Creation geologist from Russia

answering “scientific” criticisms

 

Alexander Lalomov (PhD)

 

 

Recently, I accidentally found a critique of the article “Gold placers in Earth history” (A.V. Lalomov and S.E.Tabolitch, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 11(3), 1997:330-334) by Roger Scott (“Creation Geology in Russia”,  http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creation_geology_russia_scott.htm).  The site hosting this critique by Roger Scott is named “No answers in Genesis”.

 

Neither Roger Scott nor the host of that site, John Stear, had informed us (the authors) of the posting of this critique of our paper.  Therefore, visitors to the site could have been led to believe that the critique was scientifically valid, and hence, that we had nothing to say in defence of those criticisms. I am very thankful to Mr Stear for his kindly agreeing to now provide a link from his site to my response here.

 

The main points of our paper were:

 

1)      According to the theory of placer generation, gold placers only form within relatively narrow limits of hydrodynamic activity: neither high-energy environments (mudflows, for example) nor low-energy rivers flowing across plains provide favorable conditions conducive to the formation of placers.  A large-scale catastrophe also does not provide favorable conditions, because it results in dispersion of the gold grains from the source over an extensive area (Graf, 1971;  Lalomov and Tabolitch, 1991).

2)      An epoch of placer formation usually follows a phase of intensive tectonic movements, commonly accompanied by ore lode emplacement and mountain-building.  The subsequent denudation process forms a thick sequence of overlying conformable clastic deposits that contain large amounts of heavy minerals in low concentrations.  New placers are then generated by the concentration of the heavy minerals through the action of water on those sediments (Wells, 1969).

 

Thus, gold placers are very informative indicators of both hydrodynamic and tectonic processes in the past.

 

Figure A. Proposed hydrodynamic energy versus time plot based on Scriptural interpretation (from Reed, Froede and Bennet, 1996, with some simplifications and additions). Key geologically significant dividing lines (1), (2) and (3) mark the third day of creation, the onset of the Genesis Flood, and the initiation of a steady energy decrease marking the post-Flood to the present respectively. Emax and E min mark the interval of the energy value most favourable for placer formation. Ò1 and T2 mark the most favourable times for placer generation. All the plot data are qualitative.

B.  Megaepochs of placer formation: (I) Archean, (II) Proterozoic, (III) Middle-Late Paleozoic, (IV) Late Mesozoic, and (V) Cenozoic (from Bache, 1987 and  Patik-Kara, 2002).

C. Epochs of development: a) economic placers, b) subeconomic and small placers (from Bache, 1987 and Patik-Kara, 2002).

 

3)      There are two models of the Earth’s history in geology. One of them (Biblical catastrophism) proposes that the Earth had four main geological periods: Creation week, pre-Flood era, Flood (worldwide catastrophe) and post-Flood era.  Most creation geologists believe that Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata were deposited during the Flood (Figure A).

4)      The other model (modern evolutionary geology) proposes that all sedimentary strata were formed slowly during billions of years, many being deposited during numerous local and moderate catastrophes.  This model postulates five or six main megaepochs of placer formation that roughly correspond to periods of tectonic and magmatic activity with mountain-building processes (orogenic cycles). Thus, placers might be expected to occur frequently and uniformly within the lithostratigraphic column (as frequently and uniformly as tectonic-orogenic cycles occurred).  The Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, for example, should contain two (at least) epochs of generation of gold placers (Figure B).

5)      According to the catastrophic model, there were two periods most suitable for placer generation. The first one (ancient placers) followed the creation of the Earth, and the second one (recent placers) was in the waning stage of the worldwide catastrophe. All through the Paleozoic and Mesozoic conditions were not favourable for the generation of gold placers.

6)      Field investigations show that the extensive formation of gold placers was restricted to only two periods of Earth history: 86 % of placer gold is concentrated in ancient Precambrian strata (mostly Late Archean and Early Proterozoic); 13 % in Cenozoic strata (mostly Paleogene and Neogene);  and only 1 (!) % of placer gold is located in the other layers (Bache, 1987) (Figure C).

 

Thus, we conclude that the distribution of gold placers within the lithostratigraphic column is consistent with the worldwide catastrophic Flood model, but it is very difficult to explain in terms of the alternate model that rejects one worldwide catastrophic Flood.  What does our critic have to say then about this conclusion?

