Seafloor Spreading and Continental Drift
As the material from Islands explained, the thermal subsidence and heat flow out of the oceanic crust follow physical laws that can be used to predict their values. "The History of the Atlantic"89 explains:
If the ocean basins had sunk during one year, 4400 years ago, it is highly improbable that the heat flow and ocean depth would obey physical laws based on age.
The existence of mirror-image magnetic anomalies on each side of spreading centers, showing identical radioisotope dates and similar thermal subsidence, is another evidence of seafloor spreading. The radioisotope dates consistently get older farther from the ridge. The dating of the pattern of magnetic anomalies is also consistent with similar dating of magnetic anomalies of rocks on land. The rate and direction of spreading is inferred from dating of magnetic anomaly patterns, and has been measured directly by making use of extraterrestrial reference points.
A consideration of the formation of magnetic anomalies is quite instructive. Here is a description of how the rocks in the oceanic crust acquire their magnetization.91
As the oceanic crust cools, it takes on the direction of magnetization of the earth's magnetic field. Note that the rock must cool to below 550DegC before it retains the magnetization. But the magma welling up into a spreading center has a temperature of about 1350DegC, which is very near the melting point. As the magma spreads out from the center, it cools. The upper portion, in contact with the ocean water, cools rapidly, but it takes a much longer time to cool deep down. The total magnetism measured above the ocean floor is an average over the total depth that has come below the Curie temperature. Remember that all ocean crust has a pattern of magnetic anomalies imprinted on it -- stripes parallel to a mid-ocean ridge. If it is the case, as the God's Word or Man's book says, that92
then all the magnetic anomalies and other physical characteristics discussed above must have been formed in one year. But is this reasonable? If the Atlantic Ocean, say, opened in one year, the ocean bottom would have been a great sea of magma,92a and it could not have cooled below its Curie temperature for more than a few hundreds of feet by now. Even if the earth's magnetic field could have reversed itself hundreds of times in one year, only a thin layer of crust could have taken on the striped pattern seen today. And yet deep drilling shows that the magnetic anomalies are many kilometers deep. Also, the ocean bottom would have to be much hotter near its surface than is actually observed, as it would not have had tens of millions of years in which to cool, and the observed heat flow through the crust would be much different from the calculated value. Nor could depth be expressed as a mathematical function of the age of the crust measured in millions of years.
Geological scientists were not keen, at first, on the notion of continental drift. The idea had been rejected by most geologists since Alfred Wegener first put forth his theory on drift in 1915, because they could not come up with a plausible mechanism that caused the drift. But by the mid 1960s the evidence became so compelling that most geologists were forced to accept it. The evidence came in the form of magnetic polarity reversals recorded by three different kinds of geological mechanisms: (1) Terrestrial volcanic rocks that contained a pattern of reversals of the polarity of the earth's magnetic field were dated by the potassium argon method. The dates were charted on a time scale, showing the pattern in time of polarity reversals for the last four million years. (2) A pattern of magnetic polarity reversals was found in the basalt rock that forms the ocean floor. This pattern was found to be symmetrical about mid-ocean ridges, and the magnetic profile across the ridge was correlated with the terrestrially derived time scale. (3) The polarity intervals of the reversal time scale were demonstrated in deep-sea sediment cores.
The book The Road to Jaramillo93 documents the major discoveries in magnetic reversals that led to the revolution in the earth sciences. It describes the development of potassium-argon dating, and the application of the method to date the magnetic polarity reversals found in rocks. From 1963 through 1966, eleven increasingly refined time scales were published, showing the dates of geomagnetic polarity reversals in terrestrial rocks. Scales seven through eleven were published by the geologists Allan Cox, Brent Dalrymple, and Richard Doell. In publishing scale number eleven in May 1966, they named the most recently discovered polarity reversal event the Jaramillo event. The story of these discoveries makes fascinating reading:94
In 1965 the National Science Foundation vessel Eltanin took seismic and magnetic anomaly data while criss-crossing several mid-ocean ridges in the Pacific. The data from Leg 19 of that trip became the key to the landmark paper published by Fred Vine in December, 1966, that confirmed the concept of seafloor spreading:96
Thus The Road to Jaramillo shows the three independent lines of evidence for seafloor spreading. Note the correlations among these and previously mentioned data. The spreading rates calculated from hot-spot tracks match those calculated from magnetic anomalies, which are based on radioisotope dating. They both match spreading rates directly measured by space-geodetic techniques. The age sequence of islands on hot-spot tracks, as measured by radioisotope methods, matches the age sequence of the magnetic anomalies of the sea-floor on which the islands sit. These correlations lend strong support to the accuracy of radioisotope dating, as well as scientific dating methods generally. Most of all, they show that much of the ocean floor formed over a period of about one hundred million years, and the oldest ocean floor is about two hundred million years old.
