Were Most of Earths Fossil-Bearing

Sedimentary Rock Layers Deposited

by Noahs Flood?

Tim Helble
September 9, 2011
 This presentation is by no means intended
to destroy anyones faith. It may, however,
cause some to re-evaluate how certain
portions of the Bible should be interpreted,
particularly the early chapters of Genesis.

If your entire Christian faith rests on a literal six-day interpretation of

Genesis 1-2 and the principles of what is popularly known as young-
earth creationism, please consider not proceeding with this presentation.
Were most of Earths fossil-bearing sedimentary
rock layers deposited by Noahs Flood? As is
often the case, Grand Canyon will be the focus.

Images obtained from an

Answers in Genesis slide

A related question: is it just a matter of looking at

the same data through two different world views
and coming to two different conclusions?
Keep in mind that
about 75% of Earths
land surface and
almost all of the ocean
bottom are covered by
sedimentary rock, so
whatever occurred in
the Grand Canyon
area also had to occur
all over the planet...

At the same time!

Young-earth advocates
will say most of these
layers were deposited
by the global Flood
 Late Flood
Layers

Early Flood
Layers
(1st 150 Days)

The Great Unconformity

Pre-Flood/
Creation
Young-earth advocates Week Rock
Drs. Steve Austin and
Andrew Snelling divide up
Grand Canyons layers
according to this scheme
 Young-earth advocates have
offered alternate explanations
for how several of these
Grand Canyon formations
were deposited, which makes
for interesting discussion
and often, you might hear
them say something like:

We use the same data

as the evolutionists, we
just come to different
conclusions.

Ron Blakey
 Looking at the Bright Angel Shale,
a mainstream geologist could point
out that crawling and burrowing
traces have been found which
indicate a relatively stable environ-
ment and plenty of time for each
new layer of fine sediment added to
the formation to be colonized and
reworked by trilobites and other
primitive animals without being
immediately crushed under the
weight of higher layers.
Callen Bentley N. VA Community College
However, a Flood geologist could
respond and say that burrows are
'escape traces' left by organisms
escaping rapid sedimentation, and
thus do not require long time
periods to form.

Same data, different

conclusions, right? National Park Service

Ron Blakey
 Looking at the lowest member of
the Redwall Limestone, a main-
stream geologist could point out
that nautiloid fossils have been
found next to upright Crinoid
stems; which, along with the
rocks composition, indicates they
died in a shallow water nearshore
(ocean) environment. Upright crinoid stem
Carol Hill

However, a Flood geologist could

respond and say that millions of
nautiloid fossils may exist in this
formation, indicating a mass kill
which occurred when they were
suddenly buried by tons of lime
mud transported by a submarine
liquefied sediment gravity current.

Same data, different

conclusions, right?
Robert Leighty (2004)
Ron Blakey
 Looking at the Coconino Sandstone, a
mainstream geologist could point out
that footprints of Komodo-Dragon
size reptile, smaller animals, and even
spiders have been found in its beds,
showing that the sand upon which
they were walking was exposed to the
atmosphere.
However, a Flood geologist could
respond and say that Dr. Leonard
Brand found that amphibians in a
water tank made footprints on the
sandy bottom that were similar in
form to those seen in the Coconino Carol Hill

Sandstone, therefore the footprints

could have been made by animals
trying to escape the onslaught of
Flood waters.

Same data, different

conclusions, right? Leonard R. Brand, Origins 5(2):64-82 (1978).
Ron Blakey
 So, at least from the perspective of an average person from
a non-scientific background, it would appear that the old-
earth and young-earth sides could argue until theyre blue
in the face about whether Grand Canyons layers were
deposited in less than a year by Noahs Flood or over eons
of time some 280 million years.

