1. Geophysical Perspective of Our Small Sphere
This study contends that there was a universal, global Flood, and that it was caused by the interacting gravities of two astronomical bodies of planetary dimensions--the Earth and the astral visitor. Since the Earth possesses two fields, one gravitational and the other magnetic, there were two kinds of celestial conflict with the intruder. It appears that in one phase of this conflict, oceans heaved and ebbed in tides to a magnitude of 5,000 and perhaps 10,000 feet above and below mean sea level.
The Earth is a triple fluid; not merely a single fluid. Each of the three fluids would be in tidal upheaval simultaneously. The Earth has some 200,000,000 cubic miles of water, but this is but a drop in the bucket compared to its volume of semi-fluid magma (or lava). The Earth has a thin crust, varying between 5 and 30 miles thick.1, 2 This is quite thin when compared to the Earth's diameter, about 8,000 miles. The ratio of thickness between the Earth's crust to the magma varies between 1:300 and 1:1600, something like an onionskin to an onion.
The Earth contains about 200 times as much water as atmosphere, mass to mass. The Earth contains about 1,000 times as much magma as ocean, volume to volume. And the magma is heavier. Thus there is about 5,000 times as much magma as ocean, ton by ton, or kilogram by kilogram. This gives an idea of comparisons. If we conclude that tidal activity of the oceans resulted in some 2 tons of pressure per square inch on the external side of the Earth's surface, what would be the force or the up-thrust of the vastly greater magma upon the inside of the Earth's crust or skin?
The upward thrust of the magma upon the inner side of the Earth's crust
must have been titanic due to the following three conditions:
1. Magma exceeds the oceans in volume (1000:1) and mass (5000:1)
2. Any tide, when constricted, will exhibit an amplification of force.
3. The direction of the thrust of the magma will be deflected by the centrifugal force of the Earth, plus any gravitational drag induced thereon.
The Volume of the Magma. Based on spherical volumes, with the diameter of the Earth about 8,000 miles, it can be seen that the oceans of magma are infinitely greater than the relatively thin and shallow pools of water lying on top of the Earth's crust. Hence the tidal upheaval from within the Earth must have been very much greater than the tidal upheaval on the Earth's surface, involving her relatively minute oceans. Therefore upheaval or thrust internally and compression externally must have been simultaneous; only their proportions were different. With this volume of magma in tidal upheaval, the Earth's crust acted something like a bellows. And the Earth's relatively shallow oceans merely washed around as the Earth's crust heaved and sagged.
||The Flow of Fluids and Constriction.3,
4 Any fluid,
when constricted, will exhibit a greater thrust. With respect to tides,
two good examples are found in the Bay of Fundy (Nova Scotia) and the Thames
Estuary (London). Here tidal forces are gathered and amplified due to the
particular latitudes and the particular coastal physical geographies. Here
tidal forces are amplified to an extent of being some 15 to 25 times as
high as they are in the open oceanic locations of lower latitudes.
The fluid ocean is unconfined; the fluid magma is completely confined. This affects the gathering or concentration of thrust in certain belts or regions. Also the nature of water as a fluid is somewhat different than magma as a fluid. At high temperatures, magma becomes increasingly fluid, and at lower temperatures, it becomes increasingly viscuous.
Iron, for instance, at surface temperatures, is brittle. However at higher temperatures, iron becomes as flexible as a leather belt. At yet higher temperatures, in its molten form, it will easily pour. At the high temperatures inside the Earth, magma has a nature which is neither exactly like a fluid, nor exactly like a solid. It is described as "plastic-like." It is something like asphalt, beeswax, honey or molasses. It will flow, but at retarded rates.
The Direction of Thrust. Due to the centrifugal force of a rotating sphere, angular momentum occurs along with the force of gravity. The Earth is an oblate sphere with the polar diameter being some 27 miles shorter than the equatorial diameter. This bulge is due to the speed of the Earth's rotation. The Earth's crust, at the equator rotates a little over 1,000 miles per hour, and the magma directly under it has a similar velocity. All magma in the various regions within the Earth has an angular momentum somewhere between these two extremes of 0 and 1,000 miles per hour depending on location.
The effect of the introduced force was to cause a new oblateness or bulge, of great dimensions. A second effect of the force was an induced drag on the magma in centrifugal rotation. The drag was effected in an arcuate, sweeping pattern on the inside of the Earth's crust.
Thus there were two vitally important but distinct factors, (1) the amount of the bulge due to the gravitational conflict, and (2) the direction of the bulge and its drag, related to the direction and speed of rotation.
In addition to these factors, it must be kept in mind that the Earth's thin crust or skin is considered to be as flexible as a man's leather belt. It was the give and take between these forces being alternately exerted and released within the Earth's crust upon which the explanation rests. This give and take, or alternating exertion and releasing upon the inside of the Earth's flexible crust explains both (1) the magnitude of the thrust and (2) the placement of the geographical pattern, a pattern incorporating series after series of arcuate curves which merge into one or the other of two great circle patterns.
