Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Table of Contents
• Erosion Problems
• An Alternative Explanation
• Younger with Time
• Monument Valley
• Arches National Park
• Paraconformities
• Clastic Dikes
• Lithification Rates
• Big Horn Basin and Beartooth Butte
• Shale Beds
• Nonconformities
• The Coconino Sand Dunes
• Meteorites in the Geologic Column
• Turbidites and Water Sorting
• Volcanic Signatures
• Varves
• Continental Drift
• Paleomagnetism
• Paleocurrents
Home Page
Erosion Problems
(Back to Top)
One of the very foundations of evolution and popular science today is the "geologic
column." This column is made up of layers of sedimentary rock that supposedly formed
over millions and even billions of years. Although not found in all locations and although
it varies in thickness as well as the numbers of layers present, this column can be found
generally over the entire globe. Many of its layers can even be found on top of great
mountains - such as Mt. Everest and the American Rockies. In some places, such as
the mile deep Grand Canyon, the layers of the column have been revealed in dramatic
display.
Certainly the existence of the column and its layered nature is quite clear, but what
does it mean? Is it really a record of millions and even billions of years of Earth's
history? Or, viewed from a different perspective perhaps, does it say something else
entirely?
As one looks at
contact zones,
be tilted relative to
what is currently
horizontal or even
original "flat"
formation). Many of
hundreds of thousands of square miles and yet their contact zones remain as smooth
and parallel with each other as if sheets of glass were laid on top of one another (before
they were warped). And yet, each layer is supposed to have formed over thousands if
not millions of years? Wouldn't it be logical to assume that there should be a fair
amount of weathering of each of these layers over that amount of time? But this
expected uneven weathering is generally lacking (see illustration).1 Just about all the
layers have un-weathered or at best very rapidly weathered parallel and smooth contact
zones. Long term erosion always results in uneven surfaces and this unevenness is
only accentuated over time. How then are the layers found throughout the geologic
geologic column is rather odd especially considering the fact that the current weathering
rate for the continents of today averages about 6cm/thousand years for the continental
shelves. 2,55 This means that in less than 10 million years, the entire continental shelves
of today would be washed into the oceans to be replaced by new underlying materials.
This presents a problem since very old sediments, dating in the hundreds of millions of
years, remain atop all the continental shelves - wonderfully preserved despite many
This problem has been well recognized for some time now. Back in 1971 Dott and
Batten noted:
"North America is being denuded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million
years, or, to put it another way, at the same rate, ten North Americas could have been
commented:
"Some of these rates [of erosion] are obviously staggering; the Yellow River could
peneplain [flatten out] an area with the average height that of Everest in 10 million
years. The student has two courses open to him: to accept long extrapolations of short-
term
denudation [erosion] figures and doubt the reality of the erosion surfaces, or to accept
the erosion surfaces and be skeptical about the validity of long extrapolations of present
erosion rates." 56
Many scientists reason very old sedimentary layers can still be found relatively
intact on the continental shelves because in the past they were much thicker. It is just
In this line of reasoning, consider that the current layer toping the region around
the Grand Canyon, the Kaibab, was once buried under sediment no thicker than 2,000
meters for a total thickness of around 3,500 vertical meters of sediment measuring from
the bottom Tapeats Sandstone to the topmost Brian Head Formation (Tertiary
sediments). In this light, consider the popular belief that the nearby Rocky Mountain
region began its most recent uplift, via tectonic forces, some 70 million years ago, with
an additional uplift some 25 million years ago that raised the Rockies up an another
1,500 to 2,000 meters.82 Yet, despite being exposed to erosion forces for some 70
million years the Rocky Mountains are still covered by deep layers of sedimentary rock.
One might very reasonably wonder how much vertical erosion should be expected in
Well, before the Glen Canyon Dam was built, the average sediment transport rate
the Grand Canyon in around 5.5 million years, how much sediment would have been
removed from the surrounding Colorado River Basin in this time? Well, if we multiply
the current daily erosion rate by 365 days we get about 2.6 billion cubic feet of erosion
per year. Multiplying this number by 5.5 million years (the supposed age of the Grand
Canyon) gives us around 14,000 trillion cubic feet of sediment removal from the
Colorado Basin in this amount of time. Since the Colorado River drains an area of
about 200,000 square miles in size (~27.8 million square feet = 1 square mile), an
average of over 2,500 vertical feet (~800 meters) of sediment would have been
removed, at the current rate of erosion, in just 5.5 million years. This is about 15cm/kyr
of vertical erosion.68
Of course, 800 meters of erosion is only the erosion that would take place in 5.5
million years since the Colorado River started forming the Grand Canyon. But, what
about the Colorado Plateau itself? Well, there seem to be two different theories. One
theory suggests that the most recent uplift of the Kaibab Plateau (the region of the
Colorado Plateau that is located right around the Grand Canyon region) started some
17 million years ago and the other suggests that the this uplift actual started some 35
million years ago. Either way, the overall uplift of the Colorado Plateau is supposed to
have started a bit later at around 15 million years ago. Some suggest that the Colorado
Plateau was already uplifted a few thousand feet before it started its most recent uplift,
while others believe that it was "near sea level" just before its latest uplift.83,84,85,86 Either
way, with an erosion rate of about 15cm/kyr, that's about 150 vertical meters/million
years or ~2,250 meters of erosion in 15 million years averaged over this entire region.
This makes me wonder how the relatively young Tertiary sediments survived atop
the Grand Staircase over the course of some 15 million years of erosive pressure. Was
there really over 2,000 meters of sediment covering these remaining tertiary sediments?
I mean really, a couple thousand meters of sediment was definitely removed from over
the gentle dome-shaped uplift of the Grand Canyon region in a mere 5 or 6 million years
while the topmost sediments of the Grand Staircase were hardly touched in 15 million
years? - despite having a greater elevation and relief? Also, if 2,000 vertical meters of
sediment was removed from the Kaibab Plateau after the local dome shaped uplift,
where are the side channels, around the dome, formed by the rivers that took this large
amount of sediment away from this region? As far as I can tell, there simply are no
such significant pathways of sediment removal around this dome-shaped region. Yet,
wouldn't they have to be there if in fact such a large amount of sediment were in fact
removed from atop this dome-shaped region over many millions of years of time?
Beyond this, consider that the Rockies, which are thought to have started their
most recent uplift during the Laramide Orogeny some 70 million years ago,85,86 are
currently being uplifted at between "100-1000 cm/kyr years. . . However, the rate of
uplift is being matched by the rate of erosion, with little or no change in elevation." 80
With an erosion rate of 100cm/kyr, that's 1,000 meters of erosion per million years or an
So, how did the sedimentary layers last all that time in the Rockies? Does the
"folding" and volcanic ash/lava flow deposition that some have suggested really help
explain away some 70,000 meters of sedimentary surface erosion as protection for
those very thick layers that remain? Even if the erosion rate were an average of only
10cm/kyr over the course of 70 million years, would there really be anything as far as
ancient sedimentary layers left in the Rockies? What is going to overcome even a bare
Also note that some mountain ranges, such as the Chugach and St. Elias
mountain ranges in southeast Alaska, are currently eroding at "50 to 100 times" the
current Rocky Mountain rate - i.e., at about 5,000 to 10,000cm/kyr or 50,000 to 100,000
meters or erosion per million years.80 Other mountains, like the Cascades in the Mt.
Rainier region in Washington State, are eroding away at a more modest 800cm/kyr.
The Himalayas are eroding away at well over 200cm/kyr.81 Yet, all of these mountain
ranges still have very "old" sedimentary layers on their surfaces? Go figure?
This problem has been recognized by geologists for some time now. Consider an
land surfaces are several orders too high (Dole and Stabler, 1909; Judson and Ritter,
1964; see also Gilluly, 1955; Menard, 1961) to provide an accurate yardstick of erosion
in the geological past there has surely been ample time for the very ancient features
preserved in the present landscape to have been eradicated several times over. Yet the
silcreted land surface of central Australia has survived perhaps 20 m.y. of weathering
and erosion under varied climatic conditions, as has the laterite surface of the northern
areas of the continent. The laterite surface of the Gulfs region of South Australia is even
more remarkable, for it has persisted through some 200 m.y. of epigene [surface]
attack. The forms preserved on the granite residuals of Eyre Peninsula have likewise
withstood long periods of exposure and yet remain recognizably the landforms that
developed under weathering attack many millions of years ago. . . The survival of these
Even relatively low rates of erosion should completely eroded away such an elevated
plain in just a few million years. Large elevated plains covering hundreds or even
landscape evolution while low-lying, low relief surfaces (peneplains) would be more
consistent with the "old age stage" of landscape evolution. As Twidale suggests,
southern Africa (largely assigned to the "Cretaceous" age)60 and various paleoplains of
central and
western
Australia
(some
assigned to
"Triassic"
age),61 are
actually an
notes that the Davisian theory of landscape evolution offers, "No theoretical possibility
for the survival of paleoforms" since there has been "ample time for the very ancient
features preserved in the present landscape to have been eradicated several times
over." 57 Today these paleoplains are being rapidly destroyed by downcutting erosion in
stream channels.
This is a huge problem, it would seem. Why are the layers still there? Besides this
question, one might ask why we find such evenness and relative smoothness of the
topmost Kaibab layer in the Grand Caynon region? It seems rather strange, does it not,
that so much sediment, 275 million years worth (as much as 2,000 vertical meters of
sediment), could have been eroded away so evenly over the course of ~15 million years
since the Grand Canyon region (the Kaibab Plateau) is thought to have started its most
recent uplift.63 One might reasonably expect there to be much more uneven surfaces
resulting after such a protracted time of erosion - even if there were sediment left at all
in this area after that amount of time.59 The same could be said for each individual layer
within the Grand Canyon that once formed the surface of the ground or ocean floor for
millions of years. How are such flat surfaces maintained over that long a time, or
column, before the next layer started to form many millions of years later?
For example, the topmost layer of the Grand Canyon is the Middle Permian Kaibab
Limestone. Although the Kaibab (~125 meters in average thickness) may vary in
Canyon, it is obvious, even to the casual observer, that the Kaibab is relatively even
with respect to variations in its thickness and fairly smooth over its surface despite being
exposed as a surface layer for thousands of square miles. The question is, "What
happened to the thousands of meters of overlying sediment? How did it get weathered
away to leave such an even and relatively smooth Middle Permian layer on top?" Just
look at what the relatively small Colorado River supposedly did after only 5.5 million
years of supposed erosive activity - It dug a crisp mile-deep canyon with an almost
"punched-out" appearance. But, aside from the erosion caused directly by the Colorado
River, what happened to the erosive forces other than the Colorado River?
Wind, rain,
of erosion such
as chemical
erosion, working
on the Colorado
course of millions
of years would
have removed a whole lot of sediment in an very uneven fashion. Erosive forces other
than the Colorado River acting over the course of such vast spans of time should have
created very uneven erosional surfaces generally surrounding the Grand Canyon on all
sides. Look at the pictures of the Grand Canyon above and note the very abrupt cut
that is made at the topmost edge of the canyon with the relatively flat and even surface
of the surrounding Kaibab landscape. How was such a relatively smooth, sharp edge to
the Grand Canyon maintained over the course of 5.5 million years? One might
reasonably think that this edge should be much more uneven and weathered looking
over this amount of time? The region of the Grand Canyon is itself uplifted, relative to
the rest of the Colorado Plateau, with the Canyon cutting through this uplifted dome-
shaped area (see diagrams). The Kaibab surface of this dome, surrounding the Grand
Canyon, is relatively smooth and even. If the surface layers over this dome had been
eroded away over the course of millions of years, might one expect a very uneven
surface by now?
Of course, the
occurring today? How is such flat erosion explained over the course of millions of
years? One would think that the overlying layers would have been eroded to form deep
ravines, gorges, and valleys. Portions of the Kaibab would have been exposed for
much longer periods of time than other portions of the Kaibab - perhaps millions of
years longer. Those portions that were subject to longer spans of exposure should be
significantly thinner if not completely missing as compared to those areas that were
protected for millions of years by overlying sediment that had not yet been eroded way.
And yet, when one looks at the exposed Kaibab today in this Grand Canyon region, it
shows no significant evidence of uneven erosion. Many areas of the Kaibab are in fact
still protected by buttes and other patches of overlying sediment and yet these protected
areas of the Kaibab are not significantly thicker than those areas that are exposed.
