Feedback from Geological Society

The discussion started in 1998 after I sent a short, simple letter to The Australian Geologist (TAG) advising them of this web site. I was pleased that the editor published the letter under a large caption. The editor told me later that she 'tried to give everyone "a fair go".' (The original web address was [http://student.uq.edu.au/~s938345] but later changed to the current address.)

The Australian Geologist, Newsletter No 108, Sept 30, 1998

WEB SITE LINKS GEOLOGY TO BIBLICAL RECORDS

Dear Editor,

I would be interested in feedback from other members of the GSA to some new concepts set out in a web page (http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk). A method of classification is outlined to enable the local geological record to be linked with the historical parts of biblical documents. The method is illustrated by application to the Great Artesian Basin of Australia. I think that members will find the ideas interesting.

Tas Walker, University of Queensland

A number of people were interested in the new geological model. The next issue of TAG published two letters critical of the concept. They could not imagine how we could seriously consider using the Bible as a basis for geological investigation.

The Australian Geologist, Newsletter No 109, Dec 20, 1998

MORE GEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE I

Dear Editor,

In the previous edition of TAG (Sept 1998), Tas Walker asked for feedback on his web page, which tries to link geology to parts of the Bible. I have read through his site and I would say that it is so simplistic that it is unusable. It ignores several centuries of careful examination of the geological history of our planet and relies totally on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Basically Tas divides all of the rocks into 4 groups, all of which have formed in the last 6000 years.

1. Creation Event — Forms most of the earth giving a large volume of rock, most of which is covered by group 3.
   
2. Lost World Era — Between creation and flood. Negligible rocks produced and can be ignored.
   
3. Flood Event — Forms a large amount of rock covering almost all of the creation event rocks. Almost all the rocks are deposited in the first 60 days.
   
4. New World Era — Negligible rock produced. Should be recognisable since fossils present should be similar to modern animals.
   

Tas then tries to use the Great Artesian Basin as an example of how to use his model, but does not mention that using his criteria, all rocks in Australia would have been deposited in the flood. This means that all metamorphic, volcanic and sedimentary rocks would have formed during the first 60 days of the flood, and all granites and orebodies would have been emplaced in the last 4000 years. Anybody who works in geology would admit that such assertions are absurd and all available evidence contradicts such ideas.

There are also problems such as the Riversleigh fossil localities. These contain common marsupial fossils which would indicate "New World Era", but the rocks cap hills which according to Tas's model means that they were eroded by the Recessive Stage of his flood.

There are other problems that I could mention, but I finish this letter with this question: If the Bible was never compiled, or if Genesis was not included in its compilation, would Tas still have been able to create his model using only the physical evidence gathered by geologists? I am sure that anybody familiar with the scientific evidence would answer "No". The Bible's stories of genesis and the flood give no help to geologists trying to understand our planet.

Paul Blake, Hon Secretary, GSA Queensland Division

MORE GEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE II

Dear Editor,

After we read the letter from Tas Walker in the last issue of TAG, we had a look at his website, in which the geological record is linked with historical parts of biblical documents. This site has certainly opened our eyes to a new approach to unravelling the geological history of an area. Its application to analysing the relative and absolute timing of events in metamorphic complexes is particularly relevant. Given that the earth was formed in 4004 BC, i.e. 6000 years ago, all our age determinations will have an error of +/- 3000 years or less, a formidable precision in anyone's estimate, yet considerably cheaper than a SHRIMP date! In fact, we are so impressed by this new technique that we will be using it in all our future geological mapping projects. An abstract combining the contents of all our forthcoming reports read as follows: God did it.

Vince Morand & Ross Cayley, Melbourne, Victoria

The first writer showed that he not only understood the biblical geological model but also how to apply its principles to the field data. His objections were founded in the geological culture of billions of years (based on the philosophy of uniformitarianism) and so he could not imagine how so much geology could be formed in such a short time. The second letter raised two very important points; radiometric dating (which is believed to prove the billions of years) and the idea that using the Bible would somehow end scientific investigation.

Curiously, the front cover of TAG (No 109, reproduced here) showed a geological structure demonstrating sudden, catastrophic processes consistent with the biblical model.

