Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

The Miller Stone

On June 1, 1993 Mr. Brian Spomer and myself, both of Wichita, Kansas, travelled to western Kansas to the town of Hanston to go fossil hunting. Mr. Paul Miller, who lives near Hanston, invited Wayne Spencer to come to Hanston to hunt fossils. Mr. Miller knew two sites where some fossils could be found. One site was known to have many shark teeth and Mr. Miller has taken others, including school groups, to the site. The most interesting finds came from this site. These included many small shark teeth, a piece of sandstone containing coal, a fish backbone vertebrae, an excellent specimen of a manta ray tooth, and a piece of sandstone found with wood embedded into the rock. This rock with wood in it (the Miller Stone) was an exciting find, since it is unusual to find wood in rock. It is not unheard of, however.

Paul Miller was the person to actually find the rock, which was found loose along the bank of a creek. I have shown the rock to the Chairman of the Geology Department of Wichita State University and to Lawrence Skelton, Kansas State Geological Survey geologist. Both these geologists agree that the rock is sandstone and is part of a layer known as the Dakota Sandstone (actually just a thin outcrop of). According to the geologic column, which classifies rock by age, this would put the Miller Stone as in the upper part of the lower Cretaceous period. This would make it approximately 90 to 100 million years in age. However, it seems to run against common sense to think that the wood could be that old. The wood is not petrified or fossilized at all but seems to be completely wood. Interestingly, a shark tooth was found on the side of the rock opposite the wood. So, in one rock there is something from a marine environment and something from a terrestrial environment. It is not possible to prove the wood is not 90 million years in age, but it is much easier to believe the wood could be four to five thousand years old, putting it at the time of Noah's Flood.

A paper called The Miller Stone Fact Sheet is available from me at the Creation Education Materials address which tells more about where the Miller Stone was found and gives basic information about Kansas geology and fossils from a creation perspective. The report also addresses the interesting question of how there could be many shark teeth concentrated in one location, where the Miller stone was found. The "Miller Stone Fact Sheet" includes color copies of close-up photos of the Miller Stone, the site, and other fossils. Information on the exact location of the site is also provided; the site can be visited by anyone interested. The Miller Stone Fact Sheet can be purchased for $5.00 individually or $4.00 each for 10 or more. To obtain a copy write to Wayne Spencer at Creation Education Materials, P.O. Box 153402, Irving, TX 75015-3402. Or E-mail Wayne at "wayne@creationanswers.net".

Since the Miller Stone has wood (from dry land) and a shark tooth, the evolutionist would say that the sand which became the Miller Stone was once a beach area along the edge of the inland sea. Only in a beach area, they would say, could there be wood such as driftwood on a beach and shark teeth.

According to evolution, millions of years were necessary for the sedimentary layers to be deposited. It is believed that during the Cretaceous period, much of North America was covered by an inland sea. This sea covered a north to south belt through the middle of North America extending into northwest Canada and south across Mexico. One problem with this idea is that the ocean has never been observed to do anything like this. Sea level would have to rise a great deal to form such an inland sea. A world-wide Flood, however, would form inland "seas" at the beginning before everything was covered and at the end as the water level was dropping. (The water level would drop due to earth movements and evaporation.)

In addition to the Miller Stone, several other interesting fossils were found at the same site. In the same sandstone layer as the shark teeth, one small piece of rock was found which contained coal embedded in the rock. Since coal comes from plant material, especially wood, this is very consistent with finding wood in the rock. Another excellent fossil specimen was found in this same layer--a Ray tooth, such as a Manta Ray. Finely detailed lines are clear on this tooth, making it an very fine fossil of another ocean creature. The author also found a backbone vertebra from a fish at this same site. Many people are surprised to find that fossils of marine creatures are found in Kansas; this is just what one would expect if the whole Earth were covered in a great Judgement.

Shark teeth are not the most interesting fossils which have been found in Kansas. Fossils of large ocean fish, mastodon bones and teeth, trilobites, and even dinosaurs have been recorded. The Stermberg Museum at Fort Hays State University in Hays, Kansas displays a famous fossil of a large ocean fish so well preserved that another fish (itself large by Kansas standards) was fossilized inside the stomach area.

Fossils could be defined as some form of remains or impressions of prehistoric life. The most common forms of fossils are those which are chemically altered hard parts of animals or sea creatures. (Actually most fossils are of sea creatures.) In these fossils the bone or shell material is replaced with mineral or sometimes the pores in it can become filled with mineral, making it much harder and more dense than it originally was.

Other types of fossils are much less common. There are also occasionally found unaltered hard parts, that is for example bones that are still bone. Sometimes these are not referred to with the word "fossil." In a few cases unaltered soft parts, still the original organic material, have been found. In some cases plant fossils or even fish fossils have retained their own characteristic smell! In certain arctic areas creatures have been found frozen in ice or frozen mud, such as the famous Siberian mammoths.

There are also various forms of traces of creatures such as footprints in rock, worm burrows, fossilized dung, mold fossils, and cast fossils. A mold fossil is a cavity, usually where a shell has been but the shell broke up or decayed, leaving the cavity having the shape of the shell. Casts are just the opposite. A shell can become filled with mineral and then may break off or decay away, leaving rock "cast" in the shape of the shell.
 
cont'd on page three

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Three

Fossils-Solid Evidence for Creation
 

When evolution is the only view of origins taught to children in science, there are many important facts that are left out, including the following. All the following points, which are very important to creationists, actually come from the research of evolutionists. All of the following points have been thoroughly documented as coming from scientific journals and books, written by evolutionists.

Fossils give us a "record" of the past since they tell us what creatures actually existed in the past. There are four characteristics of the fossil record that agree with the creation view much better than the evolution view. First, when looking through the rock record, the geologic column, from the bottom up (old to young) there is abrupt appearance of living things. Then, those that become extinct can suddenly disappear as if due to some catastrophe, not gradually as if by a long process of competition for survival (this is the second point). For instance, in the oldest rock layer, known as Precambrian, there are almost no fossils, and then suddenly there are many fossils of various shelled creatures. They go from none to many, suddenly as you look up through the rock layers.

Thirdly, when they first appear the organisms are fully functional at their first appearance. Evolution implies that creatures would gradually change over time from one form of creature to another. This would lead to their being many many creatures that never made it and died because they had something wrong with them. They perhaps were not strong or fast enough or lacked something in their body that others of their kind had. These unfortunate mutant creatures that couldn't make it are known as transitional forms or intermediates. If evolution occurred, when we look at the fossils, from the old layers to the young layers, we should see living forms that were not fully functional early which then became able to survive better later on. We should see, for instance, fish gradually changing into amphibians, amphibians gradually changing into reptiles, single-celled organisms becoming larger multicelled creatures, and so on. This is not what scientists have found.

Because of the long periods of time required by evolution for the changes to take place, there should be many of these transitional forms fossilized and available for us to find and study. This brings us to the fourth important point--that there are no fossils of living things that are real transitional forms. This point is hotly contested by many evolutionist scientists.  Some of this disagreement revolves around what exactly constitutes a transitional fossil. Also, science textbooks often have photos or drawings of creatures that are said to be transitional forms. There are certain misleading things about the way these examples are described in textbooks. Many of the top evolutionists know better than to claim there are known examples of these intermediates. But there is a strong desire to make the textbooks confidently support evolution in order to influence the values and beliefs of millions of students.

The Bible says in very clear terms that there was a world-wide Flood in the past. This event destroyed not only the life on earth, but also the earth itself, in a sense. The Great Flood caused tremendous far-reaching changes in the earth. The Bible says it occurred as a judgement on the corruption of mankind. The story of the Flood in Genesis (chapters 6-9) points out that the Creator-God is a holy God who does something about evil in the world. Most people do not expect God to do anything about evil in the world today. But God says in the Bible that he will judge the world again, when Jesus Christ returns. But God is faithful to his promises and does provide a way out for anyone who will believe. In the time of Noah, the Ark was made so large that there would have been space enough for people, if only they would have believed Noah. But there was only one door to the Ark, one way to be saved. Similarly, today, there is only one way to be saved. Jesus Christ says he is the "door."

The following quotes (taken from creationist books) show that scientists doing research on fossils agree with the above points. Keep in mind that research scientists are much more likely to be aware of these points than science teachers and most professors. David Kitts, a zoologist from the University of Oklahoma wrote "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." [originally from article "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," in Evolution, vol. 28, Sept. 1974, p 467.] Top paleontologists who work at some of the worlds most prestigious museums and universities have made similar comments.

A prime example is Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London. The following is quoted from a now famous letter Dr. Paterson wrote to creationist Luther Sunderland:
 

    "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutiionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . . . Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."



Colin Paterson, though one of the world's top experts on fossils and though he has studied evolution for over 20 years, has been seriously questioning it. He does still believe evolution, as far as I am aware. He has made comments shocking to other leading evolutionists. The following quote is a more recent quote of Paterson, taken from an article in the Sept. 1988 issue of Moody Monthy magazine.
 

    "For the last 18 months or so I've been kicking around non-evolutionary or even anti-evoluitonary ideas. For over 20 years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for more than 20 years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. It's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for so long.
    For the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution? Any one thing ...that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing--it ought not to be taught in high school.'"



