloon Coal Measures. Figure 8 is a generalized stratigraphic column of the Walloon Coal Measures, while Figure 9 shows the stratigraphy at Oakleigh.16 Cranfield et al.17 describe the Walloon Coal Measures as comprising mudstone, siltstone, fine- grained labile calcareous sandstone, thin coal seams and minor limestone. They comment that ‘generally the sandstone is fine-grained, thick bedded, and friable, and consists of feldspar and black lithic grains of andesitic material in a montmorillonite matrix. Mudstone occurs with sandstone and siltstone as thin interbeds or in thicker massive beds. Kaolinite is the dominant clay mineral.’ In their general description of the depositional environment of the Walloon Coal Measures in the Rosewood-Walloon area, Cranfield et al.17 noted that ‘contemporaneous volcanism is indicated by the presence of fresh andesitic fragments in sandstones, and by montmorillonitic claystones which may be altered tuffs.’18 The Walloon coal seams themselves are generally regarded to have formed in situ.18 Gould19 commented that: (1) The fine-grained sediments immediately overlying the majority of seams contain a greater percentage of conifers. (2) The bulk of the coal appears to be from conifer material. (3) The coal-forming flora was dominated by araucarian conifers. (4) Pine cuticles are very common in the coal. (5) Resinite is an abundant maceral in some Walloon coals. (6) Araucarian ovuliferous cone scales and various pollen cones are preserved. (7) Massive conifer-like trunks of fossil wood exhibiting growth rings occur in the Walloon Coal Measures.

Figure 9. The stratigraphic sequence in the Oakleigh coal mine near Rosewood (after Cameron16). Click here for larger image. Thus the Walloon coal has much in common with the coal in the Upper and Lower Pilot Seams, including the presence of volcanic ash in the inter-seam sediments. Cranfield et al.17 also indicate that fossil wood fragments are features of the Walloon Coal Measures. Indeed, even small vertical logs have been observed on top of some of the seams in the Oakleigh mine. Figure 10 illustrates one particular log that was discovered in the tuffaceous sandstone above the topmost seam (see Fig. 9). Both the fragmented nature of the broken log, and the character of the sediments in which it was found, confirm that it is a drift log, that is, it didn’t grow in situ but was deposited with the sediments enclosing it. What is also significant about this log is that it has hard black coal on the outside, and low quality, very woody brown coal and iron oxides on the inside. Many places still show the presence of tree rings (and splinters). The presence of both black coal and brown coal in the one log, and also the very fine lining of black coal on either side of a clay- filled fracture that penetrates across the inside of the log (see Fig. 10), quite clearly indicates that the coalification of the wood in this log did not necessarily result from exposure to temperature and pressure over a long period of time. Both these factors (temperature and pressure) would have reached equilibrium throughout such a thin log over any extended period of time. The presence of high rank black coal only around the outside (and lining the fracture) indicates either, (a) that the process of coalification was so rapid that there was insufficient time for coalification conditions to reach equilibrium throughout the log, or (b) that there was a difference in conditions between the outside and the inside of the log which resulted in coalification advancing further around the circumference of the log, (or both of these conditions). A very significant implication of these observations is that if coalification resulted from the log being exposed to a rapid heating event, then this would also imply that the sediments surrounding the log were not only rapidly heated, but they also cooled rapidly: that is, they rapidly lost sufficient heat so as to drop below the temperature at which the inside of the log would have also reached the same advanced stage of coalification as the log’s outer circumference. In other words, there was rapid heat loss on a regional scale. Volcanism and rapid coalification

Figure 10. A broken log found in tuffaceous sandstone above the topmost coal seam at Oakleigh near Rosewood (see Fig. 9). (a) A general view of two pieces of the log which consist mainly of woody brown coal. See Figure 10(b). The observations of a volcanic eruption at Mount St. Helens, the Toutle River ash and mud flows which deposited conifer logs and roots in apparent growth positions, and the Spirit Lake phenomenon which produced vertical growth position conifer logs with or without roots in tuffaceous sediments and conifer bark rich debris have been shown to be quite clearly related as depositional models to the vertical pine tree logs with a pine bark and clay- rich coal and jutting into overlying tuff layers at Swansea and Quarries heads, the Awaba ‘fossil forest’ marker bed of similar pine logs but in chert largely devoid of other vegetable matter, and the Oakleigh drift log consisting of both black and brown coal that was discovered in tuffaceous sandstone above seams which are full of coalified pine cuticles. This relationship highlights a point made by Dryden,20 and remade by Hayatsu et al.21 that ‘there had been no incontrovertible evidence to support any theory of coalification.’ This has been stated here because the listed observations strongly imply that not only can large quantities of carbon-rich sediments be accumulated rapidly in catastrophic conditions, but that the same sediments can be coalified rapidly. The Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption as a depositional model for coals appears particularly obvious from the widespread occurrence of volcanic tuffs and associated clay minerals resulting from devitrification of tuffs in the coals and inter-seam sediments of the Newcastle and Rosewood-Walloon coalfields. Where tuffs are not apparent, their previous existence is often suspected because of the widespread distribution of clay minerals which potentially have been derived from ash falls.11,17 Since depositional relationship between these coals and volcanism can thus be established by the fact that the majority of the clays associated with these coals are common derivatives of volcanic ash, then similarly a relationship between volcanism and rapid coalification of these seams can be established on the basis of laboratory experiments in which it has been shown that such clays seem to act as catalysts for the rapid coalification of carbon-rich materials. Furthermore, the non-relationship of peat to coal can thereby be demonstrated, since the present of large amounts of clay throughout these coal seams disassociates them from being descendants of peat swamps, particularly cold environment peat swamps, which are virtually devoid of clays. Mechanisms for rapid coalification

