© 1989, 1998 by Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.
... continued from Part
by DUANE T.
Society Quarterly 25(4):161 March, 1989
Formation of Dripstone
Deposits Stalagmites and Stalactites
assume that dripstone deposits, such as stalagmites and stalactites,
form very slowly, and therefore, the existence of large stalagmites
and stalactites in natural limestone caves would have required tens
of thousands of years or more to form. Creationists challenge this assumption
and have therefore exhibited considerable interest in present-day examples
of rapid natural dripstone formation and have conducted laboratory experiments
designed to measure rates of dripstone formation under various conditions.
As a result, many articles and research reports on the subject have
been published in the Quarterly (Anon., 1971; Keithley, 1971;
Armstrong, 1972; Brady 1973;
Williams, 1975; Williams, et al., 1976; Williams and Herdklotz, 1977;
Helmick, Rohde and Ross, 1977; Amer, 1978; Cannell, 1978; Williams and
Herdklotz, 1978; Williams, House and Herdklotz, 1981; Williams, 1987).
Most recently, a spirited
exchange on the subject has been published (Wise, 1988; Williams, 1988).
Helmick, Rohde and Ross, in April 1976, discovered numerous stalactites
which had formed under a concrete bridge near Cedarville, Ohio (1977,
pp. 13-7). The bridge had been built in 1941, and thus the stalactites
had formed in no more than 35 years. From the size of the stalactites,
they calculated that the minimum rate of growth was 0.53 cm3 per year,
considerably in excess of 0.164 cm3 per year sometimes mentioned in
the geological literature. They actually observed growth rates several
times the minimum rate during some of the year. They refer to reports
of growth rates of stalactites on the concrete roof of the Experimental
Mine of the United States Bureau of Mines near Bruceton, Pennsylvania,
up to 40 times the minimum average rate observed under the concrete
bridge. They also relate the fact that the large stalagmite known as
Crystal Spring Dome, in Carlsbad Cavern, has been reported to be growing
at the rate of 2.5 in3 (41.0 cm3) per year, in spite of the present,
dry New Mexico desert above. They calculate that at this rate, a 10,000
in3 stalagmite, which would require 1,000,000 years to form at an average
deposition rate of one in3 per hundred years, could actually be formed
in only 4000 years. Taking into account the possibility of even higher
growth rates, they declare it is apparent that even the largest known
dripstone could have formed in only a few thousand years. The observation
of the relatively rapid rate of growth of the stalagmite in Carlsbad
Cavern is especially important, since this involves growth rates under
a natural cave environment from calcium carbonate, rather than from
concrete, which contains a considerable amount of calcium hydroxide
in addition to calcium carbonate. Calcium hydroxide is about 100 times
more soluble in water than is calcium carbonate (but see below the discussion
of this factor in the exchange between Wise and Williams).
E. B. Cannell (1978, pp.
9-11) reported rapid stalactite growth in two cement tunnels in a water
treatment plant located on the Ottawa River in Quebec. The minimum growth
rate, calculated on the basis of the date of construction of the tunnels
and the date of discovery of the stalactites, and the volume of the
largest stalactite, was 4.61 cm3 per year, 28 times greater than the
average of 0.164 cm3 per year cited in geological literature. Although
temperature ranges in the tunnels were approximately those in natural
caves, Cannell did cite a number of conditions that are unlike those
that are encountered under natural conditions that might affect rates
Amer (1978, pp. 9-11) reports
on the discovery of stalactites in an abandoned tunnel that was formerly
part of the London subway system. Some of the stalactites were two feet
in length. London's underground railway system was completed in 1890.
This would yield a growth rate of about 70 mm per year, which is considerably
greater than that reported by Cannell for his stalactites.
Williams, Herdklotz, Mulfinger,
Jonsonbaugh, and Pierce (1976, pp. 211-2) published the first in a series
of four papers placed in the Quarterly concerning laboratory
experiments on the rate of deposition of calcium carbonate from an aqueous
solution. Their experimental apparatus was designed to simulate the
solution of calcium carbonate as ground water seeps through limestone
formations and then redeposits the calcium carbonate as stalactites,
as the mineralized water drips from the roof of limestone caves.