Creation organizations exist to make up for the one-sided way origins is dealt with in public schools and in the media. Many parents are turning to Christian Schools or Home Schooling, because they believe their children should be exposed to the creation point of view as a part of their education. Active creationists have never advocated removing evolution from the public schools, but the scientific and educational establishments will do anything to prevent students from being exposed to the creation side. This is a great injustice. It is important for parents to be very conscious of what belief system their children are being exposed to through their school subjects. Fortunately, there are excellent materials available that present a more realistic view of science, history, etc., without disparaging the Judeo-Christian viewpoint.

[Soldier4Christ]

HOW WE KNOW THE WORLD IS YOUNG
by
Wayne Spencer
The author of this manuscript has a degree in physics and is a former high school science teacher. This manuscript is written to show that the young earth position is a reasonable alternative to the standard evolutionary timetable. It is understandable that these concepts will sound strange to individuals trained in science for years, only from the evolutionary point of view. It is hoped that the reader will evaluate the arguments presented here honestly, based on their own merits and not on preconceived biases. Many people with graduate degrees in science, from around the world, have become convinced of the scientific validity of the creation position.

Probably the hottest controversy related to creation and evolution is the question of the age of the Earth and the universe. Evolutionists believe the Earth and Solar System are about 4.5 billion years old and the universe about 16 to 20 billion years old. Young Earth Creationists usually say the Earth is probably in the range of 6-10,000 years old. Though many scientifically trained people have turned from evolution to creation, the idea of a 10,000 year old Earth and universe is the hardest part of creation for many to accept. Some Christians will say, "what matters to me is the Rock of Ages, not the ages of rocks," thinking the issue to be unimportant. But the age of the Earth is a spiritual issue because, 1) evolution absolutely requires billions of years, 2) the Bible implies things are only thousands of years old, and 3) being honest with the scientific evidence points to everything being young. Although no one can really prove the Earth to be young or old, thousands of years is more reasonable or plausible than billions. And if things are only thousands of years old, there could not possibly be time for evolution.  Young-age creationists do not have answers to all the technical questions that can be asked, but I believe very significant progress has been made in coming to some answers.  Many issues related to age questions in science need more research also.
Before we look at the problems with radioactive dating techniques and evidences for things being young, let's consider what the Bible says about the age of the World. In Genesis 5 and 11 and in Luke there are genealogies tracing family lineages from Adam all the way to Jesus. Because these genealogies list the time from birth until one of the sons was born an approximate age of the earth can be calculated by adding up these ages. By comparing the Genesis information with other passages and making a few reasonable estimates it is clear that the earth must be at least 6,000 years old. Comparing genealogies in the Bible show that there are probably a few "gaps" in the genealogies where some individuals have been left out. But this could only add a few thousand years to the 6,000, at the very most.1 So, all this means that the Bible implies the earth, the solar system, and the universe are "young," probably in the range of six to ten thousand years.
This sharply disagrees with the teachings of evolution but actually does agree with the scientific evidence, if one looks at all of the facts. The word "fact," in common usage means something that is true. The word has been used in this way in reference to evolution, which is unprovable and unfalsifiable using scientific methods. In science, "fact" properly means an observation, something learned using the five senses. Creationists and Evolutionists both have their own particular biases or beliefs which affect how they interpret the facts. No theory of origins can possibly be proved by the scientific method, since origins deals with events that happened once in the past. Anything that cannot be repeated in experiments of some kind cannot be conclusively proven by the scientific method. Scientists can only do tests or calculations in the present. So, in the study of origins, we are limited scientifically to the question of how plausible or reasonable a theory is. And where a scientist's bias comes from is irrelevant to whether his view of origins is scientifically plausible. The challenge in issues of origins is to get all of the relevant information and to be willing to face the truth when one finds it. Information pointing to the earth and universe being young is too often blindly dismissed, rather than intelligently evaluated.

cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

Radiometric Dating
The primary thing used by evolutionists to argue for an old earth is radiometric dating. In these techniques the amounts of different radioactive atoms in a rock or other objects are measured precisely. In radioactivity an unstable atom gives off particles and radiation as it changes from one element to another. From the amounts of the different radioactive atoms present and from the rate one atom changes to another the age of the sample can be calculated. This has been applied to organic material such as wood in Carbon-14 dating. Carbon-14, however, can only be used to measure thousands of years. Other radioactive elements are used to attempt to measure longer times, such as Uranium/Lead, Potassium/Argon and Rubidium/Strontium dating.2
Although scientists are very good at the calculations and at accurately measuring the amounts of the different atoms, these techniques are based on very questionable assumptions and yield unreliable results. Evolutionists assume first that the decay rate of one atom changing to another is known and has never been different than it is today. This seems to be a fairly good assumption, although scientists have been able to alter radioactive decay rates in the laboratory by about three or four percent. Secondly, evolutionists tend to assume that no radioactive atoms have been taken away or added to by other means; that the sample has been a "closed system" since it formed. This is a very bad assumption since various natural processes can interfere with the process and make the calculated ages too large. An example would be rain washing Uranium out of rocks, making the rock appear older than it really is.
The third assumption of radiometric dating is of scientists assuming what amounts of the different radioactive atoms were present when the rock formed. The conditions at the beginning must be put into the calculations somehow. At this point it is very easy for evolutionists to use numbers which conveniently fit old earth thinking, regardless of whether they fit the facts. This assumption regarding the initial amounts is a bad one since there simply were no scientists there in the beginning to measure the initial conditions. So, there is no way to really know how much was there in the beginning or when the rock formed.2
These are general problems in the assumptions of radiometric dating techniques. There are sometimes other problems peculiar to each method. The Rubidium/Strontium "isochron" method is a case desearving special comments, to be given shortly. Some scientists who have worked in the radiometric dating laboratories have reportedly quit their jobs because of the dishonest ways that the work is done. Sometimes, these methods yield absurd results and different radiometric methods may not agree with each other:
"Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from
mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded
ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. . . . A seal freshly
killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years."
Dort, Wakefield Jr., 'Mummified seals of southern Victoria
Land,' Antarctic Journal (Washington), vol. 6, Sept.-Oct.
1971, p211. [taken from The Revised Quote Book]
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the
absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age
estimates on a given geological stratum by different radio-
metric methods are often quite different (sometimes by
hundreds of millions of years)."
Stansfield, William D., The Science of Evolution, Macmillan,
1977, pp 82, 84. [taken from The Revised Quote Book]
"Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it
may seem, that 'no gross discrepancies are apparent.'
Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil
is indeed a gross discrepancy! . . . 'Absolute' dates deter-
mined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely
helpful in bolstering weak arguments. . . . No matter how
'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not
capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are
gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative,
and the accepted dates are actually selected dates."
Lee, Robert E., Radiocarbon: Ages in Error, Anthropological
Journal of Canada, vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, pp 9-29. Also reprinted
in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 2, Sept.
1982, pp 123, 125. [taken from The Quote Book]



The so-called "isochron" technique is a method used in radiometric dating to avoid some of the potential problems. The isochron method uses multiple samples and uses straight line graphs to obtain the age of the material in question. Isochron dating is only used, however, on volcanic rock. As such, the method involves certain assumptions about the molten rock in the earth's mantle. The rubidium/strontium (Rb/Sr) method depends on measurements of the ratio of the amount of Strontium-87 to the amount of Strontium-86. In an article in Science, Sept. 17, 1976 (vol.193, p 1086) C. Brooks, D. E. James, and S. R. Hart explain how concentrations of these radioactive elements in the mantle can cause Rb/Sr dates to be much too large. There the authors construct graphs called "pseudoisochrons," which should have slopes of zero, according to the standard assumptions of the method. But the slopes were not zero, indicating what the authors call "excess" ages. The authors give examples of cases where the excess time is from 70 million to 3 billion years.
Dr. Steven A. Austin at the Institute for Creation Research has done original research dating samples of basalt rock from the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon contains two formations of rock which formed from lava flows-the Cardenas Basalt, among the lowest layers of the canyon, and the basalts of the Uinkaret Plateau. The basalts at the Uinkaret Plateau are known to be much more recent than the Cardenas basalts since they poured over the rim of the canyon some time after the canyon formed. Dr. Austin has sent several whole-rock samples to three different laboratories to be dated. The results show certain assumptions of the Rubidium/Strontium technique to be demonstrably in error since the younger lava flows of the Uinkaret Plateau calculate to be older than the accepted age figure for the lower Cardenas basalts.3 Other problems could be mentioned and more quotes from the scientific liturature cited to demonstrate the problems with radiometric dating.
Creationists are working on developing techniques to correct some of these age calculations using better assumptions. Dr. Gerald Aardsma of the Institute for Creation Research was a specialist in the radiocarbon dating technique. Dr. Aardsma wrote a technical paper explaining his effort to relate radiocarbon dates to tree-ring chronologies, which are said to show the validity of the radiocarbon method. His paper shows the difficulties with the tree-ring chronologies and that carbon dating work could actually be evidence for the earth being less than 20,000 years in age.
The point is, radiometric dating is not reliable and there is a need for other methods. Creationists have found literally dozens of totally unrelated things in nature which show that the earth and universe cannot be billions or millions of years old. The strength of the evidence for a young earth and universe lies in the fact that there are so many unrelated phenomena pointing to the same conclusion. The oldest living things are Bristlecone Pine trees; one of these in eastern Nevada is about 4,900 years old.11 There is no reason these trees could not live longer than that.  This must indicate the time since the Great Noahic Flood. Following are brief descriptions of some of the best evidences that the world is young, just as the Bible implies.

