Geology at 200 d.p.i.
Remote Sensing from the Antipodes
(A response to AIG's Tas Walker): Note that Walker hides a link to my article at the bottom of his page
February 6, 2004
I was amazed when someone contacted me regarding a 'paper' by electrical engineer Tas Walker (Answers in Genesis) that appeared in a recent issue of the Technical Journal (TJ 17(3), 28-34). What makes this "paper" particularly unusual is that it appears in what young Earth creationists refer to as a "scientific journal". The article refers back to a website I placed on the internet a few years ago documenting the problems that paleosols present for the Gilgameshian flood model (aka Noah's flood). My website dealing with paleosols is located here. Before delving into the details of Walker's 'criticism', I want to especially point out a blatant absurdity in Walker's article. While I'm flattered that Walker and AiG think that I'm such a threat to their 'flock' that I deserve a starring role in a 'Technical Journal' [sic] novelette, no authentic scientific journal would print pages to criticize ANY Internet website.. If Walker has science to publish, there are venues in which to publish that science....now on to the "criticism".
Any geologist worth his or her salt would recognize the folly of drawing conclusions based on a 200 dpi (dots per inch) deformed photo from an internet website1,14. Furthermore, any geologist would also realize the importance of actually visiting the outcrop before writing up a "scientific" article on the subject. However, Walker is not just any geologist, he's an electrical engineer with a goal of proving that the Noachian flood actually took place. Facts, field work and research have little meaning when you've already reached a conclusion. So, let me deal with several issues related to his "research publication". It is important to note that Walker appears to think that if he can somehow discredit this example, then the paleosol problem simply disappears. There are numerous other examples of paleosols in the literature and on my website that are anathema to ye-creationism. .
1. One of the more important details that creationists are loathe to provide is a detailed explanation of flood boundaries within the rock record. Creationists, like Walker, deal in vagaries. Why? According to ye-creationist dogma, the Noachian flood is THE defining event in Earth history. Creationists claim it is responsible for much of the geologic column. Since the flood was a short-duration event and creationists have been studying the rock record for 200+ years, it is surprising that none of them will supply the answers to the following questions:
Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the pre-flood/flood boundary? You
will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type
sections for this boundary in the creationist literature.
b. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, strata laid down during the peak of the global flood (i.e. globally correlatable strata all deposited under water)? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for these rocks in the creationist literature.
c. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the flood/post-flood boundary? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for this boundary in the creationist literature. To be fair, creationists have a little more leeway in defining this boundary since the flood waters receded over a slightly longer time interval, but it still should be possible to provide considerable detail.
There is a reason that creationists will never provide such detailed information2. If creationists ever provide these answers, they will also have to explain the many anomalies that cannot be fit into a global flood (e.g. paleosols, desert deposits and glacial deposits for example). So let's look at how Tas tries to weasel out of an explanation for paleosols in his article:
Point A: Walker acknowledges the following: "Clearly Meert considers that paleosols have the potential to refute the global flood. We agree!" (page 28).
What Walker does not state, but should have stated if he is being honest, is "Falsification of the global flood can only come about if we define when the flood occurred in the geologic record. Since we are not about to do such a thing (other than vagaries), we can weasel our way out of any refutation. These excuses form the basis of my article"
Point B: Walker then states (page 29) that paleosols are not a problem for Noachian flood geology. This is partially true and depends on the fact that the boundaries of the global flood are never defined. If one never defines the boundaries, it is easy enough to claim that the problematic deposit is not part of the flood. This makes a good rhetorical argument, but it's poor science. Walker provides a website (his reference #14: http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/pweathering.htm), which lists paleosols that are located throughout the geologic record. Whether YECs define the "Flood boundaries" or not, they're dealing with a geologic record that has paleosols from the Precambrian to the Recent. Therefore, it's not surprising that all they can do is close their eyes and deny the existence of pre-Quaternary paleosols. No matter where YECs draw their "Flood" boundaries, they lose.
