GEOSCIENCE REPORTS
Fall 1998, No. 26
HISTORICAL BIOGEOGRAPHY OF SOUTH AMERICA, PART II:
FOSSIL VERTEBRATES
Jim Gibson, Geoscience Research Institute
Introduction
This section focuses on South American fossil vertebrates, excluding marine fish. Extinct families will be emphasized here, as living families were considered in Part 1. For convenience, the fossil record of South American families will be divided into three portions: Paleozoic and Mesozoic; Paleogene; and Neogene (see Figure 1). Terrestrial and aquatic families are considered separately. Flying vertebrates are not included. Data for fossil distributions were taken mostly from Carroll (1988) and Benton (1993).
Figure 1. The geologic column is the master sequence or rock layers wherever they are found.
ERA SYSTEM OR PERIOD SERIES OR EPOCH Cenozoic Quaternary Holocene (Recent) Pleistocene Tertiary Neogene Pliocene Miocene Paleogene Oligocene Eocene Paleocene Mesozoic Cretaceous Upper, Lower Jurassic Upper, Middle, Lower Triassic Upper, Middle, Lower Paleozoic Permian Carboniferous Pennsylvanian Upper, Middle, Lower Mississippian Upper, Lower Devonian Upper, Middle, Lower Silurian Upper, Middle, Lower Ordovician Upper, Middle, Lower Cambrian Upper, Middle, Lower Precambrian Upper, Middle, Lower
Biogeographic Relationships of South American Fossil Terrestrial Vertebrates
1. Aquatic families
Twenty-two extinct families of aquatic vertebrates (excluding marine fish) are known as fossils from South America (see Figure 2). Twelve families probably lived in flesh water, including two families of giant amphibians, nine families of reptiles (see Figure 3), and one of birds. Most of the reptiles are crocodile-like in appearance. Eleven families are restricted to strata below the Neogene. Five of these are widespread, two are endemic to South America, three are shared only with northern continents (one reptilian and one bird family), and one (an amphibian family) is restricted to South America and Australia. The Neogene family is a crocodilian family restricted to South America.
Figure 2. Most of South America's extinct families of aquatic vertebrates are shared with the northern continents, but not the other southern continents.
Figure 3. Mesosaurs are extinct reptiles found only in Permian sediments of South America and Africa. Photo by Jim Gibson.
Another ten extinct families probably lived in the sea. These include six families of reptiles, one of birds, and three families of whales. The whale families are restricted to the Neogene, while the other families are restricted to sediments below the Neogene. One family, the Mesosauridae, is found only in Permian sediments of South America and Africa (see Figure 2). Four of the Mesozoic families and one family of whales are shared only with the northern continents. The remaining four families are widespread.
Most living families of South American marine mammals and
fresh-water fishes are restricted to Neogene sediments, but some are found in sediments lower in the geologic column. Three aquatic families now living in South America have Mesozoic fossils in South America. They include frogs, fresh-water fish, and turtles. One of these is endemic to South America, a second is restricted to the southern continents, and one has a widespread fossil record. Another five living families have Paleogene fossil appearances in South America. These include fish, frogs, turtles, and one family of birds. One family is wide-spread, two are endemic, one is northern and one is southern.
None of the aquatic families need have been in the ark, and the distributions of their fossils are here considered to be primarily the result of flood processes.
It is interesting to compare the number of biogeographic links with the northern continents and with the southern continents. For extinct aquatic groups with Mesozoic fossils, there are two southern links and seven northern links. For living families with Mesozoic fossils, one (a fish) is endemic, one (a frog) is restricted to the southern continents, and one (a turtle) is widespread. There are more northern links than southern among South American aquatic vertebrate families, though the importance of the southern links is often emphasized.
2. Paleozoic and Mesozoic terrestrial families
Fifty families of terrestrial vertebrates are found as fossils in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments of South America. Only two are living in South America today — the iguanas and the opossums. Both families have widespread fossil distributions in Cenozoic sediments. The remaining 48 families are extinct (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Most extinct Paleozoic and Mesozoic terrestrial families of South America are either widespread or restricted to South America.
The extinct groups include ten families of mammals, eight of therapsid reptiles, and thirteen of dinosaurs. The mammals are all restricted to the Cretaceous of South America, except one family which extends into the Paleogene, and two families shared only with northern continents. None of the therapsids or dinosaurs is known from Cenozoic deposits. The therapsids (see Figure 5) are widespread, except for one family endemic to South America and another shared only with Africa. Five dinosaur families are endemic to South America, and eight are widespread. None is shared exclusively with other southern continents.