Based on graphics from Answers in Genesis and Steve Austin

Ron Blakey
 But suppose there were data for Grand Canyons layers
which both sides agree on and suppose simple math
can be used on that data to show there was no way the
layers could have been deposited during a year long
global Flood? It turns out this can be done for a hotly
disputed formation the Coconino Sandstone

Lets see if it could have been laid down during the Flood
Ron Blakey
 Geologists
Desert dunes
say thecant
Coconinos
be formedcomplex
during a
cross-bed
global Flood,
structure
so young-earth
indicates it was
advocates
formed
through
try to prove
eolianit (wind-driven)
was depositedprocesses
by water
U.S. Geological Survey
This slide will automatically
transition to the next one.
Lets look at a graphical procedure
developed by young-earth advocate
Dr. Steven A. Austin to show how the
Coconino could have been deposited
by flowing water during the Flood.
Austins procedure is widely used by
other young-earth advocates such as
Andrew Snelling, seen here showing it
at an Answers in Genesis conference.
 Austins Flood Velocity Estimation Procedure
Found in Grand Canyon Monument to Catastrophe, Page 34

Austin And
derived this combined
graph from it with this
an equation graph, re-
in Physical drawn from
Processes a 1980
of Sedimen- paper by
tation by D.M. Rubin
J.R.L. Allen and D.S.
(1970) McCulloch

See also Andrew Snelling,

Earths Catastrophic Past,
Volume 2, page 1081.
Austins Flood Velocity Estimation Procedure
Where did Rubin and McCulloch get their data for deeper water?

Situation shown: outgoing tide from San Francisco

Bay

Current too fast here

(5-6 mph) no sand
waves can form

Current slower here (2-

4 mph) sand waves
up to 33 ft form

See: Giant Underwater Sand Waves Seaward of the Golden Gate Bridge
 Austins Flood
Then draw a Velocity
line to the
Estimation
Note the two pointsProcedure
where line crosses
Want dunes and
sand waves area
right through dunes
How does itedges
work?of dunes and because it has
and sand waves area sand waves area cross beds
Austin states this
indicates the sand 54
waves formed at a
X X
depth of 54 meters
(177 feet)
NPS

From 10 meters,
Then go down
draw a line up
from those two
until it reaches
points to the
the curve
bottom
Austin says this
gives the range
of water velocity
needed to form
First, he assumes 10 meter sand
waves at a depth
a 10 meter (33 ft)
of 54 meters
height for sand
waves

90 to 155 cm/sec (2 - 4 mph)
Another graph in the same paper used by Austin!
And this one has sediment transport rates

Whats a sediment
transport rate?
1 kg per second per meter means
1 kilogram of sediment (sand)
crossing a 1-meter-long line
every second

er
et
m
1

If each man is shoveling 1 kilogram across

his meter stick every second, the sediment
transport rate is 1 kilogram / second / meter
With this new graph, heres what Austins double
graph procedure should have looked like
What kind of sediment transport rates would we see
if the current speed was between 90 to 155 cm/sec
and the depth was 54 meters? i.e., somewhere
in this area of
the graph
30
We could draw a
curve through that
area and estimate it
represents a rate of
6 or perhaps 9
kg/second/meter

But lets give the

young-earth position
every possible break
and estimate it would
be 30 kg/sec/meter
O.k., what area would we be moving all this sand into?
And where would it all be coming from?

This was from the Answers in

Genesis website. Notice the
regular pattern of cross beds
here. Compare to the complex
pattern in the previous close-up
Current of the Coconino Sandstone

10 meters
 In Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, page 36,
Dr. Austin provides a map like the one below showing the
area of the Coconino and correlated sandstones to the east
Dr. Austin says we need to look to the north for a
source of sand for the Coconino Sandstone, so
lets draw a 1,000 mile long northern border.

1,000 miles
Look at Dr. Snellings slide
he says the volume of the
Coconino is 10,000 mi3 and
its average thickness is 315
feet.
 How many days would it take to move
all the sand from the north across that line?
According to Drs. Austin and Snelling
Coconino is an early Flood layer (first 150 days)
Volume of the Coconino is 10,000 cubic miles
Average thickness of the Coconino is 315 feet
Total thickness of early Flood layers in Grand
Canyon is 4,000 feet
Therefore:
Time to move 10,000 cubic miles of sand to form the
Coconino is 315 ft / 4,000 ft x 150 days 12 days
Not very long!
 Lets
Theuse
bigbars to represent
question: the sandsand
could enough beingbetransported
transportedfrom
in 12the north
days
across the border,
through and assume
Dr. Austins 10,000
advancing sandcubic
wavemiles of sand was
mechanism perfectly
to form
positioned in an area to the north at just the right time during the Flood.
the Coconino Sandstone (with its complex cross beds) in Flood
Remember, lower and higher layers also had to be transported in the
currents moving at speeds anywhere close to 90 to 155 cm/sec?
same way before and after the Coconino was deposited.