cont'd on page three

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Three

Helium Escape
This is based on research done by Dr. Larry Vardiman at the Institute of Creation Research in California.4 Detailed explanation may be found in the technical monograph The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere, which includes documentation from the standard scientific literature. Helium is a light gas that gives evidence too heavy for the evolutionists to explain away. The problem is that evolutionists cannot figure out why there is not more Helium in the Earth's atmosphere. Scientists have determined that Helium comes out of the ground and it escapes into space, but it comes out of the Earth much faster than it escapes into space. At the present rates, it would take only 2 million years for the amount of Helium in the atmosphere to get there if it all came out of the Earth. But it would take 70 million years for the Helium there now to escape into space, so there should be about 2,000 times as much Helium in the air now if the Earth were over four billion years old.
This means the Earth must be less than 2 million years old, and could be even much younger than that. This is based on studies of Helium-4, a form of Helium that comes from radioactive decay. Evolutionists assume that almost all the Helium-4 in our atmosphere has come from radioactive decay, that none of it was there in the beginning when the Earth formed. Because of discoveries of Helium coming from the mantle it seems better to assume that nearly all the Helium in the atmosphere has been there since the beginning. And so the reason there is not more Helium in the atmosphere is that there has not been much time for extra Helium to get there from out of the Earth.
Changes in the Earth's Magnetic Field
This may be the strongest argument for the Earth being young. It may also have implications for the planets. This is original work from a practicing physicist, Dr. D. Russell Humphreys; he says the Earth must be less than 9,000 years old based on how the Earth's magnetic field has lost energy since creation.5 The Earth is an electromagnet; electrical currents in the Earth's liquid iron core produce a field with a North and South pole like the Earth has today. Evolutionists have believed for years that the Earth's magnet has reversed polarity many times throughout the supposed 4.6 billion years of Earth history. This means the North pole would become the South pole and vice versa. Evolutionists think of the Earth as a kind of generator, called a dynamo, continually generating magnetic energy as it maintains itself for billions of years through cycles of reversals.
Dr. Humphreys has shown that there have been magnetic reversals, but they happened very rapidly during the year of Noah's Flood, not over billions of years. The evidence for reversals is from measuring magnetized minerals in volcanic rock at many locations around the earth.6 When lava containing iron cools below a certain temperature called the Curie Point, it will become permanently magnetic due to the Earth's field. Scientists find that in places around the Earth the magnetism of rocks will be in strips or zones pointing in different directions. Dr. Humphreys theories seem to explain these facts very well; other researchers, not creationists, found evidence of a magnetic reversal that only took two weeks, just as Humphreys theories required.7
Dr. Humphreys has proposed a model for magnetic fields of planets unlike the evolutionary dynamo model. Humphreys used his model to correctly predict the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before the Voyager spacecraft measured them.7 This is a prime example of an area where a creationist approach explains the facts better than an evolutionist approach. Humphreys suggests that the Earth's field was much stronger at Creation and has lost energy since that time, probably losing most of its energy during the violent upheavals of Noah's Flood.5
Star Clusters and Galaxies
Stars exist in organized groupings. Small groups of stars are called clusters while large groups of millions or billions of stars are called galaxies. Our galaxy is the Milky Way and is estimated to contain about 100 billion stars. Some clusters do not have their stars close enough together for them to be held together by gravity, and so the stars in the cluster are drifting apart. There are other effects which tend to break up galaxies and clusters over time as well. If the universe were 16-20 billion years old as the Big Bangers say, some star clusters should have broken up a long time ago. Scientists have estimated that some clusters could not last more than 100 million years, others may last only 10,000 years.9 Galaxies with spiral shapes have a "lifetime" because the spiral arms slowly wrap up into a circle as the galaxy rotates. It has been estimated that some spiral galaxie's arms would be destroyed in 200 million years or less.9 But there are many spiral galaxies that still exist. So, the universe could be young. The author and other creationists are currently studying other processes in space which point to youth rather than billions of years.
Rapid Formation of Rock Strata
The May 18, 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens had great significance for geology. It demonstrated how rapidly geological forces can work in catastrophic conditions. Creationist geologists have studied the area surrounding Mt. St. Helens for several years and have learned some very interesting lessons. These lessons include 1) rapidly formed stratification, 2) rapid erosion, 3) upright deposited logs, and 4)coal and coal-precursor formation.
During and after the eruption, layers of debri formed up to 600 feet in thickness, much of this has now become rock. The initial blast, ash falling out of the air, and mud flows were some of the means of the strata being deposited. Pyroclastic flows of fine ash pumice formed laminated beds from one millimeter in thickness to up to more than one meter each. Finely laminated layers such as this would normally be interpreted as representing many years, with each fine layer corresponding to perhaps one year, for instance. But at Mt. St. Helens these deposits formed in seconds to several minutes! Certain deposits, 25 to 200 feet thick, contain many fine laminae, and yet it is known that they formed in less than one day. Material was naturally sorted into layers quickly and straight vertical cliffs hardened to rock in a surprisingly short time.
A variety of processes produced pits, gullies, and other formations for some years after the eruption. The erosion accom-plished a great deal of "geological work" in surprisingly short times. In many cases features were formed rapidly that resemble those of other locations far removed from the Washington area. On March 19, 1982 a canyon system was eroded that has been described as a one-fortieth scale model of the Grand Canyon. This canyon at Mt. St. Helens is up to about 140 feet deep.
Other observations at Mt. St. Helens have shed light on the formation of so-called "petrified forests," and on coal formation. Logs from the forest surrounding Spirit Lake in the area formed a huge log mat on the lake. In time the logs were found to float upright and then later sink vertically into the soft ash, mud, and organic matter on the bottom of the lake. If the lake water were gone and the sediment on the bottom hardened to rock, the area could be easily called a "petrified forest." These "forests" are normally understood to be from forest trees of several generations being buried in place or fossilizing over long periods of time.
Bark and other organic material from these many trees has formed layers of what is very similar to coal. Scientists from the Institute for Creation Research have said that actual coal has been found at Mt. St. Helens in small quantities. This shows that coal formation has nothing to do with so-called peat swamps, but is actually related to floating vegetation mats and volcanism. In fact, coal has been formed from plant material in days or weeks in the laboratory using minerals commonly found in volcanic ash. Another creationist geologist, John MacKay, has travelled around the world studying coal seams. He has found that volcanic ash and coal are found together and large volcanoes, or extinct ones, are often found near large coal seams. MacKay has photographic evidence of this that is quite shocking and perplexing to geologists.
This research from Mt. St. Helens demonstrates the effectiveness of catastrophic flood-related processes in forming geologic features quickly.10 Creationists are making excellent progress in other topics in geology, such as on the question of "ice ages" and glacial varved sediment deposits. It is not that earth's features cannot be explained in terms of them being young. Rather, some of the facts are not being told in evolution-based textbooks and scientists are not trained to interpret things from non-evolutionary perspectives.

cont'd on page four

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Four

Conclusion
There are many other arguments for a young Earth, solar system, and universe which imply that God created all things less than about 10,000 years ago and that God sent a world-wide Flood about 4,000-5,000 years ago. Interpreting the data in terms of things being young sometimes greatly simplifies the process of explaining how the various features of the earth and universe formed. As time goes on creationists keep discovering more and more processes which show that the world is young. In April of 1978 there was a conference of scientists addressing the age of the universe and the earth. The following quote is by John A. Eddy who at that time worked at the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado. The quote mentions a date by Bishop Ussher. Ussher was the archbishop of Armaugh in Ireland in the 17th century. He published a date for God's creation of 4004 B.C., a date even few creationists completely accept today.
"There is no evidence based solely on solar observations,
Eddy stated, that the Sun is 4.5-5 X 109 years old. 'I
suspect,' he said 'that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old.
However, given some new and unexpected results to the
contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theo-
retical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with
Bishop Ussher's value for the age of the Earth and Sun. I
don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence
in astronomy to conflict with that.' "
Kazmann, Raphael G., "It's About Time: 4.5 Billion Years,"
Geotimes, September 1978, p 18.
 
