Morrison

The Late Jurassic Morrison Formation Refutes Flood Geology, including the “Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments” (BEDS) Proposal in Oard (2011)

Kevin R. Henke

December 18, 2016

Introduction

As part of their efforts to defend their interpretations of the Bible, young-Earth creationists (YECs) rely on Flood geology, which claims that all or almost all of the sedimentary rock record formed about 4,500 years ago during a worldwide Flood as described in Genesis 6-9 of the Bible (e.g., Snelling 2009a, pp. 613, 862, 898). Most YECs admit that dinosaur remains are too far in the middle of the sedimentary rock record to be pre-Flood or post-Flood (e.g., Oard 2011, p. 113). That is, Oard (2011, pp. 113-116) and most other YECs recognize that there are often large volumes of sedimentary rocks underneath dinosaur-bearing rocks and that there is good evidence that large volumes of sediments and sedimentary rocks once covered a lot of dinosaur-bearing rocks that now crop out on the Earth’s surface. Most YECs also find it difficult to accept the idea that thick layers of sedimentary rocks could form in a few thousand years without Noah’s Flood (e.g., Oard 2011, p. 113). While the vast majority of YECs consider most or all sedimentary rocks to have been deposited by Noah’s Flood, Oard (2011, pp. 113-114; 2016a, p. 8) goes even further and claims that the dinosaur fossils are from the “early” Flood, or sometime from day 40 to perhaps as late as day 120 or 150 of the Flood. The Flood supposedly lasted about 371 days (e.g., Figure 8.5 in Oard 2011, p. 116).

The presence of bones, eggs, nests, tracks, and other dinosaur remains in the middle of the sedimentary rock record creates insurmountable problems for YECs. Dinosaur tracks, bones and eggs are too obvious to be dismissed as misinterpretations. YECs must explain how dinosaurs could have been walking around, laying eggs, feeding and engaging in other life activities in the middle of a worldwide Flood and why we have not been able to find any evidence of dinosaur remains in the often very thick underlying Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. In response to some of these challenges, Oard (2011) developed the Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments (BEDS) scenario.

The Late Jurassic Morrison Formation

The Late Jurassic Morrison Formation of North America is just one example that contains numerous features that refute BEDS and other forms of Flood geology. The Morrison Formation extends over a large part of the Rocky Mountain States of the US and into Canada (Demko et al. 2004, p. 115). In some locations, the formation is more than 250 meters thick (Demko et al. 2004, p. 133). The Morrison Formation is predominantly nonmarine and consists of sediments from ancient rivers and lakes (Demko et al. 2004, p. 120; Jennings et al. 2011; Myers et al. 2012a, p. 587; Heller et al. 2015; Roca and Nadon 2007). As discussed further below, the depositional climate for the Morrison Formation was mostly semiarid with seasonal rainfall (Myers et al. 2012a, p. 587).

Table 1 lists some features in the Morrison Formation and compares their compatibility with actualism (modern uniformitarianism) and BEDS and other Flood geology scenarios. While these features are very consistent with actualism, the compatibility of these features with BEDS and other Flood geology scenarios is either doubtful or unreasonable. In contrast, the “evidence” cited by Oard (2011) to attack actualism and support his BEDS concept is actually very compatible with actualism. Oard (1997; 2009a,b; 2011) has a very inaccurate understanding of actualism and often uses invalid strawman arguments to attack it.

Table 1. Features in the Late Jurassic Morrison Formation are consistent with actualism, but not BEDS and other forms of Flood geology.

Paleosols and Implications for BEDS

Paleosols are ancient soils that have been buried deep enough that they are no longer influenced by soil-forming processes, such as climate, surface topography, and biological activity; that is, they are fossil soils. Although YECs Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 93) refer to this definition of a paleosol as being “unscientific”, Klevberg et al. (2009, pp. 94-95, 103) end up using this definition and they finally admit that some paleosols do exist. Except for admitting that some paleosols exist, Klevberg et al. (2009) frequently use inadequate and erroneous arguments against paleosols, completely misunderstand actualism or what they call the “Establishment Geologic Paradigm” (EGP), and join many other YECs in misrepresenting the nature of science. Rather than questioning their biblical interpretations, Klevberg et al. (2009) and most other YECs automatically reject sound scientific evidence for paleosols, slow soil formation and many other issues that conflict with young-Earth creationism. They then go shopping for excuses that might be compatible with their religious agenda. It should also be emphasized that Mr. Oard is a coauthor of Klevberg et al. (2009) and this work appears in Oard and Reed (2009).

Both field evidence and laboratory rate and leaching studies conclusively indicate that soils and paleosols form too slowly for a year-long Noah’s Flood and many of them cannot even fit within the 6,000 to 10,000 year age limit for the Earth under young-Earth creationism (Retallack 2001, chapter 13; Krauskopf and Bird 1995, pp. 274-289; Birkeland 1999, chapter 8; Gutierrez and Sheldon 2012). Paleosols may also contain fossil roots (e.g., Gutierrez and Sheldon 2012), which indicate that plants once grew on them. Plants are not going to sprout and grow on paleosols during the middle of Noah’s Flood, especially if the root-bearing paleosols occur at multiple levels at single locations in the geologic record.

By writing chapters on the topics, YECs Klevberg and Bandy (2009) and Klevberg et al. (2009) recognize that slow soil formation and the existence of paleosols in so-called Flood deposits are serious problems for their YEC beliefs. While Klevberg and Bandy (2009, p. 76) state that some soils will form over several decades or centuries, even Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 93) admit that soil formation is far too slow for a year-long Flood.

Klevberg and Bandy (2009) and Klevberg et al. (2009) attempt to eliminate the threats of soils and paleosols to their religious agenda by first using the old YEC canards that many paleosols are simply misinterpreted Flood sediments and that real science can’t answer questions about unwitnessed past events anyway. Hydrothermal solutions, volcanic acid rain, metamorphism, and igneous processes during or shortly after the Flood are also used by YECs to explain away soils and paleosols that won’t fit into their time demands (e.g., Klevberg and Bandy 2009, p. 86; Klevberg et al. 2009, pp. 102-103; Oard 2011, p. 128). None of these lame excuses work with the abundant paleosols in the Morrison and many other formations.

The Reality of Paleosols in the Morrison Formation

Paleosols are common in the Morrison Formation and include calcisols, gleysols, and histosols (Demko et al. 2004, pp. 115, 124; Jennings et al. 2011). The gleysols and histosols formed under wetter conditions, but still show evidence of seasonal dry periods (Demko et al. 2004, p. 124). The paleosols are often associated with ancient river and lake sediments (Demko et al. 2004, pp. 115, 116).

