Hello,


As mentioned before the objects at Box Head do, in photographs, look very
much like vertical trees in sandstone .. but a visit to them found them not
to be so.

They are one of at least two asserted fossil wood occurrences in the broad
Sydney region which skeptics have much doubted.
These 'wood' occurences in Triassic sandstone were published by creation
scientists who are geologists, or creation geologists.

The Box Head 'trees' were published by creation geology writer Tasman Walker.

At about the same time another creation geologist, Dr Andrew Snelling,
published on some fossil wood in sandstone down south, Bundanoon way, with
a very young carbon dating.

I didn't take much notice of this myself .. why couldn't such a thing, if
wood, just be a deep tree root into the sandstone, for example!? But one
might not like to say such a thing .. as it could seem a little unkind to
Dr Snelling? However, somebody else has commented on this 'occurrence'
too, as below and has been quite harsh on Dr S. at "1" below.

Tas Walker has responded to the views of the 'Skeptics' - defending the
original expressed ideas (also below, with links or references) = at "2"
below.

Tas's words

... "The article in the Skeptic tried to dismiss the obvious evidence for
catastrophe provided by the broken tree trunks standing vertically in
sandstone outcrops. The author said ‘floods are well known in modern river
systems. There is no reason to invoke a worldwide flood to explain tree
trunks in fluvial deposited sedimentary rocks.’ However, the vertical logs
are at least 3 m long and enclosed within only one or two beds of a
large-scale sandstone formation.... These features point to vast and fast
water flows. The Kosi fan does not have similar logs standing vertically in
the earth waiting to be buried by gradually accumulating sediment. Neither
do large logs commonly protrude vertically from the beds of braided-river
environments. Thus, in spite of the author’s attempt to brush off the
evidence, it is not possible to dismiss so easily the significance for
catastrophe of the vertical trees within thick, cross-bedded strata..."...

are in reference to the unusual tubular or vertical cylindrical iron oxide
accumulations present at Box Head - which are clearly concretionary when
one can view their features up close [viz. in
http://www.lachlanhunter.deadsetfreestuff.com/JB/geo-sitesG-I.htm )



Cheers,




John





~~~~~~~~~~


1) EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE CRITICISM


Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?

Added July 25, 2003: One of the recent claims is that coal also contains
C-14 that allows it to be dated. An article on coal and C-14 is posted at
the TalkOrigins site http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html and is worth
a look.

Andrew Snelling (of Answers in Genesis) claims that a piece of 'wood'
obtained from a Triassic sandstone yielded a C-14 age that was much too
young for it to be a Triassic deposit. In doing so, he claims to have
invalidated the C-14 dating method and the old earth time scale. Snelling
has not submitted this article for peer-review, nor does he apparently have
any intention of doing so. The paper is for dissemination to other
young-earth creationists. As you read, please note that the principle
question regarding these studies is the level of contamination in the
samples. Snelling NEVER addresses the fundamental objection.

Photo of Alleged Sample (See above reference)

Intrigued, I decided to pursue this matter in a bit more detail. I wrote
to the head of Geochron Labs Radiocarbon group (Dr. Cherkinsky) who
responded to my inquiry with the following e-mail:

From: Alex Cherkinsky[SMTP:ACHERKINSKY@...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:58:55 PM
To: Meert Joe
Subject: Re: Some questions

Dear Joe

I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood
at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly
similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they
wanted to date the sample. I think maybe this concretion was formed
significantly later than Triassic period and I do not think that is a very
rare case when you can find younger formation in the old deposits
especially if it is sand or sandstones which
could be easy infiltrated with oil solutions. If you have more questions
please let me know.

Best regards.

Dr.Alexander Cherkinsky
Radiocarbon Lab Manager


Snelling had a fit when I posted this to a Cre-evo discussion board and
insisted that it (a) was wood and (b) he has proof in a drawer somewhere.
Aside from the obvious poor documentation by Snelling, he made the
following statement:

"If it wasn't a sample of fossilised wood, then apart from Dr Cherkinsky's
obfuscation, how do Drs Meert and Cherkinsky explain its radiocarbon
content? Quite clearly their opposition to the results of this genuine
research study are more to do with their a priori belief about the age of
the earth and its rock strata than with science. The evidence they are
trying to cover with a smokescreen of personal abuse instead speaks for
itself."

