1

. Ivars Peterson, “Liquid Sand,” Science News, Vol. 128, 12 October 1985, p. 235.

2

. Committee on Earthquake Engineering, George W. Housner, Chairman, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985), pp. 25, 27.

3

. Why does this phenomenon occur primarily with sand and not other sedimentary particles, such as clay? Clay particles are flat and platelike. They stack on top of each other like playing cards, so little water can flow up between the particles and produce liquefaction.

Resistance to the upward flow of a fluid between solid particles increases enormously as the space between the particles becomes very small, as in clay. Sand particles, on the other hand, are more rounded, creating much larger gaps between particles. A pile of dry sand is so porous that air occupies 30–50% of its volume. Sand particles deposited in water will be almost completely surrounded by water, so water can flow up through sand with relative ease.

Some people and most animals panic when caught in quicksand. Although they sink only to about half the depth they would in pure water (which is less buoyant), thick sand-water mixtures create a suction that opposes movement. Animals frequently die of exertion or starvation. If ever caught in true quicksand, relax, let the sand-water mixture support your weight, be patient, and slowly “swim” out of it.

However, a dangerous situation arises if the upward flow of water slows so that water pressure no longer lifts each sand particle. Stepping into such loose sand or mud might be like stepping into a deep pit filled with powder. The distance you sink depends on how firmly the particles compact below you as you drop.

4

. Harold L. Levin, Contemporary Physical Geology, 2nd edition (New York: Saunders College Publishing, 1986), p. 251.

5

. Arthur N. Strahler, Physical Geology (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1981), p. 202.

6

. As the rocks settle into a denser packing arrangement, their potential energy is quickly converted into the energy of pressurized water, which, in turn, will be converted into the kinetic energy of upward flowing water. That kinetic energy will be dissipated slowly as two types of friction.

The first occurs as the water flows up around the sedimentary particles. This frictional drag tends to lift each particle, although initially the upward force may not be enough to raise any particles. The second type occurs near the top of the bed of sediments. That is the point on the flow path where the pressure suddenly drops and, therefore, the flow velocity suddenly increases. If the velocity exceeds a specific threshold, the topmost particles will be lifted. This will remove weight from the particles immediately below, allowing them to also rise. This chain reaction will continue down into the bed of sediments as long as sufficient energy remains. Particles lifted by water drag experience liquefaction.

7

. “Breakthroughs in Science, Technology, and Medicine,” Discover, November 1992, p. 14.

8

. Experiments have demonstrated this phenomenon as well. [See John T. Christian et al., “Large Diameter Underwater Pipeline for Nuclear Power Plant Designed Against Soil Liquefaction,” Offshore Technology Conference Preprints, Vol. 2, Houston, Texas, 6–8 May 1974, pp. 597–606.]

9

. Bruce C. Heezen and Maurice Ewing, “Turbidity Currents and Submarine Slumps, and the 1929 Grand Banks Earthquake,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 250, December 1952, pp. 849–873.

10

. A tsunami is often confused with a tidal wave. Tsunamis are caused by undersea earthquakes or volcanic eruptions that initiate a wave. A tidal wave is a twice-daily, long-period wave caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon on the earth.

11

. Because liquefied sediments will flow on gradual slopes and become increasingly horizontal, most sedimentary layers today are horizontal. Bent or steeply tipped layers resulted from the compression event described on page 119.

12

. E. D. McKee et al., “Flood Deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, June 1965,” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 37, September 1967, pp. 829–851.

Steven A. Austin, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1994), pp. 36–39.

13

. Water would flow into the sediment tank at about a centimeter per second. With a longer column of sediments, velocities are much slower. My computer simulations of liquefaction on the flooded earth showed typical velocities of about 0.1 centimeter per second. Liquefaction would begin at the top of a thick column of sediment and would grow downward as the wave trough approached. Hundreds of feet of sediments could experience liquefaction at one time. If the flood waters deposited more sediments on top of the column before the next liquefaction cycle began, the lowest sediments liquefied in the previous cycle might not experience liquefaction again. Thus, the least dense sediments will not all end up at the top of the sedimentary column.

14

. The old adage that water flows only downhill is not always true. Water flowed uphill in the water lens, because the pressure was highest in the lowest part of the lens where the weight of the overlying sediments was greatest.