10,000 cubic 10,000 cubic

miles of sand miles of sand

North South
1,000 mi3 12 days?
(This is 1/10
of the total)

12
10
11
1 Days
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Day
Ready
How much
Times up! sand would
cross the 1,000 mile
At 30 kg/sec/meter,
boundary in 12 days?
we would get:
Lets find out. 3
6.3 mi (26 km )
3

Not 10,000 mi3

Sand pile to the north Present day Coconino Sandstone

For the doubters, here are the calculations:
 And remember
this was only 1/10 of
10,000 cubic miles

Lets see if the sandstone layer could

Time = 371
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
be formed if we had the whole year-
long flood (371 days) to transport
Days
10,000 cubic miles of sand.

About 196 cubic miles

is all that would be transported
during the entire flood.

Sand pile to the north Present day Coconino Sandstone

Flood Geology Fails To Explain the Coconino
At 30 kg/sec per each meter along the 1,000 mile border, it
would take 52 years to move 10,000 cubic miles of sand
into the present day area of the Coconino Sandstone
A sediment transport rate of 48,000 kilograms per second
per each meter or 32,000 pounds per second per each foot
of the 1,000 mile border would be required to move enough
sand across the border to form the Coconino in 12 days
Thats 1,600 times greater than what a sediment transport rate
of 30 kg / sec / m would give you
 Flood Geology Refuted Using Simple Math
Thats equivalent to over four dump truck loads of sand crossing
each meter of the 1,000 mile boundary every second for 12 days
This is more like a giant slab of sand 84 feet high, 1000 miles
wide, and 630 miles long sliding south at 2 mph.
Even if it was possible to have such a moving sand slab, it
wouldnt allow complex cross beds to be formed!
Calculations for previous slides:
 Flood Geology Refuted Using Simple Math
And at least nine assumptions were made which
favored the young-earth position without them, the
computed height of the moving sand slab could have
been greater than the water depth!
1. Optimal positioning of 10,000 cubic miles of
sand, just to the north of the present day
Coconino, at just the right time during the Flood
2. Length of border crossed by sustained
unidirectional currents, as Austin termed it,
was really less than 1,000 miles.
3. 30 kg / sec / meter a very generous sediment
transport rate.
4. Deposition not delayed by period of scouring at
onset of the Flood.
5. Crossing northern boundary equated with
depositing the entire Coconino.
6. 10,000 cubic miles appears to be a low volume
estimate.
7. No accounting for portion of the Coconino that
was eroded away e.g., at Mogollon Rim.
8. No break in deposition allocated for the channel
fill formations (e.g., Surprise Cyn Formation).
9. Recent YEC efforts to attribute additional layers
to Flood deposition were not considered.
If you do the math, and with 10,000 cubic
miles of sand being moved at that speed,
youd move it all within a matter of a few
days and spread it over a 100,000 (square
mile area). See? Theres no problem!

Andrew Snelling, Answers for Darwin Conference,

Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, February 7, 2009.
 The output from Austins
double graph procedure
and/or the graphs themselves
has been used in at least five
popular young-earth books

Two young-
earth videos

and at least ten young-earth web pages (click on a number below:)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 Some comments on these findings
from young-earth believing viewers:

Big problem here Tim. If Creation week and the global

Flood of Noah is not responsible for what we see
geologically. Then Jesus Christ didn't raise from the
dead, and Adam was not a specially created being 6,000
years ago. We may as well forget it all, the naturalist
win If the math seemingly doesn't fit then the math is
wrong; GOD IS NOT.

Well thank God, Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead. Its our
interpretations and theology that look like theyve been wrong all along.
And regarding the math if you find any errors, feel free to let me
know.
 More comments
Your credulity is no different to that leveled at J. A. Bretz in
the 1940s when he postulated the Missoula flood. He was
told that such a thing was scientifically impossible You are
not considering a wall of water perhaps several hundred
meters high, 1000s of kilometers long, traveling at incredible
velocities, consistently grinding up land surfaces and
redepositing them elsewhere? If 50 cubic miles of basalt can
be eroded from one third of the state of Washington and
redeposited elsewhere in a few days by one small glacial lake
(Missoula), then how much can be eroded by entire oceans?
A wall of water ground up land surfaces into sand, silt, and clay particles and
deposited them in 1000s of sedimentary formations all over the Earth with no
sign of larger chunks, without interfering with deposition of other formations
that are upstream and downstream at the same level? Sounds like the geologic
equivalent of musical chairs. Does this person know that clay forms through
chemical processes, or that Earths sedimentary rock covers nearly 75% of the
land and almost all of the ocean floor and has a volume of over 100 million mi 3?
 More comments

Once again you are failing to get outside of your actualistic

box. Maths can be fudged according to ones a priori
assumptions. You need to stop thinking little geology.
Start thinking big, big geology. Your problem is that you
are confined to a paradigm which you will simply not give
up. You are trying to answer questions using your
paradigm as the starting point. This wont work.

