JOHN R. BAUMGARDNER, PH.D.
ABSTRACT
The
wealth of new data, mostly from the ocean bottom, that precipitated
the acceptance of plate tectonics during the 1960’s simultaneously also
opened the door for the first time in more than 200 years to a technically
credible defense of the Genesis Flood.
From the mid-1700’s through the days of Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin
to the 1960’s, it overwhelmed the human mind to imagine a mechanism
that could possibly deliver, in a single brief event, the magnitude
and complexity of geological change evident in the continental rock
record above the point where fossils first appear.
However, with the new awareness that the Earth’s interior could
participate in the process and that the stiff layer of rock some 50
miles thick beneath the oceans could be recycled into the Earth, the
stage was set for a breakthrough in regard to the mechanism for the
Flood cataclysm. The crucial
final piece of the puzzle has come from laboratory experiments that
have carefully measured the way in which silicate minerals deform under
conditions of high temperature and high stress. These experiments reveal silicate material can weaken dramatically,
by factors of a billion or more, at mantle temperatures and for
stress conditions that can exist in the mantles of planets the size
of the Earth. The scenario in
which all the Earth’s ocean lithosphere is rapidly recycled into the
mantle via a runaway process, enabled by this stress-weakening behavior,
is now known as catastrophic plate tectonics [4].
Evidence in the geological record is compelling that such a cataclysmic
episode indeed has occurred in the Earth’s recent past. A reasonable inference is that this event corresponds
to the Flood described in the Bible and other ancient sources. I report new computational results from 2D
and 3D simulations of this catastrophic plate tectonics process. In particular, I describe how fundamental advances
in computational techniques now make it possible to advance the numerical
solution successfully through the most extreme phase of the runaway
regime.
INTRODUCTION
At
least as far back as the early 1960’s it has been known that the phenomenon
of thermal runaway can potentially occur in materials whose effective
viscosity is described by an Arrhenius-like [20] relationship. The viscosity of such materials varies as e(E*/RT), where
T is absolute temperature, E* is the activation energy, and R is the
gas constant. A large variety
of materials, including silicate minerals, have viscosities that vary
with temperature in this manner. In
1963 I. Gruntfest showed for a layer subject to constant applied shear
stress and a viscosity with Arrhenius temperature dependence, both the
deformation rate and the temperature within the layer can increase without
limit, that is, run away [15]. The
criterion for runaway to occur is that the time constant associated
with viscous heating be much less than the characteristic thermal diffusion
time of the layer. Several investigators in the late 1960’s and
early 1970’s explored the possibility of thermal runaway of lithospheric
slabs in the mantle. Anderson
and Perkins [2], for example, suggested that the widespread Cenozoic
volcanism in the southwestern U.S. might be a consequence of thermal
runaway of chunks of lithosphere in the low-viscosity upper mantle.
They conjectured that surges of melt associated with such runaway
events might account for episodes of volcanism observed at the surface. Lithospheric slabs, because they display an
average temperature some 1000 K or more lower than that of the upper
mantle but have a similar bulk chemical composition, are several percent
denser than the surrounding upper mantle rock and therefore have a natural
ability to sink. The gravitational
body forces acting on a slab lead to high stresses, especially within
the mechanical boundary layer surrounding the slab.
As a slab sinks, most of its gravitational potential energy is
released in the form of heat in these regions of high deformation. If conditions are right, the weakening arising from heating can
lead to an increased sinking rate, an increased heating rate, and greater
weakening. This positive feedback
associated with thermal weakening can result in runaway provided the
criterion mentioned above is met [5].
Experimental studies of the deformational behavior of
silicate minerals over the last several decades have revealed the strength
of such materials not only depends strongly on the temperature but also
on the deformation rate. At
shear stresses on the order of 10-3 times the low-temperature
elastic shear modulus and temperatures on the order of 80% of the melting
temperature, silicate minerals deform by a mechanism known as dislocation
creep in which slip occurs along preferred planes in the crystalline
lattice [19]. In this type of solid deformation, material
strength depends on the deformation rate in a strongly nonlinear manner,
proportional to the deformation rate to approximately the minus two-thirds
power. At somewhat higher levels
of shear stress, these materials display another type of deformational
behavior known as plastic yield, where their strength decreases in an
even more nonlinear way, in this case, inversely with the deformation
rate (i.e., proportional to the deformation rate to the minus one power). When these deformation-rate-weakening mechanisms
are combined with the temperature weakening discussed above, the potential
for slab runaway from gravitational body forces is enhanced dramatically. A point many people fail to grasp is that these
weakening mechanisms can reduce the silicate strength by ten or more
orders of magnitude without the material ever reaching its melting temperature
[19].