Point C: Walker then goes on to discuss the parallels between the Gilgamesh flood and the Noachian flood and claims that John Woodmorappe (aka evolutionary old Earth geologist Jan Peczkis)3 shows how feasible the flood is. Walker says "If we ignore the conventional date assigned to this epic...then the flood of Noah and Gilgamesh describe the same real event". Of course, a myth is a myth is a myth no matter what "date" one assigns the myth. What this is doing in a scientific discussion of paleosols is quite another story, but I am happy to again point out the Jekyll/Hyde identity of Woodmorappe/Peczkis (young Earth creationist/old Earth evolutionist). If Walker wants to re-write history perhaps he can find a website on Gilgamesh and publish a critique of that in TJ. Certainly, such an exercise would have more credibility than "geology at 200 dpi from the antipodes"!
Point D: Walker then states (page 29) "Finally, we need to ignore the million-year ages quoted in the text". Does anyone else see a pattern? It goes like this...."if we don't define exactly when the flood happened, if we ignore the dates assigned to Gilgamesh and if we ignore the dates published in scientific journals why..... there is NO PROBLEM AT ALL!". Walker then falsely claims "You may obtain any age you like depending on the assumptions you make". This is a false and incorrect statement. Even if Walker "ignores" radiometric dating, the only way one can obtain "any age you like" is by falsifying data. Is Walker claiming that scientists falsify data? Is Walker willing to also admit that all creationist "ages" can be anything they want depending on the assumptions they make?
Point E: After ignoring all the relevant scientific and historical publications, Walker states matter-of-factly (page 29) "Since they were deposited during the flood". There is no evidence that all the igneous and volcanic rocks in this region were deposited under water. In fact, there is rather clear evidence that they were not all deposited under water4. Of course, the wily creationist can simply place this event at some convenient point in the flood where the Earth was not yet completely flooded. This "moving goalpost" is constantly relied upon by ye-creationists to hide their lack of evidence for a global flood.
Point F: Walker makes a big deal about "interpretative framework". This classic line by ye-creationists goes something like this "we all have access to the same information and the interpretation depends on the framework of the model". I recently found a great story illustrating the flawed nature of this argument. There's also been a not so clever bait-and-switch by Walker. He has said "ignore all the evidence and go with my presupposition" without ever detailing any of the evidence for the flood. There is something even more insidious in his remarks. YECs like to emphasize that the importance of having "eyewitness accounts" when interpreting past events. They claim that Genesis 1-2 is an "eyewitness account" from their god. Walker repeats this mantra on p. 29. Of course, they have absolutely no historical or scientific evidence to support their myths. They also won't admit that even modern eyewitness accounts may largely consist of contradictions [example] misinterpretations [example], and outright fabrications [example]. I am a resident of one of the leading states in executing convicts, yet few Florida fundamentalists have any problem with executing individuals whose convictions are solely based on forensic evidence without any eyewitness testimony. So if a forensic scientist can look at the evidence of past crimes and send someone to death row, why can't a geologist similarly use evidence from the earth to derive less life-threatening interpretations of the past?