Is this a valid criticism? It might appear to be, but there are several
clues from Snellings own hand that indicate there are problems with this
analysis. Please note, Snelling seems puzzled that an iron concretion
could give a radiocarbon age. This is not at all uncommon and a cursory
look at the literature would have given Snelling something to think about
when he noticed the iron present in the sample. The first is Snellings
description of the 'wood' impregnated with silica and hematite. Hematite
is an iron oxide (rust essentially). Snelling adamantly maintains that the
sample is wood from the Hawkesbury Formation Indeed, carbonized wood and
plant matter is reported from the Hawkesbury Formation, but Snelling
provides no detailed description of possible subsequent alteration---with
the exception of the 'impregnated' sentence above. However, this
alteration is probably the key to the 'dilemma'. It likely explains why
Geochron labs identified it as an iron concretion with structures
resembling wood. The replacement of wood by iron and silica would give it
just that appearance. This alteration immediately calls into question the
use of C-14 dating on the sample. There have been studies on iron
concretions and 'dating' of them. For example Bird et al. (1994, The
Carbon Isotope Composition of Organic matter occluded in iron nodules; Chem
Geol, 114) states:

Abstract:

This study presents 13C and 14C results for soil organic carbon and carbon
occluded by iron nodules from a quaternary soil profile developed on basalt
in western Victoria, Australia. The results suggest that the 13C-value of
organic matter in the iron nodules is directly inherited from the
surrounding soil profile without isotopic fractionation, and that therefore
the 13C-value of organic matter occluded by the iron nodules can be related
to the vegetation present during nodule formation. However, 14C results
suggest that iron nodules are not closed systems with respect to organic
carbon, and that even chemically resistant immobile particulate carbon (of
probably microbial origin) has been added to the nodule carbon pool since
formation.

Interestingly, the sample run in that study gave d13C values typical of
organic material (as in the Snelling study) and the iron concretion also
gave radiocarbon dates due to contamination. For example, nodules in the
Bird et al. (1994) study gave d13C= -24 0/00. In this study (from a
different area of Australia), the nodules gave C-14 ages between 7470-1960
14C (before 1950). So, despite Snelling's incredulity about how one
obtains an age from iron concretions, the answer is with some
contamination. Therefore, although Snelling claims that cleaning would
remove all possible contaminants, the paper by Bird et al. (1994) shows
that this is not the case for iron concretions because they do not remove
microbial contamination as clearly demonstrated by the study.

Furthermore, it is this microbial contamination that is responsible for the
'apparent age' of the sample. We have Snelling admitting that the sample
was altered (silica and iron-rich), the radiocarbon lab manager-- whose
specialty is C-14 dating of woody material-- stating that the sample
appears to be a concretion and a study that shows quite clearly how such
samples can give 'dates' through contamination. Unfortunately, Snelling
keeps the data locked in a drawer and refuses to submit it for peer-review.
Until he does so, recent contamination of the sample remains the most
viable explanation for the supposed 'anomalous' dates. Note, this is not a
case of he said, she said. This is a case of poorly documented science on
the part of Snelling. He wants to overturn all of geology, but does not
want to properly document the evidence.

It is also very likely that Snelling repeated this error half a world
away. In his 'study' of the Marlstone rock bed in England, he also reports
anomalous C-14 ages in an area known to contain younger iron oxidative
products. Of course, Snelling also closely guards these data in some
drawer and refuses to submit the publication for peer-review. Note that in
the picture included in the Snelling article, it is impossible to determine
whether or not this is wood. Fossil wood is reported as a rare occurrence
around Banbury, so it is possible that Snelling has indeed sample fossil
wood, but the evidence provided in the photo is scanty.


A recent paper (there are a number of these) by Deyell et al. (2000, Can J.
Earth Sci., Age and Origin of advanced argillic alteration zones and
related exotic limonite deposits in Limonite Creek area, central British
Columbia) shows that limonite will indeed give C-14 ages as it replaces
plant material. Even if we assume that Snelling has indeed sampled fossil
wood of Jurassic age, no carbon should be left in the wood and therefore it
is imperative in his 'test' to fully document that there is no
contamination present.

Snelling lists 4 reasons why contamination can be ruled out. He states:

(1) since labs all obtained similar ages this rules out contamination.

That is simply twisted logic. If the contamination is all of a similar
age, then the data will be similar.

(2) he talks about levels of 'unavoidable contamination'

This seems to cancel the logic in point number 1, he also 'invents a 0.2%
value out of thin air, contamination could be more and he needs to document
that HIS samples contain no more than 0.2% of contaminants. Cherkinsky
noted (in a personal communication) that iron deposite contain up to 15%
organic matter. Furthermore, if the sample is indeed a Jurassic wood any
contamination would be a problem.

(3) He states the the d13C values are indicative of organic plant material.

