Late Paleozoic Glaciations
Scientific Evidence Continues to Confirm the Reality of the Permo-Carboniferous (Late Paleozoic) Glaciations and Undermine YEC-endorsed Impact Hypotheses - Including an Updated Response to Oard (2018)
Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.
October 22, 2015, updated January 19, 2022
Contrary to his hopes in Oard (2009a; 2018), the recent scientific literature continues to provide firm geochemical, stratigraphic, structural and other evidence for the existence of Permo-Carboniferous (Late Paleozoic) cold climates and glaciations (Lu et al. 2021; Scotese et al. 2021; Rolland et al. 2019; Cheng et al. 2019; Moxness et al. 2018; Assine et al. 2018; Blanchard et al. 2015; Schatz et al. 2011; Birgenheier et al. 2009; Angiolini et al., 2009; Scheffler et al., 2006; Herbert and Compton, 2007; Catuneanu et al., 2005; Fielding et al., 2010, Badyrka et al., 2013; Montanez and Poulsen, 2013; Roy and Roser, 2013; Goddéris et al. 2017; Ruckwied et al., 2014; Sardar Abadi et al. 2017; Schulz et al., 2018; Alonso-Muruaga et al. 2018; Andrews et al. 2019; Craddock et al. 2019; Diaz Saravia and Gonzalez 2020; etc.). Like the Late Precambrian and Ordovician glaciations, I have not been able to locate any 21st century scientific article or other scientific document that questions the existence of Late Paleozoic glaciations. In contrast to Mr. Oard's desires, Birgenheier et al. (2009, p. 56) realistically summarizes the current consensus on Late Paleozoic glaciations:
"The traditional model of the late Paleozoic ice age is that of Veevers and Powell (1987), which depicts one long, protracted period of glaciation, roughly spanning the mid-Carboniferous to early Permian. Advances in sedimentologic diagnosis of glacial facies and improved chronostratigraphic constraints on late Paleozoic Gondwanan strata have occurred since the development of this model. More recent models suggest that climate was more dynamic than previously recognized and glaciation was restricted to several shorter (~1-10 My [million years]), discrete intervals of glaciation bounded by nonglacial intervals...[references omitted]."
In other words, thanks to facies modeling (e.g., Blignault and Theron 2012; 2015) and other advanced techniques, we now have better resolution of the Late Paleozoic glaciations. The evidence for these glaciations is not melting away contrary to the hopes and dreams of Oard (2009a) and his YEC allies. Similarly, Fielding et al. (2010) conclude in their abstract:
"Recent research in eastern Australia has established that rather than being a single, long-lived epoch, the late Palaeozoic Ice Age comprised a series of glacial intervals each 1-8 million years in duration, separated by non-glacial intervals of comparable duration."
Fielding et al. (2010) also make the following statements, which hardly lend any support to Mr. Oard's desire to eliminate all pre-Pleistocene glaciations:
"Accordingly, it is concluded that the late Palaeozoic stratigraphy of Tasmania preserves a glacial/cold climate record correlatable to that of mainland eastern Australia, lending support to the hypothesis that these events were widespread across this portion of Gondwana." [my emphasis]
Rather than exposing the Late Paleozoic glaciations as a fantasy, current research continues to confirm their existence, and has better resolved and defined when they occurred.
A Glacial Influence is Still Recognized for the Dwyka Group and other Rocks of the Karoo Basin of southern Africa
The best known Late Paleozoic glaciogenic rocks are located in the Dwyka Group and related rocks of the Karoo Basin of southern Africa. Oard (2009a, p. 116) cites Rampino (1994) and argues that the Dwyka Group has recently been reinterpreted as the product of glaciomarine sedimentation by debris flow and other mass flow processes. By quoting outdated material from Rampino (1994), Mr. Oard would like his readers to concentrate on the statements about impact and mass flow origins, which are supposedly compatible with Noah's Flood, and ignore the glacial component in glaciomarine. Yet, the recent literature shows that the evidence for glacial influences on the Dwyka Group and related rocks in the Karoo Basin is not going away (e.g., Blignault and Theron, 2012, 2015). Although glaciomarine deposits occur in the Dwyka Group (Catuneanu et al., 2005, p. 218), continental-based glacial tillites that Oard (1997; 2009a) is so desperate to explain away are also abundant:
"As the forebulge was uplifted above base level, the tillite accumulated largely as ground moraine associated with continental ice sheets, and is generally composed of basal lodgement and supraglacial tills...[reference omitted]." (Catuneanu et al. 2005, p. 225)
"The influence of the Gondwana glaciation is manifested well to the north of the main Karoo Basin of South Africa and its adjacent basins in southern Africa. Tillites combined with periglacial and deglaciation sequences are observed in many parts of subequatorial Africa and Madagascar and are evidence of that global climatic event." (Catuneanu et al. 2005, p. 226) [my emphasis]
Catuneanu et al. (2005, p. 215) also mention the vast distribution of the glacial Karoo Supergroup in Africa:
"The northern-most traces of the Karoo Supergroup are deposits related to Dwyka-time glaciers in the coastal basin of Gabon...[reference omitted] and at Wadi el Malik in Sudan... [reference omitted]. Permo-Carboniferous glacial deposits are also well documented in Yemen...[reference omitted] and southern Oman."
