Geology and Young Earth Creationism: deluge

Showing posts with label deluge. Show all posts

The Real Poop on the Global Flood

Copyright G. R. Morton 2002. This may be freely reproduced so long as no changes to the text are made nor any monetary charges required. One may freely link to this page. (home.entouch.net/dmd/poop.htm)

Young-earth creationism is faced with many difficulties in explaining the real world. One more item which it can't explain is the existence of dried and petrified turtle poop (coprolite, in scientific terms). Young-earth creationists believe that the geologic record is the result of a major catastrophe in which everything (or nearly everything) was deposited within a single year. That leaves certain difficulties.

Consider the turtle coprolite shown below which is from Betsiboka, Madagascar.

This coprolite, from my personal fossil collection, was deposited by a turtle in Eocene rocks. Geology says these rocks are 38-55 million years old. The coprolite today is rock-hard and has no smell. It is the mineralized poop from an Eocene turtle. How do we know it is turtle poop? Because even today, in Betsiboka, Madagascar where this was found, turtles come ashore to lay their eggs, they leave such deposits (only a wee-bit fresher) than what you see above.

Now, how do we know that this feces was not deposited during a global flood? Any guesses from the young-earth creationists? It is easy. The coprolite, which today is petrified rock, dried out prior to when it was fossilized. You can see the cracks which formed in the soft poop when it dried out. One can see this phenomenon occasionally in dog feces as they dry but not when the feces are fresh.

Now, the real question for the young-earth creationists is, what were turtles doing coming ashore during the global flood, when there wasn't supposed to be any land? If the feces were deposited in the ocean, it would not have the desiccation cracks in it because it couldn't have dried out. The turbulence of the flood waters would most likely have distorted or even dissolved the feces as it was swept against rocks and other objects by the flood currents. The fact that this feces simply dried out and was then petrified argues strongly against the global flood being responsible for these rocks.

For these turtle-fouled Eocene rocks and younger rocks which lie above them, these facts require that they are at least post flood. One can follow the Eocene rocks from Madagascar around Africa and Eurasia and across to India. In the Ocean the link is unbroken.. The thickness of the rocks equal in age or younger (Post Paleocene) offshore India reaches 15 kilometers in thickness (see Curiale et al, AAPG86(2002):4:636). Thus the young-earth creationist, if he/she decides that the sediments I am speaking of are post-flood, must then account for 15 kilometers of post flood sediments offshore India. This is 50,000 feet of sediment. The young-earth creationist must ask himself how it is possible to non-catastrophically erode and deposit that much sediment within the past few thousand years. Clearly this is a difficulty. On the other hand if the young-earth creationist thinks that the sediments are flood sediments, they must explain how the turtles found dry land in the middle of the flood, so that lots of feces could be deposited and then have the time to dry out.

And that is the real poop on the Global Flood.

modified 12-15-02

The North Sea Rocks Refute Young-earth Arguments

Young-earth creationists claim that all the sediments on earth were deposited within a one year time frame. Geologists refute these claims but most young-earth advocates do not actually see some of the seismic data which supports what the geologists are saying, nor do they read very many geology books to understand the data of geology as it relates to the issue of the age of the earth. I have presented on these pages several arguments for an old earth. On this page I will present data from the North Sea which shows that things must have taken time.

Unconformities

Young-earth creationists have long struggled to understand how unconformities can form in the short time their flood models allow them. Unconformities are evidence of erosion between two strata and would take much time if the rocks were hard while they were being eroded. One such evidence of erosion can be seen in the seismic data of the Broad Fourteens Basin of the southern North Sea.

One approach to this issue is that taken by John Morris. He says:

“The answer can't always be obtained in the local setting. But, the erosional episode, either the disconformity or the unconformity, can usually be traced laterally through the use of information from oil wells or other outcrops. This may take a lot of work, but as the layers and formations, which themselves may cover vast areas, are traced laterally, they will either pinch out into a zone where they were not deposited at all, or to an area where they were not tilted or eroded. in such cases, an erosional sequence can eventually be resolved into a conformable, continuous depositional sequence.” (John Morris, 1994, p. 105)

Morris hopes that by doing this he can eliminate the erosion time between the two sediments and claim that because there is a place where the sediments are conformable, therefore there is no time between them. In the first place, Morris' assertion that all erosional unconformities lead to conformities, is simply wrong. Quirk and Aitken write:

“Subsidence continued during the early Tertiary when a thick succession of fine-grained marine sediments was deposited. However, a significant period of inversion occurred during the early Miocene and led to the formation of a major unconformity which intersects the present UK land surface farther west.” (Quirk and Aitken, 1997, p. 145)

Secondly, even unconformities which become conformable show evidence of tectonic movements during the time in which the unconformity was forming. This movement simply can't be explained really as the result of a rapid tectonic event. In the Cretaceous strata above (green) one can see that it is thickest in the syncline (where the double arrow is) and that the sediment thins a bit towards the left (thinning means that the sediment is a bit thinner--i. e. less thick). But the underlying Jurassic (upper yellow) does exactly the opposite. it is thinnest where the double arrow is and thickest to the left of that point. This relationship has tremendous implications for the length of time it takes for this unconformity to form.

The thin area of the Jurassic sediment shows that this area was originally the top of a hill. Sediment always deposits thicker in the valleys than it does on top of a hill. What caused the hill? Triassic salt. There used to be a mound of Triassic salt between the Triassic (red) and Jurassic (upper yellow). Salt is mobile and was squeezed out of that area causing the Jurassic hill to become a valley by the time the Cretaceous (green) sediment was deposited. What had been a valley in Jurassic time became a hill by Cretaceous time. While that hill was rising, it was also being eroded. The amount of eroded sediment is shown in the following picture:

All of this activity, the tectonic motion, the erosion, the faulting all occurred PRIOR to the deposition of the horizontal Tertiary sediment. Notice that the faults (the black lines) terminate at the unconformable surface. They terminate there because they didn't move after the end of the Cretaceous Era. If the sediment was the result of a single year of massive tectonic activity and massive sedimentation event, why do the faults ALL suddenly cease moving on exactly the same day? That is very unlikely.

One other indication of time, which can't be seen in seismic data but can be seen in cores taken from oil wells drilled into the sediments are the burrows. A core is a cylinder of rock which is cut out of the rock while the well is drilled. These cores show much evidence of burrows which would require much time to explain. The cases I will present are from the Jurassic.

The Upper Jurassic Ula Formation and Fulmar formation contain Thalassinoides burros. Some of these burrows have encrusted shells and serpulid worms washed into the open burrows. The Jurassic Ror Formation contains burrows of Skolithos, Chondrites, Anconichnus, Planolites, Teichnichnus and Palaeophycus burrows. The base of the Broom Formation (the bottom of the Brent Group) contains Planolites burrows which have a pyrite fill. Only the burrow has the pyrite fill. It must have been deposited during the time the burrow was open, thus indicating a certain amount of time in the deposition of the pyrite. (Taylor and Gawthorpe, 1993, p. 324) Some of the burrows found in the Brent Group have dynocysts in the walls of the burrows showing that the burrow was open to marine conditions. (Taylor and Gawthorpe, 1993, p. 321-322).

That these burrows took time and were not escape structures as many young-earth creationists believe can be demonstrated by what is found to line the burrows:

“Typical dwelling traces include: Skolithos (a simple, unpaired pipe), Ophiomorpha (lined with faecal pellets - which determine a nodular outer surface to the burrow - usually associated with crustaceans), Teredolites (bivalve borings cut into driftwood), and Gastrochaenolites (bivalve borings cut into firm or rock substrates).” (www.ucl.ac.uk/geolsci/edu/ugrads/image/fieldtrips/TraceFossils/morph.htm) accessed 9-21-02.

Below is a picture of such a burrow taken from Martin and Pollard (1996, Fig 6D, p. 176). It would take time for the animal to deposit that much excrement along his burrow's wall. This was not an animal trying to escape burial but an animal taking his time feeding.

Above I have shown two unconformities, the one at the top of the Carboniferous and the one at the top of the Cretaceous. Other areas of the North sea show other regions with two unconformities.

In the above, the sequence of events is as follows. The Lower Middle Carboniferous strata were laid down relatively flat and then uplifted where indicated. The sediments were then planed off flat along the lower unconformity. After that, more sediments were laid down flat (the Upper Middle Carboniferous. Then at least 800 meters (2400 feet) of sediment were eroded and the land was tilted in such a fashion that the upper unconformity was flat. We know this because the Rotliegend formation does not vary in thickness across the seismic section. They were laid down on a flat surface. If they hadn't been, like the Broad Fourteens Basin data, we would see thickening of the sediment. Above the Rotliegend, the Zechstein was laid down. Both unconformities require time. Time for the sediments to be laid down, time for the sediments to be tilted, time for the sediments to be eroded.

Many of these unconformities found in British rocks contain features which absolutely make it impossible for them to have been created instantly as the young-earth position requires. This is from a UK creationist (Robinson, 1996, p. 61)

“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 in situ, for they are cemented to the hardground in life, and the contours of their shells are adapted to those adjacent.”