With these factors in mind--the fragileness of the Earth, the minute thickness of its crust, the vastness of its internal oceans of magma, the velocity of its rotation, the flexibility of its crust, the confinement and the viscosity of the magma--a new oro-graphical theory (mountain building) is about to be set forth, based on the historical probability of astronomical conflict. But before entering the proposed theory, some of the major uniformitarian theories of orogenesis will be discussed. It reveals the failure of 130 years of uniformitarian geology to produce one adequate concept regarding the origin of these great orographical systems which span our planet, and form the backbone for several continents.
2. Uniformitarian Approaches To Orogenesis
During the last 100 years, seven major theories of orogenesis have been
propounded. They are listed as follows:5
1. Continental Drift
2. Convection Currents of Magma
3. Differential Rotation
4. Oscillations (Undulations)
5. Planetary Contraction (Crustal Shortening)
6. Planetary Expansion
7. Polar Wandering
Several things should be noted regarding these seven theories, and their various methods in endeavoring to handle the problem of an adequate explanation for mountain-building. Note that (1) all seven theories assume Earth configuration has been a process requiring multiplied millions of continuous years, (2) forces exerted are confined to originating from within the Earth's crust, and (3) the many kinds of stress need to be explained together or in tandem. No room has been given to catastrophism or astral chaos--in accordance with classical uniformitarian approach, which assumes an unvariable solar system for as much as billions of years. All processes are assumed to have been gradual, and essentially local in scope.
Adherence or loyalty among geologists is so tenuous, generalized and non-specific that of these seven major hypotheses, few can claim as much as 10% adherence. Orogenesis is only one area of lack in uniformitarian theory; there also is no adequate explanation for the cause of the Ice Epoch; there is no adequate explanation for sudden, radical and permanent changes in paleo-climatology.6 Evidence indicates that mammoths were frozen with suddenness and by the millions, along with associated fauna. Subtropical forests thrived where today only ice and/or permafrost prevail. None of these prime facts of Earth history has been adequately dealt with.
Uniformitarianism has held a virtual monopoly in geology for a century. Having been taught uniformitarianism and having assumed uniformitarianism, modern geologists have limited their primary assumptions and exclusively confined them to the terrestrial crust and the current set of forces which occur. They have erred in not considering mechanisms reflected within our solar system as a possible region of causation.
Richard Hartshorne, one of the world's best known geographers, discusses
geographical theory, the subject of geomorphol-ogy, landforms and genesis
with pointed frankness:
To the extent that the geomorphologist is primarily concerned to use landforms as the means of studying geologic processes or determining stages in geologic history, his explanatory description, as Kesseli notes, is often 'an explanation lacking a description.' Russell, as well as Kesseli, concludes that a century of geomorphology, dominated by the purpose of explaining genesis, has failed to produce comprehensive representation of land forms for most areas of the world.. 7
These and similar protests which geographers have registered for more than a generation appear to run into a blank wall of dogma.8
That 100 years of geomorphology have been unproductive in explaining cause is a major criticism concerning theory in geology. Perhaps it suggests sterility of the uniformitarian approach, which has overruled and ignored astral catastrophism as a possible explanation without even revealing reasons of substance for the rejection. Astral catastrophism is a possible and probable explanation of ancient upheavals which resulted in our terrestrial patterns of mountain systems; it explains this and much more. These criticisms, leveled at the Lyellian uniformitarianism, are not mild ones.
Charles Lyell. During his time Hutton, like Lyell, ignored the possibility of catastrophism, astral or otherwise, with one sweeping comment of non-analytical and arbitrary rejection.9 But during that day, many figures in the natural sciences were by no means impressed with either Hutton or Lyell. These figures included Agassiz, Cuvier, Ritter and von Humboldt. Lyell had made a series of assumptions for which there was perilously little evidence; many of which related to time and lapses of time.
Among Lyell's assumptions were the following three. Lyell taught that mountain uplifts were (1) local in scope, (2) ancient in terms of multiplied millions of years, and (3) caused exclusively by conditions within the Earth's crust, oceans and atmosphere. We will return to these three assumptions later in this chapter. Within these three assumptions, seven theories of orogenesis as previously mentioned have been generated or derived, during one decade or another. Probably the most publicized of these was the Continental Drift Theory, still held by a handful of people.
The Continental Drift Theory. This theory was quite popular during the 1920's and 1930's. It was set forth by Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) during the 1920's.10 This theory proposes that there were originally two great primordial continents which floated on a lava sea. These hypothetical continents, given the names of Gondwanaland and Laurasia, floated apart when the crust of the Earth was yet fluid, and before it hardened. After the crust of the Earth solidified, these floating continents were frozen in or stabilized, far from their original moorings. This theory holds, for instance, that the elbow of South America once fitted into the bend (or bight) of Africa.
