Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D., Last Updated February 6, 2024

The Varves of the Green River Formation

In my 1999 essay, I summarize how the varves of the Green River Formation of Wyoming invalidate Flood geology:

"One of the better-known examples of ancient varves is found in the Eocene Green River Formation of Wyoming. The Green River Formation probably developed in several large warm-climate Eocene lakes. Not all of the thin layers in the Green River Formation are varves (Ripepe et al., 1991, p. 1155). Specifically, the Tipton, Laney and Wilkins Peak Members of the Green River Formation frequently contain varves. The Wilkins Peak Member also contains abundant salt deposits that formed from dry evaporating conditions, which, of course, are incompatible with a wet raging 'Flood.' These salts would have dissolved and dispersed in any 'Flood' waters. Because the Wilkins Peaks Member is sandwiched between the Tipton and the Laney members (see Figure 2, p. 1147 in Fischer and Roberts, 1991), this means that the area experienced deep lake conditions as the Tipton was deposited, followed by the drier conditions of the Wilkins Peak and finally BACK to the deeper water of the Laney Member. That's a lot of deposition and climatic change for even 6,000 years on the YEC [young-Earth creationist] calendar. Miall (1990, p. 489) also notes that the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation consists of kerogen-rich layers that formed during humid lacustrine phases and kerogen-poor layers that resulted from ARID playa phases. Again, how could arid conditions exist during 'Noah's Flood'?" [capitalized emphasis in the original]

In his invalid broad-brush attacks on the varves of the Green River Formation, Oard (2009b) fails to distinguish between the varves of the Tipton, Laney and Wilkins Peak members and the non-varved laminations (rhythmites) of other members of the formation.

Oard (2009b) Misquotes the Literature in an Attempt to Undermine the Reality of the Green River Formation Varves

The Green River Formation formed about 53 to 45 million years ago (Smith et al. 2008, pp. 73-76). Since the existence of varves in the Green River Formation refutes his Biblical interpretations, Oard (1997; 2009b) is determined to find any information that could be used to undermine their existence. As one of his many examples of quoting out of context, Oard (2009b, pp. 139-140) misrepresents the following section from Strahler (1987, p. 233) as indicating that Strahler "questions" the number and regularity of the Green River varves:

"The Green River couplets are indeed a remarkable accumulation; their regularity and vast numbers are mind-boggling. How could such uniform deposition continue for 5 to 8 million years?"

However, the amazement that Strahler (1987, p. 233) had with how the varves formed over 5 to 8 million years does not mean that he doubted that slow natural processes produced the varves. Strahler (1987, pp. 232-233) actually discusses how the varves formed under natural conditions over millions of years and he argues that the properties of the varves are incompatible with Noah's Flood.

Oard (2009b, pp. 139-141) also cites Anderson and Dean (1988) and a number of other older references that raised questions about the varves in the Green River Formation, as well as other varves. In particular, Anderson and Dean (1988, p. 228) mention several references from 1975-1981 that viewed the varved origins of the Green River Formation as controversial. However, since then, the controversies have subsided. Geologists now widely recognize that at least some members of the Green River Formation have varves. Ripepe et al. (1991, p. 1156) summarize the current consensus and the need for continuing research:

"Work subsequent to Bradley's led to some reinterpretation of Bradley's facies model and, at the extreme counter-position of the pendulum, to a questioning of his varve model and of the chronologies and cyclicities connected with it. Presently the pendulum has come back to an intermediate position (Fischer and Roberts, ... [1991]), but careful studies of varve sequences remained to be made."

Despite the current evidence that supports the existence of some varves in the Green River Formation, Oard (1997; 2009b) is forced by his biblical beliefs to continue to take the extreme and untenable position that no varves exist anywhere in formation. Machulus et al. (2008) and Meyers (2008), which were not mentioned by Oard (2009b), are important more recent papers that continue to provide evidence that supports the existence of varves in the Green River Formation. Theistic evolutionist and ex-YEC Glenn Morton's web essay Creationist Misuse of the Green River Formation also discusses details on the varves and non-varved sediments of the Green River Formation.

The Varve Cycles are Real

Bradley (1929; 1931) first detected cycles in parts of the Green River Formation and since then his and other cycles have been confirmed with a variety of independent methods, including gamma ray logs and computer statistical methods that minimize human biases (Fischer and Roberts, 1991; Ripepe et al., 1991; Meyers, 2008; Machlus et al. 2008). Table 1, which is an update of the table in my 1999 essay, correlates the major climatic and astronomical cycles with the varve cycles in the Green River Formation. There are four possible Milankovitch cycles: precession, obliquity, eccentricity and long eccentricity. At least two of the Milankovitch cycles have been detected in some of members of the Green River Formation. Since my 1999 essay, additional studies have confirmed the presence of the previously identified cycles. Furthermore, Machlus et al. (2008) have possibly identified the long eccentricity and obliquity cycles in the Wilkins Peak Member. Using statistical methods, Meyers (2008) concluded that there was less than a 0.07% chance that the rhythmites in the Wilkins Peak Member were not affected by Milankovitch cycles. In other words, the results in Meyers (2008) indicate that Oard (2009b) and other YECs only have about a 0.07% chance of being right. Although YECs will never accept these data, the varves of the Green River Formation are extremely consistent with radiometric dates from associated volcanic ash layers in the formation (Smith et al., 2010). How could Noah's Flood or only 6,000 to 10,000 years of Earth history ever produce these well-confirmed cycles?

Table 1. Variations in varve thickness within the Tipton, Laney, and Wilkins Peak members of the Green River Formation clearly fall into regular cycles, several of which correlate beautifully with various long-term climate and astronomical (Milankovitch) cycles (Fischer and Roberts, 1991, p. 1147, 1150-1152; Ripepe et al. 1991; Machlus et al., 2008; Meyers, 2008; Aswasereelert et al. 2013; Smith et al. 2014). This table is an update of the table in my 1999 essay.

*The lengths of some of these cycles have slowly changed over geologic time (Van Andel, 1994, pp. 243-244).

Only Certain Members of the Green River Formation Contain Varves

As mentioned in my 1999 essay and Ripepe et al. (1991, p. 1155), not every member of the Green River Formation contains varves. The varves are primarily located in the Tipton, Laney and Wilkins Peak members. As shown in the figures and discussions in Glenn Morton's webessay, Creationist Misuse of the Green River Formation, the varves of the Green River Formation developed in the deeper water of Eocene Lake Gosuite, whereas the non-varved storm layers formed closer to shore or in shallower and smaller lakes, including Fossil Lake, which contains the famous fish fossils of Fossil Basin. Glenn Morton states:

"Out in the center of [Lake] Gosuite, 100 miles from shore, the layers are uniform in thickness but near shore and in the small Fossil lake, the storm layers are found. Out in the center of Gosiute, storm laminae are missing, as they should be."

Now, if that is the case, and the central Gosiute laminae are truly yearly, we should be able to find the signature of the solar cycle and other astronomical parameters in the varve thickness. The reason for this is that the orbital parameters of the Earth and the solar cycle itself affect the weather patterns which affect rainfall and temperature. As the rainfall and temperature varies, sediment influx to the lake varies and thus the varve thicknesses vary. Do we find periodic variations in the varve thickness? Yes!"

Table 1 lists which members of the Green River Formation contain which varve cycles. Non-varved laminations have been found in the Parachute Creek and Fossil Butte members.

YEC Denial of the Green River Formation Varves

Fischer and Roberts (1991, p. 1148) summarize the situation with the Green River varves:

"The extreme regularity of this lamination, having formed millions of couplets in the course of Green River time, is indeed hard to attribute to any oscillatory mechanism other than that of the annual cycle, and the product shows good similarity to varying in modern meromictic lakes...[references omitted]."