HOW WE KNOW THE WORLD IS YOUNG
Endnotes
1. Morris, Henry, The Genesis Record, El Cajon, California: Master Books, 1976, pp. 281-2 and 308-310.
2. Slusher, Harold S., Critique of Radiometric Dating, (Technical Monograph #2), El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research (ICR), 1973.
3. Austin, Steven A., see ICR Impact Articles numbers 178 and 224, April 1988 and February 1992, available for $.10 each from ICR, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
4. Vardiman, Larry, The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere, El Cajon, CA: ICR, 1990.
5. Humphreys, D. R., "Physical Mechanism for Reversals of Earth's Magnetic Field During the Flood," PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CREATIONISM, Vol. 2, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1991, pp. 129-142.
6. Humphreys, Dr. R., "Has the Earth's Magnetic Field Ever Flipped?", CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY (CRSQ), Vol. 25, NO. 3, Dec. 1988, pp. 130-137.
7. Humphreys, D. R., "Good News from Neptune: the Voyager II Magnetic Measurements," CRSQ, Vol. 27, No. 1, June 1990; Also, less technical summary found in Impact Article #203, from ICR, May, 1990; also see March 1990 CRSQ (Vol 26, No. 4) for evidence of a two week reversal, pp. 132-3.
8. Slusher, Harold S., Age of the Cosmos, El Cajon, CA: ICR, 1980, p. 45. See also "The Lifetime and Renewal of Comets," in PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CREATIONISM, Vol. 2, by William E. Stillman, pp 267-278.
9. Ibid. pp. 15-16.
10. Austin, Steven A., See I.C.R. Impact Article No. 157 for a brief summary, or for a better study of the issue see the video by Steve Austin on Mt. St. Helens, available from I.C.R. or available on loan from the Mid-Kansas Bible-Science Assoc. lending library in Wichita, Kansas, phone # (316) 683-3610, or write to BSA, 1429 N. Holyoke, Wichita, Kansas 67208. For John MacKay's coal research see the video "An Evening at Oxford," a film of Mr. MacKay speaking to the geology dept. at Oxford University; or, write to CREATION RESEARCH, P.O. Box 281, Hartsville, TN 37074
11. Wysong, R. L., Creation-Evolution: the Controversy, Midland, Michigan: Inquiry Press, 1976, pp. 164-165.

[Soldier4Christ]

Frozen Mammoths - What Really Happened?


Wayne Spencer

In March of 2001 the Discovery televison channel aired two programs called Raising the Mammoth and Land of the Mammoth. These very interesting programs tell about the discovery and excavation of the remains of a particular mammoth in Siberia, discovered a few years ago. It's been called the Jarkov Mammoth. Scientists removed a large block of frozen ground with the mammoth remains inside it and took it away for study. The frozen ground of Siberia has been known for many years to contain mammoth remains. Estimates of the number of buried mammoths is in the millions. Fisherman working in the Black Sea North of Siberia also have found many mammoth bones or tusks or other remains while fishing. There has been a thriving ivory trade in Siberia for years from the mammoth tusks. The ground of Siberia is frozen much of the year, when it is not frozen it is soft and sometimes very wet and boggy. The wet mixture of clay, silt, mud, and water is known as "tundra."

Creationists have written about the frozen mammoths for years. Unfortunately sometimes creationists have spread some unreliable information and have not collected adequate facts on this subject. An influential book by a creationist once said that the mammoths must have been quick frozen at extremely cold temperatures like 100 to 150 degrees below zero. Various ideas have also been put forward to connect this rapid freezing to Noah's Flood. These authors usually have argued that the mammoths were living in the preflood world and when the Flood began, somehow events occurred that froze and buried the animals. There are several problems with this creationist scenario.

Recently, in the Technical Journal, published by Answers in Genesis, there is an excellent new paper on the mammoths. It is written by Mr. Michael Oard, a meteorologist. There are a number of mysteries to this day about these mammoths. Neither creationists nor evolutionists have all the answers. But, by the evolutionary view of Earth history, there have been a number of ice ages and so evolutionists would say the mammoths lived during one of these ice ages. There are a number of problems with the evolutionist view of ice ages, although there is evidence that something like an ice age occurred. Most creationists with degrees in the sciences believe there was one ice age after Noah's Flood, lasting several hundred years. In fact, Noah's Flood helps explain why there would be an ice age in the first place, something evolutionary geology has trouble with.

The mammoths found in Siberia and Alaska would have lived after Noah's Flood, they are not from the preflood world. The remains are found generally in various unconsolidated (not hardened to rock) layers that lie on top of hundreds of meters of sedimentary rock that seem to clearly be from the Flood. Mammoths could have multiplied to huge numbers in the post-Flood years. Mammoths required lots of vegetation to eat and they would have lived in grassland areas. Mammoths would not have lived in extremely cold arctic regions. We know this because we know they did not have fur like arctic animals, they had hair. There have been a few carcasses of mammoths that still had hair on them, including the Jarkov mammoth shown on the Discovery channel. We also know they ate flowers and other plants that would not grow in an arctic environment.

When the glaciers of the ice age melted back it would have left the areas where mammoths lived very wet. Somehow a great deal of clay mud and silt was washed into Northern Siberia and Alaska. To this day scientists aren't sure where all the mud came from. Wind blown dust storms and volcanic eruptions could be possibilities. The glaciers would have left sedimentary deposits themselves also. The large amounts of mud, silt, and water would have made it impossible for many of the grasses and plants that mammoths ate to survive. The climate would have changed also as the glaciers melted back. The areas that were once beautiful grasslands that supported all kinds of large animals including large cats, mammoths, and even the wooly rhinocerous, turned into a cold frozen wasteland where almost nothing would grow. Then the mammoths had trouble finding food and they often got trapped in deep mud. They would get into ponds and rivers to eat the plants living in the water and then get trapped in the mud. Some were buried quickly and then frozen. A few well known specimens of mammoth remains were relatively well preserved. But even the most well preserved known were not in "normal" condition. Many have been partially eaten and were found with broken bones. The skeleton's of most are scattered over some area. Some clearly got themselves trapped in some way and others were overtaken by some catastrophic mud flow or storm perhaps.

The mammoths are testimony to the dramatic changes the Earth went through after Noah's Flood. There were difficult times for animals and humans living in that period. People lived in Siberia and Alaska where the mammoths lived and hunting or trapping the mammoths in many ways helped these people to survive. Many animals were saved on Noah's Ark from the Flood itself, only to go extinct in the Post-Flood years due to the changes in the Earth caused by the Flood.
 

[Soldier4Christ]

Catastrophic Impact Bombardment Surrounding
the Genesis Flood
Wayne R. Spencer

Much research has taken place in recent years by both geologists and astronomers regarding
impacts on Earth. This research has been motivated by the search for evidence to substantiate
the hypothesis that an impact of a 10 Km diameter object 65 million years ago caused the
extinction of the dinosaurs. Creationists have generally considered Noah’s Flood and its
aftermath an adequate explanation of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but this does not address
the physical evidence of impacts on Earth. This paper points out the geological and physical
evidence of impacts and treats Earth impacts as an aspect of God’s judgement during the worldwide
Flood event. It is suggested that impacts began with the onset of the Flood and continued
during and after the Flood year. Solar system evidence suggests a catastrophic event which
caused a heavy influx of dust and meteorites in a short time. A companion paper “Geophysical
Effects of Impacts During the Genesis Flood” addresses climatic and other effects from an impact
bombardment event and suggests that such an event would be survivable for Noah in the Ark.

There has been great interest in the issue of Earth impacts in recent years among geologists,
astronomers, and even the public. Near Earth asteroids are being studied in order to assess the
hazard to Earth. The Alvarez hypothesis, that an impact near the Yucatan Peninsula led to the
extinction of the dinosaurs, has been accepted in many scientific circles. Yet, little has been done
by creationist scientists to address the issue of impacts from a young Earth point of view. In the
past ten years, much has been learned about Earth impacts and how to identify them on Earth.
The evidence of Earth impacts is quite strong for some sites and questionable for others. Much
research has been done related to the hypothesis of Louis and Walter Alvarez, and others that
a ten Km object struck the Earth at the time corresponding to the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary,
subsequently causing the extinction of the dinosaurs and other species. Some geologists oppose
the Alvarez hypothesis and suggest that dinosaur extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous period
were caused by volcanic phenomena rather than by impacts. Creationists have acknowledged
that impacts have occurred. However, Creationists emphasize the Genesis world-wide Flood and
its after effects in explaining extinctions such as of the dinosaurs.
The reasons for this paper and the companion paper on geophysical effects are several. First,
there is a need to explain why the Earth differs from other objects in the inner solar system in
2
having relatively few craters. Secondly, it is important to clarify what constitutes evidence of
impacts. It appears today that the primary indicator of the Cretaceous/Tertiary impact suggested
by the Alvarez team in 1980 is not a clear indicator of impacts at all, namely high concentrations
of iridium and other metals at the K/T boundary. Since the publication of the Alvarez paper in
1980 research has identified better indicators of impact in the mineralogical characteristics of
shock metamorphic minerals. Better techniques for identifying craters and crater-remnants
(astroblemes) on Earth clearly show that craters occur throughout the Geologic Column. Craters
are much more numerous on other solar system bodies than on Earth. Creationists have given
much attention in recent years to refining models of the Noahic Flood. Impacts from space are
powerful events that creationist Earth scientists cannot afford to ignore in developing Flood
models. This paper will argue that a significant impact bombardment episode occurred
surrounding the Noahic Flood. The Flood and post-Flood catastrophes could have wiped out
evidence for many of these impacts. A period of heavy bombardment surrounding the Flood
acknowledges the valid objections some scientists have raised about the impact-dinosaur
extinction hypothesis and also has potential for explaining cratering evidence on Earth and in the
inner solar system.
After briefly addressing the Alvarez hypothesis, some Biblical considerations will look at Earth
impacts as an aspect of God’s judgement during the Flood. The criteria for identifying Earth
impact sites will be examined and related to common arguments for the Alvarez model from
iridium abundances at the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary. Examples of a few crater
remnants and other impact evidence will be summarized for various locations on Earth. Then
evidence will be examined for a catastrophic event in the solar system, from the asteroids, cosmic
dust, and cratering in the inner solar system. The second paper “Geophysical Effects of Impacts
During the Genesis Flood” will argue that one large impact would be insufficient for causing global
extinctions and that Noah and his family could survive a significant bombardment event during
the Flood.
The Impact-Extinction Hypothesis
To Evolutionists, the extinction of the dinosaurs (and other species) has been problematic to
explain. The Alvarez Hypothesis suggests that one impact event, the collision of a 10 Km
diameter asteroid with Earth at around 65 million years ago, caused atmospheric and geologic
effects that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Many evolutionists would consider this impact
to mark the end of the Mesozoic era, often called the age of dinosaurs. It is further suggested
that a site just off the coast of Yucatan, the Chicxulub site, is the site of this impact. Many studies
have been done of the effects of a 10 Km diameter object in order to attempt to argue for the
impact-extinction mechanism. The Alvarez hypothesis, first published in 1980 [3], has enjoyed
widespread but not universal acceptance by the scientific community in general. This 1980 paper
by Alvarez argues for impact ejecta and dust being distributed world-wide by this impact, based
primarily on anomalously high concentrations of iridium and other metals found in a clay layer
found at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. The Alvarez team have always suggested a surface
impact caused the extinctions because that type of impact ejects much greater quantities of dust
into the atmosphere than is the case for a meteor or comet exploding in the atmosphere. The
Alvarez paper of 1980 suggests that the ejecta put into the atmosphere from pulverized surface
rock would amount to about 60 times the mass of the impacting object [3]. Before the discovery
of Chicxulub, the Alvarez team suggested that multiple impacts near the K/T boundary could have
3
been the sources of the iridium. Several criticisms have been put forward against the impactextinction
hypothesis, none of which are arguments originating from creationists [29]. (A very
excellent review of the dinosaur extinction issue from a creation perspective is found in Oard
[28].)



 cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

First of all it is impossible to determine, assuming the accepted dating techniques and the
evolutionary geologic column, whether an impact coincides with extinctions. Extinctions are
identified in time by the relationships between the fossils and the rock strata, assuming evolution.
It has been said that the extinctions at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary actually were significant
processes which required long periods of time:
Accumulating paleontologic evidence suggests, however, that many of the
extinctions at the end of Cretaceous time were not sudden, sharply defined
events, but were continuous over a period of several million years [33, p. 455].
Though many small impacts from space go essentially unnoticed by most people, large impacts
are relevant to questions about extinctions. A large impact is an event which is brief but very
intense, much more brief than any extinction in the evolutionary view of Earth history. In the
Alvarez paper of 1980, the authors point out clearly that they assumed the time for impact ejecta
to remain aloft in the atmosphere would be similar to the time frame for ejecta from volcanic
eruptions. Research since 1980 has shown this is very likely incorrect [44]. The severe effects
of one large impact cannot last more than several months, yet the claim is made that the
Chicxulub impact coincided with extinctions. It is actually a pure assumption that the two events
coincided in time closely enough to be related. If the extinctions near the Cretaceous/Tertiary
boundary were caused by one impact, why would the extinctions be stretched out over such a
long period of time? Because of the short term nature of the effects of impacts and new
challenges to the idea that one impact could cause global extinctions, in recent years some
geologists have suggested there were multiple impacts near the K/T boundary [19, p. 671],[4, pp.
48-9]. There are several known impact structures near the K/T boundary other than the Chicxulub
structure. The possibility of bolides has also been put forward. A bolide is an object that
explodes in the atmosphere. In such events most of the energy of the impactor goes into the
atmosphere rather than into affecting surface rock. A bolide, however, would only generate a
very small quantity of dust ejecta compared to a surface impact. Therefore a bolide alone could
not cause the extinctions in question.
Before the Chicxulub site was discovered and put forward as an impact site, the primary evidence
for the Alvarez hypothesis was the abundance of the metal iridium and other metals in a layer of
clay which is located at the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary. This clay layer was first studied
for its iridium anomaly near Gubbio, Italy in 1978 [4, p. 34]. This layer is about one centimeter
in thickness and lies between Cretaceous and Tertiary limestones. A similar layer of clay has
been found at a number of other sites around the world which also possess an unusually large
concentration of iridium (abundance peaks at about 9 parts per billion) [4, p. 35]. Because iridium
and platinum are more abundant in meteoritic material than in the Earth’s crust, it is argued that
the iridium must come from an impact or impacts.
Some geologists have objected to impact extinction suggesting rather that the iridium abundance
at the K/T boundary came from volcanic eruptions [29]. This has also been suggested by
4 creationists, such as Oard [27, p. 12]. It has been pointed out that some of the metallic
abundances at the K/T boundary, such as arsenic and antimony, do not match meteoritic material
but are more like mantle material [30, p. 1163-4]. It has also been pointed out that material from
volcanic eruptions in recent times have been found to be highly enriched in iridium, such as at
Kilauea [30, p. 1163]. These and other chemical and isotopic analyses of the K/T boundary clay
frequently do not point clearly to either meteoritic or mantle origin, but could be consistent with
either source. Several researchers have found that deep sea sediments are frequently enriched
in iridium compared to crustal sediments [33, p. 458], [ 30, p. 1162]. This could imply that the
iridium could come from both impact and volcanic sources. Large impacts may also stimulate
volcanism in some cases [7]. Various sedimentary and chemical processes could serve to
concentrate iridium and certain other platinum group elements [33, p. 458]. All of this leads to
the conclusion that the iridium abundances alone are insufficient as indicators of impacts,
therefore in this paper iridium abundance will not be considered a reliable indicator of impact,
since it can accompany both impacts and volcanism.
Recent research related to the Alvarez hypothesis leads to doubts about the adequacy of one
impact to cause the extinction of the dinosaurs. First of all the extinction must be selective, but
impacts are deadly in a manner that would not discriminate between dinosaurs and birds, or
mammals. A recent report in Science expressed doubts about the asteroid extinction
mechanisms:


cont'd on page three

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Three

Ironically, as more scientists satisfy themselves that an impact did occur, other
researchers have begun raising tough questions about whether that impact
packed enough punch to make the dinosaurs disappear [25, p. 1518].
The impact extinction model relies on atmospheric effects, primarily darkness and cold, to cause
extinctions. Other effects such as wildfires and acid rain have also been mentioned in impact
extinction models. The selective nature of the K/T extinctions is a major difficulty for the idea that
extinctions were caused by one impact. Though some scientists have suggested multiple impacts
could cause extinctions, only a handful of known impact structures are found near the K/T
boundary. Chicxulub is far larger than any of the others. The other known sites at the K/T
boundary would be limited in their global climatic effects [19], [18].
The above considerations are just a brief look at the Alvarez hypothesis, but the after effects of
the Noahic Flood from post-Flood catastrophes and environmental changes provides a very
adequate explanation of the extinction of the dinosaurs. Post-Flood volcanism was apparently
a major factor. To suggest that one impact could cause dinosaur extinctions globally seems
unreasonable. In my opinion, the Chicxulub structure, which may or may not be an impact, is not
necessarily related to the end of the Mesozoic era, except possibly in a local sense. This paper
will address the issue of Earth impacts in the context of the world-wide Flood. The larger impacts
are of more interest since smaller impacts would not have global effects lasting months. Impacts
causing global effects would correspond to surface craters at least 15 to 20 Km diameter or
impactor objects in the range of 1 to 5 Km diameter and larger. DeYoung and Froede [12, pp. 23,
30], Aldaney [2, pp. 11-12], [1, pp. 133-136], and Parks [31, pp. 144-146] have all suggested that
impacts accompanied and perhaps even triggered the Flood in some way. These papers have
validity, but some aspects of observational evidence and impact physics are addressed very little
in them. The paper by Froede and DeYoung is a very valuable paper which I agree with in many
5
respects. However, Froede and DeYoung do not discuss why shock metamorphism is evidence
of impact. Also, the Froede and DeYoung paper, though it includes a graph with impacts showing
impactor diameter versus time, no information is given regarding what observational evidence
indicates these points represent impacts. Froede and DeYoung’s graph also shows an
exponential decrease in crater diameter with uniformitarian time. At least some of this decrease
in size could be due to larger craters being more easily preserved through erosion processes.
Parks [31] and Froede and DeYoung [12] have suggested a planet in the asteroid region
exploded to cause much cratering in the inner solar system.
Because impact sites have been found in Flood sediment strata, impacts must have occurred
surrounding the Flood. It is not impossible that some impacts could have occurred during the
time between the Creation and the Flood, but I would assume these to be very few if any. If an
impact bombardment episode began with the onset of the Flood, impacts should be found from
in Precambrian rock up through the geologic column, as they are. This is not necessarily meant
to imply that all Precambrian rock is necessarily pre-Flood rock, that must be evaluated for each
site in question. Also, Precambrian craters known on Earth are relatively few, though they are
of significant size. There is also some evidence suggesting what may be impact ejecta in rock
considered about 3.4 billion years in age by uniformitarian assumptions [23], [22]. These authors
argue for microspherules in South Africa being of impact origin primarily on the basis of the
similarities of their composition to Carbonaceous Chondrite meteorites. I believe theological
considerations tend to imply that as part of God’s judgement, the impacts would begin with the
onset of the Flood. Froede and DeYoung also suggest this [12]. This seems consistent with the
evidence though it may not be the only possibility. My purpose here is primarily to argue that
such an event occurred, not give a detailed model of how it took place.
All the inner planets have an abundance of craters, though Venus has relatively fewer since it has
a young surface, resurfaced by volcanism. What if Earth received a number of impacts similar
to that of the Moon and Mars? The distribution of the sizes of Earth impact structures shows a
power law relationship similar to that for Mars and our Moon. The Moon, Earth, and Mars all
show a relationship in which the cumulative total number of impacts is proportional to
approximately the square of the diameter of the crater [20, p. 233]. This suggests Earth was
struck by the same population of objects that bombarded the Moon and Mars. I would suggest
tentatively that the total number of impacts would be on the order of 10 to 20 thousand for Earth,
with impacts producing global effects being in the range of 40 to 100 [37]. This is only a very
rough figure. Only an event of the magnitude of the world-wide Flood of Genesis could be able
to wipe out evidence of so many impacts on Earth. Michael Oard summarized well the logic of
an impact event surrounding the Flood:

Impact craters are common on the inner planets and our moon, which implies that
the earth probably was bombarded at some time in the past. We find very few
impact craters on the surface of the earth, indicating that catastrophic
meteorite bombardment would have occurred either before the Flood or during the
Flood. If the pre-Flood earth was a time of climatic and geographic stability, it is
doubtful that the meteorite bombardment was before the Flood. The only
possibility left is that the event occurred during the Genesis Flood [27, p. 12].
6

cont'd on page four

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Four

Biblical Considerations
An impact bombardment event during or surrounding the Genesis Flood can be considered an
aspect of God’s judgement. This seems consistent with end times events described in prophetic
passages. It is obvious that impacts are not mentioned in the Bible in relation to the Flood. But
it apparently was not God’s purpose for Scripture to reveal to us all the mechanics of how the
Flood took place. The absence of mention of impacts in Genesis does not rule out the possibility
that they occurred. However, the effects of an impact bombardment event need to be considered
very carefully in relation to the sequence of events in the Flood account [37]. This paper will look
briefly at how the Bible seems to allow for an impact bombardment event of some kind, as long
as it does not conflict with specifics of the Genesis Flood account.
It is important to clarify at this point that Scripture must be given preeminence in authority over
scientific models. If a scientific model seems well supported and very plausible it is still out of the
question if it clearly conflicts with the Bible. Many scientists have made the mistake of allowing
their view of science to determine how Scripture is interpreted. This is a serious mistake.
Science can clarify the nature of certain events the Bible describes, but science cannot determine
how Scripture is to be interpreted. So, Scripture must not be distorted in order to assemble a
scientific model. On the other hand, there is a need to think creatively in order to allow the
creationist view of science to be refined. The relationship between biblical and scientific
considerations has been clarified very well by Reed and Froede [34].
The Bible seems to mention impacts during certain end times judgement events, especially in
Revelation chapters 8 and 9. Revelation 8:8 says “something like a huge mountain, all ablaze,
was thrown into the sea (NIV).” It goes on to state, “a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the
sky on a third of the rivers...the name of the star is Wormwood (Revelation 8:10-11).” Revelation
9:1 also mentions a star falling from the sky, which could possibly refer to an impact which may
be accompanied by both natural and supernatural effects. In Matthew 24:29 Christ refers to
passages in Isaiah 13 and Isaiah 34 which say that the Sun and Moon will be darkened and that
“the stars will fall from the sky.” Ezekiel 32:7-8 also says, “I will cover the Sun with a cloud, and
the moon will not give its light.” Though we cannot be sure, it seems plausible that these verses
could refer to a solar system catastrophe in the future that causes objects to collide with Earth.
These events in Revelation are not purely natural events in a sense because they are
miraculously timed to take place according to God’s specific judgement timetable. If these are
descriptions of impacts, they are impacts that have been deliberately arranged to carry out God’s
purposes of judgement. The impacts that seem to be described in Revelation 8 are only one
relatively small aspect of the entire complex of judgement events described in Revelation. In
relation to the rest of God’s judgement activity, these impacts are only a minor part of what takes
place, though they will be major catastrophes that cause many deaths and much devastation.
Like the cases mentioned in Revelation, I believe impacts during the Flood could represent
divinely arranged events, appointed to be part of His judgement on the violent world in the time
of Noah. This paper is proposing that impacts accompanied the Flood, not that they represent
a natural cause of the Flood per se. However, they could trigger some of the Flood’s processes.
In my opinion, it is not necessary or appropriate to insist on finding a natural explanation for every
aspect of the Flood.
7
Such an impact event during the Flood might be objected to on the grounds that we have no
historical accounts or legends of such an event, though there are many ancient legends of a great
Flood from different parts of the Earth. There is no compelling reason to expect that an impact
bombardment would be described in the Bible. First of all, many details of the experiences of
Noah and his family are simply not included in the Bible, so Noah could have seen things that are
not in Genesis. Further, if an impact bombardment occurred beginning with the onset of the
Flood, the witnesses of the event would all be killed. After the Flood, there were few people
present to see such events. We do not have actual descriptions of many geologic processes
associated with the Flood, though as creationists we believe in them because they are reasonable
inferences based on Scripture and science. It is appropriate to engage in this kind of “model
building,” so long as we understand that Scripture is much more certain than scientific models.
And so, it is very possible that we just do not have any descriptions of it.

cont'd on page five

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Five

Evidence on Earth for Impacts
In approximately the past 15 years a great deal has been learned about impacts on Earth.
Craters are plentiful on our Moon and on other solar system bodies but not on Earth. Craters
have not been well preserved on Earth due to the many tectonic, sedimentary, and volcanic
processes which have destroyed or buried them. How are impacts to be identified on Earth when
craters are not often preserved? The following geological features are indicators of impacts from
extraterrestrial objects: 1) shock metamorphic minerals, 2) shatter cones, 3) crater or ring
structure in the rock strata, 4) shattered rock breccia, 5) melt glasses, 6) meteorites, 7) tektites,
magnetic and gravity anomalies that correspond with crater structures and fracture patterns.
The most conclusive indicator of impact is the presence of shock metamorphosed material, either
in the form of rock breccia, loose rock, or small tektite spherules. The very extreme pressures
and temperatures of an impact cause atomic rearrangement within the rock crystal structure.
Melting and instantaneous recrystallization occurs along certain planes in the crystals. The effect
produces what is known as shock lamellae, which are fracture lines forming a “V”-shape in the
rock. Impact shock causes these lines to exist in very regular crossing parallel sets. Another
effect can be observed in X-ray diffraction patterns of the crystals. Whereas a normal quartz
crystal, for instance, would exhibit clear discrete spots where the diffraction maxima occur,
shocked quartz will exhibit streaked maxima rather than clear points of light [6, p. 708]. The
lamellae lines can be seen by looking at a microscope thin section of the rock. Shock pressures
are measured in Gigapascals (GPa); one Gigapascal is equivalent to nearly ten million
atmospheres of pressure. Planar fractures and shock lamellae begin forming in quartz at a
threshold pressure of about 5 GPa. In the range of 15-40 GPa quartz is converted to the mineral
stishovite. In the range of 30 to 50 GPa, quartz and stishovite can be converted to coesite.
Glassy material can be produced from about 30 GPa and melting occurs over 40 Gpa [10, p. 122].
Volcanic explosions, in contrast, only produce pressures on the order of hundreds of
atmospheres, rather than millions [8]. Shock lamellae can also be found in rocks of volcanic
origin, but the stress lines will not exhibit such a regular intersecting parallel pattern as is the case
for impact lamellae [4, pp. 51], [17, p. 70].
The same intersecting pattern of lines like the tiny lamellae can be macroscopic in the right
conditions, in the form of shatter cones. Shatter cones are a macroscopic manifestation of shock
metamorphism. Shatter cones are conclusive evidence of impact since no other natural process
8
but impact can generate the rapidly applied high pressures necessary to form them. Striking a
shatter cone with a hammer causes the object to break into a number of smaller shatter cones,
showing that the stress on the rock forms interlacing cones throughout its interior [8, p. 53]. If the
shatter cones at a crater site were undisturbed, their points would point toward the center of the
crater.
Other indicators of impact may not be unequivocal evidence when found alone, but can argue
strongly for an impact origin if found in combination. This would apply to rock breccia, circular
or elliptical uplifted ring structures, circular fracture patterns, magnetic anomalies, and gravity
anomalies. The key question for these features is do they correspond to the kind of structure
observed in known well preserved craters. Rock breccia and possibly melt glasses form a lens
shaped structure that forms the floor of a large crater. Unusual forms of glass form in the crater
floors of large impact structures, called diaplectic glasses.
Craters are of two broad types, simple and complex. Simple craters exhibit a bowl structure, with
no central uplift. Complex craters may or may not have multiple ring structures and always have
a central uplift structure. Every crater has a primary ring and complex craters may have other
rings, which form shortly after the impact. The central uplift also forms after the impact as part
of the process of stresses being relieved after the impact. Some sites may have formed multiple
rings, possibly including Chicxulub, but on Earth the outer rings are usually not well preserved
and may be difficult to identify.
One argument for the impact origin of the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary clay is the presence of
sand-sized spherules in this layer in sites all around the world in the locations where this layer
has been studied [4, p. 42]. The size of the ejecta particles and their distance from the crater can
allow estimates of the energy of the event. Many geologists would consider it impossible for
volcanism to propel particles that large all over the world. The sizes of ejecta particles can be
an important characteristic distinguishing between an impact origin and a volcanic origin.
Volcanic explosions do not have nearly the energy of impact explosions and volcanic explosions
are not able to loft larger particles as far or as high in the atmosphere as impacts are capable of.
Ejecta of special interest are tektites and microtektites. These are very small glassy objects
(microtektites being less than 1 mm in diameter) that are found in certain areas known as strewn
fields, including in sea floor sediments. Tektites have been melted and re-solidified; they are
usually spherical, ovoid, or tear drop in shape since they solidified in air. Tektites are often found
near craters. There are tektites which could be volcanic in origin, but these objects are usually
distinguished by the presence of water or gases which are never found in impact tektites. Volatile
material has been removed from impact tektites, and there can be other compositional differences
as compared to volcanic tektites [23, pp. 960-1]. It is important that the volcanic origin be ruled
out first before confidently labeling a particular site as of impact origin.

