Permian mammal-like reptile tracks, Arizona

Introduction

Among the compelling lines of evidence refuting Flood Geology are a wide variety of trace fossils or "ichnites," which are any impressions or structures made by ancient organisms while they were still alive. Said another way, trace fossils are geologic records of biologic activity. These include trackways, burrows, dens, nests, droppings, and feeding marks left by a variety of vertebrates and invertebrates throughout much of the fossil record (Martin, 1999; 2010).

Many of these trace fossils indicate exposed land (or at most shallow water) with calm, mild conditions--hardly the kinds of environments expected during a torrential global deluge. Appeals by some creationists to "lulls" during the Flood, or differential escape abilities of different animal groups, are incapable of explaining the great geographic and geologic prevalence of trace fossil, and many of the features of the specific ichnites.

Moreover, many creationists suggest the strata containing these trace fossils represent the middle or latter stages of the Flood. However, the Bible itself, which many Flood Geologists cite to support their position, states that all animals died in the first 40 days of the Flood. If the Flood was global and not regional, as Flood Geologists insist, there would have been no animals alive to make the trace fossils observed.

Invertebrate Trace Fossils

Flood Geologists must explain how all these complex structures, which typically require mild and dry (or at best shallow water) conditions, specific environmental resources and materials, and significant periods of time, were formed during a global flood. Strict creationists themselves often characterize the Flood as having unprecedented hydrologic forces, which would have destroyed most if not all of the potential trackmakers during its early stages, as well as the animals' original habitats. Yet at many trace fossils sites we see evidence of such habitats, not only in the trace fossils themselves, but also a variety of other geologic and paleontological indicators (such as mud cracks, ripple marks, etc.) indicating relatively calm, mild, non-Flood conditions. Let us examine some specific examples.

Permian invertebrate trails, southern New Mexico. © 1991, Glen Kuban

Permian Invertebrate Trace Fossils from New Mexico.

Lower Cretaceous crustacean burrows on ledge above Taylor Site, Glen Rose Texas © 1980, Glen J. Kuban

Cretaceous Invertebrate Traces near Glen Rose, Texas.

Although Glen Rose is most famous for the well preserved dinosaur tracks the formation bearing the tracks also displays a variety of invertebrate trace fossils. Some of these are U-shaped burrows that appear as barbell-shaped impressions from the surface, and which are believed to have been made by shrimp-like animals. A hard limestone "marker bed" above the track layer in the Paluxy Riverbed west of Glen Rose that extends for several square kilometers (and probably farther). Literally tens of thousands of such burrows can be viewed on the exposed surfaces, and this is probably a small fraction of the borrows that exist on the surface (much of which is buried). The question is not just that it is likely that these burrows probably took many days to form, but how all these creatures managed to survive the flood until this point, and then recongregate with so many members of their species before forming all these burrows. Note that the upper part of these burrows is open to the air, as are many invertebrate burrows today, so that they were clearly not made underwater, nor under layers of other sediment. In the mainstream view, there is no problem, as this would have represented the organisms' normal mud-flat environment, and the margin of a large shallow sea.

Serpulid Worm Tube Fossils Lower Cretaceous, Central Texas. © Glen Kuban

Fossilized Worm tubes

Vertebrate Tracks

Permian lizard tracks from southern New Mexico. © 1991, Glen Kuban

1. Evidence of dry and calm conditions. The Mesozoic is interpreted by most Flood geologists as representing the midst of the Flood--when the whole world was supposedly covered by water. However, the very existence of tracks precludes violent or deep water conditions. Furthermore, many sites show mud cracks and other evidence that they were exposed to the air and remained dry for some time before being buried again. Some track beds such as the Coconino sandstones of Arizona, show evidence of being wind-deposited sediments in arid environments.

2. The sheer numbers of tracks and tracksites. Thousands of fossil tracksites are known, collectively containing billions of tracks, and hundreds of species of dinosaurs and other prehistoric aninals. Some tracksites extend for many square kilometers. Creationists cannot explain how such tracks were made in the midst of a violent global deluge, or why, if somehow so any prehistoric animals managed to do so, so many modern species failed to do so. Alleged exceptions such as supposed "human" prints in Mesozoic rocks of Texas and Arizona have not stood up to close scrutiny (Kuban, 1986, 1989, 1992).