Rather than deal with the reality of these regular cycles in the Green River Formation, Oard (2009b, p. 139f) closes his eyes to reality and inappropriately denies their very existence. Firstly, he misquotes references to give the false impression that there are currently knowledgeable scientists that deny the existence of any varve cycles anywhere in the Green River Formation. As discussed further below, Mr. Oard's efforts include omitting critical details when quoting studies of non-varved laminae from outside the Tipton, Laney, and Wilkins Peak members to create the false impression that there are no varves anywhere in the formation. Secondly, he makes unsubstantiated accusations of reinforcement syndrome against scientists when the results from these scientists are the opposite of what would be expected if their research were being controlled by reinforcement syndrome. Thirdly, Mr. Oard incorrectly argues that the climatic and astronomical cycles would have been too "weak" to create cycles in the large lake sediments of the Green River Formation. Lastly, he and other YECs attempt to use the fossilization of fish and other Eocene organisms, mostly in non-varved sediments, to argue against the formation of any varves.

Oard (2009b) Omits Critical Details from Buchheim and Biaggi (1988), Church and Buchheim (2002), and Crowley et al. (1986) When Attacking the Existence of the Green River Varves

Like many YECs have previously done, Oard (2009b, p. 140) attempts to disparage the existence of any varves in the Green River Formation by misquoting Crowley et al. (1986) and two abstracts: Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) and Church and Buchheim (2002). Contrary to claims in Oard (2009b, p. 140), none of the work in Crowley et al. (1986) and Church and Buchheim (2002) casts doubt on the cycles discovered in Ripepe et al. (1991) and other articles because Crowley et al. (1986), Church and Buchheim (2002) and Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) dealt with different members or samples of the Green River Formation than Ripepe et al. (1991), Machlus et al. (2008), Meyers (2008) and other researchers that confirmed the existence of the cycles. In particular, Crowley et al. (1986) investigated samples from the Parachute Creek Member and Church and Buchheim (2002) and Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) dealt with the Fossil Butte Member of the Green River Formation, whereas the articles that confirmed the existence of the cycles primarily dealt with the Tipton, Laney and Wilkins Peak members (Table 1). Scientists admit that not all of the laminations in Green River Formation are varves as I clearly stated that in my 1999 essay.

Oard (2009b, p. 140) mentions that Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) and Church and Buchheim (2002) found discrepancies in the rhythmite counts of samples located between two volcanic ashes beds. Since volcanic ash beds should quickly deposit after their eruptions, we would expect any varves between two ash beds to have the same or nearly the same number of couplets. For example, Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) found 1,160 couplets in one location and 1,568 couplets at another location 15 kilometers away. However, to promote his YEC agenda, Oard (2009b, p. 140) fails to admit that the ash beds occur in the Fossil Butte Member, which is not known to contain varves. Glenn Morton also comments on the results from Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) and how another YEC, Garner (1997), misrepresents the contents of this abstract:

"Garner makes it look as if secular geologists are coming to the conclusion that there are no varves in the Green River. This is not at all the case. Furthermore, Garner fails to honestly inform his readers that Buchheim's work is in Fossil Lake, the smallest of the ancient lakes and this is an important aspect of what the researchers observed. It is true that they observed more laminations near the shore than out in the lake's center. But they should have and that is what Garner fails to tell his readers."

While Oard (2009b) and other YECs want to abolish all varves from the Green River Formation, Oard (2009b) also neglects to mention that Church and Buchheim (2002) never advocate such an extreme position:

"Laminations of the Eocene Green River Formation in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming are generally accepted as varves. However, there is evidence that at least some of the laminations from the middle unit of the Fossil Butte Member in southwest Wyoming were not deposited as annual couplets." [my emphasis]

While Oard (2009b) ignores or plays down the crucial role of basin size in the development of varves in the Green River Formation, the following warnings about small lakes in Church and Buchheim (2002) compliment similar statements in Glenn Morton's webessay:

"It is important that investigators establish that laminae are varves when trying to imply climatically induced depositional cycles. This is especially true in small lakes where inflow processes may be the controlling factor basin wide." [my emphasis]

Oard (2009b, p. 140) also ignores critical comments in Ripepe et al. (1991, p. 1156) about the Crowley et al. (1986) study. Crowley et al. (1986) only found a small 400-year section of their samples had cycles, which were at 5.4 and 10.8 years. Ripepe et al. (1991, p. 1156) explains the lack of varve cycles in the section of the Parachute Creek Member of the Piceance Creek Basin that Crowley et al. (1986) studied:

"Unlike the Tipton and Parachute Creek members that we studied, the Parachute Creek Member in the Piceance Creek Basin shows many oscillations between the oil shale (lake) and marlstone (playa) facies, with oolitic carbonates documenting shorelines and collapse breccias recording salt-pans. Whereas some oil shales show extraordinary stratigraphic persistence even at the millimeter and submillimeter level... [references omitted], others are lenticular and in some cases mud-cracked and brecciated rather than varved... [reference omitted] and appear to represent shoal-water mats. Crowley et al. (1986) studied varve facies, but we suspect that some of these were not as distal as were the more continuous oil shales of the Tipton and Laney members and were more likely to record local phenomena such as dust storms, raising the noise level."

In other words, the discussions in Ripepe et al. (1991) suggest that the Crowley et al. (1986) samples were collected too close to the ancient shoreline, where any varve cycles would have been interrupted by erosion, drying, rain storms, and dust deposits (also see Table 1 and the Glenn Morton's webessay).

Mr. Oard's False Accusations of Milankovitch Reinforcement Syndrome

Oard (2009b, p. 128) accuses geologists of reinforcement syndrome by trying to force all climatic data to fit Milankovitch and other cycles. While geologists that work with rhythmites and other potentially cyclic geologic deposits certainly check for correlations with the Earth's known orbital and other cycles, researchers do not always find correlations and sometimes unexpected time cycles are identified (Table 1). If these researchers are guilty of reinforcement syndrome as Oard (2009b, p. 128) believes (that is, committing circular reasoning by only looking for evidence to reinforce previously held beliefs), then why are expected correlations often not found in rhythmites (such as the ~400,000 year-long eccentricity cycle in Fischer and Roberts, 1991), whereas unexpected cycles are sometimes discovered (e.g., the ~30 year cycle in Ripepe et al., 1991)? Oard (1997, p. 11) also makes the following claim about reinforcement syndrome:

"To bolster a reinforced syndrome, data must be employed selectively. Data that do not agree are assumed faulty for some reason and eliminated." [my emphasis]

So, if varve researchers are guilty of reinforcement syndrome, why weren't the data indicating the ~30 year and other cycles with unknown causes (my Table 1) declared to be faulty and eliminated? Why did researchers accept the validity of the unknown cycles and publish them? If researchers are guilty of trying to force "all climatic data" to fit Milankovitch and other cycles as Oard (2009b, p. 128) claims, why did the research summarized in my Table 1 often fail to find correlations between rhythmites in the members of the Green River Formation and Milankovitch cycles?

Although scientists do not always report negative results, there are numerous examples in the literature where scientists failed to find correlations between sediment deposits in different locations and one or more Milankovitch cycles, or researchers found correlations that cannot be explained by Milankovitch or other known climatic cycles. Besides the results from Fischer and Roberts (1991) and Ripepe et al. (1991), Haldorsen et al. (2001), Hyun et al. (2005), Brack et al. (1996), Sheppard et al. (2006), and Smith (1994) provide examples where studies were unable to confirm the presence of one or more Milankovitch or other cycles in various sedimentary rocks. For example, Haldorsen et al. (2001, p. 583) state:

"Milankovitch cycles are not confidently identified in the Gondwana glacial records and may not have been the main controlling factor for the growth and disappearance of the continental ice sheets on the supercontinent."

In their study of Jurassic deposits in south Wales, Sheppard et al. (2006, p. 249) concluded:

"No short- or long-term cyclicities at a scale greater than that of an individual couplet can be detected by the statistical methods employed, and it is therefore unlikely that a Milankovitch-type cyclicity is present."