Figure 10. (b) A closer view of one piece showing, from left to right, tuffaceous sandstone still clinging to the log, bituminous (black) coal, and the woody brown coal of the bulk of the log. See Figure 10(c). Karweil22 reported that he had produced artificial coal by rapidly applying vibrating pressures to wood. Subsequently Hill23 reported that he had also manufactured artificial coal through rapid application of intense heat. While both these studies used simulated conditions that are applicable to coalification in areas of tectonism and volcanism, such as the coal seams at Newcastle and Oakleigh, recent work by Hayatsu et al.,21 is even more applicable. In their study, Hayatsu and his colleagues at the Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, USA made simple coals by heating lignin to about 150°C in the presence of montmorillonite or illite clays. Running that procedure for periods ranging from two weeks to nearly a year, they discovered that longer heating times produced higher rank coals, and found that the clays appear to serve as catalysts that speed the coalification reaction, since the lignin is fairly unreactive in their absence. In summary, the relevant aspects of the work of Hayatsu et al.21 are: (1) Softwood lignin heated with clay minerals (particularly montmorillonite at 150°C for two to eight months in the absence of oxygen was readily transformed into insoluble materials resembling coals of various ranks. (2) Longer reaction times produced materials resembling vitrinites of higher rank. (3) Simple pyrolysis of lignin without clay at 350 to 400°C yielded only char (fusinite?). (4) Using kaolinite or illite, independently or mixed with montmorillonite, produced similar results. Figure 10. (c) A closer view of the other piece showing, in cross section, the bituminous (black) coal on the log’s circumference and along a clay filled fracture. They concluded, therefore that natural clay minerals are important for coalification because they act as catalysts. They also noticed that: (a) in the presence of clay activated by acid, the reaction of lignin to form coaly materials was highly accelerated, even at only 150°C (four weeks instead of two to four months!); and (b) loss of catalytic action of clays occurred when the reaction was carried out in the presence of air. Thus their overall conclusion was that coal macerals can be produced rapidly from biological source material by a clay- catalyzed thermal reaction in periods of only two to four months (sometimes one month). Tables 1 and 2 summarize the experiments conducted by Hayatsu et al.21 It should be noted from Table 1 that samples AV1 and AV4 produced coal materials ranging from low rank over two months to high rank over eight months. By comparison, sample AVOX was heated in the presence of air and produced no noticeable coal products after two months, while sample PL3, which was a 400°C experiment over an hour, produced only char material. Note also the results of experiments 2 and 3 in Table 2. When no acid was used the coalification time was two months, while acid-activated coalification took only 28 days. Furthermore, temperatures lower than 150°C have so far not been tried in these experiments. Table 1. Summary of Artificial Coalification Reactions21

Product Designation Sample Clay Temp. °C Time

AV1 Lignin Yes 150 2 Mo.

AV2 Lignin Yes 150 4 Mo.

AV3 Lignin Yes 150 6 Mo.

AV4 Lignin Yes 150 8 Mo.

AVOX Lignin/Air Yes 150 2 Mo.

AP Lignin Yes 350 30 Min.

PL1 Lignin No 350 30 Min.

PL2 Lignin No 350 60 Min.

PL3 Lignin No 400 60 Min.

PC1 Cellulose No 350 30 Min.

PC2 Cellulose No 350 60 Min.

PC3 Lignin/Cellulose No 350 60 Min.

AA1 Fatty Acids (F1) Yes 200 4 Mo.

AA2 Fatty Acids (F1) Yes 200 6 Mo.

AA3 Fatty Acids (F2) Yes 200 4 Mo.

Table 2. Effect of Clay Mineral as Catalyst for Artificial Coalification of Softwood Lignin21

Yield Wt% Insoluble Product

Solvent RunCatalyst Condition Extractable Insoluble Product H/C O/C

0 None (Starting Material) 1.08 0.33

1 None 150°C 2 Mo. 2.7 91.5 1.04 0.32

2 Montmorillonite 150°C 2 Mo. 13.5 68.4 0.94 0.28

3 Acid Activated Montmorillonite 150°C 28 D. 9.1 76.3 0.77 0.16

4 Montmorillonite/A1Br3(1:0.05) 150°C 24 Hr. 15.3 62.0 0.92 0.25

5 A1Br3 120°C 24 Hr. 22.3 59.4 0.86 0.26 Clays, coals and volcanism The significance of the work of Hayatsu et al.21 is in the role of clays as catalysts since the clay minerals illite, montmorillonite, and kaolinite are the most common inorganic mineral constituents of coals. In fact, clays often account for up to 60% or 80% of the total mineral matter associated with the plant debris in coal. Clays in coal are found as:2 (1) Fine inclusions (2) Layers (3) Partial or complete fillings of plant cell cavities, particularly in vitrinite. In this case the clay is usually homogeneous kaolinite. Table 3. Variation of Ash Yield (per cent) in Various Coal types (Data from Stach et al.2)

Vitrians Clarains Duro-Clarains Durains Fusains

Australia (Permian) <2—14 2—22 2—22 2—22 2—22

Indian (Permian) <2—12 2—22 2—22 4—42 <2—30

North America (Carboniferous) <2—12 <2—16 n.a. 2—20 4—20

British (Carboniferous) 2—6 2—12 n.a. <2—16 2—3 Another interesting observation on clays in coal is the differing percentages of clay in the different types of coal (SeeTable 3). While fusains and durains normally contain a far greater percentage of mineral matter than vitrains and clarains, the mineral content of vitrains is almost totally clay. Furthermore, in most Southern Hemisphere coals, clays predominate over other types of inorganic matter (e.g. see Ward24). In Australian coals even after washing over half the original clay content is still present, indicating that the clay is therefore homogeneously distributed throughout the coal.