It is decidedly unlikely for oysters to be transported by a global flood and deposited back on top of the same oyster he lived on in the pre-flood world. One must remember that the unconformity Robinson is speaking of is halfway up the geologic column, or half way through the supposed global flood. Robinson further says (1996, p. 61)

“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.”

Why doesn't Ken Ham and other Answers in Genesis leaders tell this to their followers? It was published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, a journal with which their organization is closely affiliated. It seems terribly inconsistent for them to claim a one year flood when their own journal publishes differently.

Landslides and tectonic movements as unconformable events

There is a unique type of unconformity in the North Sea and it consists of landslides which occurred during the Jurassic rifting which formed the Viking Graben. Remember that thin sediments are deposited on topographically high regions and thick sediments are deposited in topographic lows. This is illustrated below:

In tilted blocks the deposited sediment will thin towards the high. We see this in the northern North Sea. Lee and Hwang (1993, p. 1142) note:

“It is now well known that rifting in the Northern North Sea commenced during the early Triassic, peaked during the late Jurassic, and terminated by the late Cretaceous.”

As the rifting occurred, earthquakes were going on. These eventually caused the cliffs to collapse in landslides as shown below.

We see these features in the northern North Sea. Here is a map of the Brent province taken from Lee and Hwang, 1993, p. 1141.

One can see the thinning of the sediments towards the high part of the arrowed block (the blocks almost all fault down to the east). This thinning shows that the rock motion was taking place while the Kimmeridge was being deposited. The Kimmeridge is a shale, and shales can only be deposited very slowly because of the particle size. It takes 50 to 100 years for shale particles to fall to the bottom of the sea. This particular shale is the source rock for 68% of the oil in the North Sea. It has preserved up to 10% organic carbon and this can only happen if the waters are very still and devoid of oxygen. A global flood would stir oxygen throughout the water column making it difficult to preserve this much organic carbon.

The shaded areas are the landslides. The landslides occurred after the Kimmeridge shale was deposited but before the beginning of the Cretaceous deposition. This indication of time is never spoken of by young-earth creationists.

Desert Deposits

Another indication of much time in the rocks of the UK consist of the desert deposits of the Rotliegend. Many young earth creationists claim that desert deposits don't exist. They have to say this because it is impossible to conceive of a global deluge depositing desert deposits. Henry and John Morris write:

“Finally, Young cites desert formations as contradicting the flood model, though he says little about them. If real desert-formed features do exist in the deeper geologic deposits, this could indeed be a problem for the Biblical model since the antediluvian environment was said by God to be all ‘very good’ and the future promised restoration of these to good conditions to the earth includes desert reclamation (e.g., Isaiah 35).” (Morris and Morris,1989, p. 37)

Leonard Brand (1997, p. 69), a creationist, writes:

“When I began to study the fossil vertebrate trackways in this formation, I had doubts about the desert-dune origin of the tracks, initially for philosophical reasons, and set out to evaluate alternate hypotheses for formation of the tracks.”

Those philosophical reasons are that there had to be a global flood, something his religion requires. This is clearly a case of letting one's preconceptions drive one's science.

And creationist Higley (1940, p. 108) writes (showing how old this idea is):

“Neither the desert nor the swamp could have existed in the reconstruction, because they would not have served the purpose of supporting life in the best way. Besides, it is called simply ‘dry land.’ It is all designated by the same term. Hence it must have been essentially the same.”

Sediments are interpreted as being from a desert because they show the same sequence of lithologies and sedimentological features as those found in modern deserts (see Hunter, 1977, p. 384-385). The Rotliegend, mentioned above, is a perfect example of a desert deposit. Ruffell and Shelton (2000, p. 305) write:

“Sand deposition was either fluvial-lacustrine in areas adjacent to the uplands or aeolian on upland intermontaine basins and in the broad basins of the Southern North Sea. Such sands (e.g. Rotliegendes) display the classic features of desert sedimentation, including millet-seed quartz grains with iron-manganese oxide desert coating and preserved dune-forms.”

There are 600 feet of desert sand deposited in the Sole Pit area of the southern North Sea (George and Berry, 1997, p. 34)

The need for time shows itself in the fact that there are multiple salt beds in the Rotliegend formation. Glennie writes (1997, p. 6)

“Because basin-centre subsidence proceeded more rapidly than sedimentation, a major saline desert lake occupied the basin centre. Climatic changes, controlled by changes in the size of the Gondwana ice cap, caused cyclicity in sedimentation which, in addition to repeated halite sequences, can also be recognised in basin margin sequences.”

George and Berry (1997, p. 37) report 13 different salt beds in the 1000 m thick section. Each salt bed has sediment in between it and the next one. How on earth is a flood geologist to account for this? Salt shouldn't be deposited during a global flood, yet here we have 13 different salt beds deposited. George and Berry (1997, p. 39) write:

“Thickness data suggest that the cycles from the basin centre that contain relatively thick halite horizons (Fig. 6, Units 2 & 3, 41 m and 31 m respectively) are thinner than those composed entirely of claystones (Fig. 6 Units 4 & 5, 91 m and 102 m respectively). This would imply that the accumulation rate of halite. Published estimates for the rates of precipitation of halite vary from 5 to 140 mm a^-1 (500 to 14 000 cm ka^-1) (Sonnefeld 1984) but periodic dissolution could result in much lower halite preservation rates of 0.1-4.0 mm a^-1 (10-400 cm ka^-1) (Barnett & Shaw 1983).”

How much salt water must have been evaporated above this well in order to deposit that much salt? Dean (1978 p. 81) notes:

“Second, the data in table 4.2 indicate how much water must have been evaporated to produce an evaporite deposit 1,000 m thick. For example, complete evaporation of the World's oceans would produce a layer of salts about 6 m thick (total volume about 2 X 10¹⁰ km3) with a NaCl:CaSO4 of 31:1. By contrast, the evaporites in the Permian Zechstein basin are more than 600 m thick, with a total volume of more than 2 X 10⁹ Km³ and a NaCl:CaSO4 of about 5:1 (Borcher and Muir, 1964). Ryan (1976) estimates that the upper Miocene evaporites in the Mediterranean basins contain more than 10⁶ Km³ of evaporites deposited within about two million years. Clearly a major portion of the World's oceans must have been evaporated to produce the giant evaporite deposits of the past.”

Since salt isn't deposited during floods but only during dry spells, it seems to me that the Rotliegendes with it salt is clearly the result of a dry episode and thus represents a desert. Contrary to what many young-earth creationists content, desert deposits really exist and they disprove the global flood concept entirely.

Volcanic eruptions

The early Tertiary was a time when the Atlantic Ocean was being formed. Europe and North America were slowly separating. As would be expected, such an event would cause many volcanoes. Volcanoes, when they erupt, send out vast quantities of ash into the atmosphere. This ash then comes to earth and settles in the seas. If you are close enough to a volcano quite a layer of ash can be deposited. Volcanoes don't erupt constantly. There are periods of time between the eruptions. Today only 40 volcanoes erupt on average every year.

What do we find in the sediments of the North Sea? Evidence of thousands of individual volcanic eruptions.. Anderton (2000, p. 383) writes:

“The Balder Formation is also important in that it records the most intense phase of volcanic activity seen in the North Sea. In the lower part of the unit there are hundreds of individual ash layers, mostly only millimeters to centimetres thick but forming a total thickness of over 8 m at the northern end of the North Sea Basin, and known informally as the Balder Tuff. This ash unit is an important marker throughout the North Sea as it produces a distinctive gamma or sonic bow on well logs. The total ash thickness declines toward the south-east, but ashes are found as far away as southern England, Germany and Denmark. The ashes are of Theoleiitic-basalt composition and were probably erupted from a large volcano, somewhere along the North Atlantic rift, north-west of Britain.”

Dating of cementation event

The aeolian sands were deposited with very little clay. Microscopic analysis of the Rotliegend sand shows that there is very little illite (clay mineral) in the form of deposited particles. All the illite is precipitated in the space between the sand grains in the form of whiskers of illite (see G. P. Leveille et al, 2000, p. 111 for a picture). When an aeolian sand is deposited without clay, the illite doesn't grow until the sand has been buried deep enough for the subsurface fluid to enable the proper chemical reactions. One can date the time of the growth of the illite cement by radioactive dating. In the case of the Rotliegend sand, the illite dates to around 150 million years ago. Leveille et al (1997a, p. 111) say:

“K-Ar dating of authigenic illite was done on 39 samples from the eight wells included in the diagenetic study in order to determine the timing of illite formation. Separation and analysis techniques utilized were broadly similar to those described by Robinson et al (1993) and were designed to avoid contamination with other potassium-bearing minerals. All of the ages determined lie in the range from 177 to 122 Ma (Mid-Jurassic to Early Cretaceous), except for two analyses from the 49/16-4 well which gave ages of 88 and 104 Ma (Early to Late Cretaceous).”

As I said, in order for the illite to form, the sediment must be buried deeply enough, which means it has to be heated as well. If you study the sediment for chemical changes caused by this heating, you find that the Rotliegendes was buried deep enough to be heated to around 110 degrees centigrade. This occurred while the 125 million year old Cretaceous sediments were being deposited above the Rotliegendes. Thus the illite cement was being deposited about the time of the deepest burial the Rot experienced.

