Ancient Ice Ages AND Submarine Landslides, but NOT Noah's Flood: a review of M.J. Oard's assault on multiple glaciations

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. (Copyright, December 5, 1999)

Kevin Henke has a Ph.D in geology from the University of North Dakota (i.e., South Canada). He is now with the University of Kentucky, USA.  

ABSTRACT

The geologic record indicates that glaciations have occurred during the Pleistocene, Carboniferous-Permian, Ordovician, Precambrian and at other times during the Earth's history. Most Young-Earth creationists (YECs) are willing to accept the existence of one Pleistocene glaciation, which supposedly occurred after Noah's Flood. However, they recognize that multiple Pleistocene and any pre-Pleistocene glaciations threaten the very foundation of YECism, that is, an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old and a geologic record that supposedly formed from a year-long world-wide Biblical Flood. Glaciers simply can’t develop in the middle of Noah’s Flood and, according to the YEC view of Genesis, the Earth is too young to have multiple waxing and waning ice sheets. Because of these threats, YECs will do everything they can to undermine the reality of multiple Pleistocene and pre-Pleistocene glaciations. Michael J. Oard is the leading YEC spokesperson on glaciations. Oard has a written a number of articles and books attacking multiple Pleistocene glaciations and the existence of any pre-Pleistocene glaciers. This report evaluates Oard's attack on pre-Pleistocene glaciations in his 1997 book, "Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landslides?" A future report will discuss his claims against multiple Pleistocene glaciations.

As part of their crusade, Oard and his allies argue that ALL pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits are actually submarine mass flows, tectonic features, and meteorite impact debris that formed during "Noah's Flood". A review of Oard's book clearly shows that it is full of scientific errors, blatant misquotations of the literature, omissions of field and laboratory data that refute YECism, outdated references, and unjustified interpretations of scientific data.

INTRODUCTION

Glaciations are not mentioned in the Bible, but the evidence for Pleistocene glaciations is so overwhelming that most young-Earth creationists ("YECs") are now forced to somewhat deal with their reality. M.J. Oard, the chief YEC spokesperson on glaciations, argues for ONE brief glaciation that supposedly resulted from the environmental chaos after "Noah's Flood" (Oard, 1990). However, the geologic record not only indicates that there were multiple Pleistocene glaciations, but that glaciers also existed during the Carboniferous-Permian, Ordovician, Precambrian and at other times during the Earth's history. These multiple glaciations threaten the entire foundation of young Earth, "Flood geology" creationism. First of all, they are incompatible with the popular YEC view of a warm pre-Flood paradise and the idea that most of the geologic record formed from a year-long world-wide Biblical Flood. Glaciers just can't slowly develop and exist in the middle of a chaotic Biblical Flood. Secondly, YECs insist that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old and that's not enough time for glaciers to develop, melt, and redevelop numerous times. Oard (1997, p. 3-7) openly admits these problems. Because of these threats, M.J. Oard and other YECs will do everything they can to undermine the reality of pre-Pleistocene glaciations. As part of their crusade, YECs argue that ALL pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits were actually submarine mass flows, tectonic features, and meteorite impact debris associated with "Noah’s Flood".

Oard (1997) summarizes the YEC assault against pre-Pleistocene multiple glaciations. This report evaluates the claims in Oard (1997) along with examples of how Oard's "Flood geology" is incompatible with detailed observations of some geologic deposits.

HISTORICAL GEOLOGY: JUST GUESS WORK?

Oard (p. 2) recognizes that radiometric dating and various features in the geologic record, such as ancient soils, evaporites, and glacial deposits, are serious problems for "Flood geology" and YEC claims for a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth. He (p. 2-3) uses a number of arguments to attempt to minimize the impacts of these geological threats. First of all, he argues that geology is largely untestable, since it is mostly based on past events that were unwitnessed and cannot be repeated in a laboratory. While scientists can often repeat chemistry and physics experiments in a laboratory, geological events, like the Cretaceous-Tertiary impact(s), cannot be repeated and were not witnessed and recorded by humans. YECs then argue: "Who knows for sure what happened, since geology is based on unwitnessed, unrepeatable past events? Studying the past is just a matter of faith". Well, defense attorneys use the same, often lame, arguments against forensic evidence at murder trials. "Who knows if my client was involved in this crime? The prosecution has no eyewitnesses. The prosecution can't reproduce the crime or go back in time to see what really happened. The prosecution's case is based on guess work and faith." Nevertheless, people are convicted of murder solely on circumstantial evidence and a lack of repeatability and eyewitnesses doesn't seem to stop YEC-saturated states, like Florida or Texas, from executing convicts. Perhaps, if YECs were really worried about the unreliability of scientific evidence that is based solely on past events, they would call for an end to the death penalty for unwitnessed or unrecorded crimes. Unlike forensic science, if geologic data are misinterpreted, there's no risk of innocent people being sent to the electric chair.

In a series of related arguments, Oard (p. 3) accuses geologists of having simplified interpretations of complex and often poorly exposed rocks. Because Oard feels that geology models are "simplified", he believes that geologists are seriously misinterpreting evidence for Noah’s Flood as glacial deposits. Oard (p. 3) further claims that there are too many unreliable assumptions and unknowns involved in geological interpretations to trust them.

It is true that geological models and interpretations are frequently poorly understood and often incomplete. At the same time, it’s very easy to accuse almost any data set of being too small and that more data are needed before a "reliable" interpretation can be made. This is "moving the goal posts" so the opposing team can never score a point.

Despite the shortcomings, our understanding of the Earth is good enough to predict and find petroleum and ore deposits. Furthermore, over the past 150 years, we have learned enough about desert sediments, glacial deposits, ancient soils, brine chemistry, pluton cooling and the laws of chemistry and physics to know that the geologic record is too diverse and complex, has too much history, and is often too dry or cold to have formed from "Noah's Flood" or during a six 24-hour day "Creation Week". While Oard may claim or wish that certain "Flood deposits" have been "misinterpreted" as glacial, desert and other deposits, the geologic evidence shows that marine deposits can be reliably distinguished from desert and glacial sediments, and some rocks, such as varves or salt deposits, simply show that they formed over long periods of time and/or in dry "Flood" incompatible climates. Facies and other sedimentary models actually allow geologists to make predictions about ancient depositional environments and locate the predicted rocks (Blatt et al., 1980, p. 619). The ability of these models to make predictions shows that they’re basically correct. Despite YEC misconceptions, distortions, and long laundry lists of zero quality arguments, radiometric dating is also largely consistent and has developed a history of the Earth that is detailed enough to entirely refute YECism (Dalrymple, 1984, 1991). The geologic record is the product of both ancient NATURAL catastrophes and long and slow processes, and it's neither chaotic nor "wet" enough to support a "Flood" origin. Instead of complaining about invalid assumptions made by geologists, Oard and other YECs need to first take the plank out of their own eyes (Matthew 7:3-5) by junking a much more serious obstacle to objective scientific research: a blind allegiance to Biblical literalism.

Finally, Oard (p. 3) admits that YECs have problems with geologic data because the geological effects of the "Genesis Flood" are poorly understood. As others have stated, perhaps the geology of the "Flood" is poorly understood because it never happened.

ACTUALISM vs. YEC MISCONCEPTIONS OF UNIFORMITARIANISM

At one time, geologists widely accepted Lyell uniformitarianism, which states that the natural processes affecting the geologic record today are the same processes that affected the record in the past and that the overall natural rates of erosion, deposition, volcanic eruptions, etc., are constant over time. Today, geologists recognize that natural rates are not constant. For example, erosion was probably higher before the evolution of land plants. Also, at times in the Earth's past, glaciers dominated the landscapes. At other times, such as the Cretaceous, glaciers may have been nearly or totally absent. Volcanic eruptions and meteorite impacts may have been much more common at certain times during the Earth’s history (such as the early Precambrian) than at other times. During parts of the Paleozoic Era, large restricted marine basins in dry climates allowed for the production of abundant dolostones and thick salt (evaporite) deposits. Today, these deposits are not forming to any large extent because of the lack of large effectively restricted marine basins in dry climates.

Geologists also recognize that BOTH slow and gradual processes (such as varve deposition and evaporation to form salt deposits) and NATURAL catastrophes (such meteorite impacts, hurricanes and earthquakes) have affected the geologic record. Some of these natural events are extremely rare or even unique in the Earth’s history, such as the likely planet-wide glaciation(s) in the late Precambrian.