Point G: Walker claims that soils would be present in the pre and post flood period. If there was a global flood this is true and this is why I pointed out the lack of defining boundaries for the flood. He then goes on to discuss where one might find a good example of a recent paleosol. No quibble about his example except to note that he tacitly encourages field observation. That's surprising since his only field observation in this "study" is a deformed 200 dpi photo that was taken for purposes other than to specifically document the paleosol1. Furthermore, Walker (p. 29) claims that "pre-Flood paleosols" may not have existed or else the "Flood" destroyed them. This is not too surprising. If Walker had argued that the Missouri paleosol was a "pre-Flood soil," then he would have had to concede that the paleosol was buried rather than eroded by the deposition of the Lamotte. That weakens the power of his "Flood" and allows for the preservation of the paleosol in his strawperson "uniformitarian" model. Furthermore, he would have to explain why no one has found dinosaur and human artifacts together in any of these well-preserved "pre-Flood" paleosols
Point H: Walker then states that "there is no question amongst creationists that the Cambrian sandstone in the photo is a flood deposit". This is one of only a few admissions of a particular strata that is labeled as flood. However, we don't know if these represent peak flood, recessive flood or transgressive flood deposits. Furthermore, had Walker bothered to read any geologic literature on the region, he would have noted that the character of the Lamotte sandstone in this area is not uniform. The best description for the Lamotte in this area would be a shallow shoreline, low-energy deposit. Others have noted aeolian and fluvial features in the Lamotte (discussed below). Walker also notes that the granite rocks are flood rocks although he leaves some weasel room. Nevertheless, this is an interesting claim and one that Walker would never have made if he had visited the field area. Just a few kilometers away, we see the following igneous rocks:
Figure 1: Vertically oriented fiamme in the Grassy Mountain ignimbrite (see Meert and Stuckey, 2002). Fiamme
are pumice fragments (airborne) that were crushed during the deposition of the ignimbrite. If the pumice
was deposited in water, it would float. Elsewhere there is evidence of subaerial erosion between ashfall
There are a number of other features that indicate that the granites and their ejecta are coeval (for detailed discussion see Meert and Stuckey 2002; Blades et al., 1976; Bickford et al., 1981)4. However, since Walker has left some weasel room by stating that they "might not be flood rocks", I won't delve into this further. I will await a detailed global flood stratigraphy from ye-creationists.
POINT I: (page 30). Here begins Walker's critique of a 200 dpi photo. He begins with the statement "Of course, it is not possible to positively identify rocks from a photo at a distance" and "It would be preferable to visually inspect the outcrop" That certainly would be a wise thing to do before basing a "scientific paper" on the outcrop. However, Walker then provides "details" of the photo that are simply wrong and goes on to invent scenario after scenario without referring to the original papers or making any attempt to "positively identify the rocks" or "visually inspect the outcrop". Then again, why should he? His entire rationale is based on fantasy and facts and evidence would only confuse the issue.
the outset, I should point out that the photo in question was taken during a paleomagnetic
study. I was photographing the Butler Hill granite outcrop that we sampled and its
relationship to the Lamotte sandstone at that site. On a subsequent trip,
ichnologist Steve Hasiotis studied the outcrop and pointed out the erosional features and
the evidence for a paleosol. My point in the web article was not necessarily focused
on this paleosol in particular, but on the problems presented by paleosols in general for
the global flood model. Nevertheless, let me correct several bad observations by
Walker that led to a very silly paper. Walker is looking in the wrong places for the
evidence of the paleosol. The
'loose and friable' material is correctly identified. However, the material between
the Lamotte and Butler Hill granite is actually composed of regolith of the granite and a
layered paleosol just beneath the Lamotte sandstone. A field inspection shows
unweathered bedrock, regolith, a paleosol and the overlying Lamotte sandstone. I
readily admit that the resolution in the following photograph is poor and that the
paleosol is not readily visible. Nevertheless, attempting to deny the existence of
this paleosol, does not render all paleosols false. A closeup of the region is shown in Figure
2. Kisvarsanyi et al. 1981 describe the outcrop as follows:
"The granite is weathered on top and is overlain by dark-maroon, shaly regolith5 derived from weathering of the granite. Buff-colored shale and arkosic Lamotte sandstone rest on top lapping onto the Precambrian surface" Descriptions of the sub-Lamotte weathering surface is given in a thesis by Hughes (1998)6.
Figure 2: Closeup of the outcrop. The maroon shaly paleosol is partially hidden beneath
scree from the overlying Lamotte sandstone. A small shaly layer of Lamotte can be seen
directly beneath the sandstone at this site.