These two pieces of evidence support the concept that it took a long time for the North Sea sediments to be deposited. Heat doesn't flow through sediment very rapidly. Indeed it can take 50,000 or more years to heat sediments up to that temperature. The fact that the Rotliegend was heated that much, shows that it took a long, long time for the sedimentary column to be deposited.

Relict Oil fields

Another indication of age in the North Sea sedimentary record concerns the existence of old oil fields. An oil field is formed when it oil migrates into a trap region. It takes time for the oil to form and be expelled from the source rocks. In the North Sea the source rock is the Kimmeridge claystone which has as much as 10% organic matter. The oil will only form when the Kimmeridge is buried to a sufficient depth (and thus heated to sufficient temperature). Thus, it takes time to bury the Kimmeridge and to heat it so that the oil will form. And then the oil, once expelled from the Kimmeridge, must travel a tortuous path through the rock. It will eventually leak to the surface and into the ocean unless it encounters an impermeable rock which prevents its escape. Then it will fill up all the porous space in the rock and form an oil field.

Creationists claim that oil will leak in a few thousand years from an oil trap. Kohfahl (1977, p. 122-123) claims:

“Petroleum and natural gas are held at high pressures in underground reservoirs of porous rock and sand. These fluids are retained in their reservoirs by relatively impermeable cap rock. However, in many cases the pressures are exceedingly high. Calculations based on the measured permeability of the cap rock show that the oil or gas pressure could not be maintained for much longer than 10,000 years or perhaps a maximum of 100,000 years (permeability is a measure of how easily fluids under pressure will seep through the rock.) If these fossil fuel deposits were actually millions or hundreds of millions of years old, they would long ago have leaked out through their cap rock to the surface.”

Like many things creationists claim, this too is based on a misunderstanding of what traps oil. Low permeability is not the reason oil fields form. Capillary pressure is what holds the oil in a trap and it can hold the oil for millions upon millions of years. The only time oil leaks out of a field is when the pore throats are big enough to reduce the capillary pressure. In the North Sea, Leveille et al (1997b, p. 88) relates:

“The petrophysical properties of fault rocks encountered in the depth range of most oil and gas reservoirs are largely determined by the amount of cementation, mechanical grain rearrangement, grain fracturing, frictional grainboundary sliding, and cataclastic flow that has occurred. These processes control pore sizes and pore geometries, and thereby determine the porosity, permeability and sealing capacity (i.e. capillary pressure) of fault rocks.”

What we find in the North Sea is that fields formed and then had time for the sediment to be eroded. In the Castleton area of England we find the following:

“The abundance and variety of residual oil shows in the Castleton area suggest that, before the removal of the Namurian cover, the shelf margin crest and the northwards inclined shelf margin succession could have hosted a significant oil accumulation. The elaterite of Windy Knoll to the west of Castleton provides the best exposure of a residual oil body. Windy Knoll forms a small culmination on the ridge crest that was previously completely top and side sealed by the Edale Shale Formation. Our field work suggests that the base of the elaterite defines a residual oil-water contact (OWC). Bitumen impregnation in limestone breccias below the OWC may indicate the charge pathway. These breccias were found by Peacock & Taylor (1966) to be radioactive. If the bitumen and uranium are genetically associated, an indication of the area formerly open to oil migration is provided by Peacock & Taylor's map of surface uranium anomalies. Radioactive anomalies occupy the entire 6000 m long, 500 m wide and 150 m high exposed portion of the slope to the south of the anomalies persist in depth. They illustrate samples of bituminous calcite and uraniferous phosphatic limestone collected from caves in the Castleton area.” (Cameron and Ziegler, 1997, p. 138). [OWC is oil-water contact--grm]

The amount of time required for the Kimmeridge to be buried, to be heated so it could form oil, for the oil to migrate into a trap in the Castleton area, and then the time for the erosion to remove the sedimentary cover and release the oil must be considerable. Young-earth creationists never tell you about these kinds of features. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness, as the Bible says. (Romans 1)

Even in the subsurface we find oil fields that formed but then leaked. They are very rare and it is not often we find such things, but here is what we find in the Rotliegendes (Leveille et al, 1997a, p. 118):

“Gas was almost certainly the primary hydrocarbon phase to fill the early formed traps because of the overwhelming volume of gas prone source rocks present in the underlying Carboniferous section. Residual oil staining does, however, suggest some oil may also have been generated. The residual oil staining typically occurs in dark brown bands and is interpreted to have formed from oil rims on early gas accumulations.”

Erosion of the Scottish Highlands.

I currently live in an area which, geologically, is the Scottish Highlands. About 15 miles south of my house in Peterculter, Scotland is the Highland boundary fault. This fault marks the southern edge of the former Laurentian continent, most of which now constitutes North America. The area north of the Highland Boundary Fault was split off from North America during the early Tertiary. Woodcock and Strachan (2000, p. 194) state:

“Many of the faults have a long history. The Highland Boundary Fault, for example, may originally have defined the south-east limit of rifted Laurentian crust during the Neoproterozoic development of Iapetus. It was later transformed into a collisional suture by accretion of the Midland Valley basement and arc during the Grampian Orogeny.”

The terrane in the Scottish highlands consists of igneous rocks. Very little sedimentary rock, save the Devonian Old Red Sandstone, exists north of the fault. This terrane is among the oldest terranes in the world. And these rocks are hard.

Traveling through western Scotland one can see some incredible scenery, tall mountains and thundering waterfalls. Looking at the waterfalls, which have water constantly pouring over them, one is struck by how little the water has eroded these rocks. Eon upon eon, these rocks have been assaulted by the water, and yet the water has carved less than 2 meters into some of the cliffs. The reason for this is the hardness of these rocks. This land has been eroded so long that tens of kilometers of rock have been removed from it. In extreme NW Scotland we find this (Strachan 2000, p. 49)

“In the area between Scourie and Gruinard Bay, deformation was associated with granulite facies metamorphism and formation of anhydrous orthopyroxene-quartz-feldspar assemblages. Metamorphism occurred at temperatures of 950-1000^o C and pressures of 11-15 kbar, corresponding to crustal depths of 35-50 km. Pb-Pb dating of monazite inclusions in early formed garnets suggest that high grade metamorphism occurred at c. 2.76 Ga.”

This is 1.4 x 10^-5 m/year erosion over that area. These rocks are very, very hard but they clearly show that billions of years have elapsed in the history of the world. Young earth arguments never mention the issues we have discussed here. Indeed, young-earth leaders never, ever tell their followers these things. As I said, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

References

Anderton, R., 2000. “Tertiary Events: The North Atlantic Plume and Alpine Pulses,” in Nigel Woodcock and Rob Strachan, editors, Geological History of Britain and Ireland, (London: Blackwell Science)
Brand, Leonard, 1997, Faith, Reason, and Earth History, (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press)
Cameron, Nick, and Tom Ziegler, 1997 “Probing the Lower Limits of a Fairway: Further Pre-Permian Potential in the Southern North Sea,” in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), pp 123-141.
Dean, Walter E., 1978. “Theoretical Versus Observed Successions From Evaporation of Seawater,” Marne Evaporites, SEPM Short Course #4
George, G. T., and J. K. Berry, 1997. “Permian (Upper Rotliegend) Synsedimentary Tectonics, Basin Development and Palaeogeography of the Southern North Sea,” in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), p 31-61.
Glennie, K. W., 1997. “History of Exploration in the Southern North Sea,” in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), p. 5-16.
L. Allen Higley, 1940, Science and Truth, (London: Fleming H. Revell)
Hunter, Ralph E., 1977. “Basic Types of Stratification in Small Eolian Dunes,” Sedimentology, 24:361-387.
Kofahl, Robert E. 1977 Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, (San Diego: Beta Books)
Lee, M. J.and Y. J. Hwang, “Tectonic Evolution and structural Styles of the East Shetland Basin,” Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the 4^th Conference, J. R. Parker, ed. (London: The Geological Society, 1993), p. 1137-1149, p. 1142.
Leveille, G. P. et al., 1997a. “Diagenetic Controls on Reservoir Quality in Permian Rotliegendes Sandstones, Jupiter Fields Area, Southern North Sea,” in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), pp 105-122.
Leveille, Gregory P. et al. 1997b. “Compartmentalization of Rotliegendes Gas Reservoirs by Sealing Faults, Jupiter fields Area, Southern North Sea,” in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), pp 87-104.
Martin, M. A., and J. E. Pollard, 1996. “The Role of Trace Fossil (Ichnofabric) analysis in the Development of Depositional Models for the Upper Jurassic Fulmar Formation of the Kittiwake Field (Quadrant 21 UKCS),” in Andrew Hurst et al, editors, Geology of the Humber Group: Central Graben and Moray Firth, UKCS, Geological Society Special Publication No. 114, (London: The Geological Society), Fig 6d, p. 176.
Morris, Henry M., and John D. Morris, 1989. Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth, (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research)
Morris, John D., 1994. The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books)
Quirk, David G. and John F. Aitken, 1997. “The Structure of the Westphalian in the Northern Part of the Southern North Sea,” in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), pp 143-152.
Ruffell, A. H., and R. G. Shelton, 2000. “Permian to Late Triassic Post-Orogenic Collapse, and Early Atlantic Rifting, Deserts, evaporating Seas and Mass Extinctions,” in Nigel Woodcock and Rob Strachan, editors, Geological History of Britain and Ireland, (London: Blackwell Science)
Robinson, Steven J., 1996. “Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record?” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10:1:32-69
Strachan, R. A. 2000. “Early Earth History and Development of the Archaean Crust,” in Nigel Woodcock and Rob Strachan, editors, Geological History of Britain and Ireland, (London: Blackwell Science)
Taylor, A. M. and R. L. Gawthorpe, 1993. “Application of Sequence Stratigraphy and Trace Fossil Analysis to Reservoir Description Examples from the Jurassic of the North Sea,” in J. R. Parker, ed. Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe, Proceedings of the 4th Conference, Vol. 1, (London: The Geological Society)
Woodcock, N. H. and R. A. Strachan, 2000. “The Caledonian Orogeny: A Multiple Plate Collision,” in Nigel Woodcock and Rob Strachan, editors, Geological History of Britain and Ireland, (London: Blackwell Science)