To emphasize the great differences between modern uniformitarianism and the long-rejected Lyell uniformitarianism of the mid-19^th century, many geologists refer to modern uniformitarianism as actualism. Nevertheless, most YECs, including Steve Austin, the YEC's "authority" on uniformitarianism, do not even recognize that actualism is very different from Lyell uniformitarianism (Austin, 1984; Strahler, 1987, p. 453-454). Like most YECs, Oard has many misconceptions of actualism (p. 26, 32, and so on), which causes him to use many invalid strawperson arguments against geologists and their work. Examples of Oard's misconceptions are discussed below.

SCIENCE, UNLIKE YEC DOGMA, CORRECTS ITSELF

Scientists, like any other humans, sometimes make mistakes. Hopefully, they or their colleagues will quickly correct the mistakes. Scientists have methods, like the multiple working hypotheses, that are designed to minimize and correct errors. T.C. Chamberlain developed the multiple working hypotheses around 1890. I learned a modified version of the procedure as an undergraduate. It states that when scientists make an observation in the field or the laboratory, they should immediately think of as many possible natural explanations (hypotheses) to explain that observation. The explanations (plural) should be made on site where the evidence can be observed and not left for contemplation back in the office some time later. Next, scientists should design experiments and take measurements to test the hypotheses. Each hypothesis is treated like a child and is only rejected if the evidence demands it. As experiments and measurements progress, some hypotheses might be eliminated, but some may also be added. At the end of the research, the scientist may have one viable explanation, six possible explanations or none. The approach teaches that the scientist must be patient and realize that the "one true" explanation may not be found for some time, if ever. The goal of science is not to find "The True answer," but to evaluate possibilities and see what survives. In other words, this is "survival of the fittest" among competing hypotheses. Ideally, the multiple working hypotheses encourage patience, tolerance for alternative natural explanations, and an avoidance of "pet theories". The approach is supposed to encourage cooperation rather than conflict between scientists over "pet beliefs". That is, if a colleague comes up with another possible explanation, it is simply added to the list for further testing. That is, it becomes like an adopted child.

Some have criticized the multiple working hypotheses as being unrealistic or unworkable, and specifically too expensive and time-consuming (Johnson, 1990). Others have noted that scientists often ignore the method (Locke, 1990). Nevertheless, I have found the approach to be extremely valuable in my work as a geologist and geochemist over the past 17 years. Although individuals may not have the time or money to evaluate every hypothesis, different research institutions often can explore a great variety of explanations (Locke, 1990). For example, a number of hypotheses are being investigated for the cause(s) of mass extinctions, and not just the currently popular impact hypotheses. The key to good science, then, is to keep an open mind; evaluate a number of different hypotheses personally or by reviewing the literature of other researchers; and recognize that geologic events, such as glaciations or mass extinctions, may have multiple causes.

Although the apparent purpose of Chapter 2 in Oard (1997) is to show how often scientists make mistakes, time after time Oard really shows how science is self-correcting and how scientists continue to make important discoveries. Scientists, and not YECs, are finding and correcting mistakes in 20^th century science.

Oard's major concern is that field geologists have misinterpreted mass flows, fault deposits, meteorite impact debris and other materials from "Noah's Flood" as ancient glacial deposits. However, these deposits have been repeatedly studied over the years and it’s now doubtful that YECs will have their prayers answered and that pre-Pleistocene glaciations will simply disappear. Geologists are very aware that careful field and laboratory studies are required to distinguish glacial from non-glacial features. Numerous papers and journal articles have been written on how to distinguish glacial deposits from non-glacial deposits, including mudflows and submarine slides. Oard mentions many of these papers (as examples: Eyles, 1993; Hambrey and Harland, 1981). It’s obvious from these documents that geologists consider a number of explanations (multiple hypotheses) when they are determining the origins of poorly sorted rocks. As shown in this report and the literature, field geologists are not as gullible, biased, ignorant or incompetent as some YECs believe.

Oard (p. 12) also charges that maverick scientists, such as L.G.J. Schermerhorn, may be isolated and shunned by their colleagues because they won’t conform to the status quo. However, rather than being maligned in peer-reviewed journals, Schermerhorn, a one-time non-conformist critic of most pre-Pleistocene glaciations, was often praised by his opponents. For example, Young (1976, p. 366) says:

"Schermerhorn's (1974) paper on Late Precambrian mixtites is highly commendable as a thorough and thought-provoking review."

Although disagreeing with him, Fairbridge (1971a, p. 272) praises Schermerhorn (1971) for raising important questions about the interpretation of glacial deposits. Perhaps, Schermerhorn's opponents treated him like dirt outside of the journals, I don’t know, but in peer-reviewed journals he's frequently cited and given respect. I’m also sure that other maverick scientists could be found that claim that they have been unfairly shunned and isolated by their colleagues. Perhaps, they were unfairly persecuted or perhaps their ideas and methods were incompetent and they deserved to be ignored. The multiple working hypotheses are designed to fight unjustified biases among scientists. Nevertheless, I can’t see how any maltreatment among scientists could possibly be as common or excessive as the cries of "heresy", labeling as "cults", denominational splits, disfellowshipping, bitter name calling, factional disputes, and acts of excommunication that are readily seen in modern conservative churches and YEC organizations. One only has to compare the polite, but frank, dialogues between Schermerhorn (1971, 1974), Fairbridge (1971a), and Young (1976) to the venomous ink of YEC Woodmorappe (1985, 1986) or the embarrassingly nasty letters to the editor in the YEC "Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal" (for example, v. 13, no. 1, 1999, p. 49f).

YECs also claim to have "peer-reviewed" journals, such as the "Creation Research Society Quarterly" and "Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal". However, a cursory review of these "journals" shows that they are filled with elementary errors that would be caught in real peer-reviewed journals (for example, the "ages" of several of the index fossils in the table on p. 138-139 of Woodmorappe, 1983). Furthermore, anything that openly criticizes YEC religious dogma is utterly absent. YEC Biblical dogma clearly controls everything in these magazines, which frequently produces claims that more closely resemble science fiction (Patten, 1987) or medieval papal bulls (Myers, 1987; Woodmorappe, 1983, p. 155) rather than science. In contrast, true peer review journals provide non-supernatural explanations for observations in nature, do not require the signing of doctrinal statements for associated organizational memberships, and do not invoke untestable supernatural causes to promote a particular religious or political agenda.

REINFORCEMENT SYNDROME AND WHO REALLY HAS THE PROBLEM

"Reinforcement syndrome" may be described as looking for or twisting data to support a preconceived idea. The twisted or imagined data then "reinforce" or provide "overwhelming support" for the preconceived idea. Reinforcement syndrome, obviously, is a form of circular reasoning (Oard, p. 11). Oard (p. 11-12) accuses supporters of pre-Pleistocene glaciations of practicing reinforcement syndrome. That is, he believes that geologists were convinced that pre-Pleistocene glaciations were real, so they looked through the geologic record until they found some "evidence" to support their beliefs. In other words, geologists claim that there’s overwhelming evidence for pre-Pleistocene glaciations, but Oard (p. 11-17) argues they’ve been deceived by reinforcement syndrome.

As a supposed example of reinforcement syndrome, Oard (p. 77-78) argues that once the Ordovician glacial deposits of North Africa were widely accepted, geologists started finding other evidence of Ordovician glaciations in the Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and elsewhere. While reinforcement syndrome must be avoided, reinterpreting outcrops as glacial deposits may not be so much a case of jumping on a bandwagon (reinforcement syndrome) as much as using the tools that others have recently discovered to reevaluate old ideas, test new hypotheses, and derive new interpretations. That is, recent discoveries of Ordovician glacial deposits in North Africa have provided geologists with new ways of identifying glacial deposits and new features to look for in their field studies. Therefore, with these new tools, we should not be surprised if other glacial deposits are discovered in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other regions that surrounded North Africa during the Ordovician. Further research will determine if the Ordovician deposits in the Middle East really are glacial or if Oard is correct and they’re examples of reinforcement syndrome.

Reinforcement syndrome is also a very convenient excuse for YECs. For ANY idea that they don’t like, no matter if it’s overwhelmingly supported by numerous independent pieces of evidence, YECs can always argue that all of the evidence was contrived as part of a reinforcement syndrome conspiracy to keep "Biblical truths" out of science.

