Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth
by Larry Vardiman
Reviewed by Michael J. Oard
There is a vast difference between how uniformitarian scientists and creation scientists
view Earth history and the data sets from the past. This monograph starkly illustrates
this contrast by organising data from oceanography within the young-Earth paradigm.
As a result, the outcome is radically different from the standard interpretation,
and as Larry states:
‘It is likely that an entirely new understanding of paleoceanography could
be developed from this preliminary age model.’ (page 23)
In this monograph, Larry (who has a Ph.D. in atmospheric physics) provides general
information, mostly within five appendices, on the distribution, type, and average
thickness of sediment on the ocean bottom. It came as quite a surprise to uniformitarian
scientists when they first discovered that the average thickness of generally unconsolidated
ocean sediment is thin compared to continental sediments - only 600 metres. Since
these sediments have an average water content of about 50 per cent, they represent
300 metres of lithified sediment. He also gives us the modern sources and accumulation
rates of sediments within the present uniformitarian age. He also presents an overview
of the ocean drilling programme, including where the holes have been drilled. One
big asset for the person unfamiliar with oceanographic and geologic jargon is a
glossary.
In their paradigm, uniformitarian scientists simply extrapolate the current snail-paced
accumulation rates of ocean sedimentation into the past. One of the main points
of this monograph is to show that from the global Flood model, we need to apply
an exponentially decreasing rate of sedimentation from the Flood to the present.
With this biblical model, the author derives a standard age equation, but uses biblical
boundary conditions to reinterpret sedimentation and oceanic cooling rates after
the Flood. As a result, sedimentation and oceanic cooling is very rapid immediately
after the Flood. Based on oxygen isotope data from foraminifera shells in deep-sea
cores (explained in appendices C and E), the ocean temperature falls about 15°C
in several hundred years after the Flood (Figure 3.5). Since the warm water immediately
after the Flood provides the copious mid and high latitude evaporation for a post-Flood
Ice Age, this result agrees well with my model.1
Such rapid cooling also causes a vigorous oceanic circulation, significantly greater
than today. This in turn enhances vertical overturning and upwelling of nutrients
for prolific biological reproduction. I might add that the atmospheric circulation
and precipitation probably were enhanced after the Flood, increasing lithogenic
and aeolian input into the sea. All these non-uniformitarian consider-ations would
have resulted in significantly higher biogenic and lithogenic sedimentation rates.
However, the details of these processes still need to be worked out. The problem
of explaining all the biogenous sediments within the Genesis Flood paradigm was
first brought up by Roth.2
This monograph is admittedly a preliminary study. The exponential decrease in sedimentation,
although a good first-guess trend, likely needs refinement. At this stage of the
investigation, it is likely too early to speculate on the time-frame of oxygen isotope
oscillations found at the tops of cores. These fluctuations have been correlated
to repeating ice ages by uniformitarian scientists. The physical meaning of these
oscillations still needs to be explained within the creationist paradigm.
Larry, sensitive to the Flood/post-Flood boundary controversy within creationism,
opts as a first guess to use the top of ‘Cretaceous' ocean sediments as the
end of the Flood. Hence his equations are derived for the ‘Tertiary' sediments.
This is a sensible approach, but here is where we must be cautious, because the
Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in the ocean is a uniformitarian interpretation based
on microfossils. Hence, the oldest ocean sediments are said to be Middle Mesozoic.
Since these organisms were alive before and during the Flood, and probably after
the Flood, we cannot simply borrow their relative time-frame for the Flood and say
that the ocean floors are late Flood. For those creationists who believe the geological
column is a Genesis Flood sequence, the uniformitarian time-scale derived from oceanic
microfossils may not be correlated to continental index fossils. The current oceanic
distribution of microfossils and the lack of macrofossils on the ocean bottom is
likely due to the mechanism of the Flood and its aftermath. There also is the common
problem of reworking and the tendency to give multiple names for the same micro-organism
if found in different aged layers.3
All this needs to be sorted out within creationism, which will not be easy.
Larry focuses on oxygen isotope ratios as indicators of oceanic temperatures, as
well he should since this ratio usually is the main variable of interest to uniformitarian
scientists. However, the meaning of oxygen isotope ratios needs to be kept in perspective.
It is probably true that oxygen isotope ratios are a general indication of temperature.
However, there are many variables that can affect the down-core measurements of
oxygen isotopes,4 several of which
Larry describes. I believe the general increase in the oxygen isotope ratio in micro-organisms
up-core, and hence decreasing temperature is a good trend with time, but the magnitude
of the derived temperature change is questionable. Hence, the Tertiary and Quaternary
wiggles superimposed on the general trend (Figures E1 and E2) may be due to the
other variables that affect oxygen isotope ratios. Even some uniformitarian scientists
have concluded that oxygen isotope ratios can be way off when compared to fossil
information.5
This is a good monograph to acquaint the reader with the differences between the
uniformitarian and creationist models of oceanic sediments. It is preliminary, but
a good start in hopefully incorporating oceanographic data sets within the creationist
paradigm.
Related articles
References
- Oard, M. J., 1990. An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood, Institute for
Creation Research, San Diego, California. Return to text.
- Roth, A. A., 1985. Are millions of years required to produce
biogenic sediments in the deep ocean? Origins, 12:48-56.
Return to text.
- Tosk, T., 1988. Foraminifers in the fossil record: implications
for an ecological zonation model. Origins, 15:8-18. Return to text.
- Oard, M. J., 1984. Ice Ages: the mystery solved? Part II:
the manipulation of deep-sea cores. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 21:125-137.
Return to text.
- Adams, C. G., Lee, D. E. and Rosen, B. R., 1990.
Conflicting isotopic and biotic evidence for tropical sea-surface temperatures during
the Tertiary. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 77:289-313.
Return to text.
| Expand this site. Besides the 7,000 fully searchable articles on this site, we want to add many more ways to reach a media-soaked culture. But it requires expertise to do it. Help us expand our methods of outreach.  | | |
|