In their experiments, they
employed tap water plus carbon dioxide; tap water plus carbon dioxide
plus 5% sodium chloride; and tap water plus carbon dioxide plus 1% acetic
acid. Normal surface water percolating through soil picks up carbon
dioxide present in soil. The solution containing added sodium chloride
is postulated to be similar to waters of the Flood that would have receded
from the earth through recently consolidated limestone. The solution
containing added acetic acid simulates a type of Flood water containing
humic acid from the decay of organisms. The solutions containing sodium
chloride and acetic acid dissolved four to five times as much calcium
carbonate as did the water containing only carbon dioxide. The solution
containing carbon dioxide and sodium chloride deposited almost twice
as much dissolved calcium carbonate as did the solution containing only
carbon dioxide. These investigators claimed their experimental results
indicated that massive precipitation of calcium carbonate is possible
under laboratory conditions. If their laboratory conditions approximate
natural conditions that may have existed after the Flood, their results
would also indicate, of course, that the formation of stalactites and
stalagmites would have occurred much more rapidly than under present
E. L. Williams and R.
L. Herdklotz (1977, pp. 192-9) published the second paper in the series.
They cite reports by several investigators that establish the fact
that water percolating through soil picks up relatively large quantities
of carbon dioxide. They used apparatus similar to that described in
the first paper and also a simpler apparatus. Their test solutions
were similar to those in earlier experiments, and they also tested
for the effect of temperature. For the experiment testing the effect
of temperature, they employed water containing only carbon dioxide.
The carbon dioxide-enriched water, warmed to about 45C, dissolved
the limestone, and redeposited the limestone as it dripped from the
apparatus. The deposition is not due to evaporation, but is due to
the loss from solution of carbon dioxide. The solubility of calcium
carbonate is regulated by the relationship
CaCO3 + H20 + C02 <==>
Ca++ + 2HCO3-
Addition of carbon dioxide
shifts the reaction to the right, dissolving calcium carbonate and forming
the much more soluble calcium bicarbonate, while decomposition of calcium
bicarbonate with the loss of carbon dioxide from solution shifts the
reaction to the left, with formation of the much less soluble calcium
carbonate, resulting in its deposition. The higher temperature drives
off carbon dioxide from solution, and shifts the reaction to the left,
with deposition of calcium carbonate. The experiment was very successful,
with large amounts of calcium carbonate being deposited on the strings
employed in their apparatus, similar to what is found in natural stalactites.
Based on the rates of deposition
of calcium carbonate they obtained under various conditions -- 5% sodium
chloride solution, plus carbon dioxide at 25C; water, plus carbon dioxide
at 45C; water, plus carbon dioxide, with the temperature raising from
8C to 25C; a very rapid rate of calcium carbonate deposition was indicated.
Williams and Herdklotz,
postulating conditions that could reasonably be assumed to have existed
at the time the Flood waters would have been receding, made an attempt
to calculate the rate at which caves could form in limestone deposits.
Under ordinary conditions, if 15% of 40 inches of rain per year were
available for limestone solution, their calculations indicated that
in one year, a cave of 3 ft. x 6 ft. cross section x 120 ft. long would
be formed per square mile of surface. Of course, during the waning stages
of the Flood, quantities of water vastly in excess of that would have
been available for dissolution of calcium carbonate and consequent cave
The third paper in the series
was also published by Williams and Herdklotz (1978, pp. 88-91) who attempted
to produce calcium carbonate dripstone under laboratory conditions which
included water charged with carbon dioxide dripping in an atmosphere
of 100% humidity. No dripstone formed. It has been suggested that decomposition
of proteins and other nitrogen-containing substances would produce ammonia
and other amines. To test this effect, an experiment was conducted with
carbon dioxide-charged water in which ammonia was admitted into the
apparatus. Even under excessively humid conditions, some calcium carbonate
did precipitate. Thus it appears that even under very humid conditions,
with ammonia present in the atmosphere the precipitation and subsequent
slow growth of dripstone is possible.