BREAKTHROUGH IN NUMERICAL
MODELING OF THE RUNAWAY MECHANISM
Numerical
methods now exist for modeling and investigating this runaway mechanism.
Considerable challenge is involved, however, because of the extreme
gradients in material strength that arise [6, 8].
W.-S. Yang, a graduate student with whom I worked closely, focused
much of his Ph.D. thesis research effort at the University of Illinois
on finding a robust approach for dealing with such strong gradients
in the framework of the finite element method and an iterative multigrid
solver. He showed what is known
as a matrix dependent transfer multigrid approach allows one to treat
such problems with a high degree of success. Although his thesis dealt with applying this
method to 3D spherical shell geometry, he subsequently developed a simplified
2D Cartesian version capable of much higher spatial resolution. Details of this method together with some sample
calculations are provided in a recent paper [27].
This
new formulation of the multigrid solver represents a breakthrough in
treating large local variations in rock strength and allows the mantle
runaway process to be modeled to completion for the very first time. Results I have reported in previous ICC papers only tracked the
runaway to its earliest stages. Beyond
that point available numerical methods failed.
Although the underlying equations themselves indicated runaway
most certainly would occur, computer methods were not available that
could handle fully developed runaway conditions.
Moreover, the new solver technique now allows a regime of rock
deformation known as plastic yield that involves an even greater degree
of instability. This important
plastic flow regime, because of the increased level of instability it
introduces, had not been included in previous efforts to model the runaway
process.
Figure
1 is a plot of the primary deformation regimes as determined by many
careful laboratory experiments for the common mantle mineral olivine. The heavy lines separate the three main regimes:
diffusion creep, dislocation or power-law creep, and plastic yield.
Finer lines of constant shear strain rates are plotted as a function
of temperature and shear stress. (For readers unfamiliar with the terminology,
strain has to do with the amount of deformation per unit length and
so is dimensionless. Strain
rate is the change in strain per unit time and so has units of inverse
time. Stress has units of force per unit area, the
same as pressure.) Note that
the rates of strain, or deformation, displayed in this plot for these
solid olivine crystals vary over fourteen orders of magnitude!
This range of deformation rate easily brackets the rates observed
in the runaway calculations. (A
tectonic plate moving 10 m/s, or 22.4 mph, relative to some substrate
below, with a 10 km thick weak zone in between, implies an average shear
strain rate of 10-3 within the weak zone, for example.)
In regard to the three regimes, diffusion creep involves migration
of point defects (extra or missing atoms) through the crystalline lattice
in response to applied stress, while dislocation creep involves planes
of atoms moving relative to each other in a more or less coherent way. In the plastic yield regime, such large numbers
of dislocations emerge that huge increases in deformation rate occur
with very little increase in shear stress.
It
is relatively simple to represent these three deformation regimes as
analytical expressions that can be incorporated into a numerical model.
To do this, based on these experimental data, an effective viscosity
is defined as a function of shear stress, shear strain rate, and temperature. On each time step a new viscosity field is
computed based on the current values of these quantities. This effective viscosity field is then used
in the finite element procedure to compute the new velocity field on
the next time step that in turn is applied to update the temperature
field and compute new stresses and strain rates.
Figure 1. Deformation map for the mineral
olivine at 1 mm grain size. Shear
strain rates g (in s-1) are plotted
versus shear stress t normalized
by elastic shear modulus m and versus absolute temperature T normalized to the melting temperature
Tm. [From reference 19 (Kirby, 1983.)]
Figure
2 includes three snapshots from a 2D calculation in which runaway occurs. The vertical dimension of the 2D box is 2890
km, equal to the thickness of the Earth’s mantle. The vertical viscosity structure in the absence of runaway includes
a strong upper layer with a viscosity on the order of 1030
Pa-s, a weak upper mantle/asthenosphere with a viscosity on the order
of 5 x 1020 Pa-s, and a relatively strong lower mantle with
a viscosity on the order of 3 x 1024 Pa-s.
The surface velocities before runaway begins are in the range
of those observed for the Earth today.
The initial temperature distribution includes relatively strong
thermal boundary layers at both top and bottom boundaries.
The internal temperature for this calculation is initialized
to be 2000 K, and the top and bottom boundary temperatures are 300 K
and 2700 K, respectively. A modest lateral temperature gradient is included
to induce motion within the box. Under
these conditions it is the bottom boundary layer that goes unstable
first to produce a runaway upwelling plume along the sides of the box.
This upwelling plume in turn causes the top boundary layer to
go unstable and also to run away. Note that runaway plumes emerge from both
top and bottom boundaries. It
is the release of gravitational potential energy stored in both these
boundary layers that drives the ensuing motion.