So what happened? These sedimentary layers are still there covering the Grand
should have removed at least 50 to 150 meters of sediment in a very uneven way. Why
then is the Kaibab so surprisingly even in thickness and relatively smooth over its
exposed surface? 59 Also, why didn't the layers that now form the Grand Staircase erode
away like those that covered the Grand Canyon region? They were also uplifted at the
same time and had the same amounts of deposition before their uplift. Yet, relatively
young Miocene sediments (only 30-50 million years old) remain atop the Grand
Staircase while the Kaibab layer (thought to be ~ 270 million years old) is all that is left
of these layers atop the Grand Canyon region? How is this dramatic difference in
Some have actually suggested to me that the Kaibab layer is not at all "flat" since
the northern rim of the Grand Canyon is significantly higher in elevation than the
southern rim by approximately 300 to 400 meters. Obviously though, this difference in
current elevation is not due to a difference in erosion, but a difference in uplift. The
Kaibab, as well as the other layers below the Kaibab, are just as even and smoothly
layered, relative to themselves, as they were before the uplift occurred. There is just no
evidence of the erosion that would be expected if vast spans of time were indeed
involved in the formation of the erosive surfaces of the Grand Canyon, surrounding
Of course, it is true that much of the column is formed by marine layers that are
said to represent ancient ocean beds. The weathering of underwater sediments is not
these sedimentary layers are thought to have been exposed to open air and have been
subjected to higher erosion rates for the past 200 to 360 million years or so (before
more significant uplifts are thought to have occurred in his region some 70 million years
ago) and yet these sedimentary layers remain largely intact without having been
generally weathered away? - again, like a broken record I ask - How is this explained?
discussion of "paraconformities"
recognized as an overwhelming
journals?
Yet, sedimentary layers still cover its highest peaks? Erosion, over the course of 60
million years, translates into at least 60,000 vertical meters of lost sediment and still
there are significant amounts of the geologic column on Mt. Everest? Originally, after
the warping and uplifting in this region supposedly started some 50 Ma, the thickness of
the sediment above the currently exposed Ordovician layer was no more than 6,000
Beyond this, some scientists, such as Harutaka Sakai suggest that Mt. Everest
used to be much taller and thicker than it is today - about 15,000 meters tall! But, about
20 million years ago Sakai argues that about half of it slid off, exposing the Ordovician
layer that currently tops Mt. Everest at about 8,848 meters in elevation. 94 If Everest
currently has an erosion rate of about 200 cm/kyr, imagine what the erosion rate would
be like for a mountain nearly twice as tall?! At just 200 cm/kyr, this works out to be
40,000 meters of erosion in just 20 million years. An erosion rate of 200 cm/kyr is about
average for the Himalayan region given the newer estimates based on 10 Be and 26Al
measurements, which suggest an average erosion rate of the Himalayas of 130 cm/kyr
for the lower altitudes and up to 410 cm/kyr for the steepest areas with an average in
So, the current evidence suggests that the overlying sediment wasn't there 20
has been exposed to high-level high-altitude erosion (~200 cm/kyr) for at least 20
million years? - and it is still there? How then can Mt. Everest really be over 60 million
years old, or even 20 million years old and still have a Ordovician layer of sediment
Not only does the rate of erosion fail to match up with what we see in the geologic
column, especially on mountain ranges throughout the world, but the pattern of erosion
does not seem to match up either. As mentioned earlier, erosion generally forms very
uneven surfaces. Now, look again at the pictures of the Grand Canyon in this paper
and notice the crisp parallel lines between each layer. Many claim that there are
evidences of erosion in lower layers, evidences of rivers, streams, rain, etc. However,
these are generally isolated findings such as one might expect if they were formed
rapidly, such as occurs with the rapid runoff of waters after a catastrophic flooding
event. The general surfaces of each layer remain extremely smooth and parallel to the
other layers. Just look at the pictures. No one can help but note the uniformity and
evenness of these layers throughout the geologic column as compared with what we
see erosion currently doing today. Long term erosion causes non-uniformity and
unevenness.59 We simply do not see this sort of expected erosion recorded in the
Certainly this general flatness has been noticed by geologists and there have been
some models proposed that attempted to show how erosion could produce a flat or
"planar" surface over extended periods of time. Perhaps the most famous is the
erosion" could be achieved which would indeed form a "peneplain" (almost a plane).
The problem is that this model, which gained considerable acceptance in the early part
of this century, is no longer accepted. Garner (1974, p. 12) states: "The peneplain is
Davis's 'old age' landscape. It has been called an imaginary landform. Perhaps it is."
One would expect that any process forming the abundant, widespread, flat gap contacts
in the geologic record of the past would be well-represented on the present surface of
the earth; yet, Bloom (1969, p. 98) states that "unfortunately, none are known" and Pitty
(1982, p. 77) points out that "although demonstrable unconformities abound, even W.
peneplain." 65
So, it seems as though the idea of long term erosion forming widespread flat
surfaces is pretty much wishful thinking since it does not seem to be found anywhere in
the real world. The erosion that is recorded in the geologic column seems to be much
more consistent with widespread catastrophic erosive events acting with great energy
Dakota Formation. The Dakota is unusually thin, usually about 30 meters thick, with a
maximum up to 220 meters. It is spread over 815,000 square kilometers. How such a
thin formation could be deposited over such a widespread area not only reflects unusual
depositional factors, but the extremely flat topography necessary to accommodate the
spread of such a thin formation. Where do we now see such flat and widespread areas
Consider also the Jurassic Morrison Formation (famous for its dinosaur fossils). It
covers over 1,000,000 square kilometers being spread from Canada to Texas. It is
substantially thicker than the Dakota, usually around 100 meters thick. It has been
suggested that it was distributed by widespread flowing water. The fossils found within it
are generally oriented with respect to flow - confirmed by GPS mapping. However,
ancient channels of major rivers that would help distribute the sediments over such a
wide area have not been found. The Triassic Chinle Group, famous for its petrified
wood, evenly covers some 800,000 square kilometers, being spread from Idaho to
All these formations required not only extremely widespread flat areas to be
deposited upon, but truly unusual spreading factors. Where do we see, at present, such
depositional forces at work on the continents of the Earth today? In this line the
geologist Carlton Brett, of the University of Cincinnati, has fairly recently noted:
"The realization that much of the geologic record, particularly in shallow water
Derek Ager's eloquent analogy to the lives of soldiers: "long periods of boredom and
brief periods of terror") goes a long way toward explaining the persistence of certain
layers. Distinctive, thick storm beds (tempestites), turbidites, deformed ("seismite") beds
and, above all, widespread volcanic ash layers may provide isochronous markers. Such
beds may persist over areas of many hundreds to thousands of square kilometers
precisely because they are the record of truly extraordinary, oversized events."64
So, even though Brett is a firm believer in the popular notion that the geologic
who are starting to recognize that the geologic column is generally formed, as a rule, by
a series of catastrophic events. For example, consider the comments of David Raup
as a 'way of life' although they may avoid the word catastrophe... The periods of relative
quiet contribute only a small part of the record. The days are almost gone when a
geologist looks at such a sequence, measures its thickness, estimates the total amount
of elapsed time, and then divides one by the other to compute the rate of deposition in
centimeters per thousand years. The nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and
gradualism still exist in popular treatments of geology, in some museum exhibits, and in
lower level textbooks....one can hardly blame the creationists for having the idea that
Geotimes: "I hope I have convinced you that the sedimentary record is largely a record
Of course, the belief is that between these catastrophic events were very long
periods of relative calm. However, if there were these very extensive periods of non-
catastrophic change, where is the evidence of uneven erosion that would leave its mark
An Alternative Explanation
(Back to Top)
So, if the current features of the Rocky Mountains, Colorado Plateau, Kaibab
Plateau, and sedimentary layers are inconsistent with ancient formation and tens of
millions of years of erosive pressures, what other explanation might there be?
entire region were formed very rapidly. The majority of the sedimentary layers were laid
down in rapid succession, while the underlying layers where still relatively soft and non-
activities were very strong at this time and mountains were being built extremely rapidly.
The Colorado Plateau was also uplifted very very rapidly after the initial formation of the
sedimentary layers.
After this formation, a massive amount of water was suddenly released in a huge
runoff that covered several states, flowing from east to west. All of the sediment over
the Grand Canyon region, above the Kaibab, was removed very rapidly by an extremely
wide sheet of rapidly running water. Cedar Ridge was one massive waterfall. One can
visualize this by looking from the Lake Powell region toward the Grand Canyon region in
the satellite photo to the right. Notice that there is a distinct V-shaped formation at the
tip where the eastern Grand Canyon begins - pointing toward Lake Powell. One can
also recognize the deep punched-out appearance of the Canyon itself from the satellite
photo as well as many of the other Canyon photos presented here. In other photos one
can see the massive cliff-like faces that form a very wide valley where, in the middle, the
Grand Canyon has been formed. The Grand Canyon is actually the baby canyon in
It seems that the sheet of rushing water dissipated before it could remove all of the
elevated features, such as the various flat-topped buttes, in the GC region - which still
remain as isolated islands sticking up above the relative flatness of the surrounding
landscape. Also, as the water rapidly dissipated and the sheet of water narrowed, the
The remaining flow of water, which was still massive for a period of time (relative to
today's Colorado River), carved out the Grand Canyon, as we know it today, quite
rapidly - backing up on many occasions as it was blocked by lava damns which rapidly
filled the Canyon and blocked water flow every now and then for a few years at a time.
manner within the Grand, within a matter of minutes according to recent research (see
section "Younger with Time" below), the built up lake of water behind them was
released suddenly as a 2,000 foot wall of water. These repeated catastrophic floods,
though very small in comparison to the initial catastrophes, carving out large amounts of
But, what about the fact that the Grand Canyon has many sharp horseshoe bends
and turns? How can rapidly running water form such hairpin turns - especially in solid
rock?
For one thing, water that is flowing fast enough can eat up solid rock incredibly
fast. Even so, during the formation of most of the erosion features of this region, the
sedimentary layers were not solid rock - they were still relatively soft. The massive
flooding event that carved out the Grand Staircase and then the Grand Canyon,
removing some 2,000 vertical meters of sediment from over the Kaibab Plateau in a
very even-handed sweep, was working on relatively soft recently deposited sediments.
Also, if one looks carefully at the photos of this region, especially the one taken
from a satellite view, it is interesting to note that the beginning of the Canyon, at the
easternmost tip, is very straight. There simply aren't any significant twists or U-shaped
turns. It is basically just a straight shot. It is also very crisply punched out from the
surrounding landscape. The walls are very sharp and steep. These are all features
Now, notice the western Canyon. It is when one gets to the western Canyon that
one starts to see more of these sharp turns and bends in the path of the Colorado River.
This seems reasonable, in the light of a catastrophic deluge model, since some of the
energy of the flooding river would be used up as it traveled through the newly
formed/forming eastern Canyon. So, as the speed and energy of the river began to
diminish, it would begin to form some sharp U- and S-shaped bends as it came to the
In short, all of the features of the entire Colorado Plateau and Rocky Mountains, to
include the formation of the sedimentary layers themselves, and their erosive features,
such as the Grand Staircase and the Grand Canyon, were all formed, pretty much as
we seen them today, within a few hundred to a couple thousand years at most. The
sectional topics that follow seem to support this interpretation on a local as well as a
Consider that
geologists were
beginning to realize
into the developing canyon. Of course, being uniformitarian in their thinking, these
earlier geologists theorized that these lava dams were each slowly worn away in
sequences of tens of thousands of years as water flowed over them during a total
course of around 5.5 million years.70,72 For a long time now this position has been the
Interestingly enough though, this long cherished uniformitarian concept has been
recently challenged by modern geologists who are presenting evidence that these lava
dams did not erode away slowly at all. Instead, mounting evidence suggests that these
proportions. Modern geologists are now theorizing that the sudden failure of these
dams released raging torrents of water carrying up to "37 times" more water than the
largest ever recorded flooding of the mighty Mississippi River.70 Of course, the reason
that such massive amounts of water could be stored and released so quickly is partially
due to the fact that some of the dams were very large, rising up to 2,000 feet above the
river bed. It seems that some of these larger dams lasted just long enough for very
large amounts of water to build up behind them. The formation of very large lakes
behind some of these dams seems to have proceeded at a very rapid rate since there is
no evidence of lakes existing in the region beyond very short periods of time. Then,
with the sudden failure of a 2,000 foot dam, a huge wall of rapidly rushing water
charged through the Canyon carving out significant portions of the Canyon in very short
lava flows. It seems then that with the help of even minor earthquakes fragile dams with
glass bases supporting the enormous pressure of very large lakes would indeed fail in a
Such a massive and sudden release of water would obviously result in very rapid
erosion. In fact, growing numbers of geologists now believe that certain portions of the
Grand Canyon, once thought to be up to 5 million years old (Marble Canyon and the
Inner Gorge), may be as young as 600,000 years old.70,71 Talk about getting younger
with time! An 8-fold decrease in supposed age is a very dramatic reduction. How could
geologists have been so far off in their dating techniques? Some mainstream
geologists are even starting to refer to the Grand Canyon as a "geologic infant." This is
especially interesting because the initial estimates were supposedly backed up by fairly
reliable potassium-argon (K-Ar) radiometric dating techniques , which are now thought
by some to be inaccurate in this region due to the lack of complete removal of the argon
Further evidence for a catastrophic model comes from USGS scientist and
University of Arizona (UA) graduate, Jim O'Conner, along with UA hydrologist Victor
Baker and others, who found evidence of a "400,000 cfs [cubic feet per second] flow
that occurred about 4,000 years ago." 70 For comparison, this is about the rate of
catastrophic flow that would result if the Glen Canyon Dam suddenly failed. Taking this
into account, scientists have noted that, "Large sustained floods can cause rapid
downcutting in bedrock. The Inner Gorge and Marble Canyon are essentially giant slot
canyons: features consistent with rapid down-cutting." 70 Also, when large dams fail
catastrophically, such as Idaho's Teton Dam did in 1976, they leave distinctive profiles
in soils and on canyon walls. The water drops quickly with an exponential decay curve.