Paleosol Horizons

Soils consist of layers called horizons. YECs Klevberg et al. (2009, Table 1, p. 98) list the major soil horizons as O, A, E, B, C, and R from top to bottom in a typically soil profile. This order is generally correct, although Birkeland (1999, p. 5) states that E horizons (if present) may sometimes occur within the B horizon. Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 97) then correctly state:

“Paleosol horizons should assume a particular order if the strata actually represent a soil profile… [reference to table omitted]. Although some of the horizons could be missing, those present must appear in the correct order.” [my emphasis]

This statement clearly indicates that Mr. Klevberg, Mr. Bandy and Mr. Oard wouldn’t be too alarmed if a paleosol is missing some horizons, such as perhaps the B, E, or C. However, their reactions are totally different if the A horizon happens to be missing. Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 99) state that the A horizon is missing from most paleosols and they further claim that the identification of a paleosol is “suspect” if it lacks an A horizon. Oard (2011, pp. 127-128) also indicates that the “top organic layer” is missing from most paleosols, which would refer to the O horizon and the organic portion of the A horizon. Without the “top organic layer”, Oard (2011, pp. 127-128) believes that the presence of a paleosol cannot be “definitively proven.” Although the O and A horizons are very useful in identifying paleosols, contrary to Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 99) and Oard (2011, pp. 127-128), the absence of these horizons does not preclude the identification and characterization of a paleosol when other horizons and soil features are present (e.g., Jennings et al. 2011; Myers et al. 2012b). Furthermore, Demko et al. (2004, their Figure 6, p. 128) show that paleosols with A horizons, as well as B and some C horizons, occur at their field sites in the Morrison Formation, and Jennings et al. (2011, p. 31) studied paleosols with O, B and/or C horizons in the Morrison Formation of north central Wyoming. So, even if the accusations in Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 99) and Oard (2011, pp. 127-128) were right about the essential need for A and possibly O horizons to identify paleosols, YECs still have to explain the paleosols in the Morrison, Vega and other formations that have A and O horizons before they can begin to salvage their Flood geology scenarios.

Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 99) also refer to missing paleosol A horizons as “puzzling.” However, it’s not very mysterious. The O and A are usually the top horizons and they are often thin, which makes them most susceptible to erosion and microbial destruction before they can be buried and become paleosols (Retallack, 2001, pp. 52-53, 89). The organic-rich O horizon is susceptible to decomposition and erosion unless it forms as thick peat in a reducing (low O₂) wetland, where burial is favored over erosion and degradation. The O and A horizons of soils and paleosols from arid, semiarid and wet tropical areas are usually thin or underdeveloped and susceptible to destruction (Press and Siever 2001, pp. 134-136; Merritts et al. 1998, pp. 168-171). Except for local areas with streams or access to groundwater, plant growth is limited in arid and semiarid climates, and substantial O and organic-rich A horizons are unlikely to develop. Although wet, tropical areas tend to have lush vegetation, contrary to popular misconceptions, heavy precipitation and extensive biological activity prevent O and organic-rich A horizons from being well-developed in very wet, tropical soils, as well (Press and Siever 2001, pp. 134-136).

Besides identifying O, B and C horizons in paleosols in the Morrison Formation, Jennings et al. (2011, pp. 40, 42) found charcoal from wildfires in some O horizon sandstone lenses. Lightning-produced fires could easily occur in vegetation experiencing droughts and where storms would produce a lot of lightning, but not enough precipitation to extinguish fires. However, it is difficult to imagine that extensive charcoal could form from wildfires under the extremely wet conditions of Noah’s Flood even if there were plenty of lightning strikes and volcanism.

Semiarid Climates during the Deposition of the Morrison Formation

Although most studies indicate that the climate became wetter as the deposition of the Morrison Formation proceeded (Heller et al. 2015, p. 1468; Parrish et al. 2004), the climate was still generally semiarid with dry and wet seasons (Engelmann et al. 2004; Turner and Peterson 2004). Engelmann et al. (2004, pp. 298-299) reviewed the literature and summarized the evidence for semiarid climates during the deposition of the Morrison Formation, which includes: paleosols, which indicate 600 – 900 millimeters (mm) of annual precipitation (Retallack 1997); stable oxygen isotope measurements on carbonates and other samples; soil and lake carbonates, which have features that indicate seasonal drying; eolian sediments and alkaline lake deposits; and general atmospheric circulation modelling of the Jurassic paleogeography (Demko and Parrish 1998; Turner and Peterson 2004). Plant fossils are not widespread in the Morrison Formation. Even in areas of the formation with considerable plant fossils, plants do not necessarily indicate a wet climate, but may represent growth during wet seasons or along lakes or rivers that were fed by shallow groundwater or received water from distant sources (Engelmann et al. 2004, p. 299; Parrish et al. 2004). The plant fossils of the Morrison Formation are also almost entirely restricted to uncommon gray mudstones, which indicate local wetland environments (Engelmann et al. 2004, p. 305). In addition to the results in Retallack (1997), Myers et al. (2014) more recently investigated several properties of paleosols from the lower Morrison Formation of New Mexico and an upper part of the formation in Wyoming and Montana, and derived an estimate of 800 to 1,100 mm of annual precipitation for the depositional environments of those portions of the formation. Although 1,100 mm of annual precipitation may seem like a lot, it’s not if the precipitation was limited to a rainy season and if the annual amount of water lost to runoff or the atmosphere through evapotranspiration was very high.

The co-occurrence of carbonate and clay- and iron-rich layers in many of the Morrison Formation paleosols indicate alternating dry and wet seasons, where the properties of the carbonates indicate dry conditions and the clay- and iron-rich layers accumulated during wet periods (Demko et al. 2004, p. 125). Alternating dry and wet seasons or periodic droughts and wetter periods are entirely expected under actualism, but how could BEDS provide enough time for numerous paleosols to experience any dry conditions during the middle of Noah’s Flood?

Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 99) argue that groundwater may produce calcite-rich layers or that the layers may be deposited as sediments, all of which may be mistaken for paleosol horizons. However, it’s highly unlikely that thin sediments would just happen to stack in the right order and contain various structures that would resemble horizons in numerous situations. Unlike soils, by definition, accumulations of sediments do not have extensive in-situ roots, a consistently ordered set of interrelated and well-developed horizons, or other evidence of pedogenesis. That is, it’s highly improbable that sedimentological processes would consistently act to produce numerous clay, calcite, and organic deposits at different stratigraphic levels that just fortuitously happen to have the same order, mineralogy and chemistry as A, B and C horizons and other pedosol features.

Many modern soils and paleosols contain barite (barium sulfate, BaSO₄), including the paleosols and dried up lake deposits of the Morrison Formation (Jennings et al. 2011; Jennings et al. 2015, p. 1081). Because the mineral is extremely insoluble in water, very stable under diverse conditions and its stable isotope geochemistry is not strongly affected by diagenesis, the mineral can provide valuable information on environments, climate and microbial activity in soils and past conditions in paleosols (Jennings et al. 2015, pp. 1078, 1080). Barite nodules in paleosols show the presence of widespread semiarid climates during the deposition of the Morrison Formation in north-central Wyoming (Jennings et al. 2011). In a later article, Jennings et al. (2015) compares the properties of a barite-bearing paleosol from the Morrison Formation at Thermopolis, Wyoming, USA, with an analogous modern soil form south-central Texas. Stable isotope analyses indicate that the barite in the Morrison Formation samples formed from the oxidation and release of sulfur from organic matter (Jennings et al. 2015, pp. 1078, 1094). The barium originated from the weathering of feldspars and clays (Jennings et al. 2015, p. 1094). Because of the insolubility of feldspars, clays and other silicate minerals in acids and water, chemical weathering to release the small quantities of barium in these minerals is going to be very slow, even at elevated temperatures (Retallack 2001, chapter 13; Krauskopf and Bird 1995, pp. 274-289; Birkeland 1999, pp. 172-178). The properties of the barite-bearing paleosols indicate that they formed in a drying up lake bed on a stable land surface over an extended period of time (Jennings et al. 2015, p. 1081). Under the semiarid conditions, gypsum also expectedly precipitated (Jennings et al. 2015, p. 1081). Furthermore, the paleosols contain desiccation cracks, root traces and burrows (Jennings et al. 2015, p. 1086). When taken altogether, this diverse evidence indicates that these Morrison Formation paleosols formed under dry conditions, which are incompatible with Noah’s Flood.

