DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: LK1 Sedimentation
*****************************************************
#Post#: 146--------------------------------------------------
MO/GRAND CANYON
By: Admin Date: February 28, 2017, 12:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Walt Brown’s Flood model
by Michael J. Oard
HTML http://creation.com/hydroplate-theory
Published: 7 April 2013
Abstract
Of the variety of Flood models in existence, all need extensive
work, which is actually a healthy state according to the
principle of multiple working hypotheses when there are many
unknowns. All of us must guard against holding Flood models too
tightly. Dr Walter Brown’s Flood model is first summarized from
chapter one of Part II of the eighth edition of his book: In the
Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Then
the next 7 chapters of Part II, which amplify major aspects of
his model, are summarized. In my general comments, I point out
his questionable initial conditions, lack of in-depth analysis,
the arbitrary fitting of data to his model, questionable
references and analogies, the dubious significance of his
predictions, and problematic comparison tables.
After adding brief comments on his model, I provide more
specific comments in the areas that I know best: (1) the origin
of Grand Canyon and (2) the life and death of the woolly
mammoths in Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon Territory. In regard
to the origin of Grand Canyon, I emphasize the lack of block
faulting of the Grand Staircase and the Roan and Book Cliffs of
the Colorado Plateau; the lack of enough water to erode 300 m
(1,000 ft) of strata over the whole Grand Canyon area and then
carve Grand Canyon; that the lakes did not breach at the low
points across the Kaibab Plateau; the lack of evidence for the
existence of the lakes because there are no shorelines, raised
deltas, or bottom sediments; and the inability of the dam-breach
hypothesis to explain long, deep, narrow tributary canyons. Two
of the numerous problems with the woolly mammoth data in high
northern latitudes are the evidence the mammoths died at the end
of the post-Flood Ice Age and not at the beginning of the Flood,
and evidence against the quick freeze hypothesis. Since Brown
compares my model for the woolly mammoth data with his, it gives
me a chance to show how artificial these comparison tables are.
Introduction
Models attempt to be a representation of reality. Historical
science is filled with models dealing with some aspect of the
past. These models can include past climate models attempting to
estimate future global warming, groundwater flow models, plate
tectonics models, solar system formation models, etc. Models
vary in sophistication from numerical computer models to simple
deductions based on a set of observations.
In this web article, I will analyze Dr. Walt Brown’s hydroplate
model. I will first summarize the model from Part II of his
book, and focus on the areas of study most familiar to me: the
origin of Grand Canyon and the life and death of the woolly
mammoths in Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon. I will give only
brief comments on other aspects of his model with which I am
less familiar.
Creationist flood models
Creationists have several Flood models, which vary in their
degree of sophistication, and how much they explain of the
pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood periods of biblical earth
history. These models vary considerably in their mechanisms for
the Flood and the locations for the Flood/post-Flood boundary
and the pre-Flood/Flood boundary. The most sophisticated model
is the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) model, which uses a
comprehensive computer program that attempts to simulate runaway
subduction and rapid horizontal plate movements over thousands
of kilometres.1 Probably the most comprehensive Flood model is
Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory (HPT) because it purports to
explain numerous events and observations of the earth and solar
system.2
Flood modelers need to know which rocks and fossils are from the
Flood. Therefore the location of the pre-Flood/Flood and
Flood/post-Flood boundary is important to any model, as these
locations determine geological activity before, during, and
after the Flood. So, models that place the Flood/post-Flood
boundary in the Precambrian or Palaeozoic attempt to place most
of the sedimentary rocks and fossils after the Flood.3 An
excellent resource for examining the state of Flood models is
the recently completed ebook on models, called the Flood Science
Review.4 The general conclusion of this review is that all
extant models need much work.
By way of aside and declaring my own bias in this, I would have
loved to work on and support one of the existing models, like
CPT or HPT, and work exclusively on Ice Age and Flood
challenges. However, in examining Flood models, I have come
across numerous problems with those models, which need
addressing and research by advocates of those models. So, as a
result of my frustration with these other models, I have begun
working on a comprehensive Flood model that is in the building
stage, called the impact/vertical tectonics (IVT) model, which I
believe has great potential.5
There are so many unknowns and we all see through a glass dimly
(1 Corinthians 13:12a) when it comes to interpreting the past.
Principle of multiple working hypotheses
Many Christians are confused on why there are different Flood
models. There are also different creationist cosmological
models. The reason is that there are so many unknowns and we all
see through a glass dimly (1 Corinthians 13:12a) when it comes
to interpreting the past. Actually it is a healthy tendency when
there are varying models as long as they pass peer review
(unlike Dr Brown’s model). All the unknowns within earth science
in general can be shown just by the huge volume of research
published every year attempting to fill in the many blanks.
Reading some of these research papers, one easily discovers how
much remains to be discovered. Science is very specialized, so
that any one specialist knows little about other specialties.
And even in one particular specialty within a subfield of a
field of earth science, no one researcher knows all or even a
majority of the available data. The problem is extreme in the
historical aspects of earth science, as these depend upon one’s
worldview with no observations of the events that laid down the
rocks and fossils.
The geologist T.C. Chamberlin wrote a provocative but sobering
essay in 1897 in The Journal of Geology, which was reprinted as
an historical essay in 1995.6 In it, he suggests that having
multiple working hypotheses in the face of many unknowns is
healthy for science. Ideally with time, hypotheses are revised
or rejected. It is especially dangerous for there to be a
‘ruling hypothesis’, which stifles research and causes
researchers to attempt to pigeon-hole observations within the
one model or paradigm. It retards science and causes the
original researcher to be too attached to the model. Chamberlin
colorfully discusses this problem:
We must guard against this tendency to hold our models dear to
us.
“The moment one has offered an original explanation for a
phenomenon, which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for
his intellectual child springs into existence, and as the
explanation grows into a definite theory his parental affections
cluster about his offspring and it grows more and more dear to
him. … There springs up also unwittingly a pressing of the
theory to make it fit the facts and a pressing of the facts to
make them fit the theory. … The theory then rapidly rises to a
position of control in the processes of the mind, [sic] and
observation, induction and interpretation are guided by it. From
an unduly favored child it readily grows to be a master and
leads its author whithersoever it will.”7
We must guard against this tendency to hold our models dear to
us. Models are supposed to be held lightly, since they are
difficult to validate or verify.8 One unaccounted-for variable
in a model (especially with historical models) can result in a
completely different solution.
... General comments
Brown’s hydroplate model purports to explain an enormous number
of observations and past events. It seems fantastic that one
model with one assumption and the laws of physics can explain so
much. But there is an old saying that “if it’s too good to be
true, it probably is.” I find much of Brown’s model and many of
his explanations of phenomena lacking detailed evidence.
Sometimes aspects of his model are unclear or incomplete,
leading to difficulty understanding some of it. For instance, I
was unsure of whether the muddy hail that fell from space froze
only the woolly mammoths and other animals that are now found at
high latitudes.
The initial condition
One of the first problems is his initial configuration of the
pre-Flood Earth and the condition of his subterranean chamber
increasing in temperature and pressure with time due to tidal
pumping. This is a very special, arbitrary initial condition
that has no evidence, as far as I know. It also raises the
question of whether God would have created a world that He
called ‘very good’ which already had a ‘ticking time bomb’
which, in time, will explode. It also seems to me that he does
not have only one assumption in his model, as claimed, but seems
to make further assumptions continually in order to make his
model fit the observations of rocks, fossils, and the solar
system.
