Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Green River Formation: Flood or post-Flood?
The latest edition of the Journal of Creation (formerly the TJ), published by Answers in Genesis, includes a forum on whether the Green River Formation (Eocene) was deposited during or after the Flood. Michael Oard argues the case for Flood deposition and John Whitmore argues for a post-Flood lacustrine model. These papers are currently not available on-line but here are the citations with abstracts. For what it’s worth, I’m with Whitmore!
Journal of Creation Editors, ‘Introduction to the Forum’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):45.
Oard M.J., Whitmore J.H., ‘The Green River Formation of the west-central United States: Flood or post-Flood?’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):46-49.
Abstract. Many creationists believe the Genesis Flood was responsible for the bulk of sedimentary rocks and fossils. However, disagreements often arise in trying to determine where the Flood/post-Flood boundary should be placed in the stratigraphic record. This forum is a friendly exchange between two young-earth creationists who hold differing views on the origin of the Green River Formation (GRF). The authors have examined the rocks in the field together. Mike Oard will defend the thesis that the GRF was deposited in the Flood and John Whitmore will defend the thesis that it is a post-Flood lacustrine (lake) deposit. This paper outlines the geological setting of the GRF.
Oard M.J., ‘The case for Flood deposition of the Green River Formation’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):50-54.
Abstract. The Green River Formation (GRF) is a controversial formation within creationist earth science. Evolutionary geologists see the GRF as a sequence of about six million varves deposited with other associated formations over a few tens of millions of years of geological time. Furthermore, these geologists also ‘find’ Milankovitch and sunspot cycles in the ‘varves’. A number of creation geologists have found evidence that has convinced them the GRF formed in a post-Flood lake. The several times I have examined the GRF from a geomorphological point of view, I have come to the conclusion that it was formed during the Flood.
Whitmore J.H., ‘The Green River Formation: a large post-Flood lake system’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):55-63.
Abstract. Evidence from lithology, sedimentology, paleontology, ecology, taphonomy, geochemistry and structural geology suggests the Green River Formation (GRF) was a large lake system. Certain features – such as multiple horizons of exploded fish, disarticulated fish and stromatolites – suggest the passage of more than the one year of time allowed for by the Genesis Flood. Since these deposits have multiple lacustrine characteristics, are relatively undeformed compared to the underlying basins on which they rest and since the GRF is near the top of the geologic rock record, it is argued that the GRF represents a post-Flood lacustrine deposit.
Oard M.J., ‘Response to the post-Flood lake model for the Green River Formation’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):64-71.
Abstract. Lake paleoenvironmental signatures, as discussed by John Whitmore, are equivocal and thus cannot be considered as valuable as the geomorphological evidences. The exploded fish and caddis fly burrows are challenging to a Flood interpretation, however, other features of the fossil fish and caddis fly burrows are anomalous for a post-Flood lake. An early Flood timing can explain many of the features interpreted to be from a post-Flood setting, such as bird and mammal tracks, raindrop impressions, and mudcracks. Furthermore a case can be made for the inorganic deposition of ‘stromatolites’, and ‘evaporites’ claimed in the Green River Formation (GRF) have anomalous features for a post-Flood lake. A Flood model can explain the deposition and features of the GRF.
Whitmore J.H., ‘The geologic setting of the Green River Formation’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):72-78.
Abstract. Further evidence is presented that the Green River Formation (GRF) was deposited after the Flood following the tectonic uplift of Psalm 104:8. A shift from continental-wide to regional sedimentation patterns within local basins makes this clear. Additional evidence suggests the GRF was deposited in a warm lacustrine ecosystem over a period of hundreds of years, suggesting the need to re-evaluate post-Flood climate models. Sedimentological, stratigraphic and structural evidence suggests pediments, developed on GRF basin fills, could not have formed until well after the Flood. For now, creationists should abandon the use of paleontological criteria (index fossils) in defining the post-Flood boundary and focus on sedimentological and stratigraphic criteria instead.
Oard M.J., ‘Geomorphology indicates the GRF was deposited in the Flood’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):79-80.
Abstract. Many aspects of geomorphology indicate that the Green River Formation (GRF) was deposited during the Flood. The massive deposition and erosion of the GRF immediately suggests the Flood catastrophe and not post-Flood processes. Pediments and the long-distance spread of well-rounded quartzites also points to the Flood. Furthermore, there are many climatic problems if the GRF and associated formations were post-Flood. Based on multiple criteria, it is believed that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the ‘late Cenozoic’ over the western [sic – USA?].
Whitmore J.H., ‘Difficulties with a Flood model for the Green River Formation’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):81-85.