POINT J: (page 31). Walker asserts that a paleosol must contain root traces. Although root traces help identify paleosols, the lack of root traces do not exclude this as a paleosol especially since the region was not occupied by land plants. Walker then goes on to explain that there is no evidence for a paleosol in this area. He is correct only on one point. This photo is not the best photo of a paleosol and was not taken with the intent of specifically documenting a paleosol. The photo was placed on the website several years ago to document the location of the outcrop and encourage anyone interested in the horizon to visit it for themselves. This is also why I provide other examples of paleosol photos on my website that were taken specifically to show these features and the problems they present for a global flood. Since land plants did not exist at the time this soil formed, the 'missing' horizons are missing simply because they never would have formed. One cannot demand the existence of imaginary features.
Point K: (pages 31 & 32): Walker then creates a scenario whereby the flood could have produced this outcrop. This is geology at its most absurd. One does not invent an entire geologic history based on a single outcrop. Walker should have at least examined some of the pertinent literature and geologic maps to support his scenario. Let's compare his story to the rock record in the region. First, his impression of what normal geology states:
1. Walker states; "Granitic magma intruded the country rock forming and filling a large magma chamber which eventually cooled to form the granitic pluton." This is partially correct. In reality, this region consists of many different volcanic centers rather than a single pluton4. The region records several distinct episodes of magmatic activity that Walker should have known about from reading the references given on the page. An example of these multiple igneous pulses is shown in Figure 3 and has additional relevance to Walker's argument as discussed below. Walker cites Snelling and Woodmorappe (1989) to claim that plutons rapidly cool. This article selectively avoids large plutons and concentrates on small examples that fit within the YEC time demands. For more details, see the review by Kevin Henke located here.
Figure 3: This shows a weathered mafic dyke at site 4 (the dyke is less weathered on
the other side of the road (site 4, Figure 8 of Meert and Stuckey, 2002). Here we see the volcanic
edifice of the SFM intruded by a mafic dike. The dike was eroded and infilled at least in part by
the Boulder Conglomerate which was then covered by the Bonneterre Dolomite. This site is only
a few kilometers from the paleosol site and there is no Lamotte sandstone present.
2. Walker states; "The overlying country rock (perhaps tens of kilometers thick) was slowly and completely eroded away by normal subearial weathering processes until the granite was exposed. For the whole of this period of weathering, a soil layer was continuously being produced at the surface and continually being removed". This is partially correct. Walker misrepresents uniformitariansim by using the words 'continuously'. Why does soil deposition and erosion have to be continuously at equilibrium? 19th century Lyell Uniformitarianism may demand this, but 21st century actualism doesn't. Thick soils can form in an area followed by periods of extensive erosion. In his other articles, Walker shows that he still thinks that geology is based on Lyellian uniformitarianism. The fact is that many of these plutons were emplaced at very shallow levels and obviously the volcanic eruptions were surficial. For example, there is unequivocal evidence in the region for magmas intruding their own ejecta during caldera collapse4. Walker also forgets to mention (because he did not read the relevant literature) the emplacement of mafic dikes and younger granites in the region.5
3. Walker states; "The land was then inundated by water which deposited sand (which later turned into sandstone) on top of the soil layer. The bedding in the sandstone indicates that the water was flowing and very energetic". Walker is mixing and matching here. The picture Walker paints is not entirely correct. As the figure (3) above shows (dike), the sandstone was not deposited everywhere in the region. The Bonneterre is a younger Cambrian deposit. In the region of the dike, the Lamotte was not deposited. Instead a boulder conglomerate was deposited. Exposed within this boulder conglomerate are finer-grained materials suggesting channel infilling (i.e. this is at least partially a fluvial deposit rather than a marine flood deposit).5 The interpretation that the water was flowing and 'very energetic' is pure conjecture on the part of Walker. Numerous authors have shown that the St. Francois Mtns region was a region of elevated topography for most of the Paleozoic7. The Lamotte sandstone has a highly irregular pattern of deposition and thickness within the region as it represents primarily paleovalley fill. Some of the Lamotte is interpreted as a time-transgressive marine sandstone, but others have noted distinctly aeolian and fluvial features within the Lamotte.7 The notion that the sandstone formed under extremely energetic conditions is made up solely for the purposes of making the argument that follows point #4.