Figure
2. Three snapshots from a 2D mantle runaway calculation
in a box 11560 km wide by 2890 km high at times of 5.0, 12.5, and 20
days. Arrows denote flow velocity
scaled to the peak velocity ‘umax’.
Contours represent temperature in the top panels and base 10
logarithm of viscosity in the bottom panel.
The viscosity range in the bottom panel plots is therefore 1013
to 1018 Pa-s.
Such
upwellings from the bottom boundary have dramatic implications for transient
changes in sea level during the Flood since they produce a temporary
rise in the height of the ocean bottom by several kilometers.
Similarly, downwellings from the top boundary cause a temporary
depression of the boundary. Because
downwellings are generally beneath continental regions, they result
in a temporary depression of the continental surfaces by similar amplitudes
as the upwellings. Note in Figure
2 that during the runaway the viscosities throughout most of the volume
of the box are reduced by factors on the order of one billion
below their non-runaway values. Log
viscosity values between 13 and 18 correspond to viscosities between
1013 and 1018 Pa-s, whereas the nominal viscosity
at mid-depth in the box before the runaway episode was 3 x 1024
Pa-s. Note that this energy-conserving
formulation that accounts for deformational heating shows no evidence
of extreme temperatures associated with the runaway process.
This is because the rate of deformational heating is proportional
to the viscosity, which is diminished on the order of a billion-fold
by the weakening associated with the runaway.
Finally, this calculation, in showing that the beginning instability
can arise in the mantle’s lower boundary layer, adds to the number of
possible ways such a catastrophe might have begun.
One
reason most researchers in the mainstream geophysics community have
not yet obtained such dramatic runaway solutions is that a deformation
law that accommodates realistic levels of weakening has yet to be included
in their models. Moresi and Solomatov [23], however, reported a regime in 2D geometry
very close to the runaway solution described above, one they refer to
as the ‘episodic overturn regime’.
This convective regime is intermediate between a ‘stagnant-lid
regime’ in which the upper thermal boundary layer is so strong it does
not participate in the convective flow and a ‘mobile-lid regime’ in
which the upper thermal boundary layer is sufficiently weak that it
deforms and moves with the underlying flow. Their deformation law included plastic yield,
and the strength of the thermal boundary layer was governed by the stress
level at which plastic yielding occurs.
In their episodic overturn regime the boundary layer deforms
only slowly as it thickens by cooling until its negative buoyancy reaches
a critical value. At this point
this cold layer peels away from the top boundary and sinks rapidly as
a blob to the bottom. The process
then repeats itself in an almost periodic fashion.
The sinking velocities they report are modest because the weakening
they allowed was much less than that measured in mineral physics experiments. Nevertheless, their calculations clearly demonstrate
the process by which a planetary boundary layer can grow and then suddenly
become unstable and quickly release its stored gravitational potential
energy.
NEW 3D RESULTS
Next I
would like to briefly describe results from a 3D spherical shell calculation
that builds upon these 2D results. Details of the theoretical formulation and
numerical methods are summarized in a paper I presented at the 1994
ICC [7]. The case presented here has a horizontal resolution
at the Earth’s surface of about 120 km, which is twice spatial resolution
of the case described in the 1994 paper. As in the earlier work, the approach is to solve equations of mass
and energy conservation and a balance of forces for each cell in the
computational grid. The forces
include, first of all, a buoyancy body force that arises from gravity
acting on density variations due to the variations in rock temperature. These buoyancy forces in turn are balanced by the forces arising
from rock deformation and from the local variations in pressure. The underlying formulation is conceptually
very simple in that it conserves the mass and energy moving into and
out of each cell and balances the various forces acting upon each cell.
In addition
to this standard treatment of the conservation equations, there is a
special method for treating tectonic plates at the top boundary of the
spherical shell domain. Each
plate is represented by a set of particles that move with the plate
over the top surface. A set
of rules for the particles governs the interactions of the plates at
their boundaries. Where plates
diverge, new particles are added in a manner that represents symmetric
cooling on either side of the existing plate boundary.
Where plates converge, particles are removed to represent subduction
if ocean plate lies on at least one side of the common boundary. Where one side is continent and the other side
is ocean, it is the ocean plate that disappears. When both sides are ocean, symmetric removal of plate is enforced.
If both sides are continent, equal and opposite normal forces
are applied to both plates to model continent-continent collision.
The
initial shape and extent of plates, including the distribution of continental
crust, is specified as an initial condition.
In the case presented here, the initial plate configuration is
an approximate reconstruction of Pangea derived from shapes of the present-day
continents and data from the present-day ocean floor. In addition, an initial temperature perturbation within the spherical
shell domain is required to initiate motion. For this a temperature perturbation of -400
K to a depth of a few hundred kilometers is introduced around most of
the perimeter of the supercontinent.