Actually, I used Austin and Snellings data as a starting point. Maths

can be fudged according to my a priori assumptions? All that were
used were math and units conversion techniques learned in 9th grade.
Perhaps the multiplication table was different in the past, like the
speed of light and nuclear decay rates?
 More comments
So you want me to look at a paper about flume tanks and
sand waves in San Francisco Bay! That's nice Tim, but
there is an obvious disconnect in terms of scale with the
global flood! Their graphs (as reproduced by Austin) go to
100 meters, but what happens in even deeper water? Even
aside from scale, are the flume tanks reproducing all the
other conditions from the flood (the details of which no-one
is privvy to). Just as an example of the almost infinite
possibilities, what about a general sand wave producing
current frequently superimposed by tsunami or other wave
events? (I do note that when I'm in the surf, each wave lifts
up, and transports an enormous load of sand - almost fills
the pockets of my bathers!)
The water depth and flume tank size are irrelevant its the sediment transport
rate that matters. Also, tsunamis produce chaotic sediments and then only
in shallow water. BTW I believe this fellows bathers would be a bit heavier if
he caught a wave transporting sediment at 32,000 lbs per second per foot!!!
 More comments
with your claim that a massive volume of sand sediment
could not have been moved into place and had cross
bedding... I would simply like to see the size of the laboratory
that you proved experimentally that such is impossible!!...
To be anywhere near convincing to me, it would have to be
larger than the earth, and you would somehow have to have
inside info on exactly every process that God used.
The size of the laboratory is irrelevant if you have 10,000 cubic miles of
sediment and want to transport it across a 1,000 mile line in 12 days, the
sediment transport rate has to be a constant 32,000 lb / sec / ft. Actually,
Austins estimate of the water speed necessary to deposit fine sand as
underwater cross beds was just about right. You then want to increase the
sediment transport rate by a factor of at least 1,600 possibly as high as
10,000 or more and still think there is a way cross beds could form? At the
same time other formations are being deposited all over the planet? If you
cant steal sediment from a nearby formation, where did the sediment come
from did it rain down from space? Then theres the small issue about how
the Coconinos cross beds dont look anything like those formed underwater.
 These people are clearly not grasping the
gravity of the problem

There are two major points to this presentation that

every young-earth believer must deal with:
First, Austins graphical procedure for explaining
underwater formation of cross beds clearly does
not allow near enough sand to be transported to
form the Coconino Sandstone in 12 days.
Second, the sediment transport rate required to
form the Coconino Sandstone in 12 days would be
so absurdly high as to prevent the formation of
even the simplest cross beds.
 Gravity of the problem (continued)

Its not just huge waves that would be needed.

Sediment must be continuously and simultaneously
transported at absurdly high rates everywhere on
the planet, for the entire duration of the Flood
not just where a wave happens to be breaking.
Lets review. Austin was arguing
that the cross-bedded Coconino
Sandstone was formed by
underwater sand waves. To form
cross beds, the current detaches

individual grains of sand, lifts
them from the top of the sand
wave, and deposits them
somewhere ahead of the sand
wave as shown in this video: The sediment transport rate for this drawing
from the Answers in Genesis article would be
somewhere between 2 and 20 lbs/sec/foot
 Now, if you want to superimpose some kind of
miraculous transport of sediment at rates of at least
32,000 lbs/sec/ft on top of that sand wave-forming
process fine! But what happens if even a fraction
of that floating slab of sediment reaches the bottom?
You just killed the formation of cross beds.
You cant have it both ways!
 As Dr. Austin stated, if the water is moving too fast,
sand waves cant form no cross beds!
If the sediment transport rate is too large (especially
if it is too large by a factor of 1,600+), no cross beds!
Sediments affected by tsunamis display chaotic
(totally jumbled) characteristics, not thin, even
layers. Cross beds would be out of the question.
If the volume, thickness, and extent is known for any
sedimentary rock formation on the planet, the same
kind of mathematical calculations could be performed
as were done here for the Coconino Sandstone, with
the same result.