3. Multiple track beds at individual sites. On many sites one finds tracks of highly variable depth even for similar sized animals, and/or tracks on multiple bedding planes--indicating that the dinosaurs walked there more than once and over an extended period of time. For example, Kevin Henke (2004) discusses the problem of dinosaur tracks occurring on multiple members of the Jurassic Morrison formation surrounding Dinosaur National Monument, and along with other geologic features inconsistent with a global flood. Similarly, dozens of tracks are known on several different horrizons in Cretaceous rocks of Texas. Again, the tracks show numerous dinosaurs, of at least three types.

4. Trackmaker gaits and directions. Most vertebrate tracksites with multiple trails show animals moving in a variety of directions, and at normal, healthy paces--not running, stumbling, or laboring as would be expected if they were trying to escape onrushing or encroaching Flood waters. Indeed, although some creationists have suggested that most trackways indicate running animals, the evidence is the exact opposite: running trails are relatively rare.

5. Track preservation. Some creationists have claimed that rapid burial during a global flood explains track preservation. However, the opposite is closer to the truth: tracks benefit best from gentle burial (whether slow or not). The kind of violent deposition that would occur during a global flood would tend to mar or destroy any tracks, not preserve them. In contrast, tracks at many sites are remarkably detailed, suggesting that they were buried gently with a contrasting sediment, and in many cases experienced a period of drying before burial. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, mud cracks found at many track sites provide direct evidence that the track surface was dry for some time (probably days or longer) before burial.

6. Tracksite ecology. At some track sites we see evidence of entire ecosystems, with a variety of invertebrate and vertebrate tracks found together, and predator/prey species interacting.

7. Geological distributions of tracks. Numerous terrestrial vertebrate tracksites are known from the Permian period onward. They also correspond well with body fossils, meaning that each period of geologic time features characteristic animals as well as corresponding track types. For example, dinosaur tracks occur in all three periods of the Mesozic era, but not in stratagraphically higher or lower strata. Large mammal tracks occur in the Paleocene and more recent periods, but not earlier. Pterosaurs (flying reptile) bones and tracks only appear in Mesozoic rocks. There is no reason why this should be the case in a Flood Geology framework.

Vertebrate Burrows and Dens

Tortoise coprolite, Eocene, Madagascar From Glenn Morton's website.

Vertebrate Droppings

Dinosaur Nesting Sites

Dinosaur nest. Oxford Museum of Natural History

Flood geologists must explain how all of these dinosaurs managed to survive violent Flood waters, then had the time to find and mate with members of their own species, built dozens or scores of nests, plus time for the eggs to hatch-- estimated to require 45-80 days depending on the dinosaur group (Carpenter, 1999). Many sites not only show evidence of hatching in the eggs themselves, but some also feature juvenile skeletons and/or footprints. Moreover, on some sites there is evidence that the dinosaurs returned to start the process all over again, year after year.

The following example by John Stear accentuates the magnitude of the problem for Flood Geologists. "Thousands of sauropod eggs have been discovered from a site at Auca Mahuevo, Argentina (Chiappe et al, 2001). This site is interesting because several of the eggs are unhatched and preserve sauropod embryos. The eggs at this site are found at 4 or 5 separate levels, and are preserved in a type of paleosol called a vertisol. Vertisols develop in clay soils subjected to repeated wetting and drying, which causes the clay soil to swell and then shrink, forming "slickensides" along sheer planes within the soil. Since vertisols only form in semiarid or seasonally arid climates, this too is inconsistent with the flood." Later Stear notes: "In Mongolia an Oviraptor was preserved directly on top of a clutch of eggs, in what appears to be a "brooding" position. Dinosaur eggs which have hatched demonstrate temporal breaks in sedimentation long enough to rule out the flood model all by themselves, because they show that the eggs were laid and subsequently remained unburied long enough for incubation to be completed" (Stear, 2005).

When we consider the number of such sites and the multiple strata, at which they are found in some localities, and the problem for Flood Geology is compounded many fold.