Otherwise, the initial temperature within the interior of the
shell is laterally uniform.
Solving
the equations of mass and energy conservation and force balance from
this initial state yields a solution in which subduction of ocean plate
occurs around most of the margin of the initial supercontinent and the
continent blocks comprising this supercontinent are pulled apart. Snapshots are shown in Figures 3(a) and 3(b)
for times of 15 and 25 days, respectively.
The resulting pattern of seafloor spreading and continent motion,
while not identical to what is inferred from today’s Earth, is remarkably
similar, particularly given the simplicity of the model and the relative
deficit of detail in the initial conditions.
The short time scale is a direct consequence of using the same
reduced viscosity observed to occur during a runaway episode in the
2D calculations. Simulating runaway conditions directly requires
the high spatial resolution currently feasible only in two dimensions.
Again, the reason most researchers in the mainstream geophysics
community have not obtained such runaway solutions is that a deformation
law that accommodates realistic levels of weakening has not yet been
included in their models.
This
3D calculation is intended only as an illustration of the style of the
catastrophic tectonics and mantle motions that unfolded during the Genesis
Flood. The calculation obviously
does not capture the earliest portion of the cataclysm that correlates
with the Paleozoic part of the geological record.
In particular, it should be emphasized that the initial condition
used for the calculation does not represent an initial state for the
pre-Flood Earth. Instead it
represents a state roughly mid-way into the actual Flood cataclysm corresponding
to the early Mesozoic point in the record.
To be sure, a comprehensive Flood calculation ideally would begin
from an initial state resembling the pre-Flood earth and the calculation
would include the dynamics that unfolded during the Paleozoic portion
of the cataclysm as well as what followed afterward.
Unfortunately, the observational data most helpful for reconstructing
such a pre-Flood initial state with a reasonable degree of fidelity
are simply not available. No Paleozoic or Precambrian ocean floor, for
example, still resides at the Earth’s surface, and clues from the continental
rocks are sparse. On the other
hand, a moderately accurate guess for the initial state is absolutely
essential in this type of numerical model if the final state is to bear
any reasonable resemblance to today’s Earth.
So I have chosen, for purposes of this illustrative calculation,
to begin from a state for which we have at least a few reliable constraints
in order to obtain at the end a result that somewhat resembles today’s
world. I believe this calculation, even though it does not reach back to
the very beginning of the actual cataclysm, nevertheless provides useful
insight into the dynamics involved and reveals many details that otherwise
might not be apparent. Hopefully,
with sufficient effort it will be possible in the future to realize
a pre-Paleozoic initial state suitably reliable to model the entire
catastrophe.
OBSERVATIONAL SUPPORT FOR
CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS
If
such a dramatic catastrophe has occurred in the recent past of our planet,
surely there should be abundant observations to confirm it. Because of space restrictions I will limit
my discussion to only a few lines of supporting evidence. First, there is the rock record itself.
Figure 3(a). Snapshot of 3D solution after 15 days. The upper plot is an equal area projection
of a spherical surface 65 km below the top surface in which grayscale
denotes absolute temperature. Arrows denote velocities in the plane
of the cross section. Arrows
denote velocities. The dark lines denote plate boundaries where
continental crust is present or boundaries between continent and ocean
where both exist on the same plate.
The lower plot is an equatorial cross section in which the grayscale
denotes temperature variation from the mean at a given depth.
Figure 3(b). Snapshot of the solution after 25 days.
Grayscale and arrows denote the same quantities as in Figure
3(a).
Briefly,
the style and character of the Phanerozoic sedimentary record powerfully
refutes the proposition that the present is the key to the past. Nowhere on Earth do we observe contemporary
continental sediment deposits with the huge lateral scale that typifies
the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and even much of the Cenozoic portions of the
continental sedimentary record. Formations
exposed in the Grand Canyon such as the Permian Coconino Sandstone,
for example, extend laterally for hundreds to thousands of miles in
both directions with amazingly uniform microscopic and macroscopic properties
[3, p. 36]. Beyond such impressive lateral continuity at
the regional scale, Ager [1] documents many examples of amazing persistence
in physical properties of sedimentary units on a global scale. One example is the classic set of formations
that comprise the German Triassic: the Keuper, Muschelkalk, and Bunter. These formations with near to identical coloration
and physical properties are also found across Europe from England to
Bulgaria and in North America on the eastern seaboard as well as across
Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona [1, pp. 4-6].
He points out that the high-energy basal Triassic conglomerate
in England, with boulders of distinctive purple and white quartzites,
is found “from one end of Europe to the other,” with excellent examples
in France, Spain, and Bulgaria. Indeed,
the prominent occurrence of cross-bedding throughout the Phanerozoic
record reveals that high-energy water transport was a ubiquitous phenomenon. Such cross-bedding is prominent in the Coconino
Sandstone [3, pp. 29-36], but is even evident in portions of the fine
grained Redwall Limestone [3, pp. 26-28].