Lack of in-depth analysis
Brown’s book has much good information and brings up many
conundrums of earth science. These include the fact that the fit
of the continents across the Atlantic Ocean is not as good as
most people believe. In the famous Bullard fit, Africa had to be
shrunk 35%; Central America, southern Mexico, and the Caribbean
Islands had to be removed; the Mediterranean Sea was reduced in
size; Europe was rotated counterclockwise; Africa rotated
clockwise; and North America and South America were rotated
relative to each other.14
Dr. Brown does not analyze many phenomena in depth and gives a
broad brush analysis without connecting details of his mechanism
with the phenomena to be explained.
Although he has seven chapters amplifying aspects of his Flood
model, Brown does not analyze many phenomena in depth. Instead
he gives a broad brush analysis without connecting details of
his mechanism with the phenomena to be explained. Examples will
be given in the section on specific comments. He also does not
subject the steps in his model to peer review and publication in
the creationist technical literature, although he did publish a
broad brush of his model at the International Conference on
Creationism15 and in the Creation Research Society Quarterly.16
Each step in his model should have been justified by peer review
and publication.
For instance, he points out that some atolls in the central
Pacific, such as Eniwetok Atoll, have a thick carbonate cap, but
because of insufficient analysis does not realize that many of
the surrounding guyots, which he calls tablemounts, in the
region of atolls also have a thick carbonate cap: “The depths of
tablemounts below sea level increased rapidly; otherwise most
would have coral growths rising near sea level.”17 He also
thinks that the carbonate cap on Eniwetok (and presumably other
atolls) is a reef, composed of corals almost a mile deep:
“Eniwetok Atoll, composed of corals, lies in the tablemount
region and rests on a tablemount.”16 There is much evidence that
the carbonate on Eniwetok and other atolls is not from a reef,18
showing Brown’s incomplete analysis of reefs.
Fitting his model to the data
He often seems to make his model fit the data. For instance, he
says that the basaltic, pre-Flood lower crust was eroded by
strong horizontal currents in the subterranean chamber, adding
35% of the particles to the Flood sediments with the other 65%
of the particles coming from the crushed granite. This just
happens to match estimates made of the particles in sedimentary
rocks by Mead in 1914 and Twenhofel in 1961.
Questionable references
Brown seems to rely on legends and myths too much, for instance
a Hopi Indian legend claiming that the mid-ocean ridge in the
Pacific was once above sea level,19 which supports his idea that
sea level was at least 4.6 km (2.9 mi) lower than today after
the Flood. To support his idea of an Earth roll, he sometimes
uses questionable sources, such as Charles Berlitz, who wrote on
tribal mythology, physic studies, ancient astronauts, and
archeology, but is most well known for perpetrating the massive
Roswell aliens hoax in his coauthored book, The Roswell
Incident.20
Questionable analogies
I find that he uses analogies a lot, but some give the wrong
impression because they do not compare well with the phenomenon
to be explained, for instance in the following:
As the continental plates met resistance, they crashed (or
quickly decelerated), crushed, and thickened, similar to a thick
sheet of snow sliding down a mountainside in an avalanche.”16
Thickening snow as an avalanche comes to a stop is an easily
understood phenomenon, but the analogy makes one think that
granite can easily pile up upon deceleration of hydroplates. So,
the analogy does not apply except in a superficial sense. The
question really is, “What should we expect if granite
hydroplates came to an abrupt halt?” and “Is there evidence for
this?” which should be abundant. Finding isolated chevron folds
in the Rocky Mountains21 or dikes in Black Canyon and the inner
gorge of Grand Canyon22 are not significant evidence for the
halting of granite hydroplates.
Brown also uses the analogy of a buckling upward spring as an
analogy of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge buckling up nearly 16 km (10
mi).23 But the analogy only applies in the most superficial
sense. The analogy is misleading in that one gets the impression
that the buckling upward of the MAR is quite easy.
Predictions
Brown makes a number of predictions for his model, which are
summarized in Part III in Frequently Asked Questions.24 Some are
bold, like a prediction should be, such as prediction 6: “A
10-mile-thick granite layer (a hydroplate) will be found a few
miles under the Pacific floor and inside the ring of fire and
others.”25 Other predictions seem insignificant, such as
prediction 10:
“Corings taken anywhere in the bottom of any large lake will
not show laminations as thin, parallel, and extensive as the
varves of the 42,000-square-mile Green River Formation, perhaps
the world’s best known varve region.”26
The Green River ‘varves’ are especially thin and widespread,
very likely formed during the Flood12, while post-Flood lake
rhythmites (not necessarily varves that are defined as
rhythmites with couplets of one-year duration) are not expected
to be the same because of the different mechanism and
environments of formation.
He claims to have confirmed four out of 39 predictions: (1)
pooled water under mountains, (2) hidden canyon under the
Bosporus, (3) salt on Mars, and (4) carbon-14 in ‘old’ bones. I
am uncertain how significant these ‘hits’ are, but from a
creationist point of view we would predict carbon-14 in a lot of
‘old’ material.
Questionable comparison tables
I found his comparison tables artificial in that he compares his
model to poor or old uniformitarian and catastrophic hypotheses.
Since my ideas on the life and death of the woolly mammoths in
Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon Territory of Canada were compared
in his chapter on woolly mammoths, I will have more to say about
comparison tables in the section on the woolly mammoths.
Specific comments
I will give only a few specific comments on Brown’s model
outlined above, and delve deeper into the subjects I know best,
which are: (1) the origin of Grand Canyon, and (2) the life and
death of the woolly mammoth. His two chapters on this subject
are examples of what can be said about his other chapters after
an in-depth analysis of other aspects of Brown’s model and the
phenomena that he purports to explain.
The HPT mechanism
Probably a whole book could be written on every aspect of the
HPT mechanism. Much more details are needed to fill in the many
gaps. For instance, would a quantitative analysis of pre-Flood
tidal pumping heat the subterranean water chamber enough to
cause it to burst? And why would it burst in a linear fashion
along the MORs and not through one or several openings through
the upper granite crust, as one would expect: It seems that if
one heats a bottle full of water, the bottle will burst at one
locality.
I especially question that there would have been sufficient
force for the jets of water to do what they are claimed to have
done. Namely, to break through the MOR, jet through the
atmosphere, and shoot water and rocks into outer space to form
meteoroids, asteroids, and comets, plus put these solar system
bodies into precise orbits. The mechanisms of ‘fluttering’ and
‘water hammers’ seem much too weak to overcome the Earth’s
gravity. A lot of quantitative calculations are required to show
the sufficiency of the ‘rupture phase’.
Creationist astronomer Danny Faulkner has done several
back-of-the-envelope calculations in examining Brown’s ideas on
comets and asteroids. He finds numerous problems. For instance,
passing enough water and solids up through the atmosphere at
Mach 150 is not possible.27 Furthermore, he shows that
long-period comets do not have enough time since the Flood to
return close to the Earth in order to be detected, so we should
not have seen any long-period comets yet. Faulkner also
questions Brown’s claim that the composition of comets means
they had to have come from the Earth. He finds errors in many
other of Brown’s assertions in regard to astronomical data, and
concludes that the hydroplate model cannot explain the origin of
comets and asteroids.
The mechanism to produce the Flood sediments starts with the
crushing of the rock around the MORs and the erosion of the
basaltic lower crust below the water chamber. Then the sediments
in just the right proportions of 35% basalt and 65% granite are
spread over the hydroplates by water. But the hydroplates are
shallow compared to the Pacific Ocean that is buckling downward.
One wonders whether the sediments would end up in the Pacific
Ocean, especially considering the relative high velocity of the
hydroplates. More details of sedimentation would be nice.