4. Walker states; "Finally the sandstone was weathered away by subaerial processes until the small metre-thick section observed in the roadcut today is all that is left". Once again, Walker is just making this up on the fly. It's fine to disagree with an interpretation, but one should simply not invent an interpretation so that it can be attacked. As noted, the Lamotte sandstone distribution and thickness in this area is highly variable7. In some places (in fact very close to the paleosol site), the Lamotte was not deposited at all (See Figure 3)8.
Walker concludes this section by stating: "Step 3 is the one that presents a major problem for Joe Meert's paleosol claim. How could flowing water, energetic enough to carry volumes of sand and produce horizontal flat bedding not remove the soil--a thin surface layer which is friable and loose? Why wasn't the granite washed clean like the rock outcrops we see jutting into the sea at the coast? What sort of amazing process could have preserved this soil layer in the midst of a fast-flowing current of water? It seems that Meert's choice of an excellent paleosol is not helpful for his argument"
What just happened here? Let me re-iterate the geologic facts so the bait and switch is clearly apparent:
a. Note how he sets up the strawman in points #3 and #4. Tas hints (without ever studying the region, visiting the outcrops or reading the literature) that the volume of deposited Lamotte sandstone was more extensive than is observed in this outcrop. Yet, the regional geology (including outcrops a few kilometers away) indicate quite clearly that deposition of the Lamotte sandstone was not extensive. Furthermore, there is evidence that not all of the Lamotte was produced by flowing water7. Walker presents no evidence that the system was 'very energetic' and completes his invented geology by asserting that all the soil must be removed in such an environment. Thus, having created his strawman out of thin air, he then destroys it with the "what sort of amazing process..." question. In fact, there is nothing amazing at all about the preservation of this paleosol. If Tas wants to make an argument, then he should not do so at 200 dpi. Sutton and Maynard (1996) carefully evaluated the contact between the Lamotte Formation and underlying Precambrian rocks. They identified evidence of BOTH subsurface hydrothermal/diagenetic effects and subaerial weathering
Walker does not stop with the death of a strawman. He then proceeds to invent more science to fit the outcrop he never visited in the region he never studied. What's his flood scenario?
1. Walker states:
"During the first half of the global flood, as a consequence of tectonic
movements, granitic magma intruded the country rock forming and filling a large magma
chamber and cooling to form a granitic pluton."
--Here are the problems. First, he has presented no evidence for any global flood nor specifically what strata represent the flood. It is stated in ipse dixit fashion with the hope that the reader will succumb to the argument without checking the facts. Secondly, it presents a simplistic picture of the region. There were, in fact, multiple magma centers in this region. There was volcanism taking place on dry land (see photo #1 and references below counter evidence for his ipse dixit flood). The weight of the overlying volcanic rocks caused the magma chambers to collapse and the magma intruded their own ejecta4. A second, younger bout of igneous activity occurred in the region (mafic dykes, see figure 3 above). Paleomagnetic data tell us that the continent moved between the intrusion/eruption of the felsic magmas and the intrusion of the mafic rocks. Note, although he says "first half of the global flood" we have no definition of how long the "first half" lasted nor has he (or any other creationist) detailed what happens stratigraphically on a global basis during this "first half". All we get are vagaries meant to cover up a bad story!