YECs often attempt to claim that root fossils, desiccation cracks, and other features commonly found in paleosols and/or subaerial sediments actually formed from non-pedogenic and rapid processes during Noah’s Flood. As discussed above, Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 99) do this with calcite deposits. As another example, Whitmore (2009) takes this approach with desiccation cracks (mud cracks). In some circumstances, desiccation cracks, fossil roots, animal burrows, and other normally pedogenic features might have rapid and non-pedogenic origins when one or two of them are present in a sedimentary rock. However, when many or all of these traditional pedogenic and subaerial features are found in the same deposit along with several horizons, then YEC ad hocefforts to dismiss the deposit as an authentic pedosol just to protect their religious beliefs become totally unreasonable. If an animal has a bill like a duck, feathers like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and web feet like a duck, it’s not a duck-billed platypus and ducks are real. Similarly, if a sedimentary rock has burrows like a soil, roots structures like a soil, horizons like a soil, desiccation cracks like a soil, then it’s a paleosol and not a Flood deposit.

The Morrison Formation Paleosols are Sedimentary and not Hydrothermal, Metamorphic or Igneous

Oard (2011, p. 128) and other YECs argue that extensive acid rain from volcanic eruptions during Noah’s Flood can explain many paleosols. Although volcanic gas emissions may contain considerable hydrochloric and sulfuric acids (Krauskopf and Bird 1995, pp. 306, 494-498; Hall 1996, p. 28), they do not help the YEC agenda in Klevberg and Bandy (2009, p. 86) and Oard (2011, p. 128) to accelerate weathering and mimic soil or paleosol formation during or immediately after Noah’s Flood. YEC proclamations about extensive volcanism during Noah’s Flood are nothing more than groundless speculation along with their post-Flood ice age. The Bible doesn’t even mention any volcanism during the Flood. It’s clear from the context in Genesis that the supposed “fountains of the deep” released water and not lava. In order to find some way of fitting thick rocks and sediments into their biblical interpretations, YECs elaborately speculate by adding catastrophes to Genesis 6-9 that have no geological or biblical support.

While geologists recognize that volcanic glass may weather and form andisol soils in only decades or centuries (e.g., Retallack 2001, p. 73), feldspars and other crystalline silicates, which are the dominant parent materials of clay minerals in soils and paleosols, take a lot more time to weather to form B, C or other horizons (e.g., Retallack 2001, chapter 13; Krauskopf and Bird 1995, pp. 274-289; Birkeland 1999, pp. 172-178; Jennings et al. 2011; Gutierrez and Sheldon 2012). Although high precipitation, increased temperatures, more organic acids and higher soil carbon dioxide levels would enhance the chemical weathering of silicate minerals in a soil, laboratory studies and field measurements still indicate that the dissolution of silicate minerals from chemical weathering is going to be extremely slow (Birkeland 1999, pp. 172-178; Krauskopf and Bird 1995, pp. 277-289). This situation creates severe problems for YECs when they have to explain how a paleosol with both clay- and calcite-rich horizons could rapidly form during Noah’s Flood. If volcanic acid rain during Noah’s Flood is proposed as an explanation for the formation of the clay minerals, even simple laboratory tests confirm that calcite would immediately dissolve in a variety of acids at different concentrations before feldspars and most other silicate minerals are even affected. Figure 1 shows potassium feldspar (KAlSi₃O₈) grains that were immersed in concentrated sulfuric and hydrochloric acids for 151 days at ambient temperatures, one day beyond the maximum length of time for the BEDS scenario in Oard (2011). The feldspars lost less than 1% of their mass and were not visibly affected.

As an additional experiment, another group of fresh potassium feldspar grains were immersed in a solution containing 1 weight percent (wt%) sulfuric acid and 1 wt% hydrochloric acid in deionized water (Figure 2). Note! For safety reasons, different acids should be carefully and substantially diluted in water before mixing. DO NOT MIX CONCENTRATED ACIDS! Nevertheless, even at 1 wt% of each acid, the pH of the solution is still below 2, whereas most natural waters have pH values of 4 and above (Eby 2004, p. 62). After 150 days, the feldspars were washed in distilled water, air dried, weighed and photographed (Figure 2). Once more, none of the masses of the feldspar grains changed by more than 1%.

Oard (2011, p. 125) also speculates that volcanic acids may have slightly weathered some dinosaur bones before they were soon buried by the Flood, but he admits that many dinosaur bones show very little weathering. So, how could volcanic, hydrothermal, or other acidic solutions produce paleosols in the Morrison Formation and leave associated dinosaur bones and calcite deposits unaffected (e.g., Jennings and Hasiotis 2006; Jennings et al. 2011)?

Figure 1a. Potassium feldspar (KAlSi₃O₈) before (left) and after (right) 151 days of immersion in concentrated sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄) at room temperature. No changes are noticeable. The feldspars lost less than 1% of their mass in the acid. The scale is in centimeters.

Figure 1b. Potassium feldspar (KAlSi₃O₈) before (left) and after (right) 151 days of immersion in concentrated hydrochloric acid (HCl) at room temperature. No changes are noticeable. The feldspars lost less than 1% of their mass in the acid. The scale is in centimeters.

Figure 2. Potassium feldspar (KAlSi₃O₈) before (left) and after (right) immersed in 1 weight percent (1 wt%) sulfuric and 1 wt% hydrochloric acids. One feldspar grain was cracked before immersion and broke apart during the study, but otherwise the grains were unaffected. The scale is in centimeters.

Now, YECs might speculate that physical weathering from violent Flood waters could produce a lot of fine-grained materials with high and very reactive surface areas. They might also speculate that acids from high-temperature hydrothermal solutions could react with these fine-grained materials to produce clays. The clay minerals would then be transported over long distances and deposited with calcite under alkaline conditions to produce a Flood sediment that resembles a paleosol. However, as discussed elsewhere in this essay, what is the probability that Flood sediments could repeatedly produce features scattered throughout the sedimentary rock record that just happen to resemble the B, C and other horizons of a paleosol along with many other features that perfectly duplicate fossil roots, burrows, desiccation cracks and other features found in paleosols? How can a Flood deposit have both unmistakable in-situ weathering deposits of clay in a C horizon and calcite deposits with clays in the B horizon? Where is the experimental data that YECs need to demonstrate that fine-grained feldspars and other silicate minerals will react in acid solutions at high temperatures to form abundant clay minerals in a brief amount of time?

Hydrofluoric acid (HF) will readily dissolve silicate minerals. However, this acid is not a major component in volcanic emissions (Krauskopf and Bird 1995, pp. 494-498). Also, in the presence of hydrofluoric acid, calcite would convert to fluorite (CaF₂). Although fluoride from groundwater may accumulate in buried bones over time (Patrick et al. 2007), the presence of abundant calcite and the general lack of abundant fluorite and other fluoride-bearing minerals in sedimentary paleosols are further indications of the absence of hydrofluoric acid or other fluoride fluids. So, YECs totally lack a chemical mechanism for rapidly converting feldspars and other silicate minerals into the clay minerals that are typically abundant in paleosols, especially when dinosaur bones, eggs and calcite deposits are also present.