In reality, Oard (1997) is a prime example of reinforcement syndrome. Geology is twisted by Oard to support an unrealistic interpretation of the Bible. That is, Oard concludes that "Noah’s Flood" was real, so he repeatedly misinterprets the scientific literature to support his Biblical biases and omits detailed information that would demolish his "Flood" ideas. Scientists, on the other hand, can avoid the "reinforcement syndrome" as long as they have brilliant maverick attitudes and refuse to surrender their skeptical minds and multiple hypotheses to ANY religious, political, philosophical or other dogma. The key to avoiding reinforcement syndrome is to have multiple scientists with multiple ideas study the outcrops. Furthermore, documents, such as Spencer (1971), provide valuable descriptions to distinguish glacial from non-glacial deposits. These documents and research approaches are far more effective in preventing reinforcement syndrome in geology than anything YECism has to offer.

DEFINING SOME GLACIAL TERMS

Glaciers can deposit sediments on land, lakes, seas and oceans. In the past, the terms "till" and "tillite" have often been used to refer to any glacial deposit sediment or rock, respectively. However, in recent years, the terms have been restricted to sediments and rocks that were deposited directly by glacial ice on land surfaces. Glacial features or sediments that form in marine environments are now identified as "glacial marine" or "glaciomarine" sediments and rocks. As Oard (p. 9-10) states, many geologists have recently concluded that rock and sediment terms should be less specific and more flexible about their possible depositional environments. For example, instead of tillite, the current preferred term is "diamictite", which refers to any poorly sorted rock that could form from a number of glacial or non-glacial processes, including landslides, mass flows, faults, and meteorite impacts. Sometimes the term "mixtite" is used instead of diamictite. Diamicts or diamictons are poorly sorted sediments or, in other words, unlithified equivalents of diamictites (Oard, p. 10).

This report will sometimes briefly define or describe certain terms and concepts as they are encountered. However, not every term or concept will be defined or described. Several excellent references (such as Benn and Evans, 1998 and Ritter, 1978) provide the necessary definitions and descriptions of these glacial terms and concepts.

HOW MANY GLACIATIONS?

As Oard indicates in chapter 2, attitudes towards glaciations among geologists have frequently swung back and forth over the past 150 years. At times, many geologists have been skeptical of most pre-Pleistocene glaciations, while at other times geologists were seeing glacial deposits in every geological period. Specifically, Harland (1972, p. 451) admits that 19^th century and early 20^th century workers sometimes misidentified poorly sorted rocks as "glacial deposits" and overestimated the number of pre-Pleistocene glaciations. Oard (p. 16), of course, quotes Harland’s admission. Nevertheless, in the next sentence, which Oard (p. 16) ignores, Harland refuses to reject the reality of all pre-Pleistocene glaciations. He clearly states that there’s now good evidence for the reality of the North African Ordovician glaciations. In contrast to some overzealous glacial advocates of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, Oard rejects all pre-Pleistocene glaciations and represents the other, equally ridiculous extreme. While overzealous early workers could possibly be forgiven for not having all of the techniques and equipment that modern geologists have to distinguish glacial from non-glacial deposits (Oard, p.9), Oard’s religious-based extremism cannot be so easily excused.

Sometimes Oard's ideas on pre-Pleistocene glaciations are outdated. For example, Oard (p. 32) quotes Crowell (1978, p. 1364) as stating that there were no continental glaciers in Gondwana between the Ordovician and the Carboniferous/Permian. Although the current surviving deposits may be glaciomarine, since Crowell's statement in 1978, evidence of glaciations has been found in the Silurian of South America (Hambrey and Harland, 1981, p. 948) and Devonian of Brazil (Caputo, 1985).

PRE-PLEISTOCENE GLACIAL DEPOSITS: MOSTLY MARINE?

Originally, pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits were generally viewed as tillites, that is, poorly sorted sedimentary rocks directly deposited by glaciers on land surfaces. However, over the past 20 years, geologists have come to realize that most pre-Pleistocene and Quaternary glacial sediments were really glaciomarine, that is, glacially influenced marine deposits (Eyles, 1993, p. 1; Smith, 1997, p. 164). Thick glacial deposits more easily accumulate in marine basins than on continents were they're quickly attacked by erosion. For example, Smith (1997, p. 164) points out that North America has about 18 times more Quaternary glaciomarine sediments than continental glacial deposits. Substantial glacially derived materials may even accumulate in non-glacial basins, such as Quaternary sediments in the Gulf of Mexico (Smith, 1997, p. 164).

Although most pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits are now recognized as marine, there are still a number of them that are tillites or otherwise are known to have formed under non-marine conditions. For example, continental tillites are present in the Fersiga Group of western Africa (Bertrand-Sarfati et al., 1995, p. 135). A boundary between continent-based and marine Ordovician glacial deposits has also been identified in northern Africa (Beuf et al., 1971; Smith, 1997, p. 169).

For Oard, the change from non-marine to marine depositional environments for most pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits is good news. It’s easier to produce "Noah’s Flood" deposits from glacial marine sediments than land-based tillites. Through a series of misquotations of the literature, Oard attempts to eliminate the remaining pre-Pleistocene tillites and other continent-based glacial materials. Oard (p. 19) begins by misquoting Deynoux and Trompette (1976, p. 1313). When the quote is taken in context, however, Deynoux and Trompette (1976, p. 1313) actually argue that their field sites in the late Precambrian of western Africa are valid examples of continent-based glacial deposits. The full quote is given below with the section that Oard (p. 19) only used in all capital letters:

"The late Precambrian glaciation of west Africa is a good example of widespread continental glacial deposits laid down on a relatively stable craton. This is particularly interesting because of the current opinion that ALMOST ALL ANCIENT GLACIAL DEPOSITS ARE MARINE (Crowell, 1964) AND DEPOSITED IN GEOSYNCLINAL OR OTHER UNSTABLE BELTS (Carey and Ahmad, 1960; Schermerhorn, 1974), for it is in these environments that there is much more chance of preservation. However, it is also in these environments that interpretation of these deposits is most difficult as is demonstrated by Schermerhorn’s (1974) article."

According to the references in Deynoux and Trompette (1976), the "current" opinion of marine environments for most glacial deposits goes back to at least Crowell (1964). Nevertheless, it is obvious that Oard (p. 19) misrepresents Deynoux and Trompette (1976, p. 1313) by only quoting the section that is capitalized. Oard (p. 19) has refused to recognize that Deynoux and Trompette (1976, p. 1313) claim to have a real example of a continent-based glacial deposit and that not all pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits are marine.

Again, Oard’s ultimate goal is to eliminate the existence of any terrestrial glacial deposits by quoting references that suggest that they are really glaciomarine deposits or that they can't be distinguished from glaciomarine deposits. Once, Oard convinces his readers that "all" pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits are possibly or likely glaciomarine, he may then more easily persuade his audience that the deposits actually formed under deep marine conditions during "Noah’s Flood".

Oard (p. 20) attempts to undermine the ability to identify terrestrial glacial deposits by quoting Hambrey and Harland (1981, p. 22) and arguing that it may be difficult to distinguish glaciomarine deposits from tillites. However, in the case of Hambrey and Harland (1981, p. 22), Oard conveniently leaves out the rest of the quotation, which states that a glacial origin may be clearly demonstrated. The full quotation from Hambrey and Harland (1981, p. 22) is below, again with the sections that Oard (p. 20) only cites in capital letters:

"Moreover IT IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL TILLITES, as recent work in Antarctica has shown ...[Hambrey and Harland's references omitted here.], although a glacial origin may clearly be demonstrated."

Oard (p. 19) also partially quotes Frakes (1985, p. 348, 349) on the difficulty of distinguishing tillites from glaciomarine deposits. Between the two sentences that Oard quotes, Frakes says some things that either Oard doesn’t like or else he doesn’t feel are important. Perhaps, Oard (p. 19) fails to quote the entire section because the full quotation indicates that iceberg dump deposits, which are incompatible with "Flood geology", are more common in pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits than what Oard (p. 24, 64) wants to believe. The full quotation with Oard's citation in all capital letters is:

"MANY DIAMICTITES WHICH OTHERWISE RESEMBLE TERRESTRIAL TILLITES OF EITHER LODGEMENT OR ABLATION ORIGIN, NEVERTHELESS ARE FOUND TO CONTAIN MARINE FOSSILS AND HENCE REQUIRE A DIFFERENT EXPLANATION OF MODE OF ORIGIN. For some of these it is likely that deposition was from icebergs heavily laden with debris, possibly under the earliest stages of glaciation ...[reference deleted], or in near-shore environments. The resultant deposit lacks any trace of the lamination normally generated in marine environments. In other cases, one can visualize lodgement occurring on a high relief sea floor in proximity to a grounded ice shelf. The point here is that while dropstone laminites are readily categorized as subaqueously deposited, water-laid deposits comprise many additional sediment types, some of which may not be so easily identified. In fact, dropstone laminites clearly originate in environments where melting of ice is relatively slow, either because the site is located at a distance from the ice source or because water temperatures are near freezing and melting is retarded. Subaqueous environments adjacent to ice bodies generate quite different, and lithologically diverse, deposits. IT FOLLOWS THAT ALL DIAMICTITES ARE SUSPECT AS TO WHETHER THEY WERE LAIN DOWN SUBAQUEOUSLY OR SUBAERIALLY."