This is correct but as noted above contamination by younger organic plant
material will still result in 'characteristic d13C values.

(4) Snelling asserts that if anyone claims contamination it would be an
ad-hominem attack against respected laboratories.

One wonders why Snelling might mention this since he claims (kind of) that
the samples are not contaminated. Perhaps, it is a pre-emptive strike
since he realized that he has not fully documented his case for no
contamination? Unfortunately, contamination can occur at any point along
the way including during formation of the sample. As noted above and again
below, there are cases where contamination cannot be removed. Hence, not a
single one of his 4 reasons involves unequivocal proof that his samples
were not contaminated! It is also not a slam on the laboratories.

Let's move on to the specifics of this second case. Snelling's
description of the site reads:

"When sampled, the fossil wood readily splintered, diagnostic of it still
being ‘woody’ in spite of its impregnation with iron minerals during
fossilisation."

The Geologic description of the site (Geology of the Country around Banbury
and Edge Hill, Edmunds et al., 1965, GS Great Britain) describes the
section as follows:

"Locally the Marlstone rock bed is known as the Hornton Stone and it
has been quarried for ornamental purposes in three large excavations"

A section is described as follows (pg 47 of the report):

(1) Red soil with ironstone debris (1 foot)
(2) Shelly, false-bedded oolite (3.5 feet)
(3) thinly bedded, shelly, calcitic sideritic chamosite ooilite with
partings of limonite chamosite and oolite (6 feet)
(4) Calcitic sideritic siderite oolite (4 feet 3 inches)
(5) limonite (0.5 ft)
(6) calcitic sideritic chamosite oolite (10 inches)
(7) limonite (2 inches)
(8) Calcitic sideritic chamosite oolite (10 inches)
(9) calcitic sideritic chamositic siderite oolite with limonite partings at
the top and bottom (1.5 feet)
(10) Shelly siderite limestone (5 feet)

Under 'Petrography' (a study of the makeup of the rock), the authors note
that some of the limonite was formed contemporaneoulsy with the deposition
of the rocks, but they go on to say:

"Nevetheless, it is likely that most of the oxidation of the Marlstone rock
bed is of recent origin.

Snelling does not demonstrate that the fossil wood was 'impregnated during
fossilisation' nor does he demonstrate that this 'wood' is in-situ.
Limonite will also 'splinter'. The photo is not helpful in either regard
and in fact, the small deposit shown in the photo (reported to be an end-on
belemnite) looks like a coating of limonite rather than a fossil. Snelling
expresses some concerns about finding land plants interbedded with
ammonites and belemnites and calls on a global flood to explain the
occurrence. An equally valid explanation is that the wood is not in-situ
(i.e. did not form at the same time as the limestone) or since oolitic
limestones form in very shallow (near-shore) environments, the wood may
have floated there. His assertion that the wood shows roots etc is not
supported by any firm documentation. Rather than reflecting damage to the
old earth hypothesis, it shows that Snelling is not a very careful
scientist as he once again does not document his results. Snelling needs
to show conclusively that the only explanation for this is that (a) the
wood is really wood; (b) it is in-situ and not younger; (c) that his sample
contained no limonite or other contamination which is present throughout
the outcrop. The onus is always on the person making extraordinary claims
to document their case. Snelling can prove me wrong by producing the data
(preferably with SEM photos and elemental analyses). Of course, he won't
do this and it is much more likely that he will fume and cry foul. I will
happily retract this page if Snelling produces the data. Will he retract
his story if the elemental analyses and SEM photos disprove his hypothesis?
Note: These data would be absolutely required by peer-reviewed journals in
light of the known complications of C-14 dating in iro-rich deposits so I
am asking the same thing any good editor would ask.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

SNELLING ANSWERS (SORT OF)

Please NOTE: The following was posted on an internet bulletin board by
someone claiming to have spoken with Snelling. The person who posted this
to the board provided no evidence that he/she had actually spoken with
Snelling so caveat emptor. However, the points raised by the person
(Snelling or otherwise) do not answer the relevant questions regarding the
sample.

AS: Snelling?
JM: Meert

AS: I don't want to waste valuable time on the Joe Meert accusations and
the discussion you are having over the net. You are quite correct in
insisting that Joe's case stands or falls on Dr Alex Cherkinsky producing a
copy of his claimed correspondence with me (which we know doesn't exist).
You are also correct in emphasising that in the lab report which came to me
there made no mention whatsoever about the sample being unsuitable for
radiocarbon analysis.