Oard (2011, p. 128) and Klevberg et al. (2009, pp. 99-100, 102) often invoke hydrothermal (hot water) solutions associated with diagenesis, metamorphism or magmas to explain how Flood sediments could resemble paleosols. Diagenesis or “lithification” typically occurs at temperatures below 200^oC (Retallack 2001, p. 88) and refers to the burial, compaction and groundwater interactions that transform sediments into sedimentary rocks and soils into paleosols. Diagenesis often occurs at depths of several kilometers. In contrast to diagenesis and the formation of sedimentary rocks, metamorphism usually occurs at temperatures above about 200^oC (Retallack 2001, p. 88). By definition, metamorphism does not involve melting, which typically begins at 650-1000^oC depending on the rock type, pressure and the amount of water. Because of higher temperatures and pressures, and especially in the presence of water and other fluids, metamorphic minerals are more diverse and very distinctive from minerals that form in sediments and sedimentary rocks. Typical metamorphic minerals include: biotite, amphiboles, chloritoid, sillimanite, andalusite, garnet, talc, and pyroxenes and even olivines at very high temperatures just short of melting. These minerals simply did not form in the paleosols of the Morrison Formation and other sedimentary rocks. Furthermore, as indicated by Goldich’s weathering series for analogous igneous minerals, most metamorphic minerals should at least noticeably weather if they were eroded from metamorphic rocks and incorporated into sediments and soils.

The temperature range of hydrothermal fluids (hot waters) is usually 50-600^oC ­­­­­­­­­­(Klein 2002, p. 353). Hydrothermal solutions can result from:

1) Surface precipitation (meteoric water) or seawater infiltrating deep into the subsurface and being heated by magmas.

2) Fluids expelled from magmas,

3) Ancient seawater (connate water) trapped in and possibly altered by deep sediments and sedimentary rocks or

4) Water being expelled from rocks during metamorphism (Krauskopf and Bird 1995, pp. 502-503, 521-523).

Interactions between hydrothermal waters and their host rocks can greatly change the chemistry of the waters and the rocks. Unlike near-surface groundwaters and surface waters, hydrothermal waters are often enriched in unusual elements (such as lead, copper, zinc, gold and silver) and the concentrations may be high enough to produce ore deposits (Krauskopf and Bird 1995, chapter 19). Geologists fully recognize that hydrothermal solutions are capable of producing layers or other features that resemble paleosols and they do look for evidence of hydrothermal activity and other post-burial alterations when studying paleosols (e.g., Jennings et al. 2011, p. 41; Gutierrez and Sheldon 2012). However, paleosol features can be distinguished from diagenetic, hydrothermal, metamorphic and igneous features on the basis of their chemistry, mineralogy, and textures. For example, large differences in stable isotope results between dinosaur remains and surrounding sediments can rule out substantial diagenetic alteration (Bojar et al. 2010). That is, diagenetic reactions would tend to equalize isotope results in adjacent materials. Also, the mineralogy of the sediments can rule out diagenetic, hydrothermal, metamorphic, and igneous processes (Jennings et al. 2011, p. 41). For example, hydrothermal solutions produce minerals, such as primary tourmaline and epidote, which are not present in sedimentary paleosols or other sedimentary rocks.

In an attempt to demonstrate that hydrothermal solutions and other subsurface processes can produce features that have been misidentified as paleosols, Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 99) cites Palmer et al. (1989) as stating that “many” paleosols are better explained by hydrothermal processes or metamorphism. However, Palmer et al. (1989) were not discussing paleosols in general as Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 99) indicate, but highly altered Precambrian “paleosols” with distinctive metamorphic and hydrothermal minerals, such as tourmaline and chloritoid. The mineralogy and textures of these Precambrian rocks do not resemble the paleosols typically found in the Morrison Formation or other sedimentary rocks. Once more, YECs are exaggerating problems by citing irrelevant examples from the literature that don’t apply to most Phanerozoic paleosols.

In the Morrison Formation, Jennings et al. (2011, p. 41) found no evidence of hydrothermal deposits in their organic- and volcanic ash-rich paleosols. Furthermore, carbonate and gypsum pseudomorphs indicate pedogenesis (soil formation) and excessive evaporation (Jennings et al. 2011, p. 32). For example, length-slow quartz within some of the paleosols indicate evaporation, and fluid inclusions in the quartz grains show that the grains precipitated under shallow and low temperature conditions (Jennings et al. 2011, pp. 41-42). So, YECs cannot invoke extensive subsurface diagenesis and hydrothermal conditions to explain the origins of these rocks.

So, simply invoking hydrothermal fluids, diagenesis, metamorphism, and igneous activity cannot help YECs to explain away most of the paleosols in the sedimentary record. If Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 102), Oard (2011) and other YECs want to explain away the large number of paleosols in geologic record, then they need to produce definitive mineralogical, textural, isotopic, structural, and other evidence to support their claims. For example, if they want to claim that hydrothermal solutions were responsible for a sample and that it is not a paleosol, what was the likely temperature range of these solutions? Where are the copper, zinc, gold, silver, chloritoid, tourmaline, fluorite and other mineralogical and chemical evidence of hydrothermal alteration? The evidence that they desire is simply not in the Morrison Formation.

In-situ Roots, Burrows, and other Soil Structures

When it comes to soil structures, such as burrows, fossil roots, and peds (soil aggregates), Klevberg et al. (2009, p. 100) attempt to dismiss their importance in paleosols by claiming that they are either hard to identify because of diagenesis or they can form in rapidly deposited sediments. Other YECs might argue that mineral fillings in sedimentary rock fractures or other inorganic features may be misidentified as fossil roots. However, many soil structures, such as fossil roots, simply cannot be waved out of existence to protect YEC interpretations of Genesis. Because in-situ root fossils indicate slow plant growth in multiple paleosols in the middle of so-called Flood deposits, YECs are desperate to explain away their existence. However, indisputable fossil roots and associated evidence occur in many locations in the Morrison Formation and they are consistent with other evidence supporting the presence of paleosols (e.g., Hasiotis and Demko 1998; Demko et al. 2004; Parrish et al. 2004; Jennings et al. 2011; Jennings et al. 2015). For example, Hasiotis and Demko (1998, pp. 469-471) described in-place roots in Morrison Formation sandstones at Felch Quarry #1 in Colorado, USA. The structures and fine-grained filaments in the features confirmed that they were roots associated with Jurassic woody plants (Hasiotis and Demko 1998, p. 471). As further discussed below, Bader et al. (2009, pp. 152, 155-156) identified etchings from ancient growing roots that formed on shallow-buried dinosaur bones in the Morrison Formation, and these etchings are distinguishable from modern root markings. In the Upper Jurassic Vega Formation, Asturias, Spain, Gutierrez and Shelton (2012, p. 602) also found deeply penetrating submillimeter to millimeter fossil roots within the A horizons of the vertisol paleosols.