15

. When a water lens began to form, it spread rapidly. This is because the flow into a lens from below increased and the flow escaping through the roof decreased. Water was captured in proportion to the lateral extent of the lens.

Why would more water flow up through the floor of the lens? The sedimentary layer just below a lens is “microagitated” only from below. Consequently, sediments just below the lens, being lifted by the flow from below and having nothing to bump into from above, provide less resistance to upward flow.

Why would less water flow up through the lens’ roof? Particles just above the water lens are pushed up into the sediments in the roof, compacting and increasing their resistance to the upward flow. Fine particles are swept into tiny flow channels in the roof, plugging up those channels.

During liquefaction, each sedimentary particle, surrounded by a thin film of water, would rotate and vibrate. The water’s flow around each irregular particle varied, causing sudden pressure changes that quickly altered forces all around the particle. (These are the same fluid forces that lift a wing, curve a baseball, or slice a golf ball.) When one particle collided with an adjacent particle, the effect would ripple “down the line” to some extent.

With all this “microagitation” and lubrication, particles would arrange themselves into a very dense packing arrangement that would free more water. Later, close packing would aid in cementing each horizontal stratum between former water lenses into a strong unit. [See “The Origin of Limestone” on pages 218–223.] This is why horizontal cracks, called joints, generally lie between strata.

Evolutionists believe that the horizontal interfaces between two adjacent strata represent long time intervals in which the environment changed so that different sediments would be deposited. (The sources of these new sediments are never thoroughly explained.) On the contrary, joints mark former liquefaction lenses.

16

. Personal communication, Dr. Karen Jensen, 8 January 2001.

17

. The most authoritative source for geological definitions is the Glossary of Geology.  It defines uniformitarianism as:

The fundamental principle or doctrine that geologic processes and natural laws now operating to modify the Earth’s crust have acted in the same regular manner and with essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time, and that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today; the classical concept that “the present is the key to the past.  [See Robert L. Bates and Julia A. Jackson, editors, Glossary of Geology, 2nd edition (Falls Church, Virginia: American Geological Institute, 1980), p. 677.]

The principle of uniformitarianism was meant to exclude a global flood, which many geologists still abhor—for philosophical, not scientific reasons.

18

. Leonard R. Brand and Thu Tang, “Fossil Vertebrate Footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of Northern Arizona: Evidence for Underwater Origin,” Geology, Vol. 19, December 1991, pp. 1201–1204.

“The trackways (Fig. 4a–c) that were headed across the slope but with toes pointed upslope can perhaps be best explained by animals being pushed by a water current moving at an angle to the direction of their movement.” Leonard R. Brand, “Field and Laboratory Studies on the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) Vertebrate Footprints and Their Paleoecological Implications,” Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology, Vol. 28, 1979, p. 38.

19

. “The widespread deposition of such clean sand [in the St. Peter sandstone] may seem strange to a modern observer, since there is no region on earth where a comparable pattern of deposition can now be found.”  Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 355–356.

20

. James W. Hagadorn et al., “Stranded on a Late Cambrian Shoreline: Medusae from Central Wisconsin,” Geology, Vol. 30, No. 2, February 2002, pp. 147–150.

21

. Ariel A. Roth, “Incomplete Ecosystems,” Origins, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1994, pp. 51–56.

22

. Arthur V. Chadwick, “Megabreccias: Evidence for Catastrophism,” Origins, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1978, pp. 39–46.

23

. Dwight Hornbacher, Geology and Structure of Kodachrome Basin State Reserve and Vicinity, Kane and Garfield Counties, Utah (Master’s thesis, Loma Linda University, California, 1985).

24

. This mound is located at 36°45'15.40"N, 109°34'45.87"W.

25

. George Sheppard, “Small Sand Craters of Seismic Origin,” Nature, Vol. 132, 30 December 1933, p. 1006.

26

. “Spanish documents from the 16th century and scientists’ interviews of the area’s current inhabitants [descendants of ancient Mayan (A.D. 200–900) peoples of central Mexico and Central America] reveal a longstanding regional belief that water originates in mountains and issues out of caves.” Bruce Bower, “Openings to the Underworld,” Science News, Vol. 161, 18 May 2002, pp. 314–315.