JM: Actually, Cherkinsky can be credited with the impetus for delving
further into this issue. As noted, this is not a case of he said, she
said. This is a scientific argument and the onus falls squarely on the
shoulders of the person overturning the paradigm. Now, Snelling may not
like this and he may complain bitterly about it, but he has failed to
document his case. I don't want claims, I want evidence as would any
good scientist. It is also important to note (since several have called
Cherkinsky's honesty into question--and mine) that Cherkinsky claims 'he
told the submitter'. Snelling wants a letter, but Cherkinsky may have
phoned Snelling, a secretary or a lab assistant. At this point, we simply
do not know. Cherkinsky was given the sample reference number in my
e-mail, so presumably he checked his notes regarding the sample. The main
point is that the contents of Cherkinsky's letter are irrelevant to the
points below as Snelling has admitted that the sample was iron bearing.

AS:However, the major point I wanted to make here are in response to the
appropriateness of the sample and the sampling technique. First of all, the
sandstone in which the fossilised wood was found is a tight,
silica-cemented sandstone that contains no oil whatsoever, and through
which no oil has been known to penetrate.

JM: Apparently Snelling thinks that oil has something to do with the
contamination. This probably comes from Cherkinsky's e-mail letter, but as
it turns out, oil is irrelevant in this case. The Hawkesbury sandstone is
highly jointed (BMR Report The Sydney Basin) which allows fluid flow and
rootlet and other microbial material penetrate the sandstone. At any rate,
the relevant points are outlined above.

AS: Second, it is not inappropriate to analyse fossilised wood for
radiocarbon.

JM: I don't believe I made this claim neither did Cherkinsky. It is very
inappropriate not to include the full results of the analysis including
documentation that the sample was not altered. Snelling did not do this.

AS:Fossilised human bones are regularly radiocarbon dated, as are wood
samples from archaeological sites, etc., even if some fossilisation has
occurred. The real question is not whether the wood has been fossilised, as
what constitutes a fossil is a fuzzy area anyway.

JM: Irrelevant side show.

AS: The real issue is how much permineralization has occurred, that is,
infiltration and replacement of the wood by silica, iron carbonate, or
other chemicals.

JM: I believe the real issue-- is demonstrating that Snelling sent a sample
of wood that has not been altered or contaminated. Replacement is a
secondary and critical issue as outlined above. Here Snelling admits the
importance of this issue, but does nothing to substantiate that the sample
was not altered.

AS: Even if other chemicals have replaced most of the wood, as long as some
of the original organic material has remained, fossilised wood can still be
tested for radiocarbon, and as far as we young earth creationists are
concerned we would expect to possibly find some radiocarbon still left.

JM: Partly true, because no one disputes the fact that wood can be dated.
The problem is that the type of replacement suggested by BOTH Snelling and
Cherkinsky allows contamination of the sample. If the original wood is
older than ~50K years, there would be no original carbon in the wood and
the lab would be measuring only the contamination. This is a critical
point NEVER addressed by Snelling with the proper analysis.

AS: That was the rationale behind submitting this sample to Geochron's
radiocarbon laboratory. Its validity as fossilised wood was carefully
checked and was never in doubt.

JM: Actually, it is very much in doubt as the letter from Dr. Cherkinsky
attests. Snelling has provided hearsay evidence to support his claim and
he could rightly claim Cherkinsky's statement is hearsay. At this point
both are irrelevant. It might be righteous indignation, but as any
scientist worth his/her salt knows---the case rests on the evidence.
Snelling can settle this by providing the SEM photos (Scanning Electron
Microscopy) and the chemical analyses of the sample. I assume, as a
careful scientist, he ran these critical tests.

AS: The question was whether Geochron would find any residual organic
material in the sample, and therefore be able to obtain a radiocarbon
analysis. Thus their lab report answered our questions.

JM: Actually it did no such thing. The lab reported an age. Snelling
would have had to do the contamination analysis himself.

AS: Third, the question of contamination is dealt with in the lab report by
the chemical treatment of the sample in its preparation for analysis.

JM: Actually, this is very much in doubt as the paper by Bird et al. (1994)
indicates. The procedure followed in that study shows that the cleaning
methods do not remove all contaminants in these iron nodules: The
procedure for AMS C-14 sample prep is described by Bird et al. (1994) is
lengthy (compare to Snellings): Here is the summary:

(1) Sieving and hand-picking of sample
(2) Cleaning in ultrasonic bath
(3) boiled briefly in 6 N HCl
(4) washed in distilled water/ultrasonically cleaned
(5) boiled for 1 hour in 5 N chromic acid to destroy organic carbon
available to solution (soil organic matter and opal phytoliths)
(6) washed and boiled repeatedly to remove chromic acid
(7) oven dried 100 C
(8) crushed and boiled in 500 ml 6 N HCl to dissolve iron oxides
(9) residue transferred to a 300 ml HCl-HF-H2o (1:1:1) solution at 50 C
overnight
(10) remaining residue washed free of HF
(11) treated with 0.1 N NaOH to remove alkali soluble organics
(12) residue ultrasonically cleaned for 30 minutes in chloroform-methanol
(2x), methanol (2x) and water (2x) to remove chemically resistant solvent
extractable organic compounds.