Why Clastic Dykes don't Indicate a Global Flood

Ariel Roth has an article in Origins 19(1992):1:44-48 entitled “Clastic Pipes in Dikes in Kodachrome Basin.” The article can be found on the web at http://www.grisda.org/origins/19044.htm. In this article, Roth claims that clastic dykes are evidence for a young-age earth and evidence for catastrophism associated with the flood. We will examine his claims here but a few definitions are in order for those who don't know what a clastic dyke is. (UK spelling, dyke; American spelling, dike--I first worked them in Scotland so I will follow that spelling).

A clastic dyke is an intrusion of sediment into an overlying sedimentary rock. Normally clastic dykes are of sands injected into overlying shale and that is what I will speak of. The reason most clastic dykes are sands injected into shales is due to the fact that the shales above the sand prevent water from escaping the sand as the sand compacts. The situation is like this:

1. sand mud deposition       2.      Compaction &         3. Earthquake
                                     added weight

------------------------     ------------------------     ---------/-----|  |--------------
impermeable mud                      shale                    \  /      \|  |/   /  \| |/injections
------------------------     ------------------------    -----------------^---------- ^ ---
water-filled sand                    H2O can't escape           pressure reduced
                                     overpressured            water escapes up injections
------------------------     ------------------------    ----------------------------------

In step 1 you have had a sand deposited and then it was covered by a mud. When a sand is first deposited it has a porosity between 25-50% (Freeze and Cherry, 1979, p. 37). If the sand has a porosity of 50%, this means that it will be 50% sand and 50% water by volume. As it is buried, and weight compresses it, the water is squeezed out and the sand grains settle closer to each other. If the mud compacts quickly, it prevents water from escaping from the sand below.

Water escape is essential for a sedimentary layer to compact as more and more sediment is piled on top of it. If the mud (now compacted to a shale) above the sand, is impermeable, the water gets trapped and can't escape. Because the sediments are continuously being buried, the pressure in the water rises (step 2). This is a stage where essentially the overburden of rock is being supported by the water itself, not by the rock grains and this is unstable. When eventually step 3 comes along, an earthquake, the slight fractures in the shale caused by the earthquake, allow the water to explosively move up the fractures, but they carry some of the sand with them. This is what causes the clastic dyke. And when the water finds a way to escape from its overpressured prison, the clastic injection ceases and the water flows through the injected sand from the sand below to the surface above. This is the accepted mechanism for clastic dyke formation.

Now, Ariel Roth says some rather strange things about the formation of clastic dykes. First he says that the long times between the deposition of the sand layer and the deposition of the overlying mud layer and its transformation into shale proves that something odd is afoot in the formation of clastic dykes. He writes:

“Sediments cannot remain soft forever; they tend to become cemented. Cementation occurs when dissolved minerals are carried by water into the sediments, hardening them into rocks. Some other features of these pipes also suggest that there was not much time between deposition of these layers and recent (Plio-Pleistocene) geologic activity. The conundrum is that the standard geologic time scale implies well over 150 million years between laying down of these sediments and what appears to be the time of intrusion.” (Roth, 1992)

The above statement assumes wrongly, that mere age causes rocks to become hard. Sediments are not dried bananas! When sand is first deposited, it has porosities of between 25 to 50%, silts and clays (muds) have between 35 and 70% porosity (This is very old knowledge, see Freeze and Cherry, 1979 and compare with similar values in Hedberg, 1926.). There are two processes which turn sediment into hard rock. The first is compaction, which takes place as the sediment is buried deeper and deeper by overlying sediments. This phenomenon presses the water out of the rock and forces the lithologic particles closer and closer. But that alone doesn't turn a sediment into hard rock. Cementation is the process whereby some form of mineral deposition occurs in the pore spaces between the rock grains, cementing them up. Muds simply won't become solid rock(shale) until they have been compressed by overlying sediments and cementation takes place. Those processes take at least 1000 feet of overburden. Lithification is caused by several factors, none of which are age. Hedberg writes:

“Although immediately after deposition muds may have porosities of 70 to 90 per cent, silts from 50 to 70 per cent, and sands from 30 to 50 per cent, the porosities of shales and sandstones are rarely above 30 per cent, and are usually much lower. This reduction in porosity is accomplished largely by (1) closer packing of particles with elimination of interstitial water, (2) granulation and deformation of particles, (3) recrystallization, and (4) cementation and secondary growth.” (Hedberg 1926, p. 1042)

Roth writes:

“These pipes appear to present a problem for the standard geologic time scale, since it would require that the Jurassic formations which serve as source for the intrusions remain soft (uncemented by minerals) for over 150 million years. Considering how easily cementing minerals are transported through sediments by water, this seems highly unlikely. It also seems highly unlikely that a delithification process (dissolving of cement) would take place at the same time throughout the thick and highly varied sequence over the widespread area in which these pipes are found.” (Roth, 1992)

Note in the above, that even depth isn't listed as a factor in lithification. Sediments can remain unconsolidated for millions of years as long as they are not buried deeply and in places where they lack carbonate cement. I drilled a well in Lee County, Texas and encountered an unconsolidated sand at 3,300 feet deep. Depth alone will not cause a rock to become hard either. That particular sand was full of oil and made for a great well. The age of that rock was Eocene--about 50 million years old. A recent well drilled in the North Sea to a depth of around 6,000 feet found unconsolidated sands. The core, (a cylinder of rock) we cut from the well bore had a sand which, if you pressed with your finger, was like beach sand. It was only partially cemented. It too is 50 million years old and buried deeply.

Roth's statement, (An overburden of more than 1200m (4000') of sediment once covered the now-exposed area where these pipes are found. This overburden would create a pressure of 275×10⁵ Pascals (4000 lb/in²). Such pressure would induce rapid cementation, precluding a Plio-Pleistocene intrusion.) is falsified by the oil well observations above. If 4000 feet of over burden causes ‘rapid cementation,’ why don't we see it in wells we drill today? Roth needs to go actually drill some oil wells and see what is beneath his feet. Roth is raising non-issues and red-herrings in his search for evidence of a young earth.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Kevin Henke for many excellent criticisms of the original page.

References

Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, 1979, “Groundwater,” Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hedberg, Hollis D., “The Effect of Gravitational Compaction on the Structure of Sedimentary Rocks” AAPG Bulletin, 10(1926):11:1035-1072
Roth, Ariel, “Clastic Pipes in Dikes in Kodachrome Basin,” Origins 19(1992):1:44-48 http://www.grisda.org/origins/19044.htm

Reply to Mortenson about John Murray

This is a response to Mortenson's reply to my critique of his position on John Murray. It is a bit of an open letter and a bit of a critique. I will discuss the important issues first and at the end discuss the appalling way this man has approached this issue with me. I put that part at the end as it is pedantic and won't be of interest to some so cease reading at that point if you don't want to know about Mortenson's behavior.

Mortenson wrote in his reply (Quote 1):

“Morton does not seem to have read my ETS paper very carefully. Contrary to Morton's assertion, I never said in my ETS paper (which Morton read) or my Ph.D. thesis (which he hasn't read) or in my short article on the AiG website (which he has read) that Murray was a geologist.” (answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206Mortenson_long_response.asp) https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/glenn-morton-whos-misrepresenting-history/

He also claims that I am quoting him out of context. It is interesting how these two claims don't hold up to scrutiny. The paper says in the Abstract (Quote 2):

“Four of the geologically most competent Scriptural geologists are introduced to the reader before giving a summary of their main Biblical and geological objections to the idea of an old earth.” Mortenson ETS 2001 paper, p. 1

Now, Mortenson doesn't put ‘geologists’ or ‘Scriptural geologists’ inside of quotes and throughout the paper he talks about their geological competence. The use of the adjective ‘Scriptural’ is entirely analogous with the use of the term ‘structural geologists’ whom all would believe are geologists. No one would think that a structural geologist isn't a geologist so no reason to think differently with the adjective ‘Scriptural’ except for the displayed incompetence. Thus, he has indeed called them geologists. Indeed he never places the word geologist in quotes as far as I can find anywhere in the paper. What is the reader to think? Mortensen is clearly calling them geologists or wanting his readers to think that is what they are. Furthermore, Mortenson notes that Murray's “knowledge and experience qualified him to become a Fellow of the Linneaean Society in 1819, the Society of Antiquities in 1822, the London Geological Society in 1823. . .” and then emphasizes that Murray's membership continued throughout his career. But now Mortenson claims he wasn't a geologist, yet in his article, Mortenson claims the man was a member of the geological society. Which is it Dr. Mortenson, is Murray a geologist or not? Is your paper correct or incorrect? Or are you changing now to avoid the problems you have stirred up by not having a nice private discussion with me?