cont'd on page six

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Six

Earth Impacts in the Geologic Column
Recent years have brought forth a great deal of geological research into Earth impacts. Of the
eight types of indicators of impact listed above there are a significant number of sites throughout
the world where several are present. Geological literature will commonly suggest that there are
120 or more Earth impact sites [17, p. 66]. The following table (Table 1) shows that Earth impact
9
sites are found throughout the geologic column. Data for this table comes from two different
sources. The first is a list of 88 sites from Richard Grieve, published in 1982 [18, pp. 27-8]. This
list from Grieve is taken from a table of sites considered “probable impacts.” All of these sites
show evidence of shock metamorphism and Grieve ranks them in their state of preservation of
the crater structure. Some sites have been omitted from Grieve’s published list due to incomplete
information. The second is a list from O. Richard Norton, who has assembled a very conservative
list of 60 sites which are probable impact structures, published in 1994 [26, pp. 413-415]. Norton
gives some information on the type of evidence of impact for each site, generally corresponding
to the eight indicators above except that gravity and magnetic anomalies are not considered.
Norton’s list did not include the Chicxulub site in Yucatan; this site has been added to the
Mesozoic category. Eleven sites in Norton’s list lacked complete information, primarily on the
estimated age. These eleven sites were omitted, giving a total of 50 sites considered. Norton’s
list is a very small sample but it consists of points that I believe we can have a high degree of
confidence of their impact origin, with the possible exception of Chicxulub.
Geologic Column Label Evolutionary
Age (Ma)
No. of
Astrobleme
s,
Grieve-88
sites
No. of
Astroblemes
,
Norton-50
sites
Recent < 1 5 7
Upper Cenozoic 1 - 5 7 3
Lower Cenozoic 5 - 65 14 7
Mesozoic 65 - 100 11 3
Upper Paleozoic 100 - 300 27 15
Lower Paleozoic 300 - 600 20 12
Precambrian > 600 4 3
Table 1 Earth astroblemes in relation to the Geologic Column. Ages are in
millions of years before present, by evolutionary age estimates. Data from
Grieve [18] and Norton [26].
These crater data sets should only be considered small representative samples. Solar system
evidence of impacts would imply numbers of impacts on Earth of possibly ten thousand or more.
The important question is what has happened to thousands of Earth impacts? Astroblemes occur
on Earth in all types of rock. Since many impacts occur in sedimentary rock that would be
considered by creationist geologists to be deposited by the Flood, it logically follows that impacts
were occurring after these depositional events. Erosional and tectonic processes during and after
the Flood could have destroyed evidence for many impacts. Table 1 shows the largest number
of craters in the Upper Paleozoic category.
10
A few Earth impact sites and evidence of their extraterrestrial origin will now be considered,
merely as representative examples. First is the case of the Chicxulub site off the coast of
Yucatan. This site is considered the best candidate for a K/T dinosaur extinction-causing impact
because of its assumed age of 65 million years and its size being appropriate to fit the Alvarez
hypothesis. Actually, the Alvarez hypothesis does not necessarily hinge on the Chicxulub site
being of impact origin, but there is now a great weight of opinion in favor of it. The Chicxulub site
was included in Table 1 in the Norton data primarily to show that it makes no difference in the
conclusions of this paper. If the Chicxulub site were found not to be of impact origin, but of
volcanic origin as some argue, this leaves the Alvarez hypothesis without a single adequate
impact site. Without the Chicxulub site, the Alvarez team might be forced to advocate that there
were a few smaller impacts occurring around the world at the end of the cretaceous period, rather
than one as large as Chicxulub.
Actual evidence for the impact versus volcanic origin of the Chicxulub structure in Yucatan is
controversial. The Chicxulub site does not possess evidence as clear as many other impact sites
on Earth. The Mexican Oil Company Pemex sponsored much of the actual field work on the site
in the 1960's. First, there are concentric circular magnetic anomalies that match with a ring of
fault structures in the cretaceous limestone. The site is at a depth of approximately 400 meters
below the sea floor, and is a circular structure about 200 Km in diameter, about half under the
ocean and half under the continent. A boulder bed found in Cuba and another layer of material
found in Haiti have been said to be impact ejecta. There have also been core samples drilled at
around the center of the Chicxulub structure, where shocked and melted rock should be present
if it is an impact. The drill cores have been purported to contain shocked quartz, but some drill
cores have been lost and some scientists dispute the drill core evidence and claim it is of volcanic
origin. It is very possible the Chicxulub structure could be of volcanic origin. Meyerhoff, Lyons,
and Officer [24, p. 4] claim that the drill cores of the site showed lamellae that were irregular such
as volcanic or tectonic lamellae and not like the regular parallel arrangement of impact lamellae.
Also, they report that the melt sampled in the cores was not of chemically homogeneous
composition as should be the case for impact melt sheets. Meyerhoff was directly involved in the
work with the drill cores. Other considerations are from seismic and stratigraphic studies which
appear to indicate a structure fitting the complex crater type, with a central uplift. The circular
structures and magnetic anomalies are not as clear an indicator of impact as the presence of
shock minerals, so the origin of the Chicxulub structure is still an open question. From a
creationist point of view, there is no compelling motivation to treat the Chicxulub site as an impact
site, since as creationists we do not need an impact or impacts to explain the disappearance of
the dinosaurs.