In order to determine whether
some of the dripstone which was produced from dolomite (which contains
both calcium and magnesium) was formed by evaporation as well as by
precipitation due to loss of carbon dioxide (as happens when true dripstone
forms), a sample of the dripstone produced in the laboratory at 45C
was titrated in solution with EDTA (ethylene diamine tetraacetate).
This revealed that all of the deposit was calcium carbonate, indicating
that none had formed by evaporation. If some of the dripstone had formed
by evaporation, the deposit would contain both calcium and magnesium
Williams and Herdklotz,
in this report, cited statements by uniformitarian geologists, cautioning
against claims that the time span required to form stalactites and stalagmites
can be estimated using rates of formation under present conditions.
They quoted James H. Gardner
(1935, p. 1270):
"The rate at which
dripstone forms is a variable factor, due to changing circumstances;
it depends on the amount of seepage water, the quantity of carbonate
in solution, and the rate of precipitation. It is a common practice
to attempt to fix the age of dripstone by the rate at which it forms,
but this is plainly a valueless calculation. It invariably results
in the fixing of the age of a stalactite or stalagmite in proportion
to its size; the largest will be the oldest and the smallest the youngest.
For example, in Carlsbad Cavern at the present time, the management
maintains a large sign on an immense stalagmite, stating that it is
estimated to have an age of 60 million years. Guides give the information
that the calculation is based on the rate of so many cubic inches
per year at which such dripstone formed. The writer believes that
such signs should be removed by the National Park Service as being
misleading to the public."
In quoting Gardner and others,
creationists do not imply that they necessarily agree with creationists
that these stalactites and stalagmites did form in just a few thousand
years, and, of course, creationists acknowledge that neither laboratory
nor field work should be used to make claims concerning the age of these
dripstones. Laboratory experiments and investigations in the field by
creationists may be used, however, to indicate that it is possible that
these dripstones could have formed much more rapidly than is usually
The fourth paper in this
series was published by Williams, House, and Herdklotz (1981, pp. 205-8,226).
In these experiments, they found that there was a lag time of about
400 hours before dripstone began to form. They suggested that this lag
may be due to the time necessary to allow the removal of carbon dioxide
from solution, or it may be due to the time necessary to supersaturate
the solution with calcium carbonate before solid nuclei of the precipitating
compound will become stable. They also tested for the effect of drip
time. They found that a time between drops (in seconds) of 43 and 90
yielded a bit over 0.05 grams per string, a time of 125 gave 0.132 grams,
and a time of 215 gave 0.108 grams per string. They postulate that fast
drop formation is a deterrant to precipitation, because the "dwell
time" of the drop on the string is not sufficient to allow the
release of carbon dioxide so that calcium carbonate can precipitate,
while excessive "dwell time" may cause slow monocrystalline
growth rather than rapid polycrystalline growth that occurs with somewhat
faster moving drops.
They concluded that their
results indicate that pressure loss in dripping water, in which calcium
carbonate and carbon dioxide are dissolved, can produce rapid precipitation
of calcium carbonate under laboratory conditions. The rate of precipitation
is dependent on a number of factors, including pressure drop, chemical
composition differences in solution and atmosphere, drip rate, and temperature
differences. These experiments lead to the conclusion that large masses
of calcium carbonate can be deposited rapidly, under proper conditions.
In an appendix Williams
and his co-workers quote a report from a newsletter of a caving club
"The trip really
became interesting when we came to the area just above the rubble
slope which leads to the 'Rattlesnake Room'. The new growth was simply
unbelievable. All who were familiar with the cave were engaged in
a 'come over here and see what is new' contest.
"The real shock came
when someone pointed out the new growth behind the 'Bat Burial' formation.
Three new stalactites had grown and the longest was some longer than
12". The time since the last photo was taken of this wall was
just over 3 months ago so the growth rate of the largest stalactite
would be approximately 4" per month or 1 inch every 7.5 days.