2. Walker states:
"Later, still during the first half of the flood, water flowing rapidly over the
land eroded the country rock, exposed the granite and deposited the sandstone on the
---So, apparently the first half of the flood (40 days??, 6 months, a year???) did not result in complete covering of the land? According to a literal reading of the bible, there is not a whole lot of time for the surface of the Earth to succumb to the flood. Once again, Walker injects fast flowing water and suggests that these deposits are laterally extensive and thick. None of these observations has compelling support from the field in the region of the St. Francois Mtns. The thickness of the Lamotte is variable, the lithologies include marine, fluvial and aeolian sandstones and they are patchy in occurrence12. In fact, the stratigraphic evidence in the region suggests that the St. Francois Mtns have been largely emergent since their formation7 (e.g. never covered by water). Further evidence for this comes from a study of clay material on top of the Lamotte sandstone. Keller (1978, p. 184) sampled kaolin clays from the paleosol near Farmington, Missouri. Although he concluded that the kaolin formed after the deposition of the Lamotte Sandstone, he states (p. 184) that the saprolite formed under equilibrium conditions over a "very long time."13
3. Walker states:
"In the second half of the flood , water receding from the continent eroded the
sedimentary strata leaving only the thin sandstone in the area".
----Walker does not provide any evidence that a flood occurred. He does not define what marks the second half or the first half of the ipse dixit flood and his interpretation is grossly at odds with field observations in the region7. Furthermore, why did the erosion not remove the Bonneterre dolomite a few kilometers away? The Bonneterre dolomite contains ripple marks and oolitic features, both of which would not be expected in the midst of a global tempest.10 Why did it not erode the Davis formation, the Derby-Doerun formation, the Potosi dolomite, the Eminence dolomite in the immediately adjacent region (of course Walker ignores the greater picture in his story). How did the flood select just the Lamotte sandstone for erosion? Did God know that Walker would be inventing a just-so scenario 4000 years in the future? This is another excellent example of poor research by an electrical engineer trying to defend a myth.
4. Walker states: "After the flood, the granite at the interface decomposed as
a result of water pooling at the interface. The sandstone would be permeable and
readily allow precipitation to flow through it to the interface. The granite would
act as an impermeable barrier and cause the water to pool. Perhaps underground
channels formed in particular areas as routes for the removal of water from the landscape.
Also, oxygen and organic acids would penetrate to the interface because the
sandstone layer is so thin at this point. These are particularly aggressive in
breaking down the minerals in the rocks, especially the more susceptible minerals in the
granite such as biotite and amphibole leaving the more resistant minerals such as quartz
-----Sheesh, and he claims my story is far-fetched! He's invented everything in his scenario without studying the literature of the region, without visiting the region and from a 200 dpi photo! In fact, he even makes compositional arguments about the granite that are incorrect. The Butler Hill granites are actually divided into three compositional groups. Of these, Group 3 granite (shown below the paleosol in question) has only trace amounts of biotite and no amphibole4. In turn, all my model requires is soil development covered by patchy deposition of a low-energy fluvial, aeolian or shallow marine sandstone. Walker calls his "a simple, plausible model". I'll let the reader decide..
Tas Walker conducts what is perhaps one of the best examples of poor scholarship I've ever seen (other examples of equally poor analysis are given below14). He spends an inordinate amount of time trying to explain away a 200 dpi photo with a bunch of just-so scenarios and completely ignores scholarly field-based work in the region. The result is a shoddy attempt to shore up support for a mythical flood that conventional geology rightly abandoned more than a century ago. Walker is correct that my calling this a paleosol does not make it a paleosol anymore than his calling it 'not a paleosol' discredits the notion9. Walker is correct that this particular photo is not the best at detailing the paleosol, but that was not necessarily the focus of the photo. Walker needs to take some time to carefully observe the field relationships (by GASP! actually visiting the outcrop!). He neglects the complete geologic history of the region and conjures up a geologic strawman in order to destroy it with a twisted scenario that does not fit the field observations. That this was allowed to be published in what creationists refer to as a 'scholarly journal' speaks volumes for the quality of the supposed research and explains quite clearly why creationists don't publish in mainstream literature. Any geologist would rightly reject this manuscript solely on the basis of poor research and a total lack of field-based observation. Lastly, Walker claims that pre-Quaternary paleosols are rare (not quite! as I show here). There is also a good (non-exhaustive) bibliography of paleosols on line here. One wonders why he chose this particular paleosol to criticize rather than the many other examples on the webpage or in the geologic literature. However, the simple truth is that by never defining a globally correlatable sequence stratigraphic framework for the flood, the creationist can weasel out of anything. Moving boundaries and no field truth are coupled to an invented geology based on a neglect of the primary literature to form the interpretative framework for a global flood. One is reminded of dear Mrs. Morris in the story given at the beginning of this website.