No room is left for the possibility of a Mid-Atlantic range in either the North Atlantic or South Atlantic. An existing submerged range does exist, traversing both; the tips of this range are observed in the Azore Islands, the St. Paul and Peter Rocks, Ascension Island and Tristan De Cunha. Such submerged ranges exist not only in the Atlantic Ocean, but also in the other major oceans; the Pacific Ocean has many of them.
In addition, Wegener's theory incorrectly assumes that the underlying bedrock of the Atlantic Basin is different from the rock underlying the African and South American continents. And presumably it was similar to the rock underlying the Pacific Basin. Andesitic bedrock underlies both Africa and South America; it underlies the Atlantic Ocean as well. Basaltic rock underlies the Pacific Basin. This, among several other things, is inexplicable within Wegener's theory.11
The Continental Drift Theory also assumes that the Earth's hydrosphere has been constant in volume over the past many millions of years; only the continental massifs have risen or submerged. However if juvenile ice, during a past catastrophe, has cascaded in upon the Earth and added to its hydrographical reservoir, then this assumption will also be found to be in error. (This is considered in Chapter VI.) It is already well established that the continental shelves, for some reason, have been flooded and sea level has shifted from a previous lower level within recent geological times.
In summary, Wegener's Continental Drift Theory assumes that the oceanic volumes have remained constant (an assumption appears as an elementary error). It acknowledges that sediments, sea shells, and other marine materials have been found at nearly every altitude. It proposed that entire continents rose or submerged while oceans maintained a constancy in level and a serenity in terms of tides (being affected only by the Moon and the Sun).
The Contraction and Convection Current Theories. The Contraction
Theory and the Convection Current hypotheses have been the more popular
theories for geologists of recent vintage. Upon these two theories, and
upon the balance in general, Adrian Scheidegger, a geophysicist of world
renown, has made some telling statements. Hartshorne's comments were related
to geo-morphology (physical geography); Scheidegger's analysis of geological
theory is perhaps even more revealing:
However, the outcome of recent geophysical investigations casts grave doubts upon the contraction theory as well as upon the convection current hypothesis of orogenesis. The first of these geophysical investigations is the oceano-graphic work showing that the Mohorovicic discontinuity is not depressed beneath ocean trenches and thus dealing a severe blow to the notion of downwarping. The second is the work on faulting in earthquake foci showing the latter is, in the vast majority of cases, strike-slip and not dip-slip. This runs contrary to any idea sustained in either the contraction or the convection current theory. The third is the work on stresses showing that the Earth is subject to all types of stresses, not just one type as proposed by most theories of orogenesis.
It is therefore necessary to re-examine all theories of orogenesis that have ever been invented, in order to determine what can be saved of them in the light of the presently available facts. If this is done, it becomes immediately obvious that something fundamental is wrong with each and every of the theories . . .12
It appears, therefore, that the problem of finding the causes of the various geodynamic features must be regarded as still unsolved. (Italics ours)13
Scheidegger's conclusions, like Hartshorne's and those of others, are that there is a great inadequacy in existing theory for sound commentary on genesis of mountain uplifts. Similarly, and we apprehend not coincidentally, there is also a great inadequacy of existing theory on the cause of the Ice Epoch, which shall be discussed in the next chapter.
Of the foregoing seven theories of orogenesis, all have been conceived
within the womb of uniformitarianism. Not one of these major theories or
sub-theories considered the possibility (and we propose the possibility)
of astral catastrophism. And such a theory is most assuredly overdue.
The chief problem of the science of geodynamics is to determine deformations within the Earth and upon its surface. On the surface, the present-day deformations are known and the task is to explain the latter in terms of stresses that could be considered as reasonable. In any properly defined deformation theory, it is a matter of mathematical analysis to determine the stress from the boundary conditions. Thus, if the "deformation theory" applying to the Earth were properly defined, it would be, in principle, a straightforward (though not necessarily easy) matter to calculate the stresses from the (known) strains and then to look for causes of the latter. Unfortunately, it is a fact that the "deformation theory" applying to the Earth is not known, thus leaving the matter of finding the causes of its present-day appearance wide open to speculation. It is thus evident that the basic problem of geodynamics is to determine the proper rheological conditions in the Earth. The explanation of the present-day physiography would then follow more or less automatically.14
We believe considering astral catastrophism will be an initial step, if not the step, to offering substantial explanation for orogenesis and the geographical pattern thereof. Society has left it up to the earth-oriented geologist to determine the prime cause for orogenesis. Rather it ought to have left it up to the astronomer, the astrophysicist and the catastrophic historian. After adequate theory is established, then the geologist needs to be accountable for the local details.
3. The Geographical Pattern of Distribution of Recent Mountain Uplifts
Prior to analyzing this subject, it should be recalled that the mountain
ranges of the Earth are significantly similar to the pattern of those of
the Moon. Both ranges have a series of arc-like curves, although those
on the Earth are more elongated. Both ranges contain dendritic patterns.