 

After becoming acquainted with only the abstract of the paper, our critic’s first comment is to deny any scientific basis for the paper:

 

Roger Scott visited the website and has recorded his impressions of an abstract … from a "scientific" paper written by two Russian creationist geologists, Alexander V.Lalomov and Serguei E.Tabolitch.

 

This is a typical ploy.  If a paper is written by creation scientists, no matter what their qualifications are or the topic of the paper, it automatically cannot be scientific or have any scientific merit.  What arrogance!  Apparently, this critic believes his own position to be scientifically very valid. So let’s look then at the arguments of our opponent.

 

Roger Scott argues that inasmuch as about 87% of Earth history lies within the Precambrian (from about 4500 million years ago to about 570 million years ago), we therefore would expect to see in these layers a gold placer abundance of about 87% or less. This argument shows that Roger Scott has certainly read some geological textbooks, but his conclusion is speculative and has nothing in common with real geology. In fact, a large portion of Precambrian strata has since been eroded, while a large portion of the remaining Precambrian strata is located deep in the lithosphere beneath thick sequences of later sedimentary deposits.  Therefore, only a small residual portion of the originally-deposited Precambrian strata is available for research and geological prospecting.  Precambrian rocks in fact only occupy about 10% of the Earth’s surface (Lapedes and Daniel, p. 667).  Inasmuch as geologists usually know quite well only the surface and uppermost part of the lithosphere, in the case of the approximately proportional equal distribution of gold in placers in the different age divisions (as our opponent believes), we should only expect about 10% of the gold in placers in these strata. Hence, the duration of the Precambrian era (as Roger Scott suggests) cannot explain the large amount of known Precambrian placer gold (86% of the total gold-bearing placer deposits).

 

Our opponent argues that the other peak abundance of placer gold in Cenozoic deposits (in spite of the latter being such a small part of the Earth’s history) is explained by better preservation of these strata from erosion and the much easier accessibility of recent deposits. He thinks that: “Exploration for these deposits requires nothing more than looking for modern streams and beaches and their associated sediment”. Whereas these placers are less likely on average to have been eroded and consequently destroyed than older deposits, our opponent’s knowledge of exploration for placer gold seems to be based apparently on the adventure stories of the 19th century about gold prospectors in Australia and Alaska.  At that time some gold placers were indeed found by sampling of surface streams, but most Cainozoic gold placers are associated with Lower and Middle Cenozoic strata (Paleogene and Neogene). Very often these gold-bearing deposits are overlain by “barren” Pleistocene sediments, so the placers can be found only by drilling wells up to 100 meters deep. Moreover, even in modern stream placers the gold-bearing deposits occupy the lower parts of the sedimentary sequences:

 

Gold, because of its high specific gravity (19.3 for pure gold) works its way quickly downward in the gravel and into bedrock cracks on the channel floor. The richest part of the placer is near bedrock (Yeend  and Shawe, 1989).

 

Thus, the abundance of Cenozoic gold placers is not simply explained by only the accessibility and preservation of the strata.

 

Roger Scott chose to ignore (or simply did not notice) our main argument for a worldwide catastrophe – the absence of gold placers in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments that occupy about 60% of the Earth’s surface (see Table). Whereas the presence of the placers in the Precambrian and Cenozoic can be explained in various ways, the absence of gold placers is very difficult to understand within the framework of traditional geology.  Even if during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras features of the magmatic activity were unfavourable for the generation of primary gold veins, placers could still have formed due to erosion and re-deposition of the gold in the Precambrian placers.  Obviously, all through the time of deposition of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata the conditions for placer generation were unsuitable.  What is the reason for this phenomenon?  Firstly, it is impossible to imagine the constancy of any conditions during such a long period (roughly 500 million years according to the conventional geological time-scale). Defects in the radioisotopic dating that “measured” this duration are discussed in Vardiman et al., 2000, so it is thus possible to suppose that this time interval was much shorter. Secondly, inasmuch as extraordinary high-energy hydrodynamic conditions are unfavourable for placer generation, the distribution of placer gold in the stratigraphic column (in our opinion) confirms the theory of deposition of Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata during the worldwide Flood. Nevertheless, we would be glad to discuss any other scientific explanations of this feature of Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentation.

 

Table

 

 

Age according to evolutionary time-scale (million years)

% of Earth history

% of Earth’s surface

(approx)

% of total gold-bearing placer deposits (approx)

Precambrian

570 – 4500

87.3

10*

86

Paleozoic and Mesozoic

65-570

11.2

60

1

Cenozoic

0-65

1.5

30**

13

*  From Lapedes and Daniel, 1978, p.667.

