Vega

Upper Jurassic Vega Formation, Asturias, Spain, Refutes Flood Geology, Including the “Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments” (BEDS) Scenario in Oard (2011)

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

December 20, 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). Based on descriptions in Genesis, most YECs believe that the Flood lasted about one year or around 371 days (e.g., Figure 8.5 in Oard 2011, p. 116). However, the sedimentary rock record is full of features that are incompatible with the overall wet and rapid depositional conditions required by Flood geology, including salt deposits, varves, glacial deposits, animal tracks, desert deposits, and paleosols.

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. They are widely distributed through the sedimentary rock record. Both field evidence and laboratory rate and leaching studies unquestionably 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 limit for the age of 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). While YECs 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.

Dinosaur bones, tracks, eggs and other remains are sometimes found with paleosols (e.g., Jennings and Hasiotis 2006; Jennings et al. 2011). 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 many 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).

Paleosols and 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 soils could have formed and how dinosaurs could have been walking, 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.

Paleosols and YEC Attempts to Get Rid of Them

Rather than questioning their biblical interpretations, too many YECs reject sound scientific evidence and then go shopping for excuses that would eliminate paleosols and other features from the geologic record and protect their religious agenda. YECs, such as Klevberg et al. (2009) and Oard (2011, p. 128), typically use one or more of the following excuses to argue that paleosols are misinterpreted deposits that actually formed rapidly during Noah’s Flood:

1. The rocks formed from sediments that were exposed to volcanic acid rain, which chemically leached the materials to resemble paleosols either during or shortly after the Flood,

2. The layering in the rocks are not soil horizons, but are actually individual Flood layers that just happened to repeatedly deposit in the exact orders that mimic horizons in paleosols.

3. The rocks are not paleosols, but formed from hydrothermal solutions after sediment burial and during diagenesis, or from magmas or metamorphism.

However, all of these excuses fail. As also shown with examples from the Morrison Formation [link] and many other formations, paleosols in sedimentary rocks typically contain unambiguous horizons, have mineralogies that are similar to other sedimentary rocks, and show no signs of hydrothermal alteration, metamorphism, volcanic alteration or post-burial magmatism in their chemistry and mineralogy (e.g., Jennings et al. 2011, p. 41). Unlike soils, sediments by definition 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. It’s far more likely that the paleosols are real and Flood geology is wrong.

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 Vega, Morrison, 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).

Pedosols of the Vega Formation

Besides the Morrison Formation, paleosols are very common in many other sedimentary rocks in the geologic record. For example, Gutierrez and Sheldon (2012) investigated paleosols, including examples with A horizons, in the Upper Jurassic Vega Formation in Asturias, northern Spain. Besides paleosols, the formation also contains various dinosaur tracks, possibly including tracks from Stegosaurians. The possible presence of Stegosaurian tracks contradicts claims in Oard (2011, pp. 93, 122) that these dinosaurs were poor swimmers and were unlikely to be able to migrate in sufficient numbers to produce tracks in his Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments (BEDS) Flood geology scenario.

The paleosols of the Vega Formation include entisols, inceptisols, vertisols, and composite or cumulative varieties (Gutierrez and Sheldon 2012, p. 596). The composite or cumulative varieties consist of several paleosols stacked on top of one another without clear distinctions between them (Gutierrez and Sheldon 2012, p. 601). At least 20 of the Vega Formation paleosols contain clay-rich B horizons, occasional A and C horizons, plant debris, well-preserved organic rootlets, carbonate nodules, insightful trace element distributions, invertebrate burrows, and peds (Gutierrez and Sheldon, 2012, p. 597-599, 605), which all together indicate that the materials are indeed paleosols. Oard (2011, p. 127) claims that paleosols can be “mistakenly identified.” But, how were these 20 paleosols misidentified? What evidence does Mr. Oard have to support his speculations? If the rootlets, minerals and other features in these deposits are not associated with A, B and other soil horizons, what are they and how did they form under the time restraints of BEDS? It’s easy for anyone to accuse researchers of misinterpreting the evidence, but any accusations must be supported with specific evidence to support alternative viable explanations, especially when researchers have already considered and appropriately eliminated the common YEC paleosol alternatives, such as diagenetic or hydrothermal alteration (e.g., Jennings et al. 2011, p. 41).

Table 1 summaries how well the observations in Gutierrez and Sheldon (2012) support actualism (modern uniformitarianism) versus Flood geology, including the BEDS scenario of Oard (2011). Not surprisingly, Oard (2011, pp. 127-128), Whitmore (2009) and many other YECs try to argue that mudcracks, paleosols, and other features incompatible with Flood geology could actually form rapidly underwater during Noah’s Flood. However, when multiple examples of normally dry, cold, or long-term environment features occur within the same rock layer, Flood geology is an unlikely explanation and it’s far more likely that the problem is with the YEC interpretations of Genesis.

Table 1: The ability of the BEDS scenario and actualism to explain features observed in the Vega Formation of northern Spain.

Based on the chemistry of Vega Formation paleosols from northern Spain, Gutierrez and Sheldon (2012, p. 607) estimated the mean annual precipitation during the deposition of the paleosols as 400 to 980 millimeters/year with a mean annual temperature range of 8-15^oC, which is a subhumid to semiarid climate. These dry conditions are inconsistent with Noah’s Flood.

The estimated formation times of the various paleosols in Gutierrez and Sheldon (2012, their Table 2, p. 599) are shown in my Table 2. The chemistry of the paleosols indicates that each paleosol took anywhere from less than 100 to thousands of years to form (Gutierrez and Sheldon, 2012, p. 599). As indicated in Table 2, each pedogenic event within a composite paleosol would take 2,000 to 7,000 years to develop (Gutierrez and Sheldon, 2012, p. 605). Although a few of the paleosols in Table 2 (but not all 20) might fit within the short time demands of young-Earth creationism, YECs are never going to accept these dates because they believe that their dates from Genesis are more accurate.

