The Geologic Column

Table of Contents

Erosion Problems

An Alternative Explanation

Younger with Time

Monument Valley

Arches National Park

Paraconformities

Clastic Dikes

Lithification Rates

Big Horn Basin and Beartooth Butte

Shale Beds

Nonconformities

The Coconino Sand Dunes

Meteorites in the Geologic Column

Turbidites and Water Sorting

Volcanic Signatures

Varves

Continental Drift

Paleomagnetism

Paleocurrents

Home Page

One of the very foundations of evolution and popular science today is the "geologic column." This column is made up of layers of sedimentary rock that supposedly formed over millions and even billions of years. Although not found in all locations and although it varies in thickness as well as the numbers of layers present, this column can be found generally over the entire globe. Many of its layers can even be found on top of great mountains - such as Mt. Everest and the American Rockies. In some places, such as the mile deep Grand Canyon, the layers of the column have been revealed in dramatic display.

Certainly the existence of the column and its layered nature is quite clear, but what does it mean? Is it really a record of millions and even billions of years of Earth's history? Or, viewed from a different perspective perhaps, does it say something else entirely?

As one looks at the geologic column, it is obvious that the contact zones, between the various layers, are generally very flat and smooth relative to each other (though the layers may be tilted relative to what is currently horizontal or even warped since their original "flat" formation). Many of the layers extend over hundreds of thousands of square miles and yet their contact zones remain as smooth and parallel with each other as if sheets of glass were laid on top of one another (before they were warped). And yet, each layer is supposed to have formed over thousands if not millions of years? Wouldn't it be logical to assume that there should be a fair amount of weathering of each of these layers over that amount of time? But this expected uneven weathering is generally lacking (see illustration).¹ Just about all the layers have un-weathered or at best very rapidly weathered parallel and smooth contact zones. Long term erosion always results in uneven surfaces and this unevenness is only accentuated over time. How then are the layers found throughout the geologic column so generally even and smooth relative to each other?

This general evenness and smoothness of sedimentary layers throughout the geologic column is rather odd especially considering the fact that the current weathering rate for the continents of today averages about 6cm/thousand years for the continental shelves.^2,55 This means that in less than 10 million years, the entire continental shelves of today would be washed into the oceans to be replaced by new underlying materials. This presents a problem since very old sediments, dating in the hundreds of millions of years, remain atop all the continental shelves - wonderfully preserved despite many tens of and sometimes hundreds of millions of years of erosive pressure?

This problem has been well recognized for some time now. Back in 1971 Dott and Batten noted:

Also, back in a 1986 article published in the journal Geomorphology, B. W. Sparks commented:

Many scientists reason very old sedimentary layers can still be found relatively intact on the continental shelves because in the past they were much thicker. It is just that the layers above have been eroded away.

In this line of reasoning, consider that the current layer toping the region around the Grand Canyon, the Kaibab, was once buried under sediment no thicker than 2,000 meters for a total thickness of around 3,500 vertical meters of sediment measuring from the bottom Tapeats Sandstone to the topmost Brian Head Formation (Tertiary sediments). In this light, consider the popular belief that the nearby Rocky Mountain region began its most recent uplift, via tectonic forces, some 70 million years ago, with an additional uplift some 25 million years ago that raised the Rockies up an another 1,500 to 2,000 meters.⁸² Yet, despite being exposed to erosion forces for some 70 million years the Rocky Mountains are still covered by deep layers of sedimentary rock. One might very reasonably wonder how much vertical erosion should be expected in such an uplifted region over the course of 70 million years?

Well, before the Glen Canyon Dam was built, the average sediment transport rate through the Grand Canyon was measured to be around 500,000 tons per day.^68,79 With a weight of 140 pounds per cubic foot (lbs/CuFt) for sandstone, this erosion rate works out to be around 7.1 million cubic feet of erosion per day for the Colorado River Basin.

Since the Colorado River is supposed to have carved out the Grand Canyon in around 5.5 million years, how much sediment would have been removed from the surrounding Colorado River Basin in this time? Well, if we multiply the current daily erosion rate by 365 days we get about 2.6 billion cubic feet of erosion per year. Multiplying this number by 5.5 million years (the supposed age of the Grand Canyon) gives us around 14,000 trillion cubic feet of sediment removal from the Colorado Basin in this amount of time. Since the Colorado River drains an area of about 200,000 square miles in size (~27.8 million square feet = 1 square mile), an average of over 2,500 vertical feet (~800 meters) of sediment would have been removed, at the current rate of erosion, in just 5.5 million years. This is about 15cm/kyr of vertical erosion.⁶⁸

Of course, 800 meters of erosion is only the erosion that would take place in 5.5 million years since the Colorado River started forming the Grand Canyon. But, what about the Colorado Plateau itself? Well, there seem to be two different theories. One theory suggests that the most recent uplift of the Kaibab Plateau (the region of the Colorado Plateau that is located right around the Grand Canyon region) started some 17 million years ago and the other suggests that the this uplift actual started some 35 million years ago. Either way, the overall uplift of the Colorado Plateau is supposed to have started a bit later at around 15 million years ago. Some suggest that the Colorado Plateau was already uplifted a few thousand feet before it started its most recent uplift, while others believe that it was "near sea level" just before its latest uplift.^83,84,85,86 Either way, with an erosion rate of about 15cm/kyr, that's about 150 vertical meters/million years or ~2,250 meters of erosion in 15 million years averaged over this entire region.

This makes me wonder how the relatively young Tertiary sediments survived atop the Grand Staircase over the course of some 15 million years of erosive pressure. Was there really over 2,000 meters of sediment covering these remaining tertiary sediments? I mean really, a couple thousand meters of sediment was definitely removed from over the gentle dome-shaped uplift of the Grand Canyon region in a mere 5 or 6 million years while the topmost sediments of the Grand Staircase were hardly touched in 15 million years? - despite having a greater elevation and relief? Also, if 2,000 vertical meters of sediment was removed from the Kaibab Plateau after the local dome shaped uplift, where are the side channels, around the dome, formed by the rivers that took this large amount of sediment away from this region? As far as I can tell, there simply are no such significant pathways of sediment removal around this dome-shaped region. Yet, wouldn't they have to be there if in fact such a large amount of sediment were in fact removed from atop this dome-shaped region over many millions of years of time?

Beyond this, consider that the Rockies, which are thought to have started their most recent uplift during the Laramide Orogeny some 70 million years ago,^85,86 are currently being uplifted at between "100-1000 cm/kyr years. . . However, the rate of uplift is being matched by the rate of erosion, with little or no change in elevation."⁸⁰ With an erosion rate of 100cm/kyr, that's 1,000 meters of erosion per million years or an incredible 70,000 meters in 70 million years.