Flood Geology clearly fails the test.

But do cross beds formed by underwater
sand waves look anything like those formed
through eolian (wind-blown) processes?
Cross Beds Created By Water Flow

Brazos River, TX

Guy Berthault Answers in Genesis

Animation
Brazos River, TX
USGS
Cross Beds In Actual Sand Dunes

E. D. McKee

Diane M. Burns

Bruce Perry
John S. Shelton
 You be the judge
which type of cross
beds look more like
what we see in the
Coconino Sandstone?

Tim Martin, Earth Science Picture of the Day (EPOD),

Universities Space Research Association
Two interpretive
frameworks:
And what do you think

Old-Earth
Conclusions

Is it just a matter of
Young-Earth looking at the same
Conclusions
data, but coming to
different conclusions?
After Austin, Grand Canyon,
Monument to Catastrophe, 1994
 A follow-up note

Dr. Austin has recently proposed a new mechanism for

redistribution of sediments across the earth during the global
Flood: submarine liquefied sediment gravity currents
Austin now maintains that Such currents were likely the major
transportation agent for sediment during the global flood.
See: http://www.cedarville.edu/event/geology/2010_proceedings.pdf
 The submarine liquefied sediment gravity current mechanism
identified by Austin still provides an insufficient explanation for
how Earths sedimentary rock layers could be deposited during a
year-long global Flood, because it doesnt explain how strata
could accumulate simultaneously all over the Earth at extremely
high rates cant just focus on the Grand Canyon area.
Even if it were possible for submarine liquefied sediment gravity
currents to transport enough sediment into northern Arizona to
form the Coconino Sandstone in 12 days, the required deposition
rate wouldnt allow the formations famous cross beds to form.
Plus, the words of Austin (and others such as Andrew Snelling)
in many published documents require the Coconinos cross beds
to form through the advancing sand wave mechanism!
Given the angles of the cross beds, trackways from land
animals, absence of marine fossils, and failure of the Flood
geology explanation, it is clear the Coconino Sandstone
was formed slowly by a vast sand dune system and a
global Flood had no role in laying down this or any other
Grand Canyon rock layer.

Death Valley, CA
 The belief that Earth's sediments, with their fossils, were deposited
in an orderly sequence in a year's time defies all geological
observations and physical principles concerning sedimentation rates
and possible quantities of suspended solid matter.
Science and Creationism - A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd Edition, Page 8
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024#toc

End of Grand Canyon at Lake Mead during 1983 Flood

For more information, see: Sediment
Transport and the Coconino Sandstone:
A Reality Check on Flood Geology by
Timothy K. Helble, Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith, Journal of
the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA),
Vol. 63, No. 1, March 2011. Click here for
abstract on ASA website (full version
becomes available on this site in early
2012. Until then, click here or here for
text only version.
A version of this presentation with full animation
capabilities, along with several other presentations and
materials on young-earth creationism, are available at:
www.oldearthchristian.org

Good blogs and websites where the problems with

young earth creationism are discussed:
Answers in Creation: http://www.answersincreation.org

Old Earth Creation Society: http://oldearthcreationsociety.org/

The GeoChristian Blog: http://geochristian.wordpress.com/

Letters to Creationists Blog: http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/

Questioning Answers in Genesis Blog:

http://questioninganswersingenesis.blogspot.com/
Some excellent online books describing the
errors of young-earth creationism (particularly
Flood geology), are:
NEGLECT OF GEOLOGIC DATA: Sedimentary Strata Compared
with Young-Earth Creationist Writings by Daniel E. Wonderly

Gods Time-Records in Ancient Sediments by Daniel E. Wonderly

A New Look at an Old Earth by Don Stoner

Some excellent videos:

Lesson 8/16: Geology and Earth History by Gordon Glover
Other locations on the web where information
can be obtained on the intersection between
science and the Bible are:
American Scientific Affiliation: http://www.asa3.org/
Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: http://www.ibri.org/
God and Science: http://www.godandscience.org/

Beyond Creation Science: http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/

Affiliation of Christian Geologists: http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/

The Biologos Forum: http://biologos.org/