Figure 5. Kannemeyeriidae is a family of therapsid reptiles with a widespread distribution, including South America. The photo is of Placerias, from Arizona. Photo by Elaine Kennedy.
The remaining families are miscellaneous types of reptiles. Five families are widespread, five are endemic to South America, and five are shared only with northern continents. One is shared only with Africa, and one family of turtles has a disjunct southern distribution that is poorly understood.
In summary, South American Paleozoic and Mesozoic fossils of terrestrial vertebrates are nearly all from extinct families (48/50). Most are reptiles (39 of 50 families). They are most frequently either endemic to South America (19 families) or have a widespread distribution, including both northern and southern continents (19 families). Nine families are known only from South America and one or more northern continents. Two families are found only in South America and Africa, and a third has a disjunct southern distribution. Again, northern links outnumber southern links.
3. Paleogene terrestrial families
Fossils of forty-eight terrestrial families have first South American appearances in Paleogene sediments. Six of these are living in South America today — one widespread family of turtles, one widespread tropical family of amphibians, and four of mammals endemic to South America and its margins.
The remaining forty-two families are extinct (see Figure 6 for summary of Paleogene and Neogene families). Thirty-eight of these are mammal families endemic to South America (see Figure 7), along with one crocodilian family and one bird family. A second bird family is widespread, and a snake family has a disjunct southern distribution. Twenty-four families are restricted to Paleogene sediments, while eighteen families have stratigraphic ranges that extend into Neogene sediments.
Figure 6. Almost all extinct Cenozoic terrestrial families of South America are found nowhere else, even as fossils.
Figure 7. Toxodon is a member of an extinct family of mammals restricted to South America. Photo by Ariel Roth.
In the view taken here, it is thought that the Paleogene fossils were organisms killed by the flood. However, some other creationists have different views on this point. The four living mammal families with Paleogene fossils in South America present a problem needing further study.
4. Neogene terrestrial families
Thirty-eight terrestrial families have first South American appearances in Neogene sediments. Eighteen of these are living today in South America. Rheas, a family of large flightless birds, are one example. The remaining families are mammals, including 13 families endemic to South America and its margins (e.g., guinea pigs), and four widespread families (e.g., weasels). In general, the endemic families appear in the fossil record lower than the widespread families.
Twenty extinct families have first South American appearances in the Neogene (included in Figure 6). All are mammals (see Figure 8), and all except one are restricted to South America or areas marginal to it. Examples include giant sloths and strange hoofed animals. As previously noted, another eighteen extinct families are found in both Paleogene and Neogene sediments. The only widespread extinct family found in South America is a group of elephants. These elephants first appear in South America in the upper part of the Neogene sediments, along with fossils of several widespread living mammal families. No terrestrial families with fossils restricted to Neogene sediments are shared exclusively with either northern or southern continents.
Figure 8. Glyptodonts were very large mammals resembling armadillos. Now extinct, their fossils have been found from Florida through South America Photo by Ariel Roth.
5. Summary
Most extinct aquatic families found in South America are widely distributed (9 families) or shared only with northern continents (8 families). Three are endemic to South America, one is shared only with Australia, and one is shared only with Africa (see Figure 2). There is no need to explain these distributions in relationship to the ark, since they are aquatic groups.
Among the extinct terrestrial families, the majority (70/110) are restricted to Paleozoic through Paleogene deposits. Nineteen families are widespread, seven are shared only with northern continents, and three are shared only with southern continents. The remaining 43 families are endemic to South America. All the families restricted to Paleogene sediments are found only in South America and its margins. Since none of these families is found in the Neogene of South America, their distributions may be the result of flood activity.
Twenty extinct terrestrial families are restricted to Neogene sediments. All but one these are restricted to South America and its margins. Further study is required in order to develop an explanation for the large number of endemic families in Neogene sediments. Another eighteen families are found in both Paleogene and Neogene deposits. These families present another problem requiring further study to understand their distribution in relationship to the flood. Stratigraphic distributions are also of interest, but are beyond the scope of this paper.
Discussion
Three predictions about biogeographical patterns were made in Part I of this article (see
Geoscience Reports No. 25). The first prediction was that living groups of terrestrial vertebrates should be distributed in a manner that reflects the present continental arrangement, with dispersal from the ark. This prediction is strongly verified. South American terrestrial vertebrates are most similar to those of North America. The terrestrial vertebrate fauna of South America is markedly different from those of Australia and Africa.