The time factor alone precludes a global flood scenario--at least the kind described by Flood geologists themselves, where the whole globe was covered by water after only 40 days. Even if this basic contradiction could be resolved, severe ecologic problems remain. Dinosaurs, like most animals, undoubtedly required specific environmental conditions for mating and nesting. Yet their normal habitat would have been thoroughly destroyed by earlier stages of the Flood, leaving entirely foreign climatic conditions, sediment, and (if any existed at all) vegetation.

Remarkably, young earth advocate Walter Barnhart attempted to argue that dinosaur nests were made during rising flood waters, under "at least" shallow water. A variety of features in eggs were reinterpreted to fit a watery environment, such as suggesting eggs with openings were not from hatching, but hot water exploding the eggs. He did not explain how in the midst of a global flood the dinosaurs, dinosaurs of like species managed to survive and recongregate (after treading water for weeks?) then have the energy and time to construct nests and lay eggs in environments totally foreign to their normal ones, or how the eggs managed to hatch (as they clearly did in many cases) in incredibly hostile, alien environments. Explaining even as few nests on a few sites in a violent Flood scenario would seem very challenging, accounting for thousands of nests on scores of sites seems downright preposterous.

Another problems not explained by Barnhart or other strict creationists concerns the preservation of the eggs and nests. In order for delicate structures such as eggs and nests to be preserved largely intact, deposition would need to occur in a relatively calm, low-energy manner. In contrast, a number of Flood Geology proponents have argued that the Flood waters would have produced tremendous current speeds of 90 to 180 mph (Barnette and Baumgardner, 1994; Woodmorappe, 2002).

Strict Creationist Attempts to Explain the Trace Fossil Record

A following proposals have been advanced to reconcile trace fossils with Flood Geology; however, all fail miserably.

1. Hydrologic sorting. First, tracks don't sort. Second, any hydrologic sorting of body fossils makes the problems worse for Flood Geology. Such sorting would tend to group animals of similar size and density together, including many large mammals and similar sized dinosaurs. And yet they are never found together, nor even at the same geologic horizons. Mammal-like reptile tracks are consistently found stratigraphically below dinosaur tracks. Dinosaur and pterosaur tracks are consistently found below large mammal tracks. The same kind of succession occurs for corresponding body fossils.

2. Ecological zonation. This would at best explain horizontal segregation, not the consistent vertical succession seen in the fossil record. It also does not explain the conditions found in the midst of, or immediately after, a global flood, which would destroy the original environments and ecosystems.

3. Differential escape abilities. First, even if dinosaurs were all slow, lumbering beasts (a long discredited notion) it would not explain why their bones and tracks consistently appear after a variety of Permian animals. Second, the evidence shows that dinosaurs, like mammals, were a diverse group and included many small and gracile, quick-footed species, so there is no basis for suggesting that all dinosaur remains and tracks should appear below all large mammal remains. Especially problematic for the escape ability suggestion is why the remains and tracks of pterosaurs (flying reptiles) also consistently appear below mammal tracks, and never in Cenozoic strata.

4. Lulls in the flood waters. The number and length of proposed "lulls" in the flood waters makes them incompatible with a violent global flood, which represents the core of Flood Geology. Indeed, many creationists authors such as John D. Morris (president of ICR) have emphasized the "rapid and continuous" nature of Flood deposition. The proposal also does not explain how thousands of vertebrate and invertebrate creatures the world over survived while underlying sediments (often hundreds of feet worth) were being deposited. The "lulls" explanation is especially untenable when phenomena such as vast dinosaur nesting sites are considered, which require at least weeks of non-deposition, as well as the preservation of ecological conditions suitable for mating--which could hardly be the case after weeks of violent flood deposition.