In conclusion, the vast majority of pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits are now recognized as marine, but many of them contain iceberg and other deposits that are incompatible with "Flood geology". Despite difficulties in distinguishing pre-Pleistocene tillites from glaciomarine deposits, tillites have been identified and their existence is fatal to YECism.

WERE PRE-PLEISTOCENE GLACIATIONS "UNUSUAL" WHEN COMPARED WITH PLEISTOCENE AND MODERN GLACIAL DEPOSITS?

In chapter 3, Oard attempts to portray pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits as being distinctly different from Pleistocene and modern glacial deposits, which he accepts as part of a "post-Flood ice age". On the basis of these supposed differences, Oard (p. 19) tries to argue that the pre-Pleistocene deposits are not really glacial. He often tries to support his views by quoting likely outdated references, such as Schwarzbach (1964).

Most of the well-known Pleistocene/modern glacial deposits are relatively thin and continental sediments in North America, Antarctica, and Eurasia. Again, thick Quaternary glaciomarine sediments are more abundant (Smith, 1997, p. 164), but are still largely in marine environments that are more difficult to study. In contrast, thanks to millions of years of tectonic uplifting, the surviving pre-Pleistocene glaciomarine deposits frequently crop out on continents, which tend to be easily accessible to geologists. It is also expected that thin Paleozoic and Precambrian continental tillites have largely eroded away over the past hundreds of millions of years. Not until Oard discusses the Ordovician deposits in northern Africa on p. 77, does he begin to realize the importance of erosion in destroying most thin continental glacial deposits over time.

Oard’s claims (p. 19) that pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits tend to have more conformable contacts with overlying and underlying non-glacial rocks when compared with Pleistocene and younger continental glacial deposits and their contacts. This claim is not always true. For example, Mustard and Donaldson (1987b, p. 353) note that unconformities associated with the Coleman Member of the glacial Precambrian Gowganda Formation were similar to subglacial erosional features that are commonly found in Pleistocene deposits. On the other hand, Oard's (p. 19) claims about the dissimilarities of pre-Pleistocene and Quaternary conformities would be expected if most pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits formed under marine conditions (Eyles, 1993, p. 1), while the better-known Pleistocene/Holocene deposits formed subaerially on continents where erosion is more common and could readily produce unconformable contacts. Oard (p. 104) quotes Schermerhorn (1974, p. 698) to stress that conformities shouldn’t exist between continental glacial sediments and overlying non-glacial marine sediments. However, Schermerhorn (1974, p. 698) also states that this problem vanishes once we recognize that most pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits had a marine origin.

On the other hand, as thick and extensive glaciers melt, sea level tends to rise. So, contrary to Oard’s (p. 20) claims, if subaerial pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits formed near ancient shorelines, rising sea levels could produce essentially conformable contacts between non-glacial marine sediments and underlying low elevation terrestrial glacial deposits. In this situation, it is possible that pre-Pleistocene continental glacial deposits near ancient shorelines could appear conformably sandwiched between marine interglacial sediments.

Oard (p. 19) also notes that pre-Pleistocene deposits tend to be much more lithified than Pleistocene/modern glacial deposits. This is hardly surprising considering the age differences. The Paleozoic and Precambrian glacial deposits have had hundreds of millions of more years to develop tough silica cement when compared with the relatively young Pleistocene and modern deposits. Silica is not very soluble in water. However, over LONG periods of time, groundwater may dissolve quartz and other silicates, precipitate the silica as cement in sediments and transform the sediments into very hard sedimentary rocks (Blatt et al., 1980, p. 339-345). Contrary to the YEC nonsense in Austin (1984, p. 259-260), extensive silica cement takes millions of years to develop. Sigleo (1978) and Oehler (1976) have been misquoted and misused by Austin (1984, p. 259-260), but a careful reading of these references along with Leo and Barghoorn (1976) show how silica cementation is a SLOW process. That is, silica cement is a serious time-threat to YECism (Strahler, 1987, p. 215).

AREAL SIZE OF PRE-PLEISTOCENE GLACIATIONS VERSUS PLEISTOCENE AND MODERN GLACIERS

Oard (p. 20-21) argues that if the pre-Pleistocene glaciations were real they should have covered areas as large as those covered by the Pleistocene "ice age" or modern glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland. Oard (p. 21) summarizes this argument in his Tables 3.1 and 3.2, and attempts to show that the pre-Pleistocene glaciations covered relatively small areas, which really do not resemble the large area distribution of Pleistocene and modern glaciers.

Of course, there’s no reason why pre-Pleistocene glaciations are required to cover surface areas that are similar to those covered by Pleistocene and modern glaciers. Oard (p. 20-21) is constructing an invalid strawperson argument based on invalid Lyell uniformitarian thinking. In reality, glaciers may come in a great variety of sizes ranging from small alpine glaciers to continent-sized ones or even larger. Another major flaw in Oard’s argument is that he again fails to realize that after 250 million or more years, most glacial deposits would be largely eroded away. This is especially true for relatively thin continental glacial deposits (Hambrey, 1992, p. 42; Smith, 1997, p. 164-165). Therefore, it’s not surprising that the remnants of the Paleozoic and Precambrian glaciations only cover a small fraction of the global area when compared with the deposits of much younger Pleistocene and modern glaciers.

Oard’s tables (3.1 and 3.2 on p. 21) also may be biased. Oard (p. 21) defends the contents of his tables by saying that only the OBSERVED sizes of the pre-Pleistocene deposits based on their current distribution of outcrops are included and not any reconstructions based on what he considers to be "questionable assumptions." Of course, geologists know that the movement of tectonic plates over millions of years have broken up and separated glacial deposits, such as the late Paleozoic deposits in South America and Africa. On the basis of field studies, Smith (1997, p. 167) argues that the Permo-Carboniferous ice sheets were so huge that they barely fit within the Permo-Carboniferous latitude circle of 50 degrees. Oard (p. 21) also excludes an area estimate for the Ordovician glacial deposits of North Africa from his Table 3.2. Biju-Duval et al. (1981, p. 106) conservatively estimated that these Ordovician deposits covered an area of 6-8 million square kilometers. This estimate is about the same size as the Pleistocene Scandinavian ice sheet and much larger than the Quaternary Cordilleran and Greenland ice sheets listed in Table 3.1 in Oard (p. 21). In summary, Oard’s area arguments are bogus and should be ignored.

THICKNESS OF PRE-PLEISTOCENE GLACIAL DEPOSITS

Pleistocene terrestrial glacial materials have an average thickness of only about 15 meters (Oard, p. 21). In comparison, pre-Pleistocene glaciomarine deposits are usually much thicker and even several kilometers thick. Of course, Oard stresses these differences to argue that the pre-Pleistocene deposits originated from "Noah's Flood," whereas the Pleistocene terrestrial deposits may be attributed to a "post-Flood ice age." However, a more proper comparison would involve Pleistocene and pre-Pleistocene glaciomarine deposits. Even Oard (p. 21) admits that Pleistocene glaciomarine deposits off the coasts of Antarctica and Alaska may exceed one kilometer in thickness. The similarities in thickness for Pleistocene and pre-Pleistocene glaciomarine deposits do not support common YEC arguments that only "Noah's Flood" could produce thick sediments. That is, if a Pleistocene "ice age" could form these thick deposits, why couldn't pre-Pleistocene glaciations? Why do we need to invoke "Noah's Flood" at all? In an attempt to deal with this problem, Oard (p. 22) misquotes Wright and Anderson (1982) and tries to argue that most of the thick deposits, whether ancient or modern, must be catastrophic submarine mass flows rather than glaciomarine sediments. While Wright and Anderson (1982) admit that some of the shelf sediments are actually mass flow deposits, they also state that these mass flows were originally glaciomarine deposits. That is, glaciomarine sediments accumulated on marine shelves, became unstable, and eventually flowed as submarine deposits down the shelves. Not until p. 39, does Oard mention that Quaternary mass flows off the coast of Antarctica or similar pre-Pleistocene rocks tend to be remobilized glaciomarine deposits.

