Noah’s Flood - Burrows in the Earth’s Crust
In trying to weigh the evidence for a recent global flood, versus a prehistoric local flood, I recently came across a blog I was unfamiliar with, criticizing Glenn Morton for ignoring YEC evidence for the flood. It seems that about 10 years ago, Glenn Morton wrote Burrows cause problems for the Flood. It concluded that the burrows we see fossilized in the earth’s crust could not be explained by the flood. 8 years later, in 2006, John Woodmorappe wrote a paper addressing burrows and the flood, entitled Are soft-sediment trace fossils (ichnofossils) a time problem for the Flood? So, I decided to review both papers and see what conclusions I could come up with for myself.
Woodmorappe states in his opening paragraph
Owing to the ubiquity of ichnofossils throughout Phanerozoic sedimentary rock, combined with the inferred spans of time necessary for the construction of each burrowed layer or individual ichnofossil (supposedly at one stratigraphic horizon at a time), trace fossils have sometimes been perceived as an insurmountable challenge to Flood geology. Although ichnofossils have been considered in detail in previous creationist geologic studies, they have never been systematically analyzed in the light of the creationist-diluvialist paradigm.
I had to look up several of the words above. But here is the rough paraphrase I came up with:
Burrows are so common in fossilized sediment, and would had to have been dug so quickly (given the time span of the flood, and the assumption that burrows were formed in only one sedimentary layer at a time), that they are considered proof against the possibility of a global flood. However, even though burrows have been considered in previous creationist geologic studies, no one has ever determined how they could have formed in a single global catastrophic flood.
In other words, when Morton wrote his original paper 8 years before, creation research had no data to contradict him. With this paper, that trend could be changing.
Determining the Source of a Burrow
Woodmorappe spends the first several sections of the article explaining why not all burrows are necessarily the results of a creature digging. And where they are, it is hard to know for sure. In these sections, Woodmorappe explains other potential causes of burrows:
Transportation: Small stones can form what look like burrows, by being transported through the sediment through non-biological means. These other means are not discussed, but they are generally expected to appear less random than burrows created by digging. Unfortunately, there are not enough sure-fire differences to always know which is which.
Escaping Gas: Gas could over time etch burrow-like structures through sediment. However, they are generally not very uniform in size. On the other hand, Woodmorappe theorizes that given the amount of “overpressure” (i.e., pressure above and beyond that created by being under water) present within the sediment during the flood might have kept such structures more uniform than usual. However, as of this paper, no supporting experiments had been performed.
Plant Roots: Rotting plants, deposited during the flood, should be considered.
Toward the end of this section, Woodmorappe states, “While criteria exist for distinguishing biogenic and abiogenic traces, the reliability of these criteria is unproven.” In other words, how do you really know what you are looking at?
The next section discusses the confusion between body-fossils and burrows. For examples, a root is tapered where a burrow is not expected to be. On the other hand, some animals are known to dig tapered burrows, and some roots are not tapered at all, providing the potential for confusion either way. Also, what of sea life that was wiped out by the flood? What is mistaken for a burrow could be the only sign of an extinct specimen. Finally, there are some types of burrows that actually have multiple potential sources, potentially impeding ones ability to determine the true source. So once again… how do you know what you’re looking at?
Determining How Burrows Can be Dug so Quickly
Woodmorappe then begins to describe how the burrows we see could have been dug within the conditions and time frame of the Great Flood. He identities several specimen types, including annelid worms, mollusks, and clams. He then describes why, even though there are creatures capable of digging burrows quickly, they may not have had to, because one creature could be digging through a stratum while the next layer is being laid. The implication is that one could have multiple layers of sediment, laid in quick enough succession, that each might have simultaneously live burrowing creatures.
Applying this principle and some proposed burrowing speeds, Woodmorappe concludes:
To the extent that the above-quoted rates are realistic and widely applicable, it is clear that extensively-bioturbed horizons themselves pose no problem to the time constraints of a one-year Flood.
Assuming that is true, it makes one wonder about how these creatures survive the pressure of the sedimentary layers and and ocean water above them. In other words, how do they avoid being crushed? How do they feed?
How Can These Creatures Survive?
Woodmorappe outlines two challenges to survival that must be met for his theory to be true.
Oxygen: Today, sedimentation happens very slowly, and so there is very little oxygen for burrowers to live on. However, Woodmorappe writes that the unique conditions of the flood, resulting in much quicker and more turbulent laying of sediment, would have resulted in a very oxygen-rich environment. Such an environment would be good for a month he believes; and some burrowers might even have been able to survive for weeks beyond that.
Sedimentary pressure: As one would think, the incredible amount of sediment would likely immobilize a subject from burrowing. I don’t understand why it wouldn’t crush it, but so be it. There are several possible conditions Woodmorappe covers that might have allowed a creature to burrow, even within the pressures of its surrounding sediment: 1)Toughness of a buried creature (no studies yet in compacted sediment, but expelling water could help loosen surroundings), 2)Pockets of loose sediment (observed today in landslides, but unknown if it would happen under thick sediment), 3)Elasticity, leading to cracking in the sediment (observed today, but unknown if it happens under thick sediment), 4)Water (i.e., slurry) pockets (unknown if such pockets exist though), 5)”Situated in sediment sandwiched between Penecontemporaneous Partially Lithified Crusts (PPLCs).” (a new theory)
Woodmorappe then describes PPLCs. Basically, he theorizes that the hardening of sediment was non-uniform, such that arches of hardened sediment could have formed in places, acting much like the arch of a building. These arches would release pressure from the sediment below, hence allowing burrowing until such a time as when the pressure becomes just too great to bear, the oxygen supply is depleted, or the protect sediment finishes hardening.