Unbelievable? Yes! In fact, if any caver believes this without seeing
for himself it would surprise me. Luckily though we have been photographing
the same spot for 15 years and have all the photos with dates."
and Time Frames in the Grand Canyon
The Grand Canyon and theories
concerning its formation have long inspired interest by geologists,
evolutionists and creationists alike. Evolutionary geologists have expressed
increasing frustration at attempts to explain its formation. Evolutionary
geologists believe that the area encompassing much of the Canyon was
uplifted 65 million years ago, but that the Colorado River which flows
through it did not originate until about four million years ago. It
is obvious that if these assumptions are correct, the Colorado River
could not have cut the Grand Canyon. If a newly flowing river encountered
an uplifted area, it would never climb up over it and subsequently cut
a canyon - it would simply flow around it. In the museum on the south
rim of the Canyon is a description of several geological theories on
the formation of the Canyon, followed by an admission that all of these
theories have serious faults. The Havasupai Indian account of the formation
of the Grand Canyon is then given. According to these Indians who live
in one of the offshoots of the Canyon, the Grand Canyon formed during
a great world-wide flood. Much physical evidence supports this belief.
William Waisgerber, a consulting
geologist and President of William Waisgerber and Associates, Consulting
Geologists; George Howe, Director of the CRS Grand Canyon Experiment
Station and Chairman and Professor, Division of Natural Science and
Mathematics, The Master's College; and Dr. Emmett Williams (1987, pp.160-7)
reported on two field trips to the Grand Canyon to study the alleged
unconformity between the Mississippian Redwall Limestone and the Cambrian
Muav Limestone along the North Kaibab Trail. Evolutionary and other
uniformitarian geologists believe that there exists a 200 million-year
time gap between the top of the Cambrian Muav Limestone and the base
of the Mississippian Redwall Limestone, since intervening Ordovician,
Silurian, and Devonian rocks are absent. Clifford Burdick, a consulting
geologist who had made an earlier study of the contact between the Cambrian
Muav and the Mississippian Redwall, reported that he had found evidence
of intertonguing between these two formations, contradicting the notion
that 200 million years had intervened between the deposition of the
Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall. Waisgerber and his colleagues,
with support from the CRS Research Committee, formed a field team to
reinvestigate the area studied by Burdick.
Waisgerber and his colleagues
confirmed Burdick's observations concerning interbedding of the Cambrian
Muav and the Mississippian Redwall. Along the North Kaibab Trail is
a sign erected by the National Park Service identifying the contact
between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone. The CRS team reports
that commencing from an area about 100 yards north of the sign to about
100 yards south of the sign, all beds apparently interfinger with one
another. They determined that yellowish appearing micaceous shales were
the uppermost Cambrian Muav Limestone. Immediately above these shales
were typically reddishcolored Mississippian Redwall Limestone beds.
Any attempt to trace individual beds laterally, southerly or northerly
along the North Kaibab Trail, however, resulted in a reverse stratigraphic
relationship. Supposedly, older Muav Formation yellowish beds rested
on allegedly younger reddish-stained Redwall limestone beds. Lateral
and vertical facies changes within both formations indicate the absence
of unconformable relationships between the Redwall Limestone and the
Muav Limestone. In other words, where allegedly older Cambrian Muav
Limestone rests on allegedly younger Mississippian Redwall Limestone,
the contact is a true sedimentary contact and thus the Muav Limestone
was deposited on top of the Redwall Limestone. The evidence contradicts
the notion that here, where "older" strata (older by 200 million
years!) rests on "younger" strata, the inversion was caused
by overthrusting or other geologic events.
Waisgerber and colleagues
searched an area 50 feet above and below the contact line between the
Muav Limestone and Redwall Limestone for physical evidences of the supposed
200 million-year hiatus between these two formations. They point out
that such evidences would include: 1) obvious, pronounced erosional
features incised into the highest of Muav Limestone beds; 2) basal Redwall
Limestone beds exhibiting boulders and cobbles of eroded Muav Limestone
beds; 3) Muav Limestone beds dipping somewhat more steeply than overlying
Redwall Limestone beds; 4) Muav Limestone beds being somewhat more folded
than Redwall Limestone beds; 5) more complex joint systems in the Muav
than in the Redwall; 6) more faulting in the Muav than in the Redwall,
and particularly; 7) a decidedly different lithology within each of
the formations, due to supposed changing regional environments. None
of these features was seen. All of the beds were seen to be homoclinal,
each bed resting directly on another bed with no known structural deviation.