Figure 11. The effect of rising temperatures during metamorphism of the clay minerals usually found in coal seams (Data from Stach et al.2). Now these clays are also commonly derived from volcanic ash. The same clay minerals, principally kaolinite,24 can be found in the form of tonsteins which because of their widespread nature, have become increasingly important as marker beds in coal measure sediments. Such tonsteins are not only important as marker horizons for particular bands in a single coal seam, but for seam correlation in a coal basin or district, and even in adjacent coal basins over distances of several hundred kilometres as has been experienced in Northern European coal belts.2 It has been suggested that these tonsteins originated as volcanic ash falls.1,11,25 The presence of the clays, particularly kaolinite, also indicates that the temperatures involved in coalification must have been less than 200°C. At and above this temperature the common clay minerals are metamorphosed, e.g. kaolinite to pyrophyllite (see Fig. 11). This underlines the reasoning behind Hayatsu et al.’s investigation of clay-catalyzed coalification at low temperatures.21The weight of evidence (observation and data) suggests that the clays found in coals and inter-seam sediments are involved in the coalification reactions and are important indicators of the conditions during both seam deposition and seam coalification. The clays strongly suggest related nearby volcanism and disallow cold climate swamp and peat-forming environments as precursors to the coals. Clays and peat swamps The widespread presence of clays in coals has led advocates of the peat swamp hypothesis to suggest that the clays are derived from clays and feldspar debris washed into swamps during flood periods. However this suggestion ignores the observation that in most acid swamp environments, clays will flocculate and not settle to the bottom. Such a suspended state will not produce the homogenous distribution of clays throughout the organic swamp debris and it most definitely cannot explain the clay bands consistently traceable as marker horizons between adjacent coal basins. But it is still necessary to account for the current coal structures with their homogeneously distributed clays, particularly through the higher rank coals, so can this have been achieved by chemical means, that is, by precipitation from incoming surface waters, percolating ground waters, or the swamp waters themselves? Ward,24 for example, proposes several mechanisms whereby the clay minerals could have been transported in solution as colloids, or as silica and alumina gels, to then precipitate and crystallize within the structures of the coal-forming peat, but he then admits that this mechanism does not explain some of the field and mineralogical evidence. The inability of clay minerals to form within coals by such mechanisms and under such conditions is dramatically illustrated by the presence of very pure, high grade clays associated with brown coal deposits and yet quite distinct from them. For example, the Latrobe Valley brown coal seams at Yallourn and Morewell, Victoria, Australia, sit on pure white clay which has not ‘diffused’ into the coal seams above or below them by such groundwater action.26 This is further confirmed by the virtual absence of aluminium silicates throughout the brown coal.27 Finally, Martini and Glooschenko3 and Martini28 have shown and stated emphatically that cold climate peat swamps do not have clay minerals in them. This conclusively indicates that such environments are not suitable choices for precursors of coal seams. Discussion The application of these data on the relationship between clays and coal indicates that the variables associated with coalification should probably be expanded to include at least: (1) The presence of the appropriate clay minerals to act as catalysts; (2) The presence of the appropriate trace elements, (3) The absence of catalytic poisons; (4) The relevant pH; (5) A rapid heat source of less than 200°C; and (6) A variable pressure source similar to that associated with volcanism or tectonism. This combination of variables successfully explains why non-anthracite coals are sometimes found in high grade metamorphic rocks, showing that neither continuously applied pressure nor heat have been the key factors. Similarly, it also explains why some massive coal deposits are found as thick seams of low rank brown coal and not as more mature higher rank black coals. One missing ‘ingredient’ in these brown coals is aluminium silicates (clays). A classic case is the Latrobe Valley coals at Yallourn in Victoria, where thick brown coal seams are virtually devoid of clays.26,27 By comparison, the thin Lower and Upper Pilot Seams at Newcastle consist of higher rank black coals containing abundant clays.This important relationship between clays and coalification also suggests why the various coal types are associated with different clay combinations even within the one seam, where temperature, pressure and pH had a high probability of being the same. For example, vitrain has low mineral matter but a large percentage of this mineral matter is clay, whereas fusain has high mineral matter but a much lesser percentage of its mineral matter is clay. This higher mineral matter in fusain may well act as a coalification inhibitor (or catalytic poison).This same clay/coalification relationship can be taken a step further and applied even to individual coalification events, such as that responsible for partial coalification of the tree stumps in the Pilot Seams at Newcastle. Near the bases of these tree stumps where the pH was lower due to the abundant adjacent vegetation debris, coalification has occurred. Higher up the stumps where there was much less adjacent vegetable material and higher amounts of siliceous volcanic ash, silicification has occurred. Furthermore, at the bases of the tree stumps the ash surrounds the outside of the stumps, so coalification of the lignin-rich bark has occurred, whereas solution replacement occurred internally with the woody tissues being replaced by iron carbonate. The coalification of only the bark near the bases of these tree stumps can now be best explained as due to the thinner bark on the upper parts of the stumps having been removed either by bacterial action similar to that seen in Spirit Lake, or during the directed volcanic blast.Likewise, the condition of the log found at Oakleigh can be explained on the assumption that it has been subject to brief (and therefore rapid) clay-catalyzed thermal activity around its circumference to produce high rank black coal, while the protected inner portion of the log remained virtually unaltered. This thesis would also explain why the Awaba tree stumps and logs, which are virtually devoid of accompanying vegetation debris, have been silicified rather than coalified, whereas the tree stumps sitting on the Pilot Seams have been coalified near their bases because of the accompanying acid-generating vegetable material. If this thesis is correct, it is therefore feasible to predict that tree stumps and logs deposited in tuffaceous sediments devoid of accumulated acid-generating vegetation debris will most probably petrify. Thus it is predicted that should appropriate conditions ensue the logs in the Toutle Canyon ash flows will be more likely to petrify, while the logs being buried beneath the waters of Spirit Lake will probably coalify around their external margins.It should be obvious now that the explosive pyroclastic volcanism model can not only be applied to the deposition of coal seams, but can be invoked to produce rapid coalification of the same coal