Getty Images
For creationists who attribute much of Earth’s sedimentary record to a single, year-long global flood, the difficulty goes well beyond explaining how so much sediment accumulated. They also need to explain why natural archives preserve evidence of changing environments over periods vastly longer than their preferred age of the entire Universe. Producing layers of mud is one thing; reproducing a dated history of changing climate is quite another.
A new study by Alexander F. Wall and colleagues, published in Quaternary Science Reviews brings that problem into focus. The researchers analysed 69 natural palaeoenvironmental archives from tropical Australia, collectively spanning the past 130,000 years. Their purpose was to reassess how the complexity of rainfall patterns changed through the last glacial cycle.
Their conclusion challenges the suggestion that rainfall became uniquely variable and geographically patchy during the Holocene, the geological epoch encompassing approximately the past 11,700 years. Older records generally preserve less detail, so their apparent simplicity may reflect the limitations of the surviving evidence. A blurred photograph does not establish that the landscape it depicts contained fewer features.
The relevance to creationism is straightforward, although testing the biblical flood story was no part of the researchers’ purpose, but like almost all science, they did that incidentally, simply by revealing the facts. A flood can erode older deposits, transport fossils and produce successive sediment layers. None of those observations, however, demonstrates that it can reproduce the chronology and environmental history reconstructed from natural archives. A credible alternative would have to account for the ages, the sequence of environmental changes and the differences between locations together. Simply labelling everything “Flood sediment” supplies no such explanation.
Nor does uncertainty about the finer details of ancient rainfall offer creationists an escape route. There is an enormous difference between asking how much climatic variability an incomplete record can resolve and claiming that the entire history occurred within a single year. The former is a question about the resolving power of evidence; the latter requires evidence for a radically different history.
There is a second lesson here, too. Scientists are questioning an established interpretation because they recognise that the quality of the evidence changes as they look further into the past. That willingness to identify limitations and reconsider conclusions is how science improves. Meanwhile, the creationist requirement remains fixed: somehow, a history extending back 130,000 years must be squeezed into a chronology that allows only a few thousand. This research gives us another reason to ask what evidence could possibly justify doing so.
Background^ How sediments record a changing climate. A sediment core is more than a column of mud. Its changing contents can preserve evidence of the environments in which successive deposits formed. Combined with suitable dating methods, those clues allow scientists to reconstruct a history extending far beyond written records.The paper in Quaternary Science Reviews was accompanied by a Flinders University news release:
Nature’s climate archives
Lakes and wetlands accumulate mineral particles, organic remains and pollen. Cave formations, such as stalagmites, grow as minerals precipitate from water. These different archives preserve different environmental signals: lake sediments may record changes in surrounding vegetation, while cave deposits can preserve information about the water passing through the ground above.
An archive is the material preserving the history; a proxy is a measurable feature within it that provides indirect evidence of past conditions. Neither is an ancient rain gauge. Interpreting them requires an understanding of how the signal formed.
Reading the clues
- Pollen: recognisable pollen grains reveal which plants contributed to a deposit. Changes in their relative abundance can indicate shifts in vegetation and, with suitable ecological information, climate.
- Microscopic organisms: changes in the species preserved in sediments can reveal changes in aquatic conditions, including salinity and water depth.
- Sediment composition: grain sizes and mineral content provide evidence of transport and erosion. A change may reflect altered runoff, although local disturbances must also be considered.
- Chemical signatures: elements and isotope ratios can provide information about water sources, evaporation and other environmental processes. Their meaning depends on the material and setting.
No single indicator tells the whole story. Confidence increases when different proxies support a consistent interpretation.
How is the history dated?
Researchers select methods appropriate to the material and its likely age. Common approaches in palaeoenvironmental research include:
- Radiocarbon dating: suitable organic remains can provide ages extending back roughly 50,000 years, depending on preservation and analytical conditions. It cannot date the entire 130,000-year interval considered in this study.
- Luminescence dating: quartz or feldspar grains can reveal the time since their dating signal was last reset by sufficient exposure to light before burial. Incomplete resetting is a recognised complication that must be assessed.
- Uranium–thorium dating: radioactive decay provides ages for suitable cave carbonates, extending well beyond the radiocarbon range. Contamination and subsequent chemical alteration require checks.
These are general examples, rather than a claim that every method was applied to every archive in the Australian study.
Dated samples provide reference points for an age–depth model, which estimates the ages of intervening material and their uncertainties. Researchers must allow for changing accumulation rates, interruptions and disturbance.
Why “a flood made the layers” is insufficient
Floods certainly deposit sediment, sometimes very rapidly. One event can produce several layers, so counting layers alone does not establish how many years have passed.
Floodwater can also erode older deposits and bury their contents elsewhere. An old fossil or plant fragment therefore need not be the same age as its present sedimentary surroundings. This process, called reworking, is something researchers investigate.
The difficulty for a year-long global-flood explanation is accounting for the evidence together: the chronology, the conditions under which deposits formed, the biological and chemical changes through each sequence, and the relationships between sites. Demonstrating that moving water can sort particles does not demonstrate that it can reproduce this combined environmental history.
