Mud deposits during Brisbane flood

Mud deposit on Jindalee footpath — Footprint in mud deposit on Jindalee footpath

After the waters of the 2011 Brisbane flood receded, residents discovered a blanket of mud covering everything. Brown and smelling vile, the mud found its way into flooded homes and settled onto tables, chairs, floors, power outlets, doors, light fittings and so on. Roads, parks, lawns and gardens were covered with it. Swimming pools were full of it, sometimes settled to a depth of 30 centimetres.

Surprisingly, this mud deposit answers an objection against the biblical Flood of Noah’s day.

For many years, geologists have imagined that mud needed a long period of quiet and tranquil conditions before it would settle from water—the thicker the mud layer the longer the time. They calculated the time using Stoke’s Law on a tiny particle. So, whenever geologists observed layers of mudstone or siltstone, they assumed it represented a quiet and tranquil environment and a long time.

Mudstone strata have been used as an argument against the biblical Flood. Some have claimed they prove there was not enough time for mudstone to form.

However, in 2007 a research team showed experimentally that mud deposits readily from moving water (see Mud experiments overturn long-held geological beliefs). Their work calls for a critical reappraisal of all mudstones previously interpreted as having been continuously deposited under still water.

During the Brisbane flood the waters rose and fell quite quickly—within just two or three days. The mud did not have long to deposit yet residents found it everywhere. These smelly mud deposits provide more evidence supporting the biblical account of Noah’s Flood.

J Joensuu

July 1, 2012 |

Thank you for one of your many interesting articles.

I wanted to ask you, do you know what kind of conditions are required for those ancient footprints (animal and human) that have been found around the globe?

Some of these foot prints are said to be in ‘strata’ which I guess was sediment (the result of the erosion of the rain) just before it hardened. Some of them are said to be e.g. at an ancient “lake bottom” or “lake shore” which probably just refers to the geologists seeing that water had something to do with it.

But what I was curious about is, would the leaving of foot prints not require that the ‘strata’ or the mud at ‘lake bottom’ hardens while the person/animal is standing or walking on it?

If this is the case then why did we just get the foot print and not the whole specimen? Is it because the layer of sediment caused by the rain fall was very thin in some areas?