Such decay curves are clearly evident in the Grand Canyon. For this sort of
catastrophe to happen the lava dams must have failed almost instantaneously - as did
the Teton dam, which failed and was completely destroyed in less than 2 hours.70
Because the Grand Canyon lava dams were so unstable, the lakes that formed
behind these dams did not have very much time to develop. In fact, the evidence
clearly shows that these lakes must have filled fairly quickly before they were drained
catastrophically a short time later. Though these lakes were sometimes very large
when they emptied, they did not leave evidence of significant deltas or expected
sedimentation, which would have developed if these lakes had survived longer than
Another interesting finding comes from the field work of Webb, an adjunct faculty
resources. With co-researchers Fenton and Cerling, Webb applied a newly developed
"cosmogenic dating method", developed by Cerling, to date basalt flows and other
landforms in the Grand Canyon. The technique measures how long a surface has been
were once thought to have eroded over the course of 180 million years. However,
young as 13,000 years instead of 180 million years.78 That is a difference of over four
orders of magnitude!
These findings are simply devastating to long held notions of slow uniformitarian
process creating the Grand Canyon and many other formations gradually over vast
periods of time. Rather, it seems abundantly clear that much if not all of the expanse of
the Grand Canyon was cut out catastrophically over very short periods of time - perhaps
faster and more catastrophically than even currently recognized? (Back to Top)
Monument Valley
(Back to Top)
Places like Monument Valley also pose a significant problem. In this valley, there
are formations sticking out of the ground in the middle of nowhere. These are
sedimentary formations that match the Geologic Column, and yet all around them the
rest of the column has vanished. These formations are made up of horizontal layers that
match each other. Obviously the layers that make up these monuments were once
So, why are these formations still there? The current explanation is that
"weathering" took the rest of the column away over the course of more than 50 million
years but left these small resistant portions of it in the middle of this huge valley.4 Well,
how on earth did these small portions avoid any significant weathering over the the
course of more than 50 million years as most current geologists believe, and yet the rest
of the entire valley was weathered away? Does this make good sense in the face of
what we see happen during flooding and water runs? After any flood on soft soil, look
at the landscape and see if it does not remind you of something - like Monument Valley.
What we see at Monument Valley seems much more consistent with the idea of a huge
flood, rapid sedimentation, and rapid water movement with a quick runoff and not so
much with the current idea of eons of selective erosion. Also, as previously discussed,
50 million plus years of erosion in this region would remove enough sediment to wash
away all the layers down to the underlying granite several times over. The fact that
such thick sedimentary layers are still covering the Colorado plateau at all after 50
Look at the pictures of this region again and notice that the monuments are
arranged in a linear fashion and that their sides are pretty much vertical, like they were
punched out with a huge cookie-cutter from the surrounding landscape. This is very
similar to what we see throughout the Colorado plateau, including the Grand Canyon
region. Notice also that the intervening landscape between the monuments is relatively
flat and even. In one of the pictures there are even very large ripple marks evident in
the middle of the valley. All of this speaks to a rapid formation by an almost
unimaginably huge catastrophic flood that formed these features over days to weeks.
photographs of the region. Such features simply cannot be formed gradually but clearly
proportions.
It is very much the same situation as we see in eastern Washington State with the
formation of the Scablands. For much of the twentieth century geologists claimed that
the Scablands were formed by very slow processes of erosion over the course of
millions of years of time. Though scorned and ridiculed for many decades, J Harlen
Bretz proposal that only a catastrophic deluge could have formed the Scabland features
natural arches in the world. There are more than 2,000 of them within a 73,000 acre
area. This area, once buried under almost a mile of sedimentary layering, has now been
exposed by erosion. Many of the resulting arches are quite fantastic, almost
unbelievable. The longest one, Landscape Arch, spans some 306 feet from base to
base! Others are isolated, all by themselves, like lone monuments. 88 So, how on Earth
were they
formed?
According to
mainstream
geologists, these arches were formed by erosion over some 100 million years of time.
What happened is that very deep sedimentary layers were formed over hundreds of
millions of years and then there was a local uplift in the Arches National Park region.
This uplift created deep cracks that penetrated the buried sandstone layers. Then, over
very long periods of time, erosion wore away the exposed rock in such a way that the
cracks became bigger and bigger and the sandstone walls or "fins" became thinner and
thinner. Summer and winter frosting and thawing cased crumbling and flaking of the
porous sandstone and eventually cut through some of the fins. The resulting holes
There are a few other explanations for the formation of various types of arches, but
generally speaking this is the basic story. What is most interesting to me, however, is
that all of these stories involve many millions of years of erosive pressure. The problem
with this is that erosion rates are just too high for such thin-walled "fins" and delicate
arches to survive more than a few tens of thousands of years. There is just no way that
such delicate structures could survive millions of years of erosion. This is especially
true when one considers that the average erosion rate in this region is around 15cm per
thousand years. That is enough erosion pressure to erode all of the layers away down
to the underlying granite several times over in 100 million years (see above discussion
of erosion rates).
Beyond this, consider the uneven way that erosion works today. Erosion does not
maintain such sharp knife-like surfaces over long periods of time. Rather, it rounds out
sharp protruding surfaces and rapidly reduces the highest reliefs that are protruding
above the surrounding landscape. Note also that only the surface layers of these fins
show any evidence of erosion. What happened during the many millions of years that
these layers were being formed? Why was there no significant evidence of erosion
during this time - leaving evidence of its activity in the underlying layers? It just isn't
there.
It all seems much more consistent with relatively rapid deposition followed by very
rapid erosion in the not so distant past. These arches and monuments are largely
stream oriented with the surrounding landscape. The lone monuments and arches in
particular, in stark relief relative to the surrounding landscape, simply could not have
survived long periods of time while large amounts of surrounding sediments were neatly
removed by erosion forces the mysteriously left these relics untouched. Only a very
rapid and massive flooding event with runoff occurring before complete leveling of all
such remaining monuments is consistent with the formation and preservation of such
large and delicate arches, fins, monuments, and precariously balanced boulders atop
Powerful evidence against the notion that long periods of time (thousands to
millions of years) were required to form the the geological record is provided by what
time are thought to have passed, yet there is very little physical evidence to show for it.
Remember that the top of each layer must once have formed the sea-floor or a land
surface before being covered up by the next layer. Of course, as the surface layer, one
would think that such a surface would become significantly changed by the forces of
erosion over relatively short periods of time. The very next tide or rainstorm will begin
working upon what came before, making surfaces uneven in various patterns common
to the way erosional and depositional forces act today. Channels and gullies will begin
to form. Soon, parts or sections of various layers will be completely removed . Also,
living creatures that burrow into the sediment, excavating it to build dwelling places or to
feed, will mix up the neat layering lines of the original layers. This process is called
distinctive layer of sediment off the coast of central Texas in 1961. About twenty years
later, geologists returned to this layer to find out what had happened to it. Most of the
layer had been destroyed by living creatures burrowing into it and disturbing it, and
where the layer could still be found it was almost unrecognizable.43 In the light of such
modern day findings, it is very difficult to imagine how such layering of sediment found
throughout the geologic column and such crisp lines between these layers could have
been kept in such pristine condition for not only tens or hundreds of years, but hundreds
of thousands and even millions upon millions of years of time. And yet, throughout the
geologic column, more often than not, there are missing layers representing millions of
years between two perfectly fitted layers that are as flat as can be. If the missing layer
really represents millions of years of elapsed time, there should be significant evidence
of erosive disruption at these junctions, but it just isn't there. N.D. Newell, in the 1984
issue of the Princeton University Press, made a very interesting and revealing comment
"A puzzling characteristic of the erathem boundaries and of many other major
scour, channeling, and residual gravels tend to be lacking, even where the underlying
rocks are cherty limestones (Newell, 1967b). These boundaries are paraconformities
Residual sods and karst surfaces that might be expected to result from long subaerial
"I was much influenced early in my career by the recognition that two thin coal
swamp, were respectively of Lower Palaeocene and Upper Eocene age. The outcrops
were excellent but even the closest inspection failed to turn up the precise position of
Grand Canyon over an extended course of time and yet Red Butte remains, apparently
so resistant to such powerful erosive forces? The same question can be asked about
the formations found in places like Monument Valley and Beartooth Butte (see below).
In any case, the top layers of the Grand Canyon are classified as part of the
Permian age (about 250 million years old). The usual expectation of geologists would
call for the Pennsylvanian layer to be below that, but there simply is no Pennsylvanian
layer. Millions of years of sedimentary time are completely missing with the next layer
down, the top of the Redwall Limestone layer (part of the Mississippian age dated at
between 345 to 325 million years old), still as flat as a pancake with no evidence of
erosion at all as a mechanism to remove the Pennsylvanian layers. The red color of the
Redwall Limestone is actually the result of being stained by iron oxide derived from the
overlying Supai Assemblage. It is very interesting that many meters of solid rock could
be stained so completely and so evenly by iron oxide from overlying sediments. This
phenomenon would be much easier to explain if the Redwall layers were still soft and
layers (totaling over 150 million years of time), but they too are completely missing
Instead, the Redwall is found resting directly and flatly on the Muav Limestone -
which contains many trilobites and other Cambrian fossils. What is even more
interesting is that on the north side of the Grand Canyon there can be found several
alternating layers of Cambrian Muav neatly and very flatly interspersed between layers
sedimentary rock cannot be easily explained by popular geologists who think that these
periods really did exist many millions of years apart in time. Yet, as one moves up and
down the column in this location the layers flash back and forth in 200 million year
jumps? The contact between the two layers is a true sedimentary contact and thus
Muav Limestone was deposited on top of the Redwall Limestone. How is this sort of
phenomenon explained if these layers really were separated by such huge spans of
time as is popularly believed by scientists? Rather, it seems much more consistent with
rapid shortly
spaced, even
contemporaneous, deposition.
Exposed by the erosive forces of the Colorado River there are two major gaps in the
geological sequence - one thought to represent 10 million years, and the other 20
million years. The 10 million year gap has been traced over 100,000 square miles
(250,000 sq. km). Sandwiched between these two gaps are deposits of the Moenkopi
more vulnerable to gully and channel erosion). Yet again, there is no evidence of a
prolonged period of erosion along the tops of these layers. They are as flat and
featureless as a very large parking lot. Then, there is the Deccan Plateau in India,
which is made up of a thick pile of basalt lava flows. These basalts are thought to have
been erupted throughout a period of several million years. Interestingly enough, it is well
recognized that each individual lava flow must have formed very quickly because they
spread out over very large distances (some can be traced over 100 miles) before they
had time to cool. Each flow probably formed in just a few days, so the bulk of the
geological time is thought to have passed between each eruption. The creates a
problem since evidence for long time gaps between the flows is lacking. The tops of the
flows are strikingly flat, implying that there was minimal time for erosion to take place
between eruptions. For instance, the village of Shyampura is built on top of one of the
lava flows which forms a flat plateau nearly three miles long and more than a mile wide.
The level does not vary more than 50 feet over the whole area. If thousands of years
passed between each eruption, then why had the lavas not been carved into dendritic
erosion produces?
square kilometers and fills a volume of 174,000 cubic kilometers. The vast extent and
sheer volume of such individual flows are orders of magnitude larger than anything ever
recorded in known human history. Within this group are around 300 individual lava
flows each of rather uniform thickness over many kilometers with several extending up
to 750 kilometers from their origin. The CRBG is believed to span the Miocene Epoch
over a period of 11 million years (from ~17 to 6 million years ago via radiometric
dating).47
Now, the problem with the idea that these flows span a period of over 11 million
years of deposition is that there is significant physical evidence that the CRBG flows
were deposited relatively rapidly with respect to each other and with themselves. The
average time between each flow works out to around 36,000 years, but where is the
erosion to the individual layers of basalt that one would expect to see after 36,000 years
of exposure? The very fact that these flows cover such great distances indicate that the
individual flows traveled at a high rate of speed in order to avoid solidification before
they covered such huge areas as they did. Also, there are several examples where two
or three different flows within the CRBG mix with each other. This suggests that some
of the individual flows did not have enough time to solidify before the next flow(s)
occurred. If some 36,000 years of time are supposed to separate each of the individual
flows where is the evidence of erosion in the form of valleys or gullies cutting into the
individual lava flows to be filled in by the next lava flow? There are no beds of basalt
boulders that would would expect to be formed over such spans of time between
individual flows.