Klevberg et al. (2009, pp. 97-99) have suggested that fossil roots may actually be root fragments transported and buried in upright positions rather than in their growth positions. While soupy mud flows might fortuitously redeposit uprooted plants upright in a growth-like position, the millimeter or submillimeter roots in the Spanish vertisols described in Gutierrez and Shelton (2012, p. 602) and the Morrison Formation examples described in Hasiotis and Demko (1998) would not have been transported and deposited in a nice laid out and generally downward and branching fashion like they were in their growth positions. Try jamming a stringy root that is a millimeter thick and 30 centimeters long straight down into soupy mud. Transported and redeposited roots would tend to be noticeably broken, folded, tangled, twisted and wadded up. The Morrison Formation and Spanish specimens are clearly in-place roots that took time to grow on ancient soils; time that BEDS and other Flood geology agendas can’t afford.

Gypsum and Other Salt Deposits are Incompatible with BEDS

Evaporites refer to gypsum (CaSO₄•2H₂O), halite (NaCl) and other salts that typically precipitate from seawater or alkaline lake water because of solar energy and time. Salts may also result from lowering water tables and the desiccation of sediments, rocks and soil horizons. Calcite is another mineral that commonly forms in evaporites, as well as a wide variety of other rocks, sediments and soils. Besides chemically precipitating, biological organisms also excrete calcite for their shells or other hard parts. As shown in some caves and pipes with hard water, calcite precipitation may be very rapid. Anhydrite and a few other salts sometimes occur in hydrothermal and metamorphic deposits, and rarely as primary minerals in igneous rocks (Luhr 2008).

Anhydrite (CaSO₄) and gypsum are moderately soluble in water, and calcite is soluble under acidic conditions. In contrast, halite and most other chloride salts are very soluble in water. Of course, the presence of water-soluble salts in the sedimentary rocks create serious problems for Flood geology because their formation and existence are incompatible with the intense, brief, and wet conditions of Noah’s Flood. So, YECs attempt to argue that these salt deposits had a rapid magmatic-volcanic or hydrothermal origin during Noah’s Flood rather than quietly forming from the evaporation of seawater under hot and dry surface conditions (Snelling 2009a, pp. 680, 699-700, 937-944).

Examples of hydrothermal halite are extremely rare, but the mineral is common in sedimentary rocks. Although anhydrite, calcite and a few other salts are known to form in igneous, metamorphic and hydrothermal deposits, there are stark differences in their trace element chemistry and the mineralogy of their host rocks when compared with salts in sedimentary rocks. For example, salts from hydrothermal and volcanic deposits are known to have lithium, boron and other unusual trace elements (Krauskopf and Bird 1995, pp. 370, 497; Warren 1997). Because of the presence of trace elements, hydrothermal anhydrite may be bright purple or green. In contrast, anhydrite and associated gypsum in massive salt deposits lack these trace elements and are typically white or light gray, and more closely resemble the white 98%+ pure anhydrite powders that are sold by chemical manufacturers.

As expected, igneous, metamorphic and hydrothermal salts will associate with other igneous, metamorphic and hydrothermal minerals that form under the same temperature, pressure and other environmental conditions. Sulfur, oxygen and other stable isotopes could also be used to distinguish evaporative from hydrothermal, metamorphic and any igneous forms of anhydrite and other salts (e.g., Muramatsu et al. 2011; Alt et al. 2010; Warren 2000). The Morrison, Castile, and other salt-bearing sedimentary formations simply show no evidence of hydrothermal, metamorphic or igneous alterations. The diagenesis of these rocks were cool (well below 200^o) and not metamorphic or igneous. The dehydration of gypsum to anhydrite also indicates that diagenetic conditions were dry. The best explanation is that the salts in these sedimentary rocks formed from evaporation because of solar heating over time, which are totally incompatible with Noah’s Flood and BEDS. Whether than looking at obscure igneous, metamorphic and hydrothermal processes to explain salt deposits in obvious sedimentary rocks, YECs need to rethink their interpretations of Genesis.

The base of the Morrison Formation in the San Rafael Swell of Utah consists of mature gypsisols and calcisols on the unconformable, underlying Middle Jurassic Summerville Formation (Demko et al. 2004, p. 126). These paleosols obviously formed on a surface of erosion that developed on the top of the Summerville Formation during the Jurassic period. The gypsisol consists of gypsum layers (By horizons) that are up to 4-meter thick (Demko et al. 2004, p. 126). Besides being moderately soluble in water, gypsum is very soft and would not withstand catastrophic erosion. So, how could gypsum-rich deposits form during Noah’s Flood? They require quiet environments and evaporation. If these thick gypsum layers did not form from slow evaporation, what was the heat source? Why did the heat source not leave any evidence of hydrothermal solutions, metamorphism or igneous activity? How could gypsum layers rapidly form under BEDS and not dissolve or break apart?

Scavenging Insects

Oard (2011, p. 76) cites Bader et al. (2009) and mentions that ancient insects scavenged dinosaur bones. However, Oard (2011, p. 76) fails to properly discuss the serious and fatal ramifications that the evidence in Bader et al. (2009) has on his BEDS agenda. Bader et al. (2009) investigated pits and other markings on sauropod skeletons from the Morrison Formation of northeastern Wyoming. Some of the markings on the bones indicate that the animal carcasses dried out before necrophagous arthropods (scavenging insects) produced the pits and other small trace marks on the bones (Bader et al., 2009, p. 154). Considering the arrangements and conditions of the bones, Bader et al. (2009, p. 154) argue that none of these dinosaurs died in a catastrophic flood, which refutes Flood geology. Death from drought was the most likely cause (Bader et al. 2009, p. 154). Although BEDS hypothetically allows some areas inhabited by dinosaurs to remain above water for up to several months during Noah’s Flood, even a Flood of 371 days at this one location is not enough time for the following sequence of events: 1) the deposition of thousands of meters of sediment before the deposition of the Morrison Formation, 2) dinosaurs dying from an extensive drought supposedly during the middle of Noah’s Flood, 3) drying out of the carcasses, 4) one or more generations of insects feeding on the carcasses for weeks to months, 5) burial of the remains, 6) plant growth and the roots etching the shallow buried bones, 7) additional sediment deposition, and 8) burial and diagenesis of the sediments to sedimentary rocks. Just this one site alone contains ample evidence that destroys BEDS and other YEC Flood geology scenarios.

Mysterious Large Structures

Figure 23A of Hasiotis (2004, p. 222) shows huge columnar structures in the Morrison Formation at Navajo Church, New Mexico, USA. (The figure is also at Joe Meert’s website (http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm, scroll down to the last photograph.) Hasiotis (2004) claims that the features are “termite nests.” However, Bromley et al. (2007) dispute the conclusions in Hasiotis (2004) and convincingly argue that these gigantic features are rhizoliths or palaeorhizospheres, which are mounds of exposed ancient plant roots. Whether the features are mounds of plant roots or termite nests, the location of these gigantic features upright in the middle of the geologic record and the time that they would have taken to form greatly exceeds the 150-day time limit of BEDS and are also incompatible with a year-long Flood.