The caption for the photo read: Inverted, cone-shaped fluidisation pipe within the McKay Sandstone of the McArthur Basin, northern Australia. Numerous irregularly spaced pipes, five metres high and two to ten metres in diameter occur at a similar level along strike within thin- to medium-bedded sandstones immediately above a basaltic sill. The pipes resulted from the entrainment of fluidised, semi-consolidated sand into an upwardly convection water and steam column, above the hot basaltic intrusion. The upper surface, indicating coeval sedimentation and sill emplacement [ie, the sediment and the lava were both emplaced at the same time].

The site is a very remote part of Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve in the Northern Territory. …

Photo by David Rawlings, CODES, University of Tasmania.

I sent off a reply that answered all the objections and drew attention to the cover photo. After the next issue of TAG arrived in my letterbox I was very pleased to see my letter published.

The Australian Geologist, Newsletter No 110, March 31 1999

GEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE -- AN ANSWER

Dear Editor,

I appreciate the feedback from Paul Blake, Vince Morand and Ross Cayley (TAG 109, Dec 1998) about my model linking geology to the Bible (http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk). They raised a number of objections that need a response.

Paul says I have ignored "centuries of careful examination of the geological history of our planet." However, it is important to recognize that we geologists do not examine geological history. We examine the rocks and then invent a history to explain what we find. Rather than invent a history, the biblical model assumes that the history recorded in the Bible is accurate and proceeds to link the geological data into that framework.

Paul said the model was "absurd" and that "all the available evidence contradicts such ideas." The difficulty, it seems, is how the geology of this planet could have formed in the short time recorded in the Bible. This conflict is with philosophical presuppositions rather than geological evidence. The front cover of the last TAG illustrates the point beautifully. The two meter diameter fluidisation pipe pictured piercing a five meter thick sandstone indicates large scale, high energy, rapid processes wholly consistent with the biblical record.

There is no timing conflict with the Riversleigh fossil localities as Paul suggested. The fossils in the limestone are actually contained in lenses which were once caves and pools formed well after the limestone was deposited (see "Riversleigh" by Archer, Hand & Godthelp, 1991).

Paul was also concerned that the biblical model was not based exclusively on the physical evidence gathered by geologists. We need to recognise that eyewitness reports are essential to our understanding of the past (e.g. Krakatoa, Vesuvius, Mt St Helens etc., etc.). Our geological models need to integrate data from all relevant sources.

Vince and Ross, in their humorous way, referred to a conflict of timing with current interpretations of SHRIMP isotopic data. To resolve this, experiments are needed to examine the presuppositions currently used to interpret isotopic results and the isotopic models may need to be modified appropriately.

By their quip about future abstracts reading "God did it" I presume Vince and Ross are saying the biblical approach eliminates the need for research. Actually the opposite is the case. As with any scientific paradigm, the new biblical perspective raises a multitude of questions which will provide the basis for fruitful scientific research. I hope that members of our Society will be encouraged to apply the model as they interpret their geological work.

Tas Walker, Chapel Hill, Queensland

I thought that would be the end of the matter. When the next issue of TAG (No 111) arrived there was an interesting photo on the cover (reproduced here). To my surprise, the caption included a humorous but serious dig at creationists. And, two more long letters to the Editor were published on the topic.

The Australian Geologist, Newsletter No. 111, June 30, 1999

FRONT COVER PHOTO: AN ODE TO GLENELG

Photo caption for geologists: Isoclinally folded and fault-imbricated pegmatite veins in Late Cambrian sillimanite-bearing schist, Yarramyljup Creek, western Victoria. This outcrop is near the Yarramyljup Fault, which bounds the eastern margin of the Glenelg River Metamorphic Complex, part of the Adelaide Fold Belt.

Photo caption for creationists: Pre-flood rocks in Yarramyljup Creek, western Victoria. These rocks were deformed during ark-continent collision. Perhaps the ark is now located to the east, in the vicinity of Mt Ararat. Keen observers will notice there is still liquid evidence of the flood in this outcrop.

Photo: Ross Cayley, Geological Survey of Victoria

Note: 'Ark-continent collision' is a satire of the plate tectonic term 'Island Arc'. These occur where two oceanic plates 'collide'. Ararat is a town in Victoria, Australia.

GRANITE COOLING TIMES AND THE BIBLE

Dear Editor,

The letter written by Dr Tas Walker (TAG 110, March 1999) illustrates the main problem that all scientists have with creationists. Dr Walker assumes that "the history recorded in the Bible is accurate and proceeds to link the geological data into that framework". In other words, they start with a conclusion that the Bible is right and make the evidence fit. An example is Dr Walker telling Drs Vince Morand and Ross Cayley that they need to modify their isotopic models to fit his model.