5. Misidentifications. Perhaps one of the weakest attempts to minimize the problem of vertebrate tracks was made by strict creationists John Woodmorappe (2002), who suggested that many supposed dinosaur tracks may have been made by fish or other aquatic animals, based on a report regarding some indistinct, putative dinosaur tracks at Isona, Spain which have been reinterpreted as possible manta ray traces (Martinell et al, 2001). Woodmorappe's comments are largely moot, since whatever the status of the Isona tracks, thousands of sites throughout the world show distinct, unmistakable tracks of dinosaurs and other terrestrial vertebrates. Even some strict creationists have criticized Woodmorappe's remarks on this basis, while pointing out additional challenges for Flood geologists:

The sediment pile above which tracks occur is commonly many kilometers thick. We are unable to conceive of a Flood so catastrophic as to lay down kilometers of sediment while at the same time allowing terrestrial animals 'temporarily to survive' that catastrophe. If one such track seems problematic enough within such a scenario, the worldwide occurrence of thousands of documented, unambiguously terrestrial tracks is still more problematic. This difficulty is further compounded by the frequent occurrence of dinosaur tracks at successive horizons at the same locality (Garner et al, 2003).

Garner (1096) and a few other creationist authors have tried to deal with these problems for Flood Geology by proposing that many trace fossil depositions were post-Flood. However, this contradicts the claims of most other creationists that the Mesozoic Era (Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous Periods) represents Flood deposits, and leaves other serious problems of its own. One is the inability to explain why there is a specific and consistent order around the world in the track and bone finds in the Mesozoic. Not only do the trackways correspond to the body fossils, but we find no tracks or bones of most large, modern mammals in the Mesozoic Era--even though according to Flood Geology they were all living at the same time. Indeed, despite the occurance of millions of dinosaur tracks and body fossils in the Mesozoic, we find no evidence (either as tracks or body fossils) of horses, deer, cattle, camels, elephants, rhinos, dogs, cats, bears, hippos, giraffes, apes, whales, or scores of other modern mammal groups), even though they must all have existed after the Flood, since they are still with us. This major problem is seldom acknowledged let alone adequately explained by creationists addressing trace fossils.

At the other extreme of Flood Models, some creationists have proposed that dinosaur trace fossils might represent pre-Flood phenomena. However, this position is unpopular even among creationists, since most Mesozoic layers, including most track and nesting sites are underlain by hundreds or even thousands of fee7 of sedimentary strata. Moreover, a pre-Flood proposal is just as impotent to explain the consistent succession of tracks and body fossils as is a post-Flood interpretation.

While some creationists struggle to fit trace fossils into their models and acknowledge the major challenge in doing so, others minimize the issue or even claim that many are better explained in a global flood scenario than mainstream geology. However, those asserting this appear to have profound misunderstandings of the trace fossil evidence, apparently due to a lack of in-depth research on the subject, in or out of the field.

Lower Cretaceous Dinosaur Tracks, Central Texas © 2006, Glen J. Kuban

For example, young earth advocate Michael Oard begins an article on fossil tracks by stating that millions of dinosaur tracks are known, and that according to "evolutionists" dinosaur tracks were made "some hundred million years ago." Actually, dinosaur tracks have been found from the mid Triassic (with some possible ones even earlier) through late Cretaceous, from approximately 235 to 65 million years ago. Oard need not accept these dates, but he ought to take the time to learn what mainsream scientists actually hold. Oard next argues that most dinosaur trackways are straight, and that this suggests the trackmakers were running from on-rushing flood waters. First, although many dinosaur trackways are fairly straight (for the limited distances exposed), just as many modern animal trails often are straight over similar distances, many other dinosaur trackways change direction either gently or abruptly--in numbers and in ways completely expected of animals going about their normal business, and in some cases, migrating or possibly feeding. Second, while making a baseless issue out of the supposed straightness of trackways, he neglects more serious problems. In virtually any Flood Geology model, after 40 days of endless rain and violent deposition, one would not expect any dinosaurs to be alive, let alone thousands to be walking around in normal, healthy ways, as most trackways indicate. Indeed, one would instead expect that most trackways would show animals laboring, stumbling, and collapsing in death throes. In Oard's scenario one would also expect most trails at a site to be heading in the same direction, whereas at most sites with multiple trails we find the trackmakers proressing in several different directions (except where we find evidence of sauropods in migratory herds).

Oard also argues that few juvenile tracks are known, and that this indicates that they were made under unusual conditions, such as a worldwide Flood. However, despite the preservational bias against small tracks (which tend to be less deeply impressed and more easily obliterated), many small tracks and likely juvenile tracks are known--often occurring near adult tracks.