Eolian Sandstones

Eolian sandstones occur in several members of the Morrison Formation (Demko and Parrish 1998, p. 290; Demko et al. 2004, p. 123). These sandstones are ancient wind-blown deposits, whose structures and other properties are distinct from water-lain sandstones. The eolian sandstones are associated with major fluvial (river) deposits and would have formed in dry river beds. The paleowind directions of the sandstones are consistent with general wind circulation models based on Late Jurassic paleogeography (Demko and Parrish 1998, pp. 285-290). This is additional evidence that indicates periodic dry conditions, which are totally inconsistent with Noah’s Flood and BEDS.

Dinosaurs and Dry Paleoclimates

While Oard (2011, p. 39, 62) scoffs at the idea of large dinosaurs having enough food to live in dry climates, Engelmann et al. (2004) and Turner and Peterson (2004) argue that the large dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation were well adapted to a semiarid climate with wet and dry seasons. During droughts and dry seasons, the larger dinosaurs were better able to survive on poorer and less food relative to body size than smaller herbivore dinosaurs (Engelmann et al. 2004, p. 297). Larger dinosaurs could also travel more efficiently over longer distances without food to reach remote areas with food (Engelmann et al. 2004, pp. 300-304). Of course, this adaptation had limits, as indicated by several cases of mass mortalities of Morrison Formation dinosaurs from prolonged droughts.

There are several examples in the Morrison Formation of dinosaurs dying from droughts rather than floods or the supposed Flood. For example, Richmond and Morris (1998) investigated a fossil assemblage of thousands of dinosaur bones in the Dry Mesa Dinosaur Quarry, Morrison Formation, Mesa County, Colorado, USA. Based on the diversity of the animal remains, the conditions of their fossils and the sediments of Jurassic Lake T’oo’dichi, Richmond and Morris (1998, pp. 121, 138-139) concluded that the animals were attracted to the remaining water holes left from the drying up lake, where they eventually died of thirst and hunger. The dead remains were then transported over a short distance and buried by a flash flood on the lake plain. In another blatant example of omitting critical details from his citations that refute his YEC agenda, Oard (2011, pp. 59, 74) references Richmond and Morris (1998), mentions the dinosaur graveyard and evidence of a flash flood in the geologic record at the Dry Mesa Quarry, Colorado, USA, but he fails to state that Richmond and Morris (1998) concluded that it was a drought that killed these dinosaurs and that the flash flood was post-mortem.

In another example of dinosaurs killed by droughts rather than floods or the Flood, Myers and Storrs (2007) investigated sauropod dinosaur remains in the Mother’s Day Quarry, Morrison Formation, south-central Montana, USA. The dominant presence of juveniles, the preservation of the remains, and the inferred sequence of limb disarticulation indicate that these dinosaurs died from a drought (Myers and Storrs 2007, p. 662). The presence of clay ripped up clasts, soft-tissue structures and the orientations of the bones indicate that high-energy water-sediment flows buried the remains shortly after death and that trampling of the remains occurred after burial (Myers and Storrs 2007, pp. 651, 664).

Abundant Evidence of “Poorly” Swimming Stegosaurs in the Morrison Formation

Probably because of their bulky body structures, Oard (2011, pp. 93, 122) identifies stegosaur dinosaurs as “poor swimmers.” Oard (2011, pp. 93, 122) believes that the absence of stegosaur footprints in the geologic record indicates that these dinosaurs drowned early in the Flood and were unable to leave large numbers of tracks on BEDS. However, the footprints and other remains of a number of stegosaurs have been found in Utah (Bilbey 1998), the Morrison Formation of the Rocky Mountain states (Christiansen and Tschopp 2010; Foster 2013), China (Xing et al. 2015), Europe (Foster 2013, p. 2), Tanzania (Redelstorff et al. 2013), Argentina (Pereda-Suberbiola et al. 2013), and in other locations across the globe. While stressing the rarity of stegosaur tracks and other fossils in the Mesozoic record, Oard (2011, pp. 93, 122) fails to explain why absolutely no evidence of these “poor swimming” stegosaurs has ever been found in a Paleozoic, Cenozoic or Precambrian sedimentary rock. Although actualism preserved relatively few stegosaur remains in the geologic record, Flood geology fails to provide any evidence of them existing when Paleozoic and other non-Mesozoic sediments were deposited.

The Stegosaurus is the state of fossil of Colorado. The footprints and other remains of various stegosaurs have been found in a number of locations in the Morrison Formation of Colorado and surrounding states (Milán and Chiappe 2009; Lockley et al. 2015, p. 10; Christiansen and Tschopp 2010; Foster 2013; Saitta 2015; Bilbey 1998). Foster (2013) states that many of the stegosaurs in the Morrison Formation were found in channel deposits. Counts on the number of stegosaurs in the formation are difficult to estimate because the fossils are usually fragmentary. With these limitations in mind, Foster (2013, pp. 2, 4) estimated the minimum number of individual stegosaurs discovered to date in the Morrison Formation at about 100. In another census, Saitta (2015) describes at least five stegosaurs in just one horizon in the Morrison Formation of Montana.

The presence of any tracks or other evidence of stegosaurs or other dinosaurs that Oard (2011) labels as “poor swimming” creates fatal problems for his BEDS proposal. Whether the stegosaurs were alive in the BEDS scenario or whether their carcasses floated or sank, how did all of them end up in the middle of Mesozoic deposits and why isn’t there any evidence that even one of them was buried in earlier (Paleozoic) or later Flood (Late Cretaceous) deposits? Where did these stegosaurs or other poor swimming dinosaurs take refuge during the early Flood before the Morrison Formation was deposited? Why wasn’t even one of these stegosaur carcasses washed into Late Cretaceous BEDS?

Geologists have searched the globe looking for various fossils as part of petroleum exploration, geologic mapping and other research projects. Yet, with all of this exploration, not one stegosaur fossil has been found outside of fossil assemblages identified as Jurassic to Early Cretaceous. In an attempt to save his BEDS agenda, Mr. Oard has no choice but to embrace the far-fetched and irrational argument that all stegosaur carcasses around the globe just happened to have been buried on BEDS with other dinosaurs and other mid-Mesozoic organisms. Why wasn’t at least one stegosaur buried with the fossils of elephants, camels, or other large mammals that are also found across the globe? Why weren’t any stegosaurs buried in Pennsylvanian coal beds or in the vast deposits of the Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone in the US? If these dinosaurs could not swim, how were every known stegosaur and all other poor-swimming dinosaurs just lucky enough to find large vegetation mats that could support their weights and prevent them from dying and being buried in Triassic and earlier sediments?

Although the idea of large mats of vegetation or “floating forests” before and during Noah’s Flood are popular with Oard (2011), Snelling (2009a, p. 962), Wise (2002, pp. 171-172), and many other YECs, YEC Clarey (2015a; 2015b) persuasively argues against the existence of numerous and large floating forests during Noah’s Flood. Clarey (2015a) argues that: 1) massive floating forests would not have been able to maintain suitably large enough freshwater lens to support plant life; 2) tsunamis and other early Flood catastrophes would have broken up the floating forests and the resulting coal beds would have been distributed throughout the Paleozoic record and not just limited to the Carboniferous and later deposits as observed in the actual record; and 3) the floating forest claim is inconsistent with the distribution of coals in the geologic record along the Atlantic coasts. So, BEDS fails to explain the fossil record of numerous stegosaurs in the Morrison Formation and other “middle Flood deposits” around the globe.

