The geologic column

The Geological Column Is a General Flood Order with Many Exceptions

Michael Oard

Abstract

The question of whether the geological column represents an exact sequence of Flood events or not is controversial among creationist geologists. Local stratigraphic sections seem to line up with the general order of the geological column at hundreds of locations around the world. But there are many problems with the details, such as 1) the geological column is a vertical or stratigraphic representation abstracted from rock units that are mainly found laterally adjacent to each other in the field, 2) research continues to expand fossil stratigraphic ranges, 3) different names are given to the same or a similar organism when found in different-aged strata, 4) taxonomic manipulation, 5) anomalous fossils, and 6) out-of-order fossils. Walker's model, based solely on the Bible, is advocated for analyzing the rock record and is based on the true mechanism for the deposition of the strata. Comparing Walker's model to the geological column reveals several surprises. First, sedimentary rocks labeled Precambrian (if from the Flood), Paleozoic, and Mesozoic strata are early Flood. Second, Cenozoic strata can be early Flood, late Flood or post-Flood depending upon the location and the particular fossil used to define the Cenozoic. Third, Flood deposition is highly nonlinear with a large percentage of strata deposited early in the Flood.

Introduction

Figure 1. Walker's biblical geological model, modified by Klevberg.

Figure 2. Tilted Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata at the northwest edge of the Bighorn Basin at Clark Canyon adjacent to the southeast Beartooth Mountains.

Figure 3. The erosional remnant of Red Butte near the south rim of the Grand Canyon (view south from the north rim). The butte is 300 m above the planation surface at the top of the Grand Canyon.

The subject of how the geological column fits into Flood geology and the order of events before, during, and after the Flood is quite controversial within creationism. Some creationists advocate that the geological column is an exact representation of the events of the Flood and possibly post-Flood deposition, minus the uniformitarian timescale. In other words, the Cambrian is early in the Flood, followed by the Ordovician, etc., all over the world according to the exact order of the geological column. In that scheme, Mesozoic would be considered middle Flood or late Flood, depending upon where one places the Flood/post-Flood boundary, and the Cenozoic would be either late Flood or post-Flood. Other creationists want to throw out the entire geological column. Still others believe that it is a general sequence with many exceptions.

I will argue the middle position here: the geological column is a general Flood sequence with many exceptions. Furthermore, I advocate viewing the rocks and fossils through Flood glasses—through the actual mechanism that produced the rocks and fossils, the Genesis Flood. Why look at the rocks and fossils through a false philosophical system based on the hypotheses of uniformitarianism, an old Earth, evolution, and naturalism? Since I believe that the geological column is a general sequence of the Flood, I expect some overlap between a Flood classification and the geological column.

I advocate the model or classification of Walker (1994), which is similar to the model derived by Whitcomb and Morris in The Genesis Flood (1961). Although Froede (1995) produced a similar model, I prefer Walker's model mainly because it is more developed with defining criteria for his stages and phases. Klevberg modified Walker's timescale for the stages to correspond with the Flood peaking on Day 150 (Figure 1), which seems to be the Scriptural position and also corresponds to the 21 weeks of prevailing and the 31 weeks of assuaging in the Whitcomb-Morris (1961) model.

Is the Geological Column a Global Sequence?

Secular scientists often claim that the fossil order represented by the geological column is an "absolute" global sequence. Is this true or just taken on faith?

In order to demonstrate that the geological column is a global sequence, four steps are necessary: (1) develop local columns for small areas, (2) tie local columns into a regional- or subcontinental-scale column, (3) integrate local and regional columns into a continental-scale column and (4) develop the overreaching global geological column. Presumably the first and second steps could be fairly straightforward, if the geology is uncomplicated and the lithology of the strata can be traced for long distances. But, in areas of tectonics, overthrusts (to be discussed below), and facies changes, the development of even a local column may be difficult or nearly impossible. The third and fourth steps become much more difficult since lithologies and fossils cannot be traced across continents and from continent to continent. It would seem that the task grows by orders of magnitude at these last two stages, becoming more hypothetical the greater the area of extrapolation. Woodmorappe (1999b, p. 24) noted:

As one moves from local all the way to global correlation by fossils, correlations become increasingly less empirical and more conceptual. This is because there are progressively greater differences (such as lithology, local fossil succession, and overall faunal character) as one moves even further geographically from a reference section in the type area.

The geological column was first developed at a local or regional scale before it was extrapolated to a global scale. The geological column was first set up in England, the Alps of Europe, and the Ural Mountains of Russia based on a number of assumptions (see Reed and Oard, 2006). It is possible that the formations in England may be well-behaved vertically and horizontally (this should be checked), so that the part of the column developed in England may be generally accurate. I question how well the Alps and the Permian from the Ural Mountains originally fit into the original geological column because of their distance from England.

Although it is claimed that evolution was not a guiding principle for the construction of the geological column in the early 1800s, the formations were nonetheless pigeonholed into slots based on fossil succession. In other words, the original column was not necessarily developed from lithology but mainly by a succession of index fossils. Index fossils are organisms that are assumed to have spread over much of the world and lived only a short time. Yes, "catastrophists" generally developed the column, but these catastrophists believed in multiple catastrophes in which the Genesis Flood was just the last and accounted for only the surficial "diluvium." Some of these catastrophists would be considered progressive creationists today, but others eventually succumbed completely to uniformitarianism. Fossil succession over long periods of time was the guiding principle, which essentially is the same as evolution. When biological evolution came on the scene, fossils succession became evolutionary progression with time. As it later turned out, much of the "diluvium" was the result of glaciation. So, the Genesis Flood, after first being relegated to producing only the surficial layer, was then rejected entirely by most scientists in the 1800s. Some scientists and theologians held on to a local or tranquil flood, although Scripture is abundantly clear that the Flood was catastrophic and covered the entire Earth.

Many people believe index fossils were supplemented by radiometric dating in the 1900s, but index fossils continue to have preeminence in dating. Radiometric dates must agree with the geological column, or the radiometric dates are assumed wrong for various reasons (McKee, 1972, pp. 24–30). As a result of this circular reasoning, there are countless problems in radiometric dating (Woodmorappe, 1999a;Vardiman et al., 2000). A new creationist research project, called RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth), has shown that in some instances the millions or billions of years are very likely the result of accelerated radiometric decay on a young Earth (Vardiman et al., 2005).