Modern bird tracks and rain drops preserved in hardened mud from a slab pried up at the Bay of Fundy From Glenn Morton's website

Oard makes the misleading comment that "Dinosaur tracks discovered in Queensland needed to be covered after excavation because they were eroding through exposure to the elements. So they couldn't have been exposed for millions of years." However, no mainstream scientist claims they were. All evidence (and common sense) indicates that after tracks were initially made and buried, they would remained protected under sedimentary layers for most of geologic history, until reexposed in relatively modern times by the actions of rivers, erosion, or human excavators. Indeed, another issue not even addressed by Oard concerns track preservation. If the tracks were made on soft, wet sediments during a violent flood, and then buried with violent onrushing waves of water, few if any tracks would be preserved. Evidence indicates that the environments preserving tracks were far different - involving calm and gentle burial in most cases, and often a spell of drying before burial, as indicated by bud cracks in many track layers, and crisply preserved details in many tracks themselves Morton (2004b).

Oard's attempts to deal with dinosaur nests involve even deeper misunderstandings and neglect of data. For example, he suggests that eggs missing tops are probably due to predatory dinosaurs breaking them open to eat the babies. A more plausible explanation is that most are simply due to hatched eggs. Predators would likely not leave most eggs in place or largely undistorubed except for holes at the top. However, what Oard and other young earth advocates seem to be in deep denial about is that the very existence of vast nesting sites requires environmental conditions and spans of time totally at odds with a violent global flood. Further critques of Ooard's trace fossil claims were made by Konkus (2010a, 2010b).

Babinski (2002) provides a good summary of the interrelated geologic and trace fossil evidence that refutes Flood Geology. Noting that the geologic record documents a wide variety of ancient environments and not a year-long recent deluge, Babinski explains,

There are desert strata, dried out lake beds and dried up river beds, paleosols (soil horizons), layers of rootlets at different horizons in the geologic record, layers of forests at different horizons, fossilized ant nests, termite nests, fragile wasp cocoons, cells from bees nests, dinosaur nests and eggs, reptile nests and eggs (in the Chinle Formation of the Petrified National Forest), bird nests and eggs (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming), fossilized worm holes, fossilized rodent burrows, tracks, trails and markings left by land-dwelling animals, even animal dung in its original position of deposition as it dried and cracked and hardened on solid ground. The geological evidence is clear that dry land existed at many different periods throughout the past with land animals continuing to walk around, deposit dung, woo mates, build hives, nests and burrows, lay eggs, hatch those eggs ("empty hatched egg" fossils), then raise their young (and repeat the process), such evidence being found at different horizons in the geologic record. According to young-earth creationists such evidence all accumulated during an alleged "year-long Flood" that kept the earth under water for a year, and whose incomparable violence pulverized rock to fine sediment, then piled that sediment at an average depth of one mile over all the earth... "

Conclusions

References

Barnette, D.W. and Baumgardner, J.R., 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during Noah’s Flood; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third international Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 77-86.

Barnhart, Walter R. 2004. Dinosaur Nests Reinterpreted Evidence of Eggs Being Laid Directly into Rising Water under Conditions of Stress, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 2. Sept. 2004, pp. 89-102.

Babinski, Ed. 2002. Creationist "Flood Geology" Vs Common Sense - Or Reasons why "Flood Geology" was abandoned in the mid-1800s by Christian men of science. Web article at: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/flood.html

Carpenter, K., 1999. Eggs, Nests, and Baby Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press, USA. 336p.

Chiappe, L., 2001. et al, Walking on Eggs. Scribner, 224p.

Deem, Rich, 2008. The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local. Website article at: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Garner, P. 1996. Where is the Flood/post-Flood boundary? Implications of dinosaur nests in the Mesozoic, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10, 101- 106

Garner, P., M. Garton, R.H. Johnston, S.J. Robinson and D.J. Tyler, 2003 (April). Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation), Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 54-59.

