Dr. Andrew A.

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

BSc, Applied Geology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney,

Australia, First Class Honours, 1975

Professional Experience

 Field, mine, and research geologist, various mining companies,

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

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

DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF FLOOD GEOLOGY

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

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

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

THE FOSSIL RECORD

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

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

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

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

Marine Life Originally Lives in the

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

The World’s a Graveyard

Flood Evidence Number Two
by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on February 12, 2008; last featured March 5, 2008

Shop Now

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

Photos courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling

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

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

Figure 11—Soft-bodied marine creatures, such as this fossilized jellyfish

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

Figure 12—Many fish were buried alive and fossilized

quickly, such as this fish “caught in the act” of eating its
last meal. Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling.

Figure 13—This female ichthyosaur, a marine reptile,

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

Transcontinental Rock Layers

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

What evidence do we have that the

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

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

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

Ayers Rock (or Uluru) in central Australia consists of

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

So soup-like slurries of sediment, known as turbidity currents, which

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

Sand Transported Cross Country

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

We find layers of thick sandstone around the

earth. Where did the sand come from?
Evidence indicates it was carried across
entire continents by water circling the globe.
Genesis 7 says that all the high hills and the
mountains were covered by water, and all air-
breathing life on the land was swept away
and perished. After reading this passage,
wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over
the earth filled with billions of dead animals
and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Yes, and that’s exactly what we find.
Sediment Transported Long Distances
In previous articles we have already seen the evidence that rapidly deposited sediment layers containing rapidly buried plant
and animal fossils are found spread across vast areas, often high above sea level. No known slow-and-gradual geologic
processes in the present world are currently producing such fossiliferous sediment layers spread across continents. Though
evolutionary geologists are loath to admit it, only a global flood in which the ocean waters flooded over the continents could
have done this.Now it logically follows that, when the Flood waters swept over the continents and rapidly deposited
sediment layers across vast areas, these sediments had to have been transported long distances. In other words, the
sediments in the strata had to come from distant sources. And that’s exactly the evidence we find.For example, in the
previous issue we discussed the Coconino Sandstone, seen spectacularly in the walls of the Grand Canyon (Figure 1). It
has an average thickness of 315 feet (96 m), covers an area of at least 200,000 square miles (518,000 km 2), and thus
contains at least 10,000 cubic miles (41,700 km 3) of sand.1 Where did this sand come from, and how do we know?The sand
grains are pure quartz (a natural glass mineral), which is why the Coconino Sandstone is such a distinctive buff color.
Directly underneath it is the strikingly different red-brown Hermit Formation, consisting of siltstone and shale. Sand for the
Coconino Sandstone could not have come from the underlying Hermit Formation.
The sloping remnants of sand “waves” in the Coconino Sandstone point to the south, indicating the water that deposited the
sand flowed from the north.2 Another clue is that the Coconino Sandstone thins to zero to the north in Utah, but the Hermit
Formation spreads farther into Utah and beyond. So the Coconino’s pure quartz sand had to come from a source even
farther north, above and beyond the red-brown Hermit.Grand Canyon has another set of layers with sand that must have

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

If the violent global Flood, described really

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

Photos courtesy Dr. Andrew Snelling

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

Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured

Flood Evidence Number Six
by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on April 1, 2009

If the global Flood, really

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

Solid Rock Breaks not Bends (Figure 1)When solid,

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

Examples of Bent Rock Layers (Figures 2–4)

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

DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF FLOOD GEOLOGY

Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Beds?

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

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

The ‘Problems’ For Flood Geology

This is the point where critics, and not only those in the evolutionist camp, have said that it is just not possible to explain the
formation of the chalk beds in the White Cliffs of Dover via the geological action of the Flood (Flood geology). The deep-sea
sediments on the ocean floor today average a thickness of about 450 metres (almost 1,500 feet), but this can vary from
ocean to ocean and also depends on proximity to land. 4 The sediment covering the Pacific Ocean Basin ranges from 300 to
600 metres thick, and that in the Atlantic is about 1,000 metres thick. In the mid-Pacific the sediment cover may be less than
100 metres thick. These differences in thicknesses of course reflect differences in accumulation rates, owing to variations in
the sediments brought in by rivers and airborne dust, and the production of organic debris within the ocean surface waters.
The latter is in turn affected by factors such as productivity rates for the microorganisms in question, the nutrient supply and
the ocean water concentrations of calcium carbonate. Nevertheless, it is on the deep ocean floor, well away from land, that
the purest calcareous ooze has accumulated which would be regarded as the present-day forerunner to a chalk bed, and
reported accumulation rates there range from 1–8cm per 1,000 years for calcareous ooze dominated by foraminifera and 2–
10 cm per 1,000 years for oozes dominated by coccoliths.5Now the chalk beds of southern England are estimated to be
around 405 metres (about 1,329 feet) thick and are said to span the complete duration of the so-called Late Cretaceous
geological period,6 estimated by evolutionists to account for between 30 and 35 million years of evolutionary time. A simple
calculation reveals that the average rate of chalk accumulation therefore over this time period is between 1.16 and 1.35cm
per l,000 years, right at the lower end of today’s accumulation rates quoted above. Thus the evolutionary geologists feel
vindicated, and the critics insist that there is too much chalk to have been originally deposited as calcareous ooze by the
Flood.But that is not the only challenge creationists face concerning deposition of chalk beds during the Flood. Schadewald
has insisted that if all of the fossilised animals, including the foraminifera and coccolithophores whose remains are found in
chalk, could be resurrected, then they would cover the entire planet to a depth of at least 45cm (18 inches), and what could
they all possibly have eaten?7 He states that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit the earth from supporting that much
animal biomass, and with so many animals trying to get their energy from the sun the available solar energy would not
nearly be sufficient. Long-age creationist Hayward agrees with all these problems. 8Even creationist Glenn Morton has posed
similar problems, suggesting that even though the Austin Chalk upon which the city of Dallas (Texas) is built is little more
than several hundred feet (upwards of 100 metres) of dead microscopic animals, when all the other chalk beds around the
world are also taken into account, the number of microorganisms involved could not possibly have all lived on the earth at
the same time to thus be buried during the Flood. 9Furthermore, he insists that even apart from the organic problem, there is
the quantity of carbon dioxide (CO2) necessary to have enabled the production of all the calcium carbonate by the
microorganisms whose calcareous remains are now entombed in the chalk beds. Considering all the other limestones too,
he says, there just couldn’t have been enough CO2 in the atmosphere at the time of the Flood to account for all these
calcium carbonate deposits.
Creationist Responses
Two creationists have done much to provide a
satisfactory response to these objections
against Flood geology—geologists Dr Ariel
Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute
(Loma Linda, California) and John
Woodmorappe. Both agree that biological
productivity does not appear to be the limiting
factor. Roth10 suggests that in the surface
layers of the ocean these carbonate-secreting
organisms at optimum production rates could
produce all the calcareous ooze on the ocean
floor today in probably less than 1,000 or 2,000
years. He argues that, if a high concentration
of foraminifera of 100 per litre of ocean water
were assumed,11 a doubling time of 3.65 days,
and an average of 10,000 foraminifera per
gram of carbonate,12 the top 200 metres of the
ocean would produce 20 grams of calcium
carbonate per square centimetre per year, or at
an average sediment density of 2 grams per cubic centimetre, 100 metres in 1,000 years. Some of this calcium carbonate
would be dissolved at depth so the time factor would probably need to be increased to compensate for this, but if there was
increased carbonate input to the ocean waters from other sources then this would cancel out. Also, reproduction of
foraminifera below the top 200 metres of ocean water would likewise tend to shorten the time required.Coccolithophores on
the other hand reproduce faster than foraminifera and are amongst the fastest growing planktonic algæ, 13 sometimes
multiplying at the rate of 2.25 divisions per day. Roth suggests that if we assume an average coccolith has a volume of 22 x
10–12 cubic centimetres, an average weight of 60 x 10 -12 grams per coccolith,1420 coccoliths produced per coccolithophore,
13 x 106 coccolithophores per litre of ocean water,15 a dividing rate of two times per day and a density of 2 grams per cubic
centimetre for the sediments produced, one gets a potential production rate of 54cm (over 21 inches) of calcium carbonate
per year from the top 100 metres (305 feet) of the ocean. At this rate it is possible to produce an average 100 metre (305
feet) thickness of coccoliths as calcareous ooze on the ocean floor in less than 200 years. Again, other factors could be
brought into the calculations to either lengthen or shorten the time, including dissolving of the carbonate, light reduction due
to the heavy concentration of these microorganisms, and reproducing coccoliths below the top 100 metres of ocean surface,
but the net result again is to essentially affirm the rate just calculated.Woodmorappe 16 approached the matter in a different
way. Assuming that all limestones in the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary divisions of the geological column are all chalks, he
found that these accounted for 17.5 million cubic kilometres of rock. (Of course, not all these limestones are chalks, but he
used this figure to make the ‘problem’ more difficult, so as to get the most conservative calculation results.) Then using
Roth’s calculation of a 100 metre thickness of coccoliths produced every 200 years, Woodmorappe found that one would
only need 21.1 million square kilometres or 4.1% of the earth ’s surface to be coccolith-producing seas to supply the 17.5
million cubic kilometres of coccoliths in 1,600-1,700 years, that is, in the pre-Flood era. He also made further calculations by
starting again from the basic parameters required, and found that he could reduce that figure to only 12.5 million square
kilometres of ocean area or 2.5% of the earth’s surface to produce the necessary exaggerated estimate of 17.5 million cubic
kilometres of coccoliths.

Scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of coccoliths in the Cretaceous chalk, Brighton, England (photo: Dr Joachim
Scheven)
‘Blooms’ During The Flood
As helpful as they are, these calculations overlook one major relevant issue — these chalk beds were deposited during
the Flood. Creationist geologists may have different views as to where the pre-Flood/Flood boundary is in the geological
record, but the majority would regard these Upper Cretaceous chalks as having been deposited very late in the Flood. That
being the case, the coccoliths and foraminiferal shells that are now in the chalk beds would have to have been produced
during the Flood itself, not in the 1,600–1,700 years of the pre-Flood era as calculated by Woodmorappe, for surely if there
were that many around at the outset of the Flood these chalk beds should have been deposited sooner rather than later
during the Flood event. Similarly, Roth’s calculations of the required quantities potentially being produced in up to 1,000
years may well show that the quantities of calcareous oozes on today’s ocean floors are easily producible in the time-span
since the Flood, but these calculations are insufficient to show how these chalk beds could be produced during the Flood
itself.Nevertheless, both Woodmorappe and Roth recognize that even today coccolith accumulation is not steady-state but
highly episodic, for under the right conditions significant increases in the concentrations of these marine microorganisms can
occur, as in plankton ‘blooms’ and red tides. For example, there are intense blooms of coccoliths that cause ‘white water’
situations because of the coccolith concentrations, 11 and during bloom periods in the waters near Jamaica microorganism
numbers have been reported as increasing from 100,000 per litre to 10 million per litre of ocean water. 18 The reasons for
these blooms are poorly understood, but suggestions include turbulence of the sea, wind, 19 decaying fish,20 nutrients from
freshwater inflow and upwelling, and temperature. 21Without a doubt, all of these stated conditions would have been
generated during the catastrophic global upheaval of the Flood, and thus rapid production of carbonate skeletons by
foraminifera and coccolithophores would be possible. Thermodynamic considerations would definitely not prevent a much
larger biomass such as this being produced, since Schadewald who raised this as a ‘problem’ is clearly wrong. It has been
reported that oceanic productivity 5–10 times greater than the present could be supported by the available sunlight, and it is
nutrient availability (especially nitrogen) that is the limiting factor. 22 Furthermore, present levels of solar ultraviolet radiation
inhibit marine planktonic productivity.23Quite clearly, under cataclysmic Flood conditions, including torrential rain, sea
turbulence, decaying fish and other organic matter, and the violent volcanic eruptions associated with the ‘fountains of the
deep’, explosive blooms on a large and repetitive scale in the oceans are realistically conceivable, so that the production of
the necessary quantities of calcareous ooze to produce the chalk beds in the geological record in a short space of time at
the close of the Flood is also realistically conceivable. Violent volcanic eruptions would have produced copious quantities of
dust and steam, and the possible different mix of gases than in the present atmosphere could have reduced ultraviolet
radiation levels. However, in the closing stages of the Flood the clearing and settling of this debris would have allowed
increasing levels of sunlight to penetrate to the oceans.Ocean water temperatures would have been higher at the close of
the Flood because of the heat released during the cataclysm, for example, from volcanic and magmatic activity, and the
latent heat from condensation of water. Such higher temperatures have been verified by evolutionists from their own studies
of these rocks and deep-sea sediments,24 and would have also been conducive to these explosive blooms of foraminifera
and coccolithophores. Furthermore, the same volcanic activity would have potentially released copious quantities of
nutrients into the ocean waters, as well as prodigious amounts of the CO 2 that is so necessary for the production of the
calcium carbonate by these microorganisms. Even today the volcanic output of CO2 has been estimated at about 6.6 million
tonnes per year, while calculations based on past eruptions and the most recent volcanic deposits in the rock record
suggest as much as a staggering 44 billion tonnes of CO 2 have been added to the atmosphere and oceans in the recent
past (that is, in the most recent part of the post-Flood era).25
The Final Answer
The situation has been known where pollution in coastal areas has contributed to the explosive multiplication of
microorganisms in the ocean waters to peak concentrations of more than 10 billion per litre. 26 Woodmorappe has calculated
that in chalk there could be as many as 3 x 10 13 coccoliths per cubic metre if densely packed (which usually isn’t the case),
yet in the known bloom just mentioned, 10 billion microorganisms per litre of ocean water equates to 10 13 microorganisms
per cubic metre.Adapting some of Woodmorappe’s calculations, if the 10% of the earth’s surface that now contains chalk
beds was covered in water, as it still was near the end of the Flood, and if that water explosively bloomed with
coccolithophores and foraminifera with up to 10 13 microorganisms per cubic metre of water down to a depth of less than 500
metres from the surface, then it would have only taken two or three such blooms to produce the required quantity of
microorganisms to be fossilised in the chalk beds. Lest it be argued that a concentration of 10 13 microorganisms per cubic
metre would extinguish all light within a few metres of the surface, it should be noted that phytoflagellates such as these are
able to feed on bacteria, that is, planktonic species are capable of heterotrophism (they are ‘mixotrophic’). 27 Such bacteria
would have been in abundance, breaking down the masses of floating and submerged organic debris (dead fish, plants,
animals, etc.) generated by the flood. Thus production of coccolithophores and foraminifera is not dependent on sunlight,
the supply of organic material potentially supporting a dense concentration.Since, for example, in southern England there
are three main chalk beds stacked on top of one another, then this scenario of three successive, explosive, massive blooms
coincides with the rock record. Given that the turnover rate for coccoliths is up to two days,28 then these chalk beds could
thus have been produced in as little as six days, totally conceivable within the time framework of the flood. What is certain, is
that the right set of conditions necessary for such blooms to occur had to have coincided in full measure to have explosively
generated such enormous blooms, but the evidence that it did happen is there for all to plainly see in these chalk beds in the
geological record. Indeed, the purity of these thick chalk beds worldwide also testifies to their catastrophic deposition from
enormous explosively generated blooms, since during protracted deposition over supposed millions of years it is straining
credulity to expect that such purity would be maintained without contaminating events depositing other types of sediments.
There are variations in consistency (see Appendix) but not purity. The only additional material in the chalk is fossils of
macroscopic organisms such as ammonites and other molluscs, whose fossilisation also requires rapid burial because of
their size (see Appendix).No doubt there are factors that need to be better quantified in such a series of calculations, but we
are dealing with a cataclysmic Flood, the like of which has not been experienced since for us to study its processes.
However, we do have the results of its passing in the rock record to study, and it is clear that by working from what is known
to occur today, even if rare and catastrophic by today’s standards, we can realistically calculate production of these chalk
beds within the time framework and cataclysmic activity of the Flood, and in so doing respond adequately to the objections
and ‘problems’ raised by the critics.