Abstract. Some problems, though not insurmountable, exist with a lake model for the origin of the Green River Formation (GRF). However, critical evaluation of Oard’s Flood model shows it simply is not supported by field observations. His Flood model raises far more questions than it answers. Instead, the data clearly indicate the GRF was deposited within lakes, after the Flood.
Journal of Creation Editors, ‘Introduction to the Forum’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):45.
Oard M.J., Whitmore J.H., ‘The Green River Formation of the west-central United States: Flood or post-Flood?’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):46-49.
Abstract. Many creationists believe the Genesis Flood was responsible for the bulk of sedimentary rocks and fossils. However, disagreements often arise in trying to determine where the Flood/post-Flood boundary should be placed in the stratigraphic record. This forum is a friendly exchange between two young-earth creationists who hold differing views on the origin of the Green River Formation (GRF). The authors have examined the rocks in the field together. Mike Oard will defend the thesis that the GRF was deposited in the Flood and John Whitmore will defend the thesis that it is a post-Flood lacustrine (lake) deposit. This paper outlines the geological setting of the GRF.
Oard M.J., ‘The case for Flood deposition of the Green River Formation’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):50-54.
Abstract. The Green River Formation (GRF) is a controversial formation within creationist earth science. Evolutionary geologists see the GRF as a sequence of about six million varves deposited with other associated formations over a few tens of millions of years of geological time. Furthermore, these geologists also ‘find’ Milankovitch and sunspot cycles in the ‘varves’. A number of creation geologists have found evidence that has convinced them the GRF formed in a post-Flood lake. The several times I have examined the GRF from a geomorphological point of view, I have come to the conclusion that it was formed during the Flood.
Whitmore J.H., ‘The Green River Formation: a large post-Flood lake system’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):55-63.
Abstract. Evidence from lithology, sedimentology, paleontology, ecology, taphonomy, geochemistry and structural geology suggests the Green River Formation (GRF) was a large lake system. Certain features – such as multiple horizons of exploded fish, disarticulated fish and stromatolites – suggest the passage of more than the one year of time allowed for by the Genesis Flood. Since these deposits have multiple lacustrine characteristics, are relatively undeformed compared to the underlying basins on which they rest and since the GRF is near the top of the geologic rock record, it is argued that the GRF represents a post-Flood lacustrine deposit.
Oard M.J., ‘Response to the post-Flood lake model for the Green River Formation’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):64-71.
Abstract. Lake paleoenvironmental signatures, as discussed by John Whitmore, are equivocal and thus cannot be considered as valuable as the geomorphological evidences. The exploded fish and caddis fly burrows are challenging to a Flood interpretation, however, other features of the fossil fish and caddis fly burrows are anomalous for a post-Flood lake. An early Flood timing can explain many of the features interpreted to be from a post-Flood setting, such as bird and mammal tracks, raindrop impressions, and mudcracks. Furthermore a case can be made for the inorganic deposition of ‘stromatolites’, and ‘evaporites’ claimed in the Green River Formation (GRF) have anomalous features for a post-Flood lake. A Flood model can explain the deposition and features of the GRF.
Whitmore J.H., ‘The geologic setting of the Green River Formation’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):72-78.
Abstract. Further evidence is presented that the Green River Formation (GRF) was deposited after the Flood following the tectonic uplift of Psalm 104:8. A shift from continental-wide to regional sedimentation patterns within local basins makes this clear. Additional evidence suggests the GRF was deposited in a warm lacustrine ecosystem over a period of hundreds of years, suggesting the need to re-evaluate post-Flood climate models. Sedimentological, stratigraphic and structural evidence suggests pediments, developed on GRF basin fills, could not have formed until well after the Flood. For now, creationists should abandon the use of paleontological criteria (index fossils) in defining the post-Flood boundary and focus on sedimentological and stratigraphic criteria instead.
Oard M.J., ‘Geomorphology indicates the GRF was deposited in the Flood’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):79-80.
Abstract. Many aspects of geomorphology indicate that the Green River Formation (GRF) was deposited during the Flood. The massive deposition and erosion of the GRF immediately suggests the Flood catastrophe and not post-Flood processes. Pediments and the long-distance spread of well-rounded quartzites also points to the Flood. Furthermore, there are many climatic problems if the GRF and associated formations were post-Flood. Based on multiple criteria, it is believed that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the ‘late Cenozoic’ over the western [sic – USA?].
Whitmore J.H., ‘Difficulties with a Flood model for the Green River Formation’, Journal of Creation 2006;20(1):81-85.
Abstract. Some problems, though not insurmountable, exist with a lake model for the origin of the Green River Formation (GRF). However, critical evaluation of Oard’s Flood model shows it simply is not supported by field observations. His Flood model raises far more questions than it answers. Instead, the data clearly indicate the GRF was deposited within lakes, after the Flood.