The sample still gave C-14 ages due to microbial contamination that was not
removed by this procedure. Compare to what Snelling reports.

AS: Indeed, the analytical report from Geochron Laboratories described the
sample as wood and under the heading 'Pretreatment' reported that 'The wood
sample was cleaned of dirt or other foreign material and was split into
small pieces. It was then treated with hot dilute HCl to remove any
carbonates and with hot dilute NaOH to remove humic acids and other organic
contaminates. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover carbon
dioxide for the analysis.'

JM: Irrelevant. This procedure will not remove all organic contamination
as noted by Bird et al. (1994). If you were paying me to call the sample
wood, I would do so to appease you---especially after insisting the lab run
it after being advised it was not wood.

AS: Under 'Description' it was described as 'sample of wood', and elsewhere
under 'Sample name' it was described as 'organic material'.

JM: Irrelevant. You need to show the evidence through chemical analyses.
Indeed, in Snelling's paper he noted the presence of contamination. Is he
now denying this RELEVANT fact? Poor science on Snelling's part does not
require extraordinary expenditure on my part. Show us the data that proves
this is uncontaminated wood. The submittal form also asks the submitter to
describe the sample. More than likely the final report parrots the claims
in the submission form. Snelling should produce both of these documents.

AS: So much for Dr Alex Chernisky's claims and for the arguments about
appropriateness of doing a radiocarbon analysis of fossilised wood!

JM: Not quite true. Snelling and Cherkinsky have both admitted to the
presence of iron in the sample. As I also mentioned, no one is debating
the ability to date fossilized wood---it is a question of WHAT wood and IS
IT WOOD? Cherkinsky is a trained C-14 geochronologist, Snelling is not.
However, the point is that the type of contamination noted by BOTH Snelling
and Cherkinsky along with the material discussed above is enough to throw
Snelling's poorly documented science into the trash heap.

AS: If you feel it is appropriate to settle the matter, then I can always
scan in the one page analytical report from Geochron Laboratories and send
it to you as an attached file for you to post on the Internet if you want
to. I have absolutely nothing to hide from this procedure.

JM: The lab report from Geochron is not at issue here. Nor is the
'age'---for what it is worth, I do believe that Geochron returned the age
to Snelling as documented. The issues are the significance of the age and
the possibility of contamination. Snelling has not answered those questions.

Final Note: If Snelling can indeed substantiate his case, I will publicly
apologize and withdraw this material. Most scientists, when criticized
respond by thoroughly documenting their case. You can see examples of
these in the scientific literature by looking at comment/reply sections.
If you want an example, some work I had done in 1994 was criticized and I
wrote the following comment.

This is another excellent example of supposed 'creation science'. All
creation science is reactionary. There is no creation model and there is
no original research aimed at establishing a creation model. Creationists,
like Snelling, rely on a false dichotomy and conclude that if evolution is
wrong, then their narrow misinterpretation of Genesis is correct.
Interestingly, Snelling has published a few articles using old-earth
chronology. He, like John Baumgardner and John Woodmorappe (aka Jan
Peczkis) have all published old-earth evolutionary articles in the
mainstream literature while, supposedly, clinging to a young earth
viewpoint. Snelling claims (essentially) that he was forced to publish old
earth views. This statement is ludicrous as no one forces anyone to
publish anything.

............. et cetera

From: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm#who









2) TASMAN WALKER REPLY TO THESE SKEPTICS OF CREATIONIST VIEWS




Skeptical of Sisters


The Three Sisters: strong evidence for Noah’s Flood in Australia
by Tas Walker

Summary

An article in the journal of the Australian Skeptics has sought to refute a
creationist claim that the Three Sisters formed during Noah’s Flood. These
impressive rock outcrops are a popular tourist icon near Sydney, Australia.