The objection to “Flood geology” therefore rests on the full record, rather than the mere existence of sedimentary layers. A proposed alternative must explain that record and provide testable evidence for its own chronology.
Why older records can look simpler
Imagine comparing daily rainfall measurements with century-long averages. The daily record would show many fluctuations that disappear in the averages, even if the underlying climate were equally variable.
Natural archives can produce a similar effect. Slow accumulation, mixing and widely spaced samples can combine or miss shorter episodes. Dating uncertainty also makes it harder to align events between locations.
This is central to the Australian study: its 69 archives collectively cover the past 130,000 years, but their ability to resolve short fluctuations is uneven. Apparently simpler ancient rainfall patterns may partly reflect missing detail. Recognising that limitation improves the reconstruction; it does not turn a long environmental history into a single flood.
Glossary
- Palaeoenvironmental archive
- Natural material preserving evidence of past environments.
- Proxy
- An indirect indicator used to infer a past condition, such as vegetation or water availability.
- Age–depth model
- A reconstruction of how age changes with depth, constrained by dated samples and accounting for uncertainty.
- Temporal resolution
- The level of detail a record can distinguish through time.
- Reworking
- Erosion, transport and redeposition of previously deposited material.
- Speleothem
- A cave mineral formation, such as a stalagmite or stalactite.
- Holocene
- The current geological epoch, beginning approximately 11,700 years ago.
Australia’s ancient rainfall patterns more complex than previously believed
Where and when water is available places a pivotal control on environments – with ancient sediments and fossils explaining how rainfall has changed through time, although researchers now believe climate scientists have read some historical signs about rainfall levels incorrectly.
Getty ImagesSediment and fossil records are a main pillar for our understanding of how the climate works – but climate scientists have got something wrong about Australia’s ice age. Experts tend to think of the last ice age as having less complex rainfall patterns than today. Our new research suggests that narrative may have arisen from what the past can’t tell us, rather than what it can.
Dr Alex F. Wall, lead author.
Global Ecology | Partuyarta Ngadluku Wardli Kuu
College of Science and Engineering
Flinders University,
South Australia, Australia.
The new study analyses 69 natural palaeo-environmental archives from tropical Australia spanning the past 130,000 years, with no published hydrological records of sub-decadal resolution before 1900 years ago.
Changes in water availability are frequently invoked to explain past changes in human, flora, fauna, and fire behaviour, especially regarding the transition from the Late Pleistocene to the more complex Holocene.
Technically, we’re still in the ice age, just a relatively warm and wet period called an interglacial. The last time the Earth was as wetter than today was a period from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago: the Last Interglacial, which is of great interest to climate scientists because it is also the last time the Earth was warmer than today. This makes it a good analogue for future climate change.
Dr Alex F. Wall.
Scientists have suggested that rainfall patterns were simpler in the past, then became more patchy, less reliable and more complex in the past 12,000 years.
Dr Wall suggests that seeming complexity is a result of bias, and says the research team found no support for the previous hypothesis that the Holocene is uniquely hydrologically heterogeneous. They instead suggest the trend of reduced resolution in the past could be mistaken as a greater simplicity.
Characterising the Holocene as a period of uniquely erratic rainfall has significant implications for interpreting past human and environmental responses to climate change. Reconstructions from further back in time tend to be poorer quality, which must be considered when comparing records. Taking a look at the bigger picture, we found that rainfall during the Last Interglacial and today looks pretty indistinguishable. Unfortunately, that may mean that a warming climate might be even less predictable than we had assumed. To understand how any region fits into the greater climate system, Quaternary science must be explicit about what can and cannot be determined from the data available.
Dr Alex F. Wall.
Publication:
The challenge this research presents to young-Earth creationism is not simply the inconvenient figure of 130,000 years. It is the existence of an environmental history that can be investigated, dated and compared across different locations. A year-long global flood does not explain that history merely because floods can move sediment and produce layers. Creationists would need to demonstrate how their proposed catastrophe could account for the chronology and the changing environmental signals together. Calling the deposits “Flood sediment” is an assertion, not an explanation.
Nor does the study’s reassessment of ancient rainfall patterns provide a refuge for biblical literalism. Uncertainty about how much detail older archives preserve is not evidence that their entire chronology is mistaken. A record that cannot distinguish brief fluctuations may still preserve substantial evidence of longer-term change. Losing some of the finer detail does not compress tens of thousands of years into twelve months.
There is also a revealing contrast in how the competing approaches handle uncertainty. These researchers question an established interpretation because differences in the quality of the evidence may have distorted the comparison. They identify the limitation and revise the conclusion accordingly. Biblical literalism begins with a conclusion that must survive whatever the evidence reveals, then requires the natural world to fit it.
The scientific question is how faithfully Australia’s natural archives preserve its changing climate. The creationist problem is how to make that long history disappear. This study advances the first enquiry; invoking a global flood does nothing to resolve the second.
Advertisement
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.
Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.