A Deeper Understanding of the Flood—A Complex Geologic Puzzle

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on April 1, 2014

The details of the Flood have profound

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

Figure 1 In a megasequence the grains decrease in size

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

Figure 2 Several Megasequences. Megasequences are

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

Did Meteors Trigger the Flood?

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on January 1, 2012; last featured December 12, 2012

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

A History of Craters: Two Interpretations (Figure 2)

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

Noah`s Lost World

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on April 1, 2014; last featured May 3, 2015
Shop Now
That land was destroyed. In fact, it appears that
the original continent was broken up and the
pieces separated by thousands of miles.
There were no Alps, Rockies, or snow-covered
Himalayas; no Mississippi River rolling down into
the Gulf of Mexico; no Amazon spilling into the
Atlantic. The geography of the pre-Flood world
was completely changed.It appears that the
whole planet was different. Geologists have
stumbled across tantalizing clues that allow them to begin reconstructing the sequence of events necessary to produce the
dramatic features on earth today. This ongoing work is exciting for creationists. Though the details are fragmentary, a
picture is emerging of what may have been the supercontinent .These findings point to Scripture, which makes much better
sense of the catastrophic evidence than slow processes over millions of years.
Continental Fragments from an Earlier Time
Have you ever wondered what world was like before the Flood? The fragments that survived the Flood make it possible to
begin piecing together the puzzle, at least in broad terms.Evidence indicates that the continents have moved around, broken
apart, and crashed together, but the basic pieces have remained fairly constant. Violent catastrophes tore off slivers from
the edges of the continents, but the core pieces seem to have survived.Geologists call the cores of these pieces “cratons.”
They seem to have remained stable throughout history. At one time they appear to have been joined together, but violent
forces—unleashed during the Flood—tore them into many fragments.The core of North America appears to be one of these
cratons. In fact, most geologists believe it was a major component of the early earth’s supercontinent.
Moving Around the Pieces
Rodinia (left) Our modern continents are made out of pieces from the original earth, which broke apart during the Flood.
These core pieces are called cratons. Certain features within these pieces and on their edges can be lined up, helping us
put them back together. We call this original continent Rodinia, but so much has been lost that many puzzles remain.
Pangaea (middle) After the original continent broke apart during the Flood, the pieces crashed together temporarily, forming
a supercontinent known as Pangaea. How do we know this? The pieces were already covered with fossil-containing
sediment layers when they crashed together. In the impact zones, these layers were pushed into folded mountains that we
still see today.
Today (right) Today the earth consists of many separate continents, formed out of pieces from the first supercontinent. Only
the cores survived. The rest of our modern continents were filled in by mud and sand that the Flood stripped from the earth’s
surface. Geologists are studying the original pieces to see how the edges originally aligned.
Coastlines of a Super Continent?
One of the biggest clues for the original configuration of continents is evident on any world map.
In 1859 creationist geologist Antonio Snider-Pellegrini noticed the jigsaw puzzle fit of North and South America with Europe
and Africa if the Atlantic Ocean basin were closed up.1 He also realized that the landmass was probably a supercontinent.
Then that supercontinent broke apart during the Flood and continental sprint opened up today’s Atlantic Ocean.Thus was
born the catastrophic plate tectonics model, which provides a physical mechanism for the Flood.2 At the initiation of the
Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up ripping apart the pre-Flood supercontinent. The upwelling molten rock
from the underlying mantle then helped to propel the continental fragments across the globe, opening up new ocean basins
and colliding to produce today’s mountains.Much geologic data is consistent with this scenario, although the rapid
movement of plates is a separate topic.3 By locating the remnants of the original pre-Flood supercontinent we can project
the movements of those fragments back to their original positions to potentially reassemble the lost world.

Pangaea Was Not The Lost pre-Flood World

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

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

Rapid Opals in the Outback

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

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

Third, the Layers Were Lifted Up, Dried, and Weathered Quickly
A complicated sequence of chemical reactions then occurred. First, water percolated down and reacted with the pyrite,
making the water acidic. This acidic water then reacted with the feldspar to release the silica (the basic ingredient in opals).
Conditions around 164 feet (50 m) became just right (alkaline, not acidic) for the minerals to break down further. The silica
could precipitate as precious opal (*) only in tight spaces, such as along fractures and faults.

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

Yosemite Valley—Colossal Ice Carving

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

Hoodoos of Bryce Canyon

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

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

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

The Sierra Nevadas

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

Emeralds—Treasures from Catastrophe

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

ADVERTISEMENTSMaranatha Baptist UniversityPensacola Christian CollegeMasters College

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

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

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

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

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

The Taba Gneiss is a foliated and lineated, medium-grained quartz-diorite gneiss (fig. 4 and table 1), consisting of quartz
(25%), plagioclase (oligoclase) (50–60%), and biotite, rarely with some hornblende or microcline (Garfunkel 1980; Halpern

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

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

Quartz Plagioclase, orthoclase, quartz and biotite, with 599.3±2.0 Ma

monzodiorite some hornblende (zircon U-Pb)

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

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

Olivine norite Olivine, orthopyroxene, amphibole, biotite, 611±10 Ma

(gabbro) magnetite and accessories (zircon U-Pb)

Timna Igneous Plagioclase, orthoclase, quartz, perthite and

Complex Porphyritic granite some biotite 625±5 Ma (zircon U-Pb)

597±1 Ma (Rb-Sr mineral

isochron)
Sodic plagioclase, microline and quartz, with 600 Ma (Rb-Sr isochron)
Elat Granite biotite and some muscovite 597±1 Ma (Ar-Ar plateau age)

596±2 Ma (amphibole Ar-Ar

Plagioclase, biotite and hornblende, with quartz plateau age)
Schistose dikes minor or absent ~632 Ma (host’s zircon U-Pb)

642 Ma and 640±10 Ma

(zircon U-Pb)
Shahmon Hornblende metagabbro to biotite hornblende 632 Ma (mean amphibole Ar-
Metabasites metadiorite Ar plateau age)

Elat Association Elat Granite Quartz, oligoclase and alkali feldspar, with 5– 744±5 Ma
(or Terrain) Gneiss 15% biotite (zircon U-Pb)
 Quartz, oligoclase and biotite, rarely with 768±9 Ma to 782±9 Ma
Taba Gneiss hornblende or microcline (zircon U-Pb)

807±35 Ma (Rb-Sr isochron)

Quartz, oligoclase-andesine, biotite and some 800±13 Ma to 813±7 Ma
Elat Schist muscovite (zircon U-Pb)

634±2 Ma (zircon U-Pb)

Roded Quartz- Oligoclase-andesine, quartz, biotite and 617±11 Ma and 647±20 Ma
Diorite hornblende, with minor microcline (amphibole and biotite K-Ar)

Melanosomes—Quartz, plagioclase and biotite,

sometimes with garnet or muscovite 720 Ma
Migmatites Leucosomes—Quartz and plagioclase (zircon U-Pb)

Amphibolites and Hornblende and plagioclase, with biotite and 724±7 Ma

mafic schists sometimes quartz (amphibole K-Ar)

Plagioclase, quartz and biotite, frequently with

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

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

Fig. 9 (below). Photo-micrographs of some of the radiohalos identified and counted in the radiohalos study (see table 2). All
are at the same scale (40× or 1 mm =20µm) and as viewed in plane polarized light. (a) Roded Porphyritic Granite, sample
IGR-1, slide 32, three 210Po radiohalos and one 238U radiohalo (top). (b) Roded Porphyritic Granite, sample IGR-1, slide 32,
three 210Po radiohalos. (c) Roded Porphyritic Granite, sample IGR-2, slide 15, three 210Po radiohalos and one partial 238U
radiohalo (to the left on the edge of the grain). (d) Timna Monzodiorite, sample IGR-7, slide 7, one 210Po radiohalo (upper
left), three 238U radiohalos (bottom center and right), and several elongated fluid inclusions. (e) Timna Monzodiorite, sample
IGR-7, slide 13, four 210Po radiohalos plus fluid inclusions. (f) Timna Monzodiorite, sample IGR-7, slide 13, one 210Po
radiohalo (lower left), one 238U radiohalo (upper right) and fluid inclusions. (g) Timna Monzodiorite, sample IGR-10, slide 30,
three 210Po radiohalos, with one of them around a fluid inclusion. (h) Timna Monzodiorite, sample IGR-10, slide 24,
two 210Po radiohalos, with one around a fluid inclusion.
 Even though all the rock units sampled
(table 2) show the effects of alteration
subsequent to their original crystallization,
there are obvious differences in their
radiohalo abundances. The Timna alkali
granite contains no radiohalos, the Roded
Porphyritic Granite a few radiohalos, and
the Timna monzodiorite many more
radiohalos. Assuming that all these
granitic rock units after crystallization were
subject to temperatures above 150°C, due
to subsequent deeper burial by thick overlying Flood-deposited sedimentary sequences, so that all the radiohalos produced
in them when they originally crystallized were annealed, then these relative differences in radiohalo abundances in these
rock units could be due to them subsequently experiencing different quantities of hydrothermal fluids during the Flood event.
That greater abundances of radiohalos are produced by greater quantities of hydrothermal fluids has been well established
and verified, both in granitic rocks (Snelling 2005a, 2008c; Snelling and Gates 2009) and in metamorphic rocks (Snelling
2008a, b).
Table 2. Radiohalos in the Precambrian Elat Granite, and alkali granite and monzondiorite from the Timna Igneous
Complex.
Radiohalos Number Number
Sampl
Numbe 210 of of Po
e Ratio210Po:23
Location Rock Unit r of - 214P 218P 238 232T Radiohal Radiohal 8U
Numbe
Slides P o o U h os per os per
r
o Slide Slide