Catuneanu et al. (2005, p. 226-229) further describe the presence of tillites in the Idusi Formation, an equivalent of the Dwyka Group, and other Late Paleozoic glacial deposits:
"In many instances the existence of a glacially-shaped geomorphology like troughs, U-shaped valleys and rounded hummocks is evident...[references omitted], but the most striking feature is the so called Long Section where a deep trough, incised into the Ubendian basement of the Namschweia Ridge, accumulated more than 650 m of glacial and post-glacial sediments...[reference to figure omitted]." (p. 227)
"In the Morondava Basin the tillites are overlain by proglacial and periglacial deposits, varying considerably in both thickness and facies distribution." (p. 227)
"The Late Carboniferous/Early Permian strata along the northern limit of the Karoo glaciation still exhibit clear signatures of glacial action, like the tillites, periglacial and termino-glacial deposits of Gabon." (p. 228)
"Following the Dwyka glaciation, the Karoo basins typically contain a variety of facies ranging from meltwater rain-out debris, glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits, as found in the northern Karoo Basin...[reference omitted], contemporaneous with deep water marine sedimentation in the foredeep...[references omitted]. Similar glacigenic deposits are found in the other southern African basins." (p. 229)
This relevant glacial evidence for the Dwyka Group and related rocks is now largely non-controversial among geologists and most of it was available before 2009 (including the references in Catuneanu et al. 2005). So, what justification does Oard (2009a) have for pretending that this evidence for tillites and other Late Paleozoic glacial deposits does not exist? If Mr. Oard had really studied the 2000-2008 literature mentioned in this and other essays on pre-Pleistocene glaciations at this website, how could he honestly claim in Oard (2009a, p. 121): "My thesis that ancient 'tillites' are in fact the products of gigantic submarine landslides during the Flood remains not only intact, but also reinforced by new research"? What new research, Mr. Oard? Even the 21st century scientific references cited in Oard (2009a) demolish your Flood agenda.
Oard (2009a) Distorted the Views of Rampino and Oberbeck et al. to Push his Flood Geology Agenda.
YECs desperately want to find some secular scientific article that will allow them to argue that pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits actually formed from meteorite impacts or other non-glacial processes that are somehow compatible with Noah's Flood. As discussed in my 1999 essay, Oard (1997) improperly utilized several papers by Rampino and Oberbeck et al. in an attempt to reinterpret most and possibly all pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits as meteorite/asteroid impact debris that would be compatible Noah's Flood. On this topic, Oard (2009a, p. 116) quotes the following section of my 1999 essay:
"Furthermore, Oard ([1997], p. 17, 88) misrepresents Rampino (1992, 1994) and Oberbeck et al. (1993a,b; 1994) and claims that 'most and possibly all' pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits could be debris from meteorite impacts. In reality, Rampino (1994, p. 439) and Oberbeck et al. (1993a, p. 1; 1993b, p. 681; 1994, p. 488) only claim that SOME of the pre-Pleistocene glacial sediments could be impact deposits." [my 1999 emphasis in all capital letters]
To establish the full context of what I said, the quotation in Oard (2009a, p. 116) originates from a paragraph of my 1999 essay that exposes several additional relevant misdeeds in Oard (1997), as well as information from Reimold et al. (1997) that argues against an impact hypothesis for the Dwyka Group as promulgated by Oard (2009a). My 1999 essay states:
"The Late Carboniferous to Early Permian glacial Dwyka Group is located in the Karoo Basin of South Africa. Like the Gowganda Formation, the Dwyka Group was once identified as continental glacial deposits (tillites), but is now considered to be dominantly glaciomarine (Visser, 1993). The glacial origin of the Dwyka Group has been almost unanimously accepted during the 20th century. Oard ([1997], p. 87-88) does cite two old and unreliable references as examples of skeptics of the Dwyka glaciations: Sandberg (1928) and Anonymous (1960). Furthermore, Oard ([1997], p. 17, 88) misrepresents Rampino (1992, 1994) and Oberbeck et al. (1993a,b; 1994) and claims that 'most and possibly all' pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits could be debris from meteorite impacts. In reality, Rampino (1994, p. 439) and Oberbeck et al. (1993a, p. 1; 1993b, p. 681; 1994, p. 488) only claim that SOME of the pre-Pleistocene glacial sediments could be impact deposits. Recently, Reimold et al. (1997) performed detailed petrographical studies on over 75,000 minerals and rocks from the Dwyka Group and found NO definitive evidence of impact shock metamorphism. Reimold et al. (1997) further states that there is no unequivocal evidence of any kind to support an impact origin for the Dwyka Group." [my 1999 emphasis in all capital letters; section quoted by Oard 2009a, p. 116 bolded]
As further discussed below, it was not until Oard (2018) that Oard finally admitted that Reimold et al. (1997) found no evidence in the Dwyka Group to support an impact origin.
Rather than properly dealing with these relevant issues, Oard (2009a, p. 116) makes the following baseless statement:
"While these authors [Rampino and Oberbeck et al.] state (cautiously) that 'some' diamictites interpreted to be glaciogenic are really of impact origin, a closer inspection of their manuscripts reveals that they are really challenging most and possibly all pre-Pleistocene 'tillites'." [Mr. Oard's emphasis]
In other words, Oard (2009a, p. 116) outlandishly believes that he knows what Rampino and Oberbeck et al. mean better than what they are actually saying! By what authority does Oard (2009a, p. 116) have to change the statements and meanings in Rampino and Oberbeck et al., especially when these authors repeatedly and unambiguously deny that they are challenging the existence of "most and possibly all pre-Pleistocene tillites"?