Further, the general absence of erosional channels at boundaries
between these sedimentary units suggests a single continuous cataclysm
[3, pp. 42-51].
Of
course, one of the chief mental barriers to acceptance of the idea of
a single cataclysm is the belief that radioisotope dating has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the Phanerozoic record spans many hundreds
of millions of years. There
is a startling inconsistency, however, between radiocarbon and long
half-life radioisotope methods. Since
the advent of the accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) approach to measuring
14C/C ratios about twenty years ago, AMS analyses of organic
samples from throughout the Phanerozoic record consistently show reproducible
amounts of 14C that constrain their ages, instead of to 30
or 100 or 350 million years, to less than 70,000 years.
This is true of essentially all samples tested since the early
1980’s in dozens of AMS laboratories around the world as documented
in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature [9].
Recent AMS analyses conducted by the RATE team on a set of ten
coal samples solidly supports this conclusion [9].
The extreme conflict between 14C age determinations
and methods based on longer half-life isotopes is pointing to the likelihood
that a foundational assumption of radioisotope dating, namely, that
nuclear decay rates have always been time-invariant, is incorrect.
A line of evidence strongly supporting this inference is the
large amount of radiogenic helium still retained in zircons [13].
Measured helium diffusion rates in zircon as well as in their
common host minerals indicate such observed high levels of helium retention
could persist for at most only a few thousand years [17, 18]. Moreover, the observed small amount of helium
in the Earth’s atmosphere is consistent with only a small amount of
helium outgassing from the Earth’s mantle and crust, contrary to the
higher levels expected if the conventional radiometric time scale were
true [11].
Another
indication that the uniformitarian time scale is faulty is the timing
of the uplift of today’s continental mountain ranges. Ollier and Pain [24], have reviewed the considerable
documentation in the geomorphology literature for a recent (Plio-Pleistocene)
near-synchronous uplift of all the continental mountain belts.
They point out that in most cases this uplift was preceded by
widespread regional erosional planation of the land surface.
They emphasize that both the planation and the rapid uplift were
global phenomena. But they are utterly mystified as to what could
have been the mechanism for the vertical uplift. Although they explain correctly the principle
of isostasy (that the ground surface tends to adjust its height such
that all columns of rock down to some compensation depth have the same
total weight per unit area), they simply cannot take the obvious logical
step of concluding the recent uplift reflects systematic and large-scale
isostatic adjustment following massive recent changes in crustal thickness. They reject conventional plate tectonics as
an adequate explanation because its time scale is too long and its rates
are too small. Catastrophic
plate tectonics, however, not only solves the time scale problem, but
it also accounts for the widespread erosional planation, provides the
mechanism for large local changes in crustal thickness, and explains
why the uplifts occurred simultaneously.
Continental
crust is roughly twenty percent less dense than the mantle rock beneath
it. It is also typically much
weaker, especially the warmer lower crust.
Subduction, and particularly shallow subduction, therefore is
able to alter the crustal thickness distribution beneath a continent. Shallow subduction of the Farallon plate beneath
the western United States, dragging with it to the east ductile lower
crustal rock before it plunged into the mantle below, for example, accounts
for the dramatically increased crustal thickness beneath the Rocky Mountains
and hence for the mountains themselves [10].
When the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and all but the latest Cenozoic
portions of geologic history are compressed into the span of a year
in the catastrophic plate tectonics framework, uplift naturally takes
place afterward and, especially from a uniformitarian perspective, appears
sudden and simultaneous. The
earlier planation corresponds to large-scale erosional processes operating
while most of the continental surfaces were still near sea level. Hence, the timing and simultaneity of the uplift of today’s mountains
represents powerful support for a recent catastrophic plate tectonics
episode.
Yet another
type of evidence for recent global tectonic catastrophe is the large
magnitude of the temperature anomalies inferred for the rock near the
bottom of the mantle. One of
the most robust features of lateral mantle structure provided by the
field of seismic tomography over the last fifteen years is a ring of
dense rock at the bottom of the mantle roughly below the perimeter of
today’s Pacific Ocean [26]. The
location of this ring correlates closely with the locations inferred
for much of the subducted ocean floor since the early Mesozoic in the
geological record. It is also consistent with location of the
cold downwelling flow in the 3D calculation of the previous section. Moreover, in the center of this ring of cold
rock, on either side of the Earth in the central Pacific and beneath
Africa, are blobs of relatively warm rock, squeezed up as it were like
toothpaste, as shown in Figure 4. The
issue here is the large difference in density, and presumably temperature,
between these cold and hot regions.