Even if the fossil succession is more or less accurate for England, the question of the validity of the geological column really boils down to how well the original fossil order from England represents a worldwide order? This question must be answered empirically. The literature indicates that a general order seems to exist but problems occur in the details. This does not imply that an evolutionary order exists, but it is a burial sequence during the Genesis Flood.

Local Columns Show General Order

The justification for the global column is that the small number of index fossils in any one area still line up vertically in their expected order. Of course, creationists should verify this vertical order, especially in view of the problems discussed below.

Trilobites and dinosaurs, organisms from different environments, illustrate the concept of a vertical fossil relationship. If every outcrop shows dinosaurs always superimposed above trilobites, we can have general confidence that this relationship holds as a worldwide relationship in the Flood. Furthermore, if we find a region with just trilobites, we can surmise that the strata were laid down earlier than strata containing dinosaurs in another region. Because of the many problems listed below, there may be exceptions. So, in this case dinosaurs above trilobites would be considered a general Flood order.

Figure 4. Unique erosional forms in Clarion Formation of Bryce Canyon National Park.

Figure 5. Trilobite tracks from the Grand Canyon.

Figure 6. Nautiloid from the Grand Canyon.

Dinosaurs and trilobites lived in quite different environments, and we would expect that to be reflected in the vertical order of their fossils in the Flood. However, I would be more cautious in developing a vertical order with organisms from the same or similar environments, such as various types of trilobites, cephalopods, foraminifers, diatoms, etc. They mostly live in a marine environment and during the Flood could have become vertically superimposed in any order, unless there were other factors that could cause systematic vertical relationships, such as ecological zonation, horizontal separation, etc.

The general order of the geological column (Paleozoic below Mesozoic below Cenozoic) seems to be correct on a broad scale in north central Wyoming and south central Montana. Paleozoic strata with trilobites, brachiopods, etc. and Mesozoic strata with dinosaur fossils are commonly found in the mountains, while Cenozoic strata with fossil mammals predominantly occupy the basins and valleys. Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata are often tilted at a high angle at a basin edge against granite intrusions and uplifts of sedimentary rocks in the northern Rocky Mountains (Figure 2), while the Cenozoic strata are nearly flat-lying in the center of the basins. The uplifted Bighorn and Beartooth Mountains and the Bighorn Basin in between are a good example. The Cenozoic strata of the Bighorn Basin and the adjacent Clarks Fork Basin to the north are well known for their fossil mammals. These Cenozoic basin fills postdate the strata in the surrounding mountains. Assuming that the Paleozoic and Mesozoic have typical index fossils for those periods, the order of the fossils lines up with the geological column in this area.

Another example is the Grand Staircase in northern Arizona and southern Utah. Although the Grand Staircase is both a vertical and horizontal relationship, in that the Mesozoic strata lie predominantly to the north of the exposed Paleozoic strata of Grand Canyon, there is strong evidence that the Mesozoic strata once lay above the Paleozoic Grand Canyon. The Mesozoic strata were later eroded, leaving remnants such as 300 m-high Red Butte along the southeast rim of the Grand Canyon (Figure 3). However, I would question the Cenozoic age of the Wasatch Formation on top of the Mesozoic section in Utah. I believe this formation was assigned to the Cenozoic based on the assumption that strata on top of Mesozoic must be early Cenozoic, and since the Wasatch Formation crops out in basins to the north, the top strata likely were simply rubberstamped as the Cenozoic Wasatch Formation. However, the top formation of the Grand Staircase is no longer considered to be the Wasatch Formation; it is the Clarion Formation (Harris et al., 1997, pp. 43–54). However, the Clarion Formation is still considered to be Cenozoic.

The unique erosional forms of Bryce Canyon were carved in the Clarion Formation (Figure 4). Fossils in the Clarion Formation are not abundant (Harris et al., 1997, pp. 52–53), so it is unlikely that fossils can be used to determine its age. If the formation was actually "Mesozoic," then only two of the three Phanerozoic eras of the geological column are represented in the Grand Staircase.

I question the finer time divisions within the Paleozoic or Mesozoic, such as the division between the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc. The Paleozoic commonly contains marine deposits (one exception being the claim that the Coconino sandstone is a desert deposit, which is debatable). The environmental interpretation is based on marine fossils such as trilobite tracks (Figure 5) and nautiloids (Figure 6) found in the Grand Canyon and at other locations. It is likely these organisms lived before the Flood, and so the Paleozoic represents a marine burial sequence, possibly by ecological zonation. Between the Cambrian Muav Limestone and the Devonian Temple Butte Limestone, the Ordovician and Silurian periods, with their 120 million years of geological time, are missing. The contact between the Muav and Temple Butte is a disconformity, a break in deposition or an erosional event between parallel beds. Figure 7 shows a fold at the disconformity, implying little if any time gap, because the lower limestone formation should have already been lithified and thus could not have been folded parallel to the upper formation. If the geological column is an exact Flood sequence, this disconformity would represent a period of erosion or nondeposition between the Muav and Temple Butte Limestones during the Flood. However, if the geological column is merely a general order, there is no reason to suggest a period of nondeposition or erosion between the two limestones. The specific index fossils for those periods simply were not deposited. I might add that the Ordovician and Silurian are also considered absent in practically all of Montana (Perry, 1962, p. 24), likely because of missing index fossils. If someone found an index fossil for the Ordovician, you can be sure that strata now labeled Cambrian or Devonian would become Ordovician or Silurian.

Reed (2005) advocated that creationists with geological knowledge become familiar with the geology and paleontology of their local area for eventual regional scale investigation. We can focus just on the rock record and develop our own local geological columns. In this way we would be able to analyze the rock record from each local area and relate it to a global Flood model.

Problems for the Geological Column

Despite propaganda by evolutionary and uniformitarian scientists that the fossil order is an exact global order with time, there are numerous problems and anomalies that make this assertion questionable. I can only briefly mention these problems, since they could be amplified into a whole book.