In my 1999 essay, I quoted the following important response from Oberbeck et al. (1993b, p. 681) to their critic G. M. Young, which blatantly refutes the gross misrepresentation in Oard (2009a, p. 116) that Oberbeck et al. are really challenging most and possibly all pre-Pleistocene 'tillites':
"Young [1993] notes that dropstones suspended throughout very thick tillite/diamictite deposits is a problem for the impact hypothesis and, at this time, we have no explanation. However, we did not claim that all tillites/diamictites were of impact origin." [my emphasis]
As discussed below, Oberbeck et al. (1993a, b) and Rampino (1992; 1994) contain many other unambiguous statements indicating that they were only arguing that some glacial diamictites and tillites may actually be impact ejecta deposits. Contrary to the false claims in Oard (2009a, p. 116), any review of the Rampino and Oberbeck et al. documents unambiguously shows that they say absolutely nothing about challenging most and possibly all pre-Pleistocene 'tillites'. So, what right does Oard (2009a, p. 116) have to tell them otherwise? Because Mr. Oard's biblical interpretations cannot tolerate any evidence whatsoever for pre-Pleistocene glaciations, Oard (1997, p. 88; 2009a, pp. 116-117) somehow feels justified in misrepresenting the actual contents of Rampino (1992; 1994) and Oberbeck et al. (1993a, b; 1994) by putting his false interpretations into their mouths. After having the hubris of telling Rampino and Oberbeck et al. what their documents really say, why should anyone trust how Mr. Oard interprets the Bible or any other piece of literature?
Oard (2009a, p. 116) quotes the following title of Rampino (1992), a brief abstract, in an attempt to argue that Rampino actually meant that most and possibly all pre-Pleistocene tillites were impact deposits:
"Ancient 'Glacial' Deposits are Ejecta of Large Impacts: The Ice Age Paradox Explained."
Oard (2009a, p. 116) is clearly reading far too much into the title and abstract of Rampino (1992) to push his YEC agenda. Because conference abstracts usually limit the number of letters in the title and the number of words in the abstract, important qualifiers (such as some) are often omitted. In reality, Rampino (1994, p. 440), a full article, contradicts Mr. Oard's interpretation and will only state the following about his earlier 1992 abstract:
"Rampino (1992) recently presented independent evidence from a survey of diamictites and their characteristics, and also concluded that a significant number of diamictite sequences in the geologic record that have been interpreted as glacial in origin may be impact debris." [my emphasis]
What justification could there be for interpreting "a significant number" to mean "most and possibly all diamictites"? Additional statements in Rampino (1994) are far more precise and provide a better perspective of his arguments than the brief Rampino (1992) abstract. Rampino (1994, p. 439) states:
"It is possible that some diamictites identified as glaciogenic may actually be ejecta of large impacts, which may help to explain climatic anomalies, such as Lower Proterozoic tillites at a time of predicted global warmth, and the low-latitude distribution of some Upper Proterozoic glacial deposits." [my emphasis]
"The proposal that some ancient glacial deposits might be of impact origin has already generated debate (Young, 1993; Oberbeck et al. 1993b)." [my emphasis]
Rampino (1994, p. 451) further states:
"Could some inferred glacial deposits in the geologic record be the products of debris flows caused by large impact events?" [my emphasis]
"The best criterion for the identification of impact ejecta is evidence of shock deformation, and diamictites should be examined for such evidence. A preliminary study suggests that features similar to those considered indicative of shock deformation in quartz might be present in some diamictites, but the expected rarity of such features requires more detailed study of samples of diamictites." [my emphasis]
"An impact origin for some inferred glacial deposits might explain the apparent correlation between some glaciations and mass extinctions, although climatic changes in the aftermath of large impacts might be capable of triggering both extinctions and glaciation." [my emphasis]
Finally, after more than 20 years and only after Rampino (2017) again stressed that he was only referring to some tillites possibly being impact-related debris, did Oard (2018) admit that Rampino (2017) was stating that only some tillites could be impact-related debris:
"Moreover, in his recent article Rampino [2017] continues to suggest that some of these tillites could be impact debris." [my emphasis]
Yet, rather than honestly admitting that Oard (1997, p. 17, 88) and Oard (2009a, p. 116) had distorted Rampino's articles, Oard (2018) continues to falsely claim that Rampino had "previously challenged the origin of most tillites."
Oberbeck et al. (1993a, p. 14) also emphasizes that they are only arguing that some tillites and dimictites may actually be impact ejecta:
"Despite the extensive amount of excellent field work that has produced observations compatible with ancient glaciation, we have considered the possibility of impact origin for some of the tillites and diamictites because of our calculations and observations, and because of the geological and geophysical implication of our hypothesis." [my emphasis]
Oberbeck et al. (1993a, p. 15) further states:
"Thus, eruptions of flood basalts... may also have been triggered by impacts that emplaced some of the tillites and diamictites." [reference to figure removed, my emphasis]
Oberbeck et al. (1993b, p. 679) reiterates:
"Oberbeck et al. (1993[a]) proposed that some of the diamictites and tillites may be impact deposits." [my emphasis]
After reviewing all of these careful statements by Rampino and Oberbeck et al., how can Oard (2009a, p. 116) honestly claim that a closer inspection of their manuscripts reveals that they are really challenging most and possibly all pre-Pleistocene "tillites"? How many times do Oberbeck et al. and Rampino have to say SOME before Mr. Oard finally understands that they were NOT arguing that most and possibly all pre-Pleistocene "tillites" are impact deposits as he claims in Oard (2009a, p. 116)? How many disclaimers do Rampino and Oberbeck et al. have to make before Oard (2009a, p. 116) finally realizes that they are not challenging most and possibly all pre-Pleistocene "tillites" as Mr. Oard wants so desperately to believe? There is no justification for Mr. Oard distorting and misrepresenting the literature in this way. This type of desperate behavior is absolutely outrageous, dishonest, unethical, and anti-scientific.
Oberbeck et al. (1993a, p. 1) also mentions:
"The calculated thickness distribution for impact crater deposits produced during 2 Gy [two billion years] is similar to that of tillites and diamictites 2 Ga. We suggest, therefore, that some tillites/dimictites could be of impact origin." [my emphasis]
Besides once again emphasizing "some", notice that the Oberbeck et al. (1993a) impact ejecta hypothesis is based on a model that involves meteorite impacts over two billion years (2 Ga). This topic is further discussed below. What justification do young-Earth creationists (YECs) have for embracing an impact hypothesis that is based on a model that uses time spans of billions of years?