The rest of the of paper then describes the various scenarios of burrowing, from thinner sedimentary layers, to thicker, using the PPLC mechanism to illustrate how what we see today could have happened in the Great Flood.
My Reaction
The problem I have with the paper is that looking at the sedimentary layers does not suggest the intermediate formation of arches within the sediment. Woodmorappe even acknowledges that you would not see such formations, but the fact that his theory predicts the absence of evidence is not in itself evidence of the theory. Supposing the theory is true for just a moment, I would have preferred an explanation of why the burrows we find constitute evidence for PPLCs, and in turn evidence for a global flood. On the contrary, the assumption of a global flood becomes evidence for PPLCs.
Is Morton’s Paper Still Applicable?
The first paragraph of Morton’s paper reads as follows:
Burrows and burrowing throughout the geologic column are a great challenge to the young-earth paradigm. If there was a global flood which laid down all the rocks in a one year period, then there should be little time for burrowing animals to burrow. and they should become fewer and fewer the higher up one goes in the rock record. This is because the animals should have been killed and buried down deep and they should not have lived to burrow in the later stages of the flood.
So far, so good. Woodmorappe agrees with Morton. In fact, even with Woodmorappe’s PPLC hypothesis, burrowing would stop in lower layers sooner than in higher, and layers toward the top would remain viable longer than layers in the bottom. However, this is where the agreement ends.
Morton goes on to show several examples of burrows, with explanations of how they were formed. Most of the examples look time consuming to create. However, even setting those aside (allowing Woodmorappe his argument for a moment), the remaining examples still appear to be unaddressed by Woodmorappe’s PPLC hypothesis. In order:
The Difunta group: Given the abrupt end of these spiral burrows beneath 5,000 feet of sediment, they appear not to be escape burrows, and suggests the ocean floor was steady long enough to burrow down, and then back up again, to the same level at which it started. Had the flood occurred as Woodmorappe describes, the upward burrow would have gone higher than the downward, but it doesn’t. Another possibility might have been that the division in the picture was the top of a PPLC… but it isn’t because PPLCs are thought to be shaped like an arch, and this one is not.
Palaeophycus: Argument is based on time.
Looks like an Ant burrow: Argument is based on time.
Skolithos Burrow: This was filled with limestone before being covered over with the next layer of sediment. This contradicts the time frame of a global flood.
Carboniferous of Egypt: Morton states, “This simply doesn’t look like turbulent flood deposition.” He does not explain why.
Atlantic Coastal Shelf: An example of a modern burrow that formed and was exposed long enough to be filled with sand. Used as a reference for the following burrows.
Oil Well Cores: 100 feet of burrows that look like the modern example from the Atlantic Coastal Shelf. To be filled with sand, it would seem that these could not have been laid quickly.
1000 feet of Oil Well Cores: These show burrows throughout the 1000 feet. Woodmorappe’s PPLC proposal would explain this, if there were arches formed to protect the organisms. The problem is that that you can see where there are still some remaining divisions between layers of sediment here, and none of them appear to look like arches. When Morton took these pictures, he had no idea Woodmorappe was going to propose this, so though I am a lay person in this, based on the fact that the divisions are not completely gone, I would have expected the arches to be present here, even contrary to Woodmorappe’s predictions.
Morton’s Hallway and Elevator: No comment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I am unconvinced by Woodmorappe’s argument. As a reasonably intelligent layperson, his PPLC hypothesis seems to me like it should provide predictions for what one would see in Morton’s fossil samples. For example, Woodmorappe predicts that the arches of a PPLC would fade into the sediment as the sediment compresses and dries. However, Morton’s series of pictures detailing 1000 feet of an oil well core actually shows layers disappearing, but incompletely. Had they been laid during the flood, then one would expect their reason for disappearing to the extent they did is because of the compression caused by depositional layers from above. Assuming a deluvian (i.e., catastrophic flood) model of the earth for a moment, then given the number of burrows within those layers, I would expect the PPLC arches to be similarly faded… in other words, we should see them. Contrary to Woodmorappe’s prediction, the arches required for his theory should be at least partially preserved in this particular sample; but they are not.
As for Morton’s acknowledgement of Woodmorappe’s paper, or lack thereof, I remain neutral. I find any animous between fellow Christians quite distateful (I distinguish between objective correction and animous), and regret the possibility that consideration of Morton’s theories could place me at odds against those Christian brothers whom he has upset, or have upset him. I would prefer to be at odds against no one except the devil and sin. There is little doubt that the impact of my research and the posting of my conclusions is to create yet one more side; but oh boy, I hope not. I prefer to think that I am weighing options, not sides, and helping others to do the same, because from where I sit there is only one side, and it’s God’s.