1) Vertical Sequence of Geological Column is often Horizontal in the Field

Figure 7. Disconformity between the Muav Limestone and Temple Butte Limestone in the Grand Canyon. Notice how folding affects both formations.

Figure 8. Part of Wyodak coal seam just east of Gillette, Wyoming.

Figure 9. Wollemi Pine from Blue Mountains of New South Wales (courtesy of Creation Ministries International, Australia)

Many think that the geological column is a vertical, onion-skinned model, which has the same vertical sequence in most areas. Actually, the vertical fossil scheme is mostly derived from lateral relationships. The reason for this is because only a small number of the ten Phanerozoic geological periods are represented as a vertical sequence in any local area, defined for analysis purposes by Woodmorappe as a 406 by 406 km square (Woodmorappe, 1999d). Two-thirds of Earth's land surface has five or fewer of the ten geological periods in place. Only 15–20% of Earth's land surface has even three geological periods in correct order. This is a conservative estimate in favor of the geological column because Woodmorappe used any suggestion of a period being in a square as evidence that the period existed in that particular square. His squares are so large that it was difficult to establish a single vertical sequence because of tectonics, facies changes, etc., and many of these local geological columns should be verified lithologically. Regardless, the global and continental columns mainly represent a horizontal sequence. Unless there are better empirical correlations, it may be difficult to know the exact time sequence in the Flood over such large areas.

For instance, the late Paleozoic is well represented by coal from trees such as lycopods in the Appalachian Mountains, while in Montana and Wyoming the coal (Figure 8) contains angiosperms and gymnosperms. The coal in Montana and Wyoming is dated as "early Cenozoic," much younger than the Appalachian lycopods in the geological column. But, the different trees really represent a horizontal separation. Whether or not the different plants making up the coals represent a time sequence in the Flood must be determined empirically.

The horizontal relationship of index fossils is also a global phenomenon (Woodmorappe, 1999b). In a study of 34 index fossils, Woodmorappe found that only rarely are more than a third and never more than a half of these index fossils simultaneously present in any 320 km-diameter region on Earth. And even those index fossils found in a particular region are rarely vertically superimposed.

The problem is that it is doubtful enough that these local relationships can be traced horizontally to know whether the global geological column really represents a vertical sequence. For example, the coals from the Appalachians and from the Montana/Wyoming area could have been laid down at the same time in the Flood.

So, the global geological column is built by extrapolating periods and index fossils from each area into a global sequence. How well this global sequence lines up with reality and represents a Flood order requires much more research, but I am skeptical that each period in the geological column represents a consistent part of an absolute sequence of events in the Flood model.

2) Changing Fossil Ranges in the Geological Column

In order to discuss fossil order, we need to know the three-dimensional distribution of fossils. Fossils come from scattered outcrops and boreholes; we know very little of the subsurface distribution of fossils. The more scientists examine the rocks, the more the ranges of fossils are extended in the geological column (Woodmorappe, 1999e, pp. 135–136).

For instance, organisms thought to have been extinct for millions of years sometimes are found alive in remote locations on Earth. These organisms are called living fossils. Logically, these organisms must have lived during later geological periods where their fossils have not been discovered. If this applies to many other organisms, fossil ranges for many organisms can be greatly extended upward toward the present.

One of the most recent outstanding examples of a living fossil is the Wollemi Pine (Figure 9), found in a gorge in the Blue Mountains, 200 kilometers west of Sydney, Australia (Wieland, 1995). The Wollemi Pine was thought extinct since the Jurassic period—about 150 million years ago on the uniformitarian timescale. This means that the Wollemi Pine should exist in strata between the Jurassic and the present. One researcher described the discovery like "finding a live dinosaur" (Wieland, 1995). Obviously, no evolution of the Wollemi pine has occurred for an alleged 150 million years. Given its absence in strata younger than "Jurassic," those 150 million years may never have existed. One would expect abundant Wollemi pine fossils during this 150 million-year period. Catastrophic burial about 4,500 years ago is a better explanation for living fossils, such as the Wollemi pine.

A sponge, called Nucha? vancouverensis sp. nov., was found in the upper Triassic of Vancouver Island (Stanley, 1998). Surprisingly, this sponge is nearly identical to one previously found only in the Middle Cambrian of western New South Wales, Australia, which was named Nucha naucum (Oard, 2000). The fossil has not been found in strata within the supposed 300 million intervening years. Assuming that the paleontological analysis on these sponges is correct, the range of Nucha is significantly expanded upward in the geological column, and one wonders whether the 300 million years between the Cambrian and the Permian are real. The above situations are not rare (Stanley, 1998). These examples should make us aware that paleontologists do not know the three-dimensional distribution of fossils, and that the many millions of years between the same or similar fossils may not exist.

Fossil ranges have also been extended downward in the geological column. For instance, vertebrates have been pushed back into the Cambrian (Oard, 1996a; 2004a) where 50% to possibly as high as 85% of all phyla originated in what is now called the Cambrian Big Bang (Meyer et al., 2003). Sharks have been pushed back 25 million years into the Late Ordovician (Oard, 1996a). Vascular plants have also been pushed back 25 million years into the Early Silurian (Oard, 1996a). Based on tracks, arthropods invaded the land 40 million years earlier (Late Cambrian) than previously thought (MacNaughton et al., 2002; Oard, 2003). The discovery of a possible winged insect would push back the origin of winged insects and flight by more than 80 million years into the early Silurian, which in turn has caused the supposed first land plants to be pushed back into the Ordovician (Engel and Grimaldi, 2004; Oard, 2004b).

If their analysis of organic molecules is correct, evolutionists believe that they have pushed back the origin of eukaryote cells one billion years to 2.7 billion years ago in the late Archean (Brocks et al., 1999; Oard, 2001a). This raises interesting questions for both evolutionists and creationists. Where are the remains of all the billions of organisms with eukaryote cells that lived between 2.7 billion years ago and the time of the Cambrian Big Bang (500 million years ago) in the evolutionary model? Since the molecules were found in sedimentary rocks, does this mean that Archean and Proterozoic sedimentary rocks are from the Flood?