The second prediction was that some invertebrate and aquatic groups that survived the flood outside the ark should show some distribution patterns due to oceanic currents, and this could result in distributions restricted to the southern continents (see Figure 9). Data presented in Part I showed this prediction to be verified. Several living families are restricted to South America and one or more of the other southern continents. None of these groups are terrestrial vertebrates, and so were not dependent on the ark for survival.
Figure 9. Araucaria trees are now naturally limited to the southern hemisphere, but their fossils are widespread. They are once more widespread, due to their attractiveness to humans. Photo by Jim Gibson.
The third prediction was that those groups of terrestrial vertebrates restricted to the southern continents should be extinct groups, not living groups. This prediction was partially verified and partially refuted. As expected, no living South American groups of strictly terrestrial vertebrates are shared exclusively with other southern continents. Reasons for rejecting ratite birds and marsupial mammals as examples were presented in Part 1. Several extinct groups are shared exclusively with other southern continents, but this is consistent with the prediction, since transport of dead or dying animals by oceanic currents during the flood could produce such a fossil distribution pattern. However, many South American terrestrial families are restricted to South America alone, contrary to the prediction. The original sources of these groups remain unknown, and further study is needed to understand their present and past distributions.
The Problem of South American Endemism
The major problem for explaining biogeographical distributions is the large number of terrestrial vertebrate families that are restricted to South America, with no evidence of their presence in other areas at any time (see Figure 10). What factors or processes might explain the high incidence of endemism among South American terrestrial vertebrates?
Figure 10. The "Patagonian hare" resembles a rabbit, but is actually a member of a rodent family restricted to South America Photo by Jun Gibson.
At least two suggestions have been made to explain the lack of evidence of dispersal of South American mammals from the ark. One suggestion is that humans carried mammals with them as they dispersed from the ark (described in Browne 1983:12; see also Woodmorappe 1990). If this were the case, one would expect to find such animals as sheep and cattle worldwide. However, there are no fossil records of sheep or cattle in Australia or South America. It does not seem likely that humans carried armadillos, sloths and opossums to South America. None of these has any significant economic value to humans. Furthermore, fossil evidence suggests that the endemic animals reached South America before any humans did.
A second possible explanation is that the fossil record is too incomplete to record the migrations of animals after the flood (Whitcomb and Morris 1961:83). Under certain circumstances, the former presence of a group of animals in a region might not be detectable in the fossil record. This might be expected if the number of individuals was very small, and/or if the group spent only a short time in the region.
There are good reasons to suppose that a species could migrate from the ark to South America without leaving any evidence. Many fossil species are known from one or a few occurrences, and the fossil record is obviously geographically incomplete. Fossil formation in the present world is relatively rare, so absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. An example of the geographical incompleteness of the fossil record is the discovery of a fossil marsupial in Thailand (Ducrocq et al. 1992). This is the only marsupial fossil known from southeastern Asia. Where did it come from, and how did it get there? A fossil found in Germany has been identified as a South American type of anteater
(Storch 1981), although this identification has been challenged (Branham and Gaudin 1997). If the identification is accepted, the German fossil is the only known evidence of the existence of its family outside of South America and its margins. "Horned" turtles are known only from Paleogene deposits of South America and Quaternary deposits of Australia and New Caledonia (Benton 1993). Surely, there must be much missing information on their distributional history. Many other examples could be cited to show that fossils cannot be relied on for a complete record of a species geographic distribution.
At least two processes relating to the flood could explain why the fossil record might be especially incomplete when the animals were dispersing from the ark. First, if certain groups had an instinctive drive to migrate from the ark directly to South America, they might accomplish such dispersal in a short time, and with only a few individuals. It is highly unlikely that such groups would leave any fossil evidence of their passage through the region. Supernatural direction of migration has been proposed (Whitcomb and Morris 1961:86; the idea is mentioned in Briggs 1995:5).
Rapid changes in climate soon after the flood are a second factor that could result in rapid changes in species ranges. For example, if the climate were becoming cooler, heat-loving species would tend to expand their ranges toward the tropics (moving southward) and retreat from the north (see Figure 11). If this process occurred soon after the flood, species populations might still be relatively low. Groups that lived in a region for a short time, with low population levels, might easily escape detection in the fossil record of that region, even though they are known as fossils from another region.