Some have suggested that the rates of erosion on these basalts was so minimal (<
0.5 cm/k.y.) that it would not have resulted in a significant change even after 36,000
years. However, a recent real time study by Riebe et. al. to determine the effects of
various climatic conditions on erosion rates of granite showed that erosion rates
averaged 4cm per 1,000 years (k.y.) with a range of between 2cm/k.y. and 50cm/k.y.
180 cm/yr of annual precipitation and between 4 to 15 °C the average erosion rates
varied by only 2.5 fold across all the sites and were not correlated with climate
indicating that climatic variations weakly regulate the rates of granitic erosion.48 Another
fairly recent paper, by Lasaga and Rye, from the Yale University Department of Geology
and Geophysics, noted that the average erosion rates of basalts from the Columbia
River and Idaho regions is "about 4 times as fast as non-basaltic rocks" - to include
granite.49 This suggests that one could reasonable expect the erosion rate of basalts to
average 16 to 20 cm/k.y. Over the course of 36,000 years this works out to between 6
to 7 meters (19 to 23 feet) of vertical erosion. This is significant erosion and there
should be evidence of this sort of erosion if the time gap between flow was really 36,000
For several other such flows in the United States and elsewhere around the world
the time intervals between flows are thought to be even longer - and yet still there is
little evidence of the erosion that would be expected after such passages of time. For
example, the Lincoln Porphyry of Colorado was originally thought to be a single unit
because of the geographic proximity of the outcrops and the mineralogical and chemical
similarities throughout the formation. Later, this idea was revised after radiometric
dating placed various layers of the Lincoln Porphyry almost 30 million years apart in
time. But how can such layers which show little if any evidence of interim erosion have
been laid down thousands much less millions of years apart in time? Other examples,
such as the Garrawilla Lavas of New South Wales, Australia, are found between the
Upper Triassic and Jurassic layers and yet these lavas, over a very large area, grade
imperceptibly into lavas which overlie Lower Tertiary sedimentary rock (supposedly laid
down over 100 million years later). 47 Robert Kingham noted, concerning this formation,
in the 1998 Australian Geologic Survey Organization that that, "Triassic sediments
represents the upper limit of the Gunnedah Basin sequence, with a regional
unconformity existing between the Triassic and overlying Jurassic sediments of the
Surat Basin north of the Liverpool Ranges. The Gunnedah Basin sequence includes a
number of basic intrusions of Mesozoic and Tertiary rocks. These are associated with
Also, throughout the CRBG and elsewhere are found "pillow lava" and palagonite
formations - especially near the periphery of the lava flows. There are a few outcrops
where tens of meters of vertical outcrop and hundreds of meters of horizontal outcrop
appearance produced via the reaction of hot lava coming in contact with water, is found
throughout. These features are suggestive of lava flow formation in a very wet or even
underwater environment. Certainly pillow lavas indicate underwater deposition, but note
that lavas can be extruded subaqeously without the production of pillow structures. The
potential to form pillow lava decreases as the volume of extruded lava increases. Thus,
the effective contact area between lava and water (where pillow formations can
becomes larger. Other evidences of underwater formation include the finding of fresh
water fossils (such as sponge spicules, diatoms, and dinoflagellates) between individual
lava flows. Consider some interesting conclusions about these findings by Barnett and
The Palouse Falls palynoflora reflects reasonably well the regional climatic
conditions as evidence by the related floras of the Columbia Plateau. The presence of
planktonic forms, aquatic macrophytes, and marsh plants indicates that deposition of
the sediments took place in a body of water, probably a pond or lake. This interpretation
infilling of the pond or lake, perhaps due to increased volcanic activity and erosion of
ash from the surrounding region. Supporting this view is the presence of thin bands of
lignite near the top of the section, with a 1-10 cm coal layer just underlying the capping
basalt."52
Now, what is interesting here is that these "forest elements" to include large lenses
of fossilized wood are widely divergent in the type of preserved wood found. It is
interesting that hundreds of species are found all mixed up together ranging from
temperate birch and spruce to subtropical Eucalyptus and bald cypress. The petrified
logs have been stripped of limbs and bark and are generally found in the pillow
complexes of the basaltic flows, implying that water preserved the wood from being
For Barnett and Fisk to suggest that the finding of such fossil remains suggest the
presence of a small pond or lake being filled in by successive flows just doesn't seem to
add up. How are such ecologically divergent trees going to get concentrated around an
infilling pond or lake? Also, how is a 10cm layer of coal going to be able to form under
the "capping basalt"? It is supposed to take very long periods of time, great pressure,
heat, and moisture to produce coal. How did this very thin layer of coal form and how
was it preserved without evidence of any sort of uneven erosion to eventually become
covered by a relatively thin layer of capping basalt? Also note that there are numerous
well-rounded quartzite boulders, cobbles, and beds of gravel focally interbedded within
and above the basalt flows.47 How did these quartzite boulders, cobbles, and beds of
gravel get transported hundreds of miles when there was only enough water to form tiny
ponds and small shallow lakes? Does this make any sense? It seems more likely that
huge shortly spaced watery catastrophes were involved in formation of many of these
quartzite rocks over long distances before they were buried by shortly spaced lava flows
creates tensional stresses that crack the crust which allow water to percolate through
these cracks to come in contact with more molten lava and form another crust, which
then cracks . . . and the cycle of crust formation and cracking continues. In the end,
this rapid cyclical cooling process produces a thick slab of rock with columnar
jointing.47
One other evidence of fairly rapid cooling is the finding that these basalts contain
relatively small crystals. When magma cools, crystals form because the solution is
super-saturated with respect to some minerals. If the magma cools quickly, the crystals
do not have much time to form, so they are very small. If the magma cools slowly, then
the crystals have enough time to grow and become large. For comparison, consider that
some granites contain minerals which are up to one meter in diameter! The size of
where the rock formed. A rock with small crystals probably formed at or near the surface
Many other examples of paraconformities and other types of gaps in time, like
these, have been described and no one seems to have a very good explanation for
them. Even as far back as 1967, Newell, a well-known geologist noted, "The origin of
problem." It seems like it is much easier to defend the notion that there simply were no
vast spans of time separating the various layers found in the geologic column. Contrary
to the popular notion that geological processes are extremely slow and gradual, the
geology of the Earth shows clear evidence of being dominated by relatively shortly
spaced massive watery catastrophes. The idea that millions of years can be
accommodated in the gaps between sedimentary layers does not stand up to critical
scientific examination. These facts are consistent with the view that our planet has had
Clastic Dikes
(Back to Top)
Clastic dikes (UK spelling;
top of it. The extreme pressure of sedimentary layering on top of a soft layer causes the
soft layer to "squirt up" at intervals through the layers above it.8
Now, one might think that after a few million years that all the layers would be
turned into solid rock. How then could solid rock "squirt" up into overlying layers of
rock? The popular explanation seems to be that many types of sediment, such as the
sand which forms sandstone, does not necessarily have to solidify just because it has
been buried under high pressure for long periods of time. 69 For example, in the drilling
of oil wells, unconsolidated sandy layers have been found at depths greater than 1,000
to 2,000 meters. Of course, some of these sandy beds were filled with oil - which one
might expect to contribute to the lack of consolidation of the sand in this layer. But, the
general argument is that overlying shale layers consolidate before much water can
escape from the underlying sandy layers. Thus, the consolidated shale acts as a seal
to prevent water from leaving the sandy layers. So, the overlying pressure does not
compact the sand in order to aid in cementation. The overlying layers simply "float" on
a layer of water. When some sort of disturbance happens to crack the overlying layer or
layers, the liquefied sand squirts up with great force through this crack and forms a
The problem with this argument is that liquefied layers are simply not that common.
In this light, it seems rather strange, when looking at the pipes and dikes found in the
Kodachrome Basin and elsewhere, that these formations are quite common in certain
regions. They are found at multiple levels supposedly separated by millions of years of
time. And, some of them even have central cores of clay arising from a layer of shale.
How can a layer be preventing liquid water from getting through from underlying layers if
it is itself still unconsolidated? What is so special about these areas that layer after
layer of sediment retains the ability to squirt up into overlying layers? - to include those
Really now, it seems that a much easier explanation would be that the layers were
in fact formed rapidly, one on top of the other, while they were all still soft. The pressure
of the overlying wet sediments caused many of the underlying soft layers to squirt up all
over the place through various weak points in the overlying soft sediments. (Back to
Top)
Lithification Rates
(Back to Top)
But what about all the time it takes to turn sediment, like sandstone and limestone,
into solid rock (lithification)? According to the current understanding of most scientists,
pressure, heat, chemical composition, the presence of water, and the chemical nature
and saturation of the surrounding aqueous environment. Clearly then very thick layers,
such as the Redwall Limestone, the Coconino Sandstone, and many other such layers
found throughout the geologic column are evidence of many millions of years of elapsed
time.
The problem here is that there is in fact a great deal of evidence for rapid
lithification found all throughout the geologic column. Perhaps the most prominent
evidence of very rapid lithification can be found in the exquisite preservation of finely
detailed fossils throughout the geologic column. Some mainstream scientists have
taken note and used this very argument as evidence of rapid burial and lithification in
order to explain the very fine detail of certain fossils. Consider, for example, the
following abstract published in a 2002 issue of Palaios dealing with finely preserved soft
"Exceptionally detailed soft tissues have been identified within the fossilized feces of
ground mass are visible in thin section and with scanning electron microscopy. The
morphology, organization, and context of these structures indicate that they are the
time, rapid lithification, and minimal diagenetic recrystallization. Rapid burial of the
feces probably was facilitated by a flood event on the ancient coastal lowland plain on
These findings requiring a very rapid process of lithification for the preservation of
such fine fossil details are backed up by some very interesting real time experiments
Sedimentary Geology:
lithification say that the process is rapid, while other researchers say that lithification
requires long periods of time. Friedman tells of his account with lithification while on a
placed a sardine can in an area of sea-level highstands. He found the sardine can one
year later and found that it was lithified with approximately 382 g of hard oolitic
limestone comprised mostly of aragonite. The results of this have huge implications.
ingredient in limestone) and silica. This calcium carbonate and silica was dissolved in
the water that interacted with the quartz grains during their rapid lithification process,
cementing them together into a solid rock. These minerals grow crystals in the spaces
around the quartz sand grains. As the crystals fill the gaps between the sand grains, the
individual sand grains are transformed into a solid rock (like the sardine can that was
encased in solid limestone in just one year). The rate of this crystalline growth is related
to the rate of sandstone lithification. As we have already learned, this rate can be and
often is very rapid indeed. Also, other contaminants can be added to this solution, such
as molecules of iron which gives a reddish color to the resulting sandstone, or various
other contaminants which result in all the various rainbow of colors common to
sandstone. 76 In any case, it is quite clear that such formations within the geologic
column did not require long periods of time to lithify, but rather show clear evidence of
extremely rapid, almost instant, processes of deposition and lithification over very large
areas.
located near
Yellowstone National
another interesting
problem. Beartooth Butte itself is dated to be around 300 to 400 million years old. It
contains many fossils. However, Beartooth Butte matches the same layers located
much lower down in Bighorn Basin. The standard explanation is that millions of years
ago, Beartooth Butte was lifted up higher during a land upthrust. The surrounding
layers were weathered away over time, leaving Beartooth Butte as a lone formation.
However, if this scenario were true, then the layers that Beartooth Butte came from
would have been solid rock before the upthrust. If this is true, then why did this upthrust
cause a warping of solid rock along the Beartooth Butte side of Bighorn Basin? 4 The
Precambrian rock did not warp up during the upthrust. So, why did the solid rock above
the Precambrian rock warp upward during the upthrust if in fact it was solid - taking
millions of years to form? A more logical explanation seems to be that the layers were
not solid and in fact were recently and rapidly formed just before a very rapid upthrust of
the Precambrian under the Beartooth Butte location. The water, which laid down these
sedimentary layers, rapidly rushed off of the upthrusted area. This rapid runoff of water
quickly eroded the area leaving only Beartooth Butte standing to dry as the water
receded. Logically, everything had to happen quickly, and not over long periods of time
alternating layers
of shale and
sandstone. The
various layers
lakes, swamps, and rivers. With the changing sea-levels due to glacial activity, the
resulting cyclical drowning of these areas is thought to have resulted in the cyclical
deposition of clays, silts and sands over fairly significant spans of time. Some of these
beds are in fact quite thick. For example, the Haymond Beds average around 1,300
meters in thickness and contain thousands of layers of shale and sandstone. However,
what is especially interesting about many of these layered beds is that they contain
"trace fossils". 40
they left trails behind. When this clay was buried by turbiditic sand flows, the sand filled
in these tunnels, trails and other impressions. As the sand solidified, the casts of these
tunnels and other markings were preserved on the underside of the sandy layer. Since
this underside of a layer is called the "sole", the preserved impressions in the clay are
that, "These burrows are horizontal and the animals don't seem to be digging out. They
are digging through the sediment. And there are thousands of layers of sediment with
the burrows on them." 39 Morton actually suggests that when each sandy turbidite
covered a layer of clay that the burrowing creatures didn't burrow out, but died when the
sandy layer covered the layer of clay. He says, "We know that the burrowers who were
buried did not survive. If they had, they would have had to dig up through the sand to
escape their entombment. There are no burrowers going up through the sand. And, if
there had been these burrows, there should be little circular piles of sand with a central
crater pocking the entire upper surface of the sand. We don't see these." 40
Glenn Morton is not the only one who thinks this way. This is in fact the prevailing
paradigm about how these layers must have formed. However, there may be an even
more reasonable explanation. If these layers were in fact formed over long periods of
time where each individual layer took at least a few years to form, it seems like
tunneling organisms would mess up the layers. Look at the pictures presented here.