3) Different Names for the Same or Similar Fossil from Different Ages

It is not an uncommon phenomenon to find the same or similar fossils in strata of different ages that have been given different names. Very few non-specialists would be aware of this phenomenon. This practice masks the true range of fossils within the geological column. Tosk (1988) documented that the same or similar foraminifera are not only given different names when found in strata of different ages, but also are sometimes placed in different superfamilies. Woodmorappe (1999f) found that much of the stratigraphic order of cephalopods is due to time-stratigraphic concepts and taxonomic manipulation. Both cephalopods and foraminifera are important index fossils.

The same situation occurs with plants. Rees et al. (2000, p. 301) complain:

Indeed, it is sometimes necessary to 'side-step' traditional paleobotanical taxonomy, which is often hindered by political and regional biases (ensuring a highly specialized local but limited global view), as well as stratigraphic biases (with what is effectively the 'same' fossil plant type being assigned to a different genus or species depending upon its age).

4) Taxonomic Manipulation

Another problem mentioned by Woodmorappe (1999f) is that slightly different features in cephalopods have been used to date a layer of strata to a different age. These slightly different biological features cause one type of organism to be split into a different species, genera, families, etc. Since taxonomic splitters have had the upper hand in taxonomy, how meaningful are such taxonomic and age manipulations to the geological column? We know that species of living organisms, like dogs and pigeons, have a great morphological variety. How do we know whether the variety found in an extinct organism is not from intraspecies variation? Within creationist biological terms, such variation would be considered within the same Genesis kind or baramin.

For example, one type of trilobite might date a layer as Cambrian while a slight change in anatomy in another trilobite in another layer will cause that particular layer to be dated as Silurian. Are they different kinds of trilobites or variations within one kind?

These problems make it difficult to take seriously the separation of the periods within the Paleozoic and Mesozoic. The Paleozoic may simply represent mostly marine deposition during the Flood. Tri-lobites buried at nearly the same time are assigned from the Cambrian to the Permian in the uniformitarian system. On the other hand, the organisms of the Mesozoic are much different, and generally above Paleozoic fossils where they are found vertically superimposed. So, the order of the geological column seems like a general sequence from a Flood depositional point of view, but with lots of exceptions in the details.

5) Anomalous Fossils

Evolutionists often tell us that there are no contradictions to the evolutionary fossil order. However, they have to explain many anomalies in order to make the geological column "consistent." One type of anomaly is finding two fossils of different ages in the same layer.

If the evolutionist cannot extend the stratigraphic range of the fossils, he must determine which fossil represents the true "age." If the strata are considered young, the "old" fossil is simply assumed to have been "reworked," eroded from "much older" strata and incorporated into younger sediments. Often, their only criterion for reworking is an expected evolutionary order rather than the condition of the fossil. However, if "old" organisms are reworked into "young" strata, wouldn't the "old" fossil be pulverized?

In the opposite case, a "young" fossil is found in "old" strata, and evolutionists assume that the "younger" organism was buried within "old" sediment and fossilized. This is called "downwash." This could happen if a "young" organism became trapped and fossilized in a cave, sinkhole, or bog within "old" sediment or sedimentary rock. If the strata remain unconsolidated until after the "young" organism is buried, it would be difficult for the "old" organism to have remain unfossilized for millions of years.

Figure 10. Lewis "overthrust" northeast of Marias Pass, Montana (view northeast). The "Precambrian" Altyn Dolomite is the light colored layer in the center of the picture while the Appekunny argillite is the dark colored rock above. "Cretaceous" shale lies below the dolomite. Note the horizontal beds of the shale, which are either undeformed or only mildly deformed below the contact.

Figure 11. The contact of the Lewis "overthrust" northeast of Marias Pass.

Figure 12. Close-up of the contact of the Lewis "overthrust" northeast of Marias Pass. There are stringers of Altyn dolomite in shale below contact.

Whether a fossil is considered reworked or down-washed should not depend on preconceived ideas about age or fossil succession; there should be evidence for such an event.

Woodmorappe (1999c, pp. 87–92) compiled 200 published instances of anomalous fossils from the literature. This was not an exhaustive search. Most of these instances involved microfossils, which is why I am especially skeptical of the biostratigraphy of various microfossil groups, such as foraminifers and diatoms. Taxonomic manipulation, along with reworking, casts doubt on the use of microfossils as index fossils. Anomalous fossil occurrences are not rare (Woodmorappe, 1999c, pp. 92–94). Furthermore, if evolutionists under-report examples of anomalous fossils, they may be quite common, while evidence for reworking or downwash is rare! It seems that reworking is just an ad hoc explanation to make the geological column "consistent." The real impact of anomalous fossils would be to broaden the fossil range in the geological column, thereby reducing confidence in index fossils.

6) Out-of-Order Fossils

A second type of anomaly in the fossil record is the situation in which "older" fossils are found above rocks that contain "young" fossils. These out-of-order fossils are the opposite of the evolutionary hypothesis. Out-of-order fossils are considered "impossible" by evolutionists, and so are dismissed as the result of overthrusting. An overthrust involves "older" strata being pushed over "younger" strata at an angle less than 45°.

Robinson (1996, p. 35) claimed that overthrusts are based on geophysical evidence and not out-of-order fossils. This is true for some, but the Lewis overthrust in Montana and Alberta (Figures 10–12) was identified based on fossils. In the Lewis "overthrust," Precambrian rocks supposedly slid tens of kilometers eastward up a low slope over "Cretaceous" rocks. There is a 900 million-year out-of-order time gap at the Lewis "overthrust," and this time gap was first based on out-of-order fossils. Bailey Willis (1902), who first hypothesized the "overthrust," found "Precambrian crustacean shells" in the upper block above the "Cretaceous" strata. The Lewis Overthrust may or may not be a true overthrust, but the determination should be made by geological and geophysical methods and not by fossils.

Another famous example of an overthrust is the Heart Mountain detachment in north central Wyoming. It is not a true overthrust but the upper block actually slid down a slight incline and broke up into many smaller blocks. That is why it is now called a detachment fault. Heart Mountain north of Cody, Wyoming, is the most famous example (Figure 13). The Heart Mountain Detachment is real and there is evidence for motion, such as broken rock at the detachment surface (Beutner and Gerbi, 2005). So in this case, there is a structural explanation for the out-of-order fossils.