joint planes commencing in alleged Muav Limestone beds seemingly intersected
Redwall Limestone similarly. There were no notches and grooves (which
would be evidence of a time gap, the time required for the underlying
strata to be incised by erosion) in the underlying Cambrian Muav Limestone
filled in by material from the Mississippian Redwall Formation, as should
be the case if there were a huge time gap between the laying down of
these two formations. The evidence clearly indicates that the Mississippian
Redwall Limestone was laid down conformably on the Cambrian Muav Limestone
with no time gap in between.
The authors of the paper
cite the publications of several uniformitarian geologists which also
indicate the difficulty in identifying evidences for an unconformity
between the Muav and Redwall Limestones. Their paper also contains citations
from the geological literature in which the authors admit the difficulty
in documenting other alleged unconformities in the Grand Canyon. Waisgerber,
Howe and Williams close their paper with the following conclusions:
"1. The unconformity
supposedly separating the Redwall Limestone from the underlying Muav
Limestone does not exist. Consequently there cannot be any 200 million-year
"2. Since the 200
million-year hiatus cannot exist, the dating of Redwall Limestone
and Muav Limestone as Mississippian and Cambrian with their supposed
ages, respectively, cannot be valid.
"3. Because the Paleozoic
time periods cannot be valid, then the longer time unit known as the
Paleozoic Era cannot be real.
"4. Since the Paleozoic
Era cannot be a real geologic time unit, historical geologic time
must be suspect.
"5. Because historical
geology is suspect, the megaevolutionary model cannot be confirmed
by historical geology because there is no true definition of geologic
"6. Since the evolution
model cannot be sustained historically, it behooves all scientists
to search for alternative models as regards the origin of the earth,
the origin of life on earth, and the time necessary to effect such
"7. The various formations
within the Grand Canyon area could have been deposited one formation
on another, without the need for millions of years of depositional
time and millions of years of unaccountable time (hiatuses)."
About by Mixing Brines
The existence of extensive
beds of rock salt (sodium chloride), gypsum (CaSO4.2H20) and anhydrite
(CaSO4) has long been considered by uniformitarian geologists to be
evidence for evaporation, over tens of thousands or millions of years,
of shallow seas on inland lakes. Thus, these beds are commonly referred
to as evaporites. Many of these deposits are massive. Some salt domes
are described as having salt cores that have a roughly circular or oval
horizontal section 1,000 feet to two miles or so in diameter. The core
may extend downward for several thousand feet. It is believed that there
are plugs in Europe extending downward 15,000-20,000 feet. Since it
requires evaporation of 8,000 feet of sea water to produce 100 feet
of salt, it would require an unbelievable amount of evaporation to produce
several thousand feet of salt and of course the sea floor would have
to continually subside at just the right rate to maintain the existence
of the sea.
In recent times, geologists
have recognized the many difficulties in the evaporate scenario and
have sought other explanations for the formation of these extensive
salt beds. One of the more recent suggestions has been that these salt
beds formed when brines were intruded into the ocean from openings in
the sea floor (Nutting, 1984). Thus, vast time spans would not be required
for the formation for these so-called evaporites, or salt formations.
It has been suggested that the mixing of different kinds of brines,
say of sodium chloride and magnesium chloride, each originally saturated,
might cause precipitation of one or both of the salts. Omer B. Raup
has conducted some experiments that have shown that much salt is precipitated
when brines are mixed. The precipitation took place without any evaporation
of water or change of temperature.
F. L. Wilcox and S. T.
Davidson (1976, pp. 87-9) thought it worthwhile to repeat some of
Raup's work and to carry the work further and they have reported the
results of their experiments sponsored by the CRS Research Committee.
They used saturated solutions of sodium chloride (NaCl) and of magnesium
chloride (MgCl2). Mixing of the brines caused precipitation of NaCl.