IGR-
1 50 37 — — — — 0.74 0.74 —

IGR-
2 50 4 — — — — 0.08 0.08 —

IGR-
3 50 3 — — — — 0.06 0.06 —

IGR-
4 50 11 — — — — 0.22 0.22 —

ShehoretCany Elat IGR-

on Granite 5 50 8 — — 1 — 0.18 0.16 8:1

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

Timna
monzodiori IGR-
te 7 50 62 — — 1 — 1.26 1.24 62:1

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

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

Fig. 10. The unconformity between the Precambrian (pre-Flood) crystalline

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

Fig. 11. The generalized

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fig. 4. The bedding in

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

Fig. 5. Stratigraphic section of the

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

Fig. 6. The peneplained

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

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

Fig. 9. The laminar red,

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

Fig. 10. Green malachite (copper carbonate) in the coarse sandstone of

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

Fig. 11. Detrital grain-age distribution

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

Fig. 12. Histogram showing age distribution of

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

Fig. 13. Correlation chart of the Cambrian–Silurian stratigraphic units of Israel and surrounding countries (after Garfunkel
2002).
This again is only consistent with the scale of geologic processes during the Flood cataclysm. After the initial surges of the
rising ocean waters across the continental plates, the water levels over the sediments on the continents would have
dramatically fluctuated, due to the ebbs and surges caused by repeated tsunamis, and the tides which now resonated on a
global ocean (Clark and Voss 1990; Snelling 2009b). Combined with rapid movements of the sediment-laden surfaces as
the continental plates now moved at meters per second (Austin et al. 1994), any rapid continental-scale regression of the
Flood waters would have catastrophically eroded into the previously deposited sediment layers on a massive scale, both in
area and depth. Then with the next transgression as the Flood waters again surged across the continents, further erosion
into the previously-deposited sediment layers would have occurred, followed close behind by the next cycle of rapid
sedimentation. As this next “packet” of sediments was deposited, it would be inevitable that the layers deposited could
involve lateral “facies” changes across the continents within the same megasequence, due to the mixture of sediment types
in the surges, the water flow speeds, and how long the supply of the different sediment types lasted as they were water
transported across the continents. Conventionally, these lateral “facies” have resulted in the different “facies” layers being
given different formation names, when in fact such formations are lateral equivalents deposited at the same time from the
same surges of Flood waters.In southern Israel the Yam-Suf Group is overlain unconformably by quartzose sandstones of
unknown age, though they are likely to still be Paleozoic (Weissbrod 1969). This is because the next cycle of sedimentation
is known to have begun with upper Carboniferous sediments, based on sedimentary strata of upper Carboniferous and
Permian conventional ages found in the subsurface of southern Israel, but also exposed around the northern part of the Gulf
of Suez, in west central Sinai, and east of the Dead Sea (Garfunkel 1978; Wiessbrod 1969). In the subsurface of the Negev
three formations have been defined:
The Sa’ad Formation is essentially sandy, is upper Carboniferous, and lies unconformably on the terminal Precambrian
(very earliest Flood) Zenifim Formation, or on volcanics.The Arqov Formation is upper Carboniferous-Permian and consists
of alternating shales and carbonates, with few sandstones under the northern Negev, but becoming essentially sandy under
the central Negev.The Yamin Formation is Permian, and consists mainly of carbonates, but sandstone is abundant in the
south.The total thickness of these sedimentary layers is 400–500 m (1,312–1,640 ft) (Garfunkel 1978; Weissbrod 1969).
Together they have been grouped into the Negev Group (fig. 3). In the south they are truncated by the lower Carboniferous
unconformity. Too little is known about these upper Carboniferous-Permian sedimentary layers in Israel and adjacent
countries, but as their conventionally interpreted marine character becomes more pronounced to the north and northwest, it
is presumed that the Permian transgression came from that direction. The Permian-Triassic boundary is not exposed, but
probably occurs on top of the Yamin Formation. It is thus not clear whether there is a hiatus at that level. However, overlying
the Yamin Formation, and exposed in Makhtesh Ramon in the central Negev, is the lower Triassic Zafir Formation, which
consists mainly of shales with variable quantities of limestone. It has been also included in the Negev Group (Wiessbrod
1969). Its inclusion increases the total thickness of the sedimentary layers in this group to up to 600 m (1,968 ft) (Freund
1977).
Ramon Group (Triassic)
Triassic sedimentary rock units are well
exposed in the central Negev, primarily
in Makhtesh Ramon, a huge elongated
crater-like erosional structure that has
been called the “Grand Canyon” of
Israel (Austin 1998a), where over 1,000
m (3,280 ft) of socalled Mesozoic strata
are exposed (fig. 14). There are five
Triassic named formations, the
lowermost Zafir Formation (mainly
shales and sandstones with variable
quantities of limestone) being assigned
to the Negev Group. The remaining
four Triassic formations constitute the
Ramon Group (Garfunkel 1978) (fig.
14):
The Ra’af Formation consists mainly of
limestones, with some dolomite, and
siltstone and shale layers, with a rich
marine fossil fauna. The rocks are
mostly micrites and biomicrites.The
Gevanim Formation is relatively rich in
clastics—sandstones and siltstones in
lower parts, and shales and siltstones
in upper parts, which also contain
fossiliferous limestones. The amount of
shales and carbonates increases
northward, in the subsurface.The
Saharonim Formation consists mainly
of carbonates, with lesser amounts of
claystones and mudstones, and some
sulfates (especially anhydrite and
gypsum). The carbonates in the lower
part are micrites, both biomicrites and
grain-supported biomicrites. The
amount of dolomite increases up the
section, and so does the amount of
sulfates. These are associated with
fossil stromatolite beds and some flat
pebble conglomerates. Concurrently
the formation becomes less
fossiliferous.The Mohilla Formation is
characterized by a great development
of anhydrite and gypsum (in exposures
only) which are associated with
dolomites and some shales. Oolites
and beds with an impoverished fossil
fauna are also present. This formation
is characterized by abrupt facies
changes, in contrast with the underlying
formations in which facies changes are
gradual.

Fig. 14. Composite stratigraphic section of the Triassic sediment layers in southern Israel (after Parnes, Benjamini and
Hirsch 1985). The locations from where exposed outcrops and boreholes were used to construct this composite stratigraphic
section are shown in the inset location map.Where well developed, the Triassic strata range in total thickness from 500 m
(1,640 ft) to 1,100 m (3,608 ft). The Ra’af Formation is 70 m (230 ft) thick in the Ramon-1 borehole, but only 27 m (89 ft) of it
are exposed at Har ‘Arif to the south of Makhtesh Ramon (fig. 14) (Parnes, Benjamini and Hirsch 1985). In Makhtesh
Ramon the Gevanim Formation is 270 m (886 ft) thick (although only the upper 130 m (426 ft) are exposed), and the
Saharonim Formation is 153–170 m (502–558 ft) thick (Benjamini, Druckman, and Zak 1993; Parnes, Benjamini and Hirsch
1985). The known thickness and facies variations of the Triassic formations are compatible with a pattern of NE–SW belts,
and the distribution of the clastics, mainly sandstones, is compatible with a southeasterly provenance (Druckman 1974).
However, a southwesterly provenance is equally probable, as paleocurrent measurements in the sandstones of the
Gevanim Formation indicate the predominant direction of sediment transport was to the northeast (Karcz and Braun 1964;
Karcz and Zak 1965, 1968). These paleocurrent measurements were derived from cross-beds that consistently dip at 15–
25°, which is consistent with water transport of those sands (Austin 1994; Visher 1990).The nature of the Ramon Group
sediments themselves and their fossil contents (fig. 14) clearly indicate that ocean waters had flooded over the area,
although the postulated depositional environments all involved only shallow waters (Garfunkel 1978). Carbonates are
present in most of the Triassic sequence, with clastics (sandstones and shales) important in the lower part, and evaporites
(precipitites) becoming common in the upper part (fig. 14). Open marine, shallow marine (subtidal, intertidal and supratidal),
restricted (brackish to hypersaline), and continental depositional environments have all been postulated (Druckman 1974).
Within the exposed stratigraphic section in Makhtesh Ramon, from the upper half of the Gevanim Formation through the
Saharonim Formation to the Mohilla Formation, it is claimed there is evidence for some five coupled
transgressive/regressive cycles (Benjamini, Druckman and Zak 1993), but these can be interpreted as representing
oscillations in the Flood conditions.Seven successive levels of ammonites are present in the Ramon Group, through the
Ra’af, Gevanim and Saharonim Formations, which are useful for correlating these strata around the Mediterranean region
(Parnes 1965; Parnes, Benjamini and Hirsch 1985). But these are not the only marine creatures fossilized in these rock
units. The Saharonim Formation particularly has rich micro- and macrofossiliferous horizons, including the ammonites, with
conodonts, bivalves, nautiloids, brachiopods, other molluscs, cephalopods, crinoids and echinoderms (Benjamini, Druckman
and Zak 1993). Near the base of the formation is a limestone bed with a great many preserved cephalopods, with other
nautiloids, and some ammonites. Sponges and corals are notably absent. Fossilized burrows are the main trace fossils,
while foraminifers are the main microfauna. Algal structures are found in the limestone beds, and stromatolites increase in
abundance upwards in the dolomite and evaporate (precipitite) beds through the Saharonim and Mohilla Formations. Some
of these stromatolites are domal structures up to 2 m (6.6 ft) in diameter.The Mohilla Formation is more than 200 m (656 ft)
thick in Makhtesh Ramon, so this massive deposition of dolomite and gypsum/anhydrite evaporites (precipitites) warrants
explanation. Rather than the conventional interpretation of a hypersaline environment in which these dolomites and sulfates
slowly accumulated by evaporation, within the global Flood the catastrophic expulsion of hot saline hydrothermal fluids into
the cold Flood waters can explain these deposits via rapid precipitation (Hovland et al. 2006; Snelling 2009b). Such
hydrothermal fluids would have been associated with, and produced by, nearby magmatic and volcanic activity.It is thus
significant that also exposed in Makhtesh Ramon are a composite gabbro laccolith up to 90 m (295 ft) thick (Rophe, Eyal
and Eyal 1993), basaltic and trachytic dikes and sills (Baer 1993), and stocks, bosses, dikes and sills of quartz syenite
(Itmar and Baer 1993), all of which are indicative of prolonged and intense magmatic and volcanic activity in this region
coinciding with the deposition of the sedimentary strata. The gabbro laccolith has been K-Ar dated at being emplaced
between 136±4 Ma and 129±4 Ma (Lang et al. 1988), while the quartz syenite intrusions have been Rb-Sr dated at 107±12
Ma (Starinsky, Bielski and Steinitz 1980) and K-Ar dated at 130±5 Ma (Lang and Steinitz 1985). Such conventional early
Cretaceous dates are consistent with these intrusions being younger than the sedimentary strata they intrude. The gabbro
laccolith was emplaced between gypsum beds in the upper Triassic Mohilla Formation, and the quartz syenite intrusions are
variously emplaced in the middle Triassic Gevanim Formation and Jurassic strata overlying the Ramon Group, while the
basaltic and trachytic dikes and sills (also regarded as early Cretaceous) intruded into the Triassic Gevanim, Saharonim and
Mohilla Formations and the overlying lower Jurassic units.Conventionally, therefore, there could be no connection between
this magmatic and volcanic activity and the deposition of the Mohilla Formation sulfate precipitites. On the other hand,
however, within the year-long Global Flood there would have been only up to a few weeks between deposition of the
Triassic strata and the lower Cretaceous emplacement of the intrusives. Thus the magma chambers that fed these
intrusives had to already have been emplaced and active in the weeks preceding emplacement of the intrusives, so that the
hot saline hydrothermal fluids associated with this magmatic activity could have been escaping along fractures into the
Flood waters above to rapidly precipitate their dissolved salts to deposit the Mohilla Formation sulfates. Indeed, it is likely
the intrusives were subsequently emplaced along the fractures and pathways the growing magma chambers produced
during catastrophic expulsion of the saline hydrothermal fluids.That abundant saline hydrothermal fluids were associated
with these intrusives is evident from the hydrothermal alteration present especially in the quartz syenite bodies, and from the
contact metasomatic alteration and brecciation of the sedimentary rocks immediately adjacent to the intrusives (Itamar and
Baer 1993). Furthermore, polymetallic hydrothermal mineralization occurs as veins and lenses within phreato-magmatic
breccia zones at the roofs of the quartz syenite intrusions close to their contacts with the overlying sedimentary rocks. This
polymetallic hydrothermal mineralization consists of Ag, Pb, Zn, Cd, Cu, Co, Ni and Fe sulfides, arsenides and sulfo-
arsenides plus native Sn in a gangue-dominated by quartz and abundant anhydrite and gypsum, with rare K-feldspar and
fluorite. K-Ar dating of this gangue K-feldspar at 125±2 Ma indicates that this hydrothermal veining was the last stage in the
magmatic activity (Itamar and Steinitz 1988). Significantly, the calculated oxygen and sulfur isotopic compositions of the
hydrothermal fluids, based on analyses of oxygen isotopes in the gangue quartz and sulfur isotopes in the vein sulfides
(Itamar and Matthews 1988), indicate that the hydrothermal fluids and the sedimentary connate waters had the same
composition, consistent with mixing of the two. Thus there is sufficient evidence of a causal relationship within the timeframe
of the Flood between the hydrothermal fluids generated and expelled by all this magmatic activity and the deposition via
precipitation of the sulfates within the Ramon Group sediments, particularly the Mohilla Formation.
Fig. 15. Columnar stratigraphic section of the layers exposed in the Makhtesh Ramon and Nahal Neqarot areas (after Ben-
David 1993).
Fig. 16. Generalized stratigraphic section of the upper Jurassic Arad Group and lower Cretaceous Kurnub Group strata
sequence exposed in the southeastern slope of Mt. Hermon, northern Israel (after Freund 1978).
Arad Group (Jurassic)
The Jurassic rocks of the Arad Group are also exposed in the erosional cirques in the Negev (fig. 15) and in neighboring
northern Sinai and Jordan, as well as being encountered in many boreholes (Garfunkel 1978). The stratigraphy in the Negev
was established by Goldberg and Friedman (1974), while the paleontology was studied by Hudson (1958). This Jurassic
sequence extends into central and northern Israel, being exposed only in a small area in Samaria (Freund 1978), but is
widely exposed on Mt. Hermon (figs. 1, 16 and 17) and in Lebanon.In all places the top of the Jurassic sequence was
eroded, this sequence being completely removed in the central Negev, before deposition of lower Cretaceous rocks. The
contact with the upper Triassic rocks in the Negev is unconformable, and marks a brief hiatus in deposition. The upper
surface of the Triassic rocks was eroded, apparently weathered and covered by a few to 30 m (98 ft) of kaolinitic clays, often
with iron oxides, and having a pisolitic structure. These comprise the Mishor Formation (fig. 15). In spite of the claim that this
formation was produced by a prolonged weathering episode, it is admitted that at least some of its material was
allochthonous (transported into position) (Garfunkel 1978). This formation occurs in a 50 km (31 mi.) wide belt, which is
truncated to the south, where it contains dolomite beds consistent with water-transported deposition.
The Jurassic Arad Group sequence of the Negev is divided into the following formations (fig. 15):
The Mishor Formation, a few to 30 m (98 ft) thick accumulation of kaolinitic clays with iron oxides and a pisolitic structure,
and some dolomite beds.The Ardon Formation consists of limestone, shale and dolomite, and in the subsurface also
contains some evaporites (precipitites).The Inmar Formation is mainly sandstones, some with cross-bedding, but in the
subsurface further north it contains some shale and carbonate beds. The formation is rich in plant remains and contains a
few thin coal beds.The Daya (Mahmal) Formation consists of alternating fossiliferous limestones, sandy limestones, and
shales and some sandstones. The carbonate sediments are claimed to have been dolomitized subsequent to deposition
then dedolomitized, but such claims expose the inability in conventional thinking to satisfactorily explain the process
responsible for forming dolomites. It is more likely that these carbonate sediments were deposited as dolomites due to the
chemistry of saline hydrothermal fluids mixing with the Flood waters, with de-dolomitization occurring subsequent to
deposition as connate waters leached and removed magnesium.The Sherif Formation resembles the Daya (Mahmal)
Formation but also contains much disseminated pyrite, and carbonized plant remains, as well as coal beds.The Zohar
Formation consists predominantly of fossiliferous limestone, marl and shale, with subordinate amounts of silt and sand.
Locally it contains marine fossil accumulations in structures claimed to be fossilized reefs, but these can be better explained
as depositional features (Snelling 2009b). Some dolomitization and de-dolomitization is also claimed to have taken place,
but again the evidence can be interpreted as primary dolomite deposition from saline hydrothermal fluids mixing in the Flood
waters, followed by post-depositional leaching and removal of magnesium.The Sherif and Zohar Formations are not
exposed in Makhtesh Ramon because of their non-deposition or erosion in that area and further south (Garfunkel 1978). To
the north and northwest the original thickness of Jurassic sediments increases considerably from about 1,000–1,300 m
(3,280–4,265 ft) in the northern Negev to about 3,000 m (9,842 ft) under the coastal plain. Most of the thickness difference
was produced during deposition of the Ardon and Inmar Formations, although in the northern Negev three additional upper
Jurassic formations were deposited on top of the Zohar Formation, the uppermost unit of the Arad Group:
The Kidod Formation consists predominantly of shales with a few carbonate layers. It is rich in pyrite and plant debris, while
marine fossils are abundant especially in the limestone beds and lower shale beds.The Beer Sheva and Halutsa Formations
consist of alternations of fossiliferous limestones, which are sometimes dolomitic, and shales, with subordinate sandstone in
the upper part of the section.

