The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

round microbialites can be seen fusing as one traverses up-section (Fig. 3). This process seems to culminate in the formation of strongly elongate forms found in the middle of the bed. Up-section another 20 cm and the strongly elongate forms then separate into round forms once more. This process of coalescence of round heads to form elongate forms can be found in modern microbialites (Logan 1961). In bed 11, encrusting sponges are intercalated between concave down micritic bands, strongly suggesting the presence of a complex ecosystem rather than seismically induced shapes. Finally, there is no modern analogue for a seismic interpretation. It is true that vibrations do produce repeating motifs given loose particles, but it seems unreasonable to assume the same process produced an areal distribution of microbialites covering 2600 km 2 . Modern microbialites, although different from these ancient forms, still have much in common and thus provide the best analogy from which to interpret the Hellnmaria microbialites. If the microbialites did not originate within the Flood event itself, then the only other options are their growing in either the pre or post-Flood worlds. Placing them in the post-Flood world is problematic because of the thick, stratigraphic sequences that occur directly above the Cambrian strata. These sequences range from Cambrian all the way through to Pennsylvanian in age (Miller and Evans 2012). A post-Flood interpretation for the Cambrian strata would, therefore, warrant a post-Flood interpretation for these other sequences as well. Since the latter are continental in scope, a post-Flood interpretation is highly unlikely. 2. The Best Solution It would seem the best solution is to interpret these microbialites in terms of the pre-Flood world. This interpretation, however, has many unsatisfactory elements, the most salient of which concerns the processes that formed the Great Unconformity. If these microbialites represent in situ , pre-Flood environments, then according to the law of superposition, the Great Unconformity must have formed prior to their growth, within the pre-Flood world. This interpretation is of course, not going to sit well with many creationists for at least three reasons: 1. The universal erosive processes associated with the Great Unconformity fit well within a Noahic Flood model. 2. Placing the Great Unconformity within the pre-Flood world naturally entails other universal catastrophic processes outside of those associated with the biblical Flood narrative. 3. If the onset of the Flood of Noah did not occur at the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary, then when did it? These problems are weighty, and no simple answers are forthcoming, but here are some thoughts. There is no biblical warrant for denying the possibility of regional, perhaps even global catastrophic processes at work within the pre-Flood world. The biblical record is simply silent on the issue. There is no reason to believe that the pre-Flood world was always a tranquil, serine and calm place. It may have been, but there is no biblical reason to support this conclusion, “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now” Romans 8:22, ESV. It has been argued that pre-Flood, regional and/or global flooding, was unlikely on the basis of Noah’s invitation to the antediluvian population. Surely these people would have jumped at the chance to board the ark given obvious evidence of large-scale flooding? Yet most creationists today believe that the Garden of Eden and the human population existed at a high elevation (Snelling 2013). This likely means that the Garden of Eden was also restricted to a single, although large geographic location. Granting some people most likely moved away from the Garden of Eden, it is not a stretch to suggest that the majority of antediluvians were still located in that general vicinity. Cratonic flooding over continents thousands of miles away at low elevations was, therefore, most likely an unobserved phenomenon. Other objections center on the exceptional preservation of many Cambrian fossils. Surely this kind of preservation is the result of rapid burial during the Flood? Yet similarly preserved fossils found in the Cenozoic Green River Formation (Roehler 1992) have been interpreted by most creationists as post-Flood deposits. The criteria for exceptional preservation is rapid burial, not rapid burial in the Flood . The biblical record then, provides scientists and theologians alike with some measure of freedom as to the nature of the pre-Flood world. Since the Fall, geophysical forces may have progressively been pushing the earth’s crust out of equilibrium, readying it for the Flood event itself, “on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth” Genesis 7:11, ESV. This means staccato-like pulses of regional to global catastrophic events could have been the new norm leading up to the Flood. Another possibility places the Great Unconformity within the creation week. Many creationists have discussed the likelihood of catastrophic erosion and sedimentation associated with emergent land masses on Day 3 of creation week (Snelling 2008; Dickens and Snelling 2008; Dickens 2017). As irony would have it, the most serious objection to a creation week solution is the presence of Precambrian microbialites that lie stratigraphically beneath the Great Unconformity! Wise and Snelling (2005), for example, discuss the presence of in situ Precambrian microbialites within the Kwagunt Formation at Grand Canyon. These authors opted for a post creation-week, pre-Flood interpretation for these microbialites based on evidence that supported natural, secondary processes of growth. A creation-week interpretation was considered but rejected based on the presence of multiple microbialite horizons, “In the case of the Awatubi stromatolites, however, their creation in living state would require all the stromatolites stratigraphically beneath them to have been created as fossils (Wise and Snelling 2005, p. 22).” Purdom and Snelling (2013) have also grappled with the same dilemma, discussing the origin of Precambrian microbialites in general. They concluded that Archean microbialites most likely represent specially created structures that furnished the first carbonate platforms, much like trees were specially created to furnish the first soils. Microbialites that accreted and grew in the pre-Flood world, post creation-week, are now thought to be represented in Mesoproterozoic through Neoproterozoic strata. It is important to stress that all Precambrian microbialites discussed in the literature to date lack any kind of metazoan components (unlike the Cambrian forms). At best, the literature emphasizes the role of cyanobacteria in constructing Precambrian microbialites (Bertrand-Sarfati and Awramik 1992). Others, however, have suggested that most Precambrian microbialites had an abiotic, purely chemical origin (Grotzinger and Rothman 1996). This distinction between Precambrian and Cambrian microbialites is not a generalization; the distinction is real, sharp and intriguing. Coulson ◀ Stromatolites ▶ 2018 ICC 384