**From Blatt and Jones, 1975.

 

 

Thus, we have two models of the geological history of the Earth: one of them postulates numerous reoccurrences of favourable conditions for placer gold generation;  the other (the theory of a worldwide Flood) postulates only two favourable periods separated by barren (with respect to placer gold) strata.  The real distribution of gold placers completely supports the catastrophic model. Hence, the statement of our opponent, that the conclusion reached by creation geologists on this subject has no scientific foundation, is demagogic and baseless.

 

The aim of Roger Scott is obviously not to shed light upon and clarify scientific truth, but to crush creationists regardless of the scientific level of their research. He quoted from the abstract of our paper (“uniformitarian theory would predict that placers should be located evenly throughout time”) out of context and concluded: 

 

The first error of Lalomov and Tabolitch is this: modern geological theory does not require that fold mountain building activity be constant thru geological time. (Not only is this not a requirement, it is very unlikely given modern theories of fold mountain building.) Therefore geological theory does not require a uniform distribution of placers thru geological time. Their claim that geological theory DOES require them to be uniformly distributed thru time is without foundation.

 

Roger Scott has tried to produce the impression that creation geologists do not know or understand the foundations of geology.  He has no interest in the fact that in our paper we explained this thesis in detail:

 

Uniformitarian theory assumes that there were many periods of tectonic and magmatic activity with mountain-building throughout Earth history. In sedimentary sequences these periods are divided by unconformity boundaries … Accordingly to uniformitarian theory, unconformities form after a phase of intensive tectonic movement, commonly accompanied by ore lode emplacement and mountain-building. The denudation process forms a thick sequence of overlying conformable clastic deposits, which contain large amounts of heavy minerals in low concentrations. New placers are generated by the concentration of heavy minerals through the action of water on these sediments. There are many unconformity boundaries in the lithostratigraphic column. Therefore, according to uniformitarian theory, placers might be expected to occur frequently and evenly within the lithostratigraphic column (Lalomov and Tabolich, 1997). 

 

But our worst error (according to Scott) is that in our description of modern geology we used the term uniformitarianism instead of another term actualism:

The second error of Lalomov and Tabolitch is a more general error. They are charging modern geology with an extreme application of the principle of uniformitarianism. Naturally they find it guilty as charged. Unfortunately for them, they have mounted a straw man argument. Modern geology does not operate as they suggest.

Both these principles (uniformitarianism  and actualism) hold that the present is the key to the past.  However, whereas uniformitarianism holds that changes in the earth are slow and uniform, actualism accepts the basic premise of uniformitarianism, that the laws of physics and chemistry are constant over geological time, but also proposes that the rates and intensities of geological processes can vary.  The theory of actualism postulates numerous moderate, local and regional, catastrophes in the past.  Thus actualism is only a modification of uniformitarian methodology. Creation geologists do not reject the principle of actualism for interpreting strata (Austin, 1994, p.24), except for those produced by some events of the Creation Week, and they assume a worldwide character for a single catastrophe (the Flood).

 

But the most important point of this discussion is that this dispute over terminology has no bearing on the conclusion of our article.  Whatever we call the methodology of contemporary geology (uniformitarianism, actualism or naturalism), none of these “-isms” can explain the known distribution of gold placers in the geological column. Evidently, because of the absence of any real scientific arguments on this concrete topic, Scott resorts to using long demagogic discourses about conditions on the surface of Mars in the past and some other examples of irregularities in natural processes:

 

Mt Warning in eastern Australia is an extinct shield volcano. It is "doing" essentially nothing now other than shed weathered and eroded material into the nearby Tweed River. Would a rational geologist therefore assume that this state of affairs has always pertained? Hardly. Would Lalomov and Tabolitch maintain that he or she would make such a claim? Again, it seems the answer is yes, for the same reason as above.
 

Mars is essentially a "dead" world now. It has dust storms and its polar ice caps grow and shrink with the seasons but not much else seems to be happening. Does this mean that what Mars is "doing" now it has always done and no more and no less? Of course not. At one stage its now-extinct volcanoes were clearly active. (They are in fact the largest ones yet seen.) It is also reasonably clear that at one stage water flowed over the surface of Mars. This is no longer the case.      

 

It is remarkable that in spite of Mars not having any water on its surface now, Scott believes that “at one stage water flowed over the surface of Mars”, but he strongly rejects that at some time in the past the Earth’s surface was covered in water during a worldwide Flood, when two thirds of our planet is still covered by water today!