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

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

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

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

Fig. 21. Legend.

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

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

Fig. 23. The “Ammonite

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

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

Fig. 27. Fossilized dinosaur footprints in a trackway in an exposed pavement of Soreq

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

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

Fig. 31. View of the north-

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

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

Fig. 34. The Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, looking

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

Fig. 35. Composite columnar stratigraphic

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

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

Fig. 37. Thick, massive

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

Fig. 38. Laminated

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

Iceland’s Recent “Mega-Flood”

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

Figure 2. The Vatnajökull ice-

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

Uluru and Kata Tjuta: A Testimony to the Flood

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 4: A fossilized quadruped trackway in the Coconino Sandstone on display in

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

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

Figure 1: Cross-sectional view of the earth

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

Figure 4: Snapshot of the modeling

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

A Short History of Plate Tectonics

Antonio Snider’s original illustration of the continents rapidly
separating during the time of the Flood.

The formerly joined continents before their separation.

The continents after the separation.

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

Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology?

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on November 8, 2007; last featured March 3, 2014
How could a massive, global flood be triggered? Do plate tectonics provide a valid mechanism? Geologist Andrew Snelling
answers.
Shop Now
What Is Plate Tectonics?
The earth’s thin rocky outer layer (3–45 mi [5–70 km] thick) is called “the crust.” On the continents it consists of sedimentary
rock layers—some containing fossils and some folded and contorted—together with an underlying crystalline rocky
basement of granites and metamorphosed sedimentary rocks. In places, the crystalline rocks are exposed at the earth’s
surface, usually as a result of erosion. Beneath the crust is what geologists call the mantle, which consists of dense, warm-
to-hot (but solid) rock that extends to a depth of 1,800 mi (2,900 km). Below the mantle lies the earth’s core, composed
mostly of iron. All but the innermost part of the core is molten (see Figure 1).
Investigations of the earth’s surface have revealed that it has been divided globally by past geologic processes into what
today is a mosaic of rigid blocks called “plates.” Observations indicate that these plates have moved large distances relative
to one another in the past and that they are still moving very slowly today. The word “tectonics” has to do with earth
movements; so the study of the movements and interactions among these plates is called “plate tectonics.” Because almost
all the plate motions occurred in the past, plate tectonics is, strictly speaking, an interpretation, model, or theoretical
description of what geologists envisage happened to these plates through earth’s history.
 Figure 1. Cross-sectional view through
the earth. The two major divisions of the
planet are its mantle, made of silicate
rock, and its core, comprised mostly of
iron. Portions of the surface covered
with a low-density layer of continental
crust represent the continents.
Lithospheric plates at the surface, which
include the crust and part of the upper
mantle, move laterally over the
asthenosphere. The asthenosphere is
hot and also weak because of the
presence of water within its constituent
minerals. Oceanic lithosphere, which
lacks the continental crust, is chemically
similar on average to the underlying
mantle. Because oceanic lithosphere is
substantially cooler, its density is higher,
and it therefore has an ability to sink into the mantle below. The sliding of an oceanic plate into the mantle is known as
“subduction,” as shown here beneath South America. As two plates pull apart at a mid-ocean ridge, material from the
asthenosphere rises to fill the gap, and some of this material melts to produce basaltic lava to form new oceanic crust on the
ocean floor. The continental regions do not participate in the subduction process because of the buoyancy of the continental
crust.The general principles of plate tectonics theory may be stated as follows: deformation occurs at the edges of the plates
by three types of horizontal motion—extension (rifting or moving apart), transform faulting (horizontal slippage along a large
fault line), and compression, mostly by subduction (one plate plunging beneath another).1Extension occurs where the
seafloor is being pulled apart or split along rift zones, such as along the axes of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the East Pacific
Rise. This is often called “seafloor spreading,” which occurs where two oceanic plates move away from each other
horizontally, with new molten material from the mantle beneath rising between them to form new oceanic crust. Similar
extensional splitting of a continental crustal plate can also occur, such as along the East African Rift Zone.Transform faulting
occurs where one plate is sliding horizontally past another, such as along the well-known San Andreas Fault of
California.Compressional deformation occurs where two plates move toward one another. If an oceanic crustal plate is
moving toward an adjacent continental crustal plate, then the former will usually subduct (plunge) beneath the latter.
Examples are the Pacific and Cocos Plates that are subducting beneath Japan and South America, respectively. When two
continental crustal plates collide, the compressional deformation usually crumples the rock in the collision zone to produce a
mountain range. For example, the Indian-Australian Plate has collided with the Eurasian Plate to form the Himalayas.
History of Plate Tectonics
The idea that the continents had drifted apart was first suggested by a creationist, Antonio Snider.2 He observed from the
statement in Genesis 1:9–10 about God’s gathering together the seas into one place that at that point in earth history there
may have been only a single landmass. He also noticed the close fit of the coastlines of western Africa and eastern South
America. So he proposed that the breakup of that supercontinent with subsequent horizontal movements of the new
continents to their present positions occurred catastrophically during the Flood.However, his theory went unnoticed, perhaps
because Darwin’s book, which was published the same year, drew so much fanfare. The year 1859 was a bad year for
attention to be given to any other new scientific theory, especially one that supported a creation view of earth history. And it
also didn’t help that Snider published his book in French.It wasn’t until the early twentieth century that the theory of
continental drift was acknowledged by the scientific community, through a book by Alfred Wegener, a German
meteorologist.3 However, for almost 50 years the overwhelming majority of geologists spurned the theory, primarily because
a handful of seismologists claimed the strength of the mantle rock was too high to allow continents to drift in the manner
Wegener had proposed. Their estimates of mantle rock strength were derived from the way seismic waves behave as they
traveled through the earth at that time.For this half-century the majority of geologists maintained that continents were
stationary, and they accused the handful of colleagues who promoted the drift concept of indulging in pseudo-scientific
fantasy that violated basic principles of physics. Today that persuasion has been reversed—plate tectonics, incorporating
continental drift, is the ruling perspective.What caused such a dramatic about-face? Between 1962 and 1968 four main lines
of independent experiments and measurements brought about the birth of the theory of plate tectonics:4
Mapping of the topography of the seafloor using echo depth-sounders;
Measuring the magnetic field above the seafloor using magnetometers;
“Timing” of the north-south reversals of the earth’s magnetic field using the magnetic memory of continental rocks and their
radioactive “ages;” and
Determining very accurately the location of earthquakes using a worldwide network of seismometers.An important fifth line
of evidence was the careful laboratory measurement of how mantle minerals deform under stress. This measurement can
convincingly demonstrate that mantle rock can deform by large amounts on timescales longer than the few seconds typical
of seismic oscillations.5Additionally, most geologists became rapidly convinced of plate tectonics theory because it elegantly
and powerfully explained so many observations and lines of evidence:
The jigsaw puzzle fit of the continents (taking into account the continental shelves);
The correlation of fossils and fossil-bearing strata across the ocean basins (e.g., the coal beds of North America and
Europe);
The mirror image zebra-striped pattern of magnetic reversals in the volcanic rocks of the seafloor parallel to the mid-ocean
rift zones in the plates on either side of the zone, consistent with a moving apart of the plates (seafloor spreading);
The location of most of the world’s earthquakes at the boundaries between the plates, consistent with earthquakes being
caused by two plates moving relative to one another;
The existence of the deep seafloor trenches invariably located where earthquake activity suggests an oceanic plate is
plunging into the mantle beneath another plate;
The oblique pattern of earthquakes adjacent to these trenches (subduction zones), consistent with an oblique path of motion
of a subducting slab into the mantle;
The location of volcanic belts (e.g., the Pacific “ring of fire”) adjacent to deep sea trenches and above subducting slabs,
consistent with subducted sediments on the tops of down-going slabs encountering melting temperatures in the mantle; and
The location of mountain belts at or adjacent to convergent plate boundaries (where the plates are colliding).
Slow-and-Gradual or Catastrophic?
Because of the scientific community’s
commitment to the uniformitarian
assumptions and framework for earth
history, most geologists take for granted
that the movement of the earth’s plates
has been slow and gradual over long
eons. After all, if today’s measured rates
of plate drift—about 0.5–6 in (2–15 cm)
per year—are extrapolated uniformly
back into the past, it requires about 100
million years for the ocean basins and
mountain ranges to form. And this rate
of drift is consistent with the estimated
4.8 mi3 (20 km3) of molten magma that
currently rises globally each year to
create new oceanic crust.6On the other
hand, many other observations are
incompatible with slow-and-gradual
plate tectonics. While the seafloor
surface is relatively smooth, zebra-stripe
magnetic patterns are obtained when
the ship-towed instrument
(magnetometer) observations average over mile-sized patches. Drilling into the oceanic crust of the mid-ocean ridges has
also revealed that those smooth patterns are not present at depth in the actual rocks.7 Instead, the magnetic polarity
changes rapidly and erratically down the drill-holes. This is contrary to what would be expected with slow-and-gradual
formation of the new oceanic crust accompanied by slow magnetic reversals. But it is just what is expected with extremely
rapid formation of new oceanic crust and rapid magnetic reversal during the Flood, when rapid cooling of the new crust
occurred in a highly nonuniform manner because of the chaotic interaction with ocean water.Furthermore, slow-and-gradual
subduction should have resulted in the sediments on the floors of the trenches being compressed, deformed, and thrust-
faulted, yet the floors of the Peru-Chile and East Aleutian Trenches are covered with soft, flat-lying sediments devoid of
compressional structures.8 These observations are consistent, however, with extremely rapid subduction during the Flood,
followed by extremely slow plate velocities as the floodwaters retreated from the continents and filled the trenches with
sediment.If uniformitarian assumptions are discarded, however, and Snider’s original proposal for continental “sprint” during
the Flood is adopted, then a catastrophic plate tectonics model explains everything that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics
does, plus most everything it can’t explain.9 Also, a 3-D supercomputer model of processes in the earth’s mantle has
demonstrated that tectonic plate movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for
mantle rocks is included.10 And, even though it was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate
tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.11The catastrophic plate tectonics model of Austin et al.12 begins
with a pre-Flood supercontinent surrounded by cold ocean-floor rocks that were denser than the warm mantle rock beneath.
To initiate motion in the model, some sudden trigger “cracks” the ocean floors adjacent to the supercontinental crustal block,
so that zones of cold ocean-floor rock start penetrating vertically into the upper mantle along the edge of most of the
supercontinent.13These vertical segments of ocean-floor rock correspond to the leading edges of oceanic plates. These
vertical zones begin to sink in conveyor-belt fashion into the mantle, dragging the rest of the ocean floor with them. The
sinking slabs of ocean plates produce stresses in the surrounding mantle rock, and these stresses, in turn, cause the rock to
become more deformable and allow the slabs to sink faster. This process causes the stress levels to increase and the rock
to become even weaker. These regions of rock weakness expand to encompass the entire mantle and result in a
catastrophic runaway of the oceanic slabs to the bottom of the mantle in a matter of a few weeks.14The energy for driving
this catastrophe is the gravitational potential energy of the cold, dense rock overlying the less dense mantle beneath it at the
beginning of the event. At its peak, this runaway instability allows the subduction rates of the plates to reach amazing
speeds of feet-per-second. At the same time the pre-Flood seafloor was being catastrophically subducted into the mantle,
the resultant tensional stress tore apart (rifted) the pre-Flood supercontinent (see Figure 2). The key physics responsible for
the runaway instability is the fact that mantle rocks weaken under stress, by factors of a billion or more, for the sorts of
stress levels that can occur in a planet the size of the earth—a behavior verified by many laboratory experiments over the
past forty years.15The rapidly sinking ocean-floor slabs forcibly displace the softer mantle rock into which they are
subducted, which causes large-scale convectional flow throughout the entire mantle. The hot mantle rock displaced by these
subducting slabs wells up elsewhere to complete the flow cycle, and in particular rises into the seafloor rift zones to form
new ocean floor. Reaching the surface of the ocean floor, this hot mantle material vaporizes huge volumes of ocean water
with which it comes into contact to produce a linear curtain of supersonic steam jets along the entire 43,500 miles (70,000
km) of the seafloor rift zones stretching around the globe. These supersonic steam jets capture large amounts of liquid water
as they “shoot” up through the ocean above the seafloor where they form. This water is catapulted high above the earth and
then falls back to the surface as intense global rain. Figure 2(a). Snapshot of 3-D modeling solution after 15 days. The upper
plot is an equal area projection of a spherical mantle surface 40 mi (65 km) below the earth’s surface in which color denotes
absolute temperature. Arrows denote velocities in the plane of the cross-section. The dark lines denote plate boundaries
where continental crust is present or boundaries between continent and ocean where both exist on the same plate. The
lower plot is an equatorial cross-section in which the grayscale denotes temperature deviation from the average at a given
depth.This catastrophic plate tectonics model for earth history16 is able to explain geologic data that slow-and-gradual plate
tectonics over many millions of years cannot. For example, the new rapidly formed ocean floor would have initially been very
hot. Thus, being of lower density than the pre-Flood ocean floor, it would have risen some 3,300 ft. (1,000 m) higher than its
predecessor, causing a dramatic rise in global sea level. The ocean waters would thus have swept up onto and over the
continental land surfaces, carrying vast quantities of sediments and marine organisms with them to form the thick,
fossiliferous sedimentary rock layers we now find blanketing large portions of today’s continents. This laterally extensive
layer-cake sequence of sedimentary rocks is magnificently exposed, for example, in the Grand Canyon region of the
southwestern U.S.17 Slow-and-gradual plate tectonics simply cannot account for such thick, laterally extensive sequences
of sedimentary strata containing marine fossils over such vast interior continental areas—areas which are normally well
above sea level.Furthermore, the whole mantle convectional flow resulting from runaway subduction of the cold ocean-floor
slabs would have suddenly cooled the mantle temperature at the core-mantle boundary, thus greatly accelerating
convection in, and heat loss from, the adjacent outer core. This rapid cooling of the surface of the core would result in rapid
reversals of the earth’s magnetic field.18These magnetic reversals would have been expressed at the earth’s surface and
been recorded in the zebra-shaped magnetic stripes in the new ocean-floor rocks. This magnetization would have been
erratic and locally patchy, laterally as well as at depth, unlike the pattern expected in the slow-and-gradual version. It was
predicted that similar records of “astonishingly rapid” magnetic reversals ought to be present in thin continental lava flows,
and such astonishingly rapid reversals in continental lava flows were subsequently found.19This catastrophic plate tectonics
model thus provides a powerful explanation for how the cold, rigid crustal plates could have moved thousands of miles over
the mantle while the ocean floor subducted. It predicts relatively little plate movement today because the continental “sprint”
rapidly decelerated when all the pre-Flood ocean floor had been subducted.
Figure 2(b). Snapshot of the modeling solution
after 25 days. Grayscale and arrows denote the
same quantities as in Figure 2(a). For a detailed
explanation of this calculation, see Baumgardner,
2003.Also, we would thus expect the trenches
adjacent to the subduction zones today to be
filled with undisturbed late-Flood and post-Flood
sediments. The model provides a mechanism for
the retreat of the floodwaters from off the
continents into the new ocean basins, when at
the close of the Flood, as plate movements
almost stopped, the dominant tectonic forces
resulted in vertical earth movements. Plate
interactions at plate boundaries during the
cataclysm generated mountains, while cooling of
the new ocean floor increased its density, which
caused it to sink and thus deepen the new ocean
basins to receive the retreating
floodwaters.Aspects of
modeling the phenomenon of
runaway behavior in the
mantle20 have been
independently duplicated
and verified.21 The same
modeling predicts that since
runaway subduction of the
cold ocean-floor slabs
occurred only a few
thousand years ago during
the Flood, those cold slabs
would not have had sufficient
time since the catastrophe to
be fully “digested” into the
surrounding mantle.
Evidence for these relatively
cold slabs just above the core-mantle boundary, to which they would have sunk, therefore should still be evident today, and
it is (see Figure 3).22Figure 3. Distribution of hot (light-shaded surfaces) and cold (darker-shaded surfaces) regions in
today’s lower mantle as determined observationally by seismic tomography (imaging using recordings of seismic waves),
viewed from (a) 180° longitude and (b) 0° longitude. The very low temperature inferred for the ring of colder rock implies that
it has been subducted quite recently from the earth’s surface. The columnar blobs of warmer rock have been squeezed
together and pushed upward as the colder and denser rock settled over the core. (Figure courtesy of Alexandro
Forte)Moreover, whether at the current rate of movement—only 4 in (10 cm) per year—the force and energy of the collision
between the Indian-Australian and Eurasian Plates could have been sufficient to push up the Himalayas (like two cars
colliding, each only traveling at .04 in/h [1 mm/h]) is questionable. In contrast, if the plate movements were measured as
feet-per-second, like two cars each traveling at 62 mph (100 km/h), the resulting catastrophic collision would have rapidly
buckled rock strata to push up those high mountains.
Conclusion
Many creationist geologists now believe the catastrophic plate tectonics concept is very useful as the best explanation for
how the Flood event occurred within the biblical framework for earth’s history. Even though Genesis does not specifically
mention this concept, it is consistent with the creation account, which implies an original supercontinent that broke up during
the Flood, with the resultant continents obviously then having to move rapidly (“sprint”) into their present positions.
This concept is still rather new, and of course radical, but its explanatory power makes it compelling. Additional work is now
being done to further detail this geologic model for the Flood event, especially to show that it provides a better explanation
for the order and distribution of the fossils and strata globally than the failed slow-and-gradual belief.