These physical observations -- the worldwide correlation of magnetic anomalies on land, in the ocean basement rocks, and in ocean bottom sediments; the thermal subsidence and flow of heat out of oceanic crust; the observation that trenches form at subduction zones -- are fatal to the notion that the deep ocean basins could have opened in one year, or that a shallow, pre-existing ocean basin could have sunk in place.
There is a new geophysical technique called seismic tomography, which is similar to the CAT scan (Computer Aided Tomography) in medicine, except that it uses seismic waves instead of X-rays to make images of the earth's interior. This technique can directly map the earth's mantle in three dimensions, and shows the existence of hot flows of mantle material that drive continental drift.97
The accumulation of terranes at many continental boundaries is another evidence for continental drift. Terranes are essentially pieces of ancient continents and islands that have drifted against the edges of continents and stuck there. Often they have been squashed, rotated and extended, producing a jumble of fragments. These geologic collages are typical of western North America and Alaska. The movement of the plate that is west of the San Andreas Fault, which splits California, is even today pushing continental fragments toward Alaska. See "Terranes"98 and "The Growth of Western North America."99
On geologic time scales the earth's crust is plastic and will flow, like taffy. Below a depth of about 120 kilometers
Window glass does flow, given long periods of time, as can sometimes be seen in the several hundred year old window glass of old cathedrals, such as Notre Dame,101 which has become thickened on the bottom. But we know what happens when we try to make glass flow too fast -- it shatters. A similar principle applies to rocks and continental drift. Any fast flow of the crust would shatter the rock into tiny fragments. There would be no evidence of flow, such as folded rock layers extending over hundreds of miles. Everything would be an uninterpretable jumble of tiny pieces of rock. The idea that continents could drift around, ocean basins could sink, and mountain ranges could rise in just one year, is incompatible with the physical characteristics of rock. This is clearly seen in the effect of earthquakes that raise mountains by several tens of feet. Boundary regions are shattered. These movements cannot produce the highly folded sedimentary rock layers observed worldwide. Sudden movements break rock layers, they do not fold them.
There is even evidence that continental drift occurs in cycles, where continents collide and form supercontinents, break up, drift around, and collide again.102, 103 There is much evidence that most of the continents were near the equator in at least one of these cycles, and that all of them were near the equator at one time or another. This explains the biological evidence of tropical animals and vegetation all over the world. Note that these cycles take a very long time -- hundreds of millions of years. The evidence they occurred could not have been produced in a single year just four thousand years ago.
These cycles of continental drift have produced many episodes of mountain building. This is in contradistinction to the idea that all the high mountains of the world were formed in the one year of the Flood:
The fit of the borders of the continents when reassembled into Pangaea is remarkable. The best known example is that the bulge of the eastern edge of South America fits into the curve of the western edge of Africa. The distribution of various types of rock on the rifted continents shows that they were once part of one large continent. So does the distribution of fossil plants and animals.
Plate tectonics explains the history of many mountain ranges. The Appalachians were formed when ancient North America collided with Africa and Eurasia, crushing and folding the eastern seaboard. They have since been heavily eroded. Similar things are happening today in the Himalayas, where the Indian subcontinent is colliding with Asia. "The Structure of Mountain Ranges"105 describes what is happening:
It should be clear from the above description that the Himalayas formed over a long period of time, long enough to dump a five kilometer depth of sediment into the Ganges plain. India has been densely inhabited for at least 3000 years. If the Flood occurred 4400 years ago, and we assume that the Ganges plain has filled evenly over that time period, we find that the rate of sedimentation is nearly four feet per year. It is clear that this is far too high a rate for human habitation, and floods of sufficient magnitude to cause it have not been historically observed. If we assume that the Himalayas formed during or shortly after the Flood, then all that sediment would have to be eroded before human habitation, about 1300 years. This implies a sedimentation rate of 12 feet per year. The Himalayas currently erode at about three feet per thousand years. What would be the mechanism to produce such an incredible rate of erosion and sedimentation?