 

Our opponent Roger Scott has made an attempt to disprove the main scientific conclusions of our paper, and thus, to demonstrate that any scientists who believe in creation and a young Earth are abysmal ignoramuses:

 

As is typical of creationists, Lalomov and Tabolitch misunderstand and misuse science. A central strategy of "creation science" is to create a favourable impression among their largely scientifically illiterate supporters. It is vital that they APPEAR to be using science to support fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. This produces feelings of approval and satisfaction in the minds of no doubt well-meaning but ignorant followers.

He rejects any geological evidences of the worldwide Flood at all:

The failure of creationists generally to identify the base of the Noachian Flood deposits is significant. The most reasonable explanation for this failure is that these deposits do not exist. The creationist claim for a world wide flood is made in the absence of any theoretical or empirical foundation.

However, he is obviously very poorly read in the scientific literature published by creationists, for otherwise he would know that the base of the Flood deposits has been very definitely identified according to strict, logical scientific criteria (Austin and Wise, 1994).

He also claims that all creationists are liars and compares them with Dr. Goebbels: 

No rational geologist accepts the concept of a world-wide Flood, recent or otherwise. It is a conviction based again on nothing more than a religious belief. Fundamentalists, however, continue to repeat this spurious claim ad nauseam. (This ruse may be a contemporary example of the big lie tactic of Dr Goebbels...)

After all that has been stated above, I would like to give an opportunity to our readers to decide for themselves:

 

  1. Whose conclusions are more scientifically valid?
  2. Could the distribution of placer gold in the stratigraphic column be evidence of the Flood?
  3. Whose tactics resemble the method of Dr. Goebbels?

 

Roger Scott concludes his “Reply” with the assertion: “Such a paper as produced by Lalomov and Tabolitch would have no chance of publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”. We are in complete agreement with our opponent on this point. In fact, such a paper would never be published in any conventional (based on the evolutionary paradigm) scientific journal, in spite of the established facts and the scientifically valid conclusions. It would be rejected only because it undermines the foundations of the prevailing evolutionary doctrine.

 

Thanks to Dr Andrew Snelling for improving my English. Any errors still remaining are, of course, mine.  

 

REFERENCES

 

1.      Austin S.A., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1994, 284 p.

2.      Austin, S.A. and K.P. Wise, The pre-Flood/Flood boundary:  as defined in Grand Canyon, Arizona and eastern Mojave Desert, California.  Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, R.E. Walsh, ed., Pittsburgh:  Creation Science Fellowship, 1994, pp. 37-47.

3.      Bache, J.J., World Gold Deposits:  A Geological Classification.  London:  North Oxford Academic Publishers Ltd, 1987.

4.      Blatt, H. and R.L. Jones, Proportion of exposed igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., Vol.86, No.8, 1975, p.1085-1088.

5.      Graf, W.H., Hydraulics of Sediment Transport. New York:  McGraw-Hill, 1971, 513 p.

6.      Lalomov, A.V. and S.E. Tabolitch, Modelirovanie vdolberegovogo potoka nanosov I prognozirovanie pribregno-morskih rossipei [Modeling of Lateral Coastal Drift and Forecasting of Coastal Submarine Placers].  Bulletin of Leningrad State University, 3:21, 1991, pp. 72-75 (in Russian).

7.      Lalomov, A.V. and S.E. Tabolitch, Gold placers in Earth history.  Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 11(3), 1997, pp. 330-334.

8.      Lapedes and Daniel N., eds, McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of the Geological Sciences.  New York:  McGraw-Hill, 1978, p. 667.

9.      Patik-Kara, N.G., Placers in the system of sedimentogenesis.  Lithology and Mineral Resources, Vol.37, No.5, 2002, pp. 429-441.

10.  Reed, J.K., C.R.Froede, Jr., and C.B.Bennett, The role of geologic energy in interpreting the stratigraphic record. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 33(2), 1996, pp. 97-101.

11.  Vardiman,L., A.A Snelling, and E.F.Chaffin, eds, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.  Santee, California:  Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2000, 676 pp.

12.  Wells, J.H., Placer examination - Principles and practice. U.S. Bureau of Land Management Technical Bulletin, 4, 1969, 155 p.

13.  Yeend W. and Shawe D.R., Gold in placer deposits. US Geol. Survey Bull. 1857-G, 1989, p.2.