The interpretation of sediments as glaciomarine or mass flow deposits may be complex and sometimes uncertain. Oard (p. 39) attempts to distort this uncertainty by claiming that glaciomarine and marine mass flow deposits simply cannot be distinguished. Although Oard refuses to admit it, as discussed later in this report, careful field studies may distinguish glaciomarine sediments from mass flow deposits. Mustard and Donaldson (1987b, p. 349), for example, argues that gravity (mass) flows cannot entirely counterfeit tillites:

"The sum of characteristics imparted by direct glacial deposition alone [that is, the formation of tillites] cannot be produced by gravity flow processes (although some features can be common to both)."

Wright and Anderson (1982, p. 951) further state that sediment transport in the Weddell Sea off the coast of Antarctica is associated with glacial processes and do NOT resemble sediment transport on non-glacial continental margins. This statement clearly does not help Oard (p. 22, 39) to blur the distinction between glaciomarine and non-glacial mass flow deposits.

Oard (p. 22) also claims that geologists should be "uneasy" about the amount of erosion required to generate all of the sediments for the thick pre-Pleistocene deposits. In reality, the great thickness of pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits is totally expected when it’s realized that multiple waxing and waning glaciers over LONG periods of time would release large amounts of sediment into nearby marine environments. In contrast, large volumes of sediment are a serious problem for YECs. YEC history isn’t long enough to weather igneous rocks and produce and sort large volumes of sediment. For example, how did Noah's Flood or even 10,000 years of YEC history purify and sort the St. Peter Sandstone so that it is almost entirely uniformly sized quartz sand (Young, 1982, p. 85)?

TEXTURES OF PRE-PLEISTOCENE VERSUS PLEISTOCENE AND RECENT GLACIAL DEPOSITS

Oard (p. 22-24) emphasizes that Pleistocene and modern continental tills tend to have coarser particles than Paleozoic and Precambrian glaciomarine deposits. From this observation, Oard attempts to argue that pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits are too fine-grained to be glacial. However, the differences may be explained by the fact that coarser particles are harder to transport with icebergs and ocean currents than thick continental glacial ice. Oard (p. 23) must stop making inappropriate comparisons between meter-sized and smaller dropstones in pre-Pleistocene glacial marine sediments and kilometer-sized blocks of rock moved by Pleistocene continental glaciers in Saskatchewan.

GLACIOTECTONIC STRUCTURES IN PRE-PLEISTOCENE GLACIAL DEPOSITS

Moving glaciers may thrust or otherwise deform underlying sediments and produce glaciotectonic features. While Oard (p. 24) admits that glaciotectonic features are common in Pleistocene and modern glacial sediments, he goes on to misuse a number of references to claim that glaciotectonic features are unexpectantly rare or entirely absent in pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits. Oard argues that the "absence" of glaciotectonic features is due to the sediments being deposited in deep marine water during "Noah’s Flood" rather than in shallow water or on land where overlying glaciers could have deformed them.

Oard (p. 24) misquotes Eyles et al. (1985, p. 24) and argues that examples of glaciotectonic features in Visser (1994) may actually have resulted from non-glacial density loading and downslope mass movements. Eyles et al. (1985, p. 24) warn their readers that extreme caution must be used to discriminate glaciotectonic deformations from sediments produced from density loading and downslope mass movement. However, they cite Visser et al. (1984), as well as three other papers by Visser, to show that such discriminations can be done with core and outcrop data. The situation is not as confusing or hopeless as Oard wants us to believe.

Oard (p. 24) also refers to Flint (1975, p. 125) as being "puzzled" by the lack of glaciotectonic structures in pre-Pleistocene deposits. In my opinion, Flint (1975, p. 125) is not so "puzzled" by the lack of glaciotectonic features as much as he felt that a concerted effort had not been made as of 1975 to find these features. Hicock and Dreimanis (1985) further state that although glaciotectonic features are potentially useful in field studies, they are often overlooked in North America even in Pleistocene sediments.

In reality, glaciotectonic features are not as rare or "absent" in pre-Pleistocene deposits as Oard claims. Examples of glaciotectonic features are mentioned in several references, including some that Oard uses elsewhere in his book. As examples, glaciotectonic features are associated with the Ordovician glaciations in Africa (Biju-Duval et al., 1981, p. 106; Beuf et al., 1971, p. 65; Smith, 1997, p. 169) and the late Paleozoic glaciations in South Africa (Visser, 1997, p. 172, 174, 178; 1990, p. 235, 237; 1987a, p. 123, 125). Specifically, Bennacef et al. (1971, p. 2235) describe that some of the sandstones of the In Tahouite Formation of North Africa have been sheared off, pushed forward in slices, and carried down paleovalley slopes. The authors interpret the features as resulting from ice thrusting from Ordovician glaciers.

ICEBERG SCOUR MARKS

In shallow water, icebergs may "scrape bottom" and leave scour marks in sediments. Oard (p.24-25) cites a number of references and claims that if pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits formed in shallow marine environments, they should contain abundant iceberg scour marks like those found in modern and Pleistocene deposits. While iceberg scour marks and other iceberg related erosional features are rare or largely unrecognized, they are not as absent as Oard (p. 24) believes. Interestingly, the soft sediment grooves shown in Figure 11.25 in Oard (p. 98) look like they could be iceberg scour marks.

Fairbridge (1979, p. 144-145) describes a likely iceberg scour mark and other iceberg related features in the Ordovician glacial deposits of North Africa. Fairbridge (1971a, p. 271) also makes references to curving gouges from floating ice in the Ordovician deposits. Woodworth-Lynas and Dowdeswell (1994, p. 241f) argue that floating ice and not just continental glaciers could have produced many of the pre-Pleistocene soft-sediment striated surfaces in Mauritania, Algeria, Namibia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Australia and Antarctica. Woodworth-Lynas (1996, p. 168-177) also lists several examples of possible to likely iceberg scour marks in pre-Pleistocene rocks, including the Proterozoic of Brazil and the Proterozoic Kuibis Series of Namibia. Contrary to Oard's (p. 73) claims that there are no ice scour marks in the Gowganda Formation of Canada, Miall (1985, p. 782) argues that iceberg scours may be present on the contact between the middle Precambrian Serpent and Gowganda formations. Ice scours may also occur in late Paleozoic glacial deposits in Australia and South Africa (Woodworth-Lynas, 1996, p. 173-176;Visser, 1990, p. 238). Before Oard declares that iceberg scours are "totally missing" from pre-Pleistocene glaciomarine deposits (p. 25), maybe he should read the current literature for several examples and wait for further information until scientists have studied the rocks in more detail.

As Oard (p.25) mentions, Rocha-Campos et al. (1994) discusses some late Paleozoic iceberg scour marks in Brazil. The furrows of the marks are 20-50 cm wide, up to 20 cm deep, and have an exposed length of up to 70-80 meters (Rocha-Campos et al., 1994, p. 236). The marks are also associated with ice-rafted clasts, likely debris from grounded icebergs, rhythmites, and other glacial features (Rocha-Campos et al., 1994, p. 234). Rocha-Campos et al. (1994, p. 239) admit that these scour marks are smaller than most Pleistocene and modern examples. Because of the relatively small size of the Brazilian scour marks, Oard (p. 25) argues that icebergs could not have produced these features. However, size is not a significant argument against an iceberg-related origin. Iceberg scour marks could be any size. Again, Oard (p. 25) is allowing Lyell uniformitarianism, which he claims to detest, to actually control his thinking. Under actualism, past and present iceberg scour marks may vary in size and degree of preservation.

Rocha-Campos et al. (1994, p. 237-239) also considered other hypotheses for the origins of the furrows besides iceberg scours. However, iceberg scours proved to be the best explanation. Specifically, they (p. 237) conclude that the features are too localized and there’s no supporting data to indicate that the furrows had a tectonic origin. The furrows could also have developed from the slumping of sediments. However, the geometry of the troughs does not resemble slump features (Rocha-Campos et al., 1994, p. 238).

MISSING POCKMARKS?