Acknowledgements: Special thanks to John Stear, Kevin Henke and Bill Birkeland for their editorial comments and/or their links to additional information used in this reply.
References and Notes
1The original photo shown in the article by Tas Walker was at 200 dpi resolution and when I changed the format to gif, I actually deformed the photo (it is stretched lengthwise). I have since updated the photo to its proper length/width. The original is shown side-by-side with the corrected version below. I should also note that this photo was taken for a purpose other than to detail the paleosol (the research focused on the paleomagnetism of the igneous rocks). Next time I get to the outcrop, I will photograph some close-ups of the paleosol.
Original: Correctly Scaled:
2Geologists detail such type sections and layers regularly. A good example is the ubiquitous iridium-rich layer marking the K-T boundary.
3Jan Peczkis is John Woodmorappe. Peczkis has written old Earth evolutionary articles in the Journal of Paleontology. I find it quite odd that he writes on both sides of the fence and uses a pseudonym to write ye-creationist articles.
5Kisvarsanyi, E.B., Hebrank, A.W. and R.F.
Ryan, Guidebook to the geology and ore deposits of
6Hughes, R.B., 1998. Paleotopography, weathering, and unconformity-controlled paleofluid pathways; St. Francois Mountains, SE Missouri, thesis, Colorado State University.
7Thacker, J.I. and Anderson, K.H., 1977. The geologic setting of the southeast Missouri lead district-regional geologic history, structure and stratigraphy, Economic Geology, 72, 339-348.
8Note: One cannot say "Well perhaps the Lamotte was eroded at the location shown in Figure 3". This does not work because there are stratigraphic relationships between the Bonneterre and Lamotte sandstone. The Lamotte is stratigraphically below the Bonneterre and this would require the Lamotte to be completely weathered out from beneath the Bonneterre. However, in the miraculous world of ye-creationism, I would not be surprised to see someone propose this.
9Of course only one of us has visited the
outcrop, studied the region in detail, published on rocks within the region and discussed
this paleosol with icnhonology expert Steve Hasiotis. The other one of us
bases everything on a 200 dpi photo.
10Oolites are spherical carbonate particles with concentric rings of carbonate formed during the gentle back and forth motion in a shallow marine environment. Ripple marks are small-scale ridges of sand or carbonate material produced by flowing water such as observed in a shallow beach region. Neither would be expected in a global tempest, but are entirely consistent with the idea that the SFM were a region of elevated topography surrounded by a shallow sea. See Thompson and Palmer (1987) Potosi-Highway 8 Cambrian exposure, southeastern Missouri, GSA Centennial Field Guide, North Central Section, pages 151-153.
11 Sutton, S.J and Maynard, J.B. 1996. "Basement unconformity control on alterations, St. Francois Mountains, SE Missouri, J. Geol., 104, 55-70.
12Houseknecht, D. W., 1976, "Transportational and Depositional History of Lamotte Sandstone of Southeastern Missouri," AAPG Bull.-Am. Assoc. Petroleum. Geol., v. 60, n. 4, p. 681.
13Keller, W.D., 1978, "Kaolinization of Feldspar as Displayed in Scanning Electron Micrographs," Geology, v. 6, p. 184-188.
Walker has demonstrated his poor grasp of geologic concepts in other articles. For
examples, you may want to explore the following links:
"Dr. Tasman Walker's Flood Geology Model"
"A Response to a Dubious Diluvium: A Tas Walker Creationist Fantasy"
"Young Earth Creationist Weds Three Sisters"
"A Message in a Bottle': More Distortions of Geology from Creation ex nihilo Magazine"
"Ager's Opinion of Young-Earth Creationists"