In fact, the mountains of both bodies are also similar in their elevation
(although the Moon is about 1/80 of the mass of the Earth and 1/50 of the
volume of the Earth). Astronomers have noted this, and have suggested that
similar processes were involved in their formation. This should prove to
be a good clue, even though the two regions are some 240,000 miles distant.
|Mountains might have been scattered across the face of the Earth in
one or two of many different possible patterns, depending on cause of orogenesis.
Among the possible patterns are the following:
The mountain systems of the Earth are found in great scallop-like arcs, which in turn merge into greater arcs, which in turn merge into sweeping, planet-traversing circles. Their pattern seemingly is indifferent to either continental massifs or to oceanic basins; they traverse either with equal ease. This is illustrated particularly in the regions of the Western Pacific, with the numerous island chains, which are the tops of submerged mountain arcs.
Secondly, mountain systems possess dendritic patterns with auxiliary ranges, and spur ranges, separated by valleys and basins. The relationship of the main range to the auxiliary ranges is somewhat like the grain of the stock of a Christmas tree to its branches, and is particularly observable to mountain-climbers with their advantageous, panoramic views.
Thirdly, mountain systems often occur in parallelism--that is to say that major systems are frequently parallel. The Cascades and the Rockies are one example, the Sierra Madre Occidental and Sierra Madre Oriental are another example. The Himalayas and the Kun Luns are a third example. Other examples are too numerous to mention.
The recent uplifts occur in series, in scallop-like arrangements and in great circles. This is illustrated in Figure 6. The great circle alignment is formed by drawing a line through the epicenters of the arcs, often 1,000 miles from the uplift itself, and located amid broad, undulating plains, and not by drawing a line between the mountain ranges themselves. If viewed from our Moon, or man-made satellites, or some other proximate position in space near the Earth, this would appear as a straight line crossing both latitudes and longitudes.17 This direct alignment suggests that mountain uplifts occurred (a) on an interrelated basis, and (b) on a global scope. It does not indicate that they were the result of slow forces, nor of a local scope, as asserted by Lyell and modern day Lyellians.
The Circum-Pacific uplift includes arcs which begin in Antarctica and follow the rim of the Pacific Ocean through the Western Americas, and along the eastern ridges of Asia to Indonesia. This is the so-called "Pacific Rim of Fire." It is a zone of both earthquake activity and volcanic activity, indicating that isostatic adjustments of the Earth's crust in this zone are yet being achieved; the same applies to the Alpine-Himalayan cycle. Again, this is indicative of recentness and not remoteness, as presumed by Lyell.
In our hypothesis herein set forth, a series of line diagrams is given, which illustrates a possible model--an astronomical model--for the cause of the global catastrophe. The astral intruder is shown in relation to the solar system, the Earth and the Moon. It is also shown with respect to the Earth's magnetic field. These line diagrams, as given in Chapters VI and VII, pages 118, 119, 132, 133, and 157 are presented as components of a model of Earth catastrophism, in order to increase clarity of thought. Being specific is normally superior to vagueness. Therefore a hypothetical model, a possible answer to the problem is presented in order to avoid vagueness, a trait so constantly characteristic of uniformitarian thought.
Any adequate theory of orogenesis must explain the alignment of mountain systems, traversing the face of the Earth. It should also explain the similarity to the lunar mountains. But in addition, it must be able to account specifically for many kinds or types of stresses which obviously have been involved, and not just one or two kinds. This includes many types of vertical movements and horizontal movements. This also includes several kinds of formations. Most uniformitarian theories attempt to account for only one or at the most two kinds of stresses.18
Logically the approaching gravitational force caused a new bulge upon the Earth's surface, due to the magnitude of the new gravitational field. The new gravity exerted a pulling or lifting force upon the rotating magma, but also exerted a drag on the velocity of the magma as it centrifugally rotated around the Earth's axis.
There were new pressures caused by the tides of magma, pressures which required new adjustments and new releases. Among the new adjustments were welts or wrinkles or uplifts upon the Earth's thin skin, uplifts including both igneous and sedimentary rock alike, and in arcuate or scallop-like alignments. Another adjustment was the release of pressure by the bleeding of lava (magma) out upon the Earth's crust, forming basaltic plateaus and volcanic cones. The surging, throbbing, pulsating magma, rising to two mighty crescendoes each day, tortured the inside of the Earth's skin with a bellows-like periodicity.