Like most of the material in Mr. Oard's writings, his claim in Oard (2009b, p. 140) that climatic data are made to fit Milankovitch or other cycles is simply a false broad-brush argument against geologists. It's easy for Mr. Oard to make such groundless accusations, but it's more difficult for him to prove them. Geologists carefully study rhythmites and sometimes they find cycles, sometimes they do not, and sometimes they find unexpected surprises.

Oard (2009b, p. 140) recognizes that some of the identified cycles in the Green River Formation have unknown causes (also see my Table 1) and he attempts to discredit the validity of all of the cycles because the origins of some of them are unknown. Here, Mr. Oard attempts to place the cycles in a tails, I win; heads, you lose situation to serve his YEC agenda. If all of the cycles had corresponded with known causes, such as the ENSO, Milankovitch or the sunspot cycles, no doubt, Mr. Oard would have again accused Ripepe et al. (1991), Fischer and Roberts (1991) and others of having reinforcement syndrome. That is, they were only looking for cycles that matched known causes and they found them. However, since some of these researchers have repeatedly found cycles that have unknown causes, Oard (2009b, p. 140) still wants to cast doubt on all of the cycles because some of them cannot be currently explained. The discovery of unknown cycles by Ripepe et al. (1991) and other articles indicates that these scientists are not being influenced by reinforcement syndrome as Mr. Oard believes. Otherwise, they would only find cycles that they could readily explain. At the same time, the inability to identify the cause of a varve cycle does not prove that the cycle is illusionary. Sometimes it takes a while to discover the cause(s) of very real climatic cycles.

In contrast to the valid actualistic science of the Green River Formation, what scientific evidence, if any, would ever convince Mr. Oard that any of these cycles are real and that his YEC assumptions about the Bible are wrong? The evidence is clear in Oard (1997), Oard (2009a) and Oard (2009b) that Mr. Oard's YEC beliefs cause him to have reinforcement syndrome. He and other YECs will only accept archaeological, scientific and historical evidence that supports their presuppositions about the Bible. They would never accept any of the critical evidence in Finkelstein and Silberman (2001), Dever (2005), Price (2003), Price (2007), Doherty (2005), Loftus (2008), Loftus, (2010) and any other references that refute their fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, no matter how good they are. Some YECs even take oaths, such as the following statement of faith taken by all Answers in Genesis employees, which demands that they automatically reject any and all evidence that is critical of fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Yet, when different analytical techniques repeatedly find the same sediment cycles in certain members of the Green River Formation, how are these undeniable observations mere "interpretations"?  When will YECs attempt to explain these confirmed observations rather than put on blinders and deny that they even exist?  Like they often do on a variety of geological topics, Oard and other YECs are broad brushing and not carefully studying the details of the Green River Formation so they can desperately defend their Genesis mythology.  

Are ENSO, Sunspot, Milankovitch and Other Cycles Too Weak to Leave a Sedimentary Record?

Oard (2009b, p. 140) refers to the identification of the ENSO, sunspot, and Milankovitch cycles in the Green River Formation as "weak" and that these cycles should not be detected in rhythmites. If ENSO, Milankovitch and other processes are not responsible for the cycles in the Green River Formation, what are? How could Noah's Flood or post-Flood conditions produce such regular cycles? The 20,000 year cycle is even seen in gamma-ray logs (Fischer and Roberts 1991, p. 1151), which is hardly a property of a "weak" cycle. Again, Oard (2009b, p. 140) refutes the claims in his own Figure 4 of Oard (2009a, p. 113) by improperly dismissing or ignoring the enormous amount of data that definitively show that these cycles exist. (That is, YECs don't deal with the same data as scientists utilize. YECs ignore or reject any data that conflict with their biblical interpretations and oaths.  They, and not scientists, have reinforcement syndrome.) In an effort to deny the real evidence, Oard (2009b, p. 140) selectively cites Crowley et al. (1986) in an attempt to raise doubts that the sunspot cycle would leave evidence in sediments. In contrast, more recent studies have shown that ENSO, sunspot cycles and Milankovitch cycles have strong enough effects on the atmosphere and climate, and that these effects could have been recorded in both recent and ancient sediments. For example, Ripepe et al. (1991, p. 1162) state that the ENSO cycle greatly affects climates in western North America and into eastern Asia:

"It is now known that strong ENSO (El Nino southern oscillation) events affect the climate over a much larger region, reaching up to western North America, and into eastern Asia."

Concerning the 11-year sunspot cycle, Takahashi et al. (2010, p. 15,328) state:

"The 11-year cycle in solar activity evident in sunspot numbers is the most examined example of periodicity, and it is clearly recognized in variations in the thermal structure and dynamical motion of the stratospheric atmosphere."

Commenting on the productivity of diatoms and silicoflagellates in Gulf of California sediments over the past 2,000 years, Barron and Bukry (2007, p. 115) concluded that sunspot cycles have an effect:

"Solar variability appears to be driving productivity cycles, as intervals of increased radiocarbon production (sunspot minima) correlate with intervals of enhanced productivity. It is proposed that increased winter cooling of the atmosphere above southwest U.S. during sunspot minima causes intensification of the northwest winds that blow down the Gulf during the late fall to early spring, leading to intensified overturn of surface waters and enhanced productivity."

YEC astronomer Faulkner (2017a, pp. 170-171) also recognizes that there is a strong correlation between sunspot activity and terrestrial climates, including a lack of sunspots (the Maunder minimum) during the Little Ice Age of the 17th and early 18th centuries. 

Although Legras et al. (2010) remind us that correlating climate to solar irradiance can have serious pitfalls, a sufficient number of peer-reviewed studies now exist to indicate that ENSO, sunspot or other cycles may create climatic conditions that leave records in modern sediments (e.g., Barron and Bukry, 2007; Xiao et al., 2006).

Using a climatic model, Crowley et al. (1992, p. 793) concluded the following about early Jurassic climates on the ancient Pangaea supercontinent:

"It is calculated that Milankovitch variations can modulate the magnitude of summer warming by as much as 14-16oC on Pangaea, with large changes occurring in both the northern and southern hemispheres. These values are comparable to or slightly larger than the calculated range for the present Eurasian landmass for the Pleistocene."

In a society that worries about 3oC of global warming, a temperature influence of up to 14-16oC is not weak. Crowley et al. (1992, p. 793) also warned against ignoring Milankovitch orbital cycles in paleoclimate studies:

"Results indicate that general circulation model (GCM) runs for past time periods which use only one orbital configuration may be missing a substantial amount of the potential variance on large land masses."

In a related study on Late Triassic sediments in the Newark Basin of eastern North America, Olsen and Kent (1996, p. 1) concluded the following about Milankovitch cycles:

"Even in an ice-free world, the tropical climate of Pangaea responded strongly to astronomical forcing, suggesting that precession-dominated climatic forcing probably always has been a prominent feature of tropical climate."

Hilgen et al. (2015, pp. 157-158) also argues:

"Finally, and contrary to the argument that changes in insolation are too small to effect significant climate change, seasonal insolation variations resulting from orbital extremes can be significant (20% or more) and, as shown by climate modelling, generate large climate changes that can be expected to leave a marked imprint in the stratigraphic record."

These recent studies confirm that Milankovitch cycles are strong enough to influence sediment properties in some situations. Before Mr. Oard ignores and dismisses the overwhelming evidence for sunspot, ENSO, Milankovitch cycles in modern and ancient sediments, he should look at the far greater weaknesses in the YEC assumptions.

Fish and Other Well-preserved Fossils in Parts of the Green River Formation

Although some fish fossils are found in the Laney Member (Buchheim and Surdam, 1977; Surdam and Stanley, 1979; Fischer and Roberts, 1991, Figure 3A, p. 1148), the most famous and best fish and other fossils in the Green River Formation are located in the Fossil Butte or other members where varves are absent or relatively rare.  Notice that in Figure 3A of Fischer and Roberts (1991, p. 1148) that the fish fossil at the bottom of the well-core had sunk into the varves and that it did not take a lot of varves or time to bury it. 