The density difference is estimated to be on the order of 3-4%
[14, 26]. This translates, assuming these regions have a similar chemical
composition, to a temperature difference on the order of 3000-4000 K! Such a huge temperature contrast would not
be expected if the cold upper boundary layer rock had taken 100 million
years or more to reach the bottom of the mantle.
On the other hand if this cold rock plunged through the mantle
just a few thousand years ago, it should still be near the temperature
it had when it was at the Earth’s surface, and such large temperature
contrasts could indeed be real. Although
accounting for such large density contrasts is currently a significant
problem for the uniformitarian framework, it is readily explainable
in the context of a recent episode of runaway subduction.
In addition
to the connection between past and current zones of subduction and the
regions of cold dense material in the deeper mantle, there are readily
apparent expressions of the hot buoyant regions (the features in Figure
4 resembling squeezed up toothpaste) also at the Earth's surface.
In the Pacific hemisphere, above one of these hot mantle features,
are thousands of seamounts, or underwater volcanoes, dotting the Pacific
Ocean floor. The ocean bottom itself displays an anomalous
elevation of about 250 meters in what is known as the South Pacific
superswell [22]. In the opposite
hemisphere, there is the East African Rift and its associated volcanism
and a similar anomalous broad elevation of the topography, referred
to as the African superswell [21].
Figure 4. Distribution of hot
(light shaded surfaces) and cold (darker shaded surfaces) regions in
today’s lower mantle as determined observationally by seismic tomography
as viewed from (a) 180 degrees longitude and (b) 0 degrees longitude.
(Figure courtesy of Alexandro Forte.)
Still another
line of evidence supporting the sort of mantle instability described
in this paper comes from Earth’s sister planet, Venus.
High-resolution radar images from the NASA Magellan mission in
the early 1990’s led to the amazing discovery that Venus had been globally
resurfaced in the not so distant past via a catastrophic mechanism internal
to the Venusian mantle [25]. More than half of the Venus surface had been
flooded with basaltic lava to produce largely featureless plains except
for linear fractures caused by cooling and contraction as indicated
in Figure 5. The Magellan images
also reveal evidence of extreme tectonic deformation that generated
the northern highlands known as Ishtar Terra with mountains having slopes
as high as 45 degrees [12]. Considering
the high surface temperatures on Venus and the strength of silicate
rock at those temperatures, it is next to impossible to sustain such
high slopes for more than a few thousand years.
Recent runaway sinking of much of the planet’s cold upper thermal
boundary layer into its mantle seems the most plausible mechanism to
explain such a planetary resurfacing event [25].
Given this evidence for runaway in a planet so similar in size
and composition as Venus, to me it is not unreasonable to consider this
same mechanism as an explanation for the global scale correlations and
the ubiquitous evidence for high velocity water transport and rapid
deposition in the sedimentary record on Earth.
\
Figure 5. Synthetic aperture radar images of the Venus
surface acquired by the NASA Magellan spacecraft. Left image displays the so-called ‘gridded plains’ terrain associated
with massive outpourings of basalt over the planet surface that subsequently
cooled and fractured. Right
image shows an impact crater about 30 km in diameter whose ejecta blanket
is pristine and undisturbed. About
1000 such craters were identified in the Magellan images. The freshness of these craters suggests the
tectonism that generated the present Venus surface features was recent.
(Images courtesy of NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.)
DISCUSSION
What
are some of the most notable difficulties for the concept of catastrophic
plate tectonics in accounting for the Earth we observe today, including
its record of past geological process?
One of the most prominent problems I have mentioned in earlier
papers is how the newly formed ocean lithosphere could cool to its present
state within such a short span of time.
Discussions in early 2001 with Nathaniel Morgan, a new graduate
student at Los Alamos National Laboratory with a background in multiphase
heat transfer, led us both to realize that supersonic steam jets were
almost a certainty along the spreading boundary between diverging ocean
plates during the runaway phase of the catastrophe.
Further analysis showed that jet velocities exceeding the Earth’s
escape velocity might be possible.
In this case, the energy per kilogram of steam escaping to space
is sufficient to accomplish the bulk of the lithospheric cooling while
the plates are moving apart and do so without depleting the oceans of
all their water. At a velocity
of 14 km/s, for example, 1 kg of steam has about 108 J of
kinetic energy. Removal of this
amount of heat is enough to cool 140 kg of rock by 1000 K, for a representative
specific heat of 710 J/kg-K. On
the order of 1000-1500 m of water would then be needed to cool the present
ocean lithosphere to its current state.
Although this is a lot of seawater, it is not entirely beyond
the realm of comprehension.