Figure 11. Llamas are members of the camel family, which is naturally present only in South America and Asia. Fossils are widespread and are especially diverse in North America. Climatic changes in North America may have contributed to their extinction there. Photo by Jim Gibson.
In summary, it can be said that we do not know why there are so many terrestrial families endemic to South America. We can postulate some factors that might provide an explanation, but we don't know how valid they are. The fact remains that one of our biogeographic predictions was not verified, and further study is needed.
Summary and Conclusions
The distribution patterns of living South American plants and animals can be explained as the result of a complex interaction of factors, including oceanic currents, continental movements during the flood, and supernatural preservation in the ark. The flood destroyed the terrestrial, air-breathing vertebrates that were not in the ark. Plants, invertebrates, and aquatic invertebrates survived outside the ark. This would explain why South America, Africa and Australia have dramatically different bird and mammal faunas, but share many other groups.
A few apparent exceptions to the destruction of terrestrial vertebrates have been proposed, based on southern distribution patterns. These examples are not convincing because they are based on groups (ratites and marsupials) that may not be genealogically related, and whose fossil record is too incomplete to rule out a dispersalist interpretation.
Many plants, invertebrates and marine vertebrates survived the flood outside the ark. Those groups that survived the flood may often have distribution patterns that reflect either preflood geography or oceanic currents during or after the flood. This explanation would apply to the plants, fish, frogs, turtles and other reptiles that are found only in South America and Africa or Australia.
The most difficult biogeographic distribution patterns to explain are the large numbers of living endemic South American terrestrial vertebrates. Most of these have left no evidence of their movement from the ark. This may be explained by assuming that the animals did not leave fossils as they migrated from the ark. This may have been because their migration took place over a short period of time, and involved a small number of individuals.
It should be clear that the flood model explanation for biogeographic distributions is incomplete and not without problems. Yet it seems to provide a useful, generalized explanation for the differences in distribution patterns between aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates.
Literature Cited
EDITOR'S ANGLE
Biogeographic distributions of terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates pose questions about the post-flood redistribution of these organisms. These questions create a springboard for the development of hypotheses that may be useful in future research on this topic. As we seek criteria to better define models for post-flood deposits, such topics urge us to go beyond the easy answers and to dig more deeply into the data. Discussing these issues with students provides teachers with an opportunity to inspire the natural creativity and curiosity of students while affirming their faith in the biblical record of earth history. It is our hope that this two-part paper on biogeography has presented both challenges and enrichment for SDA junior and senior academy students.
Students and teachers are encouraged to discuss this paper further with Dr. Gibson through email:
jgibson@univ.llu.edu
Comments and suggestions with regard to Geoscience Reports are encouraged:
ekennedy@univ.llu.edu
SCIENCE NOTES
Editor's Note: For those who believe that life on Earth is recent, there are many unsolved scientific questions. We sometimes find points in the scientific literature that are encouraging and we like to pass on these to our readers.
GEOLOGY
Alvarez W, Staley E, O'Connor D, Chan MA. 1998. Synsedimentary deformation in the Jurassic of southeastern Utah — A case of impact shaking? Geology 26:579-582.
Deformation of the Carmel and Entrada Formations in Arches National Park may be due to a postulated impact crater at Upheaval Dome south of Needles, UT.
Liquefaction of soft sediments associated with the impact could explain the fluid-like structures and pipes of sand that occur within these two formations. Quartz-rich rock fragments and several structural features are cited as evidence for an impact crater.
This paper includes summaries of five previous theoretical explanations for the large and small-scale soft sediment deformation visible in Arches National Park. Theory 1 suggests that the buckling of the layers is due to compression but this idea does not explain the occurrence of structures generated by the movement of fluid through soft sediments. Theory 2 ascribes the deformation to soft sediments sliding down slope; however, there is no evidence of shearing within the layers of the structure. Theory 3 proposes that evaporites dissolved and caused structural collapse and deformation of the layers. This process is too slow to explain the sandpipes. Theory 4 hypothesizes the deformation was due to loading of the Entrada sandstone on the Carmel muds and suggests a subaqueous depositional environment for the Entrada Formation. This argument is deemed unlikely solely because it contradicts the currently accepted eolian (wind-deposited) model. Theory 5 relies on liquefaction due to earthquake activity; however, there is no evidence of aftershocks.