So, how did the sedimentary layers last all that time in the Rockies? Does the "folding" and volcanic ash/lava flow deposition that some have suggested really help explain away some 70,000 meters of sedimentary surface erosion as protection for those very thick layers that remain? Even if the erosion rate were an average of only 10cm/kyr over the course of 70 million years, would there really be anything as far as ancient sedimentary layers left in the Rockies? What is going to overcome even a bare minimum of 7,000 meters of vertical erosion? I just don't see it . . .

Also note that some mountain ranges, such as the Chugach and St. Elias mountain ranges in southeast Alaska, are currently eroding at "50 to 100 times" the current Rocky Mountain rate - i.e., at about 5,000 to 10,000cm/kyr or 50,000 to 100,000 meters or erosion per million years.⁸⁰ Other mountains, like the Cascades in the Mt. Rainier region in Washington State, are eroding away at a more modest 800cm/kyr. The Himalayas are eroding away at well over 200cm/kyr.⁸¹ Yet, all of these mountain ranges still have very "old" sedimentary layers on their surfaces? Go figure?

This problem has been recognized by geologists for some time now. Consider an outline of the problem found in a paper published by C. R. Twidale as far back as a 1976 issue of the American Journal of Science:

Obviously, the reason why "ancient" surviving paleoforms are such an "embarrassment" to geoscientists is because landscapes, such as elevated plains, should be rapidly incised by erosion that results in a well-developed drainage system. Even relatively low rates of erosion should completely eroded away such an elevated plain in just a few million years. Large elevated plains covering hundreds or even thousands of square miles, therefore, should be evidence of the "youthful stage" of landscape evolution while low-lying, low relief surfaces (peneplains) would be more consistent with the "old age stage" of landscape evolution. As Twidale suggests, examples of elevated paleoplains, to include the enormous Gondwana Surface of southern Africa (largely assigned to the "Cretaceous" age)⁶⁰ and various paleoplains of central and western Australia (some

assigned to "Triassic" age),⁶¹ are actually an "embarrassment" to all the commonly accepted models of landscape development. He notes that the Davisian theory of landscape evolution offers, "No theoretical possibility for the survival of paleoforms" since there has been "ample time for the very ancient features preserved in the present landscape to have been eradicated several times over." ⁵⁷ Today these paleoplains are being rapidly destroyed by downcutting erosion in stream channels.

This is a huge problem, it would seem. Why are the layers still there? Besides this question, one might ask why we find such evenness and relative smoothness of the topmost Kaibab layer in the Grand Caynon region? It seems rather strange, does it not, that so much sediment, 275 million years worth (as much as 2,000 vertical meters of sediment), could have been eroded away so evenly over the course of ~15 million years since the Grand Canyon region (the Kaibab Plateau) is thought to have started its most recent uplift.⁶³ One might reasonably expect there to be much more uneven surfaces resulting after such a protracted time of erosion - even if there were sediment left at all in this area after that amount of time.⁵⁹ The s

ame could be said for each individual layer within the Grand Canyon that once formed the surface of the ground or ocean floor for millions of years. How are such flat surfaces maintained over that long a time, or created in such an extensive manner as is seen generally throughout the geologic column, before the next layer started to form many millions of years later?

For example, the topmost layer of the Grand Canyon is the Middle Permian Kaibab Limestone. Although the Kaibab (~125 meters in average thickness) may vary in thickness by as much as 30 or 40 meters from place to place around the Grand Canyon, it is obvious, even to the casual observer, that the Kaibab is relatively even with respect to variations in its thickness and fairly smooth over its surface despite being exposed as a surface layer for thousands of square miles. The question is, "What happened to the thousands of meters of overlying sediment? How did it get weathered away to leave such an even and relatively smooth Middle Permian layer on top?" Just look at what the relatively small Colorado River supposedly did after only 5.5 million years of supposed erosive activity - It dug a crisp mile-deep canyon with an almost "punched-out" appearance. But, aside from the erosion caused directly by the Colorado River, what happened to the erosive forces other than the Colorado River?

Wind, rain, and other forces of erosion such as chemical erosion, working on the Colorado plateau over the course of millions of years would have removed a whole lot of sediment in an very uneven fashion. Erosive forces other than the Colorado River acting over the course of such vast spans of time should have created very uneven erosional surfaces generally surrounding the Grand Canyon on all sides. Look at the pictures of the Grand Canyon above and note the very abrupt cut that is made at the topmost edge of the canyon with the relatively flat and even surface of the surrounding Kaibab landscape. How was such a relatively smooth, sharp edge to the Grand Canyon maintained over the course of 5.5 million years? One might reasonably think that this edge should be much more uneven and weathered looking over this amount of time? The region of the Grand Canyon is itself uplifted, relative to the rest of the Colorado Plateau, with the Canyon cutting through this uplifted dome-shaped area (see diagrams). The Kaibab surface of this dome, surrounding the Grand Canyon, is relatively smooth and even. If the surface layers over this dome had been eroded away over the course of millions of years, might one expect a very uneven surface by now?

Of course, the argument is that the Kaibab is more resistant to erosion than were the overlying layers and that is why these layers were washed away in such a relatively smooth and even way. But, where on Earth is such flat erosion occurring today? How is such flat erosion explained over the course of millions of years? One would think that the overlying layers would have been eroded to form deep ravines, gorges, and valleys. Portions of the Kaibab would have been exposed for much longer periods of time than other portions of the Kaibab - perhaps millions of years longer. Those portions that were subject to longer spans of exposure should be significantly thinner if not completely missing as compared to those areas that were protected for millions of years by overlying sediment that had not yet been eroded way. And yet, when one looks at the exposed Kaibab today in this Grand Canyon region, it shows no significant evidence of uneven erosion. Many areas of the Kaibab are in fact still protected by buttes and other patches of overlying sediment and yet these protected areas of the Kaibab are not significantly thicker than those areas that are exposed.

So what happened? These sedimentary layers are still there covering the Grand Canyon Region and the Rocky Mountains for thousands of square miles? How were they so resistant to erosion that is currently removing them at a rather significant rate? How is the Kaibab so resistant to the expected effects of uneven erosion despite the fact that it lies exposed over a dome-shaped region around the Grand

Canyon? Even if the Kaibab has only been exposed in this region just one million years the expected erosion should have removed at least 50 to 150 meters of sediment in a very uneven way. Why then is the Kaibab so surprisingly even in thickness and relatively smooth over its exposed surface?⁵⁹ Also, why didn't the layers that now form the Grand Staircase erode away like those that covered the Grand Canyon region? They were also uplifted at the same time and had the same amounts of deposition before their uplift. Yet, relatively young Miocene sediments (only 30-50 million years old) remain atop the Grand Staircase while the Kaibab layer (thought to be ~ 270 million years old) is all that is left of these layers atop the Grand Canyon region? How is this dramatic difference in erosion rates explained?