A modern analog for the Heart Mountain Detachment (Oard, 1996b) was discovered when large blocks of lava detached from Hawaii and slid into the deep ocean (Moore et al., 1995). In the South Kona Landslide, one huge block broke up into large pieces, up to 700 m high and 11.5 by 7.5 km in area. It slid up to 80 km oceanward—the last 40 km over relatively flat ocean bottom. These blocks are larger than the Heart Mountain Detachment blocks. Most uniformitarian geologists believe that the Heart Mountain Detachment was catastrophic, occurring within a matter of minutes or hours (Beutner and Gerbi, 2005).

In such cases, there is evidence of overthrusting or reverse faulting. A reverse fault is the case where a block is shoved up over other rock at an angle greater than 45°. I believe that there is evidence of thick-skinned reverse faults and even overthrusts. For instance, in some regions of the Bighorn and northeast Beartooth Mountains of south central Montana and north central Wyoming, granite has been pushed east or northeast up an approximately 30° slope (Wise, 2000; Stone, 2003). Such thick-skinned (granite is involved) overthrusts are supported by seismic profiles and wells drilled on the eastern edge of the granite that pass into sedimentary rock.

The fault zone of the Beartooth thrust consists of 21 m of shattered granite above 37 m of severely faulted sedimentary rocks (Wise, 2000, p. 366). Such evidence should also exist with thin-skinned "over-thrusts," in which sedimentary rock is pushed over sedimentary rock. However, I have seen a number of overthrusts in Montana and southern Alberta where there is usually little or no evidence for displacements of km to tens of km uphill over a slope less than 45° (Woodmorappe, 1999c, pp. 86–87).

Some "overthrusts" display a reversed metamorphic grade in which the upper block is more highly meta-morphosed than the lower block. Metamorphism is supposed to increase with increasing depth. So, this is support for the overthrust concept in these cases. However, it is possible that the metamorphic grade associated with "overthrusts" could be chemically caused (Silvestru, personal communication) or caused by the migration of heat and fluids during deformation (Hubbard, 1996). Overthrusts, if they are real, could possibly be explained by catastrophic underwater emplacements during the Flood. Creationists need a comprehensive analysis of overthrusts.

Figure 13. Heart Mountain, northwest Bighorn Basin. The light colored strata at the top of Heart Mountain are "Paleozoic" limestone and dolomite, which lies on top of valley fill sediments (view south southeast).

When one realizes that there are hundreds of alleged overthrusts (they seem to occur in most mountain ranges of the world), and that mountains are usually the few places to observe a thick vertical sequence, one is forced to conclude that out-of-order strata are common. A real overthrust should show abundant physical evidence; relying just on fossils is unreasonable. If these strata cannot be tied to a real overthrust, then the fossil distribution in the geological column is contrary to evolutionary predictions.

Does the Geological Column Represent the Flood Depositional Sequence?

These problems should make any creationist cautious in applying the geological column to the Flood. We seem to be divided by those who believe that the geological column is an exact sequence of the Flood and those who want to entirely discard the column. After many years, I have come to the conclusion that the geological column represents the general order of the Flood with many exceptions, and that its application should be made with caution for the reasons enumerated above.

In examining fossils and fossil successions with regard to the Flood, we must distinguish between animals that survived the Flood and those that did not. This distinction will help determine whether a fossil was buried by the Flood or is post-Flood. The animals that God brought onboard the Ark were a male and female of each unclean kind and seven of each clean kind. These animals had to be terrestrial and breath air (Genesis 7:21, 22).

The Genesis kind cannot be equated with modern species in many cases (Woodmorappe, 1999e, p. 136). If the kind is at the genus level, the ark needed only 16,000 animals (Woodmorappe, 1996), primarily mammals, birds, and reptiles. Many other organisms could have survived the Flood outside the Ark. Therefore, all mammals, reptiles (including dinosaurs), and likely all birds had to be dead by the time the water started retreating off the land around Day 150 (Genesis 7:22-8:3). So, evidence of a live mammal or reptile would indicate either an early Flood or post-Flood time. Marine organisms, such as foraminifers, could potentially represent early Flood, late Flood, or post Flood.

1) Walker's Model

To bypass all the confusion with the geological column, I advocate Walker's (1994) model of the Flood (Figure 1). Viewing the strata through flawed uniformitarian concepts does not seem logical. So, we need to put on our "Flood glasses" when looking at the rocks and fossils. Walker's model was derived directly from the Bible apart from the geological column or any other philosophical presupposition. It also provides a template for examining how the geological column relates to the Flood.

Walker's (1994) model is at odds with even the relative dating of the column. For example, Walker (1996a) classified the basement rocks around the Brisbane area as being from the Eruptive Phase of the Inundatory Stage of the Flood—its very beginning, even though these rocks are generally dated as middle Paleozoic in the geological column. Walker (1996b) then assigned the shale and sandstone deposits of the Great Artesian Basin to the upper Zenithic Phase of the Inundatory Stage (just before the floodwater peaked). The strata of this basin cover an area of 1,800,000 km2 and are over 2,000 m in thickness. They are dated as mostly Jurassic and Cretaceous in the geological column, but represent the first half of the Flood. Thus, in eastern Australia, the Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata are early Flood.

2) Precambrian to Mesozoic Strata in the Rocky Mountains

In the Rocky Mountain region of the United States, Precambrian sedimentary rocks commonly outcrop in mountain ranges and their thickness indicates that they represent deposits from large, isolated basins that have uplifted. Examples include the Belt Supergroup that forms the northern Rockies of western Montana and northern and central Idaho, the Uinta Mountains in northeast Utah, and the Precambrian sedimentary rocks in the eastern Grand Canyon. Whether these Precambrian sedimentary rocks are pre-Flood or Flood has not yet been resolved.

Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata can form large sheets over extensive areas such as the Great Plains, but they are generally broken and tilted in the mountains in the western United States, except for the Colorado Plateau. It is possible that the Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata in the Rocky Mountains were once continuous over the region like on the Colorado Plateau.