Most of these layers are very thin, averaging only a few centimeters in thickness. And
yet, they are extremely crisp and distinct from the layers above and below. Burrowers
living in lake or ocean bottoms or swampy areas, burrow all around and cause mixing of
the sediments. Such mixing is known as "bioturbation." However, even the thinnest
sandstone units fail to show any obvious signs of bioturbation, blurring of bedding
grained sandstones clearly demarcated from the overlying and underlying layers of
shale. Further evidence suggesting a more rapid formation of the layers comes from
work done by Kuenen in 1967. Kuenen documented the differences in sand textures
between interdistributary bay deposits and turbidite deposits. Using his work as a
reference the sandstone units found at Dougherty Gap best correlate to turbidite
emplacement based on both lithology and bioturbation. Also, the work of Coleman and
Prior gives even more support for this idea. In 1980 they presented photographs of
cores taken from a modern interdistributary bay which in no way resemble the
Another interesting finding is that these layers get thicker as one move up the
and is "believed to reflect the progradation of submarine fan lobes." 41 In any case, this
finding is not consistent with a slow cyclic deposition over vast spans of time.
The sand in the sand layers is also, "well sorted" meaning that it probably was not
deposited slowly. "Good sorting is particularly significant because the sands are found
in an environment where, unless deposition is very fast, one would expect silt and clay
to be contributed..." 41
Also, almost
of the sandstone layers, no matter how thick or thin, were found to contain "asymmetric,
unidirectional currents which occurred either contemporaneously (at the same time) or
deposited slowly where each layer was created over the course of tens, hundreds or
even thousands of years, or were these layers formed rapidly by successive turbiditic
flows in a highly silted watery environment? Is it reasonable for those such as Glenn
Morton to suggest that burrowing creatures give evidence of a slow formation? What
about the argument that such burrowing creatures must have been killed by each sandy
turbidite so that a new colony of burrowing creatures would have had to take over the
next layer of clay? This argument makes no sense at all. Since when does a few
centimeters of sand kill any burrowing creature? This argument sounds almost silly,
especially if one has ever tried to bury such creatures under sand at the beach. They
simply dig out in short order. But, what about the fact that no evidence of "escape
burrows" with "little circular piles of sand with a central crater pocking the entire upper
surface of the sand" can be found? No one who considered that the tops of each sand
layer shows current ripples would ask such a question because the watery current
would surely have removed any such piles of sand in short order as soon as they were
made. With each new sandy turbidite the burrowers would simply burrow up through the
sand to populate the newly forming layer of organically rich material as it rapidly formed
over the turbiditic sand flow in a heavily silted environment. More and more layers would
have formed in rapid succession leaving no time for the bioturbation of lower layers. 41
We are left then with the curious findings of thin crisp alternating layers of shale
layer thickness as one moves up these formations. This sort of layering is only
consistent with rapid formation and cannot be explained by the prevailing paradigm
where millions of years are required to produce such shale bed formations. (Back to
Top)
Nonconformities
(Back to Top)
readily intuitive given the position that it is an ancient formation. Common examples of
nonconformities are the "overthrusts" that are found in many places around the world.
These areas are interesting because the layers of the geologic column are apparently in
the wrong order with older layers on top of younger layers. A famous example is the
Lewis Overthrust. First identified by Willis in 1901, this area encompassing Glacier
National Park is more than 300 miles long and 15 to 50 miles wide, with Precambrian
strata resting on top of Cretaceous. The fossils are in the wrong order. Evolutionists
date the Precambrian rock at a billion years while the Cretaceous is dated at only 150
million years. The contact line between the two different strata is like a knife-edge,
without significant evidence of sliding, linear tracking, or other evidences of friction or
mechanical erosion between the two surfaces. Of course it is the position of most
modern geologists that this 12,000 square mile slab of rock with a thickness of 3-miles
did in fact buckle-up, sheer off, and slide over the underlying Cretaceous layer for up to
50 miles.6 The sliding process is thought to have occurred slowly with only portions of
the entire slab moving at any given time... like the crawling of a caterpillar. What seems
strange however is that the rock actually slid instead of warped or crumbled. The forces
required to shake and shimmy a rock of this size would crush the rock or buckle it
before they would overcome the inertial and frictional forces needed to cause a sliding
motion. Also, without evidence of sliding at the contact zones between the two layers,
sliding seems like a rather unlikely explanation. Rather, the evidence seems much
more consistent with an original sedimentation event that occurred in the order found.
If this is not convincing, consider the Glarus Overthrust located near Schwanden
Switzerland. The geologic order of this overthrust is Eocene on the bottom, then
Jurassic, and then Permian on top. Of course it should be Permian, Jurassic, and then
Eocene on top. The Glarus Overthrust extends some 21 miles. It appears that they
layers have been flipped. But how does one flip 21 miles of solid rock? Perhaps a giant
fold created the flipped appearance? If so, then erosion would have to have gotten rid
of the overlying layers of the fold without damaging the underlying layers of the fold.
Also, there are no striations or linear groves at the contact zones between any of the
layers to give some indication that they traveled in a linear direction over anything... like
a caterpillar or otherwise. The irregularities at the bottom of each formation have not
can be found in the Empire Mountains of southern Arizona were Cretaceous rock is
capped by Permian limestone. The contact zone, between the layers of rock, undulates
like the meshing of a gear. If the geologic sequences of this formation were really the
result of an overthrust, how did such meshwork avoid getting planed off? There is no
other erosive evidence either such as scraping, gouging, or linear striations at the
contact zones.9
One must also note the many large gaps in sediment between the layers that are
present. In the Glarus Overthrust what happened to the layers between the Jurassic
and Eocene (The Paleocene and Cretaceous)? Also, what happened to the Triassic
Also, how are some areas, such are found in the Grand Canyon, explained where
different layers of the geologic column are repetitively intermixed? For example, there
can be found areas in the Grand Canyon were Mississippian and Cambrian layers
alternate back and forth multiple times... like a deck of cards being shuffled.24 I find that
rather non-intuitive.
There are many other similar examples that could be listed. I just seems to me,
even though I am not a geologist, that such problems have not been clearly overcome
by those holding to the view of the ancient formation of the geologic column. In fact, it
seems that a rapid and catastrophic depositional event or events could explain some of
in thickness (315ft.) and covers an area of 200,000 sq. miles to include most of northern
Arizona from the Magollon Rim, northward to the Utah border. It is up to 1,000 feet
thick at its southern edge and thins to a few feet at its northern boundary. The total
volume of sand is estimates to be approximately 10,000 cubic miles.14 The sand grains
themselves are fine grained, well rounded and sorted, and composed almost entirely of
quartz with no silt or mud contamination, just like most desert sand is. Also, just like in
modern deserts, the Coconino Sandstone has inclined cross bedding in it. Cross
bedding in sand dunes are areas were sand from one dune are covered by sand from
filled with these cross beds just like desert dunes frozen in time.15 The sand grains
themselves show microscopic features of long exposure in dry desert conditions. These
features include frosting and pitting on the surface of the individual grains of sand. This
less common worm, spider, and arthropod trails - and even some burrows. The
vertebrate tracks have been referred to as "amphibians and/or as reptiles," but from the
structure of the tracks the majority of them are most easily interpreted as amphibians
a desert environment. This is generally explained by suggesting that the desert sands
bordered the ocean or a seaside area. The footprints are located on the preserved
surfaces of the dunes and are believed to have been covered by the shifting dune sand
and thus preserved for all time.17 No other fossils have been found in the Coconino
Sandstone to include evidence of any plant life (which seems strange since animals and
plants usually go together - even in a desert). But, given all of these facts, it seems
obvious to many that the Coconino Sandstone is in fact a preservation of a very large
et al. (1971) pointed out that "grain frosting is no longer considered a criterion of wind
transport," grain size distribution statistics have been ambiguous (for the Navajo), and
"it can no longer be assumed a priori that large festoon cross strata prove an eolian
dune origin for the Navajo or any similar sandstone because of the essential identity of
form and scale of modern submarine dunes or sand waves, as documented during the
past decade" (e.g., see d'Anglejan 1971; Harvey 1966; Jordan 1962; and Terwindt
1971)."25
But what about the fact that the Coconino Sandstone has preserved crisp
footprints in delicate detail? Well, does such detailed trackway preservation happen in
dry desert sand? When a lizard walks or runs over dry sand, what happens? Footprint
impressions are made, but nothing near the detail and crispness that has been
preserved in the Coconino Sandstone is
produced. Now,
consider the
likelihood that
preserve very
small and
delicate
footprints made
footprint on the surface of the sand. However, if the dampness of the surface of the
sand was thick enough so that it would not break up with the weight of the animal, the
sand would become rather hard and resistant to track formation. The only tracks
produced on this kind of wetted sand were a series of small dimples left by the toes.
The fossilized Coconino Sandstone tracks did not match the dry or dampened sand
tracks produced in the laboratory by Brand in several ways. The dry and damp sand
tracks rarely preserved toe marks or other details, while the fossilized tracks usually did
preserve toe marks. Dry sand tracks also had large ridges of sand behind them which
often flowed back into the previous footprint. Again, the fossil footprints do not have
these ridges nor were jumbled pieces of crusted sand observed to be scattered around
the fossilized tracks. The proportions of the tracks were also different. Brand noted that
the dry sand tracks were longer than they were wide, but the fossilized tracks were
short in relative to their width. The tracks made in the damp sand were simply too
Brand also did experiments in which the slope of the sand rose above the water
line. As the animals walked up out of the water their tracks changed as they went
higher and higher from the waterline. Footprints close to the water level were poorly
defined while those a little higher were crisp and clear as far as toe marks and sole
impressions. However, as the animal progressed even higher to the more firm sand,
the tracks became fainter and fainter until only toe mark dimples could be discerned.
This transition effect from well-defined prints to vague toe marks or scratches is not
made on dry desert sand? Mckee was heavily influenced in the formation of his desert
theory by the influence of a paleontologist by the name of Peabody who told McKee that
salamanders do not generally make tracks underwater but prefer to swim from place to
place instead of walk. And, even when they do walk, they are partially buoyed up by the
water so that their tracks are vague at best. McKee seemed to indicate that he had
concluded that the fossil tracks preserved in the Coconino Sandstone were most similar
to the dry sand trackways produced in his own experiments because only in dry sand
were any definite prints of individual feet formed. What is strange though is that there is
Brand, on the other hand, documents that all five species in his study walked on
the bottom sands underwater more than they swam from place to place through the
water as long as they had a sandbar or some place in the testing tank where they could
rest. Brand noted that this behavior is also observed in the field. When walking along
the sand underwater all five species selected by Brand produced distinct footprints with
toe marks and occasional sole impressions all along their trackways. Some of the prints
also had ridges of sand pushed up behind them, but these ridges never extended back
into the previous print. Brand concluded that, "The underwater tracks were most similar
to the fossil tracks. Underwater trackways had toe marks as often as the fossil tracks,
and they were uniform in appearance the full length of the sand slope, as the fossil
tracks are. Also, the proportions of the fossil tracks were most similar to that of the
underwater tracks." 25 However, Brand did leave open the possibility that such
trackways could have been formed on a special type of wetted sand that had been
wetted for several hours (overnight in his experiments). Based on this evidence many
argue that the desert was wetted on occasion by light mists, dew, or a heavy fog. This
allowed the various creatures living in this ancient desert to make their crisp trackways,
which were subsequently covered by dry sand and preserved. Other dry-land features,
such as raindrop impressions, crisp and steep leeward dune fracture faces and cracks
in the sand, and the preservation of spider trackways are often cited as evidence in
hypothesis. This dry land hypothesis quite reasonable in many respects that seem to
require open air exposure, but there are still a few other very puzzling features that do
formation.