The stresses must have been tremendous from the inside of the Earth; simultaneously the face of the Earth was washed twice every 24l/2hours by continental tides. In addition rain (intense rain--Genesis 7:12) also occurred, further rinsing the Earth's face. Under these conditions, if water compression on the Earth's surface at "sea level" resulted in pressures exceeding two tons per square inch, pressures perhaps 100 to 10,000 times greater occurred from within. The Earth's crust was thus tortured from within and without simultaneously.19
The formation of arcuate uplifts may be accounted for in terms of the rotation of our sphere simultaneously with tidal movements of the magma. It is noticed that many of the mountain systems in the Alpine-Himalayan and Circum-Pacific Belts are parallel. The astral intruder interacted with the Earth, and revolved around the Earth in a binary manner for some 8 months, and was drawn out beyond the Earth-Moon system by the Sun in a manner described in Chapter VII. This then lays the basis for explaining the repeated parallel ranges of orogenetic uplift on a rotating planet, along with parallel and offsetting crustal trenches. Their great circle geographical pattern merely reflects the astrophysical (gravitational) nature of their cause.
Similarly, it assists in explaining the many repeated layers of alluvium, repeatedly laid down and compressed in sharply separated series, forming vertical sequences. In this way, two types of vertical movements are simultaneously explained. They are (1) the vertical upthrust or magma, forming mountain ranges, and (2) the vertical and successively layered strata, resulting from tidal deposition. Both vertical movements include shifts of fluid, namely (a) tidal magma, and (b) tidal water, both shifting in oceanic volumes. Both are explained as responses to the same gravitational interaction; both are explained as simultaneous; both parallel geological observations; both parallel elementary astrophysical principles.
Vertical movements are thus explained; however, horizontal relationships across the Earth's surface also must be recognized. The realization is that the Earth was in constant rotation, and the bulge zone (both facing toward and facing opposite the visitor) constantly shifted within the same zone of uplift. This principle assists in understanding the very apparent and very consistent horizontal parallelism of mountain ranges.
No uniformitarian theory can remotely approach the catastrophic theory
with regard to accounting for either the many or the varied kinds of stresses
which obviously occurred. Nor can any uniformitarian proposal explain either
the intensity or the suddenness which were involved.
||Figure 6 illustrates the mountain arcs of the world on a global basis.
Figures 7 through 11 illustrate the mountain arcs of the world, region
by region and continent by continent. They reflect recurring patterns around
the world. Figure 12 then further illustrates these arcs on a sub-regional
Figure 7 illustrates Western North America from Alaska to Mexico. Here occur differing types and heights of mountain curves. Some are primary and some are secondary; some are sedimentary and some are volcanic. Offsetting trenches are also found, parallel to the mountain arcs.
Figure 8 illustrates South American mountain arcs. The same kinds of uplifts again occur. However here is a further illustration of a reverse arc (the Caribbean region), similar to the reverse arc of the South Sandwich Islands (Fig. 6).
Figure 9 gives this arc-like alignment in Southern Eurasia. This area includes the "roof of the world," the Himalayan group, with their associated ranges. It also includes the Ararat-Cauca-sus-Elburz group, where the Ark was grounded, according to the Genesis account.
Figure 10 gives this arc-like alignment for Melanesia, an area mostly inundated with water. In this region, some of the deepest trenches of the Earth's crust are found, and they too are associated with mountain uplifts, with which they are parallel.
Figure 11 illustrates the great, sweeping mountain arcs for East Asia. Figure 12, the echelon structures of the East Asian Arcs, illustrates these same trends as seen on a subregional scale.
|Thus it is demonstrated that mountains are not dispersed in a random pattern over the surface of the Earth.20 They are strung out, something like the way a string of lights is hung around a Christmas tree, hanging from branch to branch, in arcuate curves. The entire pattern is suggestive of counter-dominating gravities, viscous, fluid magmas, and a rotating sphere. If tidal mechanisms uplifted the mountain systems of the Earth as well as the oceans at the time of the Flood, then the geography of both hemispheres has been drastically reorganized by this celestial event.||
4. The Lunar Mountains
In addition to being similar in pattern to those great ranges of the Earth, the mountain ranges of the Moon also rise to similar elevations. Our Rockies rise to 15,000 feet, as do the Sierras, Alps, and Owen-Stanley Range, among others. The Andes rise to 23,000 feet, as do the Hindu Kush, the Tien Shan and the Kun Lun ranges. The mighty Himalayas, with their sawtooth faces, rise to 25,000 and 26,000 feet, with one peak at 29,000 feet. On the Moon, the Lunar Apennines have been estimated at 20,000 feet above the mountain floor. The Leibnitz and Doerfel ranges are estimated at 26,000 feet. One peak in the Riphaen Range is estimated at nearly 30,000 feet.21
At the very least, the similarity of the pattern of mountain ranges,
plus the similarity in their elevations, suggest a similar kind of orogenesis
with the mountain systems of the Earth. The assumption has been that the
Moon was more solid and less plastic-like in its internal structure than
the Earth. This has recently been questioned, due to the report of some
observed volcanic activity.