Another
aspect of these jets is that seawater is converted to supercritical
steam as the water penetrates downward through the fractured and porous
newly formed seafloor, and then emerges almost explosively at the throat
of the jet. Although there is some entrainment of water
as the jets traverse the overlying layer of ocean water, mixing is minimal,
and heating of the bulk ocean is therefore modest. Moreover, the seawater
entrained in liquid form at the ocean-jet interface and lofted in widely
dispersive trajectories provides a potent source of heavy rain so long
as the jets are active. This
mechanism solves a second fundamental problem that any credible model
for the Genesis Flood must address, namely, the source of water for
forty days and nights of continuous rainfall.
Explanations that involve the condensation of water vapor fail
because, even assuming ideal black body conditions, radiation is incapable
of removing the latent heat of condensation to space at a sufficient
rate. With this entrainment
mechanism, however, the water that falls as rain is not required to
condense from the vapor state. To
be sure, considerable additional analysis is required to demonstrate
to a high level of confidence these supersonic jets can indeed cool
the new ocean lithosphere to approximately its present state as it was
being formed during the runaway episode.
The initial analysis, however, looks promising.
What
about the triggering mechanism for the runaway of the mantle’s boundary
layers? In my opinion the simplest
possibility is that the initial state from which the runaway emerged
was built into the Earth as God originally formed it.
In fact, I believe this almost certainly had to have been the
case. It is also plausible that the Earth’s mantle
had been grinding inexorably toward catastrophe during all the 1650
or so years from when Adam disobeyed until “all the fountains of the
great deep were broken up,” such that no separate trigger immediately
prior to the Flood event itself was even necessary [16].
For lack of any more specific information about how the cataclysm
was triggered, I personally prefer this simple hypothesis.
CONCLUSIONS
As I drive
and hike through the southwestern U.S. where I live and observe on a
frequent basis the magnificent exposures of the stratigraphical record,
I can come to no conclusion other than the uniformitarian story, told
over and over for the last 150 years or more—that present day processes
operating at roughly present day rates correctly accounts for these
strata—is just not true. The story simply does not agree with what
can be casually observed in the field.
Why then has generation after generation of geologists continued
to pay it homage? Part of the
answer no doubt is that much of geology focuses on the local detail
and is not so directly concerned with big-picture issues.
Another part of the answer, however, I believe is that a conceptual
model that could account for the magnitude and character of the geological
change implied by the observations was simply not available. But with the development of plate tectonics during the 1960’s, this
situation changed. For the first
time in human history a conceptual framework existed that could account
for large-scale tectonic change in a coherent manner. A piece of the framework still lacking at that point was a detailed
understanding of the deformation properties of mantle rock. But methodical laboratory experiments over
the last 35 years have largely removed this barrier. It is now clear that silicates, like metals, display a rich array
of deformation behavior, including dramatic weakening at high temperature
and moderate levels of stress. With
numerical methods now available it is straightforward to show, upon
including these deformation properties, that mantles of planets like
the Earth have the potential for catastrophic runaway of the material
that form their thermal boundary layers.
The evidence is compelling that Venus experienced such a global
scale mantle runaway event in its relatively recent past.
The evidence is even more compelling, in my assessment, such
an event has also taken place on Earth.
I
therefore conclude that God has given His church crucial insight that
allows us an opportunity to present to the world a framework for earth
history with vastly more explanatory power that anything that uniformitarianism
has been able to muster. This
is a historic moment. We have
the key that unlocks secrets to the history of the Earth that no one
has ever had before. I believe as creationists we should be laboring
with every resource we have at our disposal to bring to fruition a comprehensive
Flood geology model/framework that not only includes the large-scale
tectonic phenomena but also details of dynamic topography during the
catastrophe that influenced the erosion and sediment deposition patterns
as well as of the isostatic adjustment following the cataclysm to form
today’s mountains, drainage patterns and other modern landscape features. It is a time to work together. It is a time for constructive action. It is a unique opportunity to honor God as
we show in a loving manner how the physical world around us affirms
so clearly what His written Word has declared for millennia.
REFERENCES
[1] Ager, D.V., The Nature of the Stratigraphical
Record, 1973, MacMillan, London.
[2] Anderson,
O.L. and Perkins, P.C., Runaway Temperatures in the Asthenosphere
Resulting from Viscous Heating, J. Geophys. Res., 79(1974)
pp. 2136-2138.
[3] Austin,
S.A., Editor, The Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, 1994,
Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA.
[4] Austin,
S.A., Baumgardner, J.R., Humphreys, D.R., Snelling, A.A., Vardiman,
L., and Wise, K.P., Catastrophic Plate Tectonics:
A Global Flood Model of Earth History, Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Creationism, Walsh, R.E.,
Editor, 1994, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, Technical
Symposium Sessions, pp. 609-621.