trackways often start and stop suddenly without evidence of sand-shift or disturbance -
like the creature suddenly vanished into thin air (or swam off in the water).18, 19, 20
McKee attempted to explain the relative absence of downhill trackways by
suggesting that the animals tended to "slide" downhill, thus obliterating their own tracks
in the sliding sand. One might wonder why the animals would slide downhill when they
were doing do fine going uphill without the sliding problem. Those who have ever
visited areas with desert sand dunes will find that trackways on such sand dunes go
every which way. Also, one would expect that wetted sand would be much more
cohesive than dry sand and preserve tracks just as crisply no matter which direction the
creatures were heading. And, just in case there was any doubt, Brand performed a few
more experiments. Brand actually went to the trouble of inducing his experimental
animals to walk both downhill as well as uphill. On underwater sand, wet sand, and
damp sand, almost all downhill trails produced easily recognizable trackways. On dry
sand, the trackways of salamanders were less well defined, but still relatively well
seems to remain a mystery if they are truly desert formations. It almost seems as
though the creatures were trying to escape something, like rise water levels, and that is
On occasion, there would be trackways that would head directly across a given slope at
one angle or another, but the toe marks of both the back and front feet would be pointed
up the slope. It seems unlikely that the animals that made these trackways would have
walked sideways for such distances. Some have argued that desert lizards sometimes
walk sideways in order to angle themselves to reduce the absorption of heat radiated
from the scorching desert sand. The problem with this argument is that the sand was
wet and therefore relatively cool - certainly not scorching hot. Others have suggested
that a strong wind blew the animals sideways. This idea requires a very strong wind
indeed to blow a relatively low profile lizard or salamander sideways in an even pattern
for significant distances. Brand suggests that the more likely explanation is that these
Also, the architecture of the Coconino sand dunes is not like that of modern sand
dunes in modern deserts. The Coconino sand dunes have an average slope angle of
25° while the average slope angle of modern desert dunes is 30-34° (the resting angle
of dry sand).21 Sand dunes formed by underwater currents do not have as high an
average slope angle as desert dunes and do not have avalanche faces as commonly as
deserts dunes do. Some crisp avalanche faces are found in the Coconino Sandstone
dunes suggesting that at least some exposure to open air occurred, but such exposure
may have been intermittent and relatively brief. Still what explanation can be given for
So, it appears that the evidence does not fit the classic dry desert formation of the
Coconino Sandstone layer over millions of years of time. Many of the trackways may
even have been formed underwater or at best on long standing damped sand dunes
where all the creatures walked only uphill. Ocean currents can and do make very pure
quartz sand dunes with specific characteristics that match the dunes in the Coconino
Sandstone.23 Heavy ocean currents can in fact amass huge quantities of sand in a very
rapid timeframe. The sand dune angle found in the Coconino Sandstone layers would
require a depth of water of around 300 feet and a fairly brisk current. In such a
very quickly.
there is no significant
cracks penetrating deep into the Hermit Formation (just below the Coconino layer) are
filled in with Coconino sandstone. If the Hermit Formation took millions of years to form,
which would surely turn the layers in this formation into solid rock in a small fraction of
this time, how did such deep cracks form in solid rock in such a way that the surface
was completely flat and yet the cracks themselves were filled with pure Coconino
sandstone? One would think that if such formations and characteristics took long
periods of time to form that the boundary between the Hermit Formation and the
way by erosion, and that the cracks found in the Hermit shale would have been filled
with other contaminants besides pure Coconino sandstone. Of course, these findings
are not strange if the layers were all formed relatively rapidly by water deposition
instead of over vast expanses of time (and yes, cracks do form in mud underwater as a
result of cohesion of clays during "dewatering"). So, which theory has better explanatory
completely absent.
identification of a fossilized
stony meteorite (Astronomy, June 1981) in the Lower Ordovician layer. Per Thorslund
and Frans Wickman reported in Nature that a 10 centimeter object found in a limestone
slab from a quarry in Brunflo, central Sweden in 1952 is really a stony meteorite as
In 1988 another Swedish meteorite, called "Österplana 1," was discovered in Lower
Ordovician Limestone about 5 million years older and 300 miles away from the first one
(Hansen and Bergström, 1997, p.1). Twelve more meteorites have since been found at
Beyond meteorites, dozens of impact craters have been found from the pre-
Cambrian to Pleistocene throughout almost every layer of the geologic column. For a
So, you see, it isn't true that the geologic column contains no evidence of meteorites
However, it seems like these meteorites are more difficult to find than expected if the
geologic column does indeed represent hundreds of millions of years of elapsed time.
The current rate of meteor impact over the entire globe (for meteorites greater than
100g in size) is about 14 per 10 km2 per year (link). That's 1,400 million meteorites per
100 million years (i.e., 140 million kilograms or about 280 million pounds) per 10 km2.
For example, looking at the layers in the Grand Canyon in particular, according to
mainstream geology, it would take an average of 100 million years to deposit about 100
feet (~30 meters) of sediment (link). Sandstone weighs about 2,323 Kg/m3. There are 3
billion cubic meters in a 30 meter layer of sediment covering 10 km2. That's a total
weight of almost 7 trillion Kg. Of this, 140 million Kg should be made up of meteoric
material ( 0.002%). Another way to look at the same problem is that there should be
enough meteoric material to make up about 60,000 cubic meters of sediment in 100
Now, this might not seem like a significant percentage, but it is quite significant given
that only a handful of meteoric rock fragments have ever been found in the layers of the
geologic column. There should be literally tons of them. Yet, geologist Davis Young
(1988, p.127) writes that, "The chances of finding a fossil meteorite in sedimentary
rocks are remote. It is not to be expected." G. J. McCall, in Meteorites and Their Origins
(1973, p.270), said, "The lack of fossil record of true meteorites is puzzling, but can be
explained by the lack of very diagnostic shapes and the chemical nature of meteorites,
It seems that rapid decay would have to be very rapid indeed - especially since far
more delicate fossils are discovered far more commonly than are meteorites within the
There are some other interesting things to note about the geologic column. Many
of its layers, wherever they are found in the world, are sorted with the courser material
on the bottom and the finer material on the top of that individual layer (Except in the
case of underwater slumps where the material is sorted fine to course). 2 Does this
sorting make sense to have happened over millions of years? Sorting like this does not
take place today except in specific circumstances. This kind of sorting only occurs
interesting that much of the geologic column looks exactly like turbiditic layering.3 In
fact, geologist today no longer accept the long prevailing hypothesis of uniformitarian
deposition, but have opted instead for a more "punctuated" formation of much of the
column. These punctuations are generally felt to be the result of sudden catastrophic
events with long intervening periods of relative quietness. The does make some sense
in the fact of the fact that turbidites create sedimentary layers almost instantly.
However, turbidite flow does not flatten or significantly disrupt lower layers. Thus, any
erosion or unevenness in lower layers will be preserved. The fact that the layers are
generally flat seems to indicate that they were already very flat before the next turbidite
Volcanic activity adds yet another twist. Each eruption has a chemical signature.
sedimentary layer. From the study of active volcanoes, this fingerprint is quite specific.
If the same volcano erupts at least 6-8 months later, it will have a detectable difference
in its fingerprint. 4, 5, 77 Many of the sedimentary layers in the geologic column have
volcanic sediment in them. It is very interesting to note that in some places, where
there are over 20 layers containing volcanic sediment (ie: The layered fossil forests of
Yellowstone National Park), there may be only three to four different chemical volcanic
"fingerprints" or "signatures" among all the layers.4, 77 How can this be when each layer
supposedly took thousands of years to create? Every layer should obviously have at
least one unique "signature" if not many different signatures. But, this does not happen.
In fact, it gets even more interesting. Many times, the signature in the bottom layer will
be exactly the same as the signature found in the top layer. 4, 77 (Back to Top)
Varves
(Back to Top)
Varves are sedimentary layers generally interpreted as being laid down in a yearly
banding pattern with one varve being laid down once per year, like tree rings. A true
varve consists of a couplet of summer silt and winter clay, a period that is difficult to
demonstrate. It is thought that by counting the varves in a lakebed, one can determine
a fairly accurate age for that lake bed. Ancient dates are calculated for these lake beds
using varves, sometimes into the millions of years based on varve estimates.90 In the fall
1994 issue of Science Speaks, Don Stoner (1994) stated that the Green River
Formation of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming "contains more than four million annual
layers." He then says, "Obviously, this means that the lake existed for millions of years
before it disappeared."
there are just a few problems with this theory. If this it is true that only one varve is
made per year, then how could a leaf survive exposed while it waited years and years to
be completely buried? Multiple varves are now known to form very rapidly in certain
situations. 91
Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) measured Green River Formation "varves" between
two volcanic tuff beds each two to three centimeters thick. Geologists consider each
tuff bed a synchronous layer, i.e., every point on that tuff bed has the same age. The
two tuff beds thus represent two different reference times. If the laminations in between
these two beds are annual layers, the same number of layers should be present
everywhere between the two beds. Buchheim and Biaggi found the number of laminae
between the tuff beds ranged from 1160 to 1568. Lambert and Hsü (1979) measured
"varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found up to five laminae deposited during
one year. From 1811, which was a clear marker point (because a newly built canal
discharged into the lake), until 1971, a period of 160 years, they found the number of
laminae ranged between 300 and 360 instead of the expected one per year or 160.
Some rather interesting experiments with varve formation have also been done.
Julien, Lan and Berthault (1994) experimentally produced laminations by slowly pouring
mixtures of sand, limestone and coal into a cylinder of still water. Using a variety of
materials, they found that laminae formed if there were differences in size and density of
the materials and that the thickness of the laminae depended upon differences in grain
Fischer and Roberts (1991) state, "In some cases the observer counting varves is
left in doubt as to which couplets are varves and which are subvarve units, a matter that
was handled in our image analysis varve counts by arbitrarily counting only variations
above the 30 micron level." In other words, they arbitrarily chose 30 microns as the
minimum thickness to be used for computer analysis. However, many laminations are
less than 30 microns thick. Also, many of the "varves" consist of organic layers
varves, including storm events, turbidites and glacial meltwater. Each one of these is
example, turbidity currents from melting snow or heavy rain produce extra couplets.92
floodwaters could generate turbidity underflows to deposit varves, but threw doubt on
his second interpretation that varves or varve-like sediment are necessarily annual.
Turbidity currents can mimic varves, especially at the end of the flow that is
farthest from the source or sediment. (Hambrey) Many supposed varves are multiple
recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite
Turbidity flows have the surprising ability to deposit silt and clay quickly in equal
thicknesses. Under normal conditions, silt usually settles in a few days and clay can
As both clay and silt fractions are transported to the site of deposition at the same
time, successive surge deposits are likely to have similar proportions of silt and clay. In
other words, thick silt layers will have thick clay layers, and thin silt layers will have thin
In many cases where large ice lobes or glaciers sit or float in lakes, there is year
round delivery of sediments and turbidite activity occurs almost continually resulting in
How many varve-like layers form from year to year becomes anyone's guess.
Wood (1947) describes peak river inflows after light rain that deposited three varve-like
couplets in two weeks. Just as we have seen in many situations, e.g., stalagmite and
canyon formation, strata deposition, and fossilization, time is not the essential factor for
their development, although evolutionists insist that such things took much time to form.
While evolutionary catastrophists admit rapid formation, they almost invariably propose
Steve Austin, who has done much field work at Mount St. Helens, documented in
his new book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (see announcement on last
page) that the volcano eruption produced 25 feet of volcanic ash varve-like deposits
1). Controversy exists as to the source material comprising varves as well as the
mechanism of their cyclic formation.
2). Lamination counts in historically known sections have been demonstrated not to
correspond to elapsed years or counts are inconsistent.
3). There is frequently uncertainty as to how many laminations constitute a varve and
the use of arbitrary minimum sizes may lead to erroneous conclusions.
4). There are many nonseasonal mechanisms for producing laminations such as
storms, floods, turbidites, glacial meltwater and spontaneous segregation of dissimilar
materials. All of these causes of laminar deposits indicate that varve-like laminations are
a common effect of many nonseasonal processes.92
5). Various materials that decay rapidly over time, such a delicate leaves, have been
found extending through many "annual" varve layers (see above photo).93
(Back to Top)
Continental Drift
(Back to Top)
the course of two hundred million years, the continents split apart and drifted away from
Some form of this idea has been around for about 200 years. The theory of
continental drift was first proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912. Initially it was rejected
mechanism to explain the drift. However, in the 1950s and 1960s, interest in the theory
revived with the help of a new science called paleomagnetism where bands of reversing
magnetic polarity extended parallel to the mid oceanic ridges and seemed to indicate
some sort of oceanic expansion. Other forms of data seemed to support the hypothesis
of seafloor spreading. From these beginnings, the concept of plate tectonics was born.
Geologic layering and coal samples are very similar at the separation zones of the
various continents. It seems intuitively obvious that continental drift did occur and that
at one time the various continents were in fact connected. In fact, the drift is still
occurring at about 2cm per year on average and in some places as much as 5cm per
year.
But how does this drift occur? According to the current theory of plate tectonics,
the earth's outer shell, or "lithosphere", is divided into several large, rigid plates (13
major plates and over 100 "microplates") that move over a soft layer of the mantle that
is known as the "asthenosphere". At their edges or boundaries these plates touch each
other and their independent movements affect each other as they slide past or into each
other. Such interactions are thought to be the cause of most of the seismic and
volcanic activity on earth. When the plates collide, they buckle and the buckling results
in mountain ranges and ocean trenches. Oceans form where the plates drift apart.