His mechanisms for the formation of salt and carbonates are
similarly too good to be true. Why should carbonates and salt
act differently, as he describes? How does gypsum, a major
precipitate often found with salt layers, fit into his model?
The thick and widespread salt deposits in the Gulf of Mexico and
adjacent coastal areas are much more than 640 km (400 mi) from
the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. So, the salt in the subterranean water
chamber would not be exposed for sediments to pile on top of,
unless the deposits formed after the continental drift phase.
Chalk has been demonstrated to be organic, made up of
coccoliths, a marine microfossil.
The whole idea of liquefaction to sort sediments and fossils
must be demonstrated to be workable on any scale other than very
local. How could such liquefaction sort on a worldwide scale? It
seems that liquefaction would tend to mix sediments instead of
separating different types of sediments such as carbonates,
muds, sand, silt, clay, etc., as well as the types of fossils
seen in the geological column. There are also no details of how
liquefaction can produce the phenomena that it purports to
explain.
The continental drift phase needs much filling in of detail. Is
the removal of 10 miles (16 km) of granite at the MORs
sufficient to cause the basalt lower crust to rise up almost
that distance? And given the tremendous horizontal distances,
would the granite upper crust slide away from the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge to where we see the continents today? Then there is the
issue of what happened at other MORs; it seems that the same
rise should have happened on the East Pacific Rise, the ridges
in the Indian Ocean, and others, which would mess with the
formation of trenches that are mostly around the Pacific Ocean.
Then how could such buckling upward of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge
cause a sucking in of the Pacific plate forming trenches and the
ring of fire on the edges? Much more evidence is demanded on how
the Earth’s outer core could liquefy, and that magnetite could
sink and align in the solid inner core to form the magnetic
field and change the length of the day. (The Earth’s magnetic
field and its decay are understood quite well as the result of a
circulating current in the liquid outer core).
The evidence for the compression event is minuscule in the form
of isolated chevron folds and dikes in the Rocky Mountains,
while such features should be widespread. The rise of the
mountains to perhaps twice their current height needs to be
demonstrated, and most especially that such a rise can cause a
roll of the planet of up to 45°. Quantitative details are
absent. He attempts to explain warm climate fossils in high
northern latitudes, but what about the warm climate vegetation,
coal, and dinosaur fossils on Antarctica?
His ideas on the formation of radioactive elements equally
suffer from a lack of quantitative evidence. Furthermore,
Brown’s mechanism of fluttering or waving of upper granite crust
and water hammers seems orders of magnitude insufficient to
cause radioactive elements.
Is Brown’s version of the dam-breach hypothesis for Grand Canyon
viable?
Brown’s motivation for postulating his dam-breach hypothesis is
mainly because he sees the Flood as inadequate for the job of
carving Grand Canyon. He believes that if the Flood drained from
all over the earth, there should be hundreds of other Grand
Canyons,28 and the Flood water could not rise 1,830 m (6,000 ft)
to flood the Colorado Plateau.29 I am sure he feels that the
Flood is inadequate to explain many other geological features.
It is dangerous to conclude that the Flood could not produce a
particular feature carved by water in the past, especially since
we have extremely few facts in geology and paleontology to work
with and we are not nearly smart enough to put the known facts
together. It takes great long-term, in-depth analysis to produce
a hypothesis for the Flood origin of any feature, and even then
we are rarely privy to all the information in order to make an
informed decision.
I do not think Brown has thought through his Flood objections
very well. The depth of an erosional canyon during channelized
Flood runoff will depend upon many variables, including the
amount of water being channelized, the velocity of flow, the
type of rock eroded, the intensity of the uplift of the land,
and the amount of sinking of the continental margin. In the case
of Grand Canyon in a model of Flood runoff, flow converged at
the location of eastern Grand Canyon from drainage of the entire
Colorado Plateau.30 With the strong rise of the Colorado Plateau
and the sinking of the continental margin off California, a deep
canyon would be expected. Brown should have worked out the
details of his assertion and published it in the creationist
technical literature. Besides, there are many other deep canyons
across the earth, such as Copper Canyon in the Sierra Madre
Occidental Mountains of northwest Mexico, which is deeper than
Grand Canyon and only 965 km (600 mi) south.31,32
As far as the impossibility of the Flood water covering the
Colorado Plateau, Psalm 104:6–9 indicates that the land rose up
out of the Flood water.33 This is similar to the canard that the
Flood water could not cover Mount Everest. However, the
Himalayas and all the mountains of the world rose up out of the
Flood water.34 In fact after deposition, of the thick sediments
on the Colorado Plateau, an average of 2,500 to 5,000 m (8,500
to 16,500 ft) of sediments and sedimentary rocks was eroded,
based on eroded anticlines.12,35 How would this happen after the
Flood?
Brown’s dam-breach hypothesis has numerous problems, as do all
dam-breach hypotheses.36 One major problem is he needs to erode
around 3,000 m (10,000 ft) of strata from the whole Grand Canyon
area because that is the approximate amount that once lay over
the area based on the dipping strata of the Grand Staircase
(figure 4). Such erosion occurred in the late Cenozoic because
of the Marysvale Volcanics on top of the fifth stair that once
extended far south and dated as late as early Miocene.37
In regard to the Grand Staircase, as well as the Roan and Book
Cliffs, Brown states that these are east-west faulted
escarpments and so he does not need to erode 3,000 m (10,000 ft)
of strata but only 300 m (1,000 ft) over an area of 25,500 km2
(10,000 mi2). Brown stated:
“Large blocks, when lifted, became cliffs and block-faulted
mountains. North of the Grand Canyon are many examples: Utah’s
Book Cliffs, Roan Cliffs, the Grand Staircase (Vermillion
Cliffs, White Cliffs, Grey Cliffs, Pink cliffs), and many
others.”38
However, these cliffs are obviously erosional escarpments,
especially seen at contacts between strata in north-south
valleys that penetrate the ‘stairs.’ They are not fault scarps.
The major faults in the region are orientated north-south.
Not enough water for erosion
Let us for sake of discussion assume that he needs to erode only
300 m (1,000 ft) of soft strata. One problem is that this soft
strata had a hard cap of rock on top, as shown by three
erosional remnants in the Grand Canyon area: Red Butte (figure
6), Cedar Mountain, and Shinumo Altar. Regardless, the total
volume of rock eroded by sheet flow would be 8,500 km3 (2,000
mi3). The volume of Brown’s two lakes east of Grand Canyon was
only about 12,000 km3 (2,930 mi3). That is a little more than a
cubic km of water to erode a cubic km of sediment, which seems
like too little water, just to erode the 300 m (1,000 ft) of
sediments before Grand Canyon was even carved!
Furthermore, all the water would have to be available all at
once. When a lake breaks through hard rock, it slowly lowers the
outlet, such as happened during the Bonneville flood, when
pluvial Lake Bonneville overtopped Red Rock Pass in extreme
southeast Idaho. It is estimated that about 100 m (330 ft) of
rock was eroded in about 8 weeks before the flood ended.
Although a uniformitarian estimate, I believe it because the
flood landforms in the Snake River Valley of southern Idaho are
quite small, especially compared to huge flood landforms in
eastern Washington caused by the Lake Missoula flood. In the
latter flood, a large percentage of the 2,200 km3 (540 mi3) of
water in glacial Lake Missoula was available all at once because
of the breaking of the ice dam. In fact, that much water only
eroded about 200 km3 (50 mi3) of soft silt and hard basalt along
the flood path. That is about a 10 to 1 ratio of water to
erosion with water velocities locally around 96 km/h (60 mph),
which again shows that the volumes of Brown’s Grand and Hope
Lakes are much too low to erode so much rock over northern
Arizona, before about 3,500 km3 (800 mi3) of rock was eroded to
form Grand Canyon. If Brown is hoping to add a substantial
amount of released ground water, see the discussion below on
ground water supposedly carving tributary canyons and other
features of the southwest Colorado Plateau.