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History

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

Fig. 1. Cooling of polar bottom water after the Flood (after

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

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

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

Regional Metamorphism within a Creation Framework: What Garnet Compositions Reveal

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 23, 2010

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

The “classical” model for regional metamorphic zones presupposes elevated temperatures and pressures due to deep burial
and deformation/tectonic forces over large areas over millions of years—an apparent insurmountable hurdle for the
creationist framework. One diagnostic metamorphic mineral is garnet, and variations in its composition have long been
studied as an indicator of metamorphic grade conditions. Such compositional variations that have been detected between
and within grains in the same rock strata are usually explained in terms of cationic fractionation with changing temperature
during specific continuous reactions involving elemental distribution patterns in the rock matrix around the crystallizing
garnet. Garnet compositions are also said to correlate with their metamorphic grade. However, contrary evidence has been
ignored. Compositional patterns preserved in garnets have been shown to be a reflection of compositional zoning in the
original precursor minerals and sediments. Compositional variations between and within garnet grains in schists that are
typical metapelites at Koongarra in the Northern Territory, Australia, support this minority viewpoint. Both homogeneous and
compositionally zoned garnets, even together in the same hand specimen, display a range of compositions that would
normally reflect widely different metamorphic grade and temperature conditions during their supposed growth. Thus the
majority viewpoint cannot explain the formation of these garnets. It has also been demonstrated that the solid-solid
transformation from a sedimentary chlorite precursor to garnet needs only low to moderate temperatures, while
compositional patterns only reflect original depositional features in sedimentary environments. Thus catastrophic
sedimentation, deep burial and rapid deformation/tectonics with accompanying low to moderate temperatures and pressures
during, for example, a global Flood and its aftermath have potential as a model for explaining the “classical” zones of
progressive regional metamorphism.
Introduction
Of the two styles of metamorphism, contact and regional, the latter is most often used to argue against the young-earth
creation-Flood model. It is usually envisaged that sedimentary strata over areas of hundreds of square kilometers were
subjected to elevated temperatures and pressures due to deep burial and deformation/tectonic forces over millions of years.
The resultant mineralogical and textural transformations are said to be due to mineral reactions in the original sediments
under the prevailing temperature-pressure conditions.Often, mapping of metamorphic terrains has outlined zones of strata
containing mineral assemblages that are believed to be diagnostic and confined to each zone respectively. It is assumed
that these mineral assemblages reflect the metamorphic transformation conditions specific to each zone, so that by
traversing across these metamorphic zones higher metamorphic grades (due to former higher temperature-pressure
conditions) are progressively encountered. Amongst the metamorphic mineral assemblages diagnostic of each zone are
certain minerals whose presence in the rocks is indicative of each zone, and these are called index minerals. Garnet is one
of these key index minerals. Across a metamorphic terrain, the line along which garnet first appears in rocks of similar
composition is called the garnet isograd (“same metamorphic grade”) and represents one boundary of the garnet zone. With
increasing metamorphic grade and in other zones, garnet continues to be an important constituent of the mineral
assemblages.
Garnet Compositions
Variation in garnet compositions, particularly their MnO content, was for a long time used as an estimator of regional
metamorphic grade. Goldschmidt1 first noted an apparent systematic decrease in MnO content with increase in
metamorphic grade, a relationship which he attributed to the incorporation of the major part of the rock MnO in the earliest
formed garnet. Miyashiro2 and Engel and Engel3 also followed this line of thought, Miyashiro suggesting that the larger
Mn2+ ions were readily incorporated in the garnet structure at the lower pressures, whereas at higher pressures smaller
Fe2+ and Mg2+ were preferentially favored. Thus it was proposed that a decrease in garnet MnO indicated an increase in
grade of regional metamorphism. Lambert4 produced corresponding evidence for a decrease in garnet CaO with increasing
metamorphic grade. Sturt5 demonstrated in somewhat pragmatic fashion what appeared to be a general inverse
relationship between (MnO + CaO) content of garnet and overall grade of metamorphism, a scheme which was taken up and
reinforced by Nandi.6Not all investigators, however, agreed with this line of thinking. Kretz7 demonstrated the possible
influence of coexisting minerals on the composition of another given mineral. Variation in garnet composition was seen to
depend not only on pressure-temperature variation but also to changes in the compositions of the different components
within its matrix as these responded to changing metamorphic grade. Albee,8 like Kretz and Frost,9 examined elemental
distribution coefficients in garnet-biotite pairs as possible grade indicators, but concluded that results were complex and
equivocal, and suggested that metamorphic equilibrium was frequently not attained. Similarly, Evans10suggested caution in
the interpretation of increasing garnet MgO as indicating increasingly higher pressures of metamorphism. He pointed out
that the volume behavior of Mg-Fe exchange relations between garnet and other common silicates indicates that, for given
bulk compositions, the Mg-Fe ratios in garnet will decrease with pressure.With the advent of the electron probe
microanalyzer, it became possible to detect compositional variations even within mineral grains including garnet, where
often it was found that traversing from cores to rims of grains, the MnO and CaO contents decreased with a concomitant
increase in FeO and MgO.11 Hollister12 concluded that this zoning arose by partitioning of MnO in accordance with the
Rayleigh fractionation model between garnet and its matrix as the former grew. Perhaps more importantly he drew attention
to the preservation of such zones that remained unaffected by diffusion, and hence unequilibrated, throughout the later
stages of the metamorphism that was presumed to have induced their growth. Concurrently, Atherton and
Edmunds13 suggested that the zoning patterns reflected changing garnet-matrix equilibrium conditions during growth and/or
polyphase metamorphism, but that, once formed, garnet and its zones behaved as closed systems unaffected by changes in
conditions at the periphery of the growing grain.Through his own work, and that of Chinner14 and
Hutton,15 Atherton16 drew attention to the presence of garnets of quite different compositions in rocks of similar grade, and
sometimes in virtual juxtaposition. His conclusion was that the MnO content, and indeed the whole divalent cation
component, of garnet was substantially a reflection of host rock composition and that any simple tie between garnet
composition and metamorphic grade was unlikely. Subsequently Atherton17 suggested that zoning and progressive
changes in garnet compositions were due to changes in distribution coefficients of the divalent cations with increase in
grade, and considered that “anomalies in the sequence (were) explicable in terms of variations in the compositions of the
host rock.”Müller and Schneider18 found that the MnO content of garnet reflected not only metamorphic grade and
chemistry of the host rocks, but also their oxygen fugacity. They rejected Hollister’s Rayleigh fractionation model and
concluded that decrease in Mn, and concomitant increase in Fe, in garnet with increasing grade stemmed from a
progressive reduction in oxygen fugacity. Hsu,19 in his investigation of phase relations in the Al-Mn-Fe-Si-O-H system, had
found that the stability of the almandine end-member is strongly dependent on oxygen fugacity, and is favored by
assemblages characterized by high activity of divalent Fe. In contrast, the activity of divalent Mn is less influenced by higher
oxygen fugacity. Thus Müller and Schneider20 concluded that the observed decrease in Mn in garnet with increasing
metamorphic grade is due to the buffering capacity of graphite present near nucleating garnets. With increasing grade the
graphite buffer increasingly stabilizes minerals dependent on low oxygen fugacity, that is, almandine is increasingly formed
instead of spessartine. Müller and Schneider also noted that some of their garnets were not zoned, but exhibited
inhomogeneities distributed in irregular domains throughout the garnet grains.Miyashiro and Shido,21 in a substantially
theoretical treatment, concluded that the principal factor controlling successive garnet compositions is the amount and
composition of the garnet already crystallized, since the matrix will be correspondingly depleted in the oxides present in the
earlier-formed garnet. Also using a theoretical approach, Anderson and Buckley22 showed that, for “reasonable diffusion
coefficients and boundary conditions,” observed zoning profiles in garnets could be explained quite adequately by diffusion
principles: that given original homogeneities in the parent rock, the interplay of diffusion phenomena could explain variation
of zoning profiles in separate grains of an individual mineral species in domains as small as that of a hand specimen.Tracy,
Robinson, and Thompson23 noted that garnets from metamorphosed pelitic assemblages show, in different metamorphic
zones,element distribution patterns that are complex functions of rock bulk composition, specific continuous reactions in
which garnet is involved, P-T history of the rock, homogeneous diffusion rates with garnet, and possibly also the availability
of metamorphic fluids at the various stages of garnet development.
They applied preliminary calibrations of garnet-biotite and garnet-cordierite Fe-Mg exchange reactions and several Fe-Mg-
Mn continuous mineral reactions to the results of very detailed studies of zoned garnets in order to evaluate changing P-T
conditions during prograde and retrograde metamorphism in central Massachusetts (USA).Stanton,24,25,26,27 in his studies
of Broken Hill (New South Wales, Australia) banded iron formations, suggested that the garnets represented in
situ transformation of somewhat manganiferous chamositic septachlorite, and that any zoning reflected the original oolitic
structure of the sedimentary chamosite. In a further study, Stanton and Williams28concluded that, because compositional
differences occur on a fine (1–2 mm) scale in garnets within a simple one-component matrix (quartz), garnet compositions
must faithfully reflect original compositional variations within the chemical sediments, and not represent variations in
metamorphic grade.McAteer29 demonstrated the presence in a garnet-mica schist of two compositionally and texturally
distinct garnet types, which she attributed to a sequence of mineral reactions that proceeded with changing thermal history
of the rock. Of the two types, one was coarse-grained and zoned (MnO and CaO decreasing towards grain margins), while
the other was fine-grained and essentially uniform in composition. Attainment of chemical equilibrium between all garnets
and their rock matrix, but maintenance of disequilibrium within large garnets, appears to have been assumed.In a review of
research on compositional zoning in metamorphic minerals, Tracy30 ignored Stanton’s demonstration that the compositional
zoning in garnets can only be explained in some metamorphic rocks as faithful reflections of original compositional
variations within the precursor minerals and sediments, and not as a function of variations in metamorphic grade or cationic
supply during crystal growth. Instead, Tracy summarized the various models already proposed—cationic fractionation
particularly of Mn (resulting in variations in the supply of cations) with changing temperatures during progressive
metamorphism, and reaction partitioning of cations which depends upon the exact mineralogical composition of the reservoir