Alternatively, we could speculate that the Himalayas were raised during the Flood, and eroded as the floodwaters drained. But the Himalayas are solid rock, not soft sediments. Being the highest mountains in the world, they would have drained first, and so would have been little eroded by the floodwaters, at least compared to other parts of the earth. If the floodwaters were at most 8000 feet deep, as is implied in the Society's publications, then as soon as the Himalayas rose over 8000 feet erosion would nearly have ceased. And if it were possible for the Himalayas to have been eroded to nearly their current extent in less than one year, certainly all the surrounding terrain should be far more eroded than it is. Yet the Himalayas show far more erosion than the surrounding area, gauged by the depth from the highest peaks to the lowest valleys. Also, the Himalayas show no trace of the great scouring and deposition that should be evident if most of their erosion was produced by a single great flow of water.
It should be abundantly clear that these speculations are not reconcilable with what is actually known about the Himalayas. Either the Flood was deep enough to cover the 29,000 foot depth of the Himalayas, or the Himalayas arose in a short period during or after the Flood, and erosion of them subsequently deposited the huge depth of sediment in the Ganges Plain in that short time. Either way, there is great difficulty reconciling the geology of the Himalayas with effects attributed to the Flood.
The Cascade Mountains of the Pacific Northwest show a striking feature: a series of volcanoes rising in a line about one hundred miles inland from the Pacific coast, from Mount Garibaldi in British Columbia to Mount Lassen in California. The volcanoes are the result of upwelling magma due to subduction of the Juan-de-Fuca plate under the western edge of North America. The most famous are Mount St. Helens, which erupted catastrophically in 1980, and Mount Rainier, the highest at over 14,000 feet. The volcanoes are built on a foundation of the flood basalts that formed the Columbia Plateau, and of older, eroded volcanoes. There are many extinct volcanoes in all stages of erosion. Much geological evidence shows that the volcanoes have been erupting continuously for many millions of years. Old ones grow extinct and erode away, and new ones take their place, often covering up the older remains.
Now, the 8,000 foot maximum depth for the Flood implied by the Society's publications is not enough to cover the tops of these volcanoes. Therefore, either the Flood was deeper than 8,000 feet, or Cascade volcanoes erupted, eroded to their bases, and new ones erupted again many times in the 4400 years since the Flood. But if the Flood was deeper than 8,000 feet, we are back to the problem of where the extra water went. If it wasn't that deep, how can one explain the short length of time for the eruptive sequence of the volcanoes, as well as that of similar volcanoes worldwide? And how did the volcanoes come to be on top of the Columbia flood basalt layers, which themselves flooded the already existing 10,000 foot Wallowa mountains?
A similar problem occurs with the Hawaiian and other Pacific islands. If the Flood were only 8,000 feet deep, then since Hawaii now rises to nearly 14,000 feet above sea level it must have been formed after the Flood. But we have seen that Hawaii is only the latest in a very long sequence of islands that have erupted and eroded away. The problem gets worse if one imagines the ocean basins to have been shallow enough to flood the land to 8,000 feet. A large number of seamounts, guyots, and islands, including the Hawaiian chain, would be above the surface (as the average ocean depth would be lower), since they are higher than the ocean floor by as much as 30,000 feet in the case of Hawaii. In fact, Hawaii is the highest mountain in the world, measured from its base. If the ocean basin were extremely shallow, Hawaii would have risen at least 20,000 feet above the floodwaters. The only alternative, that all these island chains and seamounts formed in the 4400 years since the Flood, is not reasonable. There are islands, whose rock bases were eroded flat by waves to 13,000 feet above the ocean floor, which then sank slowly enough to accumulate over 8000 feet of coral106 on top. There is too much evidence, as I've discussed elsewhere, that these chains took tens of millions of years to form.