The lakes did not breach at the low points
Lakes breach at low points along their edge, such as what
happened during the Bonneville flood. In all the versions of the
dam-breach hypothesis, the breaching that carved Grand Canyon
breached the south-sloping Kaibab Plateau at about 2,500 m
(8,000 ft) on the North Rim and 2,200 m (7,000 ft) on the South
Rim. However, the lowest points of the Kaibab Plateau are about
1,750 m (5,750 ft) on the northern end and 1,920 m (6,300 ft) on
the south end of the Kaibab Plateau. Why didn’t the lake breach
occur at these low points?
Figure 8. The narrow valley of the Little Colorado River Valley
at a scenic overlook at milepost 285.7 on highway 64. The canyon
at this point is a slot-like canyon about 365 m (1200 ft) deep.
Figure 8. The narrow valley of the Little Colorado River Valley
at a scenic overlook at milepost 285.7 on highway 64. The canyon
at this point is a slot-like canyon about 365 m (1200 ft) deep.
Austin has suggested that piping, water flow through cracks or
tunnels in the rock, caused the initial breach through solid
rock.38 However, the Redwall Limestone, which has a few caves,
would have been many hundreds of meters below the bottom or
edges of the lakes and the piping would have to extend over 160
km (100 mi) to the west.
Fatal problem no. 1: no evidence for the lakes
There are numerous other problems with any dam-breach
hypothesis, but two really stand out and seem fatal to the
hypothesis.35 The first is the lack of evidence for the two
lakes. There are no lake bottom sediments, no shorelines, and no
raised deltas where streams would have entered the lakes, while
pluvial lakes of the nearby Great Basin and the ephemeral
glacial Lake Missoula have abundant bottom sediments,
shorelines, and raised deltas.
Sedimentation of lakes occurs along stream or river deltas and
along the bottom by the sinking of fine particles, as well as
downslope flow of turbidity currents and debris flows. The
sediments are relatively soft around the putative lakes east of
Grand Canyon, so there should have been thick sediments on the
bottom of the lakes, but there are none. The Bidahochi Formation
has been considered by a few creationists to be bottom sediments
of ‘Lake Hopi’,39 but these sediments and sedimentary rocks are
practically all volcanic or laid down by moving water.40,41
Besides, the Bidahochi Formation is currently near the top of,
and even above, the lake surface of ‘Lake Hopi’. Any thick
bottom sediments could not have been scoured out during the dam
breach because the outlet of ‘Lake Hopi’ is a narrow slot canyon
(figure 8) and so could not pass enough water fast enough to
cause significant bottom-eroding currents in the greater part of
the large ‘Lake Hopi’ (figure 9).
Brown has suggested reasons why there should be no shorelines,42
but these do not stand up to scrutiny.35 He first stated that
after the Flood, the Colorado Plateau rose more than 1.6 km (1
mi), while the Rocky Mountains sank. Such uplift of the Colorado
Plateau altered the shapes of the basins and caused the
shorelines to shift. This shifting caused the water level also
to shift so that it would not be at any one location long enough
to etch a shoreline. Pluvial Lake Bonneville was just west of
the proposed lakes and has abundant large shorelines. So, why
wouldn’t Lake Bonneville also be affected by such great vertical
uplift? Besides being a very unlikely scenario, such tectonic
instability would not have been conducive to lake formation nor
for long-term maintenance—the lakes should have lost their water
much earlier than the dam-breach hypothesis predicts.
Figure 9. Schematic of theoretical currents in ‘Lake Hopi’ and
the Little Colorado River Canyon. The current would have been
strong through the Little Colorado River Canyon because of its
slot-like shape but much weaker away from the entrance to the
drainage point. Thick arrows show high velocity, and thin arrows
show relatively low current velocities (drawn by Peter
Klevberg).
Figure 9. Schematic of theoretical currents in ‘Lake Hopi’ and
the Little Colorado River Canyon. The current would have been
strong through the Little Colorado River Canyon because of its
slot-like shape but much weaker away from the entrance to the
drainage point. Thick arrows show high velocity, and thin arrows
show relatively low current velocities (drawn by Peter
Klevberg).
Brown suggested that oscillations in the lake waters would
further erode any shoreline features, but these same movements
would have caused the lakes to overflow their natural rock
barriers, or render them mechanically unstable. Also, there is
no field evidence of such dramatic crustal motions or of such
lake oscillations at nearby pluvial Lake Bonneville to the west,
which should have been affected by such tectonic instability,
being so close to the lakes on the Colorado Plateau.
Furthermore, Brown admits that the volume of Grand and Hopi
Lakes would have increased rapidly after the Flood, which means
that the lakes would have been even more unstable and very
likely to have sloshed over their lowest rim and breached too
early.
Brown secondly suggested that Lakes Bonneville and Missoula
probably breached centuries after Grand and Hopi Lakes.
Therefore, thunderstorms would have more time to erode the
shorelines of the latter lakes. However, this deduction suffers
from incomplete analysis. Grand and Hopi Lakes likely lasted 200
to 500 years. On the other hand, glacial Lake Missoula probably
broke about 500 years after the Flood, after filling for about
80 years with each year’s stillstand forming a shoreline.43 It
must have taken less than a year to etch each shoreline of
glacial Lake Missoula, all the lower shorelines were then
protected under the water and were able to be preserved.
Pluvial Lake Bonneville rose throughout this time and broke
through Red Rock Pass a little before the Lake Missoula flood44,
since the deposits of the Bonneville flood are below those of
the Lake Missoula flood around Lewiston, Idaho. Lake Bonneville
dropped over 100 m (330 ft) during the Bonneville flood. The
highest and second highest shorelines are very distinct. So, the
highest shoreline of Lake Bonneville must have been made within
500 years of the Genesis Flood, and since the lake was rising to
that level in that time, the shoreline was made in much less
time. It does not take long to make a shoreline, which means
that shorelines should be abundant at many levels of the former
basins of ‘Grand and Hopi Lakes’.
Although Brown cited erosion of shorelines by frequent summer
thunderstorms, he cannot explain why that erosion is not
observed affecting other preserved features across the Western
United States, such as the abundant shorelines associated with
the pluvial lakes. Moreover, shorelines cut into slopes would be
more protected from the worst erosion, which comes from water
accumulating in lower areas and flooding down gradient.
Moreover, climatic conditions in Montana are just as, if not
more, conducive to erosion by heavy snow runoff and summer
thunderstorms, yet the remnants of glacial Lake Missoula are
still plainly there.
Brown also appealed to elevated groundwater flow after the lakes
emptied to destroy the shorelines. He believes that powerful
springs would be so pressurized that shorelines would not only
be destroyed, but cliffs formed from groundwater shooting high
into the air. Such a scenario seems impossible, or at the least
impossible to substantiate. But the shorelines of Grand and Hopi
Lakes, if they existed, would often be found at high altitudes
once the lake emptied. The shorelines probably would also be
well above the water table. This would make it tough for
groundwater discharge, as proposed by Brown, to reach such
altitudes. Therefore, shorelines at higher altitudes should be
preserved.
Brown did not utilize this argument, but it is possible to claim
that shorelines would more easily erode on the Colorado Plateau
because the sedimentary rocks are less consolidated. The problem
with this is that glacial Lake Missoula’s shorelines are
preserved on both hard and soft rock.45 Furthermore, many of the
rocks beneath the proposed lakes on the Colorado Plateau are
consolidated; certainly hard enough to preserve shorelines from
minimal erosion over 4,000 years.
