International Conference on Creationism

Timothy L. Clarey  tclarey@icr.org

Clarey, T.L. 2013. South Fork and Heart Mountain Faults: Examples of catastrophic, gravity-driven “overthrusts,” northwest Wyoming, USA. In M. Horstemeyer (editor), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism, [no page numbers]. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.

Creationists in the past have been openly critical of secular explanations of overthrust faults. Some have denied their existence altogether, claiming that “overthrusts” were merely strata containing out-of-order fossils, and that no real faulting had occurred. To their credit, the mechanical difficulty of moving large, coherent sheets of strata great distances down fairly flat slopes has never been adequately explained. Today, however, creationists must accept the results of 1000s of drill-hole penetrations and 1000s of kilometers of seismic reflection data, collected since the 1970s, proving the existence overthrusts. Yet, the question remains, just how could overthrusts have formed?

The “rules” of overthrusting, established by the oil industry in the 1970s, suggest consistent movement directions away from uplifted regions. Overthrusts generally get younger in the direction of transport, often folding and deforming earlier-emplaced thrust sheets in the process. The apparent “uphill” movement of many overthrusts can usually be explained as a consequence of later folding by subsequent thrusts or by ramping uphill as the thrusting ceased. Overthrusts, generally, have a basal detachment from which all younger thrusts originate. High fluid pressures, developing during dewatering reactions and sediment loading, have the ability to create temporary overpressured zones and “float” large thrust sheets down slope.

This paper examines two fault systems as analogies for an “overthrust” Flood model. The famous Heart Mountain Fault near Cody, Wyoming and the lesser-known South Fork Fault in the same locale. Both faults moved catastrophically under the influence of gravity on a horizon of overpressured fluid and/or gasses. Transport was east-southeast. Both have a break-away fault which marks the origin site of the fault systems. Rapid development of near-surface folds in the detached sheets could only have developed while the sediments were still unlithified.

 Late Flood loading by sediment probably created overpressured horizons and rapid uplift and volcanism initiated sliding of the Heart Mountain and South Fork Faults. Similar processes undoubtedly occurred in many mountain belts globally. However, secular explanations of overthrusts, using slow movement and maintenance of overpressured horizons over great distances and long timeframes, still cannot resolve the glaring mechanical paradox. In contrast, a catastrophic model involving rapid downhill movement of unlithified sediments on overpressured detachments, provides both a cause and a mechanism for the development of large and tightly folded thrust sheets.

Creationists who are critical of the geologic column should no longer use the denial of overthrusts as part of their argument. They are, in fact, real features found in many mountain belts across the globe. Instead, creationists should recognize that overthrusts can only be explained in the context of the global Flood.

Heart Mountain near Cody Wyoming, USA. Ordovician and Mississippian strata are emplaced on top of Eocene strata in the northwestern Bighorn Basin.

John Baumgardner, jrbaumgardner@liberty.edu

Baumgardner, J.R. 1986. Numerical Simulation of the Large-Scale Tectonic Changes Accompanying the Flood.  In R. E. Walsh, C. L. Brooks, and R. S. Crowell (editors), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, pp. 17–30. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.

This paper, presented at the very first ICC in 1986, was the initial publication proposing that the Flood was a tectonic catastrophe driven by runaway subduction of oceanic plates into the earth’s mantle. As such, it outlined the basic concepts for the framework that has since become known as catastrophic plate tectonics.

As the author, how do I view this paper 35 years later? First of all, I am grateful to God that he allowed me to avoid any gigantic blunders in this initial publication. The foundational observation providing the underpinnings of the paper is that all of today’s igneous ocean crust has formed since the onset of the Flood via the process of seafloor spreading as oceanic plates migrated apart. Assuming no major change in the earth’s radius, this observation implies that at least 60% of the earth’s surface area must have cycled into the earth’s interior during the year of the Flood. This simple logic—apart from any other consideration—represents the basis of catastrophic plate tectonics. The paper includes an exploration of the basic mechanics and heat/energy budget involved. The analysis shows that oceanic plates have sufficient extra density, because of its low temperature relative to the rock in the mantle beneath, to be on the verge of runaway instability were the mantle merely a bit warmer.  It further shows that the gravitational potential energy associated with the layer of cold ocean floor rock is more than sufficient to drive a mechanical mantle overturn.  All these estimates and conclusions still hold 35 years later. The analysis of viscosity reduction from deformational heating introduces the issue of how silicate minerals weaken under increased temperature and stress. That issue has been a major focus of my subsequent research and publications.

Because of the glaring conflict between the Bible’s account of world history and the time scale provided by secular radioisotope dating methods, I include a section on what I suspected to be the fundamental flaw of the secular methods, namely, the assumption of time-invariant nuclear decay rates, drawing heavily on the work of Robert Gentry. The conclusions I offer match closely those of the RATE team later published in 2005.