Oard (2009a) also grossly misinterprets other statements in the Oberbeck et al. documents. For example, Oard (2009a, p. 114) and Oard (1997, pp. 21-23) embraces invalid Lyell uniformitarianism and attempts to use the differences in area and thicknesses between Pleistocene and pre-Pleistocene diamictites to attack the glacial origins of pre-Pleistocene deposits. Instead of properly responding to the literature abuse in Oard (1997, pp. 21-23), Oard (2009a, p. 114) misrepresents the actual views of Oberbeck et al. (1993b, p. 680) and tries to excuse his actions with the following blanket statement:
"However, the neo-catastrophist scientists, Oberbeck et al. (1993b, p. 680) also question the glacial origin of pre-Pleistocene diamictites based on their smaller area and much greater thickness."
Once more, Mr. Oard ignores critical details and trips over the critical word "some." This is what Oberbeck et al. (1993b, p. 680) actually says:
"In our paper [Oberbeck et al., 1993a], we referred to extensive Pleistocene continental ice sheet tills, which are much thinner than ancient tillite/diamictites, as evidence that some ancient tillite/diamictites may not be glacial deposits." [my emphasis]
Like Oard (2009a), Oberbeck et al. (1993b, p. 680) also contains an unhealthy dose of outdated Lyell uniformitarianism:
"As advocates of an important role for impact catastrophism in Earth's history, we also rely on uniformitarianism and suggest that the thickness of extensive Pleistocene deposits are a key to the expected thickness of extensive past glacial deposits. Young should not use the thickness of the ancient tillite/diamictites as evidence that glaciation can produce such great deposit thicknesses because the origin of the ancient deposits is the question under discussion. We challenge the glacial specialists to use known present glacial deposition rates to predict the relative thickness distribution of past tillite/diamictites and demonstrate that they can obtain as good agreement as we have achieved from models of impact cratering."
As discussed in my essays on actualism at this website and their references, actualism does not demand that the thicknesses and depositional rates of pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits duplicate Pleistocene thicknesses and rates. Each glaciation is expected to be unique. Pre-Pleistocene glaciers must simply have complied with the laws of chemistry and physics, just as like Pleistocene and modern glaciers.
Contrary to Oard (2009a), my 1999 Essay does Discuss Rampino's Three Major Diagnostic Features, but So What?
According to Oard (2009a, p. 116), I should have clarified in my 1999 essay that Rampino (1994, pp. 440, 445) mentions that impact deposits can duplicate three of the major diagnostic features that have been traditionally used to identify glacial deposits, including: striae and chattermarks on clasts, the presence of dropstones, and striations on bedrock. However, Mr. Oard obviously did not carefully read my 1999 essay because I did discuss Rampino's remarks on these three "diagnostic features" and I commented on them. This is what I said:
"Rampino (1994, p. 448) contains a photograph that shows glacial-like chattermarks and striations with different orientations that were really produced by a meteorite impact. In this case, Oard's citation appears to be valid, at least for the one rock shown in Rampino's photograph."
Oard ([1997,] p. 64) also suggests that dropstones could result from meteorite impacts. Oberbeck et al. (1993a,b; 1994) and Rampino (1992, 1994) are the leading advocates for claiming that SOME glacial deposits may actually be impact deposits. However, Oard does not mention the following confession by Oberbeck et al. (1993b, p. 681):
'Young [1993] notes that dropstones suspended throughout very thick tillite/diamictite deposits is a problem for the impact hypothesis and, at this time, we have no explanation. However, we did not claim that all tillites/diamictites were of impact origin.'"
Oard (2009a, pp. 116, 118) is also behind the times when it comes to his overreliance on diagnostic criteria. Rather than depending on two or three diagnostic criteria to identify the origin of a sedimentary rock, the lessons from Schermerhorn (1971; 1974) have taught geologists to observe the deposits in three-dimensions and determine depositional environments through facies modeling and other advanced field, laboratory and computer techniques (e.g., El-ghali et al., 2006; Ghienne et al., 2007; Crowell, 1999). I also briefly allude to the effectiveness of facies modeling in my 1999 essay:
"Facies and other sedimentary models actually allow geologists to make predictions about ancient depositional environments and locate the predicted rocks (Blatt et al., 1980, p. 619). The ability of these models to make predictions shows that they're basically correct."
The days are long over when geologists just look at a few striations and some poor sorting, and then make a decision about the depositional environment. Furthermore, sometimes evidence for glaciations is indirect. For example, Carboniferous sediment cyclotherms often correspond to glaciations (Crowell 1999, p. 20). The waning and waxing of Late Paleozoic glaciers caused noticeable sea level changes in distant coastal sediments.
Dwyka Group: Mr. Oard's Arguments Continue to Have No Impact
Rampino (1994, p. 451) argues that shock metamorphism is the best criterion for distinguishing impact ejecta from glacial deposits. Oberbeck et al. (1993a, p. 17) agree with this approach. That is, massive meteorite impacts would deform mineral grains, whereas glaciations would not. Rampino (1992) also claims:
"They [pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits] are now found to contain evidence of probable shock-induced deformation, and are commonly associated with volcaniclastic debris."