Responding to my 1999 essay, Oard (2009b, pp. 139, 140) quotes the dissertation of YEC Whitmore (2003) and claims that the fish fossils in the Green River Formation are too well-preserved to have been slowly buried over several years in varves. The fish would have rotted in only a few weeks, even if the bottom waters of the lake were cold and low in oxygen. Although this is a valuable study, Whitmore (2003) investigated fossil fish from the Fossil Butte Member of the Green River Formation. Again, this is not one of the members that is known to have slowly deposited cyclic varves (Table 1). Furthermore, the results in Whitmore (2003) indicate that the rotting and disarticulation of fish may not always be as rapid as Oard (2009b, p. 139) claims. Whitmore (2003, pp. 75-76) concludes:

"Microbial mats may play an important role, not only in protecting a fish carcass from disarticulation after it has reached the bottom, but in helping the fish to adhere or 'stick' to the bottom so it does not refloat."

That is, microbial mats might explain how fish carcasses could remain well preserved during slow burial. Iniesto et al. (2015), Iniesto et al. (2016), and Hellawell and Orr (2012) also demonstrate that microbial mats can preserve fish fossils without the need for rapid burial.  Considering the presence of oil shales and other organic-rich layers in the Green River Formation, microbial mats might have been very common during the deposition of some of the formation sediments. Indeed, Fischer and Roberts (1991, p. 1152) suggest that microbial mats existed in at least some of the shallow saline pond sediments of the Green River Formation. The possible role of microbial mats in preserving fish during slow burial requires further research along with possible actualistic (non-supernatural) processes that could have rapidly buried fish and deposited non-varved laminae in the Green River Formation.

More recently, Gäb et al. (2020) performed laboratory studies where they investigated the excellent preservation of fish in the Green River Formation and other locations.  This paper provides important information that further refutes YEC claims that fish preservation was not possible in the Green River Formation without rapid burial.  While Gäb et al. (2020, p. 2) recognized previous studies that demonstrated that bacterial mats were important in deterring the disarticulation of the fish, they further concluded that high water pressure, high salinity, and high pH (alkaline conditions) were important factors in preventing the decay of the fish.  For the Green River Formation, high pH and hypersaline conditions were especially important. The high pH greatly suppressed bacterial activity that would have caused the fish to decay.

“Marine” Fossils and Limestones in the Green River Formation

To further support his Flood origin claims for the Green River Formation, Oard (2006b, p. 66) states that marine fossils are present in the formation.  Supposedly, Noah’s Flood mixed marine and freshwater organisms together when the Green River Formation was deposited.  Oard’s YEC ally Tim Clarey further states that modern herring and rays are only found in marine environments. After seeing a display on the Green River Formation in a museum, Clarey (2016; 2017, p. 115) claims:

 “Why are these fossil fish, which look nearly identical to modern herring and rays that live exclusively in the marine realm today, claimed to be ancient fresh water fish in this museum? Uniformitarian scientists make this claim because these fish were found in the Green River Formation of Wyoming, and this rock unit also contains a lot of fish, like gar, paddlefish and sand fish, that are found only in fresh water, therefore they have to conclude that the entire rock unit represented an ancient fresh water lake deposit.” [my emphasis]

However, modern freshwater rays are found in southeast Asia, Africa and Australia.  Freshwater herring currently occur in the Great Lakes of North America and in rivers.

Clarey (2023) further claims that micritic limestones, oolites and dolomite are evidence of a marine depositional environment.  However, lakes may precipitate calcareous sediments (limestones) (Boggs 1995, p. 334).  The lakes may be freshwater, brackish, or briny.  Chidsey et al. (2015) further describe the modern micritic and other calcareous sediments of the Great Salt Lake and note their similarity to the Green River Formation.  Like the Green River Formation, the Great Salt Lake sediments contain ooids (oolites).   Additionally, Davaud and Girardclos (2001) found calcite ooids in the shallow-water of Lake Geneva, Switzerland.  Calcite ooids also occur in the shallow water of Higgins Lake, Michigan (Wilkinson et al. 1980).  Other examples could be cited.  Last (1990) further reviews the presence of dolomite in Pleistocene to modern lacustrine (lake) sediments.  Of course, because of periodically dry conditions, it’s not surprising that Clary (2023) would mention evidence of salt deposits in the Green River Formation.  As explained above, that’s no evidence of marine conditions.  The Eocene lakes periodically experienced dry conditions, which are incompatible with Noah's Flood.  In conclusion, Oard and Clarey simply have no fossil, mineralogical, sedimentary or other evidence of anything exclusively marine in the Green River Formation.   The Green River Formation formed from Eocene lakes. Also, see the more detailed essay on these issues at Mr. Wilford's website: "Clarey (2023) on the Green River Formation."

YEC Dr. Whitmore Rejects Mr. Oard's Flood Geology Origin for the Green River Formation

YEC Whitmore (2003, p. xvii) concludes the following about the preservation of the fish fossils in the Fossil Butte Member of Fossil Basin, Wyoming:

"The fish taphonomy of Fossil Basin does not contradict warm shallow lake models for the basin." [my emphasis]

Whitmore (2003, p. 160) reiterates:

"The taphonomy of the fish fossils within the Lower Sandwich Bed [of the Fossil Butte Member] does not contradict a warm (~20oC) shallow lake within depths of 10-15 [meters] in the center of the lake."

The question then becomes for Mr. Oard: When you discussed the work of Whitmore (2003) on the rapid decomposition of fish and their supposed incompatibility with varve formation in Oard (2009b, p. 139), why did you fail to mention that the fish fossils studied by Whitmore (2003) originated from the Fossil Butte Member rather than the Laney, Tipton or Wilkins Peak members, which contain the best cyclic varves?  Why was this critical detail omitted? Also, how is Dr. Whitmore's support for the fish fossils originating in shallow lake sediments consistent with Noah's Flood? For this and many other reasons, YEC Whitmore (2006a,b,c) does not agree with Mr. Oard's Flood model for the Green River Formation (Oard 2006a,b,c), but argues that the formation must be post-Flood. Oard (2009b, p. 140) inappropriately plays down the disagreements between Dr. Whitmore and himself over the origin of the Green River Formation and Reed and Oard (2012) ( http://creation.com/early-arguments-for-deep-time-3 ) completely ignore this critical issue. Oard (2009b, p. 140) claims that it is likely that the Green River Formation formed during Noah's Flood and he only admits that other YECs have "suggested" a post-Flood origin for the formation. In reality, Whitmore (2006a,b,c) is not just making a suggestion. He unambiguously rejects the validity of Mr. Oard's claims for a likely Flood origin for the formation. Whitmore (2006c, p. 81) states:

"However, critical evaluation of Oard's Flood model shows it simply is not supported by field observations. His Flood model raises far more questions than it answers." [my emphasis]

Whitmore (2006c, p. 84) concludes:

"I conclude that the [Green River Formation] could not have been deposited in a short time, during the Flood."

Whitmore (2006a, p. 55) further states:

"Certain features- such as multiple horizons of exploded fish, disarticulated fish and stromatolites- suggest the passage of more than the one year of time allowed for by the Genesis Flood."

Whitmore (2006a, p. 58) also admits that many fish species are unique to each of the Green River Basins. Without daring to mention biological evolution, YEC Whitmore (2006a, p. 60) speculates:

"If all of the basins were formed catastrophically, at about the same time during the Flood, it might be reasonable to expect more similarities instead of differences between the basins. Instead, differences in fish species among the basins might be better explained by unique physical and chemical characteristics of each lake, and changes in these factors over hundreds of years or more."