Some have actually suggested to me that the Kaibab layer is not at all "flat" since the northern rim of the Grand Canyon is significantly higher in elevation than the southern rim by approximately 300 to 400 meters. Obviously though, this difference in current elevation is not due to a difference in erosion, but a difference in uplift. The Kaibab, as well as the other layers below the Kaibab, are just as even and smoothly layered, relative to themselves, as they were before the uplift occurred. There is just no evidence of the erosion that would be expected if vast spans of time were indeed involved in the formation of the erosive surfaces of the Grand Canyon, surrounding region, and the Colorado Plateau in general.

Of course, it is true that much of the column is formed by marine layers that are said to represent ancient ocean beds. The weathering of underwater sediments is not as significant as that experienced by the exposed continental plates. However, many of these sedimentary layers are thought to have been exposed to open air and have been subjected to higher erosion rates for the past 200 to 360 million years or so (before more significant uplifts are thought to have occurred in his region some 70 million years ago) and yet these sedimentary layers remain largely intact without having been generally weathered away? - again, like a broken record I ask - How is this explained?

Even those layers that contain fossils of land animals, such as the dinosaurs, birds, and other reptiles, still have no significant weathering between their contact zones with other layers (see discussion of "paraconformities" below). Why is this not generally recognized as an overwhelming problem for the popular paradigm? Why is it not even discussed in science journals?

Just look at the sedimentary layers on Mt. Everest. This mountain is thought to be over 50 million years old. Yet, sedimentary layers still cover its highest peaks? Erosion, over the course of 60 million years, translates into at least 60,000 vertical meters of lost sediment and still there are significant amounts of the geologic column on Mt. Everest? Originally, after the warping and uplifting in this region supposedly started some 50 Ma, the thickness of the sediment above the currently exposed Ordovician layer was no more than 6,000 meters.⁹⁵ Does this makes any sense?

Beyond this, some scientists, such as Harutaka Sakai suggest that Mt. Everest used to be much taller and thicker than it is today - about 15,000 meters tall! But, about 20 million years ago Sakai argues that about half of it slid off, exposing the Ordovician layer that currently tops Mt. Everest at about 8,848 meters in elevation. ⁹⁴ If Everest currently has an erosion rate of about 200 cm/kyr, imagine what the erosion rate would be like for a mountain nearly twice as tall?! At just 200 cm/kyr, this works out to be 40,000 meters of erosion in just 20 million years. An erosion rate of 200 cm/kyr is about average for the Himalayan region given the newer estimates based on 10 Be and 26Al measurements, which suggest an average erosion rate of the Himalayas of 130 cm/kyr for the lower altitudes and up to 410 cm/kyr for the steepest areas with an average in the high Himalayas of about 270 cm/kyr. ^96,97

So, the current evidence suggests that the overlying sediment wasn't there 20 million years ago. Basically, the Ordovician limestone
has been exposed to high-level high-altitude erosion (~200 cm/kyr) for at least 20 million years? - and it is still there? How then can Mt. Everest really be over 60 million years old, or even 20 million years old and still have a Ordovician layer of sediment covering it as if it had hardly been touched by erosion?

Not only does the rate of erosion fail to match up with what we see in the geologic column, especially on mountain ranges throughout the world, but the pattern of erosion does not seem to match up either. As mentioned earlier, erosion generally forms very uneven surfaces. Now, look again at the pictures of the Grand Canyon in this paper and notice the crisp parallel lines between each layer. Many claim that there are evidences of erosion in lower layers, evidences of rivers, streams, rain, etc. However, these are generally isolated findings such as one might expect if they

were formed rapidly, such as occurs with the rapid runoff of waters after a catastrophic flooding event. The general surfaces of each layer remain extremely smooth and parallel to the other layers. Just look at the pictures. No one can help but note the uniformity and evenness of these layers throughout the geologic column as compared with what we see erosion currently doing today. Long term erosion causes non-uniformity and unevenness.⁵⁹ We simply do not see this sort of expected erosion recorded in the geologic column in any sort of general way.

Certainly this general flatness has been noticed by geologists and there have been some models proposed that attempted to show how erosion could produce a flat or "planar" surface over extended periods of time. Perhaps the most famous is the "peneplain concept", proposed about a century ago by the well-known Harvard gemorphologist W. M. Davis. Davis postulated that, under special conditions, "flat erosion" could be achieved which would indeed form a "peneplain" (almost a plane). The problem is that this model, which gained considerable acceptance in the early part of this century, is no longer accepted. Garner (1974, p. 12) states: "The peneplain is Davis's 'old age' landscape. It has been called an imaginary landform. Perhaps it is." One would expect that any process forming the abundant, widespread, flat gap contacts in the geologic record of the past would be well-represented on the present surface of the earth; yet, Bloom (1969, p. 98) states that "unfortunately, none are known" and Pitty (1982, p. 77) points out that "although demonstrable unconformities abound, even W. M. Davis admitted that it was difficult to point to a clear present-day example of a peneplain." ⁶⁵

So, it seems as though the idea of long term erosion forming widespread flat surfaces is pretty much wishful thinking since it does not seem to be found anywhere in the real world. The erosion that is recorded in the geologic column seems to be much more consistent with widespread catastrophic erosive events acting with great energy and evenness over a very short span of time.

An outstanding example of a very large flat layer is the persistent Cretaceous Dakota Formation. The Dakota is unusually thin, usually about 30 meters thick, with a maximum up to 220 meters. It is spread over 815,000 square kilometers. How such a thin formation could be deposited over such a widespread area not only reflects unusual depositional factors, but the extremely flat topography necessary to accommodate the spread of such a thin formation. Where do we now see such flat and widespread areas on the continents waiting for the deposition of new formations?

Consider also the Jurassic Morrison Formation (famous for its dinosaur fossils). It covers over 1,000,000 square kilometers being spread from Canada to Texas. It is substantially thicker than the Dakota, usually around 100 meters thick. It has been suggested that it was distributed by widespread flowing water. The fossils found within it are generally oriented with respect to flow - confirmed by GPS mapping. However, ancient channels of major rivers that would help distribute the sediments over such a wide area have not been found. The Triassic Chinle Group, famous for its petrified wood, evenly covers some 800,000 square kilometers, being spread from Idaho to Texas and from California to Wyoming.