Another line of evidence showing the age of high mountains and the existence of seafloor spreading comes from the Great Rift Valley of East Africa. Africa is apparently rifting open at this valley, which is a continuation of the rift which forms the Red Sea. Africa's largest volcanoes, such as Kilimanjaro, are associated with the Great Rift. Other volcanoes in the region have left unmistakable evidence of their long existence in the ash falls that covered animal remains and tracks at Laetoli, near Lake Eyasi in Tanzania. An article in Scientific American107 says about these ash beds, which contained so many animal tracks that they have become known as the Footprint Tuff, that fossils
Note that the great thickness of the ash, the radioisotope dates, the presence of fossils of extinct animals, the geologic faulting, and the fact that the ash is covered by extensive lava flows and is itself overlain by volcanoes, indicate that the ash falls were much older than the date of the Flood. The ash falls were able to be traced to a specific volcano, Sadiman, which still exists but has been eroded nearly to its base, and is part of a larger chain that includes Kilimanjaro, one hundred miles to the east and which is, at 19,500 feet, the highest mountain in Africa. Therefore the volcano must substantially predate the Flood, which again points up the problem of how the floodwaters could cover a high mountain. Also, Kilimanjaro was one of the few African mountains near the equator high enough to be affected by increased glaciation during the last ice age. Glaciers traveled halfway down the mountain, and there are only small remnants left today. How could such glaciation occur on a mountain that did not exist until after the Flood?
The Society's writers are not unaware of the facts that high mountains existed prior to the Flood, that plate tectonics explains their formation, and even that mountains have gone through many cycles of creation and destruction. When it suits his purpose, a writer will even emphasize it. The God's Word or Man's book says:108
The writer of the Watchtower article "The Unforgettable Flood"109 seems to have forgotten about the shallow depth of the Flood, less than 8000 feet, implied in prior Watchtower publications. On page 3 he says:
The writer is not clear about what he means by "the mountains of Ararat," since the Bible is also unclear on this point, but the two elevations he cites apply to the two main peaks of Mount Ararat, an extinct volcanic massif.110 Mount Ararat is a type of volcano called a stratovolcano, like Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Vesuvius. A stratovolcano is built by a series of eruptions of ash, cinders, and lava into a layer-cake structure, usually over a period of at least several hundred thousand years. A typical eruption starts with fine-grained ash, grades into coarse pyroclastic flow deposits, and ends with a lava flow. Mount Ararat has been found by geological means to have begun erupting about two million years ago.111 A stratovolcano cannot form underwater, because the water quenches the normal ash flow and forms distinctive lava formations called pillow lava. Pillow lava forms when water rapidly chills the outside of a lava flow, forming pillow-like segments. If an incipient volcano, which would have formed a stratovolcano on land, erupts underwater, it forms a structure quite different from that which would have formed on land. It forms a large pile of pillow-lava, like those formed at mid-ocean ridges, and no ash or pyroclastic deposits.112 Mount Ararat's structure shows it formed on land.
Interestingly, pillow lava has been found on Mount Ararat, but only in small patches. It can form when lava erupts underneath a glacier, or flows into a lake on the mountain. In Iceland, large mountains of pillow lava formed underneath the glaciers of the last ice age, and can be seen today.
The Watchtower article's writer gives credence to the claim that Noah's ark may rest on Mount Ararat. In doing so he is forced to admit that Mount Ararat formed before or during the Flood -- otherwise the ark could not come to rest upon it. But the geology of the mountain shows it did not form underwater. Therefore it must have existed before the Flood. But this contradicts the Society's claim that the Flood was not more than 8000 feet deep, since Ararat is nearly 17,000 feet high. If the Flood was deeper than can be accounted for by all the water on earth today, we are back to the question, Where did the extra water go? The writer is unaware of these difficulties.
Given that one cannot logically believe two contradictory things at one time, what is the Society's position on these questions? Was the Flood deep enough to cover Mount Ararat at 17,000 feet, or does the Society believe that Noah's ark rests on the mountain?
The Watchtower's uncritical acceptance of the evidence that Noah's ark rests on Mount Ararat is a good example of the Society's poor scholarship on geological topics. Many books have been written about the search for Noah's ark, and most are the product of people who want to confirm their prior belief in the Flood. Some are the product of crackpots; others are written by people who have some respect for truth and the rules of evidence; hardly any are written in an unbiased manner. Most suppress evidence that tends to discredit what they desire to believe.