Dr. Whitmore raises a valid question: how could fish species remain isolated from each other in adjacent basins during a global Flood? However, a relevant question for Dr. Whitmore is: How did unique species of fish develop in the different basins within only a few hundred years or so after the Flood? How does Dr. Whitmore avoid relying on hyperevolution to explain the different fish species in the brief span of post-Flood time?

In response to Mr. Oard's catastrophic views associated with Noah's Flood, Whitmore (2006b, p. 73) states:

"[YEC] models arguing the Green River sediments were catastrophically deposited as turbidites or some other mass flow process are easily rejected based on sedimentological and paleontological criteria." [reference numbers removed]

On the other hand, after looking at the thick basin deposits of the Green River Formation, Oard (2006a, p. 50) raises a devastating question against Dr. Whitmore's post-Flood model for the formation:

"How is this immense volume and great depth of sediment to be deposited in these basins within the short post-Flood timescale?"

Further commenting on the sediments and the Eocene lakes of the Green River Formation, Oard (2006b, pp. 65-66) reasonably asks:

"How would the huge amount of organic matter in the form of kerogen accumulate in these lakes in a few hundred years after the Flood?"

Oard (2006b, p. 66) also states:

"How, then, could thousands of metres [meters] of sediment accumulate over such a widespread area in such a short time after the Flood?"

Oard (2019, Table 3, p. 105) then summarizes some data that he thinks argues for a Flood origin for the formation, which are:1) its large areal extent, 2) its great thickness, 3) 5,000 meters of erosion of the San Rafael Swell, which includes the Green River Formation, 4) Large amounts of oil in the formation, and 5) tropical and subtropical fossils in the formation.  Oard (2020, footnote 5, p. 13) then repeats those arguments.  Despite these arguments, Ham (2019) confidently claims to have "solved" a paleontological mystery by claiming that the fossils in the Green River Formation immediately formed after the Flood. 

In the end, Whitmore (2006a,b,c) and Oard (2006a,b,c; 2019) raise many serious questions and fatal problems with each other's Flood and post-Flood claims. Oard (2019, p. 105) finally admits:

"The GRF [Green River Formation] does have unique features that are difficult to explain in either a Flood or post-Flood model."

Doyle (2021) correctly concludes that the Journal of Creation debate between Oard (2006a; 2006b; 2006c) and Whitmore (2006a; 2006b: 2006c) over the origin of the Green River Formation has not lead to a consensus among YECs:

"However, this [2006 debate between Oard and Whitmore] was in some respects more adversarial than collaborative, and both views have difficulties. Plus, neither author has changed their minds in the 15 years since, and both have other supporters for their views among creation geologists. Indeed, you should notice that this debate often follows disciplinary lines: the more people lean on palaeontology, the lower they’ll place the [post-Flood] boundary; and the more they lean on the physical rock relationships and geophysics, the higher they tend to place the boundary." 

A review of the YEC literature on the Green River Formation since 2006 also indicates that YECs that support Whitmore continue to support him and are unpersuaded by Oard's arguments and Oard's supporters have the same tendencies.  Of course, the enormous problems for both Mr. Oard's and Dr. Whitmore's Green River Formation models are easily resolved by rejecting both YEC models and embracing actualism.

Dr. Berthault's Work is Not a Cure-All for YEC Varve and other Lamination Problems

Oard (1997, p. 60), Oard (2009b, p. 143), Reed and Oard (2012) and other YECs frequently invoke the work of Dr. Guy Berthault (Berthault 1986; 1988a,b; 1990) to explain the origins of rhythmites or other laminae in sedimentary rocks. However, as discussed below, Dr. Berthault's work is no cure-all for the varve and other sedimentation-related issues that are fatal to Flood geology.

Long before Dr. Berthault's laboratory work demonstrated that laminae could be deposited rapidly and that not all laminae are varves, Bouma (1962) described the presence of rapidly deposited laminae in turbidity deposits. Also, see the following exchanges between Dr. Berthault and me about his work:

My original essay on Dr. Berthault's work.

Dr. Berthault's reply

My response to Dr. Berthault's response

As further discussed in my 1999 essay, Dr. Berthault's work fails as a viable explanation for YECs to explain away varves:

"Like many YECs, Oard ([1997], p. 60) also suggests that varve couplets could be deposited in minutes or seconds supposedly from 'Noah's Flood' or perhaps localized 'post-Flood' catastrophes. However, just for the Green River Formation alone, such rapid deposition presents countless problems for YECs. Some individual varves in the Green River Formation may extend for 10's of kilometers (Fischer and Roberts, l99l, p. 1148) and there are more than 5,000,000 individual couplets or a total of more than 10,000,000 individual layers (Strahler, 1987, p. 233). YECs, including Oard ([1997], p. 60), often cite Berthault (1986, 1988a,b, 1990) and invoke a 'self-sorting mechanism' to explain the rapid formation of numerous laminae at once in the Green River Formation. So, if this 'sorting mechanism' was responsible for the laminae in the Green River Formation, how could this mechanism instantly produce numerous fine-grained laminae over ten's of kilometers (Fischer and Roberts, 1991, p. 1148)? It's one thing to rapidly produce some laminae in a laboratory separatory funnel (see Figure 1 in Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up!), it's another thing to rapidly deposit thin layers of clay and silt over 10's of kilometers. Even the YECs at Varves: Problems for Standard Geochronology admit that silts normally take days to settle out and finer-grained clays even longer. (Unlike relatively coarse sand particles, very small particles (silts and clays) take TIME to settle out of solution.) Therefore, if 10,000,000 layers formed in only 6,000 years, an average of 4.6 layers would have to settle out COMPLETELY in one DAY! That's too fast and chaotic for the geology of the formation. Of course, things become even worse for YECs, since in their minds, the Green River Formation either formed during the year-long 'Flood' or in the 4,000 or so years of 'post-Flood' history. Already, the 6,000 year old YEC time frame is refuted. YECs must also explain how 10,000,000 layers, some of which may extend over tens of kilometers, can form in less than a few thousand years without eroding previously deposited layers or producing cross-bedding or other non-linear features. Simply hoping that Berthault's laboratory work could somehow be scaled up to 10's of kilometers isn't good enough." [capitalization in the original]

More recently, Reed and Oard (2012) cited Schieber et al. (2007) and Macquaker and Bohacs (2007) to argue that mud may be deposited rapidly rather than just slowly settling out of quiet water.  By definition, mud consists of clay- and silt-sized particles. However, Reed and Oard (2012) present no evidence to demonstrate that these rapid processes apply to the micrites and kerogen layers of the Green River Formation.

By claiming a Flood origin for the Green River Formation, Oard (2009b) believes that the 10,000,000 layers formed in only one Flood year, which is about one layer every 3 seconds! How could fine grained material settle out or deposit so fast? (See discussions on particle settling in Glenn Morton's essay.) What physical and chemical properties of the Flood waters would allow for such rapid settling or deposition of fine-grained materials? Oard (2009b) and Reed and Oard (2012) provide no rock solid answers. The situation becomes even worse for Mr. Oard and Dr. Reed when we further realize that the Green River Formation is underlain by 28,000 feet of other sediments supposedly deposited by Noah's Flood. That is simply too much sediment for one Flood year or even several thousand years if some of these sediments are post-Flood as Whitmore (2006a,b,c) argues.