All these formations required not only extremely widespread flat areas to be deposited upon, but truly unusual spreading factors. Where do we see, at present, such depositional forces at work on the continents of the Earth today? In this line the geologist Carlton Brett, of the University of Cincinnati, has fairly recently noted:

So, even though Brett is a firm believer in the popular notion that the geologic column represents vast periods of time, he is part of a growing number of geologists who are starting to recognize that the geologic column is generally formed, as a rule, by a series of catastrophic events. For example, consider the comments of David Raup from the University of Chicago:

Of course, the belief is that between these catastrophic events were very long periods of relative calm. However, if there were these very extensive periods of non-catastrophic change, where is the evidence of uneven erosion that would leave its mark after such extended periods of time? (Back to Top)

An Alternative Explanation

So, if the current features of the Rocky Mountains, Colorado Plateau, Kaibab Plateau, and sedimentary layers are inconsistent with ancient formation and tens of millions of years of erosive pressures, what other explanation might there be?

Well, it seems to me that sedimentary layers and topographical features of this entire region were formed very rapidly. The majority of the sedimentary layers were laid down in rapid succession, while the underlying layers where still relatively soft and non-lithified (not turned to hard stone yet) by a serious of massive closely-spaced catastrophic depositional events (see section on Clastic Dikes below). Tectonic activities were very strong at this time and mountains were being built extremely rapidly. The Colorado Plateau was also uplifted very very rapidly after the initial formation of the sedimentary layers.

After this formation, a massive amount of water was suddenly released in a huge runoff that covered several states, flowing from east to west. All of the sediment over the Grand Canyon region, above the Kaibab, was removed very rapidly by an extremely wide sheet of rapidly running water. Cedar Ridge was one massive waterfall. One can visualize this by looking from the Lake Powell region toward the Grand Canyon region in the satellite photo to the right. Notice that there is a distinct V-shaped formation at the tip where the eastern Grand Canyon begins - pointing toward Lake Powell. One can also recognize the deep punched-out appearance of the Canyon itself from the satellite photo as well as many of the other Canyon photos presented here. In other photos one can see the massive cliff-like faces that form a very wide valley where, in the middle, the Grand Canyon has been formed. The Grand Canyon is actually the baby canyon in comparison to the canyon in which is sits.

It seems that the sheet of rushing water dissipated before it could remove all of the elevated features, such as the various flat-topped buttes, in the GC region - which still remain as isolated islands sticking up above the relative flatness of the surrounding landscape. Also, as the water rapidly dissipated and the sheet of water narrowed, the "steps" of the Grand Staircase were formed.

The remaining flow of water, which was still massive for a period of time (relative to today's Colorado River), carved out the Grand Canyon, as we know it today, quite rapidly - backing up on many occasions as it was blocked by lava damns which rapidly filled the Canyon and blocked water flow every now and then for a few years at a time. The massive volcanic activity was, of course, only to be expected in a time of magnificent tectonic upheaval. When these lava dams collapsed in a catastrophic manner within the Grand, within a matter of minutes according to recent research (see section "Younger with Time" below), the built up lake of water behind them was released suddenly as a 2,000 foot wall of water. These repeated catastrophic floods, though very small in comparison to the initial catastrophes, carving out large amounts of the Grand Canyon very rapidly.

But, what about the fact that the Grand Canyon has many sharp horseshoe bends and turns? How can rapidly running water form such hairpin turns - especially in solid rock?

For one thing, water that is flowing fast enough can eat up solid rock incredibly fast. Even so, during the formation of most of the erosion features of this region, the sedimentary layers were not solid rock - they were still relatively soft. The massive flooding event that carved out the Grand Staircase and then the Grand Canyon, removing some 2,000 vertical meters of sediment from over the Kaibab Plateau in a very even-handed sweep, was working on relatively soft recently deposited sediments.

Also, if one looks carefully at the photos of this region, especially the one taken from a satellite view, it is interesting to note that the beginning of the Canyon, at the easternmost tip, is very straight. There simply aren't any significant twists or U-shaped turns. It is basically just a straight shot. It is also very crisply punched out from the surrounding landscape. The walls are very sharp and steep. These are all features indicating very large volumes of rapidly flowing flood waters.

Now, notice the western Canyon. It is when one gets to the western Canyon that one starts to see more of these sharp turns and bends in the path of the Colorado River. This seems reasonable, in the light of a catastrophic deluge model, since some of the energy of the flooding river would be used up as it traveled through the newly formed/forming eastern Canyon. So, as the speed and energy of the river began to diminish, it would begin to form some sharp U- and S-shaped bends as it came to the western aspect of the newly forming canyon.

In short, all of the features of the entire Colorado Plateau and Rocky Mountains, to include the formation of the sedimentary layers themselves, and their erosive features, such as the Grand Staircase and the Grand Canyon, were all formed, pretty much as we seen them today, within a few hundred to a couple thousand years at most. The sectional topics that follow seem to support this interpretation on a local as well as a more global scale. (Back to Top)

Younger With Time

Consider that by the late 1800s geologists were beginning to realize that the Colorado River within the Grand Canyon had been blocked several times and at several locations by lava dams that were built when local volcanoes spewed their molten lava into the developing canyon. Of course, being uniformitarian in their thinking, these earlier geologists theorized that these lava dams were each slowly worn away in sequences of tens of thousands of years as water flowed over them during a total course of around 5.5 million years.^70,72 For a long time now this position has been the prevailing opinion of the geological community and of scientists in general.

Interestingly enough though, this long cherished uniformitarian concept has been recently challenged by modern geologists who are presenting evidence that these lava dams did not erode away slowly at all. Instead, mounting evidence suggests that these lava dams failed almost instantaneously in catastrophic events of staggering proportions. Modern geologists are now theorizing that the sudden failure of these dams released raging torrents of water carrying up to "37 times" more water than the largest ever recorded flooding of the mighty Mississippi River.⁷⁰ Of course, the reason that such massive amounts of water could be stored and released so quickly is partially due to the fact that some of the dams were very large, rising up to 2,000 feet above the river bed. It seems that some of these larger dams lasted just long enough for very large amounts of water to build up behind them. The formation of very large lakes behind some of these dams seems to have proceeded at a very rapid rate since there is no evidence of lakes existing in the region beyond very short periods of time. Then, with the sudden failure of a 2,000 foot dam, a huge wall of rapidly rushing water charged through the Canyon carving out significant portions of the Canyon in very short order.^70,71 But, why did these dams fail so quickly?