or matrix surrounding any one garnet grain, especially relative proportions of matrix minerals that are in direct reaction
relation with a garnet grain. These models both correlate changes in garnet composition with increasing metamorphic grade,
relying on mineral reactions and diffusion of cations to explain compositional zoning trends, which it is envisaged change as
mineral reactions and temperatures change.This is still the consensus viewpoint. Loomis,31 Spear,32 and Spear, Kohn,
Florence, and Menard,33 for example, insist that metamorphic garnets undergo a form of fractional crystallization which
involves fractionation of material into the interior of a crystallizing garnet grain with consequent change in the effective bulk
composition, the zoning profile preserved in the garnet being a function of the total amount of material that has fractionated.
Furthermore, Spear insists that because intracrystalline diffusion is so slow at these conditions, the interior of the garnet is
effectively isolated from chemical equilibrium with the matrix. Spear then points to the work of Yardley34 to insist that with
increasing temperatures intracrystalline diffusion within garnet grains becomes more rapid until eventually all chemical
zoning is erased. Indeed, Yardley claimed to have found that at the temperatures of staurolite and sillimanite grade
metamorphism internal diffusion of cations within garnet grains is sufficient to eliminate the zoning that developed during
earlier growth.Yardley also rightly pointed out that the fractionation models for garnet zoning assume that that diffusion is
negligible at lower metamorphic grades. That there is negligible cationic diffusion in garnet at lower grades is amply
demonstrated in the garnets described by Olympic and Anderson,35 whose pattern of chemical zoning coincided with
textural (optical) zones, clearly representing distinct presumed growth stages. Nevertheless, even where textural (optical)
zones are not evident, there may still be chemical zoning, as found by Tuccillo, Essene, and van der Pluijm.36Indeed,
confusing the picture somewhat, Tuccillo, Essene, and van der Pluijm found that the chemical zoning in their garnets under
study, though from a high-grade metamorphic terrain, was not only preserved but was the reverse in terms of cations to that
normally expected, and this they attributed to a diffusional retrograde effect.However, the work of Stanton and
Williams,37 who found marked compositional changes from one garnet to the next on a scale of 1–2 mm in finely bedded
banded iron formations in the high-grade metamorphic terrain at Broken Hill (New South Wales, Australia), has been
ignored. They found thatin view of the minuteness of the domains involved it appears evident that compositional variation
cannot be attributed to variations in metamorphic pressures, temperatures or oxygen fugacities. Neither can they be
attributed to variation in garnet-matrix partition functions, as most of the garnets occur in one simple matrix—quartz.
They therefore concluded that
in spite of the high (sillimanite) grade of the relevant metamorphism, any equilibration of garnet compositions, and hence
any associated inter-grain metamorphic diffusion, has been restricted to a scale of less than 1 mm; that garnet compositions
here reflect original rock compositions on an ultra-fine scale, and have no connotations concerning metamorphic grade; that,
hence, the garnets must arrive from a single precursor material, earlier suggested to be a manganiferous chamositic
septachlorite; and that the between-bed variation: within-bed uniformity of garnet composition reflects an original pattern of
chemical sedimentation—a pattern preserved with the utmost delicacy through a period of approximately 1800 × 106 years
and a metamorphic episode of sillimanite grade.38
These findings are clearly at odds with the claims of other investigators, yet Stanton39,40 has amassed more evidence to
substantiate his earlier work. To test these competing claims, therefore, a suitable area of metamorphic terrain with schists
containing garnet porphyblasts was chosen for study.
The Koongarra Area
The Koongarra area is 250 km east of Darwin (Northern Territory, Australia) at latitude 12°52′S and longitude 132°50′E. The
regional geology has been described in detail by Needham and Stuart-Smith41 and by Needham,42,43while
Snelling44 describes the local Koongarra area geology.The Archean basement to this metamorphic terrain consists of
domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of
the lowermost overlying Lower Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional
metamorphism (estimated to represent conditions of 5–8 kb and 550–630 °C) at 1800–1870 Ma. Multiple isoclinal recumbent
folding accompanied metamorphism. The Lower Proterozoic Cahill Formation flanking the Nanambu Complex has been
divided into two members. The lower member is dominated by a thick basal dolomite and passes transitionally upwards into
the psammitic upper member, which is largely feldspathic schist and quartzite. The uranium mineralization at Koongarra is
associated with graphitic horizons within chloritized quartz-mica (±feldspar ±garnet) schists overlying the basal dolomite in
the lower member.Owing to the isoclinal recumbent folding of metasedimentary units of the Cahill Formation, the typical rock
sequence encountered at Koongarra is probably a tectono-stratigraphy (from youngest to oldest):
—muscovite-biotite-quartz-feldspar schist (at least 180 m thick)
—garnet-muscovite-biotite-quartz schist (90–100 m thick)
—sulfide-rich graphite-mica-quartz schist (±garnet) (about 25 m thick)
—distinctive graphite-quartz-chlorite schist marker unit (5–8 m thick)
—quartz-chlorite schist (±illite, garnet, sillimanite, muscovite) (50 m thick)—contains the mineralized zone
Polyphase deformation accompanied metamorphism of the original sediments that were probably dolomite, shales, and
siltstones. Johnston45 identified a D2 event as responsible for the dominant S2 foliation of the schist sequence, which dips at
55° to the south-east at Koongarra.
Superimposed on the primary prograde metamorphic mineral assemblages is a distinct and extensive primary alteration
halo associated with the uranium mineralization at Koongarra. This alteration extends for up to 1.5 km from the ore in a
direction perpendicular to the disposition of the host quartz-chlorite schist unit, because the mineralization is essentially
stratabound. The outer zone of the alteration halo is most extensively developed in the semi-pelitic schists and is manifested
by the pseudomorphous replacement of biotite by chlorite, rutile, and quartz, and feldspar by sericite. Metamorphic
muscovite, garnet, tourmaline, magnetite, pyrite, and apatite are preserved. In the inner alteration zone, less than 50 m from
ore, the metamorphic rock fabric is disrupted, and quartz is replaced by pervasive chlorite and phengitic mica, and garnet by
chlorite. Relict metamorphic phases, mainly muscovitic mica, preserve the S 2foliation. Coarse chlorite after biotite may also
be preserved.
Koongarra Garnets
Garnets are fairly common in the garnet-muscovite-biotite-
quartz schist unit at Koongarra, being usually fresh and
present in large quantities, often grouped, within various
macroscopic layers. Within the inner alteration halo and the
quartz-chlorite schist hosting the mineralization most of the
garnets have largely been pseudomorphously replaced by
chlorite. Occasionally garnet remnants remain within the
pseudomorphous chlorite knots, or the common boxwork
textures within these pseudomorphous chlorite knots
confirm that the chlorite is pseudomorphously replacing
garnets.The garnets are always porphyroblastic, and
sometimes idioblastic, indicative of pre-kinematic growth.
They may be up to 2 cm in diameter, but most are typically
about 0.5 cm across. Often, the garnets also show some
degree of rolling and sygmoidal traces of inclusions. These
features are usually regarded as evidence for syn-kinematic
growth.46 In a few of these cases, rolling is minimal and
inclusion traces pass out uninterrupted into the surrounding
schist. The schistosity is often draped around these garnet
porphryblasts and sometimes the latter are slightly
flattened. Thus the last stages of garnet growth occurred
during the final stages of the D2 deformation of the prograde
metamorphic layering S1, that is, during the development of
the predominant S2 schistosity. This, in turn, implies that
garnet development and growth took place before and
during the deformation of the earlier S1 schistosity, that is,
pre- and syn-kinematic to the S2schistosity and
D2 deformation.
Fig. 1. Plot of (CaO + MnO) versus (FeO + MgO) variations in all analyzed Koongarra garnets, after the style of
Nandi.47 His line of best fit for his data is shown, plus his boundaries between garnet compositions of each metamorphic
zone. The line of best fit through the Koongarra data is shown, as are the sample/garnet numbers of all the homogeneous
garnets. The analytical data are from Snelling.48Thirteen garnet-containing samples were chosen from three of the schist
units: the ore-hosting quartz-chlorite schist (three samples), the sulfide-rich graphite-mica-quartz schist (five samples), and
the garnet-muscovite-biotite-quartz schist (five samples). These 13 samples contained a total of 33 garnets that were all
analyzed using an electron probe microanalyzer. Composite point analyses were made where garnets were of uniform
composition, while traverses revealed compositional zoning when present. All results are listed in Snelling.49All the garnets
are essentially almandine, the Fe 2+ end-member, with varying amounts of spessartine (Mn2+), pyrope (Mg2+) and
grossularite (Ca2+) structural units/end-members substituting in the crystal lattices. Tucker50 reported an analysis of a
Koongarra Fe-rich garnet with an Fe203 content of 6.22%, implying that the substitution of the andradite (Fe3+) end-member
may be quite substantial. The compositional variations in Fe, Mn, Ca, and Mg both between and within the analyzed garnets
were plotted in ternary diagrams, and from these it was determined that two principal substitutions have occurred—Mn for
Fe and Mg for Ca, though the latter is very minor compared to the former. Nevertheless, these Koongarra garnets revealed
the general inverse relationship between (CaO + MnO) and (FeO + MgO), which can be seen clearly in Fig. 1.
Of the 33 garnets analyzed, 22 had homogeneous compositions and only 11 were compositionally zoned. In the three
samples from the ore-hosting quartz-chlorite schist unit, five garnets were analyzed and all were compositionally
homogeneous, whereas in the overlying sulfide-rich graphite-mica-quartz schist unit, the five selected samples contained 16
garnets, analyses of which revealed that 11 were compositionally homogeneous and the other five were compositionally
zoned. Furthermore, four of the ten samples from the two garnet-bearing schist units overlying the ore-hosting quartz-
chlorite schist contain both compositionally homogeneous and zoned garnets in a ratio of six zoned to eight homogeneous,
without any textural evidence to distinguish between the two. The other samples in these schist units either had all
compositionally homogeneous garnets or all compositionally zoned garnets.

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

Thirty Miles of Dirt in a Day

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on August 26, 2008; last featured August 25, 2008

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

Figure 1. Grand Canyon

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

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

The Case of the ‘Missing’ Geologic Time

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

Click on image to enlarge.

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

The First Atmosphere—Geological Evidences and Their Implications

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

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

The fossil record is hardly “the record of life

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

Cincinnati—Built on a Fossil Graveyard

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on July 1, 2011; last featured November 16, 2014

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

Photos courtesy Dr. Andrew Snelling

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

Photo courtesy Dr. Andrew Snelling

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

Criteria to Determine the Biogenicity of Fossil Stromatolites

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling and Dr. Georgia Purdom on December 18, 2013