Initially those who first proposed this idea of continental drift were thought to be
crazy. However, with discoveries of paleomagnetism and other evidences, such as the
rather obvious puzzle-piece match of various continents, the theory quickly gained
popularity. By the mid-1970s, almost 90% of western geologists believed in the validity
of plate tectonic theory. Despite its problems, plate tectonics became so popular that it
suppressed all other potential hypothesis of earth dynamics. Not everyone was pleased
by this. In fact, even some of the proponents of plate tectonics have themselves
admitted that a "bandwagon atmosphere" developed, and that data that did not fit into
the model were not given sufficient consideration,33 resulting in "a somewhat disturbing
dogmatism".34 McGeary and Plummer acknowledge that "Geologists, like other people,
Fad or not, the popularity of plate tectonic theory is undeniable and this popularity
is felt by some to be limiting the exploration of any other possible theories as belief in
plate tectonics is so strong that it is difficult to get any other hypothesis published if it
seems to move against this paradigm.32 This popularity is maintained despite the fact
that, "When plate tectonics was first elaborated in the 1960s, less than 0.0001% of the
deep ocean had been explored and less than 20% of the land area had been mapped in
meaningful detail. Even by the mid-1990s, only about 3 to 5% of the deep ocean basins
had been explored in any kind of detail, and not much more than 25 to 30% of the land
area could be said to be truly known.36 Scientific understanding of the earth's surface
features is clearly still in its infancy, to say nothing of the earth's interior." 32
The fact of the matter is that scientists are finding certain aspects of the earth's
crust that simply are not easily explained by the theory of plate tectonics as it currently
stands. Some of these problems are more readily apparent than others. Perhaps one
of the more easily discernable problems is one that involves the maintenance of fit of
the continents over the course of 200+ million years of drift since Pangea. Consider
that over relatively short time periods, erosion, deposition, and sedimentary river delta
deposits change edges of landmasses significantly. For example, three hundred years
before Christ, Ephesus was a seaport city on the coast of the Aegean Sea in Asia
Minor. Within only 800 years, the city was no longer a port city, but an inland city. The
historian Pliney said that, in ancient times the sea used to wash up to the temple of
Diana [in Ephesus]. The reason for this regression of the sea is that the relatively small
rivers of Cayster and Meander run near the city. Over the years they deposited so
much sediment that the land extended some several miles in a relatively short time.
With all the erosion and on all the various continents and rivers depositing deltas
like the ones at Ephesus, should the continents not, over a 200+ million year period,
loose the shape of their ancient coastlines? Currently, according to the US Army Corp
of Engineers, the United States coastlines are in serious danger. The Louisiana
coastline is being lost at a rate of at least 25sq. miles per year. Both the eastern and
western United States are being eroded at rates fast enough to warrant millions of
dollars spent on coastal erosion prevention at an annual cost of around $500 million.
Florida alone spends over 8 million dollars annually on coastal erosion prevention.11 In
just over 50 years, some of the coastlines in Washington State have regressed over 300
meters.12 The coastline of Texas is being eroded at a rate of between 1 and 50 feet per
year depending on location.13 At the Eastern side of the continent, the landmark
lighthouse at Cape Hatteras, built more than 1500 meters (5000 feet) inland in 1879,
was threatened with collapse because the coastline had been eroded to such an extent
that the lighthouse had to be moved some 1,600 feet inland (in 1999) to save it. 89 At
this particular point the sea has been moving in at a rate of a mile in 150 years, (once
around the earth in less than four million years). The same is true for the eastern and
western coastal countries of Africa who depend on the stability of their coasts for
tourism. Japan is spending billions of dollars to preserve its coasts from erosion. Every
continents still match up very well - not to mention the fact that the continents
themselves have not been washed away within this time. I mean, judging by the current
rate of erosion, Louisiana would have been subjected to 5 billion square miles of
erosion/deposition in 200 million years. That is more than 300 times the size of the
entire North American Continent (15 million square miles)! That is actually fifteen times
more land than the entire surface area of the Earth itself to include that covered by
Now, I am not saying that rates of erosion do not fluctuate and change, but it
seems fairly obvious that with even minimal amounts of continental erosion, the
continents of today would not match up so easily if they really had separated from each
other over 200 million years ago. The evidence does not appear to fit the theory - not
even close. An extremely rapid continental drift in the recent past seems much more
likely. A great deal of sudden energy would be required to cause such a rapid and
global continental drift. Such a sudden release of energy would most likely cause
incredible global catastrophe. Massive floods, earthquakes, and volcanoes would occur
Of course, these are not the only problems with the theory of plate tectonics.
Consider the following comments by David Pratt detailing a few potential flaws with the
theory:
Plate tectonics -- the reigning paradigm in the earth sciences -- faces some very
severe and apparently fatal problems. Far from being a simple, elegant, all-embracing
global theory, it is confronted with a multitude of observational anomalies, and has had
hypotheses. The existence of deep continental roots and the absence of a continuous,
global asthenosphere to "lubricate" plate motions, have rendered the classical model of
plate movements untenable. There is no consensus on the thickness of the "plates" and
no certainty as to the forces responsible for their supposed movement. The hypotheses
relative youth of the oceanic crust are contradicted by a substantial volume of data.
oceans provides another major challenge to plate tectonics. The fundamental principles
Pratt goes on to challenge many of the basic tenets of the plate tectonic theory to
include the most fundamental concept of plates sliding over the lubricating
asthenosphere. It seems as though the lithosphere, which makes up the solid plates,
averages 70 km thick beneath the oceans and at least 125 to 250 km thick beneath the
continents. However, recent seismic tomography of the oldest parts of the continents
have very deep roots that extend to depths of around 400 to 600 km with no
asthenosphere beneath them. Certain geologists have publicly recognized that these
intact, plates at all, but are instead composed of broken-up pieces of various shapes,
"This means that the movement of lithospheric plates over long distances, as
single rigid bodies, is hardly possible. Moreover, if we take into account the absence of
the asthenosphere as a single continuous zone, then this movement seems utterly
impossible." She states that this is further confirmed by the strong evidence that
regional geological features, too, are connected with deep (more than 400 km)
inhomogeneities and that these connections remain stable during long periods of
The very process or "driving force" of plate movement is also coming under fire. It
has long been theorized that the driving forces of plate movements are deep convection
currents that well up beneath the mid-ocean ridges and then circle back down beneath
the ocean trenches. The problem with this theory is that the mantle appears to be
horizontally layered. Such convection currents do not seem to be consistent with such
layering. It was hoped that seismic tomography would give clear evidence of such
evidence against the existence of convection currents that are large enough and strong
enough to move continental plates. In fact, many geologists now think that the small
upper layer mantle convection currents that do exist are the result of plate motion rather
Currently, the favored mechanisms used to explain plate movements are the
"ridge-push" and the "slab-pull" methods. The slab-pull is thought to be the "dominant"
mechanism. It refers to the gravitational sinking of the subducted slabs as they slide
under the edges of continental shelves. Of course, subduction does not happen for the
edges of plates that are largely continental because continental crust cannot be
subducted due to its relatively low density. This is a problem because subduction
cannot be used to explain the movement of certain massive continental plates such as
the Eurasian plate. The reason for this is because the plates themselves are not
internally strong enough for forces along their edges to be transmitted across the entire
plate. In other words, pulling or pushing forces would crush or fracture the crust before
the forces could be transmitted to the rest of the plate. It is somewhat like trying to pull a
The theory of subduction has other problems as well. For example, the mid-ocean
ridges, where new crust is thought to be produced, total 80,000 km in collective length.
However, only about 40,000 km of ocean trenches and "collision zones" exist. It seems
like crust is being produced in more areas than it is being subducted. Where then does
the rest of it go? Certain specific examples are also interesting, such as the African
plate. Africa is allegedly being converged on by plates spreading from the east, south,
and west, yet it exhibits no evidence whatsoever for the existence of subduction zones.
Antarctica, too, is almost entirely surrounded by alleged "spreading" ridges without any
corresponding subduction zones. Also, if subduction has been occurring over 200+
million years, one might expect that a lot of oceanic sediment would be scraped off the
ocean floor and piled up against the overlying plate, filling up the trenches. This might
seem like an obvious expectation, except for the fact that it is not observed in real life.
The ocean trenches do not have enough sediment in them if subduction has truly
occurred in these areas over the course of millions of years. Scholl and Marlow (1974),
who support plate tectonics, admitted to being "genuinely perplexed as to why evidence
maintain their theory, plate tectonicists have had to resort to the notion that
unconsolidated deep-ocean sediments can easily slide under overlying plates without
being scraped off or leaving any other significant trace behind. Also, these trenches
often show a very low level of seismicity and often have flat-lying sediments at their
The hypothesizes directional movements of the plates themselves are also being
interferometry (VLBI), satellite laser-ranging (SLR), and the global positioning system
(GPS). Some scientists claim that these instruments have unequivocally supported the
theory of plate tectonics. As it turns out, some of the measured movements do seem to
verify certain predictions of plate tectonic theory. However, many of the results have
shown no definite pattern, and have been confusing and contradictory. For example,
Japan and North America do appear, as predicted, to be approaching each other, but
the central South American Andes seem to be keeping a constant distance from both
Japan and Hawaii (they are predicted to be separating). Also, surprisingly, trans-
Atlantic drift has not been demonstrated. It seems rather that the North America and
western Europe are not moving as rigid units, but show significant intraplate
deformation or movements. Also, geodetic surveys across the "rift zone" between
Iceland and East Africa have failed to show the theorized widening postulated by plate
Paleomagnetism
(Back to Top)
formation, the magnetic polarity of the Earth at that time was preserved in the rock like a
taperecording. After the polarity was established in the hardened rock, reversals in the
Earth's polarity would not change the polarity in the solid rock. Thus, only in newly
forming or liquid rock would the molecules be able to line up with the current polarity of
the Earth. In this way, magnetically oriented bands of rock would be formed where the
oldest bands are farthest away from the mid-oceananic ridge where new crust formation
is thought to occur along a spreading fault. The pattern of these lines seems to outline
However, there seem to be just a few problems with paleomagnetism. One would
think that as the sea-floor spread out from the ridge that the alternating "normal" and
"reversed" magnetic bands would extend vertically all the way through the crust.
Vertically drilled cores have shown that this is simply not the case. The surface pattern
of alternating bands of magnetic polarity is not preserved as neatly in the rocks below
the surface. Interestingly enough, the magnetic polarity changes back and forth as one
moves down the core samples. This finding seems to disprove the theory that the
oceanic crust was magnetized entirely as it spread laterally from the magmatic center.32
Some scientists are even suggesting that magnetic reversals were formed very
rapidly.38
Consider also the theory that the oceanic plates must be relatively "young" as
compared to the continental shelves. Since the oceanic crust is continually made by the
mid-ocean ridges and then moves outwards to be subducted under other plates, the
youngest rocks will be closest to the ridges and the oldest will be those rocks farthest
from the ridges. The problem is that "shallow-water deposits ranging in age from mid-
weathering, were found in 149 of the first 493 boreholes drilled in the Atlantic, Indian,
and Pacific Oceans. These shallow-water deposits are now found at depths ranging
from 1 to 7 km, demonstrating that many parts of the present ocean floor were once
shallow seas, shallow marshes, or land areas. From a study of 402 oceanic boreholes
accumulations and their distance from the axes of the midoceanic ridges, thereby
disproving the seafloor-spreading model... There is evidence that the midocean ridge
system was shallow or partially emergent in Cretaceous to Early Tertiary time. For
instance, in the Atlantic subaerial deposits have been found on the North Brazilian
Ridge, near the Romanche and Vema fracture zones adjacent to equatorial sectors of
the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, on the crest of the Reykjanes Ridge, and in the Faeroe-Shetland
region... Geological, geophysical, and dredging data provide strong evidence for the
presence of Precambrian and younger continental crust under the deep abyssal plains
of the present northwest Pacific. Most of this region was either subaerially exposed or
very shallow sea during the Paleozoic to Early Mesozoic, and first became deep sea
There are many other problems detailed by Pratt as to why the current theory of
plate tectonics may in fact be fatally flawed. A link to his paper can be found below for
Conclusion
It seems then that the popular theories of geology and the formation of the
geologic column may in fact have significant flaws that might be better explained by a
catastrophes. At least it seems like the door is open to this possibility as well as to the
idea that the geologic column may not represent billions of years of earth's history, but
1. Morris, J. D., The Young Earth, Master Books, 1994. pp. 98-100.
2. American Journal of Science, Vol. 276: 1976.
3. Walker, R. W., Evolving Concepts in Sedimentology, 1973.
4. Coffin Harold G., TheYellowstone Petrified "Forests", Origins 24:5-44.1997.
5. LeMaitre, R.W., The chemical variability of some common igneous rocks,
Journal of Petrology, v. 17, 1976.