As it turns out, lava dams are inherently unstable. This is because when molten lava meets cold river water it cools very rapidly. This rapid cooling effect turns the lava into fragile walls of glass. As this glass is cooled and heated it fractures quickly and easily, sometimes "explosively". Not all that surprisingly then, recent evidence seems to suggest that many of the dams failed from the bottom up since the glass content was greatest at the base of the dams. Also, various fault lines run through the Grand Canyon. Active earthquakes were thought to affect the Grand Canyon region during the time of the various lava flows. It seems then that with the help of even minor earthquakes fragile dams with glass bases supporting the enormous pressure of very large lakes would indeed fail in a catastrophic manner in very short order.^70,71,72,73

Such a massive and sudden release of water would obviously result in very rapid erosion. In fact, growing numbers of geologists now believe that certain portions of the Grand Canyon, once thought to be up to 5 million years old (Marble Canyon and the Inner Gorge), may be as young as 600,000 years old.^70,71 Talk about getting younger with time! An 8-fold decrease in supposed age is a very dramatic reduction. How could geologists have been so far off in their dating techniques? Some mainstream geologists are even starting to refer to the Grand Canyon as a "geologic infant." This is especially interesting because the initial estimates were supposedly backed up by fairly reliable potassium-argon (K-Ar) radiometric dating techniques , which are now thought by some to be inaccurate in this region due to the lack of complete removal of the argon daughter product at the time of initial formation of the lava dams.⁷²

Further evidence for a catastrophic model comes from USGS scientist and University of Arizona (UA) graduate, Jim O'Conner, along with UA hydrologist Victor Baker and others, who found evidence of a "400,000 cfs [cubic feet per second] flow that occurred about 4,000 years ago." ⁷⁰ For comparison, this is about the rate of catastrophic flow that would result if the Glen Canyon Dam suddenly failed. Taking this into account, scientists have noted that, "Large sustained floods can cause rapid downcutting in bedrock. The Inner Gorge and Marble Canyon are essentially giant slot canyons: features consistent with rapid down-cutting." ⁷⁰ Also, when large dams fail catastrophically, such as Idaho's Teton Dam did in 1976, they leave distinctive profiles in soils and on canyon walls. The water drops quickly with an exponential decay curve. Such decay curves are clearly evident in the Grand Canyon. For this sort of catastrophe to happen the lava dams must have failed almost instantaneously - as did the Teton dam, which failed and was completely destroyed in less than 2 hours.⁷⁰

Because the Grand Canyon lava dams were so unstable, the lakes that formed behind these dams did not have very much time to develop. In fact, the evidence clearly shows that these lakes must have filled fairly quickly before they were drained catastrophically a short time later. Though these lakes were sometimes very large when they emptied, they did not leave evidence of significant deltas or expected sedimentation, which would have developed if these lakes had survived longer than tens of years to a few hundred years.^70,71,72

Another interesting finding comes from the field work of Webb, an adjunct faculty member of the University of Arizona department of geosciences, hydrology and water resources. With co-researchers Fenton and Cerling, Webb applied a newly developed "cosmogenic dating method", developed by Cerling, to date basalt flows and other landforms in the Grand Canyon. The technique measures how long a surface has been exposed to cosmic rays from space. Their

application of this technique to lava flows in the western Grand Canyon is thought to make this region one of the best understood in terms of the ages of volcanic features in the Southwest. Interestingly enough, they dated some of the lava flows at only "1,300 years old." ⁷⁰

The same thing happened to Mather Gorge and Holtwood Gorge in Pennsylvania. These gorges were once thought to have eroded over the course of 180 million years. However, recent research (the measurement of beryllium-10 that builds up in quartz when exposed to cosmic rays) done by Luke J. Reusser, a geologist at the University of Vermont in Burlington, and other colleagues, suggests that these gorges my be as young as 13,000 years instead of 180 million years.⁷⁸ That is a difference of over four orders of magnitude!

These findings are simply devastating to long held notions of slow uniformitarian process creating the Grand Canyon and many other formations gradually over vast periods of time. Rather, it seems abundantly clear that much if not all of the expanse of the Grand Canyon was cut out catastrophically over very short periods of time - perhaps faster and more catastrophically than even currently recognized? (Back to Top)

Monument Valley

Places like Monument Valley also pose a significant problem. In this valley, there are formations sticking out of the ground in the middle of nowhere. These are sedimentary formations that match the Geologic Column, and yet all around them the rest of the column has vanished. These formations are made up of horizontal layers that match each other. Obviously the layers that make up these monuments were once connected before these intervening sediments were eroded away.

So, why are these formations still there? The current explanation is that "weathering" took the rest of the column away over the course of more than 50 million years but left these small resistant portions of it in the middle of this huge valley.⁴ Well, how on earth did these small portions avoid any significant weathering over the the course of more than 50 million years as most current geologists believe, and yet the rest of the entire valley was weathered away? Does this make good sense in the face of what we see happen during flooding and water runs? After any flood on soft soil, look at the landscape and see if it does not remind you of something - like Monument Valley. What we see at Monument Valley seems much more consistent with the idea of a huge flood, rapid sedimentation, and rapid water movement with a quick runoff and not so much with the current idea of eons of selective erosion. Also, as previously discussed, 50 million plus years of erosion in this region would remove enough sediment to wash away all the layers down to the underlying granite several times over. The fact that such thick sedimentary layers are still covering the Colorado plateau at all after 50 million years of supposed uplift and erosive pressures is truly a mystery.

Look at the pictures of this region again and notice that the monuments are arranged in a linear fashion and that their sides are pretty much vertical, like they were punched out with a huge cookie-cutter from the surrounding landscape. This is very similar to what we see throughout the Colorado plateau, including the Grand Canyon region. Notice also that the intervening landscape between the monuments is relatively flat and even. In one of the pictures there are even very large ripple marks evident in the middle of the valley. All of this speaks to a rapid formation by an almost unimaginably huge catastrophic flood that formed these features over days to weeks. Current orientation on a massive scale is clearly visible especially from aerial photographs of the region. Such features simply cannot be formed gradually but clearly speak of a sudden catastrophe or shortly spaced catastrophes of magnificent proportions.

It is very much the same situation as we see in eastern Washington State with the formation of the Scablands. For much of the twentieth century geologists claimed that the Scablands were formed by very slow processes of erosion over the course of millions of years of time. Though scorned and ridiculed for many decades, J Harlen Bretz proposal that only a catastrophic deluge could have formed the Scabland features finally won the day. (Back to Top)

Arches National Park

Arches National Park, located in southeastern Utah, boasts the greatest density of natural arches in the world. There are more than 2,000 of them within a 73,000 acre area. This area, once buried under almost a mile of sedimentary layering, has now been exposed by erosion. Many of the resulting arches are quite fantastic, almost unbelievable. The longest one, Landscape Arch, spans some 306 feet from base to base! Others are isolated, all by themselves, like lone monuments. ⁸⁸ So, how on Earth were they formed?