Mortenson wrote (Quote 3):

“Murray and the others were not naïve, Bible-thumping, geological ignoramuses.” (answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206Mortenson_long_response.asp)

And Mortenson writes (Quote 4):

“Morton quotes out of context what I say about Murray. Murray was well informed about geological theory and evidence as it related to the arguments for an old Earth, even if he wasn't completely up-to-date about every detail of the structure of the Earth (most of the issues Morton mentions had nothing to do with establishing the dogma of the old-Earth interpretation of the Earth's stratigraphic record).” (answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206Mortenson_long_response.asp

One can't claim that the guy was knowledgeable and ‘competent’ about geology when the ideas he was spouting were outdated by over 40 years! That is the very definition of ‘ignoramus’! One might ask why Murray didn't know the density of the earth, know of the increase in temperature of the earth as one goes deeper and apply his knowledge of pressure when he assumed that the flood waters might sink back into the earth? The second of the above statements is an admission by Mortenson that Murray wasn't up to date, which thus undermines Mortenson's claim that he was competent in geology. 19^th century geologists and even young-earthers today know that the earth has a density of about 5.5 g/cc rather than 1 g/cc which would be necessitated by Murray's statements on the flood! The inside of the earth simply can't be water. Mortenson also tries to change the topic by asserting the issue is the age of the earth. The issue is Murray's incompetence.

Mortenson's paper says (Quote 5):

“The Scriptural geologists were not opposed to geological facts, but to the interpretation of those facts.” ETS2001 paper p. 15

If this is true, why was Murray opposed to the earth getting denser and hotter as one traveled deeper? Murray was opposed to geologic fact, and that is a fact!

Mortenson writes (Quote 6):

“First, contrary to the implication of Morton's points 1, 2, and 4, Murray did not work out a detailed ‘Flood model,’ but rather gave informed objections for why Christians at that time did not need to abandon their faith in the literal truth of Genesis 1-11. Furthermore, his failure to address topics that Morton demands that he should have written about (in a book that devotes less than 20 of its 380 pages to a discussion of Noah's Flood and geology), is not an indication of Murray's geological ignorance, but of Morton's unreasonable demands 162 years later. Morton is wrong to base his criticisms on what Murray does NOT say, especially since he does not cite any explicit statements of error by Murray on these very topics. Morton fails to take Murray's comments in the context of his whole 1840 book and what he was trying to accomplish through it.” (answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206Mortenson_long_response.asp)

It is clear that when Murray speaks of the diluvium and ossiferous fissures that he held a position similar to Buckland's 1823 position. Buckland believed that the flood left a surficial layer of unsorted material on the ground and washed bones into caves. The flood was a very late catastrophe in earth history. The only real issue which is missing from this view is where did the water come from and where did it go. Murray answered both questions, which are led to points 1, 2 and 4 of my paper. And contrary to Mortenson's claim I clearly document that Murray had available to him the knowledge which would have helped him avoid the silly mistakes he made.

What is odd in Mortenson's reply is that above (quote 4) he acknowledges that Murray was behind the times but then claims it was irrelevant, but immediately above (quote 6), he claims that it was unfair to expect him to address these things. One can't have it both ways.

Mortenson says I fail to take account of the context of Murray's book. As I mentioned earlier the issue is an examination of Murray's geological competence with the knowledge of his day, not what Murray was trying to accomplish with his incompetence. That is irrelevant to whether or not Murray was using the data correctly and was as competent as Mortenson claimed in his paper.

Mortenson wrote (Quote 7):

“TM: The density of the Earth was never used as evidence for building or defending the old-Earth uniformitarian or catastrophist theories in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries. Since there are subterranean waters in abundance today, it is hardly a ridiculous assumption to think that there were such reservoirs before the Flood also, but containing even more water than today (given the teaching of Gen. 7:11).” (answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206Mortenson_long_response.asp)

My attempted discussion with Mortenson was not about the age of the earth but about Mortenson's claim that Murray was competent in geology. Thus, knowledge of the density of the earth IS very relevant to that issue. Only an incompetent geologist would claim that the center of the earth was water! And as to the subterranean waters ‘in abundance today’, Mortenson not only displays his ignorance of geology (of which he is attempting to be a historian), but also is diverting attention. There are no big pools of subterranean water anywhere on earth. The reason we know this is because seismic shear waves (waves whose particle motion is perpendicular to the direction the wave travels) can't travel through liquids. But we find shear waves traveling to every part of the world after earthquakes. If there was abundant water down there, the shear waves would never make it to the surface. And should Dr. Mortenson decide that he is referring to interstitial water, that is an equally bad answer. The interstitial waters in the earth occupy the pore spaces in between the grains of rock. On average the porosity of the rock is around 1-2% meaning that in 1000 feet of rock you might have 10-20 feet of water. But you can't move most of that water as it is immobile, being fixed in place by surface tension and molecular adsorption. This water is unavailable to be used in a global flood and can't be the ‘waters of the deep’ as they can't come out of the rock unless you grind the rocks up and evaporate the water.

Mortenson writes (Quote 8):

“TM: There was no reason for Murray to inform his readers in 1840 about Agassiz's theory. Contrary to what Morton implies, glacial theory was very much in debate in 1840” (answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206Mortenson_long_response.asp)

What Mortenson misses is that a scholar, one interested in truth, has an obligation to mention the data which may falsify what he is saying and to address it. Scholars who hide data or sweep it under the rug and act like it doesn't exist, are mere sophists. I will quote a history of Lyell's life. (quote 9):

“From at least the 1820s there had been growing speculation about the possible role of a recent major land glaciation in processes of erosion, transport and deposition across much of the now temperate regions of the northern hemisphere. As is well known, more than a generation earlier both Hutton and Playfair had speculated on this possibility.”
“In 1826 Robert Jameson published in his Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal a translation from the original Norwegian of a paper by the Dane, Jens Esmark, arguing that both Norway and Denmark had been recently glaciated.” (Boylan, 1998, p. 145)

And four major publications by Jameson on glacial theory were published between 1836 and 1839 (Boylan 1998, p. 146). So, if Murray was ‘competent’ he would have known of these works. If he had known of the trend, then as a reputable scholar, he should have mentioned the possibility and been honest with his readers. As it was, Murray shows no signs that he is even aware of the argument and thus acts like one who is incompetent in the field.

Mortenson writes (Quote 10):

“TM: First, Murray's statement is a passing comment in his discussion and he does not express it as a dogmatic position (for he says it ‘seems’ to him ‘more likely’ and indicates by the word ‘however’ that the other view might be right). Second, we must interpret him in his historical context. Many views that were dogmatically defended as fact at that time were not necessarily fact and have since been refuted or significantly modified. (Not until the 20^th century did scientists agree that Newton's theory of gravitation doesn't apply at the sub-atomic level of reality.” (answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206Mortenson_long_response.asp)

What exactly does expressing it as a dogmatic position have to do with his competence????? If he expresses views which are entirely false and known to be false by his contemporaries, doesn't that mark Murray as an incompetent? If making patently false statements is not a mark of incompetence, then what exactly is? Would you go to a doctor who asked you to take two eye of newt and go to bed??? We would correctly judge the doctor as incompetent for making a stupid statement. Why must we excuse Murray for doing the same thing?

And as for competence in science, Mortenson's statement that gravity doesn't apply at the subatomic level is patently false and displays a great misunderstanding of physics. Indeed, just about 2 weeks ago, a quantum experiment demonstrated quantum effects from a neutron dropped in a gravitational field. If gravity doesn't apply to this sub-atomic particle, why did it fall in a gravitational field? (Nesvizhevsky et al, 2002, p. 297)

Mortenson writes (Quote 11):

“TM: While the quote by Murray suggests (though it does not clearly state) that he believed the waters of the Flood came from the center of the Earth, it does not say that the Flood waters retreated back into the center of the Earth. Again, Morton did not read carefully, therefore putting words into Murray's mouth. On the very next page (p. 216, from which Morton quotes below under point 4, but apparently read too quickly) Murray says that the waters of the Flood ‘may have retreated into the profound abysses [note Murray's use of the plural] of the Earth.’” (answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206Mortenson_long_response.asp)

I am glad that Mortenson confirms what I thought. As a man who works mines and knew about pressure, Murray KNEW that this could not occur, yet he went ahead and proposed it as a possibility. That means that Murray was sweeping data under the rug and not letting his readers know of it. Thanks for the support.