Perhaps the Moon, like its Binary Partner, is also composed of much fluid
magma. If so, the possibility is that the Moon's mountain-building processes
may be similar with those of the Earth; they also may be simultaneous in
timing. With all of these aforementioned features considered conjointly
the whole picture becomes historically more credible (and scientifically
"To look upon a landscape . . . without any recognition of the labor expended in producing it... is like visiting Rome in the ignorant belief that the Romans of today had no ancestors.". . . William Morris Davis23
5. Qualifications For a Theory of Orogenesis
Any understanding of the forces which have sculptured our fluid sphere
must accommodate many qualifications, not few. Some of the qualifications
are major; others are minor; all are significant. Those qualifications
which are major to some will be minor to others, and those minor to some
will be major to others, depending on their backgrounds and disciplines.
However, all the qualifications, not just some, must be adequately met
in order to propose an adequate and helpful theory on orogenesis.
To sum up, it is almost inevitable to admit that the physiographic evidence regarding features on the Earth's surface is such that it must be assumed that some parts of the Earth's crust have been subject to compression (crustal shortening), others have been subject to tension (mid-ocean rifts) and yet others to shearing (fracture zones). MOST THEORIES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING ONLY ONE OF THESE FEATURES AND ARE THEREFORE INADEQUATE WITH REGARD TO THE OTHERS. A THEORY OF OROGENESIS, TO BE ACCEPTABLE, MUST BE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH to allow for compression, tension, and shear of sufficient magnitude to be produced in the Earth's crust IT APPEARS, THEREFORE, THAT THE PROBLEM OF FINDING THE CAUSES OF THE VARIOUS GEODYNAMIC FEATURES MUST BE REGARDED AS STILL UNSOLVED.24
The following is a list of 14 specific qualifications for an adequate theory of orogenesis; four are considered as major or overriding in importance, while the importance of the other ten qualification is not to be deemphasized. Major considerations for orogenesis include explanations for:
1. CORRECT SCOPE
2. CORRECT TIMING
3. CORRECT DISTANCE OF CAUSATION
4. CORRECT DIRECTION OF CAUSATION
These four overriding specifications are developed further in the succeeding pages of this chapter. Other specifications, not developed further, include:
5. The Great Circle Pattern (and epicenters of the arcs).
6. The Scallop-like Alignment.
7. Parallelism of Uplifts.
8. Parallelism of Trenches with Uplifts.
9. A Mechanism for Sudden Thrust.
10. A Mechanism for Uplifting Thrust.
11. A Mechanism for Sufficient Magnitude of Thrust.
12. A Mechanism Including Numerous Types of Stress (not just one or two).
13. A Simultaneous Mechanism for Uplifting Oceans of Magma and Water.
14. A Simultaneous Mechanism for Forming Both Igneous and Sedimentary Formations.
The existing theories, anchored to Lyell's uniformitarian assumption, attempt to explain too few of these qualifications, and those too feebly. None attempts in any way to explain all of these qualifications conjointly.
It is therefore necessary to re-examine all theories of orogenesis that have ever been invented, in order to determine what can be saved of them in the light of the presently available facts. If this is done, it becomes immediately obvious that something fundamental is wrong with each and every one of the theories.25
In the theory of astral catastrophism, most (and indeed the author thinks all) of these clear specifications are adequately answered. Certainly the specifications involving parallelism are apparent. Certainly the mechanisms involving force are met. Certainly the features of simultaneous magma and watery tidal upheaval are inherent. Incidentally (but not coincidentally) the genesis of the lunar formations are also in focus.
In this theory of astral catastrophism,26 it is conceived that the astral visitor was involved with the Earth-Moon system for several months; it did not graze the Earth just temporarily. It perhaps revolved around the Earth twice, bringing repeated crescendoes and diminuendoes to the Earth's surface as it rotated in chaos. As Job suggested, the "pillars of the Earth trembled."27 With each approach, a new zone of horizontal uplift occurred (the Circum-Pacific first; the Alpine-Himalayan second). And with each rotation during crisis, there occurred a new range of horizontal uplift, or a further movement of a prior uplift. Series after series of sediment was simultaneously deposited and/or compressed.
Thus in the view of astral catastrophism, one section of the Alps may have been uplifted one day; another section may have been uplifted a few days or even weeks later. But the time lapse was measured in hours, days and weeks, and not in terms of millions, tens and hundreds of millions of Lyellian years.
Correct Scope. This catastrophist considers the Alps to have been raised up suddenly, and with great force, along with the rest of the Alpine-Himalayan and Circum-Pacific series. This was a global uplift, involving both tides of magma and the lesser but yet very considerable inundation of watery tides. Uniformitarianism considers that one portion of the Alps was raised about 185,000,000 B.C. and about 27,000,000 years later, a second portion was raised; yet a third portion was raised another 31,000,000 years later, around 125,000,000 B.C. Thus the Jura Alps, along with the marine and terrestrial fossil-bearing strata contained therein, were uplifted tens of millions of years before (or after, as the case may be) the Bernese Alps, the Carnic Alps, or the Rhaetian Alps. Hence each uplift must be viewed by implication as local in nature. The Alps collectively occupy less than .01% of the Earth's surface.