According to mainstream geologists, these arches were formed by erosion over some 100 million years of time. What happened is that very deep sedimentary layers were formed over hundreds of millions of years and then there was a local uplift in the Arches National Park region. This uplift created deep cracks that penetrated the buried sandstone layers. Then, over very long periods of time, erosion wore away the exposed rock in such a way that the cracks became bigger and bigger and the sandstone walls or "fins" became thinner and thinner. Summer and winter frosting and thawing cased crumbling and flaking of the porous sandstone and eventually cut through some of the fins. The resulting holes were enlarged into arches by further weathering. ⁸⁷

There are a few other explanations for the formation of various types of arches, but generally speaking this is the basic story. What is most interesting to me, however, is that all of these stories involve many millions of years of erosive pressure. The problem with this is that erosion rates are just too high for such thin-walled "fins" and delicate arches to survive more than a few tens of thousands of years. There is just no way that such delicate structures could survive millions of years of erosion. This is especially true when one considers that the average erosion rate in this region is around 15cm per thousand years. That is enough erosion pressure to erode all of the layers away down to the underlying granite several times over in 100 million years (see above discussion of erosion rates).

Beyond this, consider the uneven way that erosion works today. Erosion does not maintain such sharp knife-like surfaces over long periods of time. Rather, it rounds out sharp protruding surfaces and rapidly reduces the highest reliefs that are protruding above the surrounding landscape. Note also that only the surface layers of these fins show any evidence of erosion. What happened during the many millions of years that these layers were being formed? Why was there no significant evidence of erosion during this time - leaving evidence of its activity in the underlying layers? It just isn't there.

It all seems much more consistent with relatively rapid deposition followed by very rapid erosion in the not so distant past. These arches and monuments are largely stream oriented with the surrounding landscape. The lone monuments and arches in particular, in stark relief relative to the surrounding landscape, simply could not have survived long periods of time while large amounts of surrounding sediments were neatly removed by erosion forces the mysteriously left these relics untouched. Only a very rapid and massive flooding event with runoff occurring before complete leveling of all such remaining monuments is consistent with the formation and preservation of such large and delicate arches, fins, monuments, and precariously balanced boulders atop high pinnacles. (Back to Top)

Paraconformities

Powerful evidence against the notion that long periods of time (thousands to millions of years) were required to form the the geological record is provided by what geologists call paraconformities. Paraconformities are places where huge amounts of time are thought to have passed, yet there is very little physical evidence to show for it. Remember that the top of each layer must once have formed the sea-floor or a land surface before being covered up by the next layer. Of course, as the surface layer, one would think that such a surface would become significantly changed by the forces of erosion over relatively short periods of time. The very next tide or rainstorm will begin working upon what came before, making surfaces uneven in various patterns common to the way erosional and depositional forces act today. Channels and gullies will begin to form. Soon, parts or sections of various layers will be completely removed . Also, living creatures that burrow into the sediment, excavating it to build dwelling places or to feed, will mix up the neat layering lines of the original layers. This process is called "bioturbation". Bioturbation is an extremely effective way of destroying layering in sedimentary rocks by mixing up the sediment and homogenizing it.

It is easy to find modern-day examples of this. Hurricane Carla laid down a distinctive layer of sediment off the coast of central Texas in 1961. About twenty years later, geologists returned to this layer to find out what had happened to it. Most of the layer had been destroyed by living creatures burrowing into it and disturbing it, and where the layer could still be found it was almost unrecognizable.⁴³ In the light of such modern day findings, it is very difficult to imagine how such layering of sediment found throughout the geologic column and such crisp lines between these layers could have been kept in such pristine condition for not only tens or hundreds of years, but hundreds of thousands and even millions upon millions of years of time. And yet, throughout the geologic column, more often than not, there are missing layers representing millions of years between two perfectly fitted layers that are as flat as can be. If the missing layer really represents millions of years of elapsed time, there should be significant evidence of erosive disruption at these junctions, but it just isn't there. N.D. Newell, in the 1984 issue of the Princeton University Press, made a very interesting and revealing comment concerning this paraconformity phenomenon:

In the light of such testimonies, consider again such sedimentary layers as are found in the the Grand Canyon. Note that the entire Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras (the most recent ones) are completely missing - eroded away as flatly as a pancake from the top of Arizona and yet it is known that these layers were in fact once there. Consider Red Butte, a nearby butte that is very close to the Grand Canyon and yet contains layers that were once covering the topmost layers of the Grand Canyon and much of Arizona. How where these layers eroded away so neatly from the rest of Arizona and over the Grand Canyon over an extended course of time and yet Red Butte remains, apparently so resistant to such powerful erosive forces? The same question can be asked about the formations found in places like Monument Valley and Beartooth Butte (see below).

In any case, the top layers of the Grand Canyon are classified as part of the Permian age (about 250 million years old). The usual expectation of geologists would call for the Pennsylvanian layer to be below that, but there simply is no Pennsylvanian layer. Millions of years of sedimentary time are completely missing with the next layer down, the top of the Redwall Limestone layer (part of the Mississippian age dated at between 345 to 325 million years old), still as flat as a pancake with no evidence of erosion at all as a mechanism to remove the Pennsylvanian layers. The red color of the Redwall Limestone is actually the result of being stained by iron oxide derived from the overlying Supai Assemblage. It is very interesting that many meters of solid rock could be stained so completely and so evenly by iron oxide from overlying sediments. This phenomenon would be much easier to explain if the Redwall layers were still soft and wet when the overlying Supai layers were formed.

Below the Redwall Limestone should come the Devonian, Silurian, and Ordovician layers (totaling over 150 million years of time), but they too are completely missing except for a few small "lenses" of Devonian. Instead, the Redwall is found resting directly and flatly on the Muav Limestone - which contains many trilobites and other Cambrian fossils. What is even more interesting is that on the north side of the Grand Canyon there can be found several alternating layers of Cambrian Muav neatly and very flatly interspersed between layers of Mississippian Redstone! This interbedding of two widely separated periods of sedimentary rock cannot be easily explained by popular geologists who think that these periods really did exist many millions of years apart in time. Yet, as one moves up and down the column in this location the layers flash back and forth in 200 million year jumps? The contact between the two layers is a true sedimentary contact and thus Muav Limestone was deposited on top of the Redwall Limestone. How is this sort of phenomenon explained if these layers really were separated by such huge spans of time as is popularly believed by scientists? Rather, it seems much more consistent with rapid shortly spaced, even contemporaneous, deposition.