Whitmore (2006c, p. 83) also concisely refutes this YEC idea that Dr. Berthault's self-sorting mechanism can explain the origins of the laminated sediments in the Green River Formation:

"Yet Oard and others, who have proposed mass flow sedimentation for the [Green River Formation], have failed to support their hypotheses with even a single example of a graded bed or how the finely laminated sediments could have been made by mass flow. Citing Berthault's work seems inappropriate, because his experiments dealt with heterogeneous particles to produce laminae. The [Green River Formation] laminae are not thinly graded beds, as Berthault produced, they are composed of micrite and kerogen layers. I am not aware of any experiments that have rapidly produced laminae with materials similar to those in the [Green River Formation]." [emphasis in the original; reference numbers removed]

Since this statement in Whitmore (2006c, p. 83) was specifically directed to Mr. Oard's improper invoking of Dr. Berthault's work in Oard (2006b, p. 65), why does Oard (2009b, p. 143) simply repeat the same old claims about Dr. Berthault's work supposedly applying to the Green River Formation rather than providing the specific field and laboratory evidence that Whitmore (2006c, p. 83) requested? Perhaps, it's because Mr. Oard believes that he can get away with repeating his old refuted claims about Dr. Berthault's work because he does not expect many of his readers to review the literature of his YEC critics.

Rather than specifically answering the crucial questions in the above paragraph from my 1999 essay about clay settling and laminae formation during a supposed year-long Flood or the relevant and fatal problems with his Flood model raised by YEC Whitmore (2006a,b,c), Oard (2009b, p. 143) arm waves and makes brash and inaccurate statements without a shred of specific evidence:

"Certainly scientists must account for scale, but in a Flood model with rapid sedimentation in a basin and possible abrupt geochemical changes, one would indeed expect clay to flocculate and sink rapidly, or be transported rapidly to deep water in turbidity currents. Furthermore, the scale of the Flood is so large that it should not be difficult to deposit such correlated rhythmites over tens of kilometers, especially in deep, wide underwater basins. It is more of a problem for uniformitarians to explain fine laminations over long distances, such as in the Castile Formation. Can present processes of basin deposition form such even layers over such distances? No such large-scale rhythmites are being deposited today, nor would they be expected in the Ice Age."

As pointed out in Whitmore (2006c, p. 83), how did Dr. Berthault's mechanism sort out organic kerogen from microscopic calcite (micrite)? Where's the evidence, Mr. Oard? If clay minerals were present, exactly how would we expect them to flocculate and sink rapidly during Noah's Flood? Specifically, what geochemical or other natural processes could segregate particles and settle any individual layers of clay- and silt-sized particles over 10's of kilometers in no more than a few seconds? What abrupt geochemical changes occurred during the Flood? What were the specific pH, temperature, and other chemical changes that would cause us to expect rapid flocculation or deposition of clays and how did these conditions develop during the Flood? Where's the evidence for this? Even considering the processes described in Schieber et al. (2007) and Macquaker and Bohacs (2007), how would these processes be fast enough to work in your Flood scenario, Mr. Oard?  Also, where's the evidence of turbidity currents in the Green River Formation when Dr. Whitmore told you back in 2006 (see quotation of Whitmore, 2006b, p. 73, above) that "...turbidites or some other mass flow process are easily rejected based on sedimentological and paleontological criteria"? What evidence do you now have that Dr. Whitmore was wrong?  Oard (2009b), as well as Oard (2009a, p. 120-121), can only bluff, avoid discussing the specifics and just hope that his readers won't demand detailed answers or see the devastating criticisms of his Flood model in YEC Whitmore (2006a,b,c).

Finally, why does Mr. Oard continue to strawperson attack 21st century uniformitarianism (actualism) when actualism can explain the origin of the Castile Formation by just relying on the laws of chemistry and physics and without the need of modern analogs? Laboratory studies and computer modeling alone tell us to expect thin salt varves to form over distances of 10's to 100 kilometers in a 100+ kilometer-long desert basin containing a quiet, evaporating brine that is periodically replenished by seawater. As evaporation occurs, solubility data tell us that seawater will first precipitate calcite, then gypsum, and finally halite (sodium chloride) if the brine is not diluted by seawater or freshwater.  (After deep burial of the sediments, the gypsum could dehydrate to anhydrite.)  Replenishment by seawater would restart the calcite-gypsum(anhydrite) +/- halite sediment cycle. (See How Could the Castile Formation have Ever Formed during Noah's Flood? and Kirkland, 2003.)

Oard (2009b) Misquotes My 1999 Essay Again: My Essay Says NOTHING About Dismissing the Relevance of Experimental Sedimentology

Oard (2009b, p. 143) also refers to my 1999 essay and its conclusions on Dr. Berthault's work. Mr. Oard then completely misrepresents my statements on the limitations of Dr. Berthault's work as a supposed blanketed attack on the relevance of experimental sedimentology to the geologic record:

"Henke (1999) simply dismissed Berthault's research by saying that his research could not explain laminations correlated over tens of kilometers and that clays would take too long to settle out. Henke is saying that experimental sedimentology has no relevance to the rock record - a position most sedimentologists would not accept."

Mr. Oard is committing a blatant red-herring fallacy! Rather than providing "rock solid evidence" that clay-sized particles could settle out or deposit and form laminations over 10's of kilometers in a matter of seconds during Noah's Flood, Oard (2009b, p. 143) tries to divert attention from his Flood problems by accusing me of dismissing the relevance of experimental sedimentology to the geologic record. Where, Mr. Oard, do I say ANYTHING in my 1999 essay about experimental sedimentology having no relevance to the rock record? WHERE? Contrary to the accusation in Oard (2009b, p. 143), I never stated in my 1999 essay that the experimental work of Dr. Berthault or other individuals has no application to field geology. Rather than just stating my conclusions on why Dr. Berthault's work cannot explain the origin of varves in the Green River Formation, Oard (2009b, p. 143) makes a blanket statement that implies that I don't believe that any experimental sedimentology is relevant to the rock record. Again, here is what I actually said about Dr. Berthault's work in my 1999 essay:

"Like many YECs, Oard ([1997], p. 60) also suggests that varve couplets could be deposited in minutes or seconds supposedly from 'Noah's Flood' or perhaps localized 'post-Flood' catastrophes. However, just for the Green River Formation alone, such rapid deposition presents countless problems for YECs. Some individual varves in the Green River Formation may extend for 10's of kilometers (Fischer and Roberts, l99l, p. 1148) and there are more than 5,000,000 individual couplets or a total of more than 10,000,000 individual layers (Strahler, 1987, p. 233). YECs, including Oard ([1997], p. 60), often cite Berthault (1986, 1988a,b, 1990) and invoke a 'self-sorting mechanism' to explain the rapid formation of numerous laminae at once in the Green River Formation. So, if this 'sorting mechanism' was responsible for the laminae in the Green River Formation, how could this mechanism instantly produce numerous fine-grained laminae over ten's of kilometers (Fischer and Roberts, 1991, p. 1148)? It's one thing to rapidly produce some laminae in a laboratory separatory funnel (see Figure 1 in Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up!), it's another thing to rapidly deposit thin layers of clay and silt over 10's of kilometers. Even the YECs at Varves: Problems for Standard Geochronology admit that silts normally take days to settle out and finer-grained clays even longer. (Unlike relatively coarse sand particles, very small particles (silts and clays) take TIME to settle out of solution.) Therefore, if 10,000,000 layers formed in only 6,000 years, an average of 4.6 layers would have to settle out COMPLETELY in one DAY! Thats too fast and chaotic for the geology of the formation. Of course, things become even worse for YECs, since in their minds, the Green River Formation either formed during the year-long 'Flood' or in the 4,000 or so years of 'post-Flood' history. Already, the 6,000 year old YEC time frame is refuted. YECs must also explain how 10,000,000 layers, some of which may extend over tens of kilometers, can form in less than a few thousand years without eroding previously deposited layers or producing cross-bedding or other non-linear features. Simply hoping that Berthault's laboratory work could somehow be scaled up to 10's of kilometers isn't good enough."

