basement rocks, are you suggesting
that the pre-Flood earth was simply
exposed shield with little-to-no
sedimentary cover across the
purported Rodinian supercontinent?
These questions were not
addressed when previously posed20 and
it is hoped that an answer will follow
in response to this letter. I appreciate
the work on BIFs that Dickens has
conducted and would appreciate further
Carl Froede Jr
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
1. Dickens, H., Banded iron formations formed
rapidly, J. Creation 31( 2): 14–16, 2017.
2. Dickens, ref. 1, p. 16.
3. Dickens, H. and Snelling, A.A., Precambrian
geology and the Bible: a harmony, J. Creation 22( 1):
4. Froede, C.R., Jr, Harmony between the Bible
and Precambrian geology—too favourable to
naturalism, J. Creation 22( 3): 40–41, 2008.
5. Reed, J.K. and Oard, M.J., Precambrian
dissonance, J. Creation 22( 3): 42–44, 2008.
6. Hunter, M.J., The Precambrian and the biblical
record—harmony or contradiction? J. Creation
22( 3): 45–46, 2008.
7. Reed, J.K. and Froede, C.R., Jr, Can ‘relative’
radiometric dating help refine biblical chronology?
Creation Research Society Quarterly 47:
8. Dickens, H. and Snelling, A.A., Precambrian
geology and the Bible, no dissonance or
contradiction, J. Creation 22( 3): 47–50, 2008.
9. Froede, C.R., Jr, A proposal for a creationist
geological timescale, Creation Research Society
Quarterly 32: 90–94, 1995.
10. Froede, C.R., Jr, Geology By Design: Interpreting
rocks and their catastrophic record, Master
Books, Green Forest, AR, 2007.
11. Dickens and Snelling, ref. 8, p. 48.
12. Froede, C.R., Jr, and Akridge, A.J., RATE study:
questions regarding accelerated nuclear decay and
radiometric dating, Creation Research Society
Quarterly 49: 56–62, 2012.
13. Letters to the Editor: Humphreys, D.R., Critics of
RATE overlook its results; Froede, C.R., Jr, and
Akridge, A.J., Authors’ response: science, theory,
history, and miracles, Creation Research Society
Quarterly 49:319–331, 2013.
14. Austin, S.A. and Wise, K.W., The pre-Flood/
Flood boundary: as defined in Grand Canyon,
Arizona and eastern Mojave Desert, California;
in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Creationism,
Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA,
pp. 37–47, 1994.
15. Austin, S.A., Baumgardner, J.R., Humphreys,
D.R., Snelling, A.A., Vardiman, L., and Wise,
K.P., Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global
Flood model of earth history; in: Walsh, R.E.
(Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Creationism, Creation Science
Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 609–621, 1994.
16. Clarey, T., Grappling with megasequences,
Acts & Facts 44( 4): 18–19, 2015; icr.org/
17. Morris, J. and Johnson, J.J.S., The draining
floodwaters: geologic evidence reflects the
Genesis text, Acts & Facts 41( 1): 12–13, 2012.
18. Froede, C. R., Jr, and Akridge, A.J., The potential
impact of the naturalistic geologic column on
biblical history, Creation Matters 6( 20): 6–9,
19. Froede, C.R., Jr, Howe, G.F., Reed, J.K.,
and Meyer, J.R., A preliminary report on the
Precambrian Pikes Peak Iron Formation Yavapai
County, Arizona, Creation Research Society
Quarterly 35: 15–22, 1998.
20. See cited references in Froede, ref. 4.
» Harry Dickens replies:
I am glad that Mr Froede enjoyed
the article, Banded iron formations
formed rapidly. I thank him for his
comments. The following is intended
Pikes Peak BIF
The Pikes Peak BIF is early Precambrian and described as Algoma-type. 1 It is not associated with mixtites,
which are characteristic of the late
Precambrian Rapitan-type BIF. Thus
in terms of the Journal of Creation
article’s YEC framework, it may
be inferred that the Pikes Peak BIF
formed in the early days of Creation
Week, rather than in the Noahic Flood.
BIF and Flood onset not solely
defined by radiometric age
The three types of BIF referred to
in the article are described in terms of
their field relationships and lithology,
and so can be recognized in the field
independent of radiometric age-dating.
However, there are consistent trends,
such as Rapitan BIFs being younger
in age than Algoma and Superior-type
BIFs. Relative radiometric age-dating
is consistent with relative age indicated
by field stratigraphic relationships—in
many locations worldwide, Neoprot-
erozoic sedimentary strata can be
found overlying older Precambrian
crystalline basement. Such geology
can be correlated respectively with
early Flood and early Creation Week.
I do not define the onset of the
Flood on radiometric dates on their
own, independent of other evidence.
The order in radiometric dates and the
order in lithologies, as well as chemical
and other isotopic trends go together in
a consistent way in numerous cases. 2, 3
I infer that:
• The erosion of land associated with
the Flood’s rain can be correlated
with Neoproterozoic geology,
including mixtites interpreted as
mass flows rather than as ‘glacials’
and that Sr isotope trends indicate
continental erosion. 4
• The corollary of this is that Archean
to Mesoproterozoic crystalline basement rocks can be correlated with
early Creation Week.
• The pre-Flood earth surface was
destroyed (Genesis 6: 13) in the
sense of being totally wiped away
(Matthew 24: 39).
Global processes involved in early
Creation Week should be considered.
There is no need to lump so much
geology into the Flood and not allow
that some rocks may have formed in
the Creation Week. Similarly, rocks
consistent with the early Flood erosion
of land due to the rain should not be
Geological sequences not deep-
time geological ‘System Periods’
I am not defining and applying
specific uniformitarian geologic time
‘Periods’ ad hoc to biblical history.
There are patterns and order in
radiometric dates that can be useful
in a relative rather than absolute time
sense. Recognizing literal sequences
of observable, mappable rock units is
not tantamount to accepting uniformitarianism and naturalism.