Genise, Jorge F., 2000. Insects Palaeoichnology. Web article at: http://www.ub.edu/dpep/meganeura/53ichnology.htm

Godfrey, Stephen J., 1989. Tetrapod Fossil Footprints, Polonium Halos, and the Colorado Plateau NCSE Reports, Vol. 9, No. 2. (Winter 1989). pp. 8-17.

Henke, Kevin R., 2004, Creationist Mumbo Jumbo at Dinosaur National Monument Web article at: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/yec_mumbo_jumbo_henke.htm

Konkus, Sherry, 2010. Web site article at: http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.org/oard-s-foot-track-follies

Konkus, Sherry, 2010. Web site article at: http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.org/oard-s-flood-folly

Kuban, Glen J., 1986a, The Taylor Site Man Tracks. Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 1-9.

Kuban, Glen J., 1986b, Review of ICR Impact Article 151, Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 1.

Kuban, Glen J., 1986c, A Summary of The Taylor Site Evidence. Creation/Evolution, V. 6, No. 1, p. 10-18.

Kuban, Glen J., 1986d, Elongate Dinosaur Tracks. In Gillette, David D. and Martin G. Lockley, eds., Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57-72

Kuban, Glen J., 1989a, Retracking Those Incredible Man Tracks. NCSE Reports, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Special section.).

Kuban, Glen J., 1992, Do Human Footprints Occur in the Kayenta of Arizona? Origins Research. V. 14, No. 2, p. 7, 12, 16.

Martin, Anthony, 2010. Introduction to Ichnology. Web site at: http://www.envs.emory.edu/faculty/MARTIN/ichnology/

Martin, Anthony, 2010. Trace Fossil Image Database. Web page at: http://www.envs.emory.edu/faculty/MARTIN/ichnology/images.htm

Martinell et. al., 2001. Cretaceous Ray Traces?: An Alternative Interpretation for the Alleged Dinosaur Tracks of La Posa, Isona, NE Spain Palaios, vol. 16, No. 4 pp. 409-416

Morris, John D. 1980. Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs and the People Who Knew Them. Master Books.

Morton, Glenn R., 1997. Why the Flood is not Global. Web article at: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gflood.htm

Morton, Glenn R., 2004a. While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing. Web article at: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/termites.htm

Morton, Glenn R., 2004b. Tracks and Raindrop, Hail and Ice Impressions Demonstrates Slow Deposition Web article at: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm

Morton, Glenn R., 2007. Why I believe Genesis is Historically Accurte. Web article at: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/genesis.htm

Oard, Michael, 2003 (March), Creation, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 10-12

Stear, John, 2005 (website article), Eggs, Nest and the 'Flood Theory'. Website article at http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/eggs.htm.

Woodmorappe, John, 2002, Dinosaur footprints, fish traces and the Flood, Technical Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2.

Articles by Glenn Morton on Trace Fossils that Refute Young-Earthism

• The Real Poop on the Global Flood
• Going to the Bathroom in the Global Flood
• Burrows cause problems for the Flood
• Haymond formation with Thousands of Burrows
• While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing
• Carbonate hardgrounds disprove the global flood.
• Evidence from the Orkney Islands Against a Global Flood

Other Articles by Glenn Morton demonstrating calm or dry paleo enviromnents, and periods of slow deposition or non-deposition:

• Time in the Flood--Seismic and the Great Stone Dome Batholith
• Salt, Meteors and the Global Flood
• Varves and the Global Flood
• Limestone Presents Problems for the Global Flood
• The Multiple Droughts During the Global Flood
• Texas Caves and the Flood
• One Million Years of Not Sweeping the Floors--The Soils of Beijing
• Amber and the Flood
• Appalachians show evidence of earth's Age.

Web sites from others addressing problems with Flood Geology and Trace Fossils.

Creationist Mumbo Jumbo at Dinosaur National Monument by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.
• Creationist "Flood Geology" Vs Common Sense by Edward T. Babinski
• Some Relatively Non-Technical Problems With Flood Geology, by David F. Siemens, Jr.
• Flood geology: a house built on sand, by Dr Alex Ritchie
• Paleosols (Prehistoric Soils)
• History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth An interesting history of Flood Geology
• The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local by Rich Deem