Juvenile Dinosaurs are Inconsistent with BEDS

Although the BEDS scenario of healthy adult dinosaurs swimming or floating through a worldwide 40-day downpour, rising flood waters, meteorite impacts, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis without leaving any evidence behind in Paleozoic rocks is far-fetched enough and unbelievable, the situation becomes even more ridiculous when weak hatchling and juvenile dinosaurs are expected to survive this deluge so that they can be buried with their elders in the same the sediments in the middle of the sedimentary record. While Oard (2011, p. 122) wants to argue that BEDS explains why there are few tracks and other remains of babies and juvenile dinosaurs in the geologic record, the tracks and other remains of young dinosaurs are not as rare as Oard (2011) wants to believe. For example, Jennings and Hasiotis (2006) used high resolution GIS methods to investigate the remains of a juvenile Camarasaurus in the Morrison Formation, southern Bighorn Basin, Wyoming, USA. The presence of about 2:1 juvenile to adult shed teeth among the 101 specimens indicates that one or two adult and several juvenile theropods (probably allosaurids) fed on the carcass (Jennings and Hasiotis 2006, p. 480). The feeding took place in less than one meter deep water, and the remains of the partially eaten Camarasaurus were later quickly buried and preserved (Jennings and Hasiotis 2006, pp. 487-488). The condition of the Camarasaurus remains suggests that the animal was scavenged and not the theropods’ kill (Jennings and Hasiotis 2006, p. 488). Dinosaur tracks were also found on three levels at the Morrison Formation site studied by Jennings and Hasiotis (2006) and most of the shallow tracks were probably made by juvenile sauropods (Jennings and Hasiotis 2006, p. 483). It is highly unlikely that groups of juvenile dinosaurs would survive the YEC version of Noah’s Flood long enough to feed or walk on different layers of sediment, even under the BEDS scenario. Again, where were all of these dinosaurs hiding as the underlying Paleozoic sediments were deposited in the region? How did these dinosaurs survive the first “40 days of the Flood”? If the Camarasaurus was killed in the first 40 days of the Flood, why did its carcass just happen to get buried in the Morrison Formation with other dinosaur remains rather than in the underlying Paleozoic sediments? BEDS fails to answer these and many other critical questions. When faced with the abundant evidence of dry climates and long-term events in the Morrison Formation and elsewhere in the geologic record, YECs tend to ignore the evidence and blindly embrace their distorted and imaginary versions of the Flood.

References

Alt, J.C., C. Laverne, R.M. Coggon, D.A.H. Teagle, N.R. Banerjee, S. Morgan, C. E. Smith-Duque, M. Harris, and L. Galli. 2010. “Subsurface Structure of a Submarine Hydrothermal System in Ocean Crust Formed at the East Pacific Rise, ODP/IODP Site 1256”, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 11, n. 10, 28pp, doi: 10.1029/2010GC003144.

Bader, K.S., S.T. Hasiotis, and L.D. Martin. 2009. “Applications of Forensic Science Techniques to Trace Fossils on Dinosaur Bones from a Quarry in the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation, northeastern Wyoming”, Palaios, v. 24, n. 3, pp. 140-158.

Bilbey, S.A. 1998. “Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry – Age, Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments”, Modern Geology, v. 22, pp. 87-120.

Birkeland, P.W, 1999, Soils and Geomorphology, 3^rd ed., Oxford University Press: New York, 430pp.

Bojar, A.-V., Z. Csiki, and D. Grigorescu. 2010. “Stable Isotope Distribution in Maastrichtian Vertebrates and Paleosols from the Haţeg Basin, South Carpathians”, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 293, pp. 329-342.

Bromley, R.G., L.A. Buatois, J.F. Genise, C.C. Labandeira, M.G. Mángano, R.N. Melchor, M. Schlirf, and A. Uchman. 2007. “Comments on the Paper ‘Reconnaissance of Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation Ichnofossils, Rocky Mountain Region, USA: Paleoenvironmental, Stratigraphic, and Paleoclimatic Significance of Terrestrial and Freshwater Ichnocoenoses’ by Stephen T. Hasiotis”, Sedimentary Geology, v. 200, pp. 141-150.

Christiansen, N.A. and E. Tschopp. 2010. “Exceptional Stegosaur Integument Impressions from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Wyoming”, Swiss Journal of Geosciences, v. 103, pp. 163-171.

Clarey, T.L. 2015a. “Examining the Floating Forest Hypothesis: A Geological Perspective”, Journal of Creation, v. 29, n. 3, pp. 50-55.

Clarey, T.L. 2015b. “A Geological Critique of the Floating-Forest Hypothesis”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 52, n.1, p. 53.

Demko, T.M. and J.T. Parrish. 1998. “Paleoclimatic Setting of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation”, Modern Geology, v. 22, pp. 283-296.

Demko, T.M., B.S. Currie, and K.A. Nicoll. 2004. “Regional Paleoclimatic and Stratigraphic Implications of Paleosols and Fluvial/overbank Architecture in the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic), Western Interior, USA”, Sedimentary Geology, v. 167, pp. 115-135.

Eby, G.N. 2004. Principles of Environmental Chemistry, Thomson: Brooks/Cole: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 514pp.

Englemann, G.F., D.J. Chure, and A.R. Fiorillo. 2004. “The Implications of a Dry Climate for the Paleoecology of the Fauna of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation”, Sedimentary Geology, v. 147, pp. 297-308.

Foster, J.R. 2013. “Ecological Segregation of the Late Jurassic Stegosaurian and Iguanodontian Dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation in North America: Pronounced or Subtle?”, Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology, v. 10, n. 3, pp. 1-11.

Gutierrez, K. and N.D. Sheldon. 2012. “Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction of Jurassic Dinosaur Habitats of the Vega Formation, Asturias, Spain”, GSA Bulletin, v. 124, n. 3-4, pp. 596-610.

Hall, A. 1996. Igneous Petrology, 2^nd ed., Longman: Harlow, England, 551pp.

Hasiotis, S.T. and T.M. Demko. 1998. “Ichnofossils from Garden Park Paleontological Area, Colorado: Implications for Paleoecologic and Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of the Upper Jurassic”, Modern Geology, v. 22, pp. 461-479.

Hasiotis, S.T. 2004. “Reconnaissance of Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation Ichnofossils, Rocky Mountain Region, USA: Paleoenvironmental, Stratigraphic, and Paleoclimatic Significance of Terrestrial and Freshwater Ichnocoenoses”, Sedimentary Geology, v. 167, pp. 177-268.

Heller, P.L., D. Ratigan, S. Trampush, A. Noda, B. McElroy, J. Drever, and S. Huzurbazar. 2015. “Origins of Bimodal Stratigraphy in Fluvial Deposits: An Example from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic), Western U.S.A.”, Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 85, pp. 1466-1477.

Jennings, D.S. and S.T. Hasiotis. 2006. “Taphonomic Analysis of a Dinosaur Feeding Site Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Morrison Formation, Southern Bighorn Basin, Wyoming, USA”, Palaios, v. 21, pp. 480-492.

Jennings, D.S., D.M. Lovelace, and S.G. Driese. 2011. “Differentiating Paleowetland Subenvironments Using a Multi-disciplinary Approach: An Example from the Morrison Formation, South Central Wyoming, USA”, Sedimentary Geology, v. 238, pp. 23-47.