seams. The implication is that the whole process from pine forests to coal seams was both catastrophic and extremely rapid. A series of explosive pyroclastic eruptions from the one volcanic centre could flatten the pine forests, bury the debris in ash, and then provide the rapidly applied pressures (volcanic seismicity) and a rapid heat source at temperatures below 200°C (hot ash, steam, etc.) to coalify the buried forest debris catalyzed by the clays buried with the forest debris and to a lesser extent, by the clays in the overlying and underlying tuffaceous muds and volcanic ash units. The evidence at both Newcastle and Oakleigh is consistent with an explosive pyroclastic volcanism model for coal seam formation. Global Flood The relevance to the Flood of this explosive pyroclastic volcanism model for the rapid destruction of whole forests, deposition of forest debris in seams, and coalification of these seams should by now be obvious. The catastrophic effects of volcanism and the associated flooding at Mount St. Helens were isolated to just a small region that is hardly comparable to the extent measuring thousands of square kilometres of many Australian coal basins, including the Sydney and Clarence Moreton Basins (Newcastle and Walloon Coal Measures respectively). Any catastrophe that produced these coal seams must have been on a greater scale than the impressive explosive 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. The only large volcanic and water catastrophe the world has experienced was the Global Flood, some 4,300 or so years ago.During the Flood much of the water came from inside the earth. Even today up to 90% of what comes out of volcanoes is water. Furthermore, in the last two decades many springs have been discovered issuing forth prodigious amounts of hot (350°C) salty water from deep-seated cracks and vents in volcanic rift zones on the ocean floor.29 Such a global upheaval as the Flood would have been catastrophic, for all the mountains on the earth’s surface were covered with water and the earth’s crust was broken up by earthquakes and volcanoes. The erosion and debris produced would have been phenomenal.This unique catastrophe would have devastated the entire forest and vegetation cover of the earth’s surface. Some debris would been buried immediately by explosive volcanic blasts, whereas other debris would have been carried off by the rising waters as huge floating log rafts, only to be buried later as the logs became waterlogged and sank, or further surges of volcanic ash and/or sediment-laden water buried them. Thus whole coal measure sequences with multiple seams would have been deposited rapidly. The heat flow produced by the catastrophic volcanism, crustal upheavals (tectonism), rapid deep burial, circulating hot waters (hydrothermal activity) and rising granitic magmas carrying radioactive elements would have been more than sufficient to rapidly coalify the seams of forest debris, assisted particularly by the catalytic action of the admixed clays present (as shown by the laboratory research).21 Given the catastrophic nature of the Flood, and the amount of vegetation buried in today’s coal seams,30 it is thus entirely feasible that all of today’s coal seams were formed by the global year long Flood catastrophe and its aftermath. Industrial applications Finally, the concept of rapid coal seam formation in association with ancient explosive volcanism, and the experimental work on clay-catalyzed rapid coalification has several industry applications: (1) Coal exploration—Explorers, seeking massive coal deposits should consider exploring in areas of ancient explosive volcanism and tectonism. Target areas would be those that consist of thick piles of tuffaceous sediments surrounding a dormant caldera. (2) Coal beneficiation—The possibility of using the concept of clay catalysis for the potentially low cost upgrading of currently uneconomic brown coal deposits, such as those in South Australia, should be seriously investigated. Even the Latrobe Valley brown coals could potentially be upgraded to high rank black coals by mixing the mined coal with the inter- seam clays and ‘cooking’ the mixture. (3) Artificial coal preparation—Carbon-rich industrial waste products such as those in the sawmilling, woodchip and sugar industries could potentially at low cost be artificially coalified by utilizing clay as a catalyst. Such artificial coals could even be made to customer specifications once the techniques have been refined. Summary and conclusions The catastrophically deposited ash and mud flows along Toutle Canyon and in Spirit Lake carried with them broken, conifer logs that were deposited or sank in apparent growth positions, many with fine root structures. Further volcanic ash is still the dominant sediment being washed over these buried logs. Thus the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption provides a model that is able to explain similar apparent growth position tree stumps and logs in ancient coal deposits which are associated with tuffaceous and/or clay-rich sediments. Upon this basis it has been concluded that the tree stumps and logs on top of the Upper and Lower Pilot Seams and in the Awaba ‘fossil forest’ horizon at Newcastle did not grow in situ even though they are found in apparent growth positions. The presence of both clays and coalified pine bark, cuticles and debris throughout the associated Pilot Seams, and in the coal seams at Oakleigh, indicate that the coal in these areas are not the product of terminal pine forests on ancient swamps, since it would be impossible then to explain the pine bark, cuticles and debris throughout the coal. Thus the vegetable debris in the coal seams does not appear to have grown in situ. Rather, it must have been washed into the depositional basins from the same forests that the catastrophically deposited pine trees were stripped from by the explosive volcanism. The coal therefore is allochthonous, and not autochthonous.Such rapid accumulation of carbon-rich sediments in areas of volcanism also implies the possibility of rapid seam formation. At Oakleigh the discovery in tuffaceous sandstones above the coal seams of a broken log that has black coal around its circumference and lining a clay-filled internal fracture, but only woody brown coal inside, provides compelling evidence that temperature and pressure are not the key factors in coalification and that coalification must have been rapid in such a volcanic setting. This widespread association of volcanic ash and ash-rich sediments (particularly the tuffs and kaolinite-rich tonstein marker beds) with coal seams full of allochthonous forest debris is an indication that widespread volcanism was associated with past coal seam formation, and provides evidence consistent with experimentally demonstrated rapid low temperature (less than 200°C) clay-catalyzed coalification of such seams in contrast with the slow formation, slow coalification autochthonous peat swamp hypothesis. The absence of clay in many present day peat deposits is sufficient to throw further doubt on the peat swamp hypothesis and should relegate such clay-free peats to be viewed merely as an alternative state of preserved carbon-rich material. Such peat deposits are thus not related to coal!Applying this explosive pyroclastic volcanism model to the formation of coal deposits world-wide, it is entirely feasible that all of today’s coal seams were formed by the volcanism, flooding, erosion, deposition, tectonism and hydrothermal activity during the global year-long Flood catastrophe and its aftermath. The Origin of Oil by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on December 27, 2006