Mortenson writes (Quote 12):

“TM: Morton's mathematical discussion just makes far too much of Murray's brief and technically imprecise statement,” (answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206Mortenson_long_response.asp)

Isn't the mark of someone who is competent that they make technically precise statements? Thanks for verifying that Murray was incompetent.

Mortenson complains (Quote 13):

“TM: One wonders when Lyell made this statement, since Morton doesn't tell us which of the three volumes and which edition of Lyell's Principles of Geology he is quoting from (I couldn't find it on p. 82 of any volumes of my Univ. of Chicago 1990 reprint of Lyell's 1830-33 first edition, nor does the index in any of the volumes help to locate the quote elsewhere in the Principles.)” (answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206Mortenson_long_response.asp)

Terry, talk about not checking out the facts. Have you ever considered looking in the references on my web page? I tell you exactly where the quote comes from. Indeed, you reproduce the reference on your very own page but didn't pay any attention to it! References are a really nice feature of most modern research and one should really learn how to use them! When a reference is on a page, one reads it and then one looks for the citation in THAT edition of the book and not some other edition which is on your book shelf. This is like the drunk looking under the streetlight for the keys he lost in the dark alley. Tsk, tsk.

Of William Smith, whom Mortenson disparages. I would merely point out that by 1831 all geologists of competence recognized Smith's major contribution to the field. The London Geological Society, with no dissenting votes, awarded him the very first Wollaston Medal for achievement in Geology. You can say what you like, Terry, but you have never drilled an oil well, never interpreted a seismic line, never looked at well cuttings to see the fossils come out. In short, you don't know what you are talking about and seriously need some experience in the field you are trying to become a historian for.

Mortenson concludes (Quote 14):

“Murray was not a geologist. Neither he nor I claimed this.” (answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206Mortenson_long_response.asp)

The first statement is absolutely correct and is very supportive of my contention. Murray was certainly NO geologist! The second half of the second sentence is false as noted above.

*****

This is the response to the way Mortenson has conducted himself in this discussion. Cease reading if you aren't interested.

Mortenson wrote (Quote 15):

“Morton told me in an email (dated 30 December 2001) that he got the paper from his son, who got the paper from me in Denver. But right here we have the first example of Morton's inadequate attention to details and to gathering the facts. The conference was the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, which met in Colorado Springs, not Denver, in November 14-16. Furthermore, I never personally met nor gave a paper to Morton's son in Denver, where I spent the weekend after ETS with my sister's family. I gave the paper to one person in Denver, my sister's pastor, who has written that he did not give the paper to anyone and in any case does not know Glenn Morton or anyone who is his son.” (answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206Mortenson_long_response.asp)

I had written to Mortenson on Dec. 30, 2001 (Quote 16):

“My son passed me the copy of the paper on early 19th century British Geologists which he got from you in Denver this Fall. Doing lots of research in that area today (collecting a personal library of books on that topic from that age see glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/design.htm) I enjoyed the paper, but was taken by your interpretation of the debate, which seems stilted by your presuppositional bias and especially by your error in regard to polystrate trees.” [stuff about polystrate trees snipped from e-mail—grm]

I got no reply to this. No questioning the Denver issue and not so much as a ‘boo’ and nothing in the way of a correction for my misunderstanding of the location of the conference. This was a conference attended by my son and since I live in Scotland, and my son is an adult who has his own life. I don't always know where my son is, nor is my married 25 year old required to tell me. (Will AiG next claim that I am a bad parent?) Nor is this issue important to my claims about Murray.

By not replying to my e-mail and by then attacking me over this trivial misunderstanding, Mortenson shows that he wasn't interested in the truth but only interested in finding things with which to attack. He easily could have e-mailed me and told me that he didn't give his paper to anyone in Denver and that the conference was in Colorado Springs (as if any of this really makes a difference to Mortenson's characterization of Murray as ‘competent’ in geology.) But it does show that Dr. Mortenson is a bit sneaky in that he wants to use trivial misunderstandings to divert attention, doing no fact checking and offering no opportunity for a misunderstanding to be corrected—this is something that Christians shouldn't do. Or is it Dr. Mortenson? Is this refusal to talk the ‘outreach’ that AiG offers to people?

If Dr. Mortenson had bothered to check the facts by simply e-mailing me and asking (but he didn't seem to care about knowing), I could have spared him the embarrassment of being told that he did indeed meet my son, in Colorado Springs at the conference, where he personally told my son where the papers were. My son knew of my interest in the 19^th century wanted to pick up the paper for me but he wanted to go to another talk. My son walked in, saw Mortenson, asked him about the paper, and Mortenson told him that the papers were on the table and that my son could pick one up. My son picked up the paper and left the room. Of course, Mortenson wouldn't have known it was my son as no names were exchanged. But Mortenson's claim not to have met my son is simply false as he could have easily ascertained had he any interest in finding the truth rather than finding arguments for his propaganda purposes.

Now, I have e-mailed Mortenson 3 times seeking a conversation on the historical aspects of that period. He didn't respond to the first note on December 29, 2001. I again e-mailed him on Jan 15, 2002 informing him of my web page on Murray. I had the courtesy to e-mail Mortenson informing him of my critique of his position. He did not have the equivalent courtesy when he posted his response on the web. His behavior makes me think that he really isn't interested in anything but polemic. His answer to that Jan 15 e-mail was a one line response to the effect that he was too busy to answer now but would when he could.

On Jan 29, I e-mailed him asking again if he was ever going to answer my note on polystrate fossils. He said to the effect that he didn't jump every time a critic wrote him but that a reply would be coming out soon. Of course, he didn't have the courtesy to notify me of that response and I had to find out from a friend. Sneaky!

And Mortenson has still never answered my questions on polystrate fossils. Why won't you respond to this Terry? Are you afraid? Here is the rest of the original e-mail to him:

“Before I make my comments, I should let you know my background. I am a physicist who went into geophysics. I was a committed young-earth creationist when I came out of college and indeed held that position until I was 44 years old. (I published a lot in CRSQ in the early 80's. But the geologic data, which I work with every day, simply didn't support what the young-earthers, including me, were saying. I finally came to a point where I could either admit the facts of geology or remain a young-earther and know in my heart that I was not being truthful with myself or others.”

“First, I would like to commend you for correctly pointing out that Lyell was not the one who converted the world from a young-earth/catastrophist view to one of uniformitarian/actualist view (p.5), although I wouldn't call this change a compromise. It was an acknowledgement of the data that existed (data which young-earthers don't see or look at)”

“On page 12 you wrote:

“A second important geological objection related to certain polystrate fossils, which were often found in an upright position, and cutting through two or more strata of rock. One of the most famous polystrate fossils of the early 19th century was this tree found in a quarry in Scotland in 1830, which can be seen passing through many strata of rock. Two theories to explain such fossils were proposed and debated by leading geologists well into the 1840s, namely, either 1) that the trees had been gradually buried where they grew, or 2) that the trees had been uprooted, transported and deposited by flood waters, which rapidly buried them in sediments. Since a dead tree would rot and disintegrate over hundreds or thousands of years, the Scriptural geologists, along with some old-earth geologists, believed that these trees had been transported and buried catastrophically.”

“The fallacy of the polystrate fossil argument (which you, a non-geologist) feel is solid consists in the FACT that under proper conditions wood won't rot. Waterlogged wood simply doesn't rot! This is what you all absolutely miss or ignore. The Mary Rose was a British war ship which sank in 1545. It was rediscovered and raised again.(impossible if the wood had rotted over the 3 centuries) www.maryrose.org/archaeology-and-conservation/

“Another example of 300 year plus wood preservation is: www.vasamuseet.se/en which tells of a Swedish warship which sank in 1628 and was raised in 1961.

“Here is a case of wood being preserved from the Roman times--thus being preserved for something like 1500+ years. archaeology.about.com/od/faqeducation/f/artifact_identification.htm

“Even wood from ancient Egypt has been preserved: Haldane, Cheryl Ward. “Boat Timbers from El-Lischt: A New Method of Ancient Egyptian Hull Construction. Preliminary Report” MM (1988) 74: 141-152.

“One can see a picture of 5000 year old planks from a ship at http://www.abc.se/~m10354/mar/abydos.htm

“Now, the problem for the polystrate fossil argument is that you don't have a conclusive case to make that such features can't be formed normally as the evolutionists says. I used to live in southern Louisiana. A friend from there tells me of a fossil forest with trees 4-5 feet high buried under only 35 feet of deltaic muds from St. Mary Parish (down by the delta). This is not an old cypress forest as 35 feet of sediment doesn't take that long to deposit. New Orleans is sinking due to the dewatering of the shales which is a normal process. It is sinking at a rate of 3 feet per century (http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/2000/02/02012000/sinking_9520.asp) . Using half this rate, the forest my friend talks about would be of the order of 2300 years old--much the same age as the Egyptian boat.