Fatal problem no. 2: long tributary canyons
Figure 10. Four long tributary canyons of the Colorado River
through Grand Canyon that gradually descend to the level of the
Colorado River (drawn by Peter Klevberg).
Figure 10. Four long tributary canyons of the Colorado River
through Grand Canyon that gradually descend to the level of the
Colorado River (drawn by Peter Klevberg).
There are three long tributary canyons that start far from Grand
Canyon and descend down to the level of Grand Canyon (figure
10). These are Kanab canyon, about 80 km (50 mi) long, Havasu
Canyon, about 97 km (60 mi) long, and Peach Springs Canyon,
about 32 km (20 mi) long. The canyon of the Little Colorado
River does not count in this analysis since it is proposed to
have been carved by the breaching of ‘Lake Hopi’. The first two
enter the Grand Canyon in 1.6 km (1 mi) deep slot canyons.
These canyons, not fault related, had to form at the same time
as Grand Canyon so water from the dam-breach had to start in the
headwaters of those canyons, suggesting that the waters of the
dam-breach were at least 180 km (110 mi) wide. Brown’s version
of the dam-breach hypotheses possibly could account for Kanab
Canyon after the supposed sheet erosion of the 300 meters (1,000
ft) of strata over northwest Arizona. However, it would have
been extremely difficult to erode Havasu and Peach Springs
Canyon which enter Grand Canyon from the south.
Brown attempts to explain the erosion of these tributary
canyons, plus add more water to erode Grand Canyon, by the
catastrophic flow of a huge amount of ground water trapped
within the sediments after the Flood. The problem with this ad
hoc idea is that ground water cannot rush out of the sediments
fast enough to cause significant surface flow and erosion.
Furthermore, the sediments were consolidated and so water would
move slowly through the pores of mainly the sandstones and
possibly through caves in the limestone. The evidence for
consolidation of the sediments at the time of the dam breach is
the sides of Grand Canyon and side canyons, which would have
slumped or bowed into the canyon if unconsolidated. The vertical
walls of all the canyons provide direct evidence that the rocks
were consolidated when Grand Canyon and its tributaries formed.
There are numerous problems with the dam-breach hypotheses for
the origin of Grand Canyon … Two of these problems, the lack of
evidence for lakes and the existence of long, deep tributary
canyons, seem fatal to the hypothesis.
Discussion
There are numerous problems with the dam-breach hypotheses for
the origin of Grand Canyon, as listed in Table 1. Two of these
problems, the lack of evidence for lakes and the existence of
long, deep tributary canyons, seem fatal to the hypothesis.
There are many more specific problems that can be brought forth
against Brown’s version of the dam-breach hypothesis, but the
above are enough to show that his hypothesis won’t work.
A much better hypothesis for the origin of Grand Canyon is late
Flood channelized erosion. The Grand Canyon is essentially a
long water gap and so must be explained within the field of
geomorphology in regard to the origin of water gaps.31 There are
thousands of water gaps across the earth, 1,700 in the
Appalachian Mountains of the eastern United States alone. These
water gaps can easily be explained by channelized runoff of the
Flood water flowing perpendicular to a barrier and
channelizing.32 The 3,000 m thick layers of sedimentary rock
removed from the Grand Canyon area, called the Great Denudation
by uniformitarian geologists, can be explained by wide currents
flowing from west to east early in the Recessive Stage of the
Flood (the direction of flow shown by paleocurrent directional
indicates in the lag Rim Gravel).46 Then the southern Rocky
Mountains uplifted and the Flood current turned 180° toward the
west and channelized in what uniformitarian geologists call the
Great Erosion. This is when Grand Canyon formed.29
No evidence for the lakes (no shorelines, raised deltas, or
bottom sediments)
Long, deep, narrow tributary canyons (Kanab and Havasu Canyons)
Rapid rise of lake water after the Flood would have caused a dam
breach at the low points
Piping unlikely
A simultaneous release of most of the water required
Not enough water for sheet erosion or channelized erosion
Large crustal uplift and block faulting not supported by field
evidence
Lack of flood features, such as bars and slackwater rhythmites,
as seen with Lake Missoula flood
Lack of a massive gravel bar at the mouth of Grand Canyon
Table 1. Summary of evidences against the dam-breach hypothesis
for the origin of Grand Canyon, the first two of which are
judged to be fatal to the hypothesis.
-----
References
Wise, K.P., Austin, S., Baumgardner, J., Humphreys, D.R.,
Snelling, A., and Vardiman, L., Catastrophic plate tectonics: a
global Flood model of earth history; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Creationism, technical symposium sessions, Creation Science
Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 609–621, 1994. Return to text.
Brown, W., In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for
Creation and the Flood, eighth edition, Center for Scientific
Creation, Phoenix, AZ, 2008. Return to text.
Tyler, D.J., Recolonization and the Mabbul; in: Reed, J.K.
and Oard, M.J. (Eds.), The Geological Column: Perspectives
within Diluvial Geology, Creation Research Society Books, Chino
Valley, AZ, pp. 73–88, 2006. Return to text.
Bardwell, J., The Flood Science Review,
injesusnameproductions.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=50291. Return
to text.
Oard, M.J., An impact Flood submodel—dealing with issues, J.
Creation 26(2):73–81, 2012. Return to text.
Chamberlin, T.C., The method of multiple working hypotheses,
The Journal of Geology 103:349–354, 1995. Return to text.
Chamberlin, Ref. 6 , p. 351. Return to text.
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., and Belitz, K.,
Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models
in the earth sciences, Science 263:641–646, 1994. Return to
text.
creationscience.com. Return to text.
Moho is shorthand for the Mohorovičić
discontinuity, which is the boundary between the Earth’s crust
and the mantle. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 150. Return to text.
Here I think Brown’s model is superior to Austin’s model of
Grand Canyon, since Austin’s third Lake, ‘Vernal Lake’ in
northeast Utah, was not a post-Flood Lake, as the evidence is
overwhelming that the sediments of the putative lake, the Green
River Formation were deposited during the Flood—see Oard, M. J.
and Klevberg, The Green River Formation very likely did not form
in a postdiluvial lake. Answers Research Journal 1:99–108, 2008.
Return to text.
The effect of the temperature of a surface resulting from
solar radiation on one side and a lack of solar radiation on the
other side on the pressure exerted on it in a near vacuum,
caused by the effect on the momentum transferred to gas
molecules colliding with the surface. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 114. Return to text.
Brown, W.T., The fountains of the great deep; in: The
Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Creationism, Basic and Educational Sessions, Creation Science
Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 23–38, 1986. Return to text.
Brown, W., What triggered the Flood? Creation Research
Society Quarterly 40(2):65–71, 2003. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 153. Return to text.
Whitmore, J.J., Modern and ancient Reefs; in: Oard, M.J. and
Reed, JK. (Eds.), Rock Solid Answers: The biblical Truth Behind
14 Geological Questions, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp.
149–166, 2009. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, pp. 153, 359. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 129. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 112. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, pp. 126–127. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 123. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 332. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 155. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 174. Return to text.
Faulkner, D.R., An analysis of astronomical aspects of the
hydroplate theory, Creation Research Society Quarterly
49(3):197–210, 2013;
HTML http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/49/49_3/CRSQ%20Winter%202013%20Faulkner.pdf.<br
/>Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 199. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 200. Return to text.
Oard, M.J., The origin of Grand Canyon Part V: Carved by
late Flood channelized erosion, Creation Research Society
Quarterly 47(4):271–282, 2011. Return to text.