For more than 100 years oil has been the “black gold” that has fueled transport vehicles and powered global economic growth and prosperity. So how does oil form, and what is its origin? Shop Now Basic Oil Geology Oil deposits are usually found in sedimentary rocks. Such rocks formed as sand, silt, and clay grains were eroded from land surfaces and carried by moving water to be deposited in sediment layers. As these sediment layers dried, chemicals from the water formed natural cements to bind the sediment grains into hard rocks.Pools of oil are found in underground traps where the host sedimentary rock layers have been folded and/or faulted. The host sedimentary or reservoir rock is still porous enough for the oil to accumulate in spaces between the sediment grains. The oil usually hasn’t formed in the reservoir rock but has been generated in source rock and subsequently migrated through the sedimentary rock layers until trapped. The Origin and Chemistry of Oil Most scientists agree that hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are of organic origin. A few, however, maintain that some natural gas could have formed deep within the earth, where heat melting the rocks may have generated it inorganically.1 Nevertheless, the weight of evidence favors an organic origin, most petroleum coming from plants and perhaps also animals, which were buried and fossilized in sedimentary source rocks.2 The petroleum was then chemically altered into crude oil and gas.The chemistry of oil provides crucial clues as to its origin. Petroleum is a complex mixture of organic compounds. One such chemical in crude oils is called porphyrin: Petroleum porphyrins … have been identified in a sufficient number of sediments and crude oils to establish a wide distribution of the geochemical fossils.3They are also found in plants and animal blood4 (see sidebar Porphyrins). Porphyrins Porphyrins are organic molecules that are structurally very similar to both chlorophyll in plants and hemoglobin in animal blood.1 They are classified as tetrapyrrole compounds and often contain metals such as nickel and vanadium.2 Porphyrins are readily destroyed by oxidizing conditions (oxygen) and by heat.3 Thus geologists maintain that the porphyrins in crude oils are evidence of the petroleum source rocks having been deposited under reducing conditions: The origin of petroleum is within an anaerobic and reducing environment. The presence of porphyrins in some petroleums means that anaerobic conditions developed early in the life of such petroleums, for chlorophyll derivatives, such as porphyrins, are easily and rapidly oxidized and decomposed under aerobic conditions.4 References McQueen, D.R., The chemistry of oil—explained by Flood geology,Impact #155, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, 1986. Tissot, B.P., and Welte, D.H.,Petroleum Formation and Occurrence, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 409–410, 1984. , W.L., Principles of Petroleum Geology, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, p. 25, 1960. Levorsen, p. 502. The Significance of Oil Chemistry It is very significant that porphyrin molecules break apart rapidly in the presence of oxygen and heat.5 Therefore, the fact that porphyrins are still present in crude oils today must mean that the petroleum source rocks and the plant (and animal) fossils in them had to have been kept from the presence of oxygen when they were deposited and buried. There are two ways this could have been achieved: 1. The sedimentary rocks were deposited under oxygen deficient (or reducing) conditions.6 2. The sedimentary rocks were deposited so rapidly that no oxygen could destroy the porphyrins in the plant and animal fossils.7 However, even where sedimentation is relatively rapid by today’s standards, such as in river deltas in coastal zones, conditions are still oxidizing.8 Thus, to preserve organic matter containing porphyrins requires its slower degradation in the absence of oxygen, such as in the Black Sea today.9 But such environments are too rare to explain the presence of porphyrins in all the many petroleum deposits found around the world. The only consistent explanation is the catastrophic sedimentation that occurred during the worldwide Flood. Tons of vegetation and animals were violently uprooted and killed respectively, so that huge amounts of organic matter were buried so rapidly that the porphyrins in it were removed from the oxidizing agents which could have destroyed them.The amounts of porphyrins found in crude oils vary from traces to 0.04% (or 400 parts per million).10 Experiments have produced a concentration of 0.5% porphyrin (of the type found in crude oils) from plant material in just one day,11 so it doesn’t take millions of years to produce the small amounts of porphyrins found in crude oils. Indeed, a crude oil porphyrin can be made from plant chlorophyll in less than 12 hours. However, other experiments have shown that plant porphyrin breaks down in as little as three days when exposed to temperatures of only 410°F (210°C) for only 12 hours. Therefore, the petroleum source rocks and the crude oils generated from them can’t have been deeply buried to such temperatures for millions of years. The Origin & Rate of Oil Formation Crude oils themselves do not take long to be generated from appropriate organic matter. Most petroleum geologists believe crude oils form mostly from plant material, such as diatoms (single-celled marine and freshwater photosynthetic organisms)12 and beds of coal (huge fossilized masses of plant debris).13 The latter is believed to be the source of most Australian crude oils and natural gas because coal beds are in the same sequences of sedimentary rock layers as the petroleum reservoir rocks.14 Thus, for example, it has been demonstrated in the laboratory that moderate heating of the brown coals of the Gippsland Basin of Victoria, Australia, to simulate their rapid deeper burial, will generate crude oil and natural gas similar to that found in reservoir rocks offshore in only 2–5 days.15However, because porphyrins are also found in animal blood, it is possible some crude oils may have been derived from the animals also buried and fossilized in many sedimentary rock layers. Indeed, animal slaughterhouse wastes are now routinely converted within two hours into high- quality oil and high-calcium powdered and potent liquid fertilizers, in a commercial thermal conversion process plant16 (see sidebar Animal Wastes Become Oil). Conclusion All the available evidence points to a recent catastrophic origin for the world’s vast oil deposits, from plant and other organic debris, consistent with the creation account of earth history. Vast forests grew on land and water surfaces17 in the pre-Flood world, and the oceans teemed with diatoms and other tiny photosynthetic organisms. Then during the global Flood cataclysm, the forests were uprooted and swept away. Huge masses of plant debris were rapidly buried in what thus became coal beds, and organic matter generally was dispersed throughout the many catastrophically deposited sedimentary rock layers. The coal beds and fossiliferous sediment layers became deeply buried as the Flood progressed. As a result, the temperatures in them increased sufficiently to rapidly generate crude oils and natural gas from the organic matter in them. These subsequently migrated until they were trapped in reservoir rocks and structures, thus accumulating to form today’s oil and gas deposits. Animal Wastes Become Oil Turkey and pig slaughterhouse wastes are daily trucked into the world’s first biorefinery, a thermal conversion processing plant in Carthage, Missouri.1 On peak production days, 500 barrels of high-quality fuel oil better than crude oil are made from 270 tons of turkey guts and 20 tons of pig fat.From the loading bay hopper, a pressurized pipe pushes the animal wastes into a brawny grinder that chews them into pea-size bits. A first-stage reactor breaks down the wastes with heat and pressure, until the pressure then rapidly drops in order to flash off the excess water and minerals. These are shunted off to dry into a high-calcium powdered fertilizer.The remaining concentrated organic soup is poured into a second reaction tank, where it is heated to 500°F (260°C) and pressurized to 600 pounds per square inch (42 kilograms per square centimeter). Within 20 minutes the process replicates what happens to dead plants and animals buried deep in the earth’s sedimentary rock layers, chopping long, complex molecular chains of hydrogen and carbon into the short-chain molecules of oil. Next, the pressure and temperature are dropped, and the soup swirls through a centrifuge that separates any remaining water from the oil. That water, because slaughterhouse waste is laden with nitrogen and amino acids, is stored to be sold as a potent liquid fertilizer.The oil produced can be blended with heavier fossil-fuel oils to upgrade them or simply used to power electrical utility generators. The good news is that it appears this thermal conversion technology can also be adapted to process sewage, old tires, and mixed plastics. And it is also energy efficient. Only 15 percent of the potential energy in the feedstock is used to power the operation, leaving 85 percent in the output of oil and fertilizer products.