However, is Rampino's claim that pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits are now found to contain evidence of probable shock-induced deformation true? To test the impact hypothesis on the Dwyka Group diamictites, Reimold et al. (1997) petrographically examined over 75,000 mineral and rock clasts from a large number of samples. Although Oard (2009a, p. 116) briefly quotes from Reimold et al. (1997), Oard (2009a) never admitted that the key findings in Reimold et al. (1997) failed to support the impact hypothesis, which is a serious blow to the YEC Flood geology agenda. Reimold et al. (1997) conclude the following about the Dwyka Group diamictites:
"No definitive evidence of impact-diagnostic shock metamorphic deformation in mineral or lithic clasts from any of these samples was detected. We conclude, therefore, that to date no unequivocal evidence for an impact origin of these diamictites in the South African stratigraphic record has been documented. What is more, the general hypothesis that some diamictites in the stratigraphic record could represent impact ejecta is not supported by first-order observations of bona fide shock (impact) related phenomena in such rocks."
While Oard (2009a, p. 116) is not beyond trying to desperately support his Flood geology agenda by citing the ambiguous wording of the title of Rampino (1992), Oard (2009a) only mentioned the title of Reimold et al. (1997) in his bibliography (p. 123) because it unambiguously undermines his agenda:
"Are Diamictites Impact Ejecta? - No Supporting Evidence from South African Dwyka Group Diamictite."
Finally nine years later, Oard (2018, p. 15) now admits that Reimold et al. (1997) found no evidence of shocked grains to support an impact origin for the Dwyka Tillite. Oard (2018) then suggests that either the shocked grains were rare or overlooked. Oard (2018, p. 15) asks for patience and "faith" as YECs continue to find ways of dismissing pre-Pleistocene tillites. Yet, a review of the recent literature continues to demonstrate that YECs have lost this crusade against tillites. Pre-Pleistocene glaciations are real, for example as shown by the detailed facies studies of the Dwyka Tillite (e.g., Blignault and Theron 2012; 2015).
In another relevant article that is not mentioned by Oard (2009a) or Oard (2018), Huber et al. (2001) found no geochemical evidence of the enrichment of elements from extraterrestrial impacts in the Dwyka Group. Contrary to the claims and distortions in Oard (2009a), glaciations are still the best and only explanation for the origin of these southern African rocks.
Despite the efforts of Oard (2009a) to gerrymander "some" into "most and possibly all", the discussions in Rampino and Oberbeck et al. do not support Mr. Oard's agenda and subsequent tests by Reimold et al. (1997) and Huber et al. (2001) failed to support the impact hypothesis for the Dwyka glacial deposits. While he may have innocently overlooked Huber et al. (2001), Oard (2009a) committed a serious sin of omission by not revealing relevant details in the articles that he cites (for example, Reimold et al., 1997 in Oard, 2009a) because they undermine his YEC agenda. At least, Oard (2018) is more cautious and open about the limitations of impacts.
Oberbeck et al. Impact Model is Incompatible with Young-Earth Creationism
Oard (2009a, p. 116) quotes the following section from Oberbeck et al. (1993a, p. 16) in his attempt to undermine the Permo-Carboniferous glacial origins of the Dwyka Group diamictites and promote Flood geology:
"We suggest that prolonged impact cratering preceding breakup of Gondwanaland (indicated by Permo-Carboniferous tillites in South Africa, South America, India, and Antarctica) could have extensively fractured the lithosphere and would have facilitated the final continental fragmentation." [Oard, 2009a emphasis]
Not surprisingly when Oard (2009a, p. 116) quotes Oberbeck et al. (1993a, p. 16), he commits another serious sin of omission by not mentioning several very relevant subsequent sentences in Oberbeck et al. that show that their impact hypothesis for the Late Paleozoic tillites conflicts with young-Earth creationism:
"We suggest that prolonged impact cratering preceding breakup of Gondwanaland (indicated by Permo-Carboniferous tillites in South Africa, South America, India, and Antarctica) could have extensively fractured the lithosphere and would have facilitated the final continental fragmentation. Note that equation (1) shows that roughly 12 impact craters >100 km would have been formed on the continents in the billion years before the breakup; some of these might have initiated upper mantle plumes. The crustal fracturing from these impacts, as well as that from many more smaller ones, would have produced an extensive network of fracture weaknesses permeating the lithosphere. These fractures would have propagated vertically and radially as the lithosphere was stressed by doming above magma plumes. Tillites could represent deposits of the largest of the impact craters formed during the last few million years before continental breakup." [my emphasis]
Obviously, as a young-Earth creationist, Mr. Oard cannot accept the idea of cratering rates involving millions to billions of years. I'm also skeptical about the regularity of such rates because of actualism. Nevertheless, if Mr. Oard is tempted to compress these rates in Oberbeck et al. (1993a) to fit into Noah's Flood year, he must demonstrate that the working conditions of the Oberbeck et al. (1993a, pp. 1-4) model are still valid. It is very questionable that the validity of the model could be maintained by compressing it from a billion years to one Flood year or altering other modeling conditions. Obviously, when Mr. Oard embraces the impact hypothesis, he has taken a selective and anti-scientific approach that only involves picking and choosing statements from Oberbeck et al., Rampino, and other references that can be superficially used to support his biblical arguments. He then blatantly ignores any information and other critical details that undermine his YEC agenda, including the key cratering rate argument from Oberbeck et al. Mr. Oard's actions are clearly religious dogmatism and not science.