“In 1993 the Mississippi River flooded terribly. It dumped as much as 6 feet of sand and shale onto forests between the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. This killed a lot of the trees which were rooted in the pre-flood sediments and whose trunks now are buried six feet by new sediment. They are polystrate trees now. In 10000 years some future young-earth creationists will be able to argue that they are evidence of a global flood.

“Trees, killed and then buried under water can survive millenia--enough time for them to be preserved. Yet people like you, who should know better, spread the polystrate argument and never tell their readers of this significant point.

“One other thing I find interesting is your comment on page 14 about geology being in its infancy and thus their knowledge was too limited to justify a theory of the whole earth. It is interesting that the young-earthers still use this argument, pointing to future discoveries to turn it all around to their view. This in a day when we have 3 dimensional seismic data and over 200,000 world wide oil wells drilled to various depths.”

References

Patrick Boylan, 1998. “Lyell and the Dilemma of Quaternary Glaciation,” in D. J. Blundell and A. C. Scott eds Lyell: the Past is the Key to the Present, (London: Geological Society, 1998), p. 145
V. V. Nesvizhevsky et al, “Quantum States of Neutrons in the Earth's gravitational field,” Nature, 415 (2002):297-299

John Murray: A Misrepresentation of History

An Answers in Genesis website talks about several 19th century ‘Scriptural Geologists’. The page is written by Terry Mortenson who has a Ph. D. in the history of geology. The site is (answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/6%20john%20murray.asp)

I first became aware of Mortenson when I was forwarded a paper he gave at a Denver Theological Conference in November or December 2001. The conference was called ETS 2001. Since I was reading many 19th century creationist authors at the time, I was pleased to see the paper. But Mortenson didn't tell me anything about the BELIEFS of these supposedly great geologists who happened to believe in a global flood. Thus I decided to get the books I could. I was able to locate Murray's 1840 book and purchased it for a pretty penny. What I learned told me why Mortenson hadn't bothered to discuss the beliefs these guys whom he calls the ‘Four of the geologically most competent Scriptural geolgists’. In looking at Mortenson's site, Mortenson claims that one of the Scriptural Geologists, John Murray, “demonstrated an up-to-date knowledge of the writings of leading British and European geologists.”

This is a claim that can be examined in light of the knowledge of the day and in light of Murray's beliefs. The examination of those beliefs shows that Murray was using data at least 50 years out of date. He failed to use data from his day in the following areas:

He failed to apply the known density of the earth to his flood model.
He failed to apply the thermal observations of mines getting hotter the deeper one went to his flood theory.
He failed to deal or accept the stratification of the fossils which had been proven by William Smith 35 years earlier.
He failed to apply his knowledge of pressure to his model of the flood.
He failed to inform his readers of Agassiz's claim that glaciers, not the flood formed the deposits which we now call the glacial till--a claim which modern young-earth creationists, like Michael Oard, fully support. Murray also failed to inform his readers that the best geological minds of the day had rejected what he was saying.

John Murray was a well respected scientist of the day doing most of his work in the area of chemistry and mining. He wrote a book, Truth of Revelation in 1831 which was expanded and republished in 1840. I own the 1840 edition. All of his quotes are from that book.

1. Density of the Earth

Murray believed in a global flood, as did many in his day. But Murray's mechanism was somewhat similar to Walter Brown's in this day. Murray wrote:

“There is a fact stated in Scripture of considerable importance when considered in this relation: ‘the fountains of the great deep were broken up:’—this unequivocally implies the issue of torrents from the bosom of the globe; and it seems to us, more likely that the nucleus of the earth is an abyss of water than a lake of fire, however, the latter view of it might coalesce with Buffon's notion, of which that of Hutton was a more elaborate transcript.” (Murray, p. 215)

Not only does he have the water of the flood coming out of the center of the earth, he has it disappear back into the center of the earth. This view was known to be false in 1840, indeed, it was known to be false in 1798. In that year, Cavendish measured the gravitational constant. It was this act which allowed us to know the mass of the earth. Scientists had long known the acceleration of gravity, but they had no idea how much mass it took to create that acceleration rate. Cavendish's measurement allow solving

g = Gm/r² = 9.8 m/s, where g is the acceleration of earth's gravity, G is the gravitational constant measured by Cavendish and m is the mass of the earth. (for pedantic types, there is an implicit test mass of 1 in the numerator).

Prior to 1798, we knew the radius of the earth but didn't know either the mass of the earth or G, the gravitational constant. Once the mass of the earth was known, the earth's density was easily determined, mass divided by the volume of the sphere. This yielded a value of 5.5 gram/cubic centimeter. Water has a density of 1 gram/ cubic centimeter, so it was quite clear as early as 1798 that Murray couldn't get away with claiming a reservoir of water in the center of the earth. So, this is the first point at which Murray failed to display his acceptance of the science of the day.

As further evidence, even his contemporaries found such ideas absurd:

“Though the theory of the centre of the earth being an abyss of waters be rejected as absurd, it is quite supposable that, within a few miles of the earth's circumference, there might be fountains and depths of water sufficient for a universal Deluge. For, what is the distance of four or five miles in the crust of the earth?” (Burton 1845, p. 22-23)

2. Temperature inside the earth

It was quite well known, even from ancient times, that the deeper miners dug into the earth, the hotter the temperature inside the mine. It was also known that hot lava came out of the earth at certain places which were called volcanoes. Just a few years earlier, Charles Lyell had written of this well known fact when he wrote:

“Many observations and experiments appear to countenance the idea, that in descending from the surface to those slight depths to which man can penetrate, there is a progressive increase of heat;” (Lyell, p. 82)

Yet, by claiming that the earth's interior was water rather than fire, Murray failed to incorporate the observational data into his views, he failed to inform his readership of this fact, or to offer evidence for why he believed that the earth's interior was water other than that he needed that water for the Flood.

3. Stratification of the fossils

Thirty-five years before Murray published, a mining consultant/canal builder, had noticed an interesting fact. As you descended the lift in a mine, you could see various rock layers, one on top of another. The order was always the same; Simon Winchester wrote of Smith's discovery,

“The pattern, Smith saw, was always the same, in mine after mine after mine: from top to bottom, Sandstone, Siltstone, Mudstone, Non-marine Band, Marine Band, Coal, Seat-earth, and then again Sandstone, Siltstone, Mudstone, on and on. on top of everything, placid and unconformable, the Red Marls, the flatly sloping beds of the startlingly red Red Earth.” (Winchester, 2001, p. 76-77)

Smith used this knowledge to help the Lords of England decide if they had coal underneath their lands. Smith was in high demand because he could predict coal and no other man could. But Smith didn't stop there. He noticed that if you examined the fossils found in those rocks, regardless of the mine you were in, regardless of how distant that other mine was, the fossils were found in the same order. Some fossils were only found high while other fossils were only found deep in the mine, or at least always found deeper than those which consistently where higher up. Smith found that he could use the fossils to help him find the coal and other minerals which the Lords were looking for.

Smith had no axe to grind about the Flood, indeed, he most assuredly believed in Noah's Flood, but he couldn't deny what he had observed, the fossils had a pattern.

But John Murray could deny it and did, thus denying what is clear fact and was clearly among the knowledge of his day. He wrote:

“Let it be remembered that there is no absolute CHRONOMETER in geology and I very much doubt whether there yet be a fixed relative one among fossiliferous rocks, because there are FOSSIL REMAINS COMMON TO THEM ALL; and again, fossils innumerable are common both to tertiary and secondary strata; a fact that repudiates the assumed distinction. The statics of a sound chronology being absent, prudence would require us to be cautious and less dogmatical in a science confessedly of intense interest, but comparatively young in age. Besides, fossiliferous rocks are local, not circumambient.” (Murray, p. 141-142)

By misrepresenting the observational fossil record, a record that even modern young-earth creationists acknowledge, Murray shows that he was not using the knowledge of his day.

4. Pressure

Being involved in the mining industry, which requires pumping vast quantities of water out of the mines, Murray should have known the practical aspects of pressure. One can't push water into a high pressure area without higher pressure. Murray had written:

“It may be asked, and the question has certainly been often put, What has become of the surplus water of the deluge? Questions are easily put; but a fact once established cannot be doubted or denied, because there may be a difficulty in accounting for the phenomenon. For any thing we know to the contrary, the diluvial waters may have retreated into the profound abysses of the earth; besides, much would disappear as water of crystallization, in crystalline rocks, and much, also, as water of composition, in sedimentary rocks.” (Murray,p. 216-217)

Murray would have known that the deeper a column of water is, the greater is the pressure at the bottom of the column. Thus, water at the bottom of a pool has higher pressure. This is actually due to the weight of the overlying water which is pulled down by gravity. The density of the overlying material determines how rapidly pressure builds up. For rock, the pressure builds up around 2.4 times more rapidly than for water. What Murray was forgetting in his suggestion that the waters of the flood could drain back into the earth was that the weight of the rocks would create higher pressure (lithostatic pressure) than that possessed by a column of water (hydrostatic pressure). Thus, to force the water back into the earth would require a high pressure pump, yet Murray conveniently ignored that detail in the above explanation.