Another interesting paraconformity can be found at Dead Horse Point in Utah.⁴⁴ Exposed by the erosive forces of the Colorado River there are two major gaps in the geological sequence - one thought to represent 10 million years, and the other 20 million years. The 10 million year gap has been traced over 100,000 square miles (250,000 sq. km). Sandwiched between these two gaps are deposits of the Moenkopi Formation, a sequence of continental deposits (important, because on land a layer is more vulnerable to gully and channel erosion). Yet again, there is no evidence of a prolonged period of erosion along the tops of these layers. They are as flat and featureless as a very large parking lot. Then, there is the Deccan Plateau in India, which is made up of a thick pile of basalt lava flows. These basalts are thought to have been erupted throughout a period of several million years. Interestingly enough, it is well recognized that each individual lava flow must have formed very quickly because they spread out over very large distances (some can be traced over 100 miles) before they had time to cool. Each flow probably formed in just a few days, so the bulk of the geological time is thought to have passed between each eruption. The creates a problem since evidence for long time gaps between the flows is lacking. The tops of the flows are strikingly flat, implying that there was minimal time for erosion to take place between eruptions. For instance, the village of Shyampura is built on top of one of the lava flows which forms a flat plateau nearly three miles long and more than a mile wide. The level does not vary more than 50 feet over the whole area. If thousands of years passed between each eruption, then why had the lavas not been carved into dendritic patterns and conical hills that modern day erosion produces?

The Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG), located in the north western part of the United States (eastern Washington, northern Oregon, and western Idaho), is also quite interesting. This basalt group is rather large covering an area of 163,700 square kilometers and fills a volume of 174,000 cubic kilometers. The vast extent and sheer volume of such individual flows are orders of magnitude larger than anything ever recorded in known human history. Within this group are around 300 individual lava flows each of rather uniform thickness over many kilometers with several extending up to 750 kilometers from their origin. The CRBG is believed to span the Miocene Epoch over a period of 11 million years (from ~17 to 6 million years ago via radiometric dating).⁴⁷

Now, the problem with the idea that these flows span a period of over 11 million years of deposition is that there is significant physical evidence that the CRBG flows were deposited relatively rapidly with respect to each other and with themselves. The average time between each flow works out to around 36,000 years, but where is the erosion to the individual layers of basalt that one would expect to see after 36,000 years of exposure? The very fact that these flows cover such great distances indicate that the individual flows traveled at a high rate of speed in order to avoid solidification before they covered such huge areas as they did. Also, there are several examples where two or three different flows within the CRBG mix with each other. This suggests that some of the individual flows did not have enough time to solidify before the next flow(s) occurred. If some 36,000 years of time are supposed to separate each of the individual flows where is the evidence of erosion in the form of valleys or gullies cutting into the individual lava flows to be filled in by the next lava flow? There are no beds of basalt boulders that would would expect to be formed over such spans of time between individual flows.

Some have suggested that the rates of erosion on these basalts was so minimal (< 0.5 cm/k.y.) that it would not have resulted in a significant change even after 36,000 years. However, a recent real time study by Riebe et. al. to determine the effects of various climatic conditions on erosion rates of granite showed that erosion rates averaged 4cm per 1,000 years (k.y.) with a range of between 2cm/k.y. and 50cm/k.y. What is especially interesting is that despite ranges in climate involving between 20 to 180 cm/yr of annual precipitation and between 4 to 15 °C the average erosion rates varied by only 2.5 fold across all the sites and were not correlated with climate indicating that climatic variations weakly regulate the rates of granitic erosion.⁴⁸ Another fairly recent paper, by Lasaga and Rye, from the Yale University Department of Geology and Geophysics, noted that the average erosion rates of basalts from the Columbia River and Idaho regions is "about 4 times as fast as non-basaltic rocks" - to include granite.⁴⁹ This suggests that one could reasonable expect the erosion rate of basalts to average 16 to 20 cm/k.y. Over the course of 36,000 years this works out to between 6 to 7 meters (19 to 23 feet) of vertical erosion. This is significant erosion and there should be evidence of this sort of erosion if the time gap between flow was really 36,000 years. So, where is this evidence?

For several other such flows in the United States and elsewhere around the world the time intervals between flows are thought to be even longer - and yet still there is little evidence of the erosion that would be expected after such passages of time. For example, the Lincoln Porphyry of Colorado was originally thought to be a single unit because of the geographic proximity of the outcrops and the mineralogical and chemical similarities throughout the formation. Later, this idea was revised after radiometric dating placed various layers of the Lincoln Porphyry almost 30 million years apart in time. But how can such layers which show little if any evidence of interim erosion have been laid down thousands much less millions of years apart in time? Other examples, such as the Garrawilla Lavas of New South Wales, Australia, are found between the Upper Triassic and Jurassic layers and yet these lavas, over a very large area, grade imperceptibly into lavas which overlie Lower Tertiary sedimentary rock (supposedly laid down over 100 million years later). ⁴⁷ Robert Kingham noted, concerning this formation, in the 1998 Australian Geologic Survey Organization that that, "Triassic sediments unconformably overlie the Permian sequences. . . The Napperby depositional sequence represents the upper limit of the Gunnedah Basin sequence, with a regional unconformity existing between the Triassic and overlying Jurassic sediments of the Surat Basin north of the Liverpool Ranges. The Gunnedah Basin sequence includes a number of basic intrusions of Mesozoic and Tertiary rocks. These are associated with massive extrusions of the Garrawilla Volcanic complex and the Liverpool, Warrumbungle and Nandewar Ranges." ⁵⁰ Now, isn't it interesting that Tertiary sediments in the Gunnedah Basin sequence, which are thought to be over 100 million years younger, exist between Triassic and Jurassic sediments?

Also, throughout the CRBG and elsewhere are found "pillow lava" and palagonite formations - especially near the periphery of the lava flows. There are a few outcrops where tens of meters of vertical outcrop and hundreds of meters of horizontal outcrop consist entirely of pillow structures. Also, palagonite, with a greenish-yellow appearance produced via the reaction of hot lava coming in contact with water, is found throughout. These features are suggestive of lava flow formation in a very wet or even underwater environment. Certainly pillow lavas indicate underwater deposition, but note that lavas can be extruded subaqeously without the production of pillow structures. The potential to form pillow lava decreases as the volume of extruded lava increases. Thus, the effective contact area between lava and water (where pillow formations can potentially form) becomes proportionately smaller as the volume of lava extruded becomes larger. Other evidences of underwater formation include the finding of fresh water fossils (such as sponge spicules, diatoms, and dinoflagellates) between individual lava flows. Consider some interesting conclusions about these findings by Barnett and Fisk in a 1980 paper published in the journal, Northwest Science:

Now, what is interesting here is that these "forest elements" to include large lenses of fossilized wood are widely divergent in the type of preserved wood found. It is interesting that hundreds of species are found all mixed up together ranging from temperate birch and spruce to subtropical Eucalyptus and bald cypress. The petrified logs have been stripped of limbs and bark and are generally found in the pillow complexes of the basaltic flows, implying that water preserved the wood from being completely destroyed by the intense heat of the lava as it buried them.