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

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

Figure 1. Map of Exuma Cays, Bahamas. Arrows point to locations of

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

Bacteria 95.2 99.2 95.7 100.0

Proteobacteria 41.3 57.4 52.8 66.2

Alphaproteobacteria 32.1a 49.0 41.8 56.3

Deltaproteobacteria 3.2 6.4 6.0

Gammaproteobacteria 6.0 2.0 5.1 9.9

Planctomycetes 14.3 11.2 13.4 1.4b

Cyanobacteria 10.3 14.3 9.9 14.1

Bacteroidetes 17.5 7.6c 6.0d 16.9

Chloroflexi 2.4 2.4 5.7 1.4

Spirochaetes 2.4 0.8 2.8

Verrucomicrobia 2.4 2.4 0.9

Actinobacteria 2.4 0.3

Firmicutes 0.4 1.2 0.3

Chlorobi 0.9

Deferribacteres 0.8

Other Bacteria 2.0 1.2 2.8

Archaea total .8 1.4

Eukarya total 4.4 2.8

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

Figure 3. Map of Hamelin Pool, Shark Bay,

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

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

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

Figure 7. Cycling of bacterial

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

Figure 8. Cross section of Type

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

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

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

Figure 12. Chemical reactions resulting in calcium carbonate

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

Figure 13. Chemical reactions resulting in calcium carbonate

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

Figure 14. Light micrograph of Bahamian stromatolite. Arrow 1 points to the

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

Figure 15. Scanning electron micrograph of Hamelin Pool

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

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

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

Both biologically induced and biologically influenced processes work

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

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

Figure 20. Carbon isotopic values of carbonate

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

Some creationists believe that the

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

Fossil Patterns Show the Order

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

Cool! dinosaur tracks! How can

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

Photo courtesy Dr. Snelling

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

Photo courtesy Dr. Snelling

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

Dating Dilemma: Fossil Wood in “Ancient” Sandstone

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 1, 1999

Originally published in Creation 21, no 3

(June 1999): 39-41.
Sydney has its beautiful harbour and
famous bridge, its Opera House and
golden beaches, but it also has some
unique and characteristic rock formations.
Shop Now
Every major, world-recognized city has its
unique landmarks and features. Sydney,
Australia’s oldest city (settled in 1788) and
largest (more than 3.5 million people), and soon to host the 2000 Summer Olympics, is no exception. It has its beautiful
harbour and famous bridge, its Opera House and golden beaches, but it also has some unique and characteristic rock
formations.
The Hawkesbury Sandstone
The Hawkesbury Sandstone, named after the Hawkesbury River just north of Sydney, dominates the landscape within a 100
km (60 mile) radius of downtown Sydney. It is a flat-lying layer of sandstone, some 20,000 sq. km (7,700 sq. miles) in area
and up to 250 metres (820 feet) thick.1 Dominated by grains of the mineral quartz2 (which is chemically very similar to
window glass, and harder than a steel file), the sandstone is a hard, durable rock which forms prominent cliffs, such as at
the entrance to Sydney Harbour and along the nearby coastline.
Despite the widespread, spectacular exposures of the Hawkesbury Sandstone, there is a long history of speculation about
its origins, going back to Charles Darwin.3 Rather than consisting of just one sandstone bed encompassing its total
thickness, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is made up of three principal rock types—sheet sandstone, massive sandstone and
relatively thin mudstone.4 Each has internal features that indicate deposition in fast-flowing currents, such as in a violent
flood.5 For example, thin repetitive bands sloping at around 20° within the flat-lying sandstone beds (technically known as
cross-beds), sometimes up to 6 metres (20 feet) high, would have been produced by huge sandwaves (like sand dunes)
swept along by raging water.
Fossils in the sandstone itself are rare. However, spectacular fossil graveyards have been found in several lenses (lenticular
bodies of only limited extent) of mudstone.6 Many varieties of fish and even sharks have been discovered in patterns
consistent with sudden burial in a catastrophe. Some such graveyards contain many plant fossils.
The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a Middle Triassic “age” of around 225–230 million years by most
geologists.7,8,9 This is based on its fossil content, and on its relative position in the sequence of rock layers in the region
(the Sydney Basin). All of these are placed in the context of the long ages timescale
commonly assumed by geologists.
Fossil wood sample
Because of its hardness and durability, the Hawkesbury Sandstone not only
provides a solid foundation for downtown Sydney’s skyscrapers, but is an excellent
building material. A number of Sydney’s old buildings have walls of sandstone
blocks. Today, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is mainly used for ornamental purposes.
To obtain fresh sandstone, slabs and blocks have to be carefully quarried. Several
quarries still operate in the Gosford area just north of Sydney, and one near
Bundanoon to the south-west.
In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a
Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from the quarry face at Bundanoon (see photo,
right).10 Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original character
of the wood was still evident. Identification of the genus is not certain, but more than
likely it was the forked-frond seed-fern Dicroidium, well known from the Hawkesbury
Sandstone.11,12 The fossil was probably the wood from the stem of a frond.
Radiocarbon (14C) analysis
Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic
carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225–230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood
was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-
recognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique,
recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples.
The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure
there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX–23644) was treated first
with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids
or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the
radiocarbon analysis.
The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a
supposed 14C “age” of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been “ 13C corrected” by the lab staff, after
they had obtained a d13CPDB value of –24.0 ‰.13 This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood
representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really
were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all
detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years.
Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to
contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was
raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such
contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don’t get it
from the atmosphere, so they have the same “age” as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already
outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria.
Conclusions
This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon “age.” However, a 33,720 ± 430 years BP radiocarbon “age” emphatically
conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary “age” of 225–230 million years for this fossil wood from the
Hawkesbury Sandstone.
Although demonstrating that the fossil wood cannot be millions of years old, the radiocarbon dating has not provided its true
age. However, a finite radiocarbon “age” for this fossil wood is neither inconsistent nor unexpected within a creation/flood
framework of Earth history. Buried catastrophically in sand by the raging flood waters only about 4,500 years ago, this fossil
wood contains less than the expected amount of radiocarbon, because of a stronger magnetic field back then shielding the
Earth from incoming cosmic rays. The flood also buried a lot of carbon, so that the laboratory’s calculated 14C “age” (based
on the assumption of an atmospheric proportion in the past roughly the same as that in 1950) is much greater than the true
age.14

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

Figure 2: Location map for the Alpena area on the Lake

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

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

Figure 6: Crinoid columnals or disks from the

stalks (end-on and side-on views) scattered
haphazardly through the Thunder Bay Limestone. Also shown is
some ‘lace coral’ (a bryozoan).

Figure 7: An entombed brachiopod shell.

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

A “165 Million Year” Surprise

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on March 1, 1997

Originally published in Creation 19, no 2

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

‘Instant’ Petrified Wood

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on September 1, 1995

Originally published
in Creation 17, no 4 (September
1995): 38-40.
‘Instant petrified wood’—so ran
the heading to the announcement
in Popular Science, October
1992.
Shop Now
‘Instant petrified wood’—so ran
the heading to the announcement
inPopular Science, October
1992.1 It’s also the reality of research conducted at the Advanced Ceramic Labs at the University of Washington in Seattle
(USA).
Researchers have also made wood-ceramic composites that are 20–120% harder than regular wood, but still look like wood.
Surprisingly simple, the process involves soaking wood in a solution containing silicon and aluminium compounds. The
solution fills the pores in the wood, which is then oven-cured at 44°C (112°F). According to the lab’s research director,
Daniel Dobbs, such experiments have impregnated the wood to depths of about 5 millimetres (0.2 inches). Furthermore,
deeper penetration under pressure and curing at higher temperature have yielded a rock-hard wood-ceramic composite that
has approached petrified wood.
Patent 'recipe' for petrification
However, priority for the discovery of a 'recipe' for petrification of wood must go to Hamilton Hicks of Greenwich, Connecticut
(USA), who on September 16, 1986 was issued with US Patent Number 4,612,050. 2 According to Hicks, his chemical
'cocktail' of sodium silicate (commonly known as 'water glass'), natural spring or volcanic mineral water having a high
content of calcium, magnesium, manganese, and other metal salts, and citric or malic acid is capable of rapidly petrifying
wood. But in case you want to try this 'recipe,' you need to know that for artificial petrification to occur there is some special
technique for mixing these components in the correct proportions to get an 'incipient' gel condition.
Hicks wrote:
'When applied to wood, the solution penetrates the wood. The mineral water and sodium silicate are relatively proportioned
so the solution is a liquid of stable viscosity and is acidified to the incipient jelling [gelling] condition to a degree causing
jelling [gelling] after penetrating the wood, but not prior thereto. That is to say, the solution can be stored and shipped, but
after application to the wood, jells [gels] in the wood. When its content is high enough, the penetrated wood acquires the
characteristics of petrified wood. The wood can no longer be made to burn even when exposed to moisture or high humidity,
for a prolonged period of time. The apparent petrification is obtained quickly by drying the wood. '3
The patent indicates that the amount of acid in the solution appears to have a critical effect on the production of the gel
phase within the cell structure of the wood, although evaporation also plays its part. Wood thoroughly impregnated, even if
necessary by repeated applications or submersions of the wood in the solution, after drying evidently has all the
characteristics of petrified wood, including its appearance.
Both Hicks and the researchers at the University of Washington lab have suggested potential uses for such 'instant' petrified
woods:
Fireproofing wooden structures such as houses and horse stables (the horses wouldn't be tempted to chew on the wood
either!).
Longer-wearing floors and furniture.
Greater strength wood for structural uses.
Insect, decay and salt water 'proofing' wood in buildings, etc.
Rapid natural petrification
The chemical components used to artificially petrify wood can be found in natural settings around volcanoes and within
sedimentary strata. Is it possible then that natural petrification can occur rapidly by these processes? Indeed!
Sigleo4reported silica deposition rates into blocks of wood in alkaline springs at Yellowstone National Park (USA) of between
0.1 and 4.0 mm/yr.
From Australia come some startling reports. Writing in The Australian Lapidary Magazine, Pigott 5 recounts his experiences
in southwestern Queensland:
'. . . from Mrs McMurray [of Blackall], I heard a story that rocked me and seemed to explode many ideas about the age of
petrified wood. Mrs McMurray has a piece of wood turned to stone which has clear axe marks on it. She says the tree this
piece came from grew on a farm her father had at Euthella, out of Roma, and was chopped down by him about 70 years
ago. It was partly buried until it was dug up again, petrified. Mac McMurray capped this story by saying a townsman had a
piece of petrified fence post with the drilled holes for wire with a piece of the wire attached.
'Petrified wood thousands of years old? I wonder is it so?'
Several months later Pearce6 added further to these amazing stories of woods rapidly petrified in the ground of 'outback'
Queensland:
'. . . Piggott writes of petrified wood showing axe marks and also of a petrified fence post.
'This sort of thing is, of course, quite common. The Hughenden district, N. Q. [North Queensland], has . . . Parkensonia trees
washed over near a station [ranch] homestead and covered with silt by a flood in 1918 [which] had the silt washed off by a
flood in 1950. Portions of the trunk had turned to stone of an attractive colour. However, much of the trunks and all the limbs
had totally disappeared.
'On Zara Station [Ranch], 30 miles [about 48 kilometres] from Hughenden, I was renewing a fence. Where it was dipped into
a hollow the bottom of the old posts had gone through black soil into shale. The Gidgee wood was still perfect in the black
soil. It then cut off as straight as if sawn, and the few inches of post in the shale was pure stone. Every axe mark was perfect
and the colour still the same as the day the post was cut . . . .
'I understand that down in the sandhill country below Boulia [south-western Queensland], where fences are often completely
covered by shifting sand, it's a common thing for the sand to shift off after a number of years, leaving stone posts standing
erect.'
From the other side of the world comes a report of the chapel of Santa Maria of Health (Santa Maria de Salute), built in 1630
in Venice, Italy, to celebrate the end of The Plague. Because Venice is built on watersaturated clay and sand, the chapel
was constructed on 180,000 wooden pilings to reinforce the foundations. Even though the chapel is a massive stone block
structure, it has remained firm since its construction. How have the wooden pilings lasted over 360 years? They have
petrified! The chapel now rests on 'stone' pilings! 7
Experimental verification
Of course, none of these reports should come as a surprise, since the processes of petrification of wood have been known
for years, plus the fact that the process can occur, and has occurred, rapidly. For example Scurfield and Segnit 8had
reported that the petrification of wood can be considered to take place in five stages:
1. Entry of silica in solution or as a colloid into the wood.
2. Penetration of silica into the cell walls of the wood's structure.
3. Progressive dissolving of the cell walls which are at the same time replaced by silica so that the wood's dimensional
stability is maintained.
4. Silica deposition within the voids within the cellular wall framework structure.
5. Final hardening (lithification) by Drying out.
Furthermore Oehler9 had previously shown that the silica minerals quartz and chalcedony critically important in the
petrification of wood, can be made, rapidly in the laboratory from silica gel. At 300°C (572°F) and 3 kilobars (about 3,000
atmospheres) pressure only 25 hours was required to crystallize quartz, whereas at only 165°C (329°F) and 3 kilobars
pressure the same degree of crystallization occurred in 170 hours (about seven days).
Similarly, Drum10 had partially silicified small branches by placing them in concentrated solutions of sodium metasilicate for
up to 24 hours, while Leo and Barghoorn11 had immersed fresh wood alternately in water and saturated ethyl silicate
solutions until the open spaces in the wood were filled with mineral material, all within several months to a year. Likewise, as
early as 1950 Merrill and Spencer12 had shown that the sorption of silica by wood fibres from solutions of sodium
metasilicate, sodium silicate and activated silica sols (a homogeneous suspension in water) at only 25°C (77°F) was as
much as 12.5 moles of silica per gram within 24 hours--the equivalent of partial silicification/petrification. As Sigleo
concluded,
'These observations indicate that silica nucleation and deposition can occur directly and rapidly on exposed cellulose [wood]
surfaces.'13
Conclusions
The evidence, both from scientists' laboratories and the natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions
wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures. The process of petrification of
wood is now so well known and understood that scientists can rapidly make petrified wood in their laboratories at will.
Unfortunately, most people still think, and are led to believe, that fossilized wood buried in rock strata must have taken
thousands, if not millions, of years to petrify. Clearly, such thinking is erroneous, since it has been repeatedly demonstrated
that petrification of wood can, and does, occur rapidly. Thus the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the
geological record is totally compatible with the creation time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global
Flood.