How Fast Can Oil Form? by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on March 1, 1990 Originally published in Creation 12, no 2 (March 1990): 30-34. Many people today, including scientists, have the idea that oil and natural gas must take a long time to form, even millions of years. Such is the strong mental bias that has been generated by the prevailing evolutionary mindset of the scientific community. However, laboratory research has shown that petroleum hydrocarbons (oil and gas) can be made from natural materials in short time-spans. Such research is spurred on by the need to find a viable process by which man may be able to replenish his dwindling stocks of liquid hydrocarbons so vital to modern technology. From Sewage to Oil The 1 March 1989 edition of The Age newspaper (Melbourne, Australia) carried a report from Washington (USA) entitled ‘Researchers convert sewage into oil’. The report states that researchers from Batelle Laboratories in Richland, Washington State, use no fancy biotechnology or electronics, but the process they have developed takes raw, untreated sewage and converts it to usable oil. Their recipe works by concentrating the sludge and digesting it with alkali. As the mixture is heated under pressure, the hot alkali attacks the sewage, converting the complex organic material, particularly cellulose, into the long-chain hydrocarbons of crude oil.However, the oil produced in their first experiments did not have the qualities needed for commercial fuel oil. So, the report says, in September 1987 Batelle joined forces with American Fuel and Power Corporation, a company specializing in blending and recycling oils. Together they have made the oil more ‘free-flowing’ using an additive adapted from one developed to cut down friction in engines. A fuel has now been produced with almost the same heating value as diesel fuel. The process from sewage to oil takes only a day or two!The researchers are now building a pilot plant. As the report states, potential economic benefits of this new technology are tremendous, since the process produces more energy than is consumed during normal sewage disposal, and the surplus energy products can be sold at a profit. Bonuses include an 80 percent reduction in waste volumes, and the eradication of poisonous pollutants such as insecticides, herbicides and toxic metals that normally end up in sewage.Of course, one cannot claim that this is the way oil could have been made naturally in the ground in a short time period. The starting raw material is man-made and hot alkali digesters don't occur naturally in the ground. Coal to Oil in Laboratory Of greater significance are laboratory experiments that have generated petroleum under conditions simulating those occurring naturally in a sedimentary rock basin. Between 1977 and 1983, research experiments were performed at the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) laboratories in Sydney (Australia). In their reports1,2 the researchers noted that others had attempted to duplicate under laboratory conditions geochemical reactions that lead to economic deposits of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, but such experiments had only lasted for a few or several hundred days, and usually at constant temperatures. Consequently, the differences in timescale and other parameters between geological processes and laboratory experiments being so great meant that scientists generally questioned the relevance of such laboratory results. Thus, in their experiments, the CSIRO scientists had tried to carefully simulate in a laboratory under a longer time period, in this case six years, the conditions in a naturally subsiding sedimentary rock basin.Two types of source rock were chosen for this study—an oil shale (torbanite) from Glen Davis (New South Wales, Australia), and a brown coal (lignite) from Loy Yang in the Latrobe Valley (Victoria, Australia). Both these samples were important in the Australian context, since both represent natural source rocks in sedimentary basins where oil and natural gas have been naturally generated from such source rocks, and in the case of the Bass Strait oil and natural gas fields, sufficient quantities to sustain commercial production.These two source rock samples were each split into six sub-samples, and each sub-sample was individually sealed in a separate stainless steel tube. The two sets of six stainless steel tubes were then placed in an oven at 100°C and the temperature increased by 1°C each week, After 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 weeks (that is, at maximum temperatures of 150°C, 200°C, 250°C, 300°C, 350°C, and 400°C), one stainless steel tube from each series was removed, cooled and opened. Any gas in each tube was sampled and analysed. Residues in each tube were extracted and treated with solvents to remove any oil, which was then analysed. The solid remaining was also weighed, studied, and analysed. Four Years to Mimic ‘Nature’ The results are very illuminating. At less than 300°C, 35 percent of the oil shale had been converted to a paraffinic crude oil. At 350°C not only was generation of the oil complete, but ‘cracking’ of the oil had occurred extensively, with thermal decomposition producing 60% gas.In the brown coal samples, however, during the first 50 weeks of heating, gas (mainly carbon dioxide) was produced, and the production rate increased over the next 100 weeks. Virtually no oil was formed up until this point. Between 250°C and 300°C, when the oil shale generated copious oil, the brown coal produced about 1% short-chain hydrocarbons and 0.2% oil, which resembled a natural light crude oil (similar to that commercially recovered from Bass Strait, the offshore oil fields in the same sedimentary basin as, and geologically above, the Latrobe Valley coal beds from which the samples used in the experiment came).The products after 250 weeks (350°C) resembled a carbon dioxide rich natural gas. Over the same time period and at those temperatures, the brown coal samples had also been converted to anthracite (the highest grade form of black coal).The researchers concluded that overall, the four-year (300°C) results provide experimental proof of oil shale acting as an oil source and of brown coal being a source first of carbon dioxide and then of mainly natural gas/condensate. Significantly, these products of these slow ‘molecule-by-molecule’, solid- state decompositions are all typical of naturally occuring hydrocarbons (natural gases and petroleum), with no hydrocarbon compounds called olefins or carbon monoxide gas being formed.Geologists usually maintain that these processes of oil formation from source rocks (maturation events) commonly involve one thousand to one million years or more at near maximum temperatures.3 However, the researchers believe their series of experiments are the best attempts so far to duplicate natural, subsiding, sedimentary conditions. Extensive conversion of organic matter to hydrocarbons has also been achieved at less than 300°C under non-catalytic conditions with a minimum of water present. Furthermore, the researchers maintained that their experiments clearly show that altering the time-scale of source rock heating from seconds (the duration of many previous laboratory experiments) to years makes the products produced similar to natural petroleum. They went on to say: In many geological situations much longer time intervals are available but evidently the molecular mechanism of the decomposition is little changed by the additional time. Thus, within sedimentary basins, heating times of several years are sufficient for the generation of oil and gas from suitable precursors. The precise point in this range of times from seconds to years, at which the products adequately resemble natural gases and/or oils, remains to be established. Heating times of the order of years during recent times may even improve the petroleum prospects of particular areas. Flooding of a reservoir with migrating hydrocarbons is more likely to produce a reservoir filled to the spill point than slow accumulation over a long geological period with a possibility of loss …’.4 They also noted that it should be remembered their experiments ‘relate to a situation which is possibly unusual in the geological context—one in which hydrocarbons do not migrate away from their source rocks as they are generated.’5 But could these laboratory experiments really have simulated natural petroleum generation from organic matter in source rocks in only six years as stated? Oil Forming Under Ocean Now No sooner had the discovery of ongoing natural formation of petroleum been published in the journal Nature,6 than The Australian Financial Review of February 2, 1982 carried an article by Walter Sullivan of The New York Times under the heading ‘Natural oil refinery found under ocean’. The report indicated that ‘The oil is being formed from the unusually rapid breakdown of organic debris by extraordinarily extensive heat flowing through the sediments, offering scientists a singular opportunity to see how petroleum is formed….Ordinarily oil has been thought to form over millions of years whereas in this instance the process is probably occurring in thousands of years…. The activity is not only manufacturing petroleum at relatively high speed but also, by application of volcanic heat, breaking it down into the constituents of gasoline and other petroleum products as in a refinery.’

Figure 1. The Location of the Guaymas Basin in the Gulf of California. This ‘natural refinery under the ocean’ is found under the waters of the Gulf of California, in an area known as the Guaymas Basin (see Fig. 1). Through this basin is a series of long deep fractures that link volcanoes of the undersea ridge known as the East Pacific Rise with the San Andreas fault system that runs northwards across California. The basin consists of two rift valleys (flat-bottomed valleys bounded by steep cliffs along fault lines), which are filled with 500 metre thick layers of sediments consisting of diatomaceous ooze (made up of the opal-like ‘shells’ of diatoms, single-celled aquatic plants related to algae) and silty mud washed from the nearby land. Along these fractures through the sediments in the basin flows boiling hot water at temperatures above 200°C, the result of deep-seated volcanic activity below the basin. These hot waters (hydrothermal fluids) discharging through the sediments on the ocean floor have been investigated by deep sea divers in mini-submarines.The hydrothermal activity on the ocean floor releases discrete oil globules (up to 1–2 centimetres in diameter), which are discharged into hydrothermal the ocean water with the hydrothermal fluids.7Disturbance of the surface layers of the sediments on the ocean bottom also releases oil globules.Correct measurement of the oil flow rate at these sites has so far not been feasible, but the in situ collection of oil globules has shown that the gas/oil ratio is approximately 5:1. Large mounds of volcanic sinter (solids coalesced by heating) form via precipitation around the vents and spread out in a blanket across the ocean floor for a distance of 25 metres. These sinter deposits consist of clays mixed with massive amounts of metal sulphide minerals, together with other hydrothermal minerals such as barite (barium sulphate) and talc.The remains of unusual tubeworms that frequent the seawaters around these mounds are also mixed in with the sinter deposits. Thus the organic matter content of these sinter deposits in the mounds approaches 24%.8The hydrothermal oil from the Guaymas Basin is similar to reservoir crude oils.9 Selected hydrocarbon ratios of the vapour phase are similar to those of the gasoline fraction of typical crude oils, while the general distribution pattern of light volatile hydrocarbons resembles that of crude oils (see Table of analyses) . The elemental composition is within the normal ranges of typical crude oils, while contents of some of the significant organic components, and their distribution, are well within the range of normal crude oils. Other key analytical techniques on the oil give results that are compatible with a predominantly bacterial/algal origin of the organic matter that is the source of the oil and gas.10This oil and gas has probably formed by the action of hydrothermal processes on the organic matter within the diatomaceous ooze layers in the basin. Of crucial significance is the radiocarbon (C14 ) dating of the oil. Samples have yielded ages between 4,200 and 4,900 years, with uncertainties in the range 50?190 years.11 Thus, the time-temperature conversion of the sedimentary organic matter to hydrothermal petroleum has taken place over a very short geological time- scale (less than 5,000 years) and has occurred under relatively mild temperature conditions.It is significant also that the temperature conditions in these hydrothermal fluids, of up to and exceeding 315 °C, are similar to the ideal temperatures for oil and gas generation in the previously described Australian laboratory experiments.12 Figure 2a illustrates the oil generation system operating in the Guaymas Basin, while Figure 2b shows how this process could be applied in a closed sedimentary basin to the hydrothermal generation of typical oil and gas deposits.