Pockmarks are V-shaped features found in modern seafloor sediments that may result from submarine seepages of water and natural gas (Oard, p. 25). They may range from very small to up to 700 meters long and 20 meters deep (Oard, p.25). Oard (p. 25-26) cites pockmarks as another supposed example of a feature that is common in modern sediments, but is absent in pre-Pleistocene rocks of any kind. Perhaps, pockmarks don’t preserve well or maybe they are not easily distinguished from other surface irregularities in the geologic record. Although Oard believes in one Pleistocene glaciation, he cites no examples of pockmarks in either glacial or non-glacial Pleistocene sediments. Perhaps, Oard needs to realize that "an absence of evidence is no evidence of absence." For example, none of the snow that fell on North Dakota last winter is left. Does that mean that it never snowed in North Dakota last winter? Of course not. Sometimes little or no evidence survives.

VARVES AND VARVITES

Laminae are very thin, parallel layers of sediment or sedimentary rocks. By definition, laminae are less than one centimeter (cm) thick (Blatt et al., 1980, p. 128). Sometimes, hundreds of thousands of laminae may be stacked on top of each other. The lateral length of laminae varies greatly and in some cases, individual layers have been laterally traced for at least 90 kilometers (55 miles) (Blatt et al., 1980, p. 553)!!

Laminae and other thin layered sediments may form by slow or rapid natural processes. Volcanic eruptions (especially surges) may rapidly deposit thin layered sediments and volcanic ashes (Fisher and Schmincke, 1984, p. 107-115, 191, 192, 198-206, 247-256; Schmincke et al., 1973; Carey, 1991). Mass flows of marine sediments or turbidites ("Bouma sequences", Bouma, 1962) may also rapidly produce laminae. At the same time, thin sediments (including varves) may slowly form in quiet, gradually changing environments (Blatt et al., 1980, p. 133-135).

Some, but not all, laminae are varves. Varves are couplets of sediment laminae that result from seasonal changes. If the varves are rocks rather than sediments, they are usually called varvites. Typically, varves or varvites consist of alternating light- and dark-colored layers (Blatt et al., 1980, p. 133). In glacial or temperate lakes, for example, the light layers may form from sediment runoff during the summers, while the dark layers may represent organic matter that settled during the winters. Frequently, each couplet represents an annual accumulation of sediment. Therefore, by counting couplets, the age or length of the accumulation time may be estimated for a series of varves.

Kitagawa and van der Plicht (1998, p. 1187-1188) found great consistencies between varves, carbon 14 dates, tree ring data, ice core data, and U-Th dating of corals, which establish a complete record going back 38,000 - 45,000 years Before Present (BP). Glacial varves alone present a consistent data set back to about 11,000 BC or at least 3,000 years BEFORE the supposed YEC "creation" of the Universe. The consistency and diversity of varves and related geologic data are quickly driving the final nails in the YEC coffin. Creationist Aardsma (1993) probably saw this day coming when he admitted that tree ring and carbon 14 data rule out a date for "Noah's Flood" that is younger than 10,000 years old.

VARVES OF THE GREEN RIVER FORMATION

One of the better-known examples of ancient varves is found in the Eocene Green River Formation of Wyoming. The Green River Formation probably developed in several large warm-climate Eocene lakes. Not all of the thin layers in the Green River Formation are varves (Ripepe et al., 1991, p. 1155). Specifically, the Tipton, Laney and Wilkins Peak Members of the Green River Formation frequently contain varves. The Wilkins Peak Member also contains abundant salt deposits that formed from dry evaporating conditions, which, of course, are incompatible with a wet raging "Flood." These salts would have dissolved and dispersed in any "Flood" waters. Because the Wilkins Peaks Member is sandwiched between the Tipton and the Laney members (see Figure 2, p. 1147 in Fischer and Roberts, 1991), this means that the area experienced deep lake conditions as the Tipton was deposited, followed by the drier conditions of the Wilkins Peak and finally BACK to the deeper water of the Laney Member. That's a lot of deposition and climatic change for even 6,000 years on the YEC calendar. Miall (1990, p. 489) also notes that the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation consists of kerogen-rich layers that formed during humid lacustrine phases and kerogen-poor layers that resulted from ARID playa phases. Again, how could arid conditions exist during "Noah’s Flood"?

Like many YECs, Oard (p. 60) also suggests that varve couplets could be deposited in minutes or seconds supposedly from "Noah's Flood" or perhaps localized "post-Flood" catastrophes. However, just for the Green River Formation alone, such rapid deposition presents countless problems for YECs. Some individual varves in the Green River Formation may extend for 10's of kilometers (Fischer and Roberts, l99l, p. 1148) and there are more than 5,000,000 individual couplets or a total of more than 10,000,000 individual layers (Strahler, 1987, p. 233). YECs, including Oard (p. 60), often cite Berthault (1986, 1988a,b, 1990) and invoke a "self-sorting mechanism" to explain the rapid formation of numerous laminae at once in the Green River Formation. So, if this "sorting mechanism" was responsible for the laminae in the Green River Formation, how could this mechanism instantly produce numerous fine-grained laminae over ten's of kilometers (Fischer and Roberts, 1991, p. 1148)? It's one thing to rapidly produce some laminae in a laboratory separatory funnel (see Figure 1 in Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up!), it's another thing to rapidly deposit thin layers of clay and silt over 10's of kilometers. Even the YECs at Varves: Problems for Standard Geochronology admit that silts normally take days to settle out and finer-grained clays even longer. (Unlike relatively coarse sand particles, very small particles (silts and clays) take TIME to settle out of solution.) Therefore, if 10,000,000 layers formed in only 6,000 years, an average of 4.6 layers would have to settle out COMPLETELY in one DAY! That’s too fast and chaotic for the geology of the formation. Of course, things become even worse for YECs, since in their minds, the Green River Formation either formed during the year-long "Flood" or in the 4,000 or so years of "post-Flood" history. Already, the 6,000 year old YEC time frame is refuted. YECs must also explain how 10,000,000 layers, some of which may extend over tens of kilometers, can form in less than a few thousand years without eroding previously deposited layers or producing cross-bedding or other non-linear features. Simply hoping that Berthault’s laboratory work could somehow be scaled up to 10's of kilometers isn’t good enough.

Worst of all for YECism, variations in varve thickness within the Green River Formation clearly fall into regular cycles, several of which correlate beautifully with various LONG-TERM weather, climate, and astronomical (Milankovitch) cycles (Fischer and Roberts, 1991; Ripepe et al. 1991). These relationships are shown in the following table:

Cycle in Years*	In Green River?	Explanation
4-6	Yes	ENSO (El Nino!!)
11-12	Yes	Sunspot cycle
30	Yes	Unknown
600-700	Yes?	Unknown
3,000	Yes?	Unknown
20,000	Yes	Precessional cycle
40,000	No	Obliquity cycle
100,000	Yes	Eccentricity cycle
400,000	No	Long eccentricity cycle

*The lengths of some of these cycles have slowly changed over geologic time (Van Andel, 1994, p. 243-244).

Notice that the cause(s) of some of the cycles have not been explained. Other expected cycles were not detected in the research discussed in Fischer and Roberts (1991) and Ripepe et al. (1991). Because some expected cycles are never found and unexplained cycles are seen over and over again, it’s difficult to believe that these results are somehow the hopeful imaginings of numerous researchers or anti-creationist "biases" from carefully applied statistical computer programs. There's simply no reinforcement syndrome here as Oard (p. 11) suggests. Petrographic, statistical and geophysical methods have detected the cycles and some of them have been seen over and over and over again in the Green River Formation for the past 70 years. Milankovitch frequencies have also been seen in late Ordovician to early Silurian salt deposits in West Australia, which were contemporaneous with glaciations in Africa and elsewhere (Smith, 1997, p. 161).

The Green River Formation contains some beautifully preserved fish and other fossils. However, except for microfossils, fossil-bearing laminae are uncommon in the formation (Fischer and Roberts, 1991, p. 1147). YECs are skeptical that dead fish can lay undisturbed on the bottom of lakes for years and slowly be encapsulated into varves. They insist that the fish and other well-preserved fossils had to have been buried quickly by "Noah’s Flood" or subsequent "post-Flood" catastrophe(s). Otherwise, they claim, the fossils would have been destroyed by decay and scavengers.