Comment: For catastrophists all of these theories can be explained very well within the context of a worldwide flood. The objections to the proposed theories, including the impact theory of this paper, all come from the data base associated with the deformation features, with the exception of Theory 4. This theory was rejected because it did not fit the current interpretation for an eolian depositional environment. Such a conclusion is surprising. The data base provides a strong argument for subaqueous deposition.
Nadon GC. 1998. Magnitude and timing of peat-to-coal compaction. Geology 26:727-730
New data and observations of structures associated with the formation of coal suggest that the previous compaction values are inflated. 1) Fragments of peat that were ripped up and incorporated into the associated sandstone deposits are now coal. Compaction ratios for these fragments should be the same as the adjoining coal beds. Sedimentary structures in the sands indicate little or no compaction has occurred. 2) Decompaction modeling of coal beds cut by channel sands produces impossible sandstone geometries. 3) Preservation quality of dinosaur trackways indicate little compaction of the peat. 4) Dewatering and destruction by fire of significant amounts of biomass is believed to occur during the peat stage. These processes are considered the major source of peat "compaction."
Comment: Dewatering is unlikely to contribute significantly to compaction of a peat. Fire results in a loss of biomass rather than a compaction of biomass. Little to no compaction requires less regional subsidence for the formation of coals since lignite can form at shallow depths. This would significantly reduce the total estimated volume required for the biomass of the
preflood world.
GEOSCIENCE NEWS
NAD TEACHERS' CONFERENCE
In Yakima (WA), on July 13, forty teachers gathered to begin a field study of catastrophism in the Pacific Northwest. In addition to the field work, 30 lectures covered a broad range of topics including issues in biology, geology and physics. Field studies extended from the Channeled Scablands of central Washington where coulees, boulders, flood basalts, and a rhino mold were explored. The class then drove west to Mount Rainier and completed their work at Mount St. Helens, where they hiked to Spirit Lake and later visited the Johnston Ridge Visitor's Center.
This year the attendees received a T-shirt with a logo illustrating the "Rainbow Connection" presented in the Sabbath sermon, and "polyphyly," an alternative view of origins. They also received a volume of lecture notes and 2 videos: "The Eruption of Mount St. Helens" and "The Great Floods." Course requirements included field notes from at least 3 localities, a video review for possible classroom use, a book review of "Cataclysms on the Columbia" by Allen, Burns, and Sargent, and the development of a teaching unit on catastrophism.
FIGURE. NAD teachers examine an outcrop of pillow basalts and palagonite near Vantage, Washington.
Jim Gibson (course instructor), Ben Clausen, Elaine Kennedy (field instructor), and Clyde Webster were assisted by guest lecturers Earl Aagaard from Pacific Union College, John Baldwin and Tim Standish from Andrews University, and Joe Galusha from Walla Walla College (Sue Dixon from Walla Walla presented a devotional). The guest lecturers presented several topics to the class that greatly enhanced the quality of the program. Their efforts were much appreciated by the Geoscience staff and the teachers.
BAUMGARDNER'S MODELING OF RAPID PLATE TECTONIC MOTION
Ben Clausen, Geoscience Research Institute
Dr. John Baumgardner's early roots are from Texas, in a family casual to the claims of the Bible. After receiving a master's degree in electrical engineering from Princeton University, he returned to Texas where he became part of a Presbyterian college Sunday school class. Through a verse-by-verse study of the Gospel of John, he was led to consider the question of who Jesus Christ is and had what he calls "a dramatic conversion experience." Having been well-schooled in evolution theory, he took a while to recognize a conflict with the Bible's portrayal of an originally perfect earth, where death and a catastrophic flood occurred only after sin.
While giving university lectures on creation/evolution topics, he became keenly aware of the need for creationists to provide a geological model to account for the large-scale motion of the earth's surface, i.e., plate tectonics.