Experimental sedimentology is certainly valuable, but it must be carefully applied in the field and contrary to Mr. Oard's sloppy broad-brushing in Oard (2009a) and Oard (2009b), Dr. Berthault's work does not apply to every laminated deposit. Although Dr. Berthault's work is probably very valuable in understanding the origin of laminated sediments in Bouma sequences, even YEC Whitmore (2006c, p. 83, see quotation above) recognizes that Dr. Berthault's work does not explain the kerogen-rich and fine-grained layers of the Green River Formation. In an essay response to Dr. Berthault that I wrote many years ago and that Mr. Oard should have read, I clearly state that his work has value, but I also warn that his results must be carefully applied in the field:

"I don't have serious problems with Dr. Berthault's laboratory work on particle motion and fluid flow. I think that Dr. Berthault and his colleagues have made some important and excellent laboratory observations that may help to explain laminae in Bouma's sequences or flow features in volcanic ash deposits (Schmincke et al., 1973; Fisher and Schmincke, 1984; etc.). However, being a laboratory expert in fluid and particle motions doesn't mean that the individual is competent in field geology. Despite his memberships in sedimentology and other geological organizations, I show in my original essay and this one that Dr. Berthault misunderstands and underestimates how modern geologists view field conditions, Steno's laws and sedimentology. In reality, Dr. Berthault's laboratory experiments are perfectly compatible with actualism (modern geology). He and his young-Earth creationist (YEC) friends don't need to invoke Noah's Flood to explain sedimentary rocks (for example: Figure 14 in A New Approach at Dr. Berthault's website)."

At the same time, why doesn't Oard (2009b) also accuse YEC Dr. Whitmore of believing that experimental sedimentology has no relevance, since, like me, Whitmore (2006c, p. 83) accuses Oard (2006b, p. 65) of misapplying Dr. Berthault's laboratory research to the Green River Formation? It's one thing to develop nice laminae in a laboratory separatory funnel (Figure 11 in Oard, 2009b, p. 143) and perhaps apply it through careful field work to physical sorting in Bouma sequences, it's an entirely different matter to demonstrate that such a process could explain geochemical changes in 10,000,000 cyclic laminae in the Green River Formation in no more than 6,000 years, or mineralogical and geochemical changes in salt deposits in the Castile Formation in less than one Flood year.

References

Anderson, R.Y. and W.E. Dean. 1988. Lacustrine Varve Formation through Time, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 62, pp. 215-235.

Aswasereelert, W., S.R. Meyers, A.R. Carroll, S.E. Peters, M.E. Smith, and K.L. Feigl. 2013. Basin-wide Cyclostratigraphy of the Green River Formation, Wyoming, GSA Bulletin, v. 125, n. 1-2, pp. 216-228.

Barron, J.A. and D. Bukry. 2007. Solar Forcing of Gulf of California Climate during the Past 2000 yr Suggested by Diatoms and Silicoflagellates, Marine Micropaleontology, v. 62, n. 2, pp. 115-139.

Berthault, G. 1986. Experiments on Lamination of Sediments, Resulting from a Periodic Graded-bedding Subsequent to Deposition A Contribution to the Explanation of Lamination of Various Sediments and Sedimentary Rocks, Compte Rendus Acadmie des Sciences, Paris, v. 303 (Srie II, no. 17), pp.15691574.

Berthault, G. 1988a. Sedimentation of a Heterogranular Mixture: Experimental Lamination in Still and Running Water, Compte Rendus Acadmie des Sciences, Paris, v. 306 (Srie II) pp. 717724.

Berthault, G. 1988b. Experiments on Lamination of Sediments, Creation Ex Nihilo Techical Journal, v. 3 p. 2529.

Berthault, G. 1990. Sedimentation of a Heterogranular Mixture: Experimental Lamination in Still and Running Water, Creation Ex Nihilo Techical Journal, v. 4, p. 95102.

Boggs Jr, S., 1995, Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy, Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 774pp.

Bouma, A.H, 1962, Sedimentology of some Flysch Deposits: A Graphic Approach to Facies Interpretation, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Brack, P., R. Mundil, F. Oberli, M. Meier, and H. Rieber. 1996. Biostratigraphic and Radiometric Age Data Question the Milankovitch Characteristics of the Latemar Cycles (Southern Alps, Italy), Geology, v. 24, n. 4. pp. 371-375.

Bradley, W. H. 1929. The Varves and Climate of the Green River Epoch, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 158, pp. 87-110.

Bradley, W.H. 1931. Origin and Microfossils of the Oil Shale of the Green River Formation of Colorado and Utah, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 168, 58pp.

Buchheim, P.H. and R. Biaggi. 1988. Laminae Counts within a Synchronous Oil Shale Unit: A Challenge to the 'Varve' Concept. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 20, n. 7, p. A317.

Buchheim, H.P. and R.C. Surdam. 1977. Fossil Catfish and the Depositional Environment of the Green River Formation, Wyoming, Geology, v. 5, pp. 196-198. 

Chidsey Jr., T.C., M.D. Vanden Berg, and D.E. Eby, 2015, Petrography and Characterization of Microbial Carbonates and Associated Facies from Modern Great Salt Lake and Uinta Basin’s Eocene Green River Formation in Utah, USA, in D.W.J. Bosence, K.A. Gibbons, D.P. Le Heron, W.A. Morgan, T. Pritchard, and B.A. Vining (eds), Microbial Carbonates in Space and Time: Implications for Global Exploration and Production, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, n. 418, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP418.6.

Church, M. and P.H. Buchheim. 2002. Varves and Varve-derived Climate Cycles? Evidence from Eocene Fossil Lake, Green River Formation, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, n. 6, p. 555.

Clarey, T.L., 2016, Fresh Water and Salt Water Don’t Mix, Acts & Facts, October 31, Fresh Water and Salt Water Don't Mix | The Institute for Creation Research (icr.org)

Clarey, T.L., 2017, Local Catastrophes or Receding Floodwater?  Global Geologic Data that Refute a K-Pg (K-T) Flood/post-Flood Boundary, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 54, pp. 100-120.

Clarey, T.L., 2023, “Fossil Butte National Monument: Spectacular Flood Graveyard”, Acts & Facts, December 29, Institute for Creation Research (icr.org).

Crowley, K.D., C.E. Duchon, and J. Rhi. 1986. Climate Record in Varved Sediments of the Eocene Green River Formation, Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, n. D8, pp. 8,637-8,647.

Crowley, T.J., S.K. Baum, and W.T. Hyde. 1992. Milankovitch Fluctuations on Supercontinents, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 19, n. 8, pp. 793-796.

Davaud, E. and S. Girardclos, 2001, Recent Freshwater Ooids and Oncoids from Western Lake Geneva (Switzerland): Indications of a Common Organically Mediated Origin, Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 71, n. 3, May, pp. 423-429.

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.

Doherty, E. 2005. The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?, Age of Reason Publications, Ottawa, Canada, 380pp.

Doyle, S. 2021. Disagreements on the Post-Flood Boundary: A Reason to Doubt Biblical Creation?", May 8, https://creation.com/disagreements-on-the-post-flood-boundary (accessed May 8, 2021). 

Faulkner, D. R. 2017a. The Expanse of Heaven: Where Creation & Astronomy Intersect, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, USA, 350pp.

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.

Fischer, A.G. and L.T. Roberts. 1991. Cyclicity in the Green River Formation (Lacustrine Eocene) of Wyoming, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 61, no. 7, pp. 1146-1154.

Fisher, R.V. and Schmincke, H.-U., 1984, Pyroclastic Rocks, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 472pp.

Gäb, F., C. Ballhaus, E. Stinnesbeck, A.G. Kral, K. Janssen and G. Bierbaum. 2020. “Experimental Taphonomy of Fish – Role of Elevated Pressure, Salinity and pH”, Scientific Reports – Nature Research, v. 10, n. 7839, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64651-8

Garner, P. 1997. Green River Blues, Creation, v. 19, n. 3, pp. 18-19.

Haldorsen, S., V. von Brunn, R. Maud, and E.D. Truter. 2001. A Weichselian Deglaciation Model Applied to the Early Permian Glaciation in the Northeast Karoo Basin, South Africa, Journal of Quaternary Science, v. 16, n. 6, pp. 583-593.