Drever (1997, p. 166-169) states that the bottoms of deep water (eutrophic) lakes may become very anaerobic if the cold bottom waters (the hypolimnion) remain dense and stagnant. That is, the bottom waters of lakes may not experience frequent seasonal mixing and aeration, especially in depositional environments like those of the Green River Formation, where the bottom waters were probably saltier and, therefore more dense, than the surface waters (Drever, 1997, p. 169; Fisher and Roberts, 1991, p. 1147). Fischer and Roberts (1991, p. 1147) and Strahler (1987, p. 233) further discuss in more detail the field and geochemical evidence on why bottom scavengers were often absent in the Green River Formation. Not only was the deep and quiet water too stagnant (low oxygen) and salty to support scavengers and aerobic decay-promoting bacteria, but the water probably had too much highly poisonous H2S to support scavengers, burrowing organisms, and most bacteria that would have destroyed organic remains and disrupted varve structures. Strong currents would also not have been expected in the stagnant water, so the fish corpses could have remained intact and undisturbed for many years until burial. Nevertheless, Ripepe et al. (1991, p. 1157) show photographs of varves that have undergone possible small-scale bioturbation, so varve disruption and decay may have occurred at some of the sites.

The Green River Formation represents only a small fraction of the geologic record, but by itself it sinks both YECism and "Flood geology." For further examples of other cyclic sedimentary rocks (Devonian Catskill Delta, Triassic Hungarian carbonates, and Newark Basin of New Jersey) that refute YECism, Why the Flood is not Global.

VARVES ARE REAL AND CAN BE DISTINGUISHED FROM NON-VARVES

Both Oard (p. 59) and YEC Austin (1994, p. 38) misuse Lambert and Hsu (1979) in an attempt to undermine the existence of varves. Lambert and Hsu (1979) report that 300 to 360 sediment couplets ("varves") were deposited in only 160 years in Lake Walenstadt (Walensee), Switzerland. Oard (p. 59) and Austin (1994, p. 38) then ignore crucial statements in Lambert and Hsu (1979, p. 460) to create the false impression that Lambert and Hsu (1979) are denying the existence of any varves. In reality, Lambert and Hsu (1979, p. 460) clearly state that varves with real annual layering do exist and they cite Lake Zurich as an example. In Figure 4 in Lambert and Hsu (1979, p. 460), photographs are compared of the faint layering of the Walensee false varves to the stark and very sharp real varves from Lake Zurich. The differences between the real and false varves in Figure 4 of Lambert and Hsu (1979) are obvious to anyone.

Oard misrepresents other references to create a false impression that varves are virtually non-existent and when they do occur they’re nearly impossible to distinguish from non-varves. For example, Oard (p. 59) summarizes an article by Pickrill and Irwin (1983) and claims that they found an average of three "similar-looking" couplets per year in sediments from a New Zealand lake rather than the expected one annual couplet. According to Oard (p. 59), the authors attributed the "two extra" couplets to "floods and slumps." In reality, the couplets did NOT look as "similar" as Oard (p. 59) claims. Rather, the sediments consisted of two distinguishable groups of rhythmic materials, one major group and another group consisting of distinctly smaller layers. Pickrill and Irwin (1983, p. 72) used lead 210 to confirm that the major rhythmites were annual varves, whereas the smaller ones were not varves and averaged about three "rhythms" per year.

Oard (p. 60) misquotes another article, Smith et al. (1990), to stress that one sediment couplet may form in as little as 12 hours. However, Oard (p. 60) does not tell his readers that the non-varves and varves described by Smith et al. (1990) were very different and distinguishable. In particular, Smith et al. (1990) described neap tidal deposits in Glacier Bay, Alaska, as being structureless or faintly laminated when compared with the more seasonal (spring) laminations. Smith et al. (1990, p. 10) even refers to the similarities between non-varved glaciomarine laminations and glaciolacustrine rhymites (including varves) as being "superficial." Once again, contrary to Oard’s wishes, varves exist and have properties that allow them to be distinguished from non-varved deposits.

In another example, Oard (p. 61) cites Martin et al. (1985) and claims that a Precambrian "varvite" in Namibia was really a series of "mass flow bands," where the light- and dark-colored bands supposedly "separated out" during "mass flow." Oard (p. 61) describes the banding in the Precambrian rock as if it had a sedimentary origin. However, Oard is again wrong. Martin et al. (1985, p. 181-182) claim that the rock and its features are metamorphic and not sedimentary! That is, the "varves" or "mass flow bands" were really produced from high temperature conditions while the rock was "baked" deep within the Earth.

When discussing the late Paleozoic Dwyka glacial deposits of South Africa, Oard (p. 95) again distorts the literature to claim that no real varves exist in the ancient glacial deposits. Oard (p. 95) cites Hunter (1969, p. 32) and Tavener-Smith and Mason (1983) to argue that the colors of the late Paleozoic varves are the opposite of real Pleistocene or modern varves. In reality, Hunter (1969, p. 32) simply states that both true varves and non-varved rhythmically banded shales are present in the glacial deposits. The varves are distinguished from the non-varved banded shales by textural differences. Travener-Smith and Mason (1983, p. 244-245) admits that some of the Dwyka varves have opposite color schemes when compared with Swedish Pleistocene varves. However, the authors do not consider the color differences to be important, so Oard has no justification for using color to disqualify the reality of the late Paleozoic varves. The opposite color distributions between the late Paleozoic South African and Swedish Pleistocene varves probably resulted from differences in local climatic and tectonic conditions. Tavener-Smith and Mason (1983, p. 244) further note that other late Paleozoic varves in Zambia and Zimbabwe have colors that are consistent with the Pleistocene varves. With the possible exception of color, the Dwyka and Pleistocene varves have close textural, compositional and other characteristics (Tavener-Smith and Mason, 1983, p. 244).

Oard (p. 95) also cites Visser and Kingsley (1982, p. 75) as claiming that there are no lithological differences between the light and dark bands of some late Paleozoic rhythmites in drill cores from the Transvaal Highlands, South Africa. Therefore, according to Oard, the bands were not produced by cyclic conditions like real varves. Visser and Kingsley (1982, p. 75) admit that these particular layered rocks are not true varves. However, actual varves are present elsewhere in the cores (Visser and Kingsley, 1982, p. 75-76) and the authors further claim that the fine-grained sediment in the rhythmites indicate deposition under LOW ENERGY conditions, which is hardly consistent with a raging "Biblical Flood."

DROPSTONES IN VARVITES AND OTHER FINE-GRAIN ROCKS

Floating ice or icebergs may carry and drop rocks into lake or offshore marine sediments. If the sediments are varves or other fine-grained materials, the relatively coarse dropstones may be easily recognized in the much finer grained matrix. Not all laminar rocks with large stones are dropstone varve/varvites. Non-glacial deposits may also contain oversized rocks in finer grained laminar sediments.

In the beginning of chapter 8, Oard (p. 57) portrays field studies of pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits as often being rash and sloppy. Supposedly, field geologists routinely identify deposits as having a glacial origin on the sole basis of a few oversized rocks (i.e., "dropstones") in some laminar sediments (i.e., "varves"). To support his slanderous accusations, Oard (p. 57) cites Deynoux and Trompette (1976, p. 1308) as a supposed example of this type of sloppy fieldwork. Although some field studies done decades ago may support Oard’s accusations, a review of Deynoux and Trompette (1976, p. 1308) shows that they are NOT guilty of this kind of misbehavior. Instead of basing their glacial interpretations on a few large stones in laminar deposits, Deynoux and Trompette (1976, p. 1308) appropriately list numerous criteria for claiming that some late Precambrian mixtites in northwest Africa are glacial (including: roches moutonnees, crescentic fractures, step fractures, and patterned ground).

Obviously, Oard cannot accept icebergs forming and floating around during Noah’s Flood. After unjustly attacking the intelligence and abilities of Deynoux and Trompette (1976), Oard (p. 61f) proceeds to express skepticism that ice-related dropstones may be distinguished from mass flow deposits with large, isolated clasts. It’s obvious that Oard (p. 65-66) would like to transform all pre-Pleistocene glaciomarine dropstone deposits into turbidites from "Noah’s Flood."

Some turbidites may resemble varvites with dropstones. For example, turbidites may deposit thin layers of laminated sediments that may resemble varves or varvites. The flows may also deposit relatively large, isolated rocks that resemble dropstones within finer grained materials. Oard tries to portray oversized rocks in turbidites as being common and easily confused with glaciomarine deposits with dropstones. For example, Oard (p. 65) misquotes Eisbacher (1981, p. 729-730) and gives the false impression that sporadic dropstones are found in a non-glacial mass flow deposit in northern British Columbia, Canada. In reality, Eisbacher (1981, p. 729-730) argued that most of the rocks at the site are mass flows, but glacial deposits containing real dropstones are also present and probably formed from local piedmont glaciers. So, contrary to Oard’s claim, both mass flows and glacial deposits are present in the area and the oversized rocks are in the glacial deposits.