Real science does not force evidence to conform to preconceived theories and models. Scientific models and theories are created, supported, modified or discarded based on the physical evidence. It was the physical evidence that caused geologists to discard the "Flood Geology" model.

Evidence has also been used to create new models; an example of which is Alvarez's idea that a meteorite impact was the cause of the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous. When it was first proposed, many palaeontologists proclaimed it a step backward in science, but as more and more evidence was found to support it, it became accepted as a possible mechanism of extinction.

However, modern creationists never allow for the idea that the Bible stories are inaccurate, which means that creationists are dealing with dogma, not science. If Dr Walker thinks that this statement is incorrect, he can inform the Society what physical evidence he would accept that would change his opinion about the Bible being scientifically accurate.

Dr Walker claims that he has not ignored centuries of geological information, though it is obvious that he has ignored the parts about environments of deposition, relative dating, and the more recent evidence of radiometric dating. Even creationist geologists such as Hugh Miller in the early part of the 19th century acknowledged that the earth was immensely old, and that the rocks and fossils he was studying could not have been deposited during a world-wide flood as described in the Bible.

In my previous letter (TAG 109, December 1998) when I said that Dr Walker's model, based on the Bible's flood myth, was "absurd" and "all of the available evidence contradicts such ideas", I was not discussing philosophy as Dr Walker would like to believe. I was referring to physical evidence and I will use a scenario from my current work in the Yarrol Province to illustrate my point.

The following scenario is based purely on superposition and involves sedimentary rocks and several granitic intrusions. To make it easier for Dr Walker I will use granitoid-cooling rates from a creationist article written by Snelling & Woodmorappe (1998) who claim that a granitoid can cool in as short a period of time as 3500 years (this does not include the time needed to emplace or unroof the granitoid). If they could have calculated a shorter period of time I am sure they would have published it, therefore I will use 3500 years as the minimum time needed to cool and solidify a granitoid.

In the Yarrol Province the sequence begins with sedimentary rocks (unit 1). These are intruded by a granitoid that is cooled, unroofed and overlain by more sedimentary rocks (unit 2). Later, unit 2 is intruded by a granitoid that is also cooled, unroofed and overlain by more sedimentary rocks (unit 3). All three units of sedimentary rocks mentioned above would be deposited during the first 60 days of the Flood event according to Dr Walker's model. Field relationships show that there are two entirely separate granitoid intrusive events in the sequence, each of which require at least 3500 years to cool.

How does Dr Walker fit 7000 years worth of granitoid cooling into 60 days? Unless Dr Walker can find a way to emplace, cool and unroof granitoids within a couple of days then his model does not stand up to scrutiny.

Paul Blake, Hon. Secretary, GSA Queensland Division.

GEO-BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY

Dear Editor,

In all fairness we should give credit to Tas Walker (TAG 109, 110) for enlightening us on our geological misguidance. From his webpage introduction it would seem that in order for us to gain a fuller appreciation of the geological sciences we need to dispense with Geology and study Mechanical Engineering. Instead of wasting our time slogging it out in our desolate outback inventing geological history we then need to design and operate power stations in Queensland so as we gain an appreciation of geo-biblical chronology.

Bearing in mind that SHRIMP isotopic data need to be re-examined in light of biblical philosophical presumptions to be meaningful, I decided to integrate our geological chronology into the tried and proven biblical time frame so as we can all benefit fro this new geo-biblical revelation. The difficulty in achieving this revelation of course depends on deciding where to place creation within the geological time frame. I have assumed, for the purpose of this investigation, that creation occurred at the end of the Proterozoic when life as we know it commenced. The Archaean and Proterozoic rocks, representing 4 billion geological years, are therefore considered to represent rocks generated during the 6 day "creation era". Tas acknowledges that "plankton and other tiny sea life" may have been created early in this creation event to account for Precambrian fossils.

In his biblical chronology presented, post-creation eras have been conveniently subdivided by Tas into "lost-world era, flood event, and new-world era" rocks, all of which are described in detail in his website.