Tracks are one of Walker's (1994, p. 589) defining criteria for the Inundatory Stage. The Mesozoic of the Rocky Mountains and High Plains has millions of dinosaur tracks, as well as thousands of eggs, on flat bedding planes. It seems obvious that these tracks and eggs are from the Flood, and since they represent live dinosaurs, the Mesozoic in this area would be from the Inundatory Stage, early in the Flood (Oard, 2004d, pp. 103–105). So, these Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata were deposited early in the Flood, similar to eastern Australia. Although the general sequence of Paleozoic to Mesozoic seems valid, the periods within those eras may not represent an exact sequence, since the Devonian in one place may be deposited before the Cambrian in another.

3) The "Cenozoic" can be Early Flood, Late Flood, or Post Flood

The "Cenozoic," on the other hand, is the most problematic (Oard, 2001 c, pp. 89–90). It generally fills basins in the Rocky Mountains and outcrops as sheets on the High Plains. There are indications of erosion of many hundreds and even a few thousand meters of rock in these areas (Oard, 1996, 2001b, Oard and Klevberg, 2005). The high areas of the western United States are a scoured surface. That is why there is so much bedrock close to the surface in those areas. There is clear evidence for sheet erosion followed by channelized erosion, which correspond to Walker's two phases of the Recessional Stage of the Flood (figure 1). This erosion must have occurred mainly in the Recessional Stage of the Flood between Days 150 and 371. So, much of the Cenozoic strata not eroded in the Rocky Mountain basins and High Plains were likely deposited during the Inundatory Stage of the Flood. Some of this strata is dated late Cenozoic in the geological column (Thompson et al., 1982), implying that "late Cenozoic" strata can be early Flood!

There also are mammal tracks in some of the Cenozoic strata in these basins that reinforce the deduction that most of the remaining Cenozoic strata were deposited in the Inundatory Stage (Lockley and Hunt, 1995, pp. 243–281; Oard, 1998, pp. 79–81). Based on Walker's (1994) model, tracks of mammals on Flood strata must have occurred in the Inundatory Stage. This evidence indicates that practically all strata, clear up to the Pliocene, in the higher areas of the western United States were deposited in the first half of the Flood during the Inundatory Stage.

Sediments eroded from the high areas of the western United States were redeposited far to the west and east. Eroded debris would have been deposited in deeper areas where currents would decrease. Strong currents eroding the uplifting western United States would have pulverized much of the rock, but the most resistant rocks would have been carried far from the source and deposited as a lag or as basin fill. The most resistant rock of significant volume is quartzite. Quartzite cobbles and boulders, well rounded by water, are found over 1000 km to the east and 700 km to the west of their Rocky Mountain sources (Oard et al., 2005, in press a; in press b). These quartzites are practically all dated as Cenozoic by mainstream geologists, based on included mammal fossils, especially in interbeds, but they would be part of the Recessional or late Stage of the Flood.

Furthermore, the eroded strata would have been redeposited on the continental shelf off the western U.S.—a Recessional Stage feature of the Flood (Walker, 1994; Spencer and Oard, 2004). The eroded material probably would also have been deposited in basins near the coast, such as the lower Mississippi River Valley. Much of the Cenozoic strata of Washington, Oregon, and California could be Recessional Stage sedimentation. Mammals, which are found in Cenozoic high western U.S. basins, should be mostly pulverized by the powerful recessional stage currents and turbulence, which Klevberg and Oard (1998) estimated would have flowed over 30 m/sec. The strata in these areas are generally dated as "Cenozoic" by microorganisms and terrestrial mammals. These Cenozoic strata would be a late Flood or Recessional Stage feature.

Massive Recessional Stage erosion may also explain sparse human fossils in sedimentary rocks. If human remains were mostly deposited in the upper sedimentary layers by Day 150, these layers would have been heavily eroded from currently high areas of Earth, pulverized, and deposited over lower areas (Austin et al., 1994, p. 614).

There is also the likelihood that some "Cenozoic" sediment on the bottom of the ocean, mostly dated by microfossils, is post-Flood, although microfossils could have been laid down early in the Flood, late in the Flood, or afterwards. Microorganisms would have proliferated in the oceans during the Recessional Stage of the Flood because of the huge amount of nutrients flowing into the ocean and mixing at all depths. High microorganism productivity would be expected to continue after the Flood due to the warm ocean and rapid overturning during the Ice Age that would help keep nutrient levels abundant in the upper layers of the ocean (Oard, 1990, pp. 70–75). The Flood probably deposited the deeper sediments while the upper sediments are likely post-Flood, although ocean bottom reworking (Thiede, 1981; Woodmorappe, 1999c, pp. 87–93) would result in exceptions. Some Paleocene ocean bottom sediments may be post-Flood, while some Pliocene sediments could be from the Flood, based on uncertainties in evolutionary microorganism classification.

Another indicator of post-Flood Cenozoic sediments on the bottom of the ocean is ice-rafted material. Ice rafting into the ocean would be expected in the middle to late Ice Age because of the need for sufficient time for glaciers and ice sheets to build and spread to the oceans, which were warm at the beginning of the Ice Age (Oard, 1990; 2004c). Ice rafted debris (if the interpretation is correct) is found in sediment dated by microfossils as Oligocene and Miocene (Oard, 1998, p. 81). Some of the sediment from the early Ice Age could be dated as Paleocene or Eocene by uniformitarians. If the oxygen isotope/temperature relation holds generally true for ocean bottom microorganisms, much of the Cenozoic shows a cooling trend, as would be expected in the oceans during the post-Flood Ice Age (Vardiman, 1996).

So, in the Flood model "Cenozoic" can be early Flood, late Flood or post-Flood, depending upon the location. This comparison is based on logical deductions from Walker's biblical geological model and the post-Flood Ice Age. The "Cenozoic," as a worldwide part of the geological column, can refer to almost any specific time in the Flood.