In a related issue, Oard fails to admit that even oversized rocks in some fine-grained turbidites may have originally been glacial dropstones (Hambrey and Harland, 1979, p. 272). That is, glaciomarine deposits with dropstones may be remobilized and transformed into turbidite deposits. Therefore, some of the turbidites that Oard wants to associate with Noah’s Flood may have actually had their ultimate origins from pre-Pleistocene glaciers (Gravenor et al. 1984, p. 125).

Hawkes (1943) lists and describes numerous actual and false dropstones from Cretaceous non-glacial rocks in England. According to Oard (p. 64), one of the non-glacial "dropstones" has scratches. He (p. 64) implies that any scratch rocks dropped by trees and other non-glacial processes could easily be misidentified as glacial dropstones. Oard (p. 64) provides no page number from Hawkes (1943). However on p. 99 of Hawkes (1943), the following statement is made about the rocks, which flatly contradicts Oard’s claims that the collection contains even one "scratched non-glacial dropstone":

"The specimens have no surface markings which afford any clue to the nature of the transporting agent. No. 145, which earlier workers claimed to be ice-scratched, is a phosphate nodule; it is the one boulder in the collection which probably has not travelled at all."

In other words, the one scratched rock in the collection is an in-situ nodule and not a "dropstone." The examples in Hawkes (1943) suggest that non-glacial rocks counterfeiting glacially scratched dropstones are not as common as Oard believes.

Splash features associated with vertically dropped rocks from icebergs may be identified and distinguished from large rocks that have been slid or otherwise laterally emplaced by mass flows or turbidites. Oard (p. 64) cites two references (Mustard and Donaldson, 1987a, p. 378; Miller, 1994, p. 49, 54) that contain very convincing photographs of large rocks that clearly fell vertically into sediments. In particular, Miller (1994, p. 54) mentions that large dropstones, up to 45 cm in diameter, in the Neoproterozoic Konnarock Formation of southwestern Virginia sometimes have splash structures associated with them. Since the examples from both Mustard and Donaldson (1987a, p. 378) and Miller (1994, p. 49, 54) are Precambrian, there can be little doubt that icebergs dropped them. Although uprooted trees will sometimes carry boulders and drop them in lakes and marine environments, trees hadn’t yet evolved during the Precambrian. To explain these splash features and isolated boulder dropstones, Oard could place his faith in "pre-Flood trees" that show no evidence of existing at this time (not even a single leaf or twig) or perhaps Noah used the rocks as ballast.

Although trees did not exist during the Precambrian, it could be argued that once terrestrial plants became abundant during the Carboniferous, they might have been able to raft and have the strength to transport and drop at least small rocks. That is, if dropstones were commonly carried as readily by plants as by ice, then dropstones should be just as abundant in Carboniferous and younger non-glacial rocks as they are in glacial rocks. Anderson (1983, p. 20), however, states that plant-rafted pebbles are rarely, if ever, found in clay-rich sediments of known non-glacial affinity. Young (1979, p. 124-125) also considered the emplacement of dropstones by plants, animals, volcanic eruptions and other non-glacial processes. He (p. 125) concludes:

"None of these possibilities explains the great abundance of dropstones of varied composition in Precambrian rocks, and one is forced to the conclusion that glacial ice was in fact present."

Oard (p. 64) also suggests that dropstones could result from meteorite impacts. Oberbeck et al. (1993a,b; 1994) and Rampino (1992, 1994) are the leading advocates for claiming that SOME glacial deposits may actually be impact deposits. However, Oard does not mention the following confession by Oberbeck et al. (1993b, p. 681):

"Young [1993] notes that dropstones suspended throughout very thick tillite/diamictite deposits is a problem for the impact hypothesis and, at this time, we have no explanation. However, we did not claim that all tillites/diamictites were of impact origin."

Oard (p. 23) notes that modern and Pleistocene icebergs have been known to carry boulders larger than 5 meters in diameter. However, the transportation of such large boulders is probably uncommon. Oard (p. 74) cites Miall (1983, p. 483) and claims that most clasts in rhythmites are "small." In reality, Miall (1983, p. 483) describes dropstones as sometimes being one or more meters in length, although he does admit that they are typically only a few centimeters or less. The context does not indicate if Miall was discussing dropstones in general or the dropstones of the Middle Precambrian Gowganda Formation of Ontario, Canada. On p. 24, Oard admits that dropstone boulders larger than one meter in diameter are found in pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits on rare occasions. On the basis of these observations, one could probably argue that the maximum size differences between dropstones from pre-Pleistocene and Quaternary icebergs are not significantly different. While icebergs are capable of carrying boulders that are one to five meters in diameter or larger and dropping them into marine sediments, very few, if any, uprooted and floating trees, volcanic explosions and meteorite impacts could pick up individual boulders of this size, carry them over significant distances and individually drop them.

FOSSILS AND DROPSTONE DEPOSITS

Oard (p. 25) claims that there is a surprising "lack" of fossils and biogenic residues on dropstones in pre-Pleistocene rocks. He admits that fossilized algae may have been found on one middle Precambrian dropstone (Jackson, 1971). According to the likely YEC viewpoint, if the dropstones were slowly buried by sediment, organisms should have colonized the rocks before they were buried. Because fossils are supposedly absent from dropstones, YECs then argue that dropstones were deposited and buried too quickly by Noah’s Flood to allow organisms to colonize them. In a related issue, Oard (p. 104) also claims that few fossils would be expected in "Flood" submarine landslides because the extreme turbulence would have destroyed the organisms. While fossil fragments of vertebrates and invertebrates with hard parts are not found in Precambrian deposits, somehow, "magically," algal stromatolites, varves/laminites, nailhead striations, soft sediment grooves, and other delicate features are often preserved in these "Flood" deposits. Furthermore, for some reason, even fossils with delicate hard parts frequently survived the "mass flows" that deposited the Paleozoic and younger "Flood" materials.

Although Oard refuses to accept it, abundant organisms with hard preservable parts had not yet evolved on Earth during the Precambrian glaciations. Even during the Paleozoic, there may have been few organisms that had yet adapted to cold glacial waters. Also, Noah’s Flood isn’t required to argue that some of the dropstones may have been buried within a few days to months by periodic and catastrophic natural flows of fine-grained sediment.

Oard overlooks the fact that some of the glacial dropstones in the Miocene to Pleistocene Yakataga Formation are covered with the fossils, such as worm tubes and barnacles (Armentrout, 1983, p. 639, 642, 645, 646, 648). Because of its thickness and lithification, Oard (p. 5) hints that the Yakataga Formation was deposited during "Noah’s Flood." However, as discussed below, how did worms and barnacles colonize these dropstones in the middle of a raging "Flood"?

TILL PELLETS

Icebergs or shallow water glaciers may contain clays and other fine-grained materials that fall as small pellets into the marine sediments as the ice melts. Typically, the pellets are 0.5 cm in diameter or less (Oard, p. 64). Oard (p. 64) expresses doubt that till pellets can survive being dropped and buried in glacial bays. Ovenshine (1970, p. 893) is more optimistic:

"Evidence that these till pellets can survive transportation and deposition into another environment is provided by their occurrence along the shorelines of Glacial Bay, where they have been dropped by stranded icebergs and withstood one or more tidal cycles. Thus it is probable that pellets dropped from floating icebergs will maintain their integrity and identifiable character as they are incorporated into the bottom sediment presently accumulating in the fiords of Glacier Bay."

Ovenshine (1970, p. 893) also claims that pelletoid bottom sediments on the Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica are probably till pellets.

Ovenshine (1970, p. 893) further argues for the presence of tillite pellets in the Gowganda Formation. In response, Oard (p. 64, 75) can only say that the tillite pellets as well as the surrounding matrix consist of the same type of material, graywacke. Oard (p. 75) indicates that it should be difficult to distinguish the pellets from the matrix because they’re made of the same material. This is a weak argument! Textures alone are often sufficient to easily distinguish pellets and the non-pellet matrices. For example, oolitic limestone can be easily distinguished from a micrite, although both are mostly calcite. The same can be said of other rocks that have identical lithologies and mineralogies, but differences in the size and shapes (textures) of their grains. Both a conglomerate and a siltstone may be nearly 100% quartz, yet they can be easily distinguished by grain size.

Oard (p. 75) also claims that mass flows could rip up sediments and form clasts that could be confused with tillite pellets. However, he does not provide any evidence to support the existence of these counterfeit pellets.