For Barnett and Fisk to suggest that the finding of such fossil remains suggest the presence of a small pond or lake being filled in by successive flows just doesn't seem to add up. How are such ecologically divergent trees going to get concentrated around an infilling pond or lake? Also, how is a 10cm layer of coal going to be able to form under the "capping basalt"? It is supposed to take very long periods of time, great pressure, heat, and moisture to produce coal. How did this very thin layer of coal form and how was it preserved without evidence of any sort of uneven erosion to eventually become covered by a relatively thin layer of capping basalt? Also note that there are numerous well-rounded quartzite boulders, cobbles, and beds of gravel focally interbedded within and above the basalt flows.⁴⁷ How did these quartzite boulders, cobbles, and beds of gravel get transported hundreds of miles when there was only enough water to form tiny ponds and small shallow lakes? Does this make any sense? It seems more likely that huge shortly spaced watery catastrophes were involved in formation of many of these features - concentrating and transporting mats of widely divergent vegetation and quartzite rocks over long distances before they were buried by shortly spaced lava flows traveling rapidly over huge areas.

Lava traveling rapidly under water would experience rapid surface cooling and fracturing of this surface "skin". As it turns out, entablatures and colonnades are a common structural feature of basalts. These features are named by analogy to the respective horizontal and vertical architectural structures. Some have hypothesized that as water cools the outer "skin" of the molten lava a thin crust is rapidly formed. Then, the large temperature gradient between the crust above and the molten lava below creates tensional stresses that crack the crust which allow water to percolate through these cracks to come in contact with more molten lava and form another crust, which then cracks . . . and the cycle of crust formation and cracking continues. In the end, this rapid cyclical cooling process produces a thick slab of rock with columnar jointing.⁴⁷

One other evidence of fairly rapid cooling is the finding that these basalts contain relatively small crystals. When magma cools, crystals form because the solution is super-saturated with respect to some minerals. If the magma cools quickly, the crystals do not have much time to form, so they are very small. If the magma cools slowly, then the crystals have enough time to grow and become large. For comparison, consider that some granites contain minerals which are up to one meter in diameter! The size of crystals in an igneous rock is thought to be an important indicator of the conditions where the rock formed. A rock with small crystals probably formed at or near the surface and cooled quickly.⁵¹

Many other examples of paraconformities and other types of gaps in time, like these, have been described and no one seems to have a very good explanation for them. Even as far back as 1967, Newell, a well-known geologist noted, "The origin of paraconformities is uncertain, and I certainly do not have a simple solution to this problem." It seems like it is much easier to defend the notion that there simply were no vast spans of time separating the various layers found in the geologic column. Contrary to the popular notion that geological processes are extremely slow and gradual, the geology of the Earth shows clear evidence of being dominated by relatively shortly spaced massive watery catastrophes. The idea that millions of years can be accommodated in the gaps between sedimentary layers does not stand up to critical scientific examination. These facts are consistent with the view that our planet has had a short but dynamic history.⁴³ (Back to Top)

Clastic dikes (UK spelling; dykes) are found in many places throughout the geologic column, such as the Kodachrome basin. A clastic dike is formed when a layer of liquefied sediment squirts up into an overlying layer or layers of sediment (see diagram). This only happens in modern flooding and mudslides if the lower mud layer or sandy layer was still soft and recently deposited just before additional layers were added on top of it. The extreme pressure of sedimentary layering on top of a soft layer causes the soft layer to "squirt up" at intervals through the layers above it.⁸

Now, one might think that after a few million years that all the layers would be turned into solid rock. How then could solid rock "squirt" up into overlying layers of rock? The popular explanation seems to be that many types of sediment, such as the sand which forms sandstone, does not necessarily have to solidify just because it has been buried under high pressure for long periods of time. ⁶⁹ For example, in the drilling of oil wells, unconsolidated sandy layers have been found at depths greater than 1,000 to 2,000 meters. Of course, some of these sandy beds were filled with oil - which one might expect to contribute to the lack of consolidation of the sand in this layer. But, the general argument is that overlying shale layers consolidate before much water can escape from the underlying

sandy layers. Thus, the consolidated shale acts as a seal to prevent water from leaving the sandy layers. So, the overlying pressure does not compact the sand in order to aid in cementation. The overlying layers simply "float" on a layer of water. When some sort of disturbance happens to crack the overlying layer or layers, the liquefied sand squirts up with great force through this crack and forms a clastic dike or pipe.⁶⁹

The problem with this argument is that liquefied layers are simply not that common. In this light, it seems rather strange, when looking at the pipes and dikes found in the Kodachrome Basin and elsewhere, that these formations are quite common in certain regions. They are found at multiple levels supposedly separated by millions of years of time. And, some of them even have central cores of clay arising from a layer of shale. How can a layer be preventing liquid water from getting through from underlying layers if it is itself still unconsolidated? What is so special about these areas that layer after layer of sediment retains the ability to squirt up into overlying layers? - to include those layers made out of silt as well as sand?

Really now, it seems that a much easier explanation would be that the layers were in fact formed rapidly, one on top of the other, while they were all still soft. The pressure of the overlying wet sediments caused many of the underlying soft layers to squirt up all over the place through various weak points in the overlying soft sediments. (Back to Top)

But what about all the time it takes to turn sediment, like sandstone and limestone, into solid rock (lithification)? According to the current understanding of most scientists, the process of lithification is a very protracted one, requiring tens to hundreds of thousands of years and dependent upon certain environmental factors such as pressure, heat, chemical composition, the presence of water, and the chemical nature and saturation of the surrounding aqueous environment. Clearly then very thick layers, such as the Redwall Limestone, the Coconino Sandstone, and many other such layers found throughout the geologic column are evidence of many millions of years of elapsed time.

The problem here is that there is in fact a great deal of evidence for rapid lithification found all throughout the geologic column. Perhaps the most prominent evidence of very rapid lithification can be found in the exquisite preservation of finely detailed fossils throughout the geologic column. Some mainstream scientists have taken note and used this very argument as evidence of rapid burial and lithification in order to explain the very fine detail of certain fossils. Consider, for example, the following abstract published in a 2002 issue of Palaios dealing with finely preserved soft tissue in T. rex fecal material:

These findings requiring a very rapid process of lithification for the preservation of such fine fossil details are backed up by some very interesting real time experiments concerning lithification rates. Consider the following description of one of these experiments, performed by Friedman, detailed in a 1998 issue of the journal Sedimentary Geology: