Castile Formation
How Could the Castile Formation have ever Formed during Noah's Flood?
Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.
May 4, 2014, updated January 19, 2021
The Delaware Basin: Too Much Geology for the Young-Earth Creationist Time Scale
The Upper Permian Castile Formation is located in the Delaware Basin of southwestern Texas and southeastern New Mexico, USA. The formation has a maximum thickness of about 640 meters (Kirkland et al., 2000, p. 749). Including the Castile Formation, the Delaware Basin contains sedimentary rocks that are about 7,300 meters thick (Hills, 1984, p. 250). The challenge for young-Earth creationists (YECs) is not only to explain how all of that sediment was supposedly deposited in only about one year by Noah's Flood, but how the sediment formed, where it came from and how delicate and often water-soluble salt varves could form in the middle of a Flood. Oard (2009b) and Reed and Oard (2012) ( http://creation.com/early-arguments-for-deep-time-3 ) fail to deal with any of these critical questions.
Stable isotope analyses of anhydrite (calcium sulfate, CaSO4) and calcite (calcium carbonate, CaCO3) from the Castile Formation indicate that the basin waters were chemically homogeneous during the precipitation of these minerals and that there was not any significant input of meteoric (atmospherically derived), continental-derived waters (Leslie et al. 1997, p. 223). But, how could large amounts of highly pure minerals possibly form during a Flood that lasted only about one year? How can brines achieve chemical homogeneity over an entire basin during heavy rains and flowing flood waters from a biblical Deluge and still produce water-soluble layers? As discussed in this essay, the stable isotope and other data are only consistent with slow cycles of evaporation and periodic recharging of a tranquil desert brine by seawater.
Correcting Mr. Oard's Cookie Cutter Mentality: Not all Varves are the Same
Varvites refer to varves that have been lithified or changed from sediment to sedimentary rock. A varve or varvite typically consists of two thin layers (a couplet) of contrasting compositions. Varves that develop in temperate lakes usually consist of an organic-rich layer that forms in the winter and a more inorganic layer that forms during the summer. Obviously, the composition, lateral extent, thicknesses and other properties of varves will vary with climate, basin size, biology, local sediment composition and other factors. For example, varves that form in evaporating seas or lakes in hot and arid regions may contain calcite (calcium carbonate), gypsum (CaSO4•2H2O), and perhaps halite (NaCl) or other chloride salts. After deep burial, gypsum would tend to dehydrate to anhydrite (CaSO4). Varves that form in fresh water lakes in wetter and cooler climates should contain more organic matter, quartz, other silicates and maybe some calcite, but few or no chloride salts.
Although Oard (2009b, p. 131) cites O'Sullivan (1983) and admits that "lake varves are not the same everywhere", later in his chapter, Oard (2009b, pp. 139, 140) forgets about varve and varvite diversity and falsely believes that because modern varves in Sweden, and even in the larger basins, have little lateral extent, the evaporite laminae of the Castile Formation, which extend up to 113 kilometers, cannot be varvites. Mr. Oard is clearly being too narrow and Lyell uniformitarian in his thinking about varves and varvites. He fails to fully realize that not all modern or ancient varves formed under the same conditions and have the same properties. Using the “narrow definition” in Oard (2009b, p. 125), a varve is simply “a thin sedimentary sequence laid down in water in one year.” This definition, which is acceptable, says nothing about how varves form or how far they extend laterally. Swedish and many other modern varves form in relatively small freshwater lakes under temperate and humid climates. However, varves also occur in the modern sediments of the Black Sea and other marine environments (Schimmelmann et al. 2016), and some of the Black Sea varves have been laterally traced over 200 km (Schimmelmann et al. 2016, Figure 1, p. 216), a far greater distance than the 113 km for the varves of the Castile Formation. In contrast to most modern fresh-water varves, the varves of the Castile Formation formed under very different desert conditions involving seawater. Because of their diverse depositional environments, modern Swedish, Black Sea, other modern marine, and Permian Castile varves are expected to have dissimilar mineralogies and modes of emplacement (siliciclastics vs. precipitated salts). It's also not surprising that Swedish, modern marine, and Castile varves would have very different physical properties, including their lateral extents, which would be controlled by the sizes of their basins and the tranquility of the water.
In an attempt to discredit the Castile varves, Oard (2009b, p. 138) sets up an invalid strawperson argument by distorting actualism and trying to fit all varves into a narrow and unrealistic set of properties (see: “Inaccurate Definitions and Descriptions of Actualism and Other Terms in Oard and Reed (2009)”.) Oard (2009b) simply fails to recognize the important differences between humid-climate varves and desert ones forming in large tranquil basins because he strongly desires to find any excuse to eliminate the existence of varves/varvites and protect his antiquated interpretations of the Bible.
Varvites of the Castile Formation
The couplets of the Castile Formation mostly consist of calcite and anhydrite with some halite and organic-rich layers (Kirkland et al., 2000; Anderson et al., 1972; Kirkland, 2003). Based on counts of the couplets, Kirkland et al. (2000, p. 750) conclude that the Castile varves formed in about 175,000 years. The varves were deposited during the Permian under warm and generally dry and evaporitic conditions at about 5-10o N latitude (Kirkland et al. 2000, p. 749).
Oard (2009b, p. 137) cites Anderson et al. (1972) as claiming that the laminae in the Castile Formation were never definitively proven to be varves, but that they were given that identification because no other explanations were seriously considered. Not surprisingly, Oard (2009b, p. 137) promotes this outdated statement and ignores subsequent research. More than 30 years after the work of Anderson et al. (1972), Kirkland (2003, p. 900) came to a very different conclusion about the timing of the deposition of the individual Castile couplets:
“Any hypothesis calling for a period less than or more than 1 year would be exceedingly difficult to support.”
In other words, Kirkland (2003, p. 900) argues that the couplets are varves and that no other alternative explanation works. Although Oard (2009b) quotes elsewhere from Kirkland (2003), he ignores the above statement from Kirkland (2003, p. 900) obviously because it flatly contradicts his YEC agenda. More recently, Anderson (2011) argues for the presence of varves and Milankovitch cycles in the Castile Formation.
Even if the couplets are not varves, YECs would have difficulty explaining how hundreds of thousands of cyclic salt couplets could form during a Flood year. Theistic evolutionist Glenn Morton and old-Earth creationist Wonderly (1987, p. 74-77) discuss some of the problems that the Castile Formation presents for young-Earth creationism and Flood geology. Oard (2009b, p. 137) refers to their statements as “misconceptions” of the Flood. Without presenting any specific evidence on how it would even be possible, Oard (2009b, p. 137) tries to claim that the Flood was not turbulent all the time and at all places. Of course, Mr. Oard is simply begging the question rather than providing evidence and answers. He only throws out this speculation because he recognizes that salt deposits would rapidly dissolve in a turbulent Genesis Flood. Therefore, Oard (2009b, p. 137) simply invokes locally tranquil areas in Noah's Flood in an attempt to fit the presence of the water-soluble salt deposits into his religious agenda. The problem for YECs is that their Flood needed to deposit most of the sediments for the world's sedimentary rocks in just about one year and that's not much time to develop periods of tranquility between extreme turbulence over significant areas of the globe. How can the Delaware Basin or any other basin fill with thousands of meters of sediments within one Flood year and still have extended periods of time when the water can quiet down and remain still so that subtle changes in brine chemistry are able to produce hundreds of thousands of chemically distinct couplets of gypsum, calcite and other precipitates over distances that often exceed 100 kilometers? Oard (2009b) provides no “rock solid” answers to this and many other critical problems.
Oard (2009b, p. 137) also implies that massive salt deposits did not precipitate from evaporation. (Evaporation would be too dry and slow for Noah's Flood.) Oard (2009b, p. 137) claims that the deep Delaware basin could have been relatively quiet, where the salt deposits “precipitated” because of “supersaturation.” So, how did a supersaturated brine form during Noah's Flood? Again, how did the chemistry of that brine rapidly vary in cycles to produce hundreds of thousands of rhythmite couplets in much less than one Flood year? Oard (2009b) identifies no mechanism or other necessary details to explain the origin of the dissolved calcium, sodium, carbonate, sulfate, and chloride and how they could successively reach supersaturation or even saturation during Noah's Flood. Oard (2009b, p. 137) simply arm-waves and hopes that people will accept his vague claims about “supersaturation” without demanding any specifics. Also see: Young-Earth Creationists Get into Hot Water for brief discussions on why the trace element chemistry and mineralogy does not support other YEC claims for magmatic, volcanic or hydrothermal salts in sedimentary rocks.
Brine Depth During the Precipitation of the Castile Couplets
The depths of the brines that precipitated the salts of the Castile Formation are uncertain (Leslie et al. 1997). However, neither shallow nor deep water salvage the Flood geology agenda. If the water was deep, YECs would then need to explain how the chemistry of such a large volume of water could rapidly cycle to precipitate hundreds of thousands of mineralogically diverse couplets in far less than one year. As discussed with Kirkland (2003) below, deep brines also create other problems that undermine Flood geology. On the other hand, if the water was shallow (<50 meters), YECs would still need to explain how the chemistry of the water could rapidly cycle over the area of a large basin, plus they would need to explain why there was a lack of water in this basin during supposed heavy precipitation and runoff from a worldwide “Flood.”
The Origin of the Castile Formation is Consistent with Actualism, but is Too Dry and Slow for Flood Geology
Not surprisingly, Oard (2009b, p. 138) sets up a strawperson “uniformitarian” model and then tries to argue that the model “fails” to explain the origin of the Castile Formation. As a first step in misrepresenting the geology of the Castile Formation, Oard (2009b, p. 138) misquotes Kirkland et al. (2000, p. 750) and gives the false impression that the Castile Formation rhythmites are difficult to verify as varves. In reality, the overall evidence indicates that the rhythmites are varves (see the quotation from Kirkland, 2003, p. 900, above). Contrary to statements in Oard (2009b, p. 138), Kirkland et al. (2000, p. 750) argue that it is the varve cycles, and not the varves themselves and their model, that are difficult to verify:
“The Castile varve cycle is difficult to verify. The varve model, however, is supported by geochemical evidence, by deposition of varves in modern salinas, by the great regularity of these small Castile cycles, and by thicknesses for these small cycles commensurate with deposition from marine water at reasonable annual evaporation rates... [my emphasis and several references omitted for clarity].”
Oard (2009b, p. 138) mentions that the origin of the Castile Formation rhythmites is commonly explained with a monsoonal model, but that a “major problem” for this model is a lack of a modern analog with a similar basin size. Reed and Oard (2012) also launch a brief and totally irrelevant strawperson attack against the modern uniformitarian (actualistic) view of the origin of the Castile Formation. Because a semi-closed marine basin on the scale that produced the Castile Formation just happens to not be found in the hot and dry climatic areas of present-day Earth, Reed and Oard (2012) invalidly believe that the "actualistic method fails" to explain the origin of the formation.
Dr. Reed and Mr. Oard desperately need to update their definitions of geological terms to realistic 21st century standards and cease trying to incapacitate modern uniformitarianism (actualism) by weighing it down with unnecessary and outdated restrictions. YECs are used to having commandments "written in stone" (e.g., Exodus 22:18), but science does not work that way. As I state in “Actualism [Modern Uniformitarianism] and its Assumptions” and other essays at this website, actualism does not require modern environments that cookie-cutter duplicate every ancient process identified in the geologic record. Actualism is simply based on understanding how the laws of chemistry and physics affect the deposition of sediment and the formation of other geologic materials. Under actualism, geologists reasonably assume that the laws of chemistry and physics have not changed over geologic time. Geologists should also use Occam’s razor and avoid unnecessary assumptions when interpreting the record. That is, actualism is methodological naturalism in that it rejects the role of the supernatural in the formation of the geologic record and in investigating that record. Geologists, like most other people, don't expect that God instantaneously formed sandstones or granites out of nothing, or that divining rods can be used to find oil.
I fully recognize that actualism was originally defined to rely on modern analogs to interpret past geological environments ("the present is the key to the past”), but this is not an absolute rule. Certainly, scientists using actualism will rely on modern analogs to interpret past geological environments if they are available, but the power of actualism is not restricted by a lack of modern analogs as YEC Austin (1979, p. 39) demonstrated long ago when summarizing the conclusions of Shantser (1970), Dott and Batten (1971) and Valentine (1973):
“The geologist's technique in deciphering ancient processes, they [Shantser (1970), Dott and Batten (1971) and Valentine (1973)] affirm, relies not only on analogies with products from experimental replicas and other non-geological systems, and on logical deductions from theories or scientific laws. Proper interpretations of ancient processes should, they say, involve complex techniques of inference, not just simple one-to-one association of products of modern and ancient processes. By using complex inference techniques, the geologist retains the maximum flexibility when conception of which is probably the crucial step in the act of scientific discovery.” [my emphasis]
By attempting to weigh down actualism with an absolute requirement of modern analogs, Oard and Reed (2009) and Reed and Oard (2012) are ignoring the wisdom of Austin (1979) and invoking rigid one-to-one associations of the products of modern and ancient processes. Instead, they should recognize that if modern analogs are unavailable, actualism (21st century uniformitarianism) can often provide reliable models of natural phenomena based on laboratory data, computer modeling and local or regional field observations. In particular, the conditions that are required to precipitate calcite, gypsum, and halite in water are well understood from field and laboratory studies, and so are the climatic conditions that existed in the Delaware Basin during the Upper Permian (Kirkland, 2003; Kirkland et al. 2000). So, actualism is simply not a “semantic dodge” as Oard (2009b, p. 138) wants his readers to believe, but an effective, rational and holistic forensic method for deciphering the history of the Earth. In contrast, young-Earth creationism and Flood geology are chained to unrealistic biblical interpretations.
The following are some additional quotations from a few common geology textbooks that Mr. Oard and Dr. Reed should review. These quotations demonstrate that modern geologists don’t always expect modern analogs for every ancient depositional environment. Furthermore, a lack of modern analogs does not preclude successful deciphering of the geologic record under actualism. Levin (2010, p. 19) states:
“At the same time, we must be constantly aware that in the past, the rates of change and intensity of processes often varied from those we are accustomed to seeing today, and that some events of long ago simply have no modern counterpart.” [my emphasis]
Press and Siever (2001, p. 4) conclude:
“We now know that many important geologic processes are not observable in action today, yet the evidence that they took place is undeniable. For example, there have been asteroid impacts that no human witnessed but that greatly modified the Earth's crust and climate in the past. Neither has humankind seen the vast volcanic outpourings of the past in which lava covered areas of continental dimensions and volcanic gases poisoned the global atmosphere [i.e., the end of the Permian].”
Strahler (1999, p. 215) argues:
“Mainstream geologists do not claim that the world of today contains examples of recent formation of everything that has ever happened in all of geologic time.”
Because these and many similar modern university-level textbooks represent the current consensus of geology teachers and professional geologists and are the resources for training future geologists, Dr. Reed and Mr. Oard should stop ignoring their collective wisdom.
Reed and Oard (2012) also appeal to “large-scale unusual processes” to explain the origin of the Castile Formation. Clearly, they are making a subtle reference to Noah’s Flood. Like Oard and Reed (2009), Reed and Oard (2012) utterly fail to provide any specifics on how Noah’s Flood could have ever produced the broad, thin, and water-soluble salt layers of the Castile Formation. It’s just more empty arm-waving tactics without any specifics. They have no scientific answers. Mr. Oard and Dr. Reed have no rational Flood geology model – just empty hopes and dreams based on outdated religious beliefs. As discussed elsewhere in this essay, the development of the Castile Formation is readily explained by natural processes using a modern uniformitarian (actualistic) framework. Solar energy is surely a large-scale process that was involved in the deposition of the Castile salt deposits and, no doubt, the process took a lot of time. While Reed and Oard (2012) claim that the "secular explanations of the Castile Formation strain credulity", the actual origin of the Castile Formation can be readily explained by the laws of chemistry and physics, as I further explain below. It's Dr. Reed and Mr. Oard’s appealing to a Bible that invokes a talking snake (Genesis 3:1), magic fruit (Genesis 3:5-7,22), and windows in the sky (Genesis 7:11) that release Flood waters that strains all credulity.
Eight Issues Explained by Actualism and Fatal to Flood Geology
After failing to properly describe varves and actualism, Oard (2009b, p. 138) takes some information on the Castile varvites from Kirkland (2003) and produces a list of several “problems” for actualism:
1) A lack of unconformities within the formation,
2) Siliciclastic sediments in the surrounding rocks were not washed or otherwise transported into the formation,
3) Explanations that work for the deposition of other evaporites don't work with the Castile Formation,
4) The huge quantity of salt making up the formation,
5) A supposedly lack of a mechanism to explain the influx of seawater so that it could evaporate and produce the salt,
6) A lack of a pathway to explain the discharge of a brine back into the Panthalassa Ocean,
7) A lack of mechanism to explain how the large amount of salts could accumulate in the Delaware Basin (similar to #4)
8) No mechanism to explain the proportions of the salts in the formation.
Obviously, YECs would want people to conclude that these “problems” are so insurmountable that any “reasonable” geologist would be forced to invoke Noah's Flood as the only “solution.” However, as discussed in Kirkland (2003), these “problems” have been largely resolved under actualism, which involves the slow and long-term deposition of evaporite varves in a large, partially closed basin containing very quiet evaporating water. In contrast, these eight issues are totally incompatible with Flood geology. Oard (1997), Oard (2009a) and other YEC documents often describe Noah's Flood as supposedly engulfing the planet with massive turbidites, tsunamis, meteorite impacts, hyperhurricanes, and other violent disasters. Yet, this super violent Flood somehow miraculously spared the Delaware Basin from heavy rains, flooding or other disruptions during the deposition of the delicate and often water-soluble salts of the Castile Formation. Contrary to Oard (2009b, p. 138), it's not actualism, but Noah's Flood with its supposed reliance on unproven supernaturalism and implausible stories, that has the far-fetched “explanations” for the Castile Formation.
Kirkland (2003, Figure 4, p. 901, Figure 13, p. 910) describes the depositional basin of the Castile Formation as a deep marine embayment near the Permian Panthalassa Ocean. (As discussed above, the depth of the brine in the deep basin that precipitated the Castile Formation is still debated, but this debate offers no support for Noah's Flood.) Traditionally, channels between basins and open oceans or seas have been proposed to explain the replenishment of brines in the basins so that massive amounts of evaporites could precipitate (the silled strait model; Kirkland 2003, p. 907; related to issue #3 on Mr. Oard's list above). Whenever the channel closed, the water trapped in the basin started to evaporate and the evaporite varves began to precipitate. The brine would be recharged with seawater whenever the channel opened. However, for at least the Castile Formation, Kirkland (2003, p. 907) argues that this model would not explain the origin and chemistry of the salt deposits. As an alternative, Kirkland (2003, p. 907) purposes that the basin brines were replenished by seawater moving through very permeable subsurface rocks consisting of fractured, porous and uncemented rubble from former reefs (also see Figure 8 of Kirkland et al., 2000, p. 754). Unlike an open channel, a permeable aquifer could have sent enormous amounts of marine groundwater into the basin for thousands of years (Kirkland 2003, p. 907), which could explain the origin of the laterally and vertically extensive evaporite laminae.
Oard (2009b, p. 138-139) notes that 9.17 million cubic kilometers of seawater (about 0.65% of the Earth's current volume of ocean water) would have to have been evaporated to produce the salts of the Castile Formation. In other words, about 52 cubic kilometers of replacement seawater would have to have entered the basin each year during the deposition of the formation (Kirkland et al. 2000, p. 754). As a comparison, the Amazon River by itself discharges about 175,000 cubic meters of water into the Atlantic Ocean every second (Press and Siever 2001, p. 260), which is about 5,500 cubic kilometers per year. Considering that the permeabilities of reef limestones are often very high (North 1985, pp. 125, 203) and that seawater commonly percolates into permeable subsurface materials associated with seas and oceans (Ritter et al., 1995, Figure 5.31, p. 166), Kirkland's model is certainly a reasonable explanation for issues #3, #4, #5, and #7 on Mr. Oard's list. Certainly, YECs have an infinitely worse task trying to explain the Castile salt varves. Rather than trying to argue that the movement of this vast amount of water through permeable reef rubble over a time period of about 175,000 years is somehow not possible or presenting an alternative Flood model that can rationally explain all of these details, Oard (2009b, p. 139) drops the discussions and changes the subject to the ratios of the evaporite minerals.
Oard (2009b, p. 139) notes that the Castile Formation contains about 1:1 anhydrite (would have been originally gypsum) and halite. However, Oard (2009b, p. 139) states that the total evaporation of a seawater sample should produce about 30 times more halite than anhydrite (issue #8 on his list). Oard (2009b, p. 139) then asks where the excess anhydrite came from. Instead of asking about why the anhydrite is in excess, perhaps Mr. Oard should ask why the halite is missing. A large part of the answer to the 1:1 “problem” deals with the solubilities of halite and anhydrite/gypsum in water. Halite is far more soluble in water (35.9 grams/100 mL at 25oC) than anhydrite (only 0.0021 grams/100 mL at 25oC) or gypsum (similar aqueous solubility as anhydrite at 25oC) (CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Haynes, 2010). When gypsum (which later dehydrated to anhydrite after burial) largely precipitated from the brine, the sodium chloride in the brine was still not even close to saturation and precipitating. The brine would have to undergo much more evaporation before sodium chloride would reach saturation and begin to precipitate. Although some halite precipitates occur in the Castile Formation, the brine was far more likely to become diluted with seawater or leave the basin before attaining sodium chloride saturation. So, issue #8 on Mr. Oard's list is also not a problem for geochemistry or actualism.
To explain how seawater could enter the basin through the subsurface and brines simultaneously exit from the basin, Kirkland (2003, pp. 908-909) proposes that density differences caused “fresh” marine groundwater (seawater) and denser brines that are still undersaturated with sodium chloride to stratify and flow in opposite directions in the subsurface. While the less dense seawater flowed into the basin, the denser brines sank deeper into the subsurface and flowed outward. This hypothesis is reasonable explanation for issue #6 on Mr. Oard's list. Kirkland (2003, p. 909) concludes:
“To achieve a ratio of halite to anhydrite of 1:1, King (1947) calculated that ≈11% of the total influxing water departed the basin as refluxing brine. Using King's values and reasonable rates of evaporation, 5-10 km3 of reflux occurred annually.”
As mentioned in Oard (2009b, p. 139), Leslie et al. (1997) propose an alternative hypothesis, which also complies with natural laws and is possible. Stable isotope data in Leslie et al. (1997) create even more problems for Flood geology, which were briefly mentioned above.
Oard (2009b, p. 139) obviously cannot accept the model in Kirkland (2003) or any other actualistic explanation for the density stratification and divergent flow of subsurface brines and “fresh” seawater. However, the process is a common occurrence between fresh and saline groundwaters along marine coastal areas. For example, notice that seawater and freshwater groundwaters show density stratification and are flowing in the opposite directions in the subsurface at sites BHW221 and BMW47 on the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts in Figure 11, p. 17 of Barlow, 2003. At the same time to explain the formation of salt deposits or how aquatic organisms could have been protected from poisonous submarine volcanic emissions, at least some YECs have no problem speculating without any justification that density stratification of waters somehow occurred during Noah's Flood (for example, the diagram from YEC Nutting (1984) in YEC Williams (2003), Figure 12, p. 80). Although aquifers can be very tranquil environments that readily allow density stratification, it's difficult to believe that similar environments could form for a sufficient period of time during Noah's Flood when the supposed Flood waters were commonly being exposed to widespread meteorite impacts, earthquakes, turbidity currents, volcanic eruptions, and other disasters. YECs are trying to have Noah's Flood do everything geological in one year, and that is unreasonable.
The geologic record presents many fatal problems for young-Earth creationism. Without presenting a shred of evidence, YECs want the Flood to be able to do everything geological. They want the Flood to deposit kilometers of sediments within a year over widespread areas. Yet, within the same year and often in the same locations, YECs demand that regional Flood waters frequently become quiet enough to produce delicate and very water soluble halite crystals and thin and laterally extensive salt layers, not only in the Castile Formation, but in many other formations around the globe. Millions of years of geologic history allow for diverse depositional environments, but Flood geology does not have the luxuries of time and geologic diversity. Rather than providing specific answers to these serious physical, chemical and mineralogical problems for his unproven Flood, Mr. Oard can only resort to vague arm waving, begging the question and accusing me of making “simplistic attacks on the Flood” (Oard 2008b, p. 6) or lacking “a basic understanding of what a global Flood might accomplish” (Oard 2009a, p. 120). But, how can Mr. Oard accuse me of not having a “basic understanding of what a global Flood might accomplish”, when he has utterly failed to demonstrate that Noah's Flood ever existed and he cannot explain how such a Flood could ever produce the sedimentary rocks of the Delaware Basin within one year? Give me a workable Flood model, Mr. Oard, and we'll see if you have a basic understanding of how the laws of chemistry and physics affect geology.
Oard (2009b, p. 139) also wonders why siliciclastics are absent in the Castile Formation (issue #2 on his list). Oard (2009b, p. 139) argues that rivers from monsoonal flooding should have deposited siliciclastics in the Castile Formation. However, Kirkland et al. (2000, p. 754) argue that the absence of siliciclastics indicates that no permanent rivers drained into the basin, which is not surprising in a Permian desert. Furthermore, the “monsoonal climate” did not necessarily mean extensive precipitation (Kirkland 2003, pp. 910-911; Anderson 2011, p. 767). Although actualism does not demand modern analogs for the Permian climate of the Delaware Basin (see “Inaccurate Definitions and Descriptions of Actualism and Other Terms in Oard and Reed (2009)”), the deserts of Arizona and elsewhere in the southwest US also have monsoons. The Permian geology of the sediments surrounding the Delaware Basin also helps to explain the general absence of silicicastics in the Castile Formation. Although some silicate red beds were located away from the basin (Kirkland 2003, Figure 4, p. 901), carbonate reefs, and not abundant silicate rocks and sediments, immediately surrounded the basin during the Permian (also see Figure 10 in Oard 2009b, p. 138).
Considering the dry environment of the Castile basin, Oard (2009b, p. 139) wonders where the siliciclastic wind-blown dust is in the Castile Formation. However, wind-blown dust may not be absent from the formation, but simply relatively minor and unnoticed, especially if the dust mostly consists of calcium carbonate or other non-silicate minerals. It is not always easy to distinguish a wind-blown calcite particle from a calcite particle that precipitated from water. Reinfort (2020, Chapter 4) has extensive discussions on the composition and origin of the Castile Formation, including hypotheses that explain the trace amounts of silicate minerals that are present in the formation (his Section 4.5.7).
In reality, the absence of siliciclastics in the Castile Formation poses far more problems for Flood geology. If Noah's Flood could somehow transport Ordovician diamictites across North Africa as turbidites (Oard, 1997), why didn't similar long-range turbidites flow into the basin of the Castile Formation? In North America, YEC Froede (2004) argues that the Flood transported silicate sediment from the Appalachians to contribute to the formation of the massive Navajo Sandstone in Arizona. If the Flood supposedly routinely transported silicate sediments across continents, why was the Castile Formation spared? Furthermore, where is the silica-rich volcanic ash in the Castile Formation from all of the volcanoes that were supposedly erupting during Noah's Flood? If the volcanic ash was dispersed by turbulent Flood waters, how could any delicate salt layers form?
In his Table 1, Kirkland (2003, p. 912) argues that any turbid brines from storms would have been incapable of covering the approximately 25,000 square kilometers of the basin floor with salt couplets. The couplets had to have formed from slow evaporation and not turbidites. So, how did Noah's Flood produce voluminous brines and introduce them into the basin? Contrary to the unsupported speculation in Oard (2009b, p. 139), the laterally extensive laminae in the Castile Formation (up to 113 kilometers) is strong evidence of evaporite varve precipitation in a large tranquil basin over long periods of time. The origin of the Castile Formation evaporite couplets is simply inconsistent with rapid deposition from turbid brines (Kirkland 2003, p. 912) or anything catastrophic from the YEC version of Noah's Flood.
The presence of a persistent and quiet brine in the Late Permian Delaware Basin would also explain the absence of unconformities within the Castile Formation (issue #1 on the Oard list is resolved). The persistent and quiet brine would generate couplets over long periods of time without extensive interruptions or erosional events, which would be required to produce unconformities.
Oard (2009b, p. 138) refers to the explanations for the eight “problems” in Kirkland (2003) as “far-fetched.” However, even a scant knowledge of Middle Eastern history and archaeology (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001; Drever, 2005) and the laws of chemistry and physics show that it is Mr. Oard's Flood geology and not the geology in Kirkland (2003) that is far-fetched. Each of the explanations given by Kirkland and other scientists for the origin of the Castile Formation are totally reasonable, plausible and consistent with actualism. Although other actualistic models could be derived, the model in Kirkland (2003) is well supported by the geology, chemistry and mineralogy of the Castile Formation. No physical or chemical laws needed to be violated to produce the Castile Formation under actualism. In contrast, Noah's Flood is not a reasonable alternative to explain the origin of the formation, but an unrealistic dogma that fails to explain the physical, chemical, and mineralogical properties of the formation and would ultimately rely on unproven miracles to prop it up, just as the YECs ignore the complexities of middle Precambrian rocks and embrace the fallacious Gosse Hypothesis by claiming that these rock originated from ex nihilo miracles during the six-day Creation Week (Snelling and Woodmorappe, 1998; Reed 2009, p. 211; Austin, 1994, pp. 59-60).
Contradiction in Kirkland (2003)?
Statements in Oard (2009b, p. 139) suggest that Mr. Oard has caught Kirkland (2003) in a contradiction. Oard (2009a, p. 139) quotes two statements from Kirkland (2003, p. 909, 910):
“Castile laminae accumulated 'in an extremely protected “zero energy” environment' (Holser, 1979). Their great lateral extent and complete lack of disruption are consistent with persistent brine stratification. Wind-induced currents apparently dissipated in the UBL [upper brine layer].” (p. 909)
“With equalization of brine densities, wind-induced overturn occurred.” (p. 910).
Oard (2009b, p. 139) then asks how the bottom varve layers could avoid being disturbed if the brine lake “seasonally” overturned? However, Oard (2009b, p. 139) fails to realize that “seasonal overturning” of the brine was a rare event that did not occur during most changes of the seasons. Kirkland (2003, p. 909) refers to the brine as experiencing “infrequent periods of seasonal overturn”:
“Similarly, the Castile brine mass was probably persistently stratified with only infrequent periods of seasonal overturn. The interpreted great depth of the brine mass, a high seasonal evaporation rate and a large annual influx into the upper brine mass of marine groundwater probably led inevitably to its persistent stratification. In an analogous hydrology, influxing fresh water dominantly from the Jordan River resulted in persistent stratification of the Dead Sea...[reference omitted].”
Oard (2009b) also fails to mention how rare Kirkland (2003, p. 917) thought the overturning was:
“The interval of seasonal overturn occurred every 1800-3000 years.”
Kirkland (2003, p. 899) further elaborates in his abstract:
“Every few thousand years, for <50 to several hundred years, the lake became unstratified during the dry season, and wind-induced overturn allowed a layer of gypsum crystals up to ≈2 cm high to precipitate on the basin floor.”
When Kirkland (2003) is reviewed in its entire context, Mr. Oard's suggestion of a contradiction vanishes and so does any support for a Flood origin for the Castile Formation.
Oard (2009b) Invalidly Invokes Dr. Berthault's Work
Without providing any evidence or actually thinking about the consequences, Oard (2009b, p. 143) suggests that Dr. Berthault's sediment sorting mechanism might explain the rhythmites in the Castile Formation. Oard (2009b, p. 143) is simply throwing out invalid speculations in a vain hope that something would stick. In the same way, Oard (2009b) and Reed and Oard (2012) also continue to invoke Dr. Berthault's work to explain away the varves of the Green River Formation, despite strong rebukes from YEC Whitmore (2006c, p. 83) for earlier doing so (see: “Varved and Non-varved Layers in the Green River Formation”). Contrary to Dr. Reed and Mr. Oard's hopes, Dr. Berthault's experimental work with laminar sediments is no cure-all for the enormous and fatal problems that varves present for Noah's Flood.
Dr. Berthault's laminations form from differences in the size, shape or density of flowing sediment grains (Oard 2009b, p. 143 and his Figure 11). Although Dr. Berthault's sorting mechanism might occur with silts and quartz grains settling through water, how would chemically precipitating salts in the Castile Formation physically segregate out and form Dr. Berthault's layers? How would water-soluble salts, such as halite, and soft minerals, like gypsum, survive the sorting process? How could the salts rapidly form and sort during Noah's Flood? Where is the evidence that Dr. Berthault's “sorting mechanism” was present in the salts of the Castile Formation? Where is the evidence in the shape and size of the salt grains that they are detrital and sorted? Where are Dr. Berthault's experiments that show that his mechanism works with precipitating salts? As usual, Oard (2009b) and Reed and Oard (2012) provide no answers to these critical questions.
References
Anderson, R.Y. 2011. "Enhanced Climate Variability in the Tropics: A 200 000 yr Annual Record of Monsoon Variability from Pangea’s Equator", Climate of the Past, v. 7, pp. 757-770.
Anderson, R.Y., W.E. Dean, Jr., D.W. Kirkland, and H.I. Snider. 1972. “Permian Castile Varved Evaporite Sequence, West Texas and New Mexico”, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 83, pp. 59-86.
Austin, S.A. 1979. “Uniformitarianism- A Doctrine that Needs Rethinking”, The Compass, v. 56, n. 2, pp. 29-45.