Now, once again considering the inherent problems we supposedly have with SHRIMP isotopic age determinations compared with the accuracy of biblical chronology, a decision must be made to either:

Adopt a linear transformation of geological chronology to biblical chronology, commencing at the beginning of the Cambrian; or

Adopt an exponential transformation, whereby geological time is distorted to link the geological data into the more accurate biblical framework.

As can be seen in the left hand graph of the accompanying figure, by disregarding 90% of geological time, a linear transformation of the SHRIMP isotopic data fits neatly within the biblical framework shown in the central graph. I have some reservation with World War I occurring during the Oligocene and World War II occurring during the Miocene though, and am also concerned about my Pliocene age. There is no obvious demarcation between lost-world era and new-world era rocks as one would expect from such a cataclysmic event, fossiliferous Palaeozoic strata don't really fit within the flood event, and the dinosaurs should have been mentioned in the scriptures.

In contrast, the right hand graph, showing an exponential transformation, appears to be more adaptable, with all of recorded history coinciding with the Quarternary. There is however some conflict with the biblical model whereby the Palaeozoic era, in particular the Permo/Carboniferous "flood related" coal strata, appears to occur too early in the biblical record. This of course is more than likely a mathematical transformation problem and will no doubt resolve itself once Tas puts more effort into resolving this geo-biblical chronological dilemma for us. The graph does however enable the excessive Precambrian time frame to fit neatly within a 6 day "creation event" without having to mysteriously lose 90% of time as in the previous graph. Although it is considered that, as the rest of the Universe was not created until late in the creation event, there may be some flexibility with regard to time itself.

Once again, on behalf of all of us mere Geologists I would like to thank Tas for finding time between power stations to resolve our misguided geological chronology for us. Next time Tas has time though, he may like to get out into the real world of rocks once in a while where he will (should, may) realize that geological history is written in the rocks for all to see. Geologists are trained specialists able to read this history, we do not invent history, we apply it. Strange as it may seem the geological time frame developed by Geologists to cover the entire 4.5 billion year history of our Earth, since creation, encompasses the biblical history within the most recent Holocene period, without the need for distortion of time. The biblical history as recorded in the bible is also quantified exactly with our dating techniques, so, what is the problem?

James Maxlow, Glen Forrest, WA

Paul Blake could not imagine how so much geology could be explained by the short time of Noah's Flood. Such thinking is still constrained by the uniformitarian slow-and-gradual culture. James Maxlow used completely wrong transformations and naturally obtained ridiculous results. For a start, he should have used the rock-scale, not the time-scale as explained in the web page. I sent off a letter answering all these claims. Again, the letter was published. But the editor wanted to end the discussion, so obtained responses from the other writers, thus giving them the final word.

The Australian Geologist, Newsletter No. 112, September 30, 1999

DEFINITELY THE LAST WORLD ON THE BIBLE AND GEOLOGY

THE ARGUMENT FROM TAS WALKER

Dear Editor,

I was surprised and delighted at the number of readers who commented about using the Bible as a basis for geology (TAG 111, June 1999 my web page is now at www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk). I thank these colleagues for taking the time to study the geological model. However, there are a number of misconceptions that need to be straightened out.

First, Paul Blake says that 'all scientists' have a problem assuming that the Bible is accurate. This is incorrect -- many scientists today, including geologists, believe the Bible records true history. I would encourage him to read John Ashton's new book 'In six days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in Creation' (all of whom have PhDs in science).

Paul does not like the idea of starting with a 'conclusion that the Bible is right and making the evidence fit.' Science does not start with conclusions but presuppositions. Everyone has to start somewhere — that is the way science works. Hutton, the father of modern geology, decided that "the past history of our globe must be explained by what can been seen to be happening now,"* This was not a conclusion but a presupposition. How much did Hutton know about the geology of the world from Scotland in 1795? Note the language — 'must'. It is an arbitrary rule, like the procedural rules of parliament or scrabble. I do not accept Hutton's constraint because it is inconsistent with the Bible, as he and his opponents recognised. It prematurely excludes proper consideration of Creation and the Flood. I start with different presuppositions. I do not use science to decide whether the Bible is right. I assume it is. This is not a total rejection of Hutton, but a recognition of his limitations.