In 1983 Baumgardner completed his Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) with a thesis entitled,
A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Model for Mantle Convection. He now continues his modeling of plate tectonics as well as other geophysical fluid dynamics research as a staff member of the Theoretical Division, Fluid Dynamics Group, Los Alamos National
Laboratory.1,2
FIGURE. John Baumgardner in his lab at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Photo courtesy Public Affairs Office, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
To model the motion of the earth's plates (roughly equivalent to the continents), Baumgardner uses a Fortran program called
TERRA3, developed originally as part of his Ph.D. research, that must be run on a supercomputer because of its size and complexity. It divides the earth's mantle (a 3000 km layer of rock that surrounds the earth's core) into millions of three-dimensional hexagonal cells, each with a variable value for its temperature, pressure, density, velocity, and material properties. These variables change through time in a calculation based on a small set of basic principles. TERRA is one of four models in the world capable of modeling the earth in a global manner. Results from this computer program have been presented at the American Geophysical Union
meetings4 as well as being described in scientific journals.5
Baumgardner's simulation of the Genesis Flood begins with an original single supercontinent that breaks up because the surrounding ocean floor is colder, and thus denser, than the rock below it. The more dense surface rock follows the natural tendency to sink into the hotter, less dense mantle rock beneath it. The drag of the sinking ocean floor pulls the more buoyant continental plates outwards from the center of the supercontinent resulting in the drift of North and South America away from Europe and Africa still seen today. Runaway subduction, first proposed in the 1960s by a physicist at General Electric, allows this movement of the tectonic plates to happen rapidly and is a consequence of the fact that silicate minerals weaken dramatically with increasing temperature and deformation rate. By omitting some of the physics of rock deformation, TERRA can model the scientifically standard slow rates of plate motion. However, when the more detailed physics is included, Baumgardner finds the model predicts much more rapid motion. Details of his model for the Genesis Flood were presented at the Third International Creation
Conference.6
Baumgardner recognizes that there are legitimate questions about the physical processes needed to obtain these rapid
rates:7 (1) The time frame for the Flood requires an effective mantle viscosity [resistance to fluid flow] almost one billion times smaller than the estimated present viscosity. Since viscosity decreases exponentially with increasing temperature and also in a strongly nonlinear manner with increasing deformation rate, he believes [and recently has demonstrated in numerical calculations] that such decreased viscosity naturally occurs throughout large volumes of the mantle as the runaway process unfolds. (2) The short time scale for plate motion conflicts with the long time scale implied by radiometric dating, which requires all radioactive decay since the Cambrian [where the lowest major fossil bearing rocks appear] to have taken place since the beginning of the Flood. Baumgardner believes the nuclear decay rates likely have not been constant during the earth's history and were orders of magnitude higher during the Flood event. (3) Based on the normal rate at which rocks conduct heat, millions of years seem to be required for the cooling of the oceanic lithosphere from near the molten state to its current thermal regime. Baumgardner believes that enhanced cooling rates, as a consequence of hydrothermal circulation of ocean water through the lithospheric layer, are insufficient to solve the problem. In addition, a much faster transfer of heat from the crust into oceans would seemingly produce a temperature for the ocean and atmosphere that is too hot for
life.8 Baumgardner concludes that "an enhanced rate of nuclear decay during the [Flood] event and a loss of thermal energy afterward" "cannot be understood or modeled in terms of time-invariant laws of nature". He believes that "intervention by God in the natural order during and after the catastrophe appears to be a logical necessity."
In the Los Alamos community, Dr. Baumgardner is known as a Christian activist, concerned for example with the dogmatic teaching of evolution as fact in the public schools, but he does not push his religious views on his colleagues. Brad Hager, a geophysicist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says it would require a miracle to increase the thermal diffusivity [rate at which rocks conduct heat] to a level where the lithosphere could have cooled in a few thousand years. However, Hager has only respect for Baumgardner's computer program. Gerald Schubert, of the UCLA Department of Earth and Space Sciences, agrees that "As far as the code goes, Baumgardner is a world-class scientist." "Indeed, there is universal agreement that TERRA, created to prove the Bible literally true, is one of the most useful and powerful geological tools in existence."1
ENDNOTES
Geoscience Reports
Fall 1998 No. 26
Editor - Elaine G. Kennedy
Associate Editor - Katherine Ching
Subscription requests, correspondence, and notices of change of address should be sent to: Publications Editor, Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350 USA. Annual subscription rate is $3.00 (US. currency).
Geoscience Reports is a newsletter published by the Geoscience Research Institute to present current happenings at the Institute as well as general-interest articles that deal with creation/evolution issues for elementary/secondary-school and college science classes. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Institute.
Staff of the Institute: L Jim Gibson, Director (PhD, biology); Ben L Clausen (PhD, nuclear physics); Elaine G Kennedy PhD geology); Clyde L Webster (PhD, chemistry); Katherine Ching, Editor (MA, history); and Janet Williams, Administrative Secretary.