cont'd on page seven

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Seven

Another possible impact structure near the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary is found just off the
coast of Virginia in Chesapeake Bay. Some controversy has surrounded this site regarding its
origin but recent research seems to point more clearly to an impact origin [32]. The Chesapeake
Bay site would be the largest known impact structure in the United States. The site began to be
considered as impact related from studies of the breccia deposits in and around it, known as the
Exmore boulder bed. Recent U.S. Geological Survey seismic reflection studies have very likely
detected a two-ringed complex crater structure. Some important areas of the center of the
structure had not yet been drilled for core samples as of the writing of the above paper, but even
so, several clues point to impact. The central peak-ring structure is about 25 Km in diameter and
is surrounded by a 30 Km wide annular trough. The annular trough is bounded by a terraced
11
effect from concentric normal faults. Lightly shocked quartz grains and impact glass has been
found in the trough area as well. The outer rim is estimated to have been 85 Km in diameter. In
this Chesapeake bay location, Cretaceous rock overlies Paleozoic and Precambrian rock. The
impact structure cuts through 650 meters of strata, mostly Cretaceous but reaching up to upper
Eocene strata at the surface. The structure penetrates over a kilometer into basement Paleozoic
and Precambrian rocks [32, p. 692]. The Chesapeake structure is very similar in many respects
to the Ries Crater in Germany, which is somewhat smaller. One important conclusion from this
site is that the Cretaceous and Eocene strata must have been laid down before the impact. This
would imply that the impact occurred either during or after the Flood.
This paper and the second paper examine the possibility that the impact bombardment began at
the onset of the Flood, and that this triggered some of the tectonics associated with the Flood.
The possibility of a relationship between impacts and tectonics has been discussed by M. Fischer
[11]. If the bombardment episode began with the Flood, we would expect to find some evidence
of large impacts in Precambrian and Paleozoic strata. We would not expect to find large numbers
of craters of Precambrian age, due to the destructive nature of the Flood. But a number of
Precambrian astroblemes are known, mainly in Australia and Canada. Also, tektites could exist
where craters no longer exist. Following is an example indicating an Earth impact from
Precambrian strata, which I assume would be antediluvian rock or rock laid down early in the
Flood event. First, the Sudbury structure (Canada), then tektite evidence.
The Sudbury structure is found in Ontario in very extensive layers of igneous and metamorphic
rock known as the Sudbury Igneous Complex, which are over 2.5 Km in thickness. Radiometric
dates place the age of the area at 1.85 Billion years. The structure has been highly modified after
the collision by sedimentary processes. The original Sudbury crater would have been
approximately 220 Km in diameter. Evidence of impact includes shatter cones and shocked
quartz [42, p. 306]. The stratigraphy of the impact site includes very thick clast-free melt layers
which are consistent with melted material in a crater floor. There are also some layers with very
large clasts, up to 100 meters in size [42, p. 308]. During the impact event material flows outward
and then back inward as the outer rim undergoes collapse and slumping. In addition to the usual
collapse moving material inward to fill the crater floor with brecciated rock, sedimentary processes
deposited other material in the crater and eroded away some of the rim. A variety of sedimentary
and metamorphic processes are indicated after the impact by the stratigraphy of the site. These
include post-impact formation of 600 m of shales and siltstones, 850 m believed to be turbidite
deposits, hydrothermal deposits of Pb-Cu-Zn ores from waters passing through hot breccia layers
below, and one layer near the surface which is a breccia in a matrix of carbonaceous material
believed to be of organic origin. The presence of turbidite deposits implies the structure was
submerged after it formed. Characteristics of the structure would imply an initial transient cavity
diameter of 110 Km, which collapsed to about 220 Km. Initial depth of the transient cavity would
have been 28 to 37 Km. This initial cavity is estimated to have formed in about 80 seconds and
the collapse of the rim to 220 Km diameter would have taken place in about 30 minutes. The
impactor would have had a kinetic energy of approximately 8.6 X 1030 Ergs; this corresponds to
an object diameter of 10 to 15 Km and a speed of possibly 20 Km/second. The above facts imply
the possibility of a large impact immediately before the Flood or early during the event. The
crater was then modified and filled by underwater turbidity flows and other sedimentary processes
during the Flood.
12
Tektites are found mainly in four areas across the Earth, two of which are quite large, the North
American and the Australasian strewn fields. The Australasian strewn field has been said to
cover about one tenth of the Earth’s surface, from southern Australia, covering most of Indochina,
and reaching as far as the southeastern coast of Africa and southern India [15, p. 252]. The other
strewn field, which may be the largest (covering about 9 million square kilometers), is the North
American, which encompasses the Gulf of Mexico, Cuba, Central America, and continues
westward in a band across the Pacific Ocean. The North American strewn field is distributed in
a belt that reaches about half way around the Earth [15, p. 252]. The Chesapeake structure
seems ideally placed to be the source of the tektites in this area. Other smaller strewn fields are
the Ivory Coast field off the western coast of northern Africa and the Czechoslovakian strewn
field. The Australasian tektite field covers a vast area and though the source of all of it is not
known, there are large impact structures in Australia, such as Acraman, which is purported to be
590 Million years in age and possesses a crater rim of nearly 90 Km diameter [46, p. 221-2]. The
Acraman impact may have taken place shortly after the beginning of the Flood and could be a
source of some of these tektites. The North American tektite field would be dated much later,
according to the geologic column. The time frame in which these tektites were laid down would
be a worthy topic of further research.
Recent studies have shown that the shock mineral coesite as well as shocked quartz are present
in some areas within both the North American and Australasian tektite fields. This includes
studies of sea floor sediment core samples in which minerals were identified by X-ray diffraction
[16, p. 435]. At some sites in the Australasian field Stishovite was also found, which argues very
strongly for an impact origin. The authors of this study also point out that volcanic ash is always
present as well in these tektite layers. “The search for shocked quartz and coesite was
complicated by the presence of volcanic ash at all the sites [16, p. 436].” Thus, there is clear
evidence of both impacts and volcanism occurring simultaneously. There is some other evidence
that many metallic spherules in sea floor sediments may be of extraterrestrial origin even though
the spherules may not be composed of shock minerals. Some ejecta could be produced by an
impact that may not form shock mineral material. This ejecta could produce tiny spherules
indistinguishable from volcanic ejecta, considering outward appearance and size alone. Studies
have been done on the composition of spherules from ocean sediment. Some of these particles
match well the composition of asteroids in their trace metal content [13, p. 1120]. Iridium is one
of the trace metals of importance, others are Ruthenium, Cobalt, Chromium, Nickel, Osmium,
Antimony, to name a few. Cosmic dust, including these spherules, is to be expected in ocean
sediments if impacts were occurring during the Noahic Flood.

cont'd on page eight

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Eight

Solar System Evidence for Impact Bombardment
The abundance of craters throughout the solar system is obvious. The surfaces of Mercury, our
Moon and many other moons in the solar system are covered with craters that have not been
eroded away or buried as has been the case on Earth. However, on some solar system bodies
there are markedly fewer craters because active volcanism has covered many of them. This
applies especially to Venus, Mars (to a lesser degree than Venus), Io (at Jupiter), and some of
the icy moons of the outer planets. A major impact bombardment event in the solar system would
be expected to be accompanied by an increased influx of cosmic dust as well as of larger
macroscopic impactors. Snelling and Rush, in an important paper in the Creation Ex Nihilo
Technical Journal [36, p. 39], showed that cosmic dust should not be used by creationists to
13
argue against the evolutionist time scale for the Moon or the Earth since the evolutionist scenario
for the history of dust influx is consistent with the amount of dust found on the Moon’s surface.
Snelling and Rush’s analysis of the dust influx rate brought them to the conclusion that the best
estimate for the dust influx is about 10,000 Tons per year for the Earth and the Moon. If Snelling
and Rush are correct, then young-age creationists must conclude that a significant dust influx
event occurred. At the rate of 10,000 Tons per year for 10,000 years the amount of cosmic dust
on the Moon’s surface would be totally negligible, possibly immeasurable. If we assume a similar
influx rate for the preflood period, there should still be a negligible amount of dust on the Moon
today. Yet, there is a measurable amount of cosmic dust on the Moon, and cosmic dust has also
been found in Earth sediments. What is the origin of the cosmic dust then, if the Earth and Moon
are young? A young Earth and Moon does not allow enough time for the amount of cosmic dust
to accumulate at present rates. Holding to a young age of 10,000 years or less therefore implies
that an event occurred to cause much of the dust influx and meteorite collisions in a relatively
short time.
In the evolutionary view of the history of the solar system, most impacting objects producing
craters would be expected to come from the ecliptic plane, roughly speaking. Collisions from
objects in highly inclined orbits would be relatively unusual, although there could be some
exceptions to this from the comets and asteroids. This is a natural consequence in the accepted
evolutionary Nebula model of solar system origin. The late-heavy bombardment period is
believed to have ended at something over three billion years ago. In this scenario, the implication
is that for over half of our solar system’s history, the meteoritic influx rate (of all sizes of objects)
has not changed dramatically. Thus, after the initial planetary formation period, uniformitarian
assumptions are applied to solar system cratering. Uniformitarian long-age assumptions
regarding cratering would lead to two primary conclusions: 1) that apart from major resurfacing
processes, the surfaces of many bodies would be saturated with craters, and 2) that the
distribution of craters would be symmetrical or nearly so across the solar system and over the
surfaces of bodies. These are the implications of the basic Nebula model; though today many
catastrophic collision and capture processes are also proposed to explain the solar system.
It has been previously pointed out that there are some clear examples of asymmetrical crater
distribution in the solar system [39, pp. 519-20]. These are cases where the number of craters
observed is not constant over the entire surfaces of objects. Asymmetrical crater distribution
argues for catastrophic events in the solar system. In Table 2, crater data has been compiled for
our Moon [21], Mars [43], Venus [45], and Ganymede (at Jupiter) [14]. For all cases, the craters
have been categorized into North polar, equatorial, and South polar regions by drawing the
equatorial band from -19.5 degrees latitude to + 19.5 degrees latitude. This separates the
spherical surface into three equal areas. Venus crater data comes from the Magellan spacecraft;
the Ganymede data comes from the Galileo mission, both of these made available by the Lunar
and Planetary Science Institute, Houston, Texas. The Lunar data is the same data used for
Figure 1 in the 1994 paper by Spencer on the solar system [39, p. 520]. The Lunar data did not
include the South Pole Aitken basin, recently discovered through the Clementine mission, so that
site has been added to the South Pole group. The Aitken basin is the largest known impact in
the entire solar system. It is apparently very ancient and is approximately 2,500 Km in diameter.
14
Moon Venus
(Largest)
Venus
(All)
Mars Ganymede
(Largest)
Ganymede
(All)
North Pole 9 19 315 8 12 71
Equator 19 11 301 11 19 88
South Pole 20 17 305 10 16 65
Total Craters 48 47 921 29 47 224
Table 2 Number of craters in equal-area latitude bands. Venus and Ganymede
data from LPI crater databases, based on Magellan and Galileo spacecraft results.
Table 2 shows a trend toward more impacts near the Southern Pole than the Northern Pole for
the Moon. This could possibly be the case for Mars as well but there is a need for a larger crater
data set. The entire Ganymede crater set shows a different trend than is shown by the 47 largest
sites, with more impacts in the North region than the South region. The distribution of craters on
Venus is unlike any of the other planets, with craters essentially randomly or nearly randomly
distributed across the entire surface. The Venus and Mars craters also do not show a higher
concentration in the equatorial region, as the accepted evolutionary view of the origin of the solar
system would imply. Also on Venus, though the entire planet has been resurfaced by dramatic
volcanism, very few of Venus’ craters have been altered or covered by volcanic or tectonic
processes [41, p. 28].


cont'd on page nine