5. Glaciers

In 1837 Louis Agassiz proposed that the diluvium, which many diluvial advocates had claimed as the remnants and evidence of the Flood, were actually produced by glaciers. The diluvium, as evidence of Noah's Flood, had been rejected over the previous 10 years, by Christian geologist after Christian geologist. Sedgwick had written in 1831:

“Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation. . .

“There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established - that the vast masses of deluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. . .”

“We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. . . . In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in giving them a simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we had discovered, but by those we expected hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths.” (Gould, p. 125)

Buckland gave up the idea that the diluvium was due to the flood in 1836, 4 years before Murray published his expanded book. Rupke notes:

“When Buckland publicly withdrew his support for the diluvial theory in 1836 his retraction was no more caused by Lyell's attack on diluvialism than Sedgwick's had been. To Buckland and Sedgwick alike the abandonment of diluvial geology Buckland and Sedgwick alike the abandonment of diluvial geology was not a rejection of cataclysmal debacles, but of the Mosaic deluge as an example of these. The date of the last geological deluge was put at shortly before the creation of man, and the biblical flood was reinterpreted as a quiet event.” (Rupke, p. 89)

Given these recantations, Murray should have informed his readers, and dealt with them, in an open and honest way. As it was, he hid them from his readers, and hid the threat that glaciers, rather than floods might have caused the diluvium.

Murray fails on these five points to be up to date and honest with his readers about the issues of geology as it related to the Scripture. And if Murray was not using the knowledge of his day, then Mortenson is profoundly misrepresenting the Murray's place in history, and misrepresenting Murray's knowledge of 19th century geology. Mortenson also misleads his readers by NOT mentioning ANY of Murray's beliefs, which if read by modern people will surely seem a bit bizarre, even to young-earth creationists. Once again, this is a case of Christian apologists citing only data they think will philosophically support their previously held conclusion. If Mortenson admits that the Scriptural geologists were really not dealing with the data of their day, then he must admit that they lost out, not because of some perceived bias, but because they didn't explain things very well.

References

Rev. Charles Burton, Lectures on the Deluge and the World After the Flood, (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., Hatchard & Son, Piccadilly, 1845)
Stephen J. Gould, The Flamingos Smile, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1985)
Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology edited by James Secord, (New York: Penguin Books, 1997)
John Murray, Truth of Revelation, (London: William Smith, 1840)
Nicolaas Rupke, The Great Chain of History, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983)
Simon Winchester, The Map that Changed the World, (London: Viking Books, 2001).

Steve Austin's Grand Canyon Erosion Argument: A Mathematical Sleight of Hand

Steve Austin presents an argument for the age of the earth in his 1994 book “Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe” on pages 87-89. Starting with an observed sediments carried by the Colorado River of 168 million tons per year, he shows, (correctly) that this represents the erosion .015 cubic miles per year. He then correctly notes that the volume eroded out of the Grand Canyon is approximately 1000 cubic miles. Dividing the two numbers he incorrectly obtains an age of 67,000 years for the time it would take to erode the Grand Canyon. Beyond the fact that this is ten times too old to fit into his young-earth scenario, Austin argues that the evolutionists are wrong to believe in millions of years for the canyon to form.

Where does Steve go wrong? Well, it is in assuming that ALL the sediment carried by the Colorado River comes from the Canyon itself. Without his reader's knowing it, Steve is saying that absolutely no erosion is occurring in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, which, of course, is a bizarre claim to make if one were to make it explicitly. But by not mentioning this implicit assumption in his calculation, those unfamiliar with the geologic facts will be fooled into thinking Steve has proven a short erosion time for the Grand Canyon.

The Colorado River extends 1450 miles from the mouth to the source in Colorado. Only 500 miles of this length are to be found in the Grand Canyon. The drainage area of the Colorado River is 640,000 square kilometers but the Canyon has an area of only 13,000 square kilometers. Scott Mclennan (reference below) reports that the Colorado River, prior to the building of the Glen Canyon Dam, carried 121 million tons of sediment each year. This is slightly less than the study cited by Austin so we will use his larger value of 168 million tons per year so that no one can claim we are shopping for values favorable to us.

The drainage area of the Colorado is 640,000 sq. km. and the area of the canyon is only 13,000 sq km. 800 km x 16 km wide = 12,800 sq. km. Thus, on a linear weighting, one can expect that only 2 percent of the sediment actually comes from the canyon, the rest comes from the rest of the area. But let's be fair to Steve and say that 30 percent of the sediment comes from the canyon. That means that 168,000,000*.3 =50,400,000 tons per year are moved by the river OUT OF THE CANYON AREA with the rest coming from the rest of the drainage basin. To a first approximation there are 1000 kg/ton which means that 50.4 billion kg of material is moved down the river, or given a density of 2500 kg/m, we have 20.1 million cubic meters moving down the river each year. Dividing by the area of the Canyon (which is 13,000,000,000 square meters) we have a lowering of the Canyon surface by 20.1 x 10^6/1.3 x 10^10= 1.5 x 10^-3 m per year--hardly indicating a young earth. This is about 1.5 mm per year of excavation out of the Canyon.

So how long will it take the canyon to be excavated at this rate?

20.1 million cubic meters sediment per year = .0048 cubic mile sediment/year

1000 cubic miles/ .0048 cubic mile sediment/year = 207,000 years

Only 207,000 years? Yes, but remember, we have favored Steve greatly by allowing 30% of all erosion to occur in 2% of the area and there is NO evidence that this is the case. If one scales the determines the canyon erosion by its proportional area it would take three million years to erode the canyon, a value much more aligned with the geologic evidence.

But one question arises here. Why do young-earth creationists think that a 67,000 year age (or a 207,000 year age) for the Grand Canyon indicate a young earth? I have been on this earth less than 100 years. Does my age indicate that the earth is really only 100 years old? Does the silting up of the Colorado River behind the Glen Canyon Dam (a process which has been going on since the dam was close less than 100 years ago) indicate that the earth is only 100 years old or less? Of course, this is a silly line of logic and would be roundly condemned if stated explicitly. But that is what Steve is doing with his calculation. He is claiming that something which began long after the earth was formed, limits the age of the earth.

And what he doesn't tell people is that there are conclusive evidence of long ages prior to the Canyon's erosion in the sediments of the canyon. This evidence consists of burrows in the sediment (psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/nacofm.html) (geocities.com/earthhistory/grand2.htm), footprints on sedimentary layer after layer (Lockley and Hunt, 1995, p. 57), and cave erosion and collapse all occurring prior to the beginning of the canyon erosion. This last evidence is particularly interesting.

The Red-wall limestone contains collapsed caves which collapsed at a time when the entire Grand Canyon area was covered with an additional couple of hundred feet of sediment. When the cave collapsed the sediment above it fell into the cave void, filling it. This is what happens in Florida with a sink hole--a cave below the surface collapsed and whatever was above the collapse falls into the hole. At the Grand Canyon Wenrich and Huntoon (1989, p. 212) write of these pipes which occur at a rate of 6 per square mile:

“The breccia pipes formed as sedimentary strata collapsed into dissolution caverns in the underlying Mississippian Redwall Limestone. Upward stoping through the upper Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic strata, involving units as high as the Triassic Chinle Formation.”

The Chinle is a Triassic bed which lies above the Moenkopi which in turn lies above the Triassic Shinarump. Just north of the Canyon the Shinarump and Moenkopi are 1900 feet thick. Thus it is possible that when the caves collapsed, the Grand Canyon was covered with as much as an additional 2000 feet of sediment which was nearly totally removed. There is a small remnant of it on the SE side of the Canyon at Cedar Mountain. Assuming that we removed this covering layer at the same rate as the Colorado River today removes sediment how long would it take? The Triassic strata has been removed over at least 20,000 square kilometers and was at least 2000 feet thick. This means that nearly 3000 cubic miles of sediment have been removed BEFORE THE CANYON EROSION BEGAN. Using the 2 percent rule we last used above, 3000/.0048 = at least 625,000 years of erosion. Of course, Steve never tells anyone about that erosional event.

It takes time for the sediment to be deposited, burrows be dug, more sediment be deposited more burrows and animal tracks to be made and then for caves to erode in solid rock and then to collapse and then for the Triassic strata to be almost completely eroded from the Canyon area AND ONLY THEN does the Canyon erosion begin.

One general comment, if Steve admits that it takes several tens of thousands of years to dig out the canyon (by his own calculation) he must then allow for other buried canyons which are found on seismic data.

Thus the age of the entire canyon sequence must be older than the length of time it takes to erode the canyon. Of course, the young-earthers can't accept this evidence. It is a shame that Christian apologetics relies on such sloppy logic to support a young-earth.

References

Steven A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe, (Santee: Inst. for Creation Research, 1994)
M. Lockley and Adrian P. Hunt, Dinosaur Tracks, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995)
Scott M. Mclennan “Weathering and Global Denudation”, Journal of Geology , 101:2, p. 296
Karen J. Wenrich and Peter W. Huntoon, “Breccia Pipes and Associated mineralization in the Grand Canyon Region, Northern Arizona,” Geology of the Grand Canyon, Northern Arizona, 28th Int. Geol. Congress, Field Trip Guide Book, (Washington: AGU, 1989), p. 212