Yet Another 'Missing Link' Fails to Qualify

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 1, 1993

Originally published in Creation 15, no

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

[Top to bottom]
(a) the rhipidistian fish Eusthenopteron. (b) The skeleton of the labyrinthodont amphibian Ichthyostega. Both originals were
about one meter long. (After Carroll.3) Notice how completely are the fins and legs.
To confirm that this fish Eusthenopteron and amphibian Ichthyostega were not the transitional fossils (or ‘missing links’)
claimed to have been found recently, I went to the textbooks on vertebrate palaeontology. Colbert, 2for example, in 1969 also
used these fossils to illustrate the supposed transition from water to land. However, his accompanying diagram only
illustrated similarities between the jaws and skulls of these fossils, and ignored the all-important claimed transition from fins
to legs.
On the other hand, both Carroll3 in 1988 and Stanley4 in 1989 show drawings of the skeletal structures of the fins and legs
respectively of these two fossils, making comparisons in order to illustrate how these fossils might represent the transition
from the fish’s fin to the amphibian’s leg. Furthermore, in his text, Stanley says:
‘These fossils, many of which are assigned to the genus Ichthyostega, represent creatures that are strikingly intermediate in
form between lobe-finned fishes and amphibians: The lobe fin itself is formed of an array of bones resembling that found in
amphibians … These features alone strongly suggest that amphibians were derived from lobe-finned fishes, but additional
features make the derivation a certainty … Because of this intriguing combination of features, Ichthyostega, which was not
discovered until the present century, represents what is commonly termed a “missing link”’. 5
A pictorial diorama is then used by Stanley to reinforce this statement.
A palaeontologist’s admission
Stanley, who is on the staff of The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, USA, cannot be aware of the statement made
earlier on this issue of ‘missing links’ by his colleague Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum
(Natural History) in London. In 1978 that museum published a book on evolution by Patterson.6 Designed to be a popular
book on the subject, it is still being sold in museums, even here in Australia. So it is still regarded as an authoritative
presentation on evolution, including the fossil record. Yet, even though fossils are mentioned in a number of places in the
book, nowhere does Patterson illustrate any ‘missing links’ between major types of organisms, such as between fish and
amphibians.
In 1979 American Luther Sunderland read Patterson’s book and noticed this rather obvious lack of even a single photograph
or drawing of a transitional fossil. So he wrote to Patterson asking why this omission, and in a letter dated 10 April 1979
Patterson replied in these words:
‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any,
fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. … Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict
when they say there are no transitional fossils … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each
type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight
argument.’7
Greenland fossil finds
With this background I scanned the recent literature to see if any relevant new fossils had been found recently which might
be the claimed ‘beautiful’ fossil record illustrating this fish to amphibians transition. Sure enough, in 1987 an expedition to
Stensiö Berg in East Greenland by British scientists from Cambridge University and Danish scientists supported by the
Greenland Geological Survey found very closely associated skulls of a new fossil, Acanthostega, at sites where fossil
remains of Ichthyostega were also found.8
Ear bones and breathing
The first account of this new fossil material 9 presented details of the skull and attempted to show that the middle-ear bone,
while related to that in other tetrapods, had a functional part to play not only in hearing but also in breathing, which would
make this bone similar to a bone in some fish that helps to pump in water, which is then expelled through the gill slits. 10 It
was also claimed that ‘The earliest tetrapods may
have retained a fish-like breathing mechanism.’11This
naturally evoked scientific correspondence from other
researchers,12, 13 with a response from the Cambridge
University palaeontologist.14
Fins and limbs
Next came a report from palaeontologist Clack and
her colleague Coates at Cambridge University on the
fossilized limb bones.15 They reported that the
forelimb of Acanthostega had eight digits and the
hindlimb of Ichthyostega had seven, quite unlike the
common pattern of five digits on the feet (or hands) of
many amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. They
also described some resemblances of the forelimb
skeleton of Acanthostega to the pectoral fin skeleton
ofEusthenopteron, the similarities being viewed by the
researchers in the context of the evolution of the
tetrapod limb bones from the fin-bones of lobe-finned fishes (see Figure 2).
To account for this variation in digit numbers (from the general norm of five), Cooke 16 suggested that conceivably the
evolutionary process in the genetics of limb development in these ‘primitive’ amphibians was ‘not even well enough
controlled to assure constancy between different individuals within single species’. He thus concluded that the common five-
digit structure of tetrapod limb skeletons (the pentadactyl limb) must have become stabilized in a subsequent lineage, or
lineages, to produce the common ancestors of today’s classes of tetrapods. Such a statement is clearly based on the
assumption of macroevolution, and not on observational evidence of the bones in fins of fish changing into the limb bones of
these amphibians and then other tetrapods.
A ‘missing link’?
In yet another paper Coates and Clack 17 reported the discovery of what they regard as a fish-like gill (branchial) skeleton
in Acanthostega, with grooves that they claimed are identical to those found in modern fishes. Thus they concluded that
‘Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills … for use in aquatic respiration’.18 This they claimed ‘blurs the
traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes’ because it supposedly implies that the ‘earliest’ tetrapods were not fully
land-dwelling (terrestrial). They further claimed that Acanthostega resembled a gill-breathing lungfish and that its legs with
digits must have first evolved for use in water rather than for walking on land. 19 They didn’t say it outright, but the implication
is that they believe, as does the palaeontologist who confronted me with this example, that Acanthostega thus qualifies as a
‘missing link’ (transitional form).
No! A mosaic tetrapod
Figure 2.
[left to right]
(a) Pectoral fin skeleton ofEusthenopteron. (b) Restoration of the forelimb skeleton of Acanthostega. (c)Restoration of the
hindlimb skeleton of Ichthyostega.
(All are dorsal view, anterior edges to the left, and drawn at a comparative scale only.) (After Coates and Clack.14) Notice
that some of the Acanthostegalimb bones are remotely similar to theEusthenopteron fin bones, but the total limb is after the
overall bone patter of fellow amphibian Ichthyostega. Notice also the varying digit numbers.
At about the same time, Clack and Coates made the following comment at an international conference:
‘Acanthostega gunnari is an Upper Devonian tetrapod which, like its better known contemporary Ichthyostega, displays a
mosaic of fish- and tetrapod-like characters.’20
They also asked, rhetorically:
‘Was this animal secondarily aquatic, or do the fish-like characters indicate retention of the primitive condition? Were its
tetrapod-like characters … evolved among more terrestrial tetrapods, or were they originally developed for life in shallow,
swampy waters?’21
Clearly, in their minds, and the minds of their fellow evolutionary palaeontologists, this mosaic of fish- and tetrapod-like
characters, and the presumed mode of life, make Acanthostega a ‘missing link’, even though they describe it as a tetrapod,
that is, a four-legged animal. However, Acanthostega was a fully formed and fully functional four-legged amphibian, with four
legs and not four fins, in some respects not unlike amphibians such as salamanders and newts.
Mosaics don’t count
Their description of Acanthostega as a ‘mosaic’ is significant. Acanthostegais not the first fossil to be called a mosaic, a
creature that has characteristics common to two or more other types of creatures. For example, Australia’s platypus has milk
glands and fur that classify it as a mammal, but it has a leathery egg, echo-location ability, a duckbill, webbed feet, poison
spurs and other features that it shares in common with other animals, not only mammals.
LikeAcanthostega, Archaeopteryx has been regarded as an evolutionary intermediate (‘missing link’), but leading
evolutionists Gould and Eldredge state that
‘Smooth intermediates … are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for
them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).’22
An amphibian nonetheless
Godfrey23 lists 41 characteristics that are unique to tetrapods. According to Ritchie, 24 who has inspected the actual
fossils, Acanthostega ‘fails the tetrapod test’ in eight out of these 41 characteristics, with two other characters not found
in Acanthostega and another five not known from the fossil material. Thus Acanthostega still has 26 out of these 41 tetrapod
characteristics. Ritchie also suggests that there are three other tetrapod characteristics present inAcanthostega not listed by
Godfrey, so if these are included, Acanthostega has 29 out of 44 tetrapod characteristics. A 45th character which could be
regarded as an unconventional tetrapod feature is the multi-digit, paddle-like limbs. On the other hand, Ritchie
lists Acanthostega as having only eight potential ‘fish-like’ or ‘primitive’ characters.
However, the fact remains that Acanthostega has been classified as an amphibian (tetrapod) with a mosaic of tetrapod- and
fish-like features. Nevertheless, leading evolutionists such as Gould and Eldredge regard mosaics as not qualifying as
‘missing links’. Interestingly, in his 1990 textbook Cowen 25 doesn’t mention Acanthostega, even though reports on its
claimed intermediate characteristics had appeared in the scientific literature from 1988 onwards.
Made up ‘stories’
So why do evolutionary palaeontologists and other scientists still persist in claiming that ‘missing links’ such
asAcanthostega have been found, when some of their eminent colleagues have pronounced these fossils as failing to
qualify? Again, Dr Colin Patterson’s comments are telling:
‘As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil
record. … It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages
should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the
test.’26
Several months later in an interview, after having been given two creation science books to read, 27, 28 Patterson was asked
to elaborate, and in part of his response he said,
‘If you ask, “What is the evidence for continuity?” you would have to say, “There isn’t any in the fossils of animals and man.
The connection between them is in the mind.”’ 29
In other words, fossils such as Acanthostega are regarded by some evolutionary palaeontologists as ‘missing links’ not
because they are, but because they are believed to be. As Patterson says, it is ‘in the mind’, because ‘missing links’ are a
philosophical necessity—to somehow provide ‘proof’ for their evolutionary faith.
Moreover,
‘The systematic status and biological affinity of a fossil organism is far more difficult to establish than in the case of a living
form, and can never be established with any degree of certainty. To begin with, ninety-nine per cent of the biology of any
organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil.’30
In any case,
‘… anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied upon for evolutionary lineages. Yet palaeontologists persist in doing just
this.’31
Furthermore,
‘Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear.’ 32
Conclusion
The fossil record has so far revealed many types of fish, some of which have bones in their fin lobes, serving a useful
purpose as in the coelacanth (long believed to be an extinct ancestor of land animals, until it was found alive and well). The
fossil record has also revealed many types of amphibians, including Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, in which the limb
bones are firmly attached to the backbone and clearly designed for bearing the weight of the body in walking. Anything truly
‘in-between’ these crucial fish and amphibian characters is not only hard to conceive, but has never been found.

Where Are All the Human Fossils?

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

COAL

How Did We Get All This Coal?

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

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

Forked Seams Sabotage Swamp Theory

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 1, 1994

Originally published in Creation 16, no 3 (June 1994): 24-25.

Most geologists believe the process of coal formation was slow and gradual, but this is denied by the field evidence.
Shop Now
Pictured are some thin coal seams or layers near Chignecto Bay (otherwise known as the Bay of Fundy), Nova Scotia,
Canada. The geological hammer gives an indication of the scale. The coal seam it is resting against is about 10 centimetres
(4 inches) thick, while along the top of the photograph can be seen another coal seam which is about 15cm (6 inches) thick
and roughly parallel to the bottom coal seam. Between these two can be seen two thinner coal seams. What is critically sig-
nificant is that the uppermost of these two thinner coal seams
actually forks or branches, one fork angling acutely upwards
through the intervening stratum to merge with the coal seam
above. How could this coal have formed?
Diagram of z-shaped coal seam.
According to the standard theory, remains of plant debris
accumulate as a rotting mass called peat in swamps and
marshes. Today we know of a number of swamps where peat
appears to be accumulating. This peat accumulates slowly and
gradually today (estimated at between 1 and 4 millimetres per
year), so geologists who believe that ‘the present is the key to
the past’ conclude that the plant debris found in coal seams
must have formed slowly and gradually from plant debris
accumulating as peat in the bottom of swamps.Once the peat is
buried under subsequently deposited layers of sand and mud, in
the process of coal formation it is compressed down to about a tenth of its original thickness. This means that for a 15
centimetre (6 inch) thick coal seam there could have originally been up to 1.5 metres (5 feet) of peat to be compressed.
Accumulating at 1-4mm per year, just this one layer would have supposedly taken up to 1,500 years to accumulate.
However, most of these geologists are realistic enough to accept that just as flooding can occur locally today, then local
flood events in the past would have deposited layers of sediment in swamps burying the peats. Subsequent regeneration of
plant growth would result in more peat then accumulating on that sediment layer, so forming a sequence of successive peat
and sediment accumulations within the swamp. Many geologists believe this is the process which produced the layering
often observed within individual coal seams. To produce the thicker layers of sediment between coal seams (as seen in the
picture here) would have taken much longer and more widespread periods of flooding, which would effectively destroy the
swamps for protracted periods of time.Now can this slow and gradual theory explain the situation shown in this photograph
of a field exposure? Definitely not! Nowhere do we observe peat forking like this in swamps today. If the intervening
sediment layer through which the coal seam forks represents a protracted period of flooding and destruction of the original
peat-accumulating swamp, then how could this swamp have continued in this localized area, and on a sloping surface,
while at the same time flooding was depositing sediments horizontally to bury the swamp? Clearly, so-called z-junctions like
this one are totally inexplicable in terms of the ‘slow and gradual accumulation in a swamp’ theory for coal formation.
Furthermore, such z-junctions are found in many coalfields around the world, the forks often passing through many feet or
metres of intervening strata over distances of several miles or kilometres. This only compounds the impossibility of the
swamp theory explanation.On the other hand, the catastrophic flooding model can explain these occurrences with ease.
Vegetation ripped up by flood waters and accumulated as floating mats of debris on the water’s surface progressively
became waterlogged and sank to accumulate as a layer below (as in Spirit Lake at Mount St Helens 1). That then became
buried by other sediments, or was caught up and buried within accumulating sediments. As more debris became
waterlogged and sank, further layers of debris would accumulate in a progressive alternating sequence of sediments and
vegetation debris layers, that were subsequently altered to the coal. In this model the vegetative debris can accumulate and
be buried at any angle or relationship to the enclosing sediments. Hence the z-junction seen in the photograph.Thus the
field evidence is consistent with catastrophic destruction and burial of vegetation during the Flood, and totally inconsistent
with the slow and gradual swamp theory which prevails among geologists committed to the idea that ‘the present is the key
to the past’, or geological evolution.The catastrophic flood model can explain the z-junctions where the normal ‘swamp
theory’ fails. Picture shows floating log mat in Spirit Lake at Mount St Helens, Washington.

Drained swamp deposit along the coast of Nova Scotia.

Coal Beds and Global Flood

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

Coal, Volcanism and Flood

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

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

Figure 6. Generalized sketch of Reid’s Mistake Formation at Quarries Head

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

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

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

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

Product Designation Sample Clay Temp. °C Time

AV1 Lignin Yes 150 2 Mo.

AV2 Lignin Yes 150 4 Mo.

AV3 Lignin Yes 150 6 Mo.

AV4 Lignin Yes 150 8 Mo.

AVOX Lignin/Air Yes 150 2 Mo.

AP Lignin Yes 350 30 Min.

PL1 Lignin No 350 30 Min.

PL2 Lignin No 350 60 Min.

PL3 Lignin No 400 60 Min.

PC1 Cellulose No 350 30 Min.

PC2 Cellulose No 350 60 Min.

PC3 Lignin/Cellulose No 350 60 Min.

AA1 Fatty Acids (F1) Yes 200 4 Mo.

AA2 Fatty Acids (F1) Yes 200 6 Mo.

AA3 Fatty Acids (F2) Yes 200 4 Mo.

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

Yield Wt% Insoluble Product

Run Catalyst Condition Solvent Extractable Insoluble Product H/C O/C

0 None (Starting Material) 1.08 0.33

1 None 150°C 2 Mo. 2.7 91.5 1.04 0.32

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

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

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

5 A1Br3 120°C 24 Hr. 22.3 59.4 0.86 0.26

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

Vitrians Clarains Duro-Clarains Durains Fusains

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

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

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

British (Carboniferous) 2—6 2—12 n.a. <2—16 2—3

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

Figure 11. The effect of rising temperatures during metamorphism of

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

The Origin of Oil

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on December 27, 2006

For more than 100 years oil has been the

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

How Fast Can Oil Form?

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

Figure 1. The Location of the Guaymas Basin in the Gulf of California.

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

Rapid Oil Formation

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