Ham, K. 2019. Ken Ham Solves Great Paleontological Mystery, https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/ken-ham-solves-paleontological-mystery/ 

Hellawell, J. and P.J. Orr. 2012. Deciphering Taphonomic Processes in the Eocene Green River Formation of Wyoming, Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments, v. 92, pp. 353-365. 

Hilgren, F.J., L.A. Hinnov, H. Abdul Aziz, H.A. Abels, S. Batenburg, J.H.C. Bosmans, B. De Boer, et al. 2015. "Stratigraphic Continuity and Fragmentary Sedimentation: The Success of Cyclostratigraphy as Part of Integrated Stratigraphy" in D.G. Smith, R.J. Bailey, P.M. Burgess, and A.J. Fraser (eds). Strata and Time: Probing the Gaps in Our Understanding, Geological Society: London, Special Publications, v. 404, pp. 157-197.

Hyun, S., N. Ahagon, and H.-I. Yoon. 2005. Milankovitch Cycles and Paleoceanographic Evolution within Sediments from ODP Sites 980 and 983 of the North Atlantic Ocean, Geosciences Journal, v. 9, n. 3, pp. 235-242.

Iniesto, M., C. Laguna, M. Florin, M.C. Guerrero, A. Chicote, A.D. Buscalioni, and A.I. Lopez-Archilla. 2015. The Impact of Microbial Mats and their Microenvironmental Conditions in Early Decay of Fish, Palaios, v. 30, n. 11, pp. 792-801.

Iniesto, M., A.D. Buscalioni, M.C. Guerrero, K. Benezerara, D. Moreira, and A.L. López-Archilla. 2016. Involvement of Microbial Mats in Early Fossilization by Decay Delay and Formation of Impressions and Replicas of Vertebrates and Invertebrates, Nature: Scientific Reports, 6:25716 | DOI: 10.1038/srep25716.

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. 

Last, W.M. 1990. Lacustrine Dolomite – An Overview of Modern, Holocene, and Pleistocene Occurrences”, Earth-Science Reviews, v. 27, n. 3, May, pp. 221-263.

Legras, B., O. Mestre, E. Bard, and P. Yiou. 2010. A Critical Look at Solar-climate Relationships from Long Temperature Series, Climate of the Past, v. 6, pp. 745-758.

Loftus, J.W. 2008. Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New Jersey, USA, 428pp.

Loftus, J.W. (editor). 2010. The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New Jersey, USA, 422pp.

Machulus, M.L., P.E. Olsen, N. Christie-Blick and S.R. Hemming. 2008. Spectral Analysis of the Lower Eocene Wilkins Peak Member, Green River Formation, Wyoming: Support for Milankovitch Cyclicity, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 268, pp. 64-75.

Macquaker, J.H.S. and K.M. Bohacs. 2007. On the Accumulation of Mud. Science, v. 318, pp. 1734-1735.

Meyers, S.R. 2008. Resolving Milankovitchian Controversies: The Triassic Latemar Limestone and the Eocene Green River Formation, Geology, v. 36, n. 4, pp. 319-322.

Miall, A.D. 1990. Principles of Sedimentary Basin Analysis, 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, 668pp.

Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.

Oard, M.J. 2006a. The Case for Flood Deposition of the Green River Formation, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 50-54.

Oard, M.J. 2006b. Response to the Post-Flood Lake Model for the Green River Formation, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 64-71.

Oard, M.J. 2006c. Geomorphology Indicates the GRF was Deposited in the Flood, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 79-80.

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.

Oard, M.J. 2019. Flood Processes into the Late Cenozoic - Part 7: Critique of a Post-Flood Cenozoic, Journal of Creation, v. 33, n. 2, pp. 99-106.

Oard, M.J. 2020. What is the Meaning of Limestone-Marl Alterations?, Journal of Creation, v. 34, n. 2, pp. 12-14.

Olsen, P.E. and D.V. Kent. 1996. Milankovitch Climate Forcing in the Tropics of Pangaea during the Late Triassic, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 122, pp. 1-26.

Price, R.M. 2003. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 389pp.

Price, R.M. 2007. Jesus is Dead, American Atheist Press, Cranford, New Jersey, USA, 279pp.

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

Ripepe, M., L.T. Roberts and A.G. Fischer. 1991. ENSO and Sunspot Cycles in Varved Eocene Oil Shales from Image Analysis, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 61, no. 7, pp. 1155-1163.

Schieber, J. et al. 2007. Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples.  Science, v. 318, pp. 1760-1763.

Schmincke, H.-U., R.V. Fisher, and A.C. Waters. 1973. Antidune and Chute and Pool Structures in the Base Surge Deposits of the Laacher See Area, Germany, Sedimentology, v. 20, pp. 553-574.

Smith, D.G. 1994. Cyclicity or Chaos? Orbital Forcing Versus Non-linear Dynamics in Orbital Forcing and Cyclic Sequences, IAS Special Publication, Blackwell Scientific, pp. 531-544.

Smith, M.E., A.R. Carroll, and B.S. Singer. 2008. Synoptic Reconstruction of a Major Ancient Lake System: Eocene Green River Formation, Western United States, GSA Bulletin, January/February, v. 120, n. 1-2, pp. 54-84. 

Smith, M.E., K.R. Chamberlain, B.S. Singer, and A.R. Carroll. 2010. Eocene Clocks Agree: Coeval 40Ar/39Ar, U-Pb, and Astronomical Ages from the Green River Formation, Geology, v. 38, n. 6, pp. 527-530.

Smith, M.E., A.R. Carroll, J.J. Scott, and B.S. Singer. 2014. Early Eocene Carbon Isotope Excursions and Landscape Destabilization at Eccentricity Minima: Green River Formation of Wyoming, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 403, pp. 393-406. 

Sheppard, T.H., R.D. Houghton and A.R.H. Swan. 2006. Bedding and Pseudo-bedding in the Early Jurassic of Glamorgan: Deposition and Diagenesis of the Blue Lias in South Wales, Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, v. 117, n. 3, pp. 249-264.

Strahler, A.N. 1987. Science and Earth History- The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 552pp.

Surdam, R.C. and K.O. Stanley. 1979. Lacustrine Sedimentation during the Culminating Phase of Eocene Lake Gosiute, Wyoming (Green River Formation), Geological Society of America Bulletin, prt. 1, v. 90, pp. 93-100.

Takahashi, Y., Y. Okazaki, M. Sato, H. Miyahara, K. Sakanoi and P.K. Hong. 2010. 27-day Variation in Cloud Amount and Relationship to the Solar Cycle, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, v. 9, pp. 15,327-15,338.

Van Andel, T. H. 1994. New Views on an Old Planet: A History of Global Change, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 439pp.

Wilkinson, B.H., B.N. Pope and R.M. Owen, 1980, Nearshore Ooid Formation in a Modern Temperate Region Marl Lake, Journal of Geology, v. 88, n. 6, November, pp. 97-104.

Whitmore, J.H. 2003. Experimental Fish Taphonomy with a Comparison to Fossil Fishes, Ph.D. Dissertation, Loma Linda University, 327pp.

Whitmore, J.H. 2006a. The Green River Formation: A Large Post-Flood Lake System, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 55-63.

Whitmore, J.H. 2006b. The Geologic Setting of the Green River Formation, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 72-78.

Whitmore, J.H. 2006c. Difficulties with a Flood Model for the Green River Formation, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 81-85.

Xiao, S., A. Li, J.P. Liu, M. Chen, Q. Xie, F. Jiang, T. Li, R. Xiang, and Z. Chen. 2006. Coherence between Solar Activity and the East Asian Winter Monsoon Variability in the Past 8000 Years from Yangtze River-derived Mud in the East China Sea, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 237, pp. 293-304.