Jennings, D.S., S.G. Driese, and S.I. Dworkin. 2015. “Comparison of Modern and Ancient Barite-bearing Acid-sulfate Soils Using Micromorphology, Geochemistry and Field Relationship”, Sedimentology, v. 62, pp. 1078-1099.

Klein, C. 2002. Mineral Science, 22^nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, 642pp.

Klevberg, P. and R. Bandy. 2009. “Do Soils Indicate Long Ages?”, chapter 5 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. 63-92.

Klevberg, P., R. Bandy, and M.J. Oard. 2009. “Do Paleosols Indicate Long Ages?”, chapter 6 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. 93-110.

Krauskopf, K.B. and D. K. Bird. 1995. Introduction to Geochemistry, 3^rd edition, McGraw-Hill: Boston, 647pp.

Lockley, M.G., R.T. McCrea, and L.G. Buckley. 2015. “A Review of Dinosaur Track Occurrences from the Morrison Formation in the Type Area around Dinosaur Ridge”, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 433, pp. 10-19.

Luhr, J.F. 2008. “Primary Igneous Anhydrite: Progress since its Recognition in the 1982 El Chichón Trachyandesite”, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 175, n. 4, pp. 394-407.

Merritts, D., A. De Wet and K. Menking. 1998. Environmental Geology: An Earth System Science Approach, W.H. Freeman and Company: New York., 452pp.

Milán, J. and L.M. Chiappe. 2009. “First American Record of the Jurassic Ichnospecies Deltapodus brodricki and a Review of the Fossil Record of Stegosaurian Footprints”, Journal of Geology, v. 117, pp. 343-348.

Muramatsu, Y., Y. Nakamura, J. Sasaki, and A. Waseda. 2011. “Hydrochemistry of the Groundwaters in the Izu Collision Zone and its Adjacent Eastern Area, Central Japan”, Geochemical Journal, v. 45, pp. 309-321.

Myers, T.S. and G.W. Storrs. 2007. “Taphonomy of the Mother’s Day Quarry, Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation, South-Central Montana, USA” Palaios, v. 22, n. 6, pp. 651-666.

Myers, T.S., N.J. Tabor, L.L. Jacobs, and O. Mateus. 2012a. “Estimating soil pCO₂ Using Paleosol Carbonates: Implications for the Relationship between Primary Productivity and Faunal Richness in Ancient Terrestrial Ecosystems”, Paleobiology, v. 38, n. 4, pp. 585-604.

Myers, T.S., N.J. Tabor, L.L. Jacobs, and O. Mateus. 2012b. “Palaeoclimate of the Late Jurassic of Portugal: Comparison with the Western United States”, Sedimentology, v. 59, pp. 1695-1717.

Myers, T.S., N.J. Tabor, and N.A. Roesnau. 2014. “Multiproxy Approach Reveals Evidence of Highly Variable Paleoprecipitation in the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation (western United States”, GSA Bulletin, v. 126, n. 7-8, pp. 1105-1116.

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. 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. 2011. Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries: How the Genesis Flood makes Sense of Dinosaur Evidence including Tracks, Nests, Eggs, and Scavenged Bones, Creation Book Publishers: Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 175pp.

Oard, M.J. 2016a. “Argentina Egg Site Supports BEDS Model”, Journal of Creation, v. 30, n. 1, pp. 6-8.

Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 272pp.

Palmer, J.A., G.N. Phillips, and T.S. McCarthy. 1989. “Paleosols and their Relevance to Precambrian Atmospheric Composition”, Journal of Geology, v. 97, pp. 77-92.

Parrish, J.T., F. Peterson, and C.E. Turner. 2004. “Jurassic ‘Savannah’- Plant Taphonomy and Climate of the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic, Western USA)”, Sedimentary Geology, v. 167, pp. 137-162.

Patrick, D., J.E. Martin, D.C. Parris, and D.E. Grandstaff. 2007. “Rare Earth Element (REE) Analysis of Fossil Vertebrates from the Upper Cretaceous Pierre Shale Group for the Purposes of Paleobathymetric Interpretations of the Western Interior Seaway”, GSA Special Papers, v. 427, pp. 71-83.

Pereda-Suberbiola, X., P.M. Galton, H. Mallison, and F. Novas. 2013. “A Plated Dinosaur (Ornithischia, Stegosauria) from the Early Cretaceous of Argentina, South America: An Evaluation”, Alcheringa, v. 37, n. 1, pp. 65-78.

Press, F. and R. Siever. 2001. Understanding Earth, 3^rd ed., W.H. Freeman and Company: New York.

Redelstorff, R., T.R. Hübner, A. Chinsamy, and P.M. Sander. 2013. “Bone Histology of the Stegosaur Kentrosaurus aethiopicus (Ornithischia: Thyreophora) from the Upper Jurassic of Tanzania”, Anatomical Record, v. 296, n. 6, pp. 933-952.

Retallack, G.J. 1997. “Dinosaurs and Dirt” in D.L. Wolberg and E. Stump, eds. Dinofest International Proceedings, Academy of Natural Science, pp. 345-359.

Retallack, G. J. 2001. Soils of the Past: An Introduction to Paleopedology, 2^nd ed., Blackwell Science: Oxford, 404pp.

Richmond, D.R. and T.H. Morris. 1998. “Stratigraphy and Cataclysmic Deposition of the Dry Mesa Dinosaur Quarry, Mesa County, Colorado”, Modern Geology, v. 22, pp. 121-143.

Roca, X. and G.C. Nadon. 2007. “Tectonic Control on the Sequence Stratigraphy of Nonmarine Retroarc Foreland Basin Fills: Insights from the Upper Jurassic of Central Utah, U.S.A.” Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 77, pp. 239-255.

Saitta, E.T. 2015. “Evidence for Sexual Dimorphism in the Plated Dinosaur Stegosaurus mjosi (Ornithischia, Stegosauria) from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Western USA”, PLoS ONE, v. 10, n. 4, 20pp, e0123503.

Snelling, A.A. 2009a. Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & The Flood: Volumes 1 and 2, Institute for Creation Research: Dallas, TX, USA, 1102 pp.

Turner, C.E. and F. Peterson. 2004. “Reconstruction of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation Extinct Ecosystem – A Synthesis”, Sedimentary Geology, v. 167, pp. 309-355.

Warren, J.K. 1997. “Evaporites, Brines and Base Metals: Fluids, Flow and ‘the Evaporite that was’”, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 44, n. 2, pp. 149-183.

Warren, J.K. 2000. “Evaporites, Brines and Base Metals: Low-temperature Ore Emplacement Controlled by Evaporite Diagenesis”, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 47, n. 2, pp. 179-208.

Whitmore, J.H. 2009. “Do ‘Mud Cracks’ Indicate Multiple Droughts during the Flood?” 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. 93-110.

Wise, K. 2002. Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe, B&H Publishing Group: Nashville, TN, USA, 287pp.

Xing, L., J. Zhang, H. Klein, A. Mayor, Y. Chen, H. Dai, M.E. Burns, J. Gao, Y. Tang, and S. Dong. 2015. “Dinosaur Tracks, Myths and Buildings: The Jin Ji (Golden Chicken) Stones from Zizhou Area, Northern Shaanxi, China”, Ichnos, v. 22, n. 3-4, pp. 227-234.