Austin, S. A. (ed.). 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, 92071.
Barlow, P.M. 2003. Ground Water in Freshwater-Saltwater Environments of the Atlantic Coast, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA, circular 1262, 113pp. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2003/circ1262/
Dever, W.G. 2005. Did God have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 344pp.
Dott, R.H. and R. L. Batten. 1971. Evolution of the Earth, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 649pp.
Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, The Free Press, New York, 385pp.
Froede Jr., C.R. 2004. Eroded Appalachian Mountain Siliciclastics as a Source for the Navajo Sandstone, Journal of Creation, v. 18, n. 2, pp. 3-5. http://creation.com/eroded-appalachian-mountain-siliciclastics-as-a-source-for-the-navajo-sandstone
Haynes, W.M. (ed.) 2010. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 91st edition, CRC Press, 2610pp.
Hills, J.M. 1984. “Sedimentation, Tectonism, and Hydrocarbon Generation in Delaware Basin, West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico”, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 68, n. 3, pp. 250-267.
Holser, W.T. 1979. “Mineralogy of Evaporites” in R.G. Burns (editor), Marine Minerals, Mineralogical Society of America Short Course Notes, v. 6, pp. 211-293.
King, R.H. 1947. “Sedimentation in the Permian Castile Sea', Bulletin AAPG, v. 31, pp. 470-477.
Kirkland, D.W. 2003. “An Explanation for the Varves of the Castile Evaporites (Upper Permian), Texas and New Mexico, USA”, Sedimentology, v. 50, pp. 899-920.
Kirkland, D.W., R.E. Denison, and W.E. Dean. 2000. “Parent Brine of the Castile Evaporites (Upper Permian), Texas and New Mexico”, Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 70, n. 3, pp. 749-761.
Leslie, A.B., G.M. Harwood, and A.C. Kendall. 1997. “Geochemical Variations within a Laminated Evaporite Deposit: Evidence for Brine Composition during Formation of the Permian Castile Formation, Texas and New Mexico, USA”, Sedimentary Geology, v. 110, pp. 223-235.
Levin, H. 2010. The Earth through Time, 9th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 606pp.
North, F.K. 1985. Petroleum Geology, Unwin Hyman, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 631pp.
Nutting, D.I. 1984. Origin of Bedded Salt Deposits: A Critique of Evaporative Models and Defense of a Hydrothermal Model. Master's Thesis, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California.
Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.
Oard, M.J. 2008b. “The Eocene Ice Age - Example of a Geological Challenge,” Creation Matters, v. 13, n. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 1, 6-8.
Oard, M.J. 2009b. “Do Varves Contradict Biblical History?”, chapter 8 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 125-148.
O'Sullivan, P.E. 1983. "Annually Laminated Lake Sediments and the Study of Quaternary Environmental Changes - A Review," Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 1, pp. 245-313.
Press, F. and R. Siever. 2001. Understanding Earth, 3rd edition, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, USA, 625pp.
Reed, J.K. 2009. “Fossil Distribution in the Flood,” chapter 12 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 207-215.
Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2012. "Three Early Arguments for Deep Time—Part 3: The ‘Geognostic Pile’" Journal of Creation 26(2):100–109. http://creation.com/early-arguments-for-deep-time-3
Reinfort, E.M. 2020. Naturalism Versus Flood Geology: Comparing the Best Responses from Two Sides: Volume 4: Some Massive Salt Deposits and their Possible Origins, Digital Services, Kindle Edition, https://www.amazon.com/Naturalism-Versus-Genesis-Flood-Deposits-ebook/dp/B085KXFNZW/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=Reinfort&qid=1611113926&sr=8-5
Ritter, D.F., R.C. Kochel and J.R. Miller. 1995. Process Geomorphology, 3rd edition, WCB McGraw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 546pp.
Schimmelmann, A., C.B. Lange, J. Schieber, P. Francus, A.E.K. Ojala, and B. Zolitschka. 2016. "Varves in Marine Sediments: A Review", Earth-Science Reviews, v. 159, pp. 215-246.
Shantser, Y.V. 1970. “On the Methodology of Research in Historical Geology”, Geotectonics, v. 4, pp. 69-74.
Snelling, A.A. and J. Woodmorappe. 1998. “The Cooling of Thick Igneous Bodies on a Young Earth,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Aug. 3-8, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 705 Washington Dr., Pittsburgh, PA, USA 15229.
Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History- The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 552pp.
Valentine, J.W. 1973. Evolutionary Paleoecology of the Marine Biosphere, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 511pp.
Whitmore, J.H. 2006c. “Difficulties with a Flood Model for the Green River Formation”, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 81-85.
Williams, E.L. 2003. "The Evaporite Deposits of Saltville, Virginia", Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 40, September, pp. 72-84.
Wonderly, D.E. 1987. Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, Hatfield, Pennsylvania, USA, http://www.wonderlylib.ibri.org/Wonderly-Neglect/README.htm