They found that the greatest amount of NaCl precipitated, expressed
as percent of the total NaCl initially present in the mixed brines,
was obtained when the volume percent of the NaCl brine was about 20%
(that is, when the brines mixed consisted of 20 ml of the saturated
NaCl solution and 80 ml of the saturated MgCl2 solution, or comparable
amounts). They postulate that when the two solutions are mixed, the
MgCl2 tends to attract water molecules from NaCl. As the number of
water molecules available to NaCl decreases, the NaCl begins to precipitate
from solution. They suggested future experiments employing subsaturated
solutions and about 25 volume percentage NaCl solution and testing
the effect of temperature.
*Investigation of an Elliptical
Formation in the Tendurek
Mountains of Turkey*
William H. Shea (1976, pp.
91-5) described an elliptical, boat-shaped object in the Tendurek Mountains
about 30 miles southwest of Mount Ararat in Turkey. This object was
brought to public attention in 1959. Ca oftain Sevket Kurtis had taken
photos in the vicinity the Tendurek mountains and he brought the photos
with him when he came to Ohio State University to do advanced work in
connection with aerial surveying. It was reported that Captain Ilhan
Duripinar had discovered the object on one of the photos while using
a stereoplanograph in preparing maps. The picture was published in several
newspapers and magazines, along with speculations about the Ark. Shea
did not visit the site but his discussion was based on an examination
of the photo and a report by p that visited the site in 1960. They found
no arheological evidence of the Ark and no human artifacts. Shea speculates
that possibly this is the site where the Ark landed (the site is at
an elevation of 6,000 feet) but that the Ark itself was destroyed by
fire due to hot lava which contacted the boat.
Clifford L. Burdick, (1976,
pp. 96-8) visited the site of this object in 1973. He reports that the
object is only a geological and tectonic phenomenon. That year Burdick
was a member of a team that was on Mount Ararat searching for the Ark.
In the course of events, he met the commanding general at Dogubayaset,
a city near Mount Ararat. The general claimed he could take Burdick
to the site of the object for which they were searching, the Ark of
Noah. Burdick was escorted to the Tendurek Mountains and to the site
of the boatshaped object reported in 1959.
According to Burdick's observation,
a small fault or fracture of about 500 feet occurred along a stream
bed. Apparently a granitic or rhyolitic type of intrusive lava had pushed
up through clay along the center of the formation, making an elevated
ridge along the center. Possibly as the molten or plastic rock rose
through the clay bed of the wash, it raised the hardened clay with it.
Burdick reports that the hardened clay did resemble the sides of a ship,
and from a distance might be interpreted as such. Burdick's observations
convinced him that this object could not possibly have any relevance
to the Ark.
CRSQ = Creation Research
Amer, J. 1978. More recent
stalactites. CRSQ 15:8-9.
Anon. 1971. Cover illustration.
Armstrong, H. L. 1972. Catastrophic
storms and cave formation. CRSQ 9:135.
Barnes, Thomas G. 1975.
The earth's magnetic energy provides confirmation of its young age.
___ and R. J. Upham, Jr.
1976. Another theory of gravitation: an alternate to Einstein's general
theory of relativity. CRSQ 12:194-7.
___ R. R. Pemper and H.
L. Armstrong. 1977. A classical foundation for electrodynamics. CRSQ
___. 1980. New proton and
neutron models. CRSQ 17:42-7.
___. 1981. Satellite observations
confirm the decline of the
earth's ma agnetic field.
___ and F. S. Ramirez, IV.
1982a. Velocity effects on atomic clocks and the time question. CRSQ
___, et al. 1982b. Electric
theory of gravitation. CRSQ 19:113-6.
___. 1983. Electric explanation
of inertial mass. CRSQ 19:208-12.
Beierle, F. P. 1979. A new
kind of evidence from the Paluxy. CRSQ 16:87.
Billings, M. P. 1955. Structural
geology. Prentice-Hall. New York. p. 131.
Brady, J. C. 1973. More
on stalactites. CRSQ 10:130-1.
Burdick, C. L. 1966. Microflora
of the Grand Canyon. CRSQ 3(l):38-50.