Instead of a refutation, it turns out that the Skeptic article enhances the
creationists’ argument. For example, the article tacitly acknowledges that
none of the geological environments previously proposed is workable,
because the author does not attempt to defend any of them. But the new,
previously unpublished model offered turns out to be an inferior match of
the geological evidence. Carbon-14 from wood is still evidence that the
geological strata are young because the explanation that the wood was an
iron concretion is impossible. The article does not even try to refute the
strong evidence provided by the shape of the landscape. The creationist
case relies, not on one or two speculative resemblances, but a whole host
of consistent evidences that tie in beautifully to the sequence of events
involved in Noah’s Flood. The Skeptic article does nothing to diminish the
creationist case, but much to strengthen it.

Creationists have claimed that the geology of Australia’s Three Sisters,
provides compelling evidence for the global Flood of Noah,1 a claim that a
recent article in the journal of Australian Skeptics has sought to refute.2
The Skeptic is not a peer-reviewed geological journal, nor would it profess
to be. However, a geologist wrote the article and it is now available on
the web, so a response to the criticisms is given here.

But before we consider the geological evidence, we need to clear away some
peripheral distractions.

Clearing the decks
The author of the Skeptic article seemed outraged that creationists are
trying to mix science and religion. That sense of outrage was expressed in
the title, ‘Creationist weds three sisters’ and the opening sentence:

‘Creationist Dr Tasman Walker of Answers in Genesis has tried to wed the
geological unit that forms the Three Sisters … to his religious beliefs
that the geology of the Earth is the result of Noah’s Flood.’
This is the classic religion-versus-science tactic, regularly employed to
sidestep creationist arguments. Defining science in this way disqualifies
the biblical worldview from the outset, dismissing scientific arguments
without addressing them. We are all sceptical when governments ban opposing
political parties. And we should be sceptical of skeptics claiming that
this debate is just about science—about objectively considering alternative
hypotheses and weighing the evidence.

Skeptics are quick to accuse creationists of being biased but won’t
acknowledge that they are biased too. The conflict is between the Christian
faith, which gave the West its values and heritage, and the new religion of
secular humanism. Simply put, one side accepts the Bible as authoritative,
the other does not.

The article in the Skeptic reveals its antibiblical prejudice in several
places. For example, in one place the author argues, ‘You do not need to
invoke some magically created worldwide flood to explain sediment
dispersal.’ In another he says, ‘There is no reason to invoke a worldwide
flood.’

In other words, there is a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the biblical
worldview, even as a possibility. An open scientific inquiry would
willingly contemplate the question, ‘If there really was a worldwide flood
just like the Bible says, then what evidence would we expect to find?’

A favourite political tactic is to attack the credibility of the opponent.
The article in the Skeptic does just that.

‘Dr Walker is trying to impress his audience with large numbers.’ ‘He has
not bothered to do any research.’ ‘Dr Walker, like all creationists, never
seems to be aware of inconsistencies within his own writings.’ ‘Dr Walker
then continues his assault on science.’

Even the subtitle to the article claims that ‘creationists don’t know which
bed they are in’, implying, among other things, that creationists are
ignorant of geology. However, the article reveals the opposite. It says the
Three Sisters are ‘part of the rock unit known as the Hawkesbury
Sandstone’. Not so. They are exposures of the Banks Wall Sandstone, which
is part of the Narrabeen Group.3 The creationist article always described
the Hawkesbury Sandstone as ‘overlying’ the Three Sisters.1 So, the author
of the Skeptic article has confused his stratigraphy, not the creationist.

A reader of the Skeptic pointed out this error in a letter:

‘This incorrect statement does not appear in Walker’s website article,
where he (Walker) refers correctly (several times) to “… the overlying
Hawkesbury Sandstone …”.’4

The letter goes on to say ‘don’t let our enthusiasm … lead to mis­stating
the facts of well-known geology.’

The purpose of this enthusiasm is supposedly to ‘demolish the patently
absurd “geology” of the creationists at every opportunity’, which does not
sound like a careful, unbiased scientific approach to the data.


The Skeptic article similarly attacks the credibility of the Bible,
referring to Noah’s Flood as ‘some magically created worldwide flood’ and
‘fairytales’. We should not allow these assaults on credibility to distract
us from properly weighing the evidence.

So let’s look at the geological evidence and how it is interpreted.

Evidence for catastrophe

As the creationist article explained, the immense size and lateral extent
of the geological formations, which the Three Sisters are part of, point to
an unusual depositional environment in the past. Moreover, the ever-present
cross-bedding in the sandstone strata, visible in the cuttings and cliffs
around Sydney, means that deposition was from fast, deep-flowing water.