Finally, I emphasize my earnest conviction that the Flood cannot be explained or modeled purely in terms of time-invariant or uniformitarian physics. In other words, God’s supernatural intervention during the Flood in the laws He ordained appears to be unavoidably required. Specifically, such intervention seems to be demanded to account for an episode of accelerated nuclear decay as well as to cool today’s ocean floor to its present state.  That cooling is essential to lower the global sea level by some 1,500 m and allow the water to drain from the continents.

What did I get wrong in the paper? Probably my most serious mistake was failing to pay heed to the vast amount of new seafloor creation during the Cenozoic portion of the geological record which allowed me to place the end of the runaway and hence the end of the Flood at the end of the Mesozoic.  I deeply regret that error. Much less serious was my conjecture that the pre-Flood mantle would need to be somewhat warmer than it is today for the runaway instability to occur. With better understanding of how silicate minerals weaken under stress, I no longer conclude that necessarily to be the case. Further, I am now aware that the Sierra Nevada granites are a complex of pancake-shaped sills, as opposed to a large coherent batholith, that plausibly might be able to cool via normal hydrothermal processes during the time since the Flood. Finally, I regret the several typographical mistakes that somehow were missed in editing. Overall, I am grateful this paper has endured this test of time and scrutiny by my peers.

Seismic images display a ring of rock (shown above in blue) at the bottom of the mantle with much higher-than-average seismic speed. The most likely explanation for the higher seismic speed is lower temperature. This ring of rock lies beneath the major zones where ocean plates have plunged into the mantle in the past. The low temperature in this ring of rock suggests it corresponds to subducted surface rock that has sunk to the base of the mantle. The red features in the images above appear to represent hot rock that has been shoved aside by the cold rock from above. The inferred temperature difference between the red and blue regions is on the order of 3,000 °C. However, the temperature at the core-mantle boundary is estimated to be no more than 3,500-4,000 °C. Hence, the temperature in the blue ring of rock is not appreciably different from the average temperature of today’s oceanic plates. Such low temperatures are inexplicable in terms of a time scale of 50-100 million years that the secular framework requires for subducted surface rock to sink to the bottom of the mantle. However, they are powerful support for an episode of global catastrophic plate tectonics that occurred only a few thousand years ago.

John H. Whitmore, johnwhitmore@cedarville.edu

Whitmore, J.H., and P.A. Garner. 2008. Using suites of criteria to recognize pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood strata in the rock record with application to Wyoming (USA). In A.A. Snelling (editor), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, pp. 425-448. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship; Dallas, Texas: Institute for Creation Research.

If I recall correctly, I think Paul Garner and I began talking about this project together in June of 2006 when the Biology Study Group met at Cedarville University. I finished my Ph.D. in 2003, researching the taphonomy of the fossil fish in the Green River Formation of Wyoming, and had just completed a series of articles in the Journal of Creation defending the post-Flood status of the Green River Formation. The reason that I wanted Paul as a co-author on this paper was that he had held various perspectives on the Flood/post-Flood boundary in Europe (Paul lives in England) and I felt that he could better identify scientific reasons for placing Flood boundaries at various horizons in different areas of the world.

When writing this paper, we wanted to generate a whole set of criteria that could be used when identifying Flood boundaries at any location on earth. We purposely did not use index fossils or geological “ages” in deciding on a boundary. The method we developed depends on a whole “suite of criteria,” not a single criterion (like a stratigraphically thick deposit, or a deposit that appears to have been formed catastrophically) to identify something as a pre-Flood, Flood, or post-Flood deposit. We started with Scripture, attempting to identify the geological implications and conditions from the Biblical text. For example, Genesis describes total global coverage of water, so we might expect continental or even global marine sediment deposits to be made during the Flood. After the Flood, deposits, at least those on the continents, would be characterized by having regional and local extents. We selected criteria that might indicate pre-Flood, Flood, or post-Flood conditions. Examples include marine deposits on the continents, deposits of unparalleled extent, global and regional unconformities, transgressive/regressive sequences, true paleosols, and eolian deposits, sea-level indicators, original horizontality, etc. We constructed a table (see p. 433 of the paper) with these criteria along the X-axis and formation names (in stratigraphic order) along the Y-axis. The X-axis categories are organized so the pre-Flood and Flood criteria are generally on the left and the post-Flood criteria to the right. To determine the Flood/post-Flood boundary, for example, look for when the shift occurs from primarily Flood criteria to post-Flood criteria.

Our method showed that the Flood/post-Flood boundary in Wyoming was likely between the Lance and Fort Union Formations, which happens between the Cretaceous and Tertiary. However, this does not mean this boundary is universal. In some of my recent work (yet to be published), it looks like the Flood/post-Flood boundary in Israel may be in the Eocene. In other places around the world, it might be in the Cretaceous, or lower. We encourage authors to use this method to identify Flood boundaries in their areas of familiarity so we can better corelate Flood boundaries around the world.

Figure 1. The Green River Formation of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming is interpreted as a post-Flood deposit using Whitmore and Garner’s (2008) criteria model.