The Incredible Shrinking Deluge
A Review of THE AGE OF THE EARTH: GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE
English flood geologist Paul Garner has written an article on flood geology which is available on the Amen.org homepage. Garner is one of an increasing number of European creationists who are abandoning the traditional flood theories in favor of flood models in which only Paleozoic sediments were deposited by Noah's flood. These models avoid some of the problems encountered by the traditional models, but are still, like the traditional models, totally implausible in light of the available evidence. The following essay is a review of some of the statements in Garner's article.
"The Flood model presented here has exciting implications for interpreting the fossil record. . . Nevertheless, we must hold our scientific models lightly. We must be willing to subject our models to criticism and peer review. This model of earth history is not the final word on the subject. It is a summary of our current thinking, and will need to be reviewed, tested, and, if necessary, modified. "
The Geologic Column: Does it Exist? Is it Based on the Assumption of Evolution?
Garner admits to many difficulties generated by traditional flood theories in which the entire fossil record is deposited by Noah's flood. He accepts, as stated above, a model in which only Paleozoic strata were deposited by the flood, with Mesozoic and Cenozoic deposits formed rapidly after the flood.
Garner begins by discussing the geologic column and its significance for flood geology. He chastises other creationists for their illogical rejection of it, saying:
". . . the essentials of this column were put together well before Darwin published Origin of Species and evolutionary theory became widely accepted. The pioneering geologists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries - many of whom were Christians, catastrophists, and creationists (albeit "old-earth" creationists) - recognised patterns in the rock sequences with which they were familiar. They recognised that there were successions of rock types. For instance, the Carboniferous is well known for the widespread development of coal, the Permian and Triassic for the widespread development of red beds, and the Upper Cretaceous for the common development of Chalk (Ager 1981, pp 1-14). These characteristic rock types occur in a consistent order the world over.
"Superimposed on the rock succession, the early geologists recognised a non- random fossil succession throughout the fossil record. Fossils do not appear randomly in the geological record: there is a clear and consistent order of first appearance of the major fossil groups . . . On a finer scale, there are well-established successions of genera and species within the major groups, some of which are used to divide the geological record into fossil zones (e.g. trilobite zones in the Cambrian and Ordovician, ammonite zones in the Jurassic and Cretaceous). The important point is that the fossils really do appear in an ordered succession"
"These basic facts about the record were recognised by the early geologists nearly 200 years ago. Decades of field work since then by thousands of geologists has corroborated their findings. The essentials of the geological column can be checked out and validated by anyone who wishes to do so. Hence the geological column is a reasonable representation of field evidences"
The stratigraphic distribution of fossils within the sedimentary record is, to my mind, the most significant datum that theories of the formation of the sedimentary record need to explain, whether this is interpreted as evidence of biological evolution or not.
In the early days of geology, when Christian diluvialist 'natural philosophers' in England and France first began mapping the geology of Europe and *discovered* the *fact* of biotic succession, there seemed to be little problem with accepting it. In fact, this discovery was interpreted by many as evidence of multiple, distinct creations. Perhaps there had been 3 or 10 or 50 different worlds, each one ended by a divine catastrophe? After the rise of Darwinian thought in biology, however, creationists seem to become uncomfortable with biotic succession and hence the 'geologic column,' perhaps because it was used so effectively by evolutionists to illustrate the ever-changing nature of life on earth. The result was that, in one way or another, the very fact of biotic succession was, and still is, widely rejected among Christian diluvialists. Modern creationists who claim the geologic column is "constructed on the basis of evolutionary assumptions" are wrong as a matter of fact, as a matter of logic, and as a matter of history. We will touch on Garner's explanation of these facts later in the essay. Regarding the continuing denial of the geologic column by Morris and other young-earth creationists, Steve Robinson, another European young-earth creationist, wrote in 1996:
". . . the iconoclasm of Whitcomb and Morris in this area--still prevalent, as recent contributions to this journal make clear--is unwarranted and indeed embarrassing. The assertion that the geological column is built on the premise of biological evolution is untrue. Fossils are used to assign rocks a place in the geological column not because the order in which they occur shows a gradual evolution from simpler to more complex life . . . but because they occur in a definite succession. To suggest, as Froede does, that an alternative timescale should be developed which 'will allow the user the flexibility to evaluate individual sites and large areas without confusing evolutionary geology with the stratigraphic record,' is simply to wish that the evidence were different from what it is"
"To explain the fossil record by reference to the global Flood memorialised in Genesis and numerous other traditions is a scientific theory because it is open to refutation. The post-Cretaceous version of that theory is falsifiable and, as long ago as Morton's papers, I submit, has been falsified. Its predictions are not borne out. Its fragile tower of mechanisms such as ecological zonation, hydrological sorting, the differential ability of organisms to escape the encroaching Flood waters, tectonically associated biological provinces and so on cannot be sustained . . . Impugning the reality of the geological column-- its fossil succession and the chronological significance of that succession--continues to be the refuge of a Flood model that does not work."
(Robinson, S.J. Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record? Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10:1:32-69, p.36; emphasis added).
The Incredible Shrinking Deluge: Why the Flood Must Shrink
Garner notes that the traditional flood theories (ala Morris' 'Genesis Flood'), which view all Phanerozoic deposits as flood deposits, are now increasingly rejected by creationist geologists [(Robinson (1996), Scheven (1996), Garton (1996), Garner (1996a, 1996b), and Tyler (1996)], in favor of models in which some or all of the Paleozoic deposits are flood deposits, and post-Paleozoic deposits are formed in the centuries following the flood. This break with the traditional model is the result of the recognition of several serious flaws in that model. As an example, he mentions the miserably failed creationist attempts to explain the distribution of fossils within the sedimentary record in terms of differential escape, hydrodynamic sorting, and ecological zonation:
"Some creationists, such as Whitcomb and Morris (1961, p270-288), have tried to explain the fossil successions as a record of the order of burial of creatures during the Flood. In this view, the fossil successions represent: (i) the progressive burial of pre-Flood habitats as the waters rose, (ii) the different abilities of creatures to escape burial, and (iii) the effects of water sorting. However, problems with this theory have been expressed by evolutionists and creationists alike. Very few specific studies of fossil zonation have been carried out to test this idea. When examined in detail, the logical predictions of the model fail to correspond to the order of the fossils found in the rocks. . . Many young-earth creationist geologists have become convinced that the problems with the ecological zonation model are so overwhelming that an entirely new explanation is needed"
Garner comments that "many young-earth creationist geologists have become convinced that the problems with the ecological zonation model are so overwhelming that an entirely new explanation is needed." Robinson, quoted above, supported placing the flood-post-flood boundary within the Carboniferous period in his 1996 paper. He was later persuaded by additional geologic problems that the end of the flood must be lower still in the geologic column, perhaps as low as the Silurian or even lower! The creationists Steve Austin, Russell Humphreys, Larry Vardiman, John Baumgardner, Andrew Snelling and Kurt Wise don't go quite this far, but nevertheless hold that at least the Cenozoic deposits are post-flood. Wise states:
"To my knowledge, virtually all creation geologists accept the entire Cenozoic as post-Flood. The real debate among us is whether the Mesozoic should also be seen as post-Flood. The European creation geologists tend to want to make the Mesozoic post-Flood, whereas Steve, Andrew Snelling and I would put the Mesozoic as Flood. I suspect the difference in interpretation reflects the different rocks we, and the European geologists, are examining. So Steve and I want to co-author a paper with the Europeans, for the next ICC, to sort that out." (Kurt Wise, "Speaking to the Earth: An Interview with Steven Austin and Kurt Wise, Bible-Science News, 33:5, July, 1995, p. 17).
Hardgrounds and Hardground Communities: Compatible with the Flood Model?
The flood theory, as traditionally formulated, entails that all Phanerozoic strata were deposited about 4500 years ago in a period of "weeks to months." This theory would be falsified by evidence suggesting temporal gaps in Phanerozoic sedimentation longer than weeks to months. Because the flood theory makes the categorical claim that all Phanerozoic formations were created by the flood, a single clear example would be sufficient to rule out the Noah's flood theory as a viable explanation of the Phanerozoic geologic record.
In fact, there is an abundance of such evidence, in sedimentary deposits throughout the Phanerozoic, in both marine and terrestrial environments. Examples include glauconite enriched marine sediments, which only form in relatively shallow (30-1000 m) marine environments with *very low* sedimentation rates over extended periods of time (see Odin, G. S. and Fullagar, P. D.,1988; Owens, J. P., and Sohl, N. F., 1969). Glauconite, which is typically found as rounded pellets or grains, is an authigenic mineral that is thought to form by the alteration of mineral grains such as mica, as well as skeletal debris and perhaps fecal pellets. In some cases, glauconite has grown within abandoned burrows or borings, filling them. Studies of glauconite formation in the modern world have shown that low sedimentation rates are essential. Boggs notes that "the glauconization process requires exchange with seawater; therefore authigenic growth of glauconite grains must take place within the top few centimeters of muddy sediment or the top few meters of coarse, sandy sediment for such exchange to occur" (p. 681). It is unclear how the the widespread distribution of glauconite facies in Phanerozoic marine deposits can be reconciled with the timing and sedimentation regime of a global flood, which necessarily postulates extremely high rates of sedimentation throughout the flood.
Another type of case where such temporal gaps in sedimentation can be demonstrated to exist is at marine hardgrounds. These are found in strata of all geologic periods, and can be studied in marine environments all over the modern world as well. Hardgrounds, as their name implies, originate when layers of sediment which are deposited, then hardened, perhaps by carbonate precipitation with pore spaces, after which the hardened substrate is colonized by organisms which 'bore' into the hard surface for support, such as some bivalves, some sponges, polchaete worms, and others. The actual organisms are often preserved laying flat on the hardground surface, in life postion, showing that the organisms grew where they are preserved. This is further confirmed by the fact that shell shapes conform to those beside them, which could only occur if the organisms grew in place, next to each other. In some instances, a hardground formed at the surface, after which a space underneath the surface was excavated. Bryozoans and other animals sometimes entered these cavities, and are sometimes found in an upside down growth position within them.
"Hardgrounds are synsedimentarily lithified carbonate sea-floors that became hardened in situ by the precipitation of a carbonate cement in the primary pore spaces. To the sedimentologist studying Recent carbonate sediments, the term describes the consequence of the precipitation of cement within a soft sediment on the sea floor, contemporaneously with or soon after deposition" (Bathurst, 1971; Bromley, 1975; see also Palmer, T.J. 1982, and Wilson, M.A. and Palmer, T.J. 1992.).
See Petrology of Carbonate Hardgrounds, Modern hardgrounds off Georgia, USA , Petrology of carbonate hardgrounds, Image - bryozoan encrusting a late Ordovician hardground, Carbonate Diagenesis, Oligo-Miocene temperate hardgrounds, Hard facts about hardgrounds.
At left, a section of Ordovician hardground from northern Kentucky with the trepostome bryozoan Stigmatella. Note the borings in the hardground surface to the left of the bryozoan colony. At right, hardground from Middle Ordovician Kanosh Formation of west-central Utah, covered with in situ bryozoans and eocrinoids. Linked from http://www.wooster.edu/geology/hdgd/hdgdmain.html.
Flood geologist Steve Robinson's 1996 Creation Ex Nihilo article called attention to the presence of hardgrounds in putative flood deposits also:
"The oyster bed at the unconformity between Carboniferous limestone and Jurassic oolite in Somerset has already been mentioned. The oysters--at least two generations of them---grew insitu, for they are cemented to the hardground in life, and the contours of their shells are adapted to those adjacent.
"The example from Somerset is far from unique. Fursich studied 36 hardgrounds and related phenomena from Jurassic localities (mostly Middle Jurassic) in England, France, Germany and Poland, the development of which--taken together--must have required many years to develop."
Robinson draws the same conclusion, by the way, from in situ root horizons in Mesozoic terrestrial deposits:
"In situ organisms and structures are common enough in the Mesozoic to constitute a refutation of the post-Cretaceous model by themselves. Those relating to terrestrial organisms are particularly noteworthy, because they are just the sort of direct evidence one would look for in order to test whether certain rocks are Flood rocks . . . In the Jurassic of northern Europe plant roots are said to be 'prolific', and not all can be dismissed as debris introduced with the sediment. Tyler has described six root horizons from the Middle Jurassic of Yorkshire, concluding that the Equisetites plants in question colonised the sediments as pioneer species; the passing of the upright roots through bedding planes was inconsistent with an allochthonous origin."
Back to Garner. Garner admits that hardgrounds are problematical for the traditional flood theory, and that flood theories must take them into account. He says:
"There certainly are places where there is evidence for the passage of time between [sedimentary -ed.] layers. For instance, there are documented cases of colonised sea- floors (hardgrounds) throughout the geological record (Wilson and Palmer 1992). They are quite common in Ordovician, Jurassic, and Cretaceous rocks. Hardgrounds are places where sedimentation ceased, the sea-floor became hardened, and burrowing and boring creatures like clams, worms, or shrimps colonised the hardened surface (see Figure 4). Obviously, hardgrounds like these need time to develop. Do they invalidate the idea of a young earth?
"In fact, the time represented by these hardgrounds is relatively short - only months, years, or decades - not thousands or millions of years! So the time required for the formation of hardground surfaces is certainly compatible with the idea of a young earth." (emphasis mine)
Compatible with a young earth? Maybe, but certainly not compatible with Garner's theory that Paleozoic sediments were deposited in a 40 day flood! According to Garner's own theory the flood lasted only 40 days, yet he admits that hardgrounds take "months, years, or decades" to form, and are found throughout Paleozoic deposits!
Garner should be commended for recognizing this problem, but he does not seem to realize that hardgrounds falsify his own flood model as well! A more logical conclusion from the hardground evidence would simply be that no major portion of the geologic record was rapidly deposited during Noah's flood. Garner makes things even worse for himself when he tries to explain the origin of hardground faunas in his Paleozoic "flood deposits":
"Robinson (1996, 1997b) has suggested that most of the rest of the Lower Palaeozoic marine fauna was not transported from pre-Flood sea-floors but grew during the Flood whenever temporarily stable conditions allowed. Many of the Lower Palaeozoic marine organisms are delicate creatures that are easily fragmented or abraded by water transport, such as bryozoa, crinoids, and echinoderms. Nevertheless, such creatures are often found fossilised largely intact, implying that they were preserved either at the place they grew or close by. They are sometimes underlain by great thicknesses of earlier Flood- deposited sediment, often hundreds or thousands of kilometres from the likely locations of the pre-Flood seas. It is therefore difficult to believe they could have transported such great distances. Perhaps where there were conditions of lighter sedimentation, the mineral-rich, and possibly very warm, Flood waters encouraged the rapid growth of invertebrate populations. This may explain the Lower Palaeozoic hardgrounds (colonised sea-floors), which are especially abundant in the Ordovician. They represent times when sedimentation ceased, the sea-floor became hardened, and burrowing and boring creatures like clams, worms, and shrimps colonised the hardened surface. There is great scope for biologists to investigate the factors that influence growth rates of marine invertebrates (e.g. nutrient supply, sunlight, temperature) to see whether these populations could have grown up rapidly in the time available during the Flood."
This will not work without invoking a miracle. Again, we have only 40 days to account for the flood deposits, as Garner agrees. Garner follows Robinson in suggesting that the in situ hardground faunas, even stacked layers of hardgrounds, somehow grew during the flood, perhaps as a result of warm, nutrient rich waters.
However, one does not need a PhD in marine biology to see that a mere 40 days would be a woefully insufficient amount of time for this to happen! We already known enough of "the factors that influence growth rates of marine invertebrates" to know that this suggestion is absurd to the highest degree, even if we postulate the most favorable environmental conditions imaginable. Of course, we can say with confidence that if the flood occurred in the manner Garner proposes, the oceans would have been so clogged with terrestrial detritus and fine particles that most organisms would be quickly suffocated, not experience a rapid growth spurt.
"Living animals can walk and leave footprints; dead animals cannot. We have already emphasised the suddenness and violence of the Flood. The Bible describes the total annihilation of all the pre-Flood air-breathers in the first 40 days of the Flood. We should expect, therefore, to find no evidence of living land animals (e.g. their footprints) in Flood layers, but plenty of evidence of living land animals in post-Flood layers, after the animals had stepped off the Ark and begun to repopulate the earth. We can therefore look at the distribution of footprints in the geological record to help us identify Flood rocks.
This method of "identifying flood rocks" is apparently not the actual method that Garner uses. For instance, according to Garner's statements above, he identifes the Coconino Sandstone as a flood deposit, yet the Coconino contains abundant evidence of "living land animals." The Permian age Hermit Formation below the Coconino also contain some tracks which are attributed to early reptiles.
"Figure 10 shows the distribution of tracks (Garton 1996). The Lower Palaeozoic layers are devoid of tracks. Amphibians and reptiles characterise the Upper Palaeozoic, reptiles the Triassic, and dinosaurs (with some birds) the later Mesozoic. In other words, the tracks of air-breathing land animals lie on top of thousands of metres of sediments that contain no tracks. This distribution can be understood if the Flood ends in the Upper Palaeozoic. This would explain why tracks are absent from the Lower Palaeozoic - these are Flood rocks laid down at a time when all the land creatures had perished. It would also explain why the tracks of terrestrial creatures characterise the Mesozoic - these are post-Flood animals descended from those on board the Ark. The amphibian and reptile tracks in the Upper Palaeozoic appear to be those of semi-aquatic creatures that were able to survive outside the Ark (Robinson 1996, pp 52-53).
Garner notes that "while the presence of bones does not necessarily tell us whether an animal was alive or not when it was buried, dinosaur nests, like tracks, were obviously made by living dinosaurs. These nests are found at multiple levels throughout the Mesozoic sediments . . . These are facts that any model of earth history must explain. . . we find that they occur, not haphazardly throughout the column, but from the Triassic onwards. There is also an apparent increase in the numbers of eggs and nests found throughout the Mesozoic, with the largest concentration occurring in the Upper Cretaceous sediments. Again, this non-random distribution of nests points to a Flood/post-Flood boundary before the Triassic."
Garner notes, correctly, the dinosaur nests consisting of multiple eggs arranged into a radial clutch could only formed by living dinosaurs on an exposed land surface. Garner is also correct that this rules out widespread inundation during the Mesozoic. For more information on known dinosaur nests, see Kenneth Carpenter's Eggs, Nests, and Baby Dinosaurs, Indiana University Press, 1999.
The Paleozoic Transgression
Garner deduces from the above mentioned evidence that the flood could not have deposited the Mesozoic and Cenozoic geologic record. These must have been produced after the flood. Garner attempts to avoid these problems by limiting the flood Paleozoic deposits.
"It is significant that separating the Precambrian from overlying younger rocks is an extraordinarily widespread erosion surface. In the words of one geologist:
"The continental nuclei at that time were largely stripped down to the crystalline basement. Ancient mountain systems were worn down to their roots reducing the continents more nearly to a plain than they have ever been before or since." (Olson 1966 p 458)
"As the subterranean water chambers emptied, the land was levelled, and the oceans began to inundate the continents. The resulting erosion surface - the so-called 'Great Unconformity' - marks the rapid incoming of the sea after the collapse of the fountains of the great deep."
Garner should clarify that he and Olson are saying different things. Olson is not claiming that the preflood surface of the continental nuclei were "levelled" by the Paleozoic transgression itself or by events associated with it, which is Garner's claim. According to Olson, the Precambrian surface was peneplaned (eroded to a nearly planar topography) by subarial erosion prior to the transgression. Of course, we should also be clear that the Precambrian surfaces underlying basal Paleozoic deposits was not "level," only "nearly" level. For instance, many remnant "islands" or hogbacks of Shinumo Quartzite, some of which are hundreds of feet tall, are buried under Cambrian sediments in the Grand Canyon region.
That the Paleozoic transgression occured relatively slowly during the Cambrian and Ordovician is supported by the observation that the basal sediments in onlapping Paleozoic formations contain progressively higher zonal fossils as they are traced inland. For instance, Middleton and Elliot note that progressively 'higher' [in the biostratigraphic sense] trilobite zonal assemblages are found from west to east in the Tapeats Sandstone, which was deposited in the Grand Canyon region during the Cambrian transgression (p. 89). We would not expect these systematic faunal differences from a short-lived, catastrophic inundation.
As far as the "fountains of the great deep" levelling the preflood surface, this is totally implausible in light of the known facts of hydraulics and the physical properties of rocks. In fact, this brings us straight to one of the many unanswered questions of flood geology, namely how a 40 day flood could generate enough sediment to account for the volume found in supposed flood deposits. Arthur Strahler writes: "Fully lithified, hard, dense rock --such as ... [various] kinds of igneous and metamorphic rock ... could withstand forty days and nights of torrential rainfall with scarcely a measurable quantity of erosional removal .... Even on the assumption that a thick (100-meter) layer of decayed rock (saprolite) was available... it would be woefully inadequate to supply the quantity needed to form all existing Proterozoic and younger sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks" (p 201).
Let's be very generous and assume that the water released by the fountains of the great deep acted upon the entire preflood earth with the same force that the Niagara Falls exerts on exposed bedrock. Well, even spectacular, high-volume, high-energy systems such as Niagara can only erode rock at a rate of inches per year. Garner's vision of catastrophic bedrock erosion in the early weeks of the flood would require weathering processes that can act many orders of magnitude faster than the fastest observed rates, on a global scale, without destroying Noah's ark. There is every reason to doubt that such an amazing feat is physically possible, no matter how quickly or 'catastrophically' the continents were flooded.
If Garner disagrees with this assessment, he should demonstrate such rapid mountain-wasting processes on an experimentally feasible scale. Here's a proposal: aquire 1 meter square blocks of basalt, granite, limestone, sandstones, shales, and their metamorphic equivalents. These will represent the preflood bedrock surface. Place the blocks in a tank of water and expose them to rapidly flowing water for 40 days, simulating the onlapping Paleozoic/'flood' ocean. The blocks will end up pretty much like they started. 40 straight days of exposure to high-speed water current would be insufficient to significantly alter the bedrock topography. It would only moblize and redeposit the unconsolidated weathered material from the preflood surface.
Within beds of sandstone it is common to find inclined layering called cross-bedding. Cross-bedding is formed when sand dunes migrate across the sea floor under the influence of powerful water currents. Single cross-beds form today in the Mississippi River in less than one minute (Nevins 1971), so cross- bedding is therefore often a sign of rapid deposition. Some cross-bedding is so enormous that it staggers the imagination. The Coconino Sandstone of the Colorado Plateau, for instance, averages about 315 feet (96 m) in thickness and covers an area of around 200,000 square miles (518,000 sq. km). It contains cross-beds up to 30 feet (9m) thick, which would have required a water depth of about 300 feet (90 m). The current velocity needed to form these sand dunes would have been between 3 and 5 feet per second (1-1.5 metres per second) (Austin 1994). Fast-flowing water 300 feet (90m) deep over an area almost twice the size of the American state of Colorado is a catastrophe by almost any standard! [It might be objected that these calculations are invalid since the Coconino Sandstone is usually regarded as an aeolian (i.e. wind-blown) deposit. However, there is compelling palaeontological and geological evidence against an aeolian interpretation and in favour of an underwater origin (Brand 1979; Brand and Tang 1991; Visher 1990).
The evidence for an underwater origin for the Coconino is not only not compelling, it can be easily ruled out on the basis of sedimentologic and paleontologic evidence. For instance, if the Coconino was formed by the ocean rapidly transgressing onto the craton, we would expect to find at least some marine fossils in the Coconio beds. For instance, a few foraminifers or trilobite fragments or fish bones. What we actually find is that fossils either marine or continental are absent altogether, but trace fossils and trackways of terrestrial animals and desert arthropods such as spiders are present in abundance. If that's not clear enough, there are also well preserved raindrop prints, which are not consistent with subaqeous sand-wave theory.
Of course, even if some of the Laoporus tracks were interpreted as being impressed into a wet substrate, this would not necessarily indicate that the substrate itself was subaqeously deposited, much less that it was deposited all at once by Noah's Flood! In fact, as we've said, the other surface features found in the Coconino -- delicate spider and other invertebrate tracks, raindrop impressions [!], complete lack of marine fossils or trace fossils of marine organisms, even though underlying and overlying strata are rich in marine fossils -- argue strongly against this theory.
Attempts by McKee, Brady and others to duplicate the invertebrate tracks of the CS indicate that they were typically impressed into a relatively dry substrate. Brady (1939, 1947) showed that modern analogues of the Coconino invertebrate fauna failed to leave any impression in sand which was even slightly moist, but that the same animals left clear impressions in dry sand (p. 185). Brand never attempts to duplicate these tracks, or even mention them as far as I could tell. Martin Lockley (1999), perhaps the world's foremost expert on trackway morphology, states of Brand's hypothesis:
" . . . we should state clearly that the evidence for flooding is nonexistent. The protomammal tracks [in the Coconino - ed] are often found in association with with countless trackways of spiders, scorpions, and other desert arthropods that could not have been walking around underwater" (p. 69).
Interestingly enough, Brand (1996) himself wrote in the conclusion of a 1996 paper that: "The data do suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil trackways may have been produced in either subaqueous sand or subaerial damp sand" (Variations in salamander trackways resulting from substrate differences. Journal of Paleontology 70, 1004-1010). So, Brand's work, even taken at face value, does not necessarily indicate that the substrate was deposited subaqeously, as flood geologist frequently claim. Lockley (1999) notes that "a gentle and subtle mechanism is required, for heavy rains or catastrophic biblical floods would simply wash away delicate tracks of spiders and scorpions. One possibility is dew and the condensing of fog and mist onto track surfaces, as is common in coastal dunes in the present day Namib desert" (p.76; see also Middleton, 1990, p. 189).
The Coconino covers a huge portion of the southwest. The volume of mature quartz sand found in these deposits is immense. In order to account for the Coconino as a rapidly formed "flood deposit," we must assume that it was transported by extremely fast water currents (3-5ft/sec according to Austin). But how are the tiny, delicate tracks to be preserved in the midst of such strong water currents? Even if we assume that the Coconino sands were transported by a succession of discrete current pulses, and that vertebrate trackways were made between pulses, it seems likely that each new set of tracks would be destroyed by each new pulse, with little or no net preservation.
The theory that the Coconino Sandstone was formed as subaqeous sand waves is moreover unsupportable, as I said, on sedimentologic grounds. Garner makes it sound as if eolian sandstones are recognized soly on the basis of bedding geometry, but this is definitely not the case. There are characteristics found in eolian deposits (climbing translatent strata, sand flow toes, high-index wind ripples, etc.) that are not found in subaqeous cross-bedded sand deposits such as those formed in shelf environments. Cuffey notes:
"Careful examination of modern dunes [such as the Great Sand Dunes, White Sands (Collinson, 1986b), Monahans Sand Hills, Nebraska Sand Hills (Ahl brandt & Fryberger, 1982), or on Padre Island (Brookfield, 1984)] indicates that climbing translatent strata, with coarsening-up laminae and rare foreset laminae, form only by the migration and accretion of low amplitude wind ripples in eolian environments (Hunter, 1977; Kocurek & Dott, 1981). Such strata and ripples are ubiquitous in the [Coconino,] Navajo, Entrada, and similar sandstones (Kocurek & Dott, 1981), contradicting a subaqueous origin. Modern eolian sand dunes exhibit internal cross-bedding that is remarkably similar to that in the Colorado Plateau sandstones" (Ahlbrandt & Fryberger, 1982, p. 19; McKee & Ward, 1983, p. 147; Collinson, 1986b, p. 104).
Ralph Hunter, in his classic 1977 paper on the characterisitics of seolian dune deposits (Basic Types of Stratification in Small Eolian Dunes, Sedimentology, 24:361-387), wrote:
"All the basic types of stratification found in dry windblown sand can also be found in water-laid sands. As far as is known, eolian and subaqueous planebed lamination cannot be distinguished by their structural characteristics, nor can eolian and subaqueous grainfall lamination. Eolian and subaqueous sandflow cross-strata of small slipfaces show some fairly consistent difference, but the differences between eolian and subaqueous climbing-ripple structures are even more distinct. The subcritically climbing translatent strata produced by subaqueous current ripples generally have distinct ripple-foreset crosslamination and are normally graded; both of these featrues re evidently produced by miniature sandflows down the lee slopes of the ripples. Other differences between eolian and subaqueous climbing-ripple structures are related to differences in the height-to-spacing ratios and plan forms of the ripples" (p. 384-385).
"Because eolian climbing-ripple structure is generally so different in appearance from subaqueous climbing-ripple structure, a new terminology has been developed. The name, 'climbing-ripple structure', is proposed for any structure formed by climbing ripples, whether or not ripple-foreset cross-stratification is visible. Climbing-ripple structure is potentially composed of wavy layering parallel to successive rippled depositional surfaces and even layering parallel to the vector of ripple climb. The former, called 'ripple laminae superimposed in rhythm' by McKee and here called 'rippleform lamination', is not present, or at least is not visually detectable, in amny eolian climbing-ripple structures. The latter, formerly called 'pseudobeddng', 'climbing-ripple stratification', or 'climbing-ripple pseudo-stratification' , is here called 'climbing translatent stratification'" (p. 371).
Finally, there is a problem of theoretical consistency here also. Garner himself says elsewhere that "Evidence indicating the substantial re-emergence of dry land begins to appear in the Devonian. The end of the Palaeozoic and the beginning of the Mesozoic is characterised world-wide by continental red-beds (wind-blown sands) of the Permo-Triassic, and extremely low sea-levels, correlating well with the drying out of the land after the Flood ." Garner even says elsewhere:
"Living animals can walk and leave footprints; dead animals cannot. We have already emphasised the suddenness and violence of the Flood. The Bible describes the total annihilation of all the pre-Flood air-breathers in the first 40 days of the Flood. We should expect, therefore, to find no evidence of living land animals (e.g. their footprints) in Flood layers, but plenty of evidence of living land animals in post-Flood layers, after the animals had stepped off the Ark and begun to repopulate the earth. We can therefore look at the distribution of footprints in the geological record to help us identify Flood rocks."
Well, the Permian age Coconino would have been deposited either at the end of the flood on this model, after all the terrestrial trackmakers had been decimated! If the end of the Paleozoic is "characterised world-wide by continental red-beds (wind-blown sands) of the Permo-Triassic, and extremely low sea-levels," then Garner's statement about the Coconino makes no sense. How can you have a major, widespread transgression in the Grand Canyon region at the same time as extremely low sea levels worldwide? Garner cited approvingly the flood models of Robinson et al., yet Robinson pointed out in his 1996 paper that the Austin et al. interpretation of the Coconino as subaqeous sand-waves deposited by a large-scale transgression is problematic.
"If the Hermit and Coconino Formations represent the deposits of Flood waters as they encroached upon the land, how is it that immediately beneath the Hermit Formation we find sediments thousands of feet thick which must also be ascribed to the Flood? If the Permian marks the point in Arizona where the sea transgresses onto the land, why are the deposits beneath the Permian not all considered pre-Flood deposits? In practice, Austin et al. argue that the Flood waters reached Arizona as early as the Lower Cambrian. The Hermit and Coconino Formations must therefore have been laid down after Arizona was submerged, and the presence of tracks at those levels is more problematic than they suppose" Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record? Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p. 50.
"Powerful evidence against long time gaps (thousands or millions of years) in the geological record is provided by what geologists call paraconformities. Paraconformities are places where huge amounts of time are thought to have passed, yet there is very little physical evidence to show it. Remember that the top of each layer must once have formed the sea-floor, or a land surface, before being covered up by the next layer. We know that if a layer forms the sea-bed or a land surface for a substantial period of time it is very vulnerable to damage. For instance, it will be exposed to erosion: the very next tide or rainstorm will begin to scour the sediment away, and channels and gullies will begin to form.
"In the geological record there are many instances where the junction between two layers is supposed to represent a gap of millions of years. If this were true then there ought to be ample evidence of erosion and disruption at these junctions. A close examination of these gaps and the adjacent layers offers no such evidence, as in the following real-life rock sequences."
An Example: the Moenkopi Formation
"From Dead Horse Point in Utah it is possible to observe dramatic canyon erosion by the Colorado River. Exposed there are two major gaps in the geological sequence - one thought to represent 10 million years, and the other 20 million years (Roth 1988). The 10 million year gap has been traced over 100,000 square miles (250,000 sq. km). Sandwiched between these two gaps are deposits of the Moenkopi Formation, a sequence of continental deposits (important, because on land a layer is more vulnerable to gully and channel erosion). Yet again, there is no evidence of a prolonged period of erosion along the tops of these layers. They are quite flat and featureless."
Not so! It is *not* the case that the Kaibab-Moenkopi contact is "flat and featureless" over 100,000 square miles of lateral extent! Although the contact between the Kiabab and the Moenkopi is flat, featureless and hard to identify in Southwestern Utah and Southern Nevada (where carbonates overlie carbonates), there is abundant evidence for a "prolonged period of erosion" between Kaibab deposition and Moenkopi deposition in northwest Arizona, southeastern Nevada, and southeast Utah. Further north, the Kaibab is conformable with overlying formations, so there is no 10 million year gap, and hence no reason to expect erosional features there. Garner has uncritically accepted an overgeneralization on the part of Roth (1988). Hopkins describes the contact as follows:
"In areas of southwestern Utah and southern Nevada where carbonates of the Timboweap Member of the Moenkopi overly uppermost carbonates of the Harrisburg Member, the formational contact can be difficult to determine (Bissell 1969; Nielson 1981)
But . . .
"In northwestern Arizona, southeastern Nevada, and southwestern Utah, a discontinuous conglomerate-filled channels and breccia deposits occur between the Kaibab Formation and the Timboweap Member of the Moenkopi Formation. Reeside and Bassler (1922) termed these deposits the Rock Canyon conglomerate for a channel 250ft deep (75m) and 700ft (210m) wide in Rock Canyon, which is north of Antelope Spring, Arizona. At several localities (for example, in the Beaver Dam mountains), channels of the Rock Canyon conglomerate have scoured completely through the Harrisburg and into the underlying Fossil Mountina Member. . . associated features may represent paleokarst depressions" (Grand Canyon Geology, Bues & Morales. eds., p. 231).
More recently, Billingsley wrote:
"A major regional unconformity separates the Permian and Triassic strata in the Grand Canyon area. After deposition of the Harrisburg Member of the Kaibab Formation, erosion of the Harrisburg was mainly confined to paleoriver valleys and their associated tributaries. Two large paleovalleys were cut into the Harrisburg and Fossil Mountain Members of the Kaibab Formation of the map area during Early Triassic time. The paleovalleys were filled with gray conglomerate and sandstone of the Timpoweap Member of the Moenkopi Formation. Imbrication of pebbles in the conglomerate beds of the Timpoweap Member indicate deposition was from streams that flowed eastward. The conglomerate and sandstone material is locally derived from the Kaibab Formation.
"For location and descriptive purposes on this map, the northern Triassic paleovalley is called Poverty valley, named for nearby Poverty Knoll. Poverty valley averages about 1 km (0.5 mi) wide and about 60 m (200 ft) deep. Strata of the Timpoweap Member in Poverty valley are exposed along the Little Hurricane Rim east of the Main Street Fault, in the flatland south of Poverty Knoll, and on the Uinkaret Plateau in the northeast corner of map area (fig. 2). Poverty valley can be traced west and northwest of this map area for about 13 km (8 mi; Billingsley, 1994). East of Poverty Knoll and towards the Hurricane Cliffs, Poverty valley is mostly covered by surficial deposits and younger Moenkopi Formation strata. Poverty valley joins another paleovalley called Sullivan valley in the vicinity of the Hurricane Cliffs (Billingsley, in press a, c). Sullivan valley becomes progressively wider and shallower east of the Hurricane Cliffs and is largely covered by Quaternary basalt flows.
"A second large paleovalley, herein called Parashant valley , is exposed between Poverty Mountain and the settlement of Mt. Trumbull (Bundyville). The paleovalley is buried by younger strata of the Moenkopi Formation at Poverty Mountain, but is partly eroded by modern tributary erosion in the upper reaches of Parashant Canyon on the southwest side of Poverty Mountain. Parashant valley is partly covered by Cenozoic surficial deposits between Poverty Mountain and the settlement of Mt. Trumbull, becoming mostly covered by alluvium and younger strata of the Moenkopi Formation near the base of the Hurricane Cliffs. At the top of the Hurricane Cliffs, along the Mt. Trumbull road, Parashant valley can be traced northward across the Uinkaret Plateau to where it joins Poverty and Sullivan valleys near Moriah Knoll north of the map area. Parashant valley has not been mapped west of the map area, and its westward extent is unknown. Parashant valley averages about 1 km (0.5 mi) wide and about 60 m (200 ft) deep" (George H. Billingsley, GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE UPPER PARASHANT CANYON AND VICINITY, MOHAVE COUNTY, NORTHWESTERN ARIZONA. USGS, MAP MF-2343).
If buried channels up to 250ft deep and 700ft wide, conglomerates, breccias, and possible paleokarst depressions do not constitute evidence for erosion, I dont know what would.
However, we should look at the broader question of whether or not the absence of such features at a lithostratigraphic boundary constitutes good evidence that no erosion or depositional hiatus occured. The question boils down to the question of whether or not a planar or nearly planar boundary between two strata of different ages is compatible with a depositional hiatus seperating the two strata. Garner and Roth assume that the answer is no. Is this supportable?
Many areas in the modern world, especially coastal plain areas, have a very flat topography, with dips on the order of 1/20,000. There is no reason to suppose that similar planar surfaces did not exist in the past when the sea rose, inundating the continental cratons. What's more, landscapes exposed to subarial conditions do not automatically or invariantly develop high relief surfaces. Topography is a result of many different variables, including weather, climate, aridity, seasonality, vegetation, rock type, etc. And even in cases where high relief surfaces may once have formed, they may subsequently be reduced to a planar or nearly planar surface by erosional processes between times of deposition. Lemon, discussing the remarkably flat surface found in many marine cratonic sequences, writes:
"There has been much discussion as to the nature of the interregional unconformities that formed the craton surface over which epicontinental seas transgressed. The marked uniformity of many of the epieric sedimentary formations suggests a surface of low relief. . . Even though the craton at the time of its submergence might be devoid of signicant relief, it was certainly not flat, and there was a regional gradient from interior to margin. Shaw (1964) postulated gradients across the craton as low as 0.1' to about 0.5' per mile [1 in 10,000 to 1 in 50,000] . . . Such very gentle slopes over continental distances may seem difficult to imagine, but it should be remembered that even on modern continents, regional gradients are often extremely small. For example, from the headwaters of the Mississippi to its mouth, the river flows across a surface with avergae gradient of about 1 in 20,000. In the Amazon bain, the gradient is even less" (Principles of Stratigraphy, p. 343-4).
I checked out the paper by A. Roth cited by Garner for this example. After introducing several examples of paraconformities in the geologic record, Roth asks the question "Can there be flat areas of the earth where neither deposition nor erosion are taking place?" He answers:
"There may be one or more such areas, but they are the exception and could not account for the abundance of these flat gaps throughout the sedimentary layers of the earth. Some geomorphologists have appealed to the presently arid central Australia as an area where deposition and erosion are very slow. . .
"There are a few exposed areas of earth that are assumed to be older surfaces that do not show much of the effects of erosion. Their significance depends on their assumed age. The Llano Estacado mentioned earlier is one of them; however, it is considered to be only a couple of million years old. More significant are such areas as Kangaroo Island and the surrounding Gulfs region in South Australia. Kangaroo Island, which is about 140 by 60 km, has a surface assumed to be 200 Ma old (Daily, Twidale and Milnes 1974). When I visited it, I was impressed by the extreme flatness of most of the island."
So here we have an example of a planar, 200mya boundary in the modern world. If sea level were to rise and deposit a thick blanket of sediment on top of this area, what would stop a future flood geologist from proclaiming that the planar contact between the two strata is evidence that there was no period of subarial exposure, or even no depositional hiatus at all? Apparently nothing, yet we know that the conclusion would be flat wrong. Roth basically dismisses such examples as irrelevant because "they are the exception and could not account for the abundance of these flat gaps."
A Second Example: The Muav-Redwall Boundary
One of the examples cited by Garner, following A. Roth (1988), of a paraconformity that could not be the result of a significant time gap is the contact between the Redwall Limestone and the underlying Cambrian Tonto Group. He says:
"In Grand Canyon, just below a prominent cliff formed by the Redwall Limestone, there is a claimed gap of 100 million years of missing Ordovician and Silurian deposits (Roth 1988). The layers above this gap sit conformably on the layers beneath as though no long time gap had elapsed between them. "
Four words: the Temple Butte Formation! Elsewhere I describe the TBF as follows:
"The Temple Butte Formation occurs as lens-shaped beds, 100-400ft thick, deposited in in a westward-draining system of channels eroded into the top of the Muav Limestone (Beus, p. 111). These channel deposits are thickest towards the west (about 400ft at Iceberg Ridge), and are progressively thinner towards the east (about 100ft at Marble Canyon).
"Fossil contents include placoderm plate fragments assigned to Bothreolepsis, massive stromatoporoids, silicified rugose corals, and crinoid fragments. Also present are several species of conodonts, which which allow for correlation with well-dated localities elsewhere in western North America. Conodonts described from a well-studied outcrop in Matkatamiba Canyon include Polygnathus pennatus, P. xylus, and Icriodus subterminus at the base of the section, Pandorinella insita and Spathagnotus gradatus about 20ft above the base, and Polygnathus angustidiscus about 20ft from the top of the formation (Beus, p.115, 116; Elston and Bressler, 1977). The upper 20ft of the TBF at this locality is devoid of fossils.
See the photos in Beus, pp. 107-117. While in many areas the contact between these two formations is hard to recognize because both the top of the Cambrian Muav limestone and the base of the Redwall are composed of dolomite, it can be seen in many places that an extensive system of paleovalleys were incised into the Cambrian Muav limestone before Redwall deposition. These paleovalleys contain stratified channel-fill deposits, and contain an entirely different fauna (late Devonian age, Givetian-Frasnian) than the underlying Muav and the overlying Redwall limestones. What better evidence of an erosional time gap could one ask for? What's more, the top of the Redwall displays karst erosional features and paleovalleys up to 400ft thick as well, showing that it, too, was subject to subarial conditions for a period of time before deposition of the overlying strata. Beus again:
"By their nature and distribution, these notches appear to have been a part of a major dendritic drainage system that flowly generally from east to west . . . A preliminary reconstruction of the drainage pattern (Grover 1987) illustrate several major valleys that merge westward. In addition, solution depressions ['sinkholes' - Ed] and caves in the upper Redwall Limestone are filled locally with red mudstone of the Surprise Canyon Formation, indicating the development of a karst topography prior to Surpise Canyon deposition" (p. 132).
A Third Example: the Deccan Plateau
Garner writes:
"The Deccan Plateau, in India, is made up of a thick pile of basalt lava flows. These basalts are thought to have been erupted throughout a period of several million years. But we know that each lava flow must have formed very quickly because they spread out over very large distances (some can be traced over 100 miles) before they had time to cool. Each flow probably formed in just a few days, so the bulk of the geological time is thought to have passed between each eruption. However, evidence for long time gaps between the flows is lacking (Garner 1996b). The tops of the flows are strikingly flat, implying that there was no time for erosion to take place between eruptions. For instance, the village of Shyampura is built on top of one of the lava flows which forms a flat plateau nearly three miles long and more than a mile wide. The level does not vary more than 50 feet over the whole area (West 1981). If thousands of years passed between each eruption, then why had the lavas not been eroded into the conical hills that modern day erosion is producing in that region?"
Garner is correct in that the large lateral extent of the Deccan traps and other flood basalt flows are evidence that they were not extruded under deep floodwaters as many creationists believe. But he is also incorrect because some of the individual Deccan flows are in fact seperated by intertrappean sediments up to several meters thick. One intertrap deposit has been described which happens to fall right at the K-T boundary, containing plant material, dinosaur egg shells and fossils, and other fossils indicating the development of an alkaline lake on top of FIII, before the extrusion of FIV. Also found in this deposit is a prominent Iridium enrichment, which is interpreted as K-T fallout deposits. See the analysis by A.S. Khadkikar et al., The influence of Deccan volcanism on climate: insights from lacustrine intertrappean deposits, Anjar, western India. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 147 (1999) 141–149. Khadkikar write:
"A sedimentary succession from Anjar sandwiched between basaltic flows records what transpired as continental India passed from Cretaceous to Tertiary times in the immediate vicinity of the Deccan Trap Province. The deposits consist of interlayered peloidal cherty limestones and shales. The shales are dominated by the mineral sepiolite. Chert occurs as three varieties. These include an amorphous cement, microcrystalline quartz and chalcedony. The last two usually fill gastropodal chambers and peloids. These sediments are interpreted as being deposited in an alkaline closed-basin lake that periodically received silica-saturated hydrothermal solutions. The lake in spite of having fluctuating shorelines was perennial. This wave-dominated lake was highly productive biogenically which is evident in the abundance of molluscan shell debris."
"At places, within the thick piles of basalt flows occur local interlayers of sedimentary strata termed ‘intertrappeans’. These indicate a time break between two flow-extrusion events. Studies on such intertrappeans may yield data on the environmental impact and climate during one the largest episodes of volcanic activity on the globe."
"The Anjar intertrappeans are about 5 m thick and contain dinosaurian fossils and high Iridium concentration (about 1200 pg/g) in the lower part of the section while the upper part is unfos-siliferous. The background iridium concentration in sediment and underlying basalt are between 80 and 200 pg/g. The basalt flows sandwiching the inter-trappean have been dated by Venkatesan et al. (1996) using the 40Ar-39Ar method. The lower flow gives a plateau age of 65.2 +/- 0.6 Ma and 64.9 +/- 0. 8 Ma while the upper basalt has a plateau age of 65.7 +/- 0.7 Ma."
So there are several things to note here. First, there is evidence of significant (in terms of flood geology) time lapse between flows, in the form of intertrappean sediments around 5m thick between individual flows. This bed occurs between the third (FIII) and fourth (FIV) basalt flows. The three lower flows possess normal remnant magnetism, and are placed within the latest Cretaceous normal chron C30N, while overlying FIV flow is revesely magnetized, and placed within chron C29R. This indicates that at least enough time passed between FIII and FIV for a) the FIII flow to cool below its blocking temperature, and b) for a global mangetic reversal to occur.
However, a more important point is that the entire span of Deccan volcanism is only thought to have occupied a few million years, a literal blink of geologic time. More recent radiometric data from Hoffman et al. indicate a "mean age of 65.4±0.7 Ma for five flows near the base of the section (Jahwar and Igatpuri formations) and 65.2±0.4 Ma for a dyke cross-cutting the Poladpur formation, below the topmost Mahabaleshwar formation. This implies that at least 1800 m out of the 2500 m composite trap section were erupted in a short interval, less than 1 Ma long." C. Hofmann, G. Féraud and V. Courtillot. 40Ar/39Ar dating of mineral separates and whole rocks from the Western Ghats lava pile: further constraints on duration and age of the Deccan traps. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 180 (1-2) (2000) pp. 13-27. Why does Garner think we should find extensive evidence of erosion between individual flows, when everyone agrees that the whole thing was extruded so quickly?
Garner concludes his discussion of paraconformities by stating that "contrary to the popular notion that geological processes are extremely slow and gradual, the history of the Earth has been dominated by catastrophism. Furthermore, the idea that millions of years can be accommodated in the gaps between sedimentary layers does not stand up to critical scientific examination. These facts are consistent with the view that our planet has had a short but dynamic history." None of the examples Garner mentions "stand up to critical scrutiny" themselves.
References
Bathurst, R.G.C. 1971. Carbonate Sediments and Their Diagenesis. Developments in Sedimentology 12. Elsevier (Amsterdam). 658 pages.
Bromley, R.G. 1975. Trace fossils at omission surfaces, p. 399-428. In: Frey, R.W. (ed.), The Study of Trace Fossils. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Odin, G. S. and Fullagar, P. D. (1988) Geological significance of the glaucony facies, in Odin, G. S., ed., Green Marine Clays: Amsterdam, Elsvier, p. 295-232.
Owens, J. P., and Sohl, N. F. (1969) Shelf and deltaic paleo-environments in the Cretaceous and Tertiary formations of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, in Subitzky, S., ed., Geology of Selected Areas in New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania and Guidebook of Excursions: New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, p. 235-278.
Palmer, T.J. 1982. Cambrian to Cretaceous changes in hardground communities. Lethaia 15: 309-323.
Wilson, M.A. and Palmer, T.J. 1992. Hardgrounds and Hardground Faunas. University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Institute of Earth Studies Publications 9: 1-131.