Seem

When "Seem" Just isn't Good Enough to Support Flood Geology

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D., June 6, 2011

In another trivial example from his list of complaints about my 1999 essay, Oard (2009a, p. 115) claims that I misquoted Oard (1997, p. 25) by leaving out the phrase “seem much too small”:

“For instance, he [Dr. Henke], p. 18 [1999] stated that I argue that icebergs could not have produced the small scour marks in the late Paleozoic of Brazil described by Rocha-Compos et al. (1994). In the book [Oard 1997] I wrote:

“The above authors [Rocha-Campos et al. 1994] believe they found the first iceberg mark with associated iceberg debris in late Paleozoic rhythmites in the Paraná Basin, Brazil... The furrows seem much too small to be iceberg scour marks.”

Rather than admit that I said that the grooves 'seem' too small to be iceberg scour marks. Henke [1999] (p. 18) emphatically states that I said “... that icebergs could not have produced these features”. My 'context' was the contrast between the Pleistocene Ice Age and supposed pre-Pleistocene ice ages with regards to iceberg scour marks - they are abundant in Pleistocene glaciolacustrine and glaciomarine strata, while nearly absent in older sediments.” [bolded emphasis in Oard 2009a, p. 115; my 2011 emphasis in underlined bold]

I think Mr. Oard's protests in this case are disingenuous. Using the hedge word “seem” expresses doubt and leaves open the possibility that the features really are small pre-Pleistocene iceberg scour marks. But, how could Mr. Oard tolerate even the possibility of one iceberg or other glacial feature in the pre-Pleistocene record? Any iceberg or other glacial features in the pre-Pleistocene sedimentary record would threaten his Flood geology. If Mr. Oard only meant to suggest that the iceberg scour marks from Rocha-Compos et al. (1994) “seem much too small” and that his “context” was simply to contrast Pleistocene and pre-Pleistocene scour marks, why does he refer to the marks in Rocha-Compos et al. (1994) as “one dubious example” on Oard (1997, p. 25)? Furthermore, why did Oard (1997, pp. 24-25) place his discussions of the Rocha-Compos et al. (1994) scour marks under a section entitled as “No Iceberg Plowmarks in Glaciomarine 'Tillites'“? So, what is Mr. Oard’s current position? Is it Oard (2009a, p. 115), where he states that iceberg scour marks are “nearly absent” in pre-Pleistocene deposits, which leaves open the possibility that some pre-Pleistocene iceberg marks may exist to destroy the validity of Noah's Flood? Or does Mr. Oard still believe his section title of Oard (1997, p. 24) that there are “no iceberg plowmarks in glaciomarine 'tillites'” whatsoever? While Mr. Oard makes up his mind, I think what I actually said in my 1999 essay is an accurate summary of the true feelings in Oard (1997, pp. 24-25) about the iceberg scour marks in Rocha-Compos et al. (1994) and every other reference that dares to present evidence for even one glacial feature that threatens the validity of his Biblical interpretations for Noah's Flood. While actualism recognizes that some rocks are only a few thousand years old and that local floods and other catastrophes occur, YECs fully realize that if their fellow believers recognize that there is just one indisputable radiometric date well in excess of 10,000 years or that there is undeniable evidence of just one iceberg, another glacial feature or a desert deposit in their “Flood” deposits, their YEC agenda is sunk. That is, Mr. Oard cannot tolerate the existence of even one iceberg scour mark in the pre-Pleistocene record or any other single piece of data that contradicts a “young” Earth or Noah’s Flood. His biblical interpretations just won't allow it. My 1999 essay also presents additional information on the Brazilian scour mark, which is incompatible with young-Earth creationism:

“As Oard ([1997], p.25) mentions, Rocha-Campos et al. (1994) discusses some late Paleozoic iceberg scour marks in Brazil. The furrows of the marks are 20-50 cm wide, up to 20 cm deep, and have an exposed length of up to 70-80 meters (Rocha-Campos et al., 1994, p. 236). The marks are also associated with ice-rafted clasts, likely debris from grounded icebergs, rhythmites, and other glacial features (Rocha-Campos et al., 1994, p. 234). Rocha-Campos et al. (1994, p. 239) admit that these scour marks are smaller than most Pleistocene and modern examples. Because of the relatively small size of the Brazilian scour marks, Oard ([1997], p. 25) argues that icebergs could not have produced these features. However, size is not a significant argument against an iceberg-related origin. Iceberg scour marks could be any size. Again, Oard ([1999], p. 25) is allowing Lyell uniformitarianism, which he claims to detest, to actually control his thinking. Under actualism, past and present iceberg scour marks may vary in size and degree of preservation. [new paragraph] Rocha-Campos et al. (1994, p. 237-239) also considered other hypotheses for the origins of the furrows besides iceberg scours. However, iceberg scours proved to be the best explanation. Specifically, they (p. 237) conclude that the features are too localized and there’s no supporting data to indicate that the furrows had a tectonic origin. The furrows could also have developed from the slumping of sediments. However, the geometry of the troughs does not resemble slump features (Rocha-Campos et al., 1994, p. 238).” [controversial section disputed by Oard 2009a, p. 115 bolded]

References

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.

Rocha-Campos, A.C., P.R. dos Santos, and J.R. Canuto. 1994. “Ice Scouring Structures in Late Paleozoic Rhythmites, Parana Basin, Brazil,” in M. Deynoux, J.M.G. Miller, E.W. Domack, N. Eyles, I.J. Fairchild, and G.M. Young, Earth’s Glacial Record, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 234-240.