4) Nonlinear Flood Deposition

Many creationists have assumed a linear relationship between the geological column and the Flood and post-Flood period with the Cenozoic being late Flood or post-Flood (Garner et al., 1996). However, based on Walker's model and reasonable defining criteria for his stages and phases, Flood deposition appears highly nonlinear with respect to the geological column. Practically all the current strata in the high western United States (and probably some of that eroded) were deposited early in the Flood. It is highly unlikely that "Cenozoic" strata in the high western United States are post-Flood or even late Flood (Oard, 1996b; Oard and Whitmore, 2006; Oard, in prep; Oard and Klevberg, 2005). Thus, a vast amount of deposition occurred in the western United States early in the Flood. This has serious implications for any Flood model. Most creationist believe that the most violent part of the Flood was at the beginning with the start of the catastrophic mechanism, while the later half of the Flood was more subdued and mainly an erosional event caused by differential up or down motion of the crust and upper mantle (Oard, 2001b; 2001c). This generally goes along with the geological energy curve of Reed et al. (1996).

Summary

In this paper I have argued for a middle position between the creationist views of accepting the geological column as an exact, linear chronology of the Flood and those that want to dismiss the column altogether. I first outlined what must be accomplished in order to show that the geological column is an exact sequence for either the uniformitarian or Flood paradigm. One must develop local and regional columns that must be shown to have a continental and global consistency. However, more empirical local columns become more theoretical and speculative as one extrapolates to larger areas.

Secondly, I showed how the geological column seems to be generally consistent where observed in vertical sections in the western United States. This gives some confidence that the general order can be applied elsewhere in the world. However, the finer divisions of the eras, especially where the environment of the fossils is similar, should be questioned. Creationists should check every detail of the fossils and the lithology of the rocks to verify that the column is general and to see whether the details of the periods and subperiods line up. There are so many uniformitarian assumptions behind the geological column.

My third section provides reasons for skepticism of the details of the geological column. The geological column seems to be less a vertical sequence at any one location and more a broad horizontal sequence, which is based on index fossils from scattered outcrops that likely are difficult to correlate. Research continues to expand fossil ranges in the geological column, making suspect the use of index fossils for dating within short periods of time. Unfortunately, different names are given to the same or a similar fossil found in strata of different ages. Correct taxonomic classification would likely expand the time range of fossils.

There are several other problems that would significantly expand the time range of fossils, if the observed fossil distribution were the only input. These problems are taxonomic manipulations, anomalous fossils, and out-of-order fossils. All these problems are difficult to evaluate and cause an unwarranted reduction in the time range of fossils. A greater time range for index fossils used to date strata would especially make the fine divisions within the geological column questionable.

In the fourth section, I come back to the question of how well the geological column represents a Flood order of deposition. We should really be looking at the fossils and rocks by the mechanism that deposited them, and not by a system that was set up assuming the Flood never occurred and that Earth is old. That is why I recommend Walker's (1994) classification or model, which is based on reasonable deductions from Scripture. Walker uses classification criteria for his phases and stages of the Flood. When we use Walker's model, we find that much of the Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic strata were laid down in the Inundatory Stage or the first 150 days of the Flood. Furthermore, the Cenozoic strata can be early Flood, late Flood, or post-Flood depending upon what particular index fossil was used to classify the strata and the location. In other words, Flood sedimentation is highly nonlinear with most sediment deposited in the Inundatory Stage. The Recessive Stage represents mainly continental erosion and deposition on the continental margins.