Fisher, R.D., The Best of Mexico’s Copper Canyon, Sunracer
Publications, Tucson, AZ, 2001. Return to text.
Oard, M.J., The origin of Grand Canyon Part III: a
geomorphological problem, Creation Research Society Quarterly
47(1):45–57, 2010. Return to text.
Oard, M.J., Flood by Design: Receding Water Shapes the
Earth’s Surface, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2008. Return to
text.
Oard, M.J., Mt. Everest and the Flood; in: Oard, M.J. and
Reed, J.K. (Eds.), Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth behind
14 Geological Questions, Master Books, Green Forest, Ar., pp.
19–27, 2009. Return to text.
Schmidt, K.-H., The significance of scarp retreat for
Cenozoic landform evolution on the Colorado Plateau, U.S.A.,
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 14:93–105, 1989. Return to
text.
Oard, M.J., The origin of Grand Canyon Part II: fatal
problems with the dam-breach hypothesis, Creation Research
Society Quarterly 46(4):290–307, 2010. Return to text.
Rowley, P.D., Mehnert, H.H., Naeser, C.W., Snee, L.W.,
Cunningham, C.G., Stevens, T.A., Anderson, J.J., Sable, E.G.,
and Anderson, R.E., Isotopic ages and stratigraphy of Cenozoic
rocks of the Maryvale Volcanic Field and adjacent areas,
west-central Utah, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2071, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1994. Return to
text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 191. Return to text.
Austin, S.A., How was Grand Canyon eroded? In: Austin, S.A.
(Ed.), Grand Canyon Monument to Catastrophism, Institute for
Creation Research, Dallas, TX, pp. 83–110, 1994. Return to text.
White, J.D.L. Depositional architecture of a maar-pitted
playa: sedimentation in the Hopi Buttes volcanic field,
northeastern Arizona, U.S.A., Sedimentary Geology 67:55–84,
1990. Return to text.
Dallegge, T.A., Ort, M.H., McIntosh, W.C., and Perkins, M.E.
Age and depositional basin morphology of the Bidahochi Formation
and implications for the ancestral upper Colorado River;
in:Young, R.A. and Spamer E.E. (Eds.), Colorado River Origin and
Evolution: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Grand Canyon
National Park in June, 2000, Grand Canyon Association, Grand
Canyon, AZ, pp. 47–51, 2001. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, pp. 201–202. Return to text.
Oard, M.J., The Missoula Flood Controversy and the Genesis
Flood, Creation Research Society Monograph No. 13, Chino Valley,
AZ, 2004. Return to text.
O’Conner, J.E., Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Geomorphology of
the Bonneville Flood, Geological Society of America Special
Paper 274, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, 1993.
Return to text.
Alt, D., Glacial Lake Missoula and Its Humongous Floods,
Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, MT, 2001. Return to text.
Oard, M.J., The origin of Grand Canyon Part IV: the Great
Denudation, Creation Research Society Quarterly 47(2):146–157,
2010. Return to text.
Oard, M.J., New woolly mammoth dated 5,725 BP on St Paul
Island, Alaska, J. Creation 24(2):6–7, 2010. Return to text.
Sher, A.V., Late-Quaternary extinction of large mammals in
northern Eurasia: A new look at the Siberian contribution; in:
Huntley, B., Cramer, W., Morgan, A.V., Prentice, H.C., and
Allen, J.R.M. (Eds), Past and Future Rapid Environmental
Changes: The Spatial and Evolutionary Responses of Terrestrial
Biota, Springer, New York, p. 323, 1997. Return to text.
Fujita, K. and Cook, D.B., The Arctic continental margin of
eastern Siberia; in: Grantz, A., Johnson, L., and Sweeney, J.F.
(Eds.), The Geology of North America: Volume L-The Arctic Ocean
Region, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, pp. 289–304,
1990. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 246. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 230–231. Return to text.
Sutcliffe, A.J., On the Tracks of Ice Age Mammals, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 113, 1985. Return to text.
Guthrie, R.D., Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe—The Story
of Blue Babe, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1990.
Return to text.
Guthrie, Ref. 53, pp. 1–44. Return to text.
Ukraintseva, V.V., Vegetation cover and environment of the
“Mammoth Epoch” in Siberia, Mammoth Site of Hot Springs Inc.,
Hot Springs, South Dakota, 1993. Return to text.
Lepper, B.T., Frolking, T.A., Fisher, D.C., Goldstein, G.,
Sanger, J.E., Wymer, D.A., Ogden III, J.G., and Hooge, P.E.,
Intestinal contents of a Late Pleistocene mastodont from
midcontinental North America, Quaternary Research 36:120–125,
1991. Return to text.
van Hoven, W., Prins, R.A., and Lankhorst, A., Fermentation
digestion in the African elephant, South African Journal of
Wildlife Research 11(3):78–86, 1981. Return to text.
Haynes, G., Mammoths, Mastodonts, and Elephants, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991. Return to text.
Oard, M.J., Frozen in Time: The Woolly Mammoths, the Ice
Age, and the Biblical Key to Their Secrets, Master Books, Green
Forest, AR, 2004. Return to text.
Guthrie, Ref. 53, pp. 1–323. Return to text.
Brown, Ref. 2, p. 12. Return to text.
Khalke, R.D., The History of the Origin, Evolution, and
Dispersal of the Late Pleistocene Mammuthus-Coelodonta faunal
complex in Eurasia (Large Mammals), Mammoth Site of Hot Springs
South Dakota, Inc., Hot Springs, SD, 1999. Return to text.
6,000 years of earth history. That's a long time in our opinion!
Over 10,000 free web articles on creation.com. That's a lot of
information! Take advantage of this free information but please
support CMI as God provides. Thank you.
Article closed for commenting. Only available for 14 days from
appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Dennis H., United States, 8 April 2013
Mr. Oard, I’d like to thank you for the enormous amount of time
and effort you have contributed to this review of Dr. Brown’s
work. However, I still like Dr. Brown’s model and for the most
part, find it very plausible.
I believe God sees from the beginning to the end and knew of
His’ judgements on the Earth long before he ever created it. He
made a world that was ‘very good’ for His purposes, a world that
He knew He would both judge with the global flood, and even
dispose of, at the end of the age. It may have been a waste to
create a ‘perfect’ world considering the judgements that would
follow. Did the LORD build the ‘time-bomb’ into the initial
creation? That is not implausible for me.
Dr. Brown’s description of the Earth’s crust cracking open and
super jets of water and debris spewing high into the atmosphere
seem to ring true to the Biblical description of the fountains
of the great deep being opened. While I also pause at the idea
of giant portions of the Earth being jettisoned into space by
these plumbs, I still don’t fine it implausible.
This was a destructive event large enough to destroy all mankind
and every breathing creature, except those on the ark of Noah. I
think it’s fair to believe the entire land surface of the Earth
would have had at lease some population by the time of the
flood. So the magnitude of destruction had to have made an event
like Krakatoa of 1883 look like a firecracker by comparison.
Parts of the Earth ejected into space, Wow, that’s hard to
imagine, yet that would explain a lot of what we see today.
So God bless you and Dr. Brown. I surely do not know who is
right on every point but I give a mighty salute to both of you
for your great work in defending the literal truth of the
Scriptures.
Dennis H., United States, 8 April 2013
This is my favorite site on the web, God bless you all for your
fine work !