Paul argues that the 'physical evidence' from the Yarrol Province contradicts the 6000-year Bible limit. He asks how granitoids could be emplaced, cooled, and unroofed in a couple of months. First, remove the constraint that everything must be explained by what we see happening now. When we accept the world-wide Flood many new factors become significant and a number of solutions usually suggest themselves. Naturally, these would need to be tested in the field and new ideas may emerge. There is no problem with rapid emplacement of liquid magma -- it depends on crustal movements, which can happen quickly. Rapid solidification of granitoids is only a problem when cooling is constrained by conduction. The cooling effects of voluminous water, both from inside of the pluton as it is expelled, and from outside, could cause rapid solidification. Large volumes of floodwater moving across the earth could cause rapid unroofing. Evidence of these rapid processes should be observable in the field, but one would need to be open to the concept to notice them.

James Maxlow caricatured the idea of integrating geological chronology with the Bible time-line but he has not understood the concepts -- deliberately I suppose, for the sake of humour -- and it was funny. Neither of his proposals is correct because there would not likely be a simplistic relation between the Bible time-line and the geological column. Rather, the geological units in each geographical region need to be classified using relevant criteria as explained in the model, and as illustrated by the example of the Great Artesian Basin on the web page.

Neither has Ross Cayley, in his very humorous spoof of the concept, applied the classification criteria correctly to the spectacular outcrop featured on the cover. Those rocks at Yarramyljup Creek Certainly do not belong to the pre-Flood era. The physical scale of the unit, the degree of deformation, the plastic response, and the presence of fossils in the vicinity suggest they were deposited in the Ascending phase of the Inundatory stage of the Flood. But Ross would need to work through the evidence in a more detailed, systematic way to reach a soundly-based conclusion.

I hope that biblical models of earth history will continue to evoke new ways of understanding the geology of our planet.

*Quoted by A. Holmes in Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, 1965, p. 43.

Tas Walker, Chapel Hill, Qld

REPLY FROM PAUL BLAKE

Dear Editor,

The latest letter by Dr Walker (this issue) contains several techniques common in creationist arguments. He uses quote mining and appeals to authority. Since everybody would recognise how weak such techniques are in a debate about science I will move on to the granite challenge.

When I wrote the granite challenge I thought that Dr Walker's defence would be "It could happen". "COULD" is worthless in science unless you can demonstrate that it "CAN" happen. Where is Dr Walker's evidence that such fast intrusion, cooling and unroofing are possible/ However, Dr Walker still missed the most important point. If the intruding magma was cooled in only a couple of days or weeks then it would have a glassy or lava-like texture, not a granitic texture. Cooling magma quickly with water does not get around the problems of crystal formation during magma cooling unless Dr Walker wants to invoke yet another magical physical process that is not observable today.

The problem with granite cooling rates is just one of the many geological processes that disprove the young earth models proposed by creationists.

Paul Blake, Hon. Secretary, GSA Queensland Division.

REPLY FROM ROSS CAYLEY

Dear Editor,

As Tas Walker (this edition) quite correctly points out, our second caption to the cover photo (TAG 111) does contain a few misspelling, underlined, and omissions. The correct caption should read:

Pelitic schist in Yarramyljup Creek, western Victoria. These rocks were deformed during arc-continent collision (the arc is the Knonagel Igneous Complex of the Grampians-Stavely Zone comprising Cambrian mafic and boninitic rocks, and the continent is attenuated Proterozoic crust which probably floored parts of the Delamerian Fold Belt including the Glenelg River Metamorphic Complex, along the rifted eastern Proterozoic Australian margin. Convergence and arc-collision in the Cambrian is expressed as the Delamerian Orogeny (515-500 Ma) in this region. This event correlates with Cambrian ophiolite obduction onto Proterozoic crust documented in Tasmania (e.g. Berry & Crawford, 1988). In western Victoria, the arc is located just to the east of the Yarramyljup fault, although it is mostly buried beneath a post-collisional suite of intermediate volcanics and sediments, such as those at Mt Stavely. (The younger deformation of rocks at Mt Ararat further east is unrelated, part of the Lachlan Fold Belt story). Keen observers will notice there is still liquid evidence of a flood (of Yarramyljup Creek, due to recent rain) in this outcrop-the-constant bane of all geologists working in western Victoria in winter!