References

Austin, S.A., J.R. Baumgardner, D.R. Humphreys, A.A. Snelling, L. Vardiman, and K.P. Wise, 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global Flood model of Earth history. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings ofthe Third International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 609–621. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
Beutner, E.C. and G.P. Gerbi. 2005. Catastrophic emplace¬ment of the Heart Mountain block slide, Wyoming and Montana, USA. GSA Bulletin 117:724–735.
Brock, J.J., G.A. Logan, R. Buick, and R.E. Summons. 1999. Archean molecular fossils and the early rise of eukaryotes. Science 285:1,033–1,036.
Engel, M.S. and D.A. Grimaldi. 2004. New light shed on the oldest insect. Nature 427:627–630.
Froede, C.R., Jr. 1995. A proposal for a creationist geological timescale. CRSQ 32:90–94.
Garner, P., S. Robinson, M. Garton, and D. Tyler, 1996. Comments on polar dinosaurs and the Genesis Flood. CRSQ 32 (4):232–234.
Harris, A.G., E. Tuttle, and S.D. Tuttle. 1997. Geology of National Parks (fifth edition). Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA.
Hubbard, M.S. 1996. Ductile shear as a cause of inverted metamorphism: example from the Nepal Himalaya. Journal of Geology 104:493–499.
Klevberg, P. and M.J. Oard. 1998. Paleohydrology of the Cypress Hills Formation and Flaxville gravel. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings ofthe Fourth International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 361–378. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
Lockley, M. and A.P. Hunt. 1995. Dinosaur tracks and other fossil footprints in the Western United States. Columbia University Press, New York.
MacNaughton, R.B., J.M. Cole, R.W. Dalrymple, S.J. Braddy, D.E.G. Briggs, and T.D. Lukie. 2002. First steps on land: arthropod trackways in Cambrian-Ordovician aeolian sandstone, southeastern Ontario, Canada. Geology 30:391–394.
McKee, B. 1972. Cascadia: the geological evolution of the Pacific Northwest. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Meyer, S.C., M. Ross, P. Nelson, and P. Chien. 2003. The Cambrian explosion: biology's big bang. In Campbell, J.A. and S.C. Meyer (editors), Darwin, design, and public education, pp. 323–402. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI.
Moore, J.G., W.B. Bryan, M.H. Beeson, and W.R. Normark. 1995. Giant blocks in the South Kona Landslide, Hawaii. Geology 23:125–128.
Oard, M.J., 1990. An ice age caused by the Genesis Flood. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
—— 1996a. Evolution pushed further into the past. TJ 10(2):171–172.
—— 1996b. Where is the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the rock record? TJ 10(2):258–278.
—— 1996c. Possible analogue for the Heart Mountain Detachment. TJ 10(1):3–4.
—— 1998. Dinosaurs in the Flood: a response. TJ 12(1):69–86.
—— 2000. How well do paleontologists know fossil distributions? TJ 14(1):7–8.
—— 2001 a. Supposed eukaryote evolution pushed back one billion years. TJ 15(1):4.
—— 2001b. Vertical tectonics and the drainage of Floodwater: a model for the Middle and Late Diluvian Period—Part I. CRSQ 38(1):3–17.
—— 2001c. Vertical tectonics and the drainage of Floodwater: a model for the Middle and Late Diluvian Period—Part II. CRSQ 38(2):79–95.
—— 2003. Arthropods supposedly invaded land 40 million years earlier. TJ 17(2):3–4.
—— 2004a. Origin of vertebrates confirmed in the Early Cambrian. TJ 18(1):10–11.
—— 2004b. 'Evolutionary origins' continue to be pushed back in time. TJ 18(3):7.
—— 2004c. Frozen in time: the woolly mammoths, the Ice Age, and the Bible. Master Books, Green Forest, AR.
—— 2004d. The Missoula Flood controversy and the Genesis Flood. Creation Research Society Monograph 13. Creation Research Society Books, Chino Valley, AZ.
—— In press. Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks. Journal of Creation.
Oard, M.J., J. Hergenrather, and P. Klevberg. 2005. Flood transported quartzites—east of the Rocky Mountains. TJ 19(3):76–90.
Oard, M.J., J. Hergenrather, and P. Klevberg. In press a. Rounded quartzite boulders in the northwest United States and adjacent Canada—strong evidence for the Genesis Flood: Part II—long distance transport west. Journal of Creation.
Oard, M.J., J. Hergenrather, and P. Klevberg. In press b. Rounded quartzite boulders in the northwest United States and adjacent Canada—strong evidence for the Genesis Flood: Part III—uniformitarian and diluvial interpretations. Journal of Creation.
Oard, M.J. and P. Klevberg. 2005. Deposits remaining from the Genesis Flood: rim gravels of Arizona. CRSQ 42 (1):1–17.
Oard, M.J. and J.H Whitmore. 2006. The Green River Formation of the west-central United States: Flood or post-Flood. Journal of Creation 10(1):45–85.
Perry, E.S. 1962. Montana in the geologic past. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 26, Butte, MT.
Reed, J.K. 2005. Strategic stratigraphy: reclaiming the rock record! TJ 19(2):119–127.
Reed, J.K., C.R. Froede, Jr., and C.B. Bennett, 1996. A biblical Christian framework for Earth history research: Part IV—the role of geologic energy in interpreting the stratigraphic record. CRSQ 33(2):97–101.
Mortenson, T., 2006. The historical development of the old-earth geological time-scale, In Reed, J.K and M.J. Oard (editors), The Geologic Column: Perspectives Within Diluvial Geology, Creation Research Society, ch. 2, pp. 7–30, Chino Valley, AZ.
Rees, P. MCA., A.M. Ziegler, and P.J. Valdes. 2000. Jurassic phytogeography and climates: new data and model comparisons. In Huber, B.T., K.G. MacLeod, and S.L. Wing (editors), Warm climates in Earth history, pp. 297–318. Cambridge University Press, London.
Robinson, S.J. 1996. Can Flood geology explain the fossil record? TJ 10(1):32–69.
Spencer, W.R. and M.J. Oard. 2004. The Chesapeake Bay impact and Noah's Flood. CRSQ 41(3):206–215.
Stanley, G. D. 1998. Triassic sponge from Vancouver Island: possible holdover from the Cambrian. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 35:1,037–1,043.
Stone, D.S. 2003. New interpretations of the Piney Creek thrust and associated Granite Ridge tear fault, northeastern Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming. Rocky Mountain Geology 38(2):205–235.
Thiede, J. 1981. Reworking in Upper Mesozoic and Cenozoic central Pacific deep-sea sediments. Nature 289:667–670.
Thompson, G.R., R.W. Fields, and D. Alt. 1982. Land-based evidence for Tertiary climatic variations: Northern Rockies. Geology 10:413–417.
Tosk, T. 1988. Foraminifers in the fossil record: implications for an ecological zonation model. Origins 15 (1):8–18.
Vardiman, L. 1996. Sea-Floor Sediments and the Age of the Earth. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
Vardiman, L., A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (editors). 2000. Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth: a young-Earth creationist research initiative. Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, El Cajon, CA and Chino Valley, AZ.
—— 2005. Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth: results of a young-Earth creationist research initiative. Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, El Cajon, CA and Chino Valley, AZ.
Walker, T. 1994. A Biblical geological model. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 581–592. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
—— 1996a. The basement rocks of the Brisbane area, Australia: where to they fit in the creation model? TJ 10(2):241–257.
—— 1996b. The Great Artesian Basins, Australia. TJ 10(3):379–390.
Whitcomb, J.C., Jr. and H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI.
Wieland, C. 1995. Sensational Australian tree ... like 'finding a live dinosaur.' Creation Ex Nihilo 17(2):13.
Willis, B. 1902. Stratigraphy and structure, Lewis and Liv¬ingston Ranges, Montana. GSA Bulletin 13:305–352.
Wise, D.U. 2000. Laramide structures in basement and cover of the Beartooth uplift near Red Lodge, Montana. AAPG Bulletin 84(3):360–375.
Woodmorappe, J. 1996. Noah's Ark: a feasibility study. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
—— 1999a. The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
——. 1999b. A diluviological treatise on the stratigraphic separation of fossils. In Studies in Flood Geology, second edition, pp. 23–75. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
—— 1999c. An anthology of matters significant to creationist and diluviology: report 2. In Studies in Flood Geology, second edition, pp. 79–101. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
—— 1999d. The essential nonexistence of the evolutionary-uniformitarian geological column: a quantitative assessment. In Studies in Flood Geology, second edition, pp. 105–130. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
—— 1999e. An anthology of matters significant to creationism and diluviology: report 1. In Studies in Flood Geology, second edition, pp. 133–144. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
—— 1999f. The cephalopods in the creation and the universal Deluge. In Studies in Flood Geology, second edition, pp. 179–197. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.

Author

Michael Oard earned his M.S. degree in Atmospheric Science from the University of Washington. He retired after 30 years as a professional meteorologist with the National Weather Service. He has published numerous articles in creationist periodicals and has authored or coauthored nine creationist books.

This article was first published in: Reed, J.K and M.J. Oard (editors), The Geologic Column: Perspectives Within Diluvial Geology, Creation Research Society, ch. 7, pp. 99–119, Chino Valley, AZ, 2006. Used with permission Creation Research Society.

Share this article with your social network