Mr. Oard's Inadequate Response to Criticism of the Impact Hypothesis in Young (1993) and Le Roux (1994)
In passing, Oard (2009a, pp. 116, 118; 2018) briefly mentions criticism of the impact hypothesis by Young (1993) and Le Roux (1994), but, as usual, he does not provide suitable details from these references because they would raise extensive doubts about the impact hypothesis and YEC views of Noah's Flood. In particular, Le Roux (1994, p. 483) argues that the cross-cutting and curved striations on outcrops in South Africa and Australia could have formed from glaciers flowing in different directions, but that a single large impact would not produce these features. Although Oard (2009a, p. 118) mentions Le Roux's striation argument against the impact hypothesis, Mr. Oard argues that mass flows could duplicate such striae and he further claims that grooves and striations in the Ordovician glaciations are parallel and do not show such divergent striae. However, Le Roux (1994) presents much more evidence that the Dwyka Group and other diamictites predominantly had a glacial rather than an impact origin. These features include: deeply excavated valleys, hanging valleys, roches moutonnes, the distribution of the thickest portions of the Dwyka Group, beveled boulder pavements, streamlined bedforms, bulbous bedforms, isolated dropstones in thick mudstones, eskers, kames, permafrost features, and leeside pluck-and-fill deposits (Le Roux, 1994, p. 483; also see Young 1993, p. 676). As usual, Oard (2009a, p. 118) only deals with one of Le Roux's arguments that he believes he can readily dismiss. Oard (2009a) ignores the bulk of the evidence against impacts and his Noah's Flood agenda.
Young (1993, p. 675) argues that the deposit thickness values used by Oberbeck et al. are suspect. If ancient glaciers entered a restricted rifting, Red-Sea type marine environment, their deposits would be expected to be much thicker than in a tectonically stable open sea environment (Young, 1993, p. 676). Le Roux (1994, p. 483-484) also mentions that at least four spreading centers and up to nine successive ice-flow events have been identified in the Dwyka Group. It is unlikely that these features could have formed from several large successive impacts occurring in the same small area of South Africa (about 0.4% of the Earth's surface) over a brief amount of time. None of this evidence is good news for Flood geology and this is why Oberbeck et al. (1993b) would only commit themselves to saying that some diamictites may be impact ejecta rather than glacial deposits. As shown in Young (1993), Le Roux (1994) and other references, the statement in Oard's (2009a, p. 117) that non-glacial mass flows can mimic most, if not all, glacial features is an exaggeration. Along with any evidence of shock metamorphism, there are other methods for successfully distinguishing glacial from non-glacial deposits and I present numerous examples in my 1999 essay on how Oard (1997) misquotes and avoids mentioning this critical information.
Scientists Must Deal with the Data, while YECs Use their Biblical Interpretations to Avoid Data that They Don't Like
Finally, no one should accuse Young (1993) and other critics of the impact hypothesis of being biased or unfair to Rampino and Oberbeck et al. Young (1993, p. 675) states that he welcomes impact and other alternative hypotheses for diamictites:
"Such radical departures from accepted interpretations ...[reference omitted] can stimulate review of long-accepted, more traditional ideas and thus provide a catalyst for new avenues of research."
Scientists are not afraid of what the geologic record might tell them. They welcome the utter enjoyment of new discoveries and challenges. However, Young (1993), Reimold et al. (1997) and Huber et al. (2001) have good scientific evidence for rejecting the impact hypothesis for the diamictites that they've studied. Furthermore, as mentioned above, evidence in 21st century science articles continues to support the existence of Late Paleozoic glaciations.
More than 150 years of careful field and laboratory research by numerous geologists have utterly destroyed Flood geology and we are forced to conclude that scientific research will never bring us back to a 17th century YEC view of the Earth's geology. However, if by a great literal miracle, future research undermines all of this research and shows that everything in the Bible is literally true, including a talking snake, magic fruit trees, and Noah's ark, then so be it. Geologists will have to accept whatever the scientific evidence says. In contrast, Oard (1997, 2009a) and his YEC allies unequivocally and unfairly oppose any scientific evidence, no matter how definitive it is, if it threatens their interpretations of the Bible. We can readily see their narrow-minded willingness to embrace Creation Research Society and other YEC oaths that forsake a commitment to scientific integrity. YECs, and not scientists, show great fear and defensiveness about the contents of the geologic record. While scientists welcome new discoveries in geology, astronomy, anthropology, evolution, and chemistry, the front pages of AiG, CMI and other YEC websites are frequently filled with desperate and defensive "no, no, it can't be true!" attacks on the newest scientific discoveries, such as the recent development of synthetic life. This is a pitiful and sad way that YECs live, knowing that every day they could wake up to face another devastating research discovery that threatens their faith in the Bible and then they must either ignore the data or rely on their leaders to cook up some excuses to explain away the challenge and protect their weak faith from dying or evolving into old-Earth creationism or even theistic evolution. I say these things from personal experience as an ex-YEC and from how Oard (2009a) picks through the literature and continues to ignore that vast amount of evidence that refutes his Flood geology.
References
Alonso-Muruaga, P.J., C.O. Limarino, L.A. Spallertti, and F. Columbo Piñol. 2018. "Depositional Settings and Evolution of a Fjord System during the Carboniferous Glaciations in Northwest Argentina", Sedimentary Geology, v. 369, pp. 28-45.
Andrews, G.D., A.T. McGrady, S.R. Brown, and S.M. Maynard. 2019. "First Description of Subglacial Megalineations from the Late Paleozoic Ice Age in Southern Africa", PLOS One, v. 14, n. 1, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210673
Angiolini, L., F. Jadoul, M.J. Leng, M.H. Stephenson, J. Rushton, S. Chenery, and G. Crippa. 2009. "How Cold were the Early Permian Glacial Tropics? Testing Sea-surface Temperature Using the Oxygen Isotope Composition of Rigorously Screened Brachiopod Shells", Journal of the Geological Society, London, v. 166, pp. 933-945.
Anonymous, 1960, Geophysical Discussion of the Royal Astronomical Society Geophysical Journal, Royal Society of London, v. 3, p. 127-131.
Assine, M.L., H. de Santa Ana, G. Veroslavsky, and F.F. Vesely. 2018. Exhumed Subglacial Landscape in Uruguay: Erosional Landforms, Depositional Environments, and Paleo-Ice Flow in the Context of the Late Paleozoic Gondwanan Glaciation, Sedimentary Geology, v. 369, pp. 1-12.