Rapid Oil Formation The generally accepted model of oil generation assumes long-term heating and maturing of the sedimentary organic matter in subsiding sedimentary basins. The organic matter undergoes successive and gradual increases in alteration, leading to a process of continuous oil generation. The oil subsequently migrates to be trapped in suitable host rocks and structures.This multi-step oil formation process has a low efficiency and converts only a minor fraction of the original organic matter of the sediment to oil.13 There is difficulty in balancing and timing an adequate degree of oil generation occurring at intermediate stages in the sedimentary basin, and ample fluid available for adequate transport (migration) of the oil.Although considerable progress in the understanding of this multi-step oil formation mechanism has been achieved, there are still problems that need to be solved. Such a slow multistep mechanism differs significantly from hydrothermal petroleum formation. No evidence is so far available on the extent to which this alternative single-step oil generation process has contributed towards the origin of presently exploited oil reserves.It is very significant that this naturally produced hydrothermal oil is identical to conventionally exploited crude oils, as are the oil and gas products from the Australian laboratory experiments. Nevertheless, hydrothermal oil formation provides an efficient single-step mechanism for petroleum generation, expulsion, and migration which could have a considerable impact on our understanding of petroleum formation mechanisms and eventually assist us in tapping resources in new areas.14Thus the rapid formation of oil and gas is not only feasible on the basis of carefully controlled laboratory experiments, but has now been shown to occur naturally under geological conditions that have been common in the past.Significantly, these short timescales are well within those proposed by creation scientists for the generation of petroleum from organic matter in sediments laid down during the Flood. Subsequently, the discovery of the hydrothermally produced petroleum on the ocean floor in the Guaymas Basin of the Gulf of California is even more crucial to the case of the creation scientists and Flood geologists, when they argue that the fountains of the deep referred to in the Book of Genesis were probably vast volcanic upheavals that broke open the earth's crust, pulverizing rock which was then scattered as volcanic debris, and expelling lavas, gases, and hot liquids, principally water.Indeed, the bulk of the volcanic products would have been superheated water, similar to the hydrothermal fluids found in the Guaymas Basin. The rock record contains many layers of volcanic lavas and ash between other sedimentary layers, many containing organic matter. Thus this model for hydrothermal generation of petroleum is more than a feasible process for the generation of today’s oil and gas deposits in the time-scale subsequent to the Flood as suggested by creation scientists.