To see where the January 15, 1992 Watchtower article goes wrong, let's look at each paragraph of the sub-heading "Searching for the Ark." The first paragraph mentions that, beginning in the 19th century, there have been numerous attempts to find the ark on the mountains of Ararat. While this is true, the history of the search for Noah's ark goes back much further. People have been making claims of sighting the ark, or hearing of someone who sighted the ark, for thousands of years.113, 114, 115 In particular, "the mountains of Ararat" have referred to various territories at different times in history, from the large area encompassing parts of Turkey, Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Middle East, to the much smaller area immediately surrounding the Mount Ararat massif.116 Also, many different mountains have been named as the site upon which the ark came to rest. The ancient evidence can be summarized thus:117
Clearly the latest traditions of Noah's ark on a mountain are merely the newest in a long series of conflicting stories, and are not convincing evidence the ark has survived.
The next paragraph in the Watchtower article describes a claim by an Armenian immigrant to the United States, George Hagopian, as told in the book In Search of Noah's Ark. Various books give various dates, but Hagopian's claim was that sometime between 1902 and 1910, at about ten years of age, he, with his uncle, twice climbed Mount Ararat and saw the ark. He told his story about 1970, when he was about 80 years old. The paragraph says:
The trouble here is that the Watchtower leaves out comments Hagopian made that cast doubt on his recollections. Where Is Noah's Ark says about him:118
For obvious reasons the Watchtower does not present all of Hagopian's remarks. His recollection that the ark was a thousand feet long and six to seven hundred feet wide immediately casts doubt on what he saw, as Genesis indicates those dimensions as possibly four hundred fifty by seventy five feet.
Many other accounts can be found where people claim to have seen Noah's ark. Most can be characterized by this summary from Where Is Noah's Ark:119
Some searchers claimed to have brought back photographs of the ark. In every case, the photos proved to be natural formations, or were indecipherable, or disappeared before competent investigators could see them, or the searcher never produced them for evaluation.120
The third and fourth paragraphs in the Watchtower article describe the efforts of Fernand Navarra, perhaps the most famous of the recent ark searchers. He wrote I Found Noah's Ark, among other books. The paragraphs say:
These paragraphs again leave out important information. The dating methods that put the age of Navarra's wood samples at four to five thousand years are extremely poor.121 A lab in Spain estimated the age at five thousand years by the dark color of the wood, and by how much denser it was than originally. The problem is that wood can turn black in as little as a few decades, and the original type of wood, and therefore its density, is not known, but is at best another educated guess. A lab in France estimated the age by the degree of lignitization, or how far the wood had gone toward turning to coal. This estimate relies on knowing the complete environment of the wood from the time of formation to the time of estimation, which is clearly not possible for these samples. The lab did not give a specific date, but dated it to "remote antiquity." Another French lab, and a fourth lab in Egypt simply estimated the age at four to six thousand years, without publishing the reasons for their estimates.
There were some solid dates obtained through five different labs by radiocarbon dating of the specimens brought back in 1955. These varied from about 1300 to 1700 years old, with four out of the five clustered near 1300 years. Wood Navarra brought back in 1969 gave similar radiocarbon ages. The point is that whatever Navarra had found, it was most likely about 1300 year old wood, not five thousand. Allowing say, 200 years from formation of the wood to felling the tree, gives an age of about 1100 years for the wood structure.
The Society agrees that radiocarbon dating of artifacts less than about 3000 years old is fairly reliable, as shown by the recent dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and as reported in Awake!122 Interestingly, this Awake! article mentioned that
So not only is there serious question about the age of Navarra's wood, but his story is not necessarily to be taken at face value. The Lost Ship of Noah said:123
Navarra himself was never clear on the exact location of his finds.124
Much more could be said about finding Noah's ark on Mount Ararat, but the most reasonable summary is again found in Where Is Noah's Ark?125
I might add that the eleventh century also corresponded to a so-called climatic optimum, when "Vikings settled and thrived in Greenland, before the cold of the Little Ice Age froze them out. (From about 1200 until the mid-1800s, world climate was colder than at any time since the last deglaciation.)"126
It appears that the Society presents evidence that supports its position of the moment, such as a 5000 year age for Fernand Navarra's wood, but suppresses contrary evidence, such as the 700 C.E. date quoted in the Awake! article, even when it possesses both types of evidence. The Society's handling of this material is similar to what is described in The Noah's Ark Nonsense:127
88 Enrico Bonatti and Kathleen Crane, "Oceanic Fracture Zones," Scientific American, New York, May, 1984.
89 John G. Sclater and Christopher Tapscott, Scientific American, New York, June, 1979.
90 Thomas H. Jordan and J. Bernard Minster, "Measuring Crustal Deformation in the American West," Scientific American, New York, August, 1988.