Any tourist can appreciate these geologic features. But for 150 years,
geologists have struggled to match a satisfactory depositional environment
to these strata, based on normal, everyday geologic environments. The more
recent suggestions have tended toward the exotic and have a distinctive
catastrophist flavour. These developments do not surprise creationists
because the geological features are what we would expect from the global
catastrophic Flood of Noah as described in the Bible.

Catastrophe? What catastrophe?

The article in the Skeptic tries to avoid the implications of large-scale
deposition, first by poking fun. ‘Be impressed by big things.’ ‘Dr Walker
is trying to impress his audience with large numbers.’ Then the author
suggests that large-scale deposition is easy to explain. ‘It seems that he
has not bothered to do any research into modern environments that
geologists would consider similar to that which produced the Hawkesbury
Sandstone.’ The article then suggests that the scale of the Hawkesbury
Sandstone is easily explained as a stream-dominated fan (figure 1).

Now, this is an interesting proposal because this is the first time anyone
has suggested a stream-dominated fan as a modern environment analogous to
the Hawkesbury Sandstone. Over the years, geologists have suggested many
different depositional environments, but these have fallen from favour one
after the other:5

Marine (1844)
Partly glacial (1880)
Aeolian (1883)
Aeolian and lacustrine (1883)
Freshwater lake (1920)
Fluvial (1964)
Marine barrier tidal delta (1969)
Braided alluvial (1975, 1980, 1983)
No geologist has previously suggested a stream-dominated fan. I wonder if
the author of the Skeptic article would also say that these geologists have
‘not bothered to actually do any research into modern environments’.


This list of ever-changing paleoenvironmental interpretations demonstrates
the creationist point. The Hawkesbury Sandstone challenges the mainstream
geological philosophy that the present is the key to the past. That, of
course, is why Dr Patrick Connaghan of the School of Earth Sciences at
Macquarie University proposed deposition by massive volumes of glacial-lake
water. He envisaged that these periodically burst through ice dams, which
accumulated enormous volumes of floodwaters in ancient Lake Napperby to the
north.6

Interestingly, the author of the Skeptic article failed to examine Dr
Conagahan’s model, saying, ‘I have not looked at the newspaper article.’
But that does not change the fact that creationists are not the only
geologists who see that the evidence points to large-scale watery
catastrophe.

By proposing a stream-dominated fan as the past depositional environment,
the author of the Skeptic article effectively acknowledges that none of the
previously proposed environments is satisfactory. I agree. But I doubt that
many geologists will embrace this new depositional model either. Let’s see
why.

The Skeptic article refers to the Kosi fan as the world’s largest,
well-studied stream-dominated fan. This fan is in India, on the Kosi River,
which emerges from the Himalayan foothills (figure 2). There are many
features of this example which are inconsistent with the characteristics of
the Hawkesbury Sandstone

< snip >

Carbon-14 in iron concretions?
The article in the Skeptic also tried to discount the import of a carbon-14
analysis on wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.19 This returned a date of
33,720 ± 430 years and provided objective, experimental evidence that the
sandstone is only thousands of years old, not 225–230 million years as
conventionally quoted.

Although the carbon-14 analysis was performed by a reputable commercial
laboratory, the Skeptic article claimed that ‘the sample looked more like
an iron concretion than a piece of wood’. It’s strange that an experienced
carbon-14 dating laboratory would report carbon from an iron concretion.

The Skeptic article also said the carbon-14 result ‘could easily have been
contaminated by ground water’. But the writer ignored the associated
carbon-13 analysis, which is not consistent with ground water contaminating
the wood.

These sorts of arguments about the carbon-14 analysis simply demonstrate
what creationists have said in many places. Geologists accept radioactive
ages only when they agree with what they already believe the age to be.

Broken trees are consistent evidence
The article in the Skeptic tried to dismiss the obvious evidence for
catastrophe provided by the broken tree trunks standing vertically in
sandstone outcrops. The author said ‘floods are well known in modern river
systems. There is no reason to invoke a worldwide flood to explain tree
trunks in fluvial deposited sedimentary rocks.’

However, the vertical logs are at least 3 m long and enclosed within only
one or two beds of a large-scale sandstone formation. These features point
to vast and fast water flows. The Kosi fan does not have similar logs
standing vertically in the earth waiting to be buried by gradually
accumulating sediment. Neither do large logs commonly protrude vertically
from the beds of braided-river environments. Thus, in spite of the author’s
attempt to brush off the evidence, it is not possible to dismiss so easily
the significance for catastrophe of the vertical trees within thick,
cross-bedded strata.