All this information and more is contained in the 'Tasman Fold Belt System in Victoria', a richly illustrated special publication with new regional scale maps and interpretation of regional geophysical data, now in preparation by the Geological Survey of Victoria, and scheduled to be released later this year. Based on a decade of detailed regional mapping and widespread geophysical data acquisition by the GSV, this volume presents a modern synthesis of geological data for all the pre-Permian rocks of the state of Victoria. The authors have made a considerable effort to integrate modern plate-tectonic theory into a discussion of the data, and have, in this example, attempted the first detailed reconstruction of the palaeotectonic evolution of the poorly exposed eastern Delamerian Fold Belt in Victoria.

Although this volume will undoubtedly prove useful for Australian geoscientists, it will probably find only limited application as an adjunct to the Bible. Perhaps in 2000 years, when the meaning and significance of our document has been totally lost in the mists of time, it will find application as the focus of worship and unquestioning misinterpretation by mortal folks who still feel the need to believe in something.

Ross Cayley, Geological Survey of Victoria.

(Editor's note: Correspondence on this issue is now definitely closed!!)

A FEW WORDS FROM JONATHAN CLARKE

Dear Editor,

Tas Walker's "Biblical geology" web site (September 1998 TAG) attracted discussion in the December 1998, March 1999 and June 1999 issues. The site argues for what is often called young earth creationism (YEC).

Perusing the site reveals how far YEC has come since since it was introduced into Protestant Christianity in the early 60s (prior to that time it had found little favour). Early supporters of YEC rejected virtually everything that known about rock relationships and biostratigraphy, and instead attributed almost the entire geological record to the Biblical deluge. Walker, in contrast, while adhering to the same chronological framework, has produced a scheme which recognises mappable suites of tectono-stratigraphic units. This is a considerable advance on anything else produced to date by the YEC camp and shows that at least some of its supporters are beginning to acknowledge geological realities.

It is interesting to note the similarities between Walker's scheme and the efforts of the later diluvialists and early nuptunists in the mid 18th century. The ontology of YEC thus appears to be recapitulating the phylogeny of the history of geology, with nearly 40 years of YEC repeating the progress made in 100 years of geological thought in the 17th and 18th centuries. Perhaps in the next 40 years we will see YEC beginning to take seriously the fossil record and the evidence within the rocks themselves of their formative processes, and thereby recognising the antiquity of the earth.

It is important to realise the connection between Walker's "biblical geology" and what the Bible actually says is similar to that between the Bible and "Life of Brian" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark". One can search thought the Bible it in vain to find the processes that Walker describes. For most Christians through history, the Bible is not, and never was intended to be, a textbook of the physical nature and history of the earth and cosmos. This has been recognised by theologians since the time of Augustine in the 4th century AD. To read the Bible as a scientific text is to ignore its context and purpose.

Jonathan Clarke, Department of Geology, Australian National University

(Editor's note: Correspondence on this issue is now definitely closed!!)

Paul Blake avoids the heart of the issue — the presuppositions geologists use to interpret data. The argument is not about the geological evidence. After all, we both have the same evidence. The disagreement is about how that evidence is interpreted. Most geologists cannot see that they use arbitrary, unprovable assumptions to interpret the evidence.

Paul argues that if magma cooled quickly it would not produce granites but rocks with a fine mineral texture. Again, this is an assumption — that large crystals are always produced by slow cooling. No one has observed magma cooling deep inside the earth. Our understanding is derived from field-work on plutons now exposed at the earth's surface and on limited experimental work. The range of explanations considered is constrained by a priori models of what the researcher thinks actually happened. The possibility of the world-wide Flood is not even considered. There are many factors other than cooling rate, that would affect the sizes of minerals. For example, magma-chamber pressure and magma water content are known to affect rates of mineral nucleation and growth.

Ross Cayley spends most of his letter promoting his new publication. At the end he includes a few disparaging remarks but does not seriously address any of the issues. The volume he has been involved in producing could be very useful for research in biblical geology, and I have asked Ross if he might send me a copy when it is produced.

Jonathan Clarke acknowledges that geological model is a scheme that can produce mappable units. This of course is the purpose of the model, and allows geological research to proceed within a biblical framework. His assessment contrasts with Paul Blake's initial reaction that the model is 'so simplistic that it is unusable'. Jonathan has paid an excellent compliment. Will he use it, though? No, because he does not believe that the Bible is 'a textbook on the physical nature of the earth'. Of course the Bible is not a textbook, but it does record real history, and that impacts our interpretation of geology. I hope there will be some in the Australian Geological Society who will apply the biblical geological model in their own situation.