This catastrophist considers that all (100%) of the Earth's surface was affected, one way or another. In terms of scope, there is a difference between the two approaches, and the magnitude of this difference may be of equal value as to noting the basic difference itself. In terms of scope, uniformitarianism considers .01% of the Earth's surface was affected in any given year; catastrophism considers that 100% of the Earth's surface was affected in the crisis year. The differential is 99.99%. Error is one thing, and degree of error is another. Both are important, and they can hardly be each half right. One of the approaches, at least, is in extreme error.28
Correct Timing. By Lyell's amazing time scale, in calling for oceans of time for each minor geological event, we find again the Alps to be dated between 125,000,000 B.C. and 185,000,000 B.C. The author's dating of this orogenetic uplift and associated Flood is 2800 B.C., + or - 500 years. This is approximately 5,000 years ago, over and against 150,000,000 years ago. This is a differential of about 99.997%. Lyell's original placing of the Ice Epoch at 1,000,000 years ago is a difference of about 99.8%, roughly of the same magnitude.
Restated, either the catastrophist or the uniformitarian view is wrong in timing and badly wrong. Error is one thing, but degree of error is another thing. This again is error in an extreme.
Distance of Causation. In terms of distance of causation, the uniformitarian considers the cause of orogenesis to be anywhere between 25 and 2,500 miles down, toward the core of the Earth, according to the particular theory examined. In the catastrophic approach, distance was somewhere between 25,000 and 250,000 miles out in space at various stages. Again there is a differential of between 99% and 99.9%, this time in terms of astronomical distance, as compared to the previous differentials of scope and timing. The magnitude of these differentials is consistently similar.
Direction of Causation. Note further that uniformitarianism considers
the cause of orogenesis to be straight down, while catastrophism considers
the cause to be celestial, straight up. The variance verges on 180°,
which is the greatest possible difference. Here the apparent error of Lyellian
uniformitarianism approaches 100%. Missing the target is one thing, but
missing it by 180° is quite another thing. Contrast, not comparison,
is in order for these two views.
The doctrine that existing processes, acting as at present, are sufficient to account for all geological changes.
The doctrine that changes in the earth's crust have generally been effected suddenly by physical forces.29
A well meaning geologist has suggested that what we need is a little catastrophic-uniformitarianism. This is incongruous. We do not talk about black whiteness. We do not talk about dry humidity, nor about moist aridity. We do not use opposites to describe each other, and if we do, we create confusion and unclear thinking. Mutually contradictory adjectives cannot modify each other. And when so used, it leads to muddling, not clarification.
For example, what would be the reaction of a waitress in a restaurant,
who was given a request for scrambled eggs, sunny-side up? So it is with
astral catastrophism and uniformitarianism. Catastrophes have scrambled
the soils and strata of the Earth's prior age and perhaps on more than
one occasion. And there have been serene interludes, embracing readjustments,
new norms, new climates, new erosions, new geographies. This is not catastrophic
uniformitarianism; it is catastrophism, because catastrophes have been
primarily responsible for the remarkable engraving and etching of our Earth's
surface; the same is true with the surface of our scar-faced satellite.
Since this book proposes that this remarkable sculpturing of our terrestrial
home has occurred as a result of astral catastrophes, with regard to causation,
direction, scope, distance and timing, it thereby concludes that the
uniformitarian hypothesis is 100% in error. Any philosophies or views which
are attached thereto must also be scrutinized and re-examined, both judiciously
6. A Convergence of Disciplines
This is the second of three chapters dealing with catastrophism and the Earth's three fluid components--hydrosphere, lithos-phere and atmosphere. The approach of astral catastrophism cuts across lines of many disciplines, from one horizon almost to the other. It begins with the physical sciences and basic astral premises. The conflict which occurred produced conditions, effects and patterns which were vital to the re-establishment of biological life, and hence to the natural sciences.
Effects of thinking in the natural sciences have come to have immense effects in the social sciences. Examples are in the works of Agassiz, Cuvier, Darwin, Hutton, Linnaeus and Lyell. Some philosophers and social scientists have come to look to the natural sciences for its basic guidelines. And similarly, many theologians have come to look to social science for many of their guidelines. Thus uniformitarianism is more than a philosophy; it is a cosmology, and, seemingly, a negative and a poor one. Similarly, astral catastrophism is a cosmology, and a much better one.
Among the many disciplines which are involved in this approach are astronomy, astrophysics, ancient literature, climatology, geography, geology, history, folklores and anthologies, anthropology, zoogeography and historical ethnology (survival patterns).
The catastrophic theory as contained herein, will attempt to answer
some questions, and it will perhaps give rise to many more. The catastrophic
theory will no doubt give rise to controversy in the geological profession.
