Mud experiments overturn long-held geological beliefs
A call for a radical reappraisal of all previous interpretations of mudstone deposits
by Tas Walker
Photo wikipedia.com
Mudstone
New research presented in Science magazine documents how, contrary to conventional
wisdom, mud can deposit from rapidly flowing water.1 These findings cut across beliefs held by geologists
for over a century and signal that ‘mudstone science is poised for a paradigm
shift.’2
Using specially designed laboratory equipment, Juergen Schieber, John Southard and
Kevin Thaisen have shown that mud-sized material will deposit under much higher
current velocities than previously thought.
For more than a hundred years, geoscientists have assumed that long periods
of quiet water conditions are required for the deposition of mud. Based on that
belief, whenever geologists have encountered mud deposits in the sedimentary record
they have interpreted them as forming in a tranquil deposition environment.
Long-age scientists have long attacked the idea that Noah’s Flood was a real,
historical event, and disparaged the claim by young-earth creationists that the
year-long Flood can account for most of the geological deposits exposed on the earth
today. One of their major arguments concerns this widely held but erroneous belief.
For example, Alan Hayward uses the Haymond rock formation in the USA for this purpose,
describing it as almost a mile (1.6 km) thick, extending over a large area, and
containing more than 30,000 alternating layers of shale and sandstone.3
Hayward assumed the conventional geological beliefs about the deposition of mud
as fact: ‘Shale is made of compacted clay. As most readers will have noticed,
clay consists of exceedingly fine particles which take a long time to settle in
water. Turbulence keeps them in suspension and consequently clay will only settle
in calm water.’
He then uses these erroneous ideas to disparage the biblical account of the global
Flood: ‘How did the Flood bring in a thin layer of sand and deposit it over
a large area, then bring in a thin layer of clay and all this to settle quietly—all
in a matter of minutes? And then repeat the whole performance fifteen thousand times?’
He then mocks the scientific standing of Flood geologists. ‘It seems rather
obvious that there is only one way in which a series of events could possibly occur.
God would have to direct and control the whole process miraculously to achieve this
result.’
Photo by Tas Walker
Geological interpretations will be affected.
In other words, Flood geology is not real science because it needs to invoke supernatural
intervention to explain an otherwise implausible (in his view) position.
However, the latest research report in Science turns Hayward’s argument
on its head. The fact that muds deposit from flowing water means that the whole
formation could be explained by catastrophic deposition, possibly within days or
hours.
Daniel Wonderly is another who has used much ink and paper to mock young-earth creationist
writings. He insinuates that young-earth creationists are uninformed, as reflected
in the title of his book, ‘Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary strata compared
with young-earth creationist writings’.4
Surprisingly, his writings skeptical of Noah’s Flood are posted on the web
site of the ASA, the American Scientific Affiliation, which describes itself as
a fellowship of Christians in science who share a common fidelity to the Word of
God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.
Wonderly follows a similar line to Hayward. In chapter 2 of his book he describes
the immense thickness of sediments in the Appalachians, eastern USA, and argues
that this amount of sediment could not possibly have been deposited in the year-long
biblical Flood.5 It’s
not that there is too much sediment but that the deposition rates were too slow.
His arguments hinge on his assumed deposition rates, which is why the latest experiments
on mud deposition are so relevant. Wonderly says, ‘Most of the shale and mudstone
strata were deposited in fairly deep waters in inland seas, and their rate of deposition
was probably no more rapid than the slower rates we have cited for continental
shelves.’
Interestingly, Wonderly here describes in detail events that occurred in the past
but which have never been observed by any geologist. His whole argument is based
on his beliefs. He goes on:
‘Even when a body of water is tranquil, at least many hours are required for
the settling out of a single clay particle to become part of a shale or mudstone
deposit. Even if the suspended clay particles have undergone flocculation (clumping),
the water has to be essentially tranquil as the small clumps of flocculated clay
are not nearly so dense as grains of sand.’6
Wonderly concludes, ‘One year just does not allow enough time for anything
like the number of relatively quiet settling periods needed for the existing clay
and mudstone layers.’ In other words, ‘Christian, you cannot accept
the Bible as it reads.’
Photo by Tas Walker
Mud can settle from flowing water.
Again, the latest research documented in Science shows that these ideas
are wrong.
Schieber, the lead researcher for the Science article, said it should have
been obvious that mud can settle from flowing water. ‘All you have to do is
look around. After the creek on our university’s campus floods, you can see
ripples on the sidewalks once the waters have subsided. Closely examined, these
ripples consist of mud. Sedimentary geologists have assumed up until now that only
sand can form ripples and that mud particles are too small and settle too slowly
to do the same thing.’7
With graduate student Kevin Thaisen, Schieber designed and built a ‘mud flume’
that looks a bit like an oval race track. They installed a motorized belt with paddles
to keep the muddy water moving at a constant speed.
For mud they used extremely fine clays, calcium montmorillonite and kaolinite, as
well as natural lake muds. According to conventional geological wisdom, talc-sized
clay material would not settle from rapidly moving water. However, after only a
short time the mud was moving along the bottom of the flume. According to Schieber,
‘They accumulated at flow velocities that are much higher than what anyone
would have expected.’
Schieber suggests that one application of his research is by oil companies prospecting
for oil and gas, because both organic matter and muds are sticky and are often found
together. Along this line, his work could also be relevant to the way coal deposits
form. Coal beds frequently alternate with shale and mudstone, so the traditional
geological interpretation of coal forming in a swamp environment could be another
cherished belief overturned by these findings.
‘The results call for critical reappraisal of all mudstones previously interpreted
as having been continuously deposited under still waters. Such rocks are widely
used to infer past climates, ocean conditions and orbital variations.’—Joe Macquaker
and Kevin Bohacs
Macquaker and Bohacs say of this research: ‘The results call for critical
reappraisal of all mudstones previously interpreted as having been continuously
deposited under still waters. Such rocks are widely used to infer past climates,
ocean conditions and orbital variations.’8 What other sweeping
global interpretations have been made from a faulty belief about the deposition
of mudstone, a sedimentary rock comprising some two-thirds of the geological record?
Young-earth creationists have been challenging conventional interpretations of past
geologic events for decades. The stranglehold of the uniformitarian paradigm, an
anti-biblical belief system, has always choked a free and open discussion of alternative
interpretations. Let’s hope these new experimental findings about mud and
water will help to loosen that grip.
Related articles
Further reading
Recommended Resources
References
- Schieber, J., Southard, J. and Thaisen, K., Accretion of mudstone
beds from migrating floccule ripples, Science 318(5857):1760–1763,
2007. Return to Text.
- Macquaker, J.H.S. and and Bohacs, K.M., On the accumulation
of mud, Science 318(5857):1734–1735, 2007.
Return to Text.
- Hayward, A., Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies,
Triangle, London, pp. 123–125, 1985. Return to Text.
- Wonderly, D.E., Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata
Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research
Institute, Hatfield, PA, 1987.
Return to Text.
- Wonderly, ref. 4, pp. 39–40. Return
to Text.
- Wonderly, ref. 4, p. 41. Return to Text.
-
As waters clear, scientists seek to end a muddy debate, Physorg.com,
13 December 2007. Return to Text.
- Macquaker and Bohacs, ref. 2. p. 1735. Return
to Text.
Published: 9 January 2008(GMT+10)
| Anthony P said “Thanks for your … website, it’s really easy to navigate and it is a massive bonus to be able to read back-issues of your magazines … without your ministry I probably wouldn’t be a Christian today. Thank you so much and keep up the good work.” So help us do just that!  | | |
|