Badyrka, K., M.E. Clapham and S. Lopez. 2013. "Paleoecology of Brachiopod Communities during the Late Paleozoic Ice Age in Bolivia (Copacabana Formation, Pennsylvanian-Early Permian," Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 387, pp. 56-65.
Birgenheier, L.P., C.R. Fielding, M.C. Rygel, T.D. Frank, and J. Roberts. 2009. "Evidence for Dynamic Climate Change on Sub-106-Year Scales from the Late Paleozoic Glacial Record, Tamworth Belt, New South Wales, Australia", Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 79, pp. 56-82.
Blatt, H., G. Middleton, and R. Murray, 1980, Origin of Sedimentary Rocks, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632.
Blanchard, S., C.R. Fielding, and T.D. Frank. 2015. "Impact of Continental Motion and Dynamic Glaciations on Low-latitude Climate during the Carboniferous: The Record of the Wyoming Shelf (Western United States)", Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 436, pp. 214-230.
Blignault, H.J. and J.N. Theron. 2012. "Modes of Sedimentation and Glaciological Aspects of the Permo-Carboniferous Dwyka Group in the Elandsvlei-Elandsdrif Area, South Africa," South African Journal of Geology, v. 115, n. 2, pp. 211-224.
Blignault, H.J. and J.N. Theron. 2015. "The Facies Association Tillite, Boulder Beds, Boulder Pavements, Liquefaction Structures and Deformed Drainage Channels in the Permo-Carboniferous Dwyka Group, Elandsvlei Area, South Africa", South African Journal of Geology, v. 118, n. 2, pp. 157-172.
Catuneanu, O., H. Wopfner, P.G. Eriksson, B. Cairncross, B.S. Rubidge, R.M.H. Smith, and P.J. Hancox. 2005. The Karoo Basin of South-central Africa, Journal of African Earth Sciences, v. 43, pp. 211-253.
Cheng, C., S. Li, X. Xie, T. Cao, W.L. Manger and A.B. Busbey. 2019. Permian Carbon Isotope and Clay Mineral Records from the Xikou Section, Zhen'an, Shaanxi Province, central China: Climatological Implications for the Easternmost Paleo-Tethys, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 514, pp. 407-422.
Craddock, J.P., R.W. Ojakangas, D.H. Malone, et al. 2019. Detrital Zircon Provenance of Permo-Carboniferous Glacial Diamictites across Gondwana, Earth-Science Reviews, v. 192, pp. 285-316.
Crowell, J.C. 1999. Pre-Mesozoic Ice Ages: Their Bearing on Understanding the Climate System, Geological Society of America, Memoir 192, The Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, 106pp.
Diaz Saravia, P. and C.R. Gonzalez. 2020. "New Pennsylvanian Bivalvia (Mollusca), the Early Permian Glaciation and the Carboniferous-Permian Boundary in Western Argentina", PalZ, v. 94, n. 4, pp. 675-695.
El-ghali, M.A.K, H. Mansurbeg, S. Morad, I. Al-Aasm, and K. Ramseyer. 2006. "Distribution of Diagenetic Alterations in Glaciogenic Sandstones with a Depositional Facies and Sequence Stratigraphic Framework: Evidence from the Upper Ordovician of the Murzuq Basin, SW Libya", Sedimentary Geology, v. 190, pp. 323-351.
Fielding, C.R., T.D. Frank, J.L. Isbell, L.C. Henry, and E.W. Domack. 2010. "Stratigraphic Signature of the Late Palaeozoic Ice Age in the Parmeener Supergroup of Tasmania, SE Australia, and Inter-regional Comparisons", Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 298, pp. 70-90.
Ghienne, J.-F., D.P. Le Heron, J. Moreau, M. Denis and M. Deynoux. 2007. The Late Ordovician Glacial Sedimentary System of the North Gondwana Platform in M.J. Hambrey, P. Christoffersen, N.F. Glasser, and B. Hubbard (editors), I. Montanez (series editor), Glacial Sedimentary Processes and Products, Special Publication No. 39 of the International Association of Sedimentologists, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts, USA, 416pp.
Goddéris, Y., Y. Donnadieu, S, Carretier, M. Aretz, G. Dera, M. MacOuin, and V. Regard. 2017. Onset and Ending of the Late Palaeozoic Ice Age Triggered by Tectonically Paced Rock Weathering, Nature Geoscience, v. 10, n. 5, pp. 382-386.
Herbert, C.T. and J.S. Compton. 2007. "Depositional Environments of the Lower Permian Dwyka Diamictite and Prince Albert Shale Inferred from the Geochemistry of Early Diagenetic Concretions, Southwest Karoo Basin, South Africa", Sedimentary Geology, v. 194, pp. 263-277.
Huber, H., C. Koeberl, I. McDonald, and W.U. Reimold. 2001. "Geochemistry and Petrology of Witwatersrand and Dwyka Diamictites from South Africa: Search for an Extraterrestrial Component", Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 65, n. 10, pp. 2007-2016.
Le Roux, J.P. 1994. "Impacts, tillites, and the Breakup of Gondwanaland: A Second Discussion", Journal of Geology, v. 102, pp. 483-485.
Lu, J., Y. Wang, M. Yang, L. Shao, and J. Hilton. 2021. "Records of Volcanism and Organic Carbon Isotopic Composition (δ13Corg) Linked to Changes in Atmospheric pCO2 and Climate during the Pennsylvanian Icehouse Interval", Chemical Geology, v. 570, 12 pp.
Montanez, I.P. and C.J. Poulsen. 2013. "The Late Paleozoic Ice Age: An Evolving Paradigm," Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 41, pp. 629-656.