___. 1974. Additional notes
concerning the Lewis thrust-fault CRSQ 11:56-60.
___. 1975. Geological formation
near Loch Assynt compared with the Glarus formation. CRSQ 12:155-6.
___. 1976. The elliptical
formation in the Tendurek Mountains CRSQ 13:96-8.
___. 1977. Heart Mountain
revisited. CRSQ 13:207-10. Cannell, E.
1978. Rapid stalactite formation
observed. CRSQ 15:9-11.
D'Armond, D. B. 1980. Thornton
Quarry deposits: a fossil coral reef or a catastrophic Flood deposit?
A preliminary study. CRSQ 17:88-105.
Gardner, J. H. 1935. Origin
and development of limestone caverns. Bulletin of the Geological Society
of America 46:1270.
Gish, Duane T. 1975. A decade
of creationist research CRSQ 12:34-46.
Harris, R. 1971. Article
review. CRSQ 8:144.
Helmick, L. S., J. Rohde
and A. Ross. 1977. Rapid growth of dripstone observed. CRSQ 14:13-7.
Howe, G. F. 1986. Creation
Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen:part I - a review. CRSQ
___, et al. 1988. Creation
Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen - part III: a pollen
analysis of Hakatai shale and other Grand Canyon rocks. CRSQ 24:173-82.
Ingles, J. J. C. 1963. Geometry,
paleontology and petrology of Thornton Reef complex, Silurian of northeastern
Illinois. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Keithley, W. E. 1971. Notes
on stalactite formation. CRSQ 8:188.
Lammerts, W. E. 1972. The
Glarus overthrust. CRSQ 8:251-5.
___ and C. F. Howe. 1987.
Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen part 11: experiments
on atmospheric pollen contamination of microscope slides. CRSQ 23:151-3.
Nicholson, H. A. 1897. Ancient
life history of the earth. D.
Appleton. New York. p. 40.
Nutting, D. 1. 1984. Origin
of bedded salt deposits: a critique of evaporative models and defense
of a by hypothermal model. Masters Thesis. Institute for Creation Research.
Patterson, J. W. 1982. An
engineer looks at the creationist movement. Proceedings, Iowa Academy
of Science 89(2)55-8.
Rodabaugh, D. J. 1975a.
The queen of sciences examines the king of fools. CRSQ 12:14-8.
___. 1975b. Human evolution
is still nonsense (no matter which equilibrium population is assumed),
___. 1975c. Mathematicians
do it again. CRSQ 12:173-5.
___. 1976. Probability and
the missing transitional forms CRSQ 13:116-9.
Shea, W. H. 1976. The Ark-shaped
formation in the Tendurek Mountains of Eastern Turkey. CRSQ 13:91-5.
Trout, J. 1975. Cottonwood
Cave. Trip reports of Guadalupe Grotto. November 24.
Waisgerber, W. G., G. F.
Howe and E. L. Williams. 1987. Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding:
200 million year hiatus in question. CRSQ 23:160-7.
Wilcox, F. T. and S. T.
Davidson. 1976. Experiments on precipitation brought about by mixing
brines CRSQ 13:87-9.
Williams, E. L. 1975. Laboratory
production of limestone formations. CRSQ 12:120.
___. 1987. Rapid development
of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) formations. CRSQ 24:18-9.
___. 1988. Reply to Wise.
___, et al. 1976. Deposition
of calcium carbonate in a laboratory situation CRSQ 12:211-2.
___ and R. J. Herdklotz.
1977. Solution and deposition of calcium carbonate in a laboratory situation.
II. CRSQ 13:192-9.
___. 1978. Solution and
deposition of calcium carbonate in a laboratory situation. III. CRSQ
___. K. W. House and R.
J. Herdklotz. 1981. Solution and deposition of calcium carbonate in
a laboratory situation. IV.=CRSQ 17:205-8, 226.
Wise, K. P. 1988. Portland
cement dripstone. CRSQ 24:212-3.
© Copyright 2001-2013, Creation
Research Society. All rights reserved.
Copyright & Permissions