This is to be expected since geology has been hibernating in the bed of
uniformitarian theory, with its anti-Genesis ideas, for over 100 years.
It is stated that uniformitarian cosmology (and geology) has no adequate
theory for orogenesis; this is only one major shortcoming which it possesses.
The catastrophic theory as presented is not offered as being in any sense
anti-geological; rather it presents to geology some new and exciting horizons
to traverse, after it arises out of its comfortable bed of anti-spiritual
(and anti-scientific) uniformitarianism.
Which of the following six quotations makes the most fitting epitaph
for 130 years of Lyellian geology?
It is therefore necessary to re-examine all theories of orogenesis that have ever been invented, in order to determine what can be saved of them. . . .30
A century of geomorphology, dominated by the purpose of explaining genesis, has failed. . . .31
It appears, therefore, that the problem of finding the causes of the various geodynamic features must be regarded as still unsolved. . . .32
Sterility--barren, unproductive, destitute of ideas, as, "this is a sterile essay."33
Unfortunately, it is a fact that the "deformation theory" applying to the Earth is not known, thus leaving the matter of finding the causes of its present-day appearance wide open to speculation.34
These and similar protests which geographers have registered for more than a generation appear to run into a blank wall of dogma.35
And as Hartshorne has stated:
The test of any . . . theory is not in its logic but in its workability. Certainly there are cases--for example, volcanic peaks, basaltic dykes or ridge-and-valley areas of folded rock in which even partial knowledge of how terrain was formed may aid the comprehension of its present character ... Whether explanatory analysis of development adds more than it detracts from a comprehension of the existing character of a landform as an integral element in a real variation is therefore a matter of judgment, rather than logic. It is somewhat disconcerting that insistence on the value of such analyses for geography comes primarily from those who produce them rather than from those who use them.36
Workability is the essence of theory. While logic helps, yet as Hartshorne suggests, logic often becomes a matter of judgment. Celestial catastrophism is a theory possessing workability; it also possesses logic. In fact, it appears to be the correct analysis of Earth history. A model of this catastrophe is included in a series of diagrams in Chapters VI and VII.
Tides, whether of oceans or magma, are a response to a gravitational interaction of two or more fields of gravity. The Flood and the orogenetic upheaval were different phases of the counter-dominating gravities.
However, in addition to the field of gravity, the Earth also possesses a magnetic field. The magnetic field would be in counter-dominating interaction with the magnetic field of the visitor. The Ice Epoch, it is posited, was primarily related to the magnetic phase of this cataclysm. Could it be that the Ice Epoch was part and parcel of this same catastrophe? Could it be that the Flood and the Ice Epoch were simultaneous in their enveloping of the Earth?
Here is a puzzle. Price, Rehwinkel, Vail, Nelson, Howorth and Miller were correct when they maintained that there was a global deluge. They also maintained that Ice Epoch deformations overrode Flood stratigraphy. They concluded that the Ice Epoch must have occurred after the Flood, and must have been caused by postdiluvian climates. This may appear logical on the surface, but is less coherent upon further analysis.
None of them demonstrated a mechanism for the physical cause of the Flood; none of them thought in celestial terms; they thought only in terms of stratigraphy, catastrophic burial and related terms. Price suggested that the Ice Epoch, coming after the Flood, must have been caused by a sudden shift in the location of the geographical poles. He inferred that the sudden climatological change would serve in explaining the Ice Epoch phenomena. It is at this point that the author diverges with these, earlier catastrophists, who upheld catastrophic thought in lonely times.
It is herein proposed that the cause or genesis of the Ice Epoch did not precede the Flood; it is also proposed that the cause or genesis did not follow the Flood. They were one and the same catastrophe. While they were simultaneous, they were of different orders. One was of a gravitational order while the other was essentially of a magnetic order.
Following the Flood catastrophe, new equilibriums were reached. It took the waters many weeks, and even months, to drain off. The zones of mountain uplift continued quaking for years and decades, even centuries, as a new isostatic equilibrium gradually was established. It took centuries for the ice masses to outflow and melt. And as the ice masses melted, they fed icy cold water into the oceans, keeping the oceans at an abnormally low temperature. And it took dozens of centuries for the oceans to gradually find a new equilibrium of temperature.
It was in this earlier postdiluvian period, when ice was outflowing over the Flood stratigraphy, that geological ice scourings were achieved. And it was in the early postdiluvian period that the oceans, and the Earth's wind systems were much lower in temperature than they are now. This, then, was a cool, even a cold era, and it continued until new hydrographical and climatic equilibriums were gradually reached.
Nevertheless, the origin of the mountain uplifts, the Flood, and the
Ice Epoch were simultaneous and celestial. It is to this second and equally
important phase of the catastrophe, the glacial phase, to which Chapter
VI is directed.
"The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch" by Donald W. Patten - is ©1966 by Pacific Meridian Pub. Co.