Matthew G., Canada, 8 April 2013
I agree with this article, I always thought Hydroplate Theory
sounded odd. Thoughts like this come up while reading HPT:
"whats the purpose of supposing that?" "Why would we want to
supposed that before the Flood?" I think Catastrophic Plate
Tectonics is a much better model, I realize it *is* a model and
has it's own problems but it makes so much sense,
scientifically, and logically also biblically. I was actually
thinking of that type of Flood model on my own thinking as a kid
before I even read about any Flood models.
Joseph M., United States, 8 April 2013
The author complains that "Brown’s hydroplate model purports to
explain an enormous number of observations and past events."
Well, we can all agree that a global flood did occur, and such
an event had an enormous effect on the whole world. When we
eventually see the truth clearly, it indeed SHOULD explain
everything. Also, the author addresses Brown's initial
assumption of an underground water chamber: "This is a very
special, arbitrary initial condition that has no evidence, as
far as I know." That's because it is an assumption, as Brown
clearly states in his book. By the way, this assumption agrees
with scripture:
Ge 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second
month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all
the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of
heaven were opened.
Ge 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty
nights.
Things occurred in a particular order-the fountains broke open,
the atmosphere could not contain all the water, and the water
fell back to earth as rain. Finally, the author questions
whether God designed the earth to eventually be flooded: "It
also raises the question of whether God would have created a
world that He called ‘very good’ which already had a ‘ticking
time bomb’ which, in time, will explode." This argument can be
used against every event that has occurred since the fall, and
often is by atheists. What God created as very good has become
corrupt by sin. Who knows, maybe mankind had a hand in breaking
open the fountains of the great deep, in the same way man is
always destroying what was once good?
I don't agree with Brown on every detail of his theory, but do
think many aspects of it are quite plausible. Just my 2 cents
worth!
Glen B., United States, 8 April 2013
Mostly this article is a critique of Brown's hypotheses
concerning the formation of Grand Canyon, and the freezing of
mammoths. Perhaps these aspects of Brown's work are "all wet",
as it were. But the rest of the article hardly respesents a
peer-review of Hydroplate Theory in general. Brown's book does
present some engineering rigor, which the article does not. Is
Hydroplate Theory complete in all details? Probably not. But it
does answer the question, 'Where did all the water come from?'
in a way that Ice Canopy Theory cannot.
Where I differ with Brown is his dismissive treatment of
so-called 'Gap Theory' based on Custance's work "Without Form
and Void". This dismissal may have been because of Custance's
writings elsewhere about the Flood being regional, not global
(he erred on this topic, in my view).
I believe the correct translation of Gen.1:2 is, 'And the earth
BECAME waste and empty.' There have been 2 water judgments of
the earth, both the result of angelic misadventures (cf. the
progeny of the sons of God - the Nephilim ['gigas' in the
LXX] - Gen.6:1-4; and note that Noah was pure in his pedigree -
Gen.6:9).
The geologic models seem to have some hard-to-explain data for
Flood scientists because they are limiting the data to only ONE
flood. Unlike Brown, I lean toward 'Behemoth' and 'Leviathan'
(ie, the saurians) having been destroyed by the first great
flood of judgment in Gen.1:2.
But I do favor Brown's conclusions for a young earth and young
cosmos. And he presents a lot of interesting scientific
phenomena and critical review of them from the largely
uniformitarian, scientific journals & books.
Morris G., United States, 8 April 2013
I agree with much of the critique of Dr. Brown's hydroplate
theory. Regarding the changes in the tilt of the earth's axis
and resulting climatic changes advanced by Brown however, as Dr.
Brown points out, George F. Dodwell, the well respected
Astronomer for South Australia from 1909 to 1952, after
extensive study found that historical astronomical measurements
made over a 4000 year period did indeed provide compelling
evidence showing
that changes in the tilt of the earth's axis have taken place. I
believe authors of creationist flood models need to either
refute Dodwell's findings or incorporate earth axis tilt changes
into flood models.
Carl Wieland responds
I agree, having had a copy of the original manuscript in my
possession for some decades, that the Dodwell information is
important and needs to be brought to light; we have spent
considerable effort trying to encourage that for some years and
I am pleased to say that this looks like happening very soon,
though there's many a slip twixt cup and lip... However, what
should be encouraging in the meantime, is knowing about his
highly persuasive data about the reality of an axis shift over
many centuries. Less encouraging/persuasive were some of his
speculations in a separate part, which is not part of what is
being proposed. For example, his speculation about it being
partial recovery from an impact knocking over a once-upright
Earth. Or his comments about the climate on an upright Earth,
not so much the fact that it seems contrary to modern
computerized modelling results, but his statement in one of his
sections that there were no growth rings in fossil trees (the
reality is that some do have them and some don't, like today). A
creationist PhD physicist told me years ago that an impact big
enough to do what Dodwell proposed would vaporize the Earth. So
why do I see it as very exciting data? Because the methodical
documentation of a substantially and historically changing tilt
(up to AD 1850, IIRC) seems real, even irrefutable; and as the
same physicist pointed out (and I later saw confirmed by a
secular article, IIRC it was SciAm) a shift in the distribution
of mass on the Earth's surface will result in a changing tilt.
The secular source proposed that the shifting of the continents
over vast ages would change the tilt. If CPT were the mechanism
of the Flood, it would result in a changed tilt over much
shorter timespans. Once the Dodwell data is published, it can
presumably be seen if that fits with a CPT model or any other.
Unfortunately, without the permission of the Dodwell estate,
publication of any aspect prematurely is not feasible, but we
are doing what we can to facilitate others publishing it with
their consent. Stay tuned!
B. B., New Zealand, 8 April 2013
Has the author confused the normal use of the terms "deductive"
and "inductive" in his final summation?
Shaun Doyle responds
The author intends to advocate an inductive approach to Flood
modelling, i.e. generalizing from a large sample of particular
observations, rather than a deductive approach, i.e. proposing a
theory that acts as a constraint on our interpretation of the
physical evidence. Dr Brown’s Hydroplate theory is an example of
the latter approach which the author suggests we should avoid.
Of course, there always is a constraint on our interpretation of
the physical evidence within Flood modelling: the Bible.
However, Flood modelling goes far beyond what the Bible tells us
about the Flood to try to describe what happened in as much
detail as possible. This means a deductive approach to Flood
modelling doesn’t just impose the Bible as a constraint on the
model; it also places other extrabiblical assumptions on the
interpretation of the evidence. It is this that the author seeks
to avoid precisely because we can’t implicitly trust any
assumptions not derived directly from Scripture.
Mark B., Canada, 7 April 2013
From your conclusion:
"A better method is the inductive method of science in which one
lets the observations speak for themselves and sees if the model
can survive critical analysis. Contrary data should lead to the
rejection or modification of the model."
Wow, did you really say this - that observations (or evidence)
should speak for itself? What happened to the mantra 'evidence
needs to be interpreted'?
Thank you for the observation that there is currently no viable
flood model. As I'm convinced that the earth is old based on
evidence I'm sure there will never be a viable flood model. In
building your own model I'm sure you will consider all contrary
observations/evidence.
Mark
Shaun Doyle responds
Note two important things about this article:
It is an in-house debate: the reliability of the relevant
biblical texts is not in question in this article.
Finding evidence consistent with Noah’s Flood is not the
same thing as finding evidence consistent with a particular
Flood model. There is plenty of readily observable evidence that
is far easier to explain in the context of a global watery
cataclysm than in a deep-time context (e.g. Sedimentary
blankets, It’s plain to see, ‘Millions of years’ are missing,
Was the Flood global?). However, judging between different Flood
models is much more difficult because the solid testimonial data
has typically been exhausted for information, so we are left to
deliberate between different Flood models on the physical
evidence and the validity of the subsidiary assumptions
different investigators make. (See Flood models and biblical
realism)
In this light, the conclusion advocates an inductive approach to
Flood modelling, and so is clearly advocating this within the
biblical framework. The truth or relevance of Scripture is not
questioned, but there is a lot that the Bible doesn’t say that
would be relevant to Flood modelling. As such, Flood modellers
investigate the physical evidence assuming that Scripture
provides the reliable starting point for all Flood models.