Table 2. Estimated formation times for paleosols from the Vega Formation, Spain (from Gutierrez and Sheldon 2012, their Table 2, p. 599).

*Each pedogenic event within a composite paleosol would take 2,000 to 7,000 years to form (Gutierrez and Sheldon, 2012, p. 605).

Gutierrez and Sheldon (2012, pp. 599-600) used the sizes of the carbonate nodules and the thicknesses of the B horizon clay layers (Bt) to estimate the formation times of the Spanish Vega Formation paleosols in Table 2. Demko et al. (2004, p. 125) describe the formation of paleosol Bt horizons through the process of illuviation:

“Clay-rich horizons (Bt) form by the illuviation or translocation of clay particles from overlying horizons in the soil, the coating of grains, peds, and open fracture surfaces, and entrapment in a less porous and permeable layer. Once clay begins to accumulate in these layers, the porosity and permeability are reduced further, and more clay accumulates.”

The chemical reactions and physical processes that are required to produce Bt horizon clay layers and carbonate nodules take time. Certainly, there are errors in the age estimates in Guterrez and Sheldon (2012, pp. 599-600) just as there are in any analytical measurement. However, the laws of chemistry and physics are not going to allow the carbonate nodules and Bt clay horizon layers to form at rates that are orders of magnitude faster just to comply with the desires of advocates of Flood geology (e.g., Demko et al. 2004).

Gutierrez and Sheldon (2012) were well aware of the possibility of diagenetic alteration and how it could affect their investigations. To avoid this possible problem, Gutierrez and Sheldon (2012, p. 600, 605) deliberately sampled micritic (fine-grained) calcite and avoided sparry (coarser) calcite, the latter of which is known to form from diagenetic alterations. A δ¹⁸O versus δ¹³C plot of their micritic calcite nodules indicates that the micritic calcite was a product of surface environmental changes rather than secondary alteration from diagenesis (Gutierrez and Sheldon 2012, p. 605).

Detectable concentrations of uranium occur in some of the Vega Formation paleosols. Gutierrez and Sheldon (2012, p. 605) concluded that the distribution of uranium in the paleosols resulted from the downward movement of clay particles (lessivage) and not intense leaching. This evidence conflicts with YEC arguments that these rocks resulted from intense leaching from acidic volcanic or hydrothermal solutions.

Minerals containing titanium and aluminum tend to be very insoluble in water. So, these elements are not easily mobilized by diagenesis (Sheldon and Tabor 2009, p. 9). The ratios of titanium to aluminum concentrations in the Vega Formation paleosols (Ti/Al) and the concentrations of rare earth elements (REEs) indicate a single source area for the parent materials of all of the paleosols (Gutierrez and Sheldon 2012, pp. 603-605). These chemical results show that the source materials for the soils were not derived from a number of distant locations. If these materials were deposited by Noah’s Flood, why are their mineralogies, REE concentrations and titanium/aluminum ratios so uniform and why do they not indicate any distant sediment sources? How did the localized clays rapidly form in large enough quantities for the paleosols? Over long periods of time, feldspars can decompose to clays in the presence of weak carbonic acid while calcite persists or forms in other horizons that are not exposed to large volumes of acid. To be exact, calcium extracted from feldspars over time can react with carbon dioxide and form calcite. However, the presence of calcite nodules and dinosaur bones in the Vega Formation, the distribution of uranium in the Vega Formation paleosols, the absence of primary hydrothermal, metamorphic and igneous minerals in the formation, and the fact that feldspars and other silicate minerals will not rapidly decompose into clays even when immersed in concentrated acids refutes YEC claims that volcanic or hydrothermal acids can produce large volumes of clay minerals for the Vega Formation paleosols during Noah’s Flood.

The presence of fossil roots in the Vega Formation is another fatal problem for BEDs and other forms of Flood geology. YECs might try to argue that the fossil roots in the paleosols are “misinterpretation” and that they’re fractures filled with minerals or other materials resembling roots. Yet, because organic materials are still present in the Vega Formation paleosols (Gutierrez and Shelton 2012, pp. 597, 601), these YEC excuses don’t work. Besides organic rootlet remains, root traces were found in at least 15 of the paleosols (Gutierrez and Shelton 2012, p. 598). Deeply penetrating submillimeter to millimeter rhizoliths or rhizhaloes occur within the A horizons of the vertisols (Gutierrez and Sheldon, 2012, p. 602). All 15 levels of root traces would have to have entirely formed within one year for Flood geology to be true. While some plants can sprout and rapidly grow in a few days, many cannot. BEDS and other forms of Flood geology simply don’t have enough time for plants to be spouting and growing on multiple successive levels in Flood deposits. The stalks of uprooted plants might be fortuitously redeposited upright in growth-like positions by soupy mud flows. However, the roots are not going to be deposited in a nice laid out and generally downward fashion like they would be if 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 Spanish specimens are clearly in-place roots that took time to grow on ancient soils; time that BEDS can’t afford.

The properties of the Vega Formation paleosols totally refute Flood geology, including the BEDS scenario in Oard (2011). Furthermore, the properties are often inconsistent with the 6,000 to 10,000 year time limit for the YEC age of the Earth. YECs need to accept this evidence and abandon their failed interpretations of Genesis.

References

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Shelton, N.D. and N.J. Tabor. 2009. “Quantitative and Paleoenvironmental and Paleoclimatic Reconstruction Using Paleosols,” Earth-Science Reviews, v. 95, pp. 1-52.

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.

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.