Moxness, L.D., J.L. Isbell, K.N. Pauls, C.O. Limarino, and J. Schencman. 2018. Sedimentology of the mid-Carboniferous Fill of the Olta Paleovalley, Eastern Paganzo Basin, Argentina: Implications for Glaciation and Controls on Diachronous Deglaciation in Western Gondwana during the Late Paleozoic Ice Age, Journal of South American Earth Sciences, v. 84, pp. 127-148.
Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.
Oard, M.J. 2009a. Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages', chapter 7 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. 111-123.
Oard, M.J. 2018. At Least Some 'Tillites' may be Impact Debris, Journal of Creation, v. 32, n. 1, pp. 13-15, https://creation.com/some-tillites-may-be-impact-debris
Oberbeck, V.R., J.R. Marshall and H. Aggarwal. 1993a. Impacts, Tillites, and the Breakup of Gondwanaland, Journal of Geology, v. 101, p. 1-19.
Oberbeck, V.R., J.R. Marshall and H. Aggarwal. 1993b. Impacts, Tillites, and the Breakup of Gondwanaland: A Reply, Journal of Geology, v. 101, p. 679-683.
Oberbeck V.R., F. Hoerz, and T. Bunch. 1994. Impacts, Tillites, and the Breakup of Gondwanaland: A Second Reply, Journal of Geology v. 102, p. 485-489.
Rampino, M.R. 1992. Ancient Glacial Deposits are Ejecta of Large Impacts: The Ice Age Paradox Explained, EOS American Geophysical Union Abstract Supplement, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, USA, p. 99.
Rampino, M.R., 1994, Tillites, Diamictites, and Ballistic Ejecta of Large Impacts, Journal of Geology, v. 102, p. 439-456.
Rampino, M.R. 2017. Are Some Tillites Impact-Related Debris-Flow Deposits?, Journal of Geology, v. 125, pp. 155-164.
Reimold, W.U., V. von Brunn, and C. Koeberl. 1997. "Are Diamictites Impact Ejecta? No Supporting Evidence from South African Dwyka Group Diamictite," Journal of Geology, v. 105, pp. 517-530.
Rolland, Y., M. Bernet, P. van der Bee, C. Gautheron, G. Duclaux, J. Bascou, M. Balvay, L. Héraudet, C. Sue, and R.-P. Ménot, Late Paleozoic Ice Age Glaciers Shaped East Antarctica Landscape, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 506, pp. 123-133.
Roy, D.K. and B.P. Roser. 2013. "Climatic Control on the Composition of Carboniferous-Permian Gondwana Sediments, Khalaspir Basin, Bangladesh," Gondwana Research, v. 23, n. 3, pp. 1163-1171.
Ruckwied, K., A.E. Götz, and P. Jones. 2014. “Palynological Records of the Permian Ecca Group (South Africa): Utilizing Climatic Icehouse-greenhouse Signals for Cross Basin Correlations”, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology v. 413, pp. 167-172.
Sandberg, C.G.S. 1928. The Origin of the Dwyka Conglomerate of South Africa and Other Glacial Deposits, Geological Magazine, v. 65, p. 117-139.
Sardar Abadi, M., E.I. Kulagina, D.F.A.E. Voeten, F. Boulvain, and A.-C. Da Silva. 2017. Sedimentologic and Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of Carbonate Factory Evolution in the Alborz Basin (northern Iran) Indicate a Global Response to Early Carboniferous (Tournaisian) Glaciations, Sedimentary Geology, v. 348, pp. 19-36.
Schatz, E.R., M.G. Mángano, L.A. Buatois, and C.O. Limarino. 2011. "Life in the Late Paleozoic Ice Age: Trace Fossils from Glacially Influenced Deposits in a Late Carboniferous Fjord of Western Argentina", Journal of Paleontology, v. 85, n. 3, pp. 502-518.
Scheffler, K., D. Buehmann, and L. Schwark. 2006. "Analysis of Late Palaeozoic Glacial to Postglacial Sedimentary Successions in South Africa by Geochemical Proxies - Response to Climate Evolution and Sedimentary Environment", Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 240, pp. 184-203.
Schermerhorn, L.J.G. 1971. "Upper Ordovician Glaciation in Northwest Africa? Discussion," Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 82, p. 265-268.
Schermerhorn, L.J.G. 1974. "Late Precambrian Mixtites: Glacial and/or Nonglacial? American Journal of Science, v. 274, p. 673824.
Schulz, H.-M., B. Linol, M. De Wit et al. 2018. "Early Diagenetic Signals Archived in Black Shales of the Dwyka and Lower Ecca Groups of the Southern Karoo Basin (South Africa): Keys to the Deglaciation History of Gondwana during the Early Permian, and its Effect on Potential Shale Gas Storage", South African Journal of Geology, v. 121, n. 1, pp. 69-94.
Scotese, C.R., H. Song, B.J.W. Mills, and D.G. van der Meer. 2021 "Phanerozoic Paleotemperatures: The Earth's Changing Climate during the Late 540 Million Years", Earth-Science Reviews, v. 215, 47 pp.
Veevers, J.J. and C. McA. Powell. 1987. "Late Paleozoic Glacial Episodes in Gondwanaland Reflected in Transgressive-regressive Depositional Sequences in Euramerica", Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, v. 98, pp. 475-487.
Visser, J.N.J. 1993. Sea-Level Changes in a Back-Arc-Foreland Transition: The Late Carboniferous-Permian Karoo Basin of South Africa, Sedimentary Geology, v. 83, p. 115-131.
Young, G.M. 1993. "Impacts, Tillites, and the Breakup of Gondwanaland: A Discussion," Journal of Geology, v. 101, p. 675-679.