Rapid erosion not addressed
The form of the landscapes provides more evidence consistent with the Three
Sisters forming during Noah’s Flood. The creationist article discussed the
landscapes but the Skeptic article did not address them at all. In broad
terms, the landscape in the Blue Mountains consists of an uplifted plateau
subsequently dissected into wide valleys with steep cliffs—a pattern easily
explained from a biblical model.

The plateaux represent a huge planation surface shaved flat during the
second half of the Flood as receding floodwaters flowed in sheets from the
continent. The escarpments and large valleys eroded later in the Flood when
the volume of water decreased and the flow was restricted to large
channels. The rivers and waterfalls that now occupy valleys are minuscule
compared with the volume of waters that carved the landscape during the
Flood. Underfit rivers are the norm around the world, but we would expect
conformable-fit rivers if millions of years were available to reach an
equilibrium position.

It is interesting that Darwin, when he visited Australia in 1844, thought
the idea that rivers cut the gorges was ‘preposterous’.20 He proposed that
the main agent of erosion must have been a retreating sea—remarkably
similar to the creationist position.

Conclusion
The article in the Skeptic has not refuted the creationists’ claim that the
Three Sisters provide compelling evidence for Noah’s Flood.

The depositional features of the sediments are different from any
depositional environment we see on the earth today, including the author’s
suggestion of a stream-dominated alluvial fan. The fact that the author
proposed a new, previously unpublished model, rather than trying to defend
one of the existing ones, suggests that he thinks none is adequate to
explain the geology.

Thus, the creationist claim still stands, that the geological
characteristics of the Three Sisters are consistent with the global
catastrophic Flood of Noah. These characteristics include:

the geographical extent of the sedimentary deposits
the thickness of the sedimentary deposits
the shape of the sedimentary deposits
the ubiquitous presence of thick, cross-bedded strata in the sediments
the absence of vegetated soil horizons in the strata
the presence of broken tree stumps standing vertically in thickly bedded
strata
the presence of carbon-14 in wood enclosed in the sediments
the form of the landscapes such as the extensive plateaus, and wide, deep
and steep valleys.
The case for the Three Sisters forming during Noah’s Flood is strong. It
relies, not on one or two speculative similarities, but a whole host of
consistent evidences that tie in beautifully to the sequence of events
involved in the global catastrophe.

References

Walker, T., 3 Sisters: evidence for Noah’s Flood, Creation 25(2):38–42, 2003.

Blake, P., Creationist weds Three Sisters: evidence that creationists don’t
know which bed they are in, the Skeptic 24(1):49–51, 2004.

Jones, D.C. and Clark, N.R. (Eds.), Geology of the Penrith 1:100,000 Sheet
9030, New South Wales Geological Survey, Sydney, p. 10, 1991.

Bembrick, C., Three Sisters defamed, the Skeptic 24(2):67, 2004.

Jones and Clark, ref. 3, p.14.

Woodford, J., Rock doctor catches up with our prehistoric surf, The Sydney
Morning Herald, p. 2, 30 April 1994.

Collinson, J.D., Alluvial sediments; in: Reading, H.G., Sedimentary
Environments: Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy (3rd ed.), Blackwell
Science, Oxford, UK, p. 60, 1996.

Jones and Clark, ref. 3, p. 14–15.

Singh, H., Parkash, B. and Gohain, K., Facies analysis of the Kosi megafan
deposits, Sedimentary Geology 85:87–113, 1993.
Sydney 1:255,000 Geological Map Series, 3rd ed., 1966.

The Sydney Basin, Australian Museum,
<www.amonline.net.au/geoscience/earth/sydbasin.htm>, 6 June 2004.

Day, R.W., Whitaker, W.G., Murray, C.G., Wilson, I.H. and Grimes, K.G.,
Queensland Geology: A companion volume to the 1:2,500,000 scale geological
map, (1975), Geological Survey of Queensland, Publication 383, Brisbane, p.
127, 1983.

Walker, T., The Great Artesian Basin, Australia, Journal of Creation
10(3):379–390, 1996.

Walker, T., Geology and the Bible—an answer, The Australian Geologist 110,
p. 8, 31 March 1999.

Archer, M., Hand, S.J. and Godthelp, H., Riversleigh, Reed Books, Sydney
pp. 44–53, 1991.
Snelling, A.A., Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone,
Creation 21(3):39–41, 1999.
Jones and Clark, ref. 3, p. 104.

Stanistreet, I.G. and McCarthy, T.S., The Okavango Fan and the
classification of subaerial fan systems, Sedimentary Geology 85:115–133,
1993.


FROM: http://biblicalgeology.net/content/view/65/9