6. Levin, Harold L. Contemporary Physical Geology. Second Edition. Washington
University. St. Louis. 1986.
7. Burdick, C. L. "Geologic Formation Near Loch Assynt Compared With Glarus
Formation" Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 12 No. 3. December 1975.
8. Morris, J. D. The Young Earth, Master Books. 1994. pp. 109-112.
9. Burdick, C.L. and Slusher, H.S. "The Empire Mountains - A Thrust Fault?"
Creation Research Society Annual p. 49. June 1969.
10. Veith, W. J. The Genesis Conflict, 1997.
11. Watson, S., 1997. Economics of Beach Restoration, Coastal Currents, Florida
Coastal Management Program Newsletter, v. 5, no. 3, pp. 6-8.
12. Burch, T .L. and C. R. Sherwood, Historical Bathymetric Changes Near the
Entrance of Grays Harbor, Washington, report PNL-8414 prepared by the
Battelle/Marine Science Laboratory for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Seattle
District, 1992, p. 52.
13. McKenna, Kimberly K., Davenport, Sally S., and Wadick, Ashley K.,
Management of the Beach/Dune System in Texas, Proc. Sixth Annual National
Conference on Beach Preservation Technology , St. Petersburg, FL, Feb. 10,
1993.
14. Baars, D.L., 1962. Permian System of the Colorado Plateau. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, vol. 46, pp. 200–201.
15. Middleton, L.T., Elliott, D.K. andMorales, M., 1990. Coconino Sandstone. In:
Grand Canyon Geology, S.S. Beus and M. Morales (eds), Oxford University
Press, New York, and Museum of Northern Arizona Press, chapter 10, pp.
183–202.
16. Young, D.A., 1990. The discovery ofterrestrial history. In: Portraits of Creation,
H.J. Van Till, R.E. Shaw, J.H. Stek and D.A. Young (eds), William B. Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, chapter 3, pp. 80–81.
17. McKee, E.D., 1947. Experiments on the development of tracks in fine cross-
bedded sand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 17, pp. 23–28.
18. Brand, L.R. and Tang, T., 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino
Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin.
Geology, vol. 19,pp. 1201–1204.
19. Monastersky, R., 1992. Wading newts may explain enigmatic tracks. Science
News, vol. 141 (1), p. 5.
20. Geology Today, vol. 8(3), May–June 1992, pp, 78–79 (Wet tracks).
21. Visher, G.S., 1990. Exploration Stratigraphy, 2nd edition, Penn Well Publishing
Co., Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 211–213.
22. Kuenen, P.H. and Perdok, W.G., 1962. Experimental abrasion — frosting and
defrosting of quartz grains. Journal of Geology, vol. 70, pp. 648–658.
23. Amos, C.L. and King, E.L., 1984. Bedforms of the Canadian eastern seaboard: a
comparison with global occurrences. Marine Geology, vol. 57, pp. 167–208.
24. Waisgerber, William, Howe, George F. and Williams, Emmett L. "Mississippian
and Cambrian Interbedding: 200 Million Year Hiatus in Question" Creation
Research Society Quarterly. Vol. 23 No. 4. March 1987.
25. Brand, L.R. Origins 5(2):64-82 (1978).
26. Brand, L.R. and T. Tang. 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino
Sandstone [Permian] of northern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin.
Geology, 19:1201-1204.
27. McKee, E.D. 1933. The Coconino Sandstone — its history and origin. Carnegie
Institution of Washington, Contributions to Paleontology, Publication No. 440:77-
115.
28. McKee, E.D. 1944. Tracks that go uphill. Plateau 16(4):61-73.
29. McKee, E.D. 1945. Small-scale structures in the Coconino Sandstone of northern
Arizona. Journal of Geology 53(5):313-325.
30. McKee, E.D. 1947. Experiments on the development of tracks in fine cross-
bedded sand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 17:23-28.
31. McKee, E.D. 1966. Ancient landscapes of the Grand Canyon region. Northland
Press, Flagstaff, Arizona.
32. Pratt, David, 2000. Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat, vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
307-352. ( http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm )
33. Wyllie, P. J., 1976. The Way the Earth Works. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
34. Dott, R. H., Jr., & Batten, R. L.,1981. Evolution of the Earth (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
35. McGeary, D., & Plummer, C. C.,1998. Physical Geology: earth revealed (3rd
ed.). Boston, MA: WCB, McGraw-Hill.
36. Meyerhoff, A. A., Taner, I., Morris, A. E. L., Agocs, W. B., Kaymen-Kaye, M.,
Bhat, M. I., Smoot, N. C., & Choi, D. R. (1996a). Surge Tectonics: a new
hypothesis of global geodynamics (D. Meyerhoff Hull, Ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
37. Pavlenkova, N. I. (1990). Crustal and upper mantle structure and plate tectonics.
In Barto-Kyriakidis, 1990, vol. 1, pp. 73-86.
38. R.S. Coe, M. Prévot, and P. Camps, "New Evidence for Extraordinary Rapid
Change of the Geomagnetic Field During a Reversal," Nature, 1995, 374:687-
692.
39. http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/orkney.htm
40. http://groups.google.com/talk.origins
41. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/32/32_4a1.html
42. http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/article/0,,EXP888_NAV2-
77_SAR879,00.shtml
43. http://www.amen.org.uk/eh/science/flodpg/flodpg3.htm
44. http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm
45. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/toomanyanimals.htm
46. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
47. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/v16n1_columbia
.asp
48. Riebe, C., Kirchner, J.W., Granger D.E., Finkel, R.C., "Minimal climatic control on
erosion rates in the Sierra Nevada, California", Geology; May 2001; v. 29; no.5;
p. 447-450.
(http://www.seismo.berkeley.edu/~kirchner/reprints/2001_41_minimal_climatic.pd
f)
49. Lasaga, A.C., Rye, D.M., "Reactive Fluid Flow and Applications to Diagenesis,
Mineral Deposits, and Crustal Rocks", Grantee: Yale University, Department of
Geophysics, Summer, 1997.
(http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/geo/Publications/FY97Summ/yale.htm)
50. Kingham, Robert, "Geology of the Murray-Darling Basin - simplified
Lithostratigraphic Groupings", Australian Geological Survey Organization,
Department of Primary Industries and Energy, 1998.
(http://www.brs.gov.au/mdbsis/mdbgeol.pdf)
51. DeLaughter, John, "Cooling Rate and Crystal Size", Accessed December, 2003.
(http://www.earth.nwu.edu/people/seth/demos/XTAL/xtal.html)
52. Barnett, J. and Fisk, L.H., "Palynology and paleoecology of a sedimentary
interbed in the Yakima Basalt (Miocene)", Palouse Falls, Washington, (4):259-
278, 1980. Northwest Science, p 54.
53. Newell, N. D., "Mass extinction: unique or recurrent causes?" In W. A. Berggren
and J. A. Van Couvering (eds.). "Catastrophes and Earth History: The New
Uniformitarianism", pp. 115-127. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey. 1984.
54. Van Andel, T. H., "Consider the incompleteness of the geological record",
Nature 294:397-398, 1981.
55. Judson, S. and D. F. Ritter, "Rates of regional denudation on the United States",
Journal of Geophysical Research 69:3395-3401, 1964.
56. Sparks, B. W., Geomorphology. 3rd ed. Longman Group, London and New York,
1986.
57. Twidale, C. R., "On the survival of paleoforms. American Journal of Science
276:77-95, 1976.
58. Newell, N. D., "Paraconformities", In C. Teichert and E. L. Yochelson (eds.).
"Essays in Paleontology and Stratigraphy", pp. 349-367. Department of Geology,
University of Kansas Special Publication 2, 1967.
59. Roth, Ariel A., "Those Gaps in the Sedimentary Layers", Origins 15(2):75-92,
1988. (http://www.grisda.org/origins/15075.htm)
60. King, L.C., Morphology and the Earth: Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd,1960, p. 699.
61. Daily, B., Twidale, C.R., & Milnes, A.R., "The Age of the Lateritized Summit
Surface an Kangaroo Island and Adjacent areas of South Australia." Geological
Soc. Australia Jour., V.21, 1974, pp.387-392.
62. Dott, R. H. and R. L. Batten. 1971. Evolution of the earth. McGraw-Hill, New
York. ( http://www.grisda.org/origins/13064.htm)
63. http://home.earthlink.net/~llanitedave/rainbowgardens/pages/GeoHistory.html
64. Brett, C.E., 2000. A slice of the "layer cake": The paradox of "frosting continuity."
Palaios 15:495-498 ( http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-
RecentCreation.htm#18 )
65. http://origins.swau.edu/papers/geologic/gaps/default.html
66. Raup, David M., Chicago Field Museum, Univ. of Chicago, Field Museum of
Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 54, p. 21, March 1983
67. Dott, Robert H., Presidential Address to the Society of Economic Paleontologists
& Mineralogists, Geotimes, p. 16, Nov. 1982
68. http://www.durangobill.com/PaleoriversPart1.html
69. Morton, Glenn - http://home.entouch.net/dmd/clasdyke.htm , 2002
70. Ed Stiles, "Is the Grand Canyon a Geologic Infant?" The University of Arizona
News, OPI, July 18, 2002 ( http://uanews.opi.arizona.edu/cgi-
bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/1/wa/SRStoryDetails?
ArticleID=5820&wosid=7RudwGAB7hQJYHvwohuzt0 )
71. Dan Whipple, "Catastrophic floods built Grand Canyon," UPI Science News,
From the Science & Technology Desk, July 20, 2002 (
http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20020719-052146-4488r )
72. Scott H. Rugg, Steven A. Austin, "Evidences for Rapid Formation and Failure of
Pleistocene 'Lava Dams' of the Western Grand Canyon, Arizona," Fourth
International Conference on Creationism, August 3-8, 1998 (
http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r02.htm )
73. Lee Dye, "Baby Grand - New Research Suggests the Grand Canyon May Still Be
Growing," Special to ABCNEWS.com, May 29, 2004 (
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DyeHard/dyehard020801.html )
74. Karen Chin, David A. Eberth, Mary H. Schweitzer, Thomas A. Rando, Wendy J.
Sloboda, John R. Horner, "Remarkable Preservation of Undigested Muscle
Tissue within a Late Cretaceous Tyrannasurid Coprolite from Alberta, Canada,"
Palaios, October 9, 2002, Issn: 0883-1351, 18:(3), p. 286-294. (
http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0883-
1351&volume=018&issue=03&page=0286 )
75. Friedman, G. "Rapidity of marine carbonate cementation-implications for
carbonate diagenesis and sequence stratigraphy: perspective," Sedimentary
Geology, 1998, v. 119, no. 1-4, pp. 1-4. (
http://www.und.edu/instruct/mineral/geol318/webpage/jurgens/jrnalsumm.html#tw
o_water_diagenetic_systems )
76. http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/lessons/Slideshow/Serocks/Sed
rock7.html
77. Clyde L. Webster, "Yellowstone Fossil Forrests: A Geochemical Perspective,"
European Field Conference, 1998, pp. 150-157. (
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Chemical%20Signatures%20-%20Clyde
%20L%20Webster.pdf )
78. S. Perkins, Quick Bite: some gorges carved surprisingly fast, Science News,
July, 2004 (
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_4_166/ai_n6151873 )
79. Government Records ( http://www.nps.gov/grca/crmp/documents/79eis/79eis-
2a.pdf )
80. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-05/vt-mht052404.php
81. http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-
abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0091-7613(2001)029%3C0023:HERITH%3E2.0.CO
%3B2
82. http://home.att.net/~goggallery/frames/geology2.htm
83. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Bryce_Canyon_area
84. http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm
85. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/crepaleo.html
86. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/terpaleo.html
87. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/arch/
88. http://www.arches.national-park.com/
89. The Oregonian, May 27, 2000, p. A2
90. Veith, W. J., Amazing Discoveries Video Series, 2000. (
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org )
91. http://www.lebendigevorwelt.de/megasucc/megan03.htm
92. http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/Varves/VarvesProblems.htm
93. Edinger Collection ( http://www.lebendigevorwelt.de/megasucc/meg_13.en.htm )
94. Harutaka Sakai, a geology professor at Kyushu University, western Japan (
http://staff.whsh.tc.edu.tw/~huanyin/kuo_9.htm )
95. M.P. Searle, Extensional and compressional faults in the Everest-Lhotse massif,
Khumbu Himalaya, Nepal, Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 156,
1999, pp. 227-240.
(http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk/archive/00000811/01/searle_1999.pdf)
96. D. Vance et. al., Erosion and Exhumation in the Himalaya from Cosmogenic
Isotope Inventories of River Sediments (
http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/Annual/2003/24.pdf )
97. D. Vance et. al., Cosmogenic Isotope Constraints on Erosion Rates in the
Himalaya (
http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/Annual/2000/15.pdf )
(Back to Top)