[5] Baumgardner,
J.R., Numerical Simulation of the Large-Scale Tectonic Changes Accompanying
the Flood, in Walsh, R.E., et al., Editors, Proceedings
of the International Conference on Creationism, 1987, Creation Science
Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, Volume II, pp. 17-28.
[6] Baumgardner,
J.R., 3-D Finite Element Simulation of the Global Tectonic Changes
Accompanying Noah’s Flood, in Walsh, R.E. and Brooks, C.E., Editors,
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism,
1991, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, Volume II,
pp. 35-45.
[7] Baumgardner,
J.R., Computer Modeling of the Large-Scale Tectonics Associated with
the Genesis Flood, in Walsh, R.E., Editor, Proceedings of the
Third International Conference on Creationism, 1994, Creation Science
Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, Technical Symposium Sessions, pp.
49-62.
[8] Baumgardner,
J.R., Runaway Subduction as the Driving Mechanism for the Genesis
Flood, in Walsh, R.E., Editor, Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Creationism, 1994, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.,
Pittsburgh, PA, Technical Symposium Sessions, pp. 63-75.
[9] Baumgardner,
J.R., Humphreys, D.R., Snelling, A.A., and Austin, S.A., Measurable
14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young
Earth Creation-Flood Model, in Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on Creationism, Walsh, R.E., Editor, 2003, Creation Science
Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[10] Bird,
P., Formation of the Rocky Mountains, Western United States: A Continuum
Computer Model, Science, 239(1988), pp. 1501-1507.
[11] Cook, M.A., Where Is the Earth's Radiogenic Helium? Nature,
179(1957) p. 213.
[12] Ford,
P.G. and Pettengill, G.H., Venus Topography and Kilometer Scale Slopes,
J. Geophys. Res., 97(1992) pp. 13103-13114.
[13] Gentry, R. V., Glish, G.J., and McBay, E.H.,
Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear
Waste Management, Geophysical Research Letters
9:10(1982) pp. 1129-1130.
[14] Grand,
S.P., van der Hilst, R.D., and Widiyantoro, S., Global Seismic Tomography:
A Snapshot of Convection in the Earth, GSA Today, 7(1997)
pp. 1-7.
[15] Gruntfest,
I.J., Thermal Feedback in Liquid Flow; Plane Shear at Constant Stress,
Trans. Soc. Rheology, 8(1963) pp. 195-207.
[16] Horstemeyer, M.F., and Baumgardner, J.R., What Initiated
the Flood Cataclysm?, in Proceedings
of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Walsh, R.E.,
Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[17]
Humphreys, D.R., Accelerated Nuclear Decay:
A Viable Hypothesis?, in Radioisotopes and the
Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth
Creationist Research Initiative, Vardiman, L., Snelling,
A.A., and Chaffin, E.F., Editors, 2000, Institute for Creation Research
and the Creation Research Society, San Diego, CA.
[18] Humphreys, D.R., Baumgardner, J.R., Austin,
S.A., and Snelling, A.A., Helium
Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay, in Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on Creationism, Walsh, R.E., Editor, 2003, Creation Science
Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[19] Kirby,
S.H., Rheology of the Lithosphere, Rev. Geophys. Space Phys.,
25(1983) pp. 1219-1244.
[20]
Levine, I.N., Physical
Chemistry, 4th edition, 1995, McGraw-Hill, New York,
pp. 517-521.
[21] Lithgow-Bertelloni,
C., and Silver, P.G., Dynamic Topography, Plate Driving Forces and
the African Superswell, Nature 395(1998), pp. 269-272.
[22] McNutt,
M.K., Superswells, Rev. Geophys., 36(1998), pp. 211-244.
[23] Moresi,
L. and Solomatov, V., Mantle Convection with a Brittle Lithosphere:
Thoughts on the Global Tectonic Styles of the Earth and Venus, Geophys.
J. Int., 133(1998) pp. 669-682.
[24] Ollier,
C., and Pain, C., The Origin of Mountains, 2000, Routledge, London.
[25] Strom,
R.G., Schaber, G.G., and Dawson, D.D., The Global Resurfacing of
Venus, J. Geophys. Res., 99(1994) pp. 10899-10926.
[26] Su, W.-J.,
Woodard, R.L., and Dziewonski, A.M., Degree-12 Model of Shear Velocity
Heterogeneity in the Mantle, J. Geophys. Res., 99(1994) pp.
6945-6980.
[27] Yang,
W.-S. and Baumgardner, J.R., Matrix-Dependent Transfer Multigrid
Method for Strongly Variable Viscosity Infinite Prandtl Number Thermal
Convection, Geophys. and Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 92(2000)
pp. 151-195.
|
|