91 Allan Cox and Robert Brian Hart, Plate Tectonics-How it Works, pp. 268-269, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, 1986.
92 The Bible -- God's Word or Man's?, p. 113, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, 1989.
92a Think of the effect on the oceans themselves, having to absorb that much heat.
93 William Glen, The Road to Jaramillo, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1982. Critical Years of the Revolution in Earth Science.
94 ibid, p. 224.
95 ibid, p. 269.
96 ibid, pp. 340-351.
97 Don L. Anderson and Adam M. Dziewonski, "Seismic Tomography," Scientific American, New York, October, 1984.
98 David G. Howell, Scientific American, New York, November, 1985.
99 David L. Jones, etc., Scientific American, New York, November, 1982.
100 Robert S. White and Dan P. McKenzie, "Volcanism at Rifts," Scientific American, New York, July, 1989.
101 Robert D. Ballard, op cit, p. 327.
102 J. Brendan Murphy and R. Damian Nance, "Mountain Belts and the Supercontinent Cycle," Scientific American, pp. 84-91, New York, April, 1992.
103 R. Damian Nance, Thomas R. Worsley and Judith B. Moody, "The Supercontinent Cycle," Scientific American, pp. 72-78, New York, July, 1988.
105 Peter Molnar, Scientific American, New York, July, 1986.
106 H. W. Menard, op cit, p. 137.
107 Richard L. Hay and Mary D. Leakey, "The Fossil Footprints of Laetoli," Scientific American, New York, February, 1982.
108 The Bible: God's Word or Man's?, p. 100.
109 The Watchtower, op cit, pp. 3-4, January 15, 1992.
110 The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia, Vol. 1, p. 518, 1991.
111 John Warwick Montgomery, The Quest For Noah's Ark, p. 227, Bethany Fellowship, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1972.
A fairly reasonable account of many searches on Mount Ararat for Noah's ark. Uncritically accepts much hearsay evidence, and omits evidence contrary to the author's belief that the ark is on Ararat.
112 Fred M. Bullard, Volcanoes in History, in Theory, in Eruption, pp. 248-249, University of Texas Press, 1962.
113 Charles Berlitz, The Lost Ship of Noah, pp. 15-27, G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1987.
By the author of such books as The Bermuda Triangle, Atlantis: The Eighth Continent, and Mysteries from Forgotten Worlds. Contains much evidence supporting the author's opinion that the ark is on Mount Ararat, but suppresses much contrary evidence. The author apparently made a trip to Ararat in the mid 1980s, but found nothing. Berlitz quotes such luminaries as Immanuel Velikovsky and Charles Hapgood in support of his ideas on the Flood.
114 Lloyd R. Bailey, Where Is Noah's Ark?, pp. 13-46, Abingdon, Nashville, Tennessee, 1978.
One of the few objective accounts, and by far the best, of searches for Noah's ark that I've found. Supplies much evidence missing from less critical accounts.
115 Lloyd R. Bailey, Noah: The Person and the Story in History and Tradition, pp. 53-115, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina, 1989.
Perhaps the most comprehensive study of Noachian traditions available. Contains most of the material from Bailey's 1978 book.
116 ibid, pp. 13-46.
117 ibid, pp. 45-46.
118 ibid, p. 54.
119 ibid, p. 57.
120 ibid, p. 63.
121 ibid, pp. 64-81.
122 Awake!, p. 22, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, September 22, 1986.
123 Berlitz, op cit, p. 96.
124 Bailey, op cit, p. 119.
125 ibid, pp. 89-98.
126 Samuel W. Matthews, "Ice on the World," National Geographic Magazine, p. 99, Washington, D.C., January, 1987.
127 Howard M. Teeple, The Noah's Ark Nonsense, p. 121, Religion and Ethics Institute, Inc., Evanston, Illinois, 1978.