Our statement in the preface is also made within this same
context. The Bible is infallible, but Flood models are not. The
Bible is clear enough that there was a global watery tectonic
cataclysm about 4,500 years ago, and that is the non-negotiable
starting point of all Flood modelling. However, given the
subjective nature of the physical evidence, the fact that Flood
modelling is a relatively young enterprise, and the fact that
most research done on the relevant evidence has been done in an
antithetical framework which requires painstaking reanalysis and
reinterpretation, Flood modellers clearly have a huge task ahead
of them.
Jonathan G., United States, 7 April 2013
Mike, you've done a fantastic job on this article. I am sure you
put far more work into it than most of realize, and I appreciate
your careful and thoughtful and well-referenced approach.
I had forgotten the gist of Brown's model. Now that I read your
critique here, I remember why I had forgotten it. (Sorry. I know
that sounds harsh of me. It's true though). While I like the
idea of a layer of water under the continents, much of what
Brown puts forth stretches credulity -- the launching of rocks
into space, God's designing a not-so-very-good planet that would
explode, etc.
I just want you to know how much I appreciate your painstaking
approach, and the attention to detail.
Jonathan G., United States, 7 April 2013
The above looks to be an interesting article, and I plan to to
read it today. Thank you for putting in the effort to research
it and to write it.
Question: What precisely do you mean when you say: "submit his
model ... to the Journal in order to have it pass through the
refining fire of robust criticism in the normal scientific
fashion"? He has published a book, right? So there is the model,
right there in the book, and everyone is free to critique it, as
in fact you are doing now in the present article. When you say
"submit", are you expecting him to change his text in response
to your feedback?
Carl Wieland responds
Jonathan, I think that included in what was meant was this:
publication in a formal journal would have meant a protocol
which would not only have allowed critique, it would have meant
that the author of the paper proposing the model (or aspects of
it) would have had a formal right of reply to his critics, with
the normal rules of scientific exchange and openness, so people
could see pro and con arguments together. Our suggestion is that
any new concept in creationist thought and research is, ideally,
best exposed first to formal criticism in a technical setting,
to see how it survives, as it were, prior to being published in
a form for a lay audience. However, I readily acknowledge that
this ideal has not always been followed, including by us, and as
such it would not have been worthy of such detailed comment. The
reason for finally publishing this is because we keep on getting
hassled about why we don't stock the book, and so to explain we
have to start giving critical comments 'behind a person's back',
as it were, which is not the intent.
Jeannette P., United Kingdom, 7 April 2013
Good science involves the willingness to change, or even
discard, a hypothesis if it appears untenable.
I had never heard of Dr Walter Brown or the ‘Hydroplate’ Flood
model, (and as a non Geologist, find this article too technical
to understand fully); but it does seem strange if he is
unwilling to submit his thesis to peer review of other
Creationist scientists. Of course, it cannot be easy if one has
spent years perhaps developing a thesis, to submit to having it
criticised. However, being willing, if necessary, to discard a
pet idea (as long as it involves no challenge to our basics of
faith) should be easier for a Christian than anyone else. Having
a problem with this means it has become an “idol” and NEEDS to
be let go for that reason alone. After all, it is not the same
as having one’s worldview under attack, as would happen if the
thesis was submitted to Evolutionist scientists!
Creationists base their studies on the presupposition that the
Genesis account is historically reliable. That the Flood
happened should be a non-negotiable tenet of faith. However,
research and discussion on HOW it happened is permissible
because it has no effect on our basic beliefs.
Evolutionists base their studies on the presupposition that
evolution happened. That is to them a non-negotiable "tenet of
faith". But again, research and discussion on HOW it happened is
permissible in Evolutionist circles because it has no effect on
basic beliefs
#Post#: 343--------------------------------------------------
Re: MO/GRAND CANYON
By: Admin Date: September 14, 2021, 10:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
On the Disproportion between Geological Time and Historical
Time. Part Two - of Earth, Fire and Water [Journals] [SIS
Review]
... place they graded laterally into each other and elsewhere
intertongued vertically. The stratigraphy contradicts the idea
that one rock is 200 million years older than the other. (NB.
Vertical scale is 4 times horizontal scale.) Figure 4 depicts
the rock strata found on the North Kaibab Trail where a sign
announces the transition. Waisgerber, Howe and Williams, who
examined the area, searched the strata above and below the
contact-line for erosional features, but found none. All the
beds were horizontal, and the interface between the two types of
limestone was smooth, without pronounced incisions, broken rock
or gravel. On the contrary, it was clear that Cambrian and
Carboniferous rock had been laid down successively. When
individual beds were traced along the rockface north or south,
Muav limestone was seen to grade into Redwall limestone and vice
versa without interruption of bedding planes. Similarly, in the
vertical direction, Redwall limestone beds were succeeded by
Muav beds, which in turn gave way to Redwall, apparently going
as easily back in time as they went forward. Slivers of
micaceous shale and patches of mottled limestone both below and
above the contact-line also indicated simultaneous deposition
[11]. The sedimentary rocks which comprise the Colorado Plateau
cover an area of some 250,000 square miles, extending across
most of Utah and Arizona and much of Colorado and New Mexico.
According to the uniformitarian view, they accumulated over a
period of 570 million years, from the Cambrian to the present
day, during which time there were numerous changes of
environment, subsidences and uplifts. Yet from the bottom to the
top the strata rise horizontally, without warping or
indentations, as if they were all precipitated over a brief
period by a series of massive cataclysms. Such vast layers of
sedimentary rock do not resemble the gradual deposits of an
ancient sea. The mineral composition of the rocks is too
homogeneous, unlike the detritus at the bottom of the seas
today. One naturally asks, where did the huge quantities of
limestone (or whatever other rock) originally come from, if they
accumulated by ordinary processes of erosion and sedimentation.
What was eroded, if not the seabed itself - and where? The
ordinary processes of marine erosion observed today produce
nothing comparable, because the seabed is not only the product
but the object of erosion, and sediments are merely recycled. As
Ager puts it: "There are plenty of areas of sea-floor with
Recent sedimentary cover of sorts, but - at least on the inner
shelves - this nearly always seems to be moving to and fro and
not building up. ... In fact, ... I have always been struck by
the paucity of oceanic sediments in the continental areas. We
can get rid of much of it by subduction, but certain orogenic
episodes (notably the Variscan) seem to have very little to show
of the ocean floor." [12] The strata show no evidence of
long-period erosion. Moreover, the only erosive agents observed
today are occasional rivers, such as the Colorado itself, which
did not begin to gouge its way through the Plateau until the
Pliocene period, but then in the geologically brief period from
the Pliocene to the present day cut right down to pre-Cambrian
layers a mile beneath the surface. As the Mount St Helens
eruption showed, a mud flow can erode a canyon 100 feet deep in
days; a laminated deposit of volcanic ash 25 feet deep can be
laid down in hours [13]. Another anomaly in the way of those who
would impose a Darwinist interpretation on the Grand Canyon is
the discovery of fossil pollen grains in Precambrian strata.
This was reported in 1966 by Burdick, and confirmed in 1988 by
Howe, Williams, Matzko and Lammerts. Both gymnosperm and
angiosperm pollen were found (pollen from conifers and
*****************************************************