A submission to anthropologists

8 Jan 2018

I submitted the article, below, to SAPIENS on 23 Dec 2017. SAPIENS is an on-line journal for anthropologists. My thought in submitting a paper to them: their branch of science is most affected by geology’s error (besides geology itself).

The editors rejected it today, stating, “Thank you very much indeed for sending in your submission. While we really enjoyed considering your idea, the editors felt that it wasn’t quite right for us this time. We do often turn down good pitches with potential simply because they don’t suit our audience, tone, or focus at the moment.

We wish you the very best of luck with finding a good home for this piece.

Kind regards,


Chip Colwell, PhD

Editor-in-Chief, SAPIENS


Here is the rejected article:

Galileo’s Telescope, Google Earth, and Revolutionizing Anthropology

For almost 200 years geologists have accepted that the Earth has had all its water since nearly its beginning. This paradigm finds its origin in the early decades of the 1800s when European geologists began the process of determining whether or not the whole of the Earth suffered a deluge. The early geologists set about various landscapes seeking a common deposit layer, but they could not find it. Instead, it became apparent that diluvial gravels belonged to multiple, distinct events. Therefore, because there was not a common event in the observational record, the early geologists concluded that there was never a worldwide flood.

In his 1831 president’s address to the Geological Society of London, Adam Sedgwick renounced his belief in a worldwide flood. He stated, in part: “The vast masses of diluvial gravel … do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth…. Having been myself a believer [in a worldwide flood], and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, … I think it right … thus publicly to read my recantation.” (Sedgwick 1831)

It was a celebrated pronouncement, for Sedgwick was not only the Society’s president, but he was also a Cambridge University professor as well as a clergyman in the Church of England. Sedgwick’s recantation had lasting effect: to this day, all of science accepts that there was never a worldwide flood.

Interestingly, today’s lettered geologists staffing the science’s premier journals do not know the source of their fundamental “no flood, ever” tenet. They simply accept it as an article of their faith, and they immediately discount anyone thinking otherwise. I know this because I have dealt with them. Many of them. I have found that the very few aware of the history are wholly uncritical of the conclusion relative to its supporting evidence.

Uncritical? Indeed: the early geologists’ “no flood, ever” conclusion is indisputably wrong. From the evidence, Sedgwick and his peers instead should have concluded: presently exposed landscapes were never submerged by a common flood. Whereas it is undeniably true that where we are now was never flooded by a common event, that is not equivalent to the claim that there was never a worldwide flood. Sedgwick and the other early geologists mistakenly passed judgment on vast, submerged landscapes that they could not observe; they assumed that all of Earth’s waters have been with us since the beginning. The error precluded the possibility that now-submerged landscapes were inundated by some event, something that Google Maps data convey (examples shown on Figure 1).

Submerged drainage examples from around planet 8Jan2018Figure 1. Submerged drainages now discernible in Google Earth include (clockwise from upper left): coastal California, the Gulf of Alaska, the northwestern Mediterranean Sea, and the Celtic Sea to the southwest of Ireland.

Geology’s incorrect finding has persisted for two reasons: (1) there was little contradictory evidence on presently exposed landscapes that would call into question the prevailing theory, and (2) we could not see into the bathymetry to observe submerged landscapes until only recently. Today, however, the new maps allow us to observe the topography of ocean floors where we find former rivers. The new maps unequivocally reveal well-preserved drainages under more than three kilometers (km) of water, and they are ubiquitous. Their existence implies that there must have been a worldwide flood.

Please note that we are applying the scientific method: new data (maps) caused us to review theory. And what we find immediately is that geology’s ‘no flood, ever’ paradigm is erroneous. The new data should evoke new thinking, which in our case would result in the restoration of the belief that the Earth suffered a devastating flood. That geologists have failed to review their fundamental belief in the presence of this new data is powerful testament to the constraining effect that ‘no flood, ever’ holds over science, related disciplines, and rational thought.

The drainages in Fig. 1 imply that the Earth had much less water than the present. As such, it is interesting to consider pre-flood Earth, a model for which is shown on Figure 2. It was created in ArcGIS by removing an estimated average depth of 3 km from the present sea level, thereby exposing the former river systems.

Figure6 blogFigure 2. With more than 3 km of water graphically removed, a model of land and sea distributions in pre-flood Earth shows previously exposed but now-submerged landscapes (tan), presently exposed landscapes (beige), and former oceans and seas (blue).

Fig. 2 should transform anthropology. With the removal of so much water, the atmosphere would have covered the former abyss. Thus, the dark tan areas on Fig. 2 experienced increased atmospheric pressure, which would have led to higher temperatures (ideal gas law). Humans evolved in these regions; we are furless as a consequence. We find evidence of pre-flood human activity nearly exclusively in tropical latitudes because, at more than 3 kilometers (two miles) above the former sea level, most of the yellow regions on Fig. 2 were too cold for human habitation.

What is now coastal California would have been more than 3 km above the former sea level, and winds uplifted by the nearly vertical continental shelf condensed to create persistent rainfall that eroded and rounded the hills. The Salinas Valley was once an inland lake, and it drained to the northwest and then down the nearly vertical slope where its waters acquired sufficient kinetic energy to carve what we now call Monterey Canyon (upper left, Fig. 1). Similarly, gravity-energized flows carved the other submerged drainages in Fig. 1.

Our only task, then, is to identify the source of so much water. It should be obvious that such a volume as to cover the submerged structures in more than two miles could not be stored at Earth’s poles; the source must be cosmic. And this brings us to the Younger-Dryas event wherein geologists recognize incredible ecosystem changes induced by a cosmic impact roughly 13,000 years before present.(Firestone et al. 2007, Kennett et al. 2015) They have yet to find the cosmic impact, though they presume that some comet struck an ice sheet somewhere in North America and projected chunks several hundred to more than a thousand miles (and outside the atmosphere!) thereby creating the Carolina Bays and other craters found in North America.(Zamora 2017) Such a forceful impact would have created a crater, no? Since the impact was only 13,000 years before present then the crater could not have eroded away…. Well, then, where is it?! (Answer: not in North America.)

Interestingly, but as yet unrecognized by geologists, thousands of similar impact craters are found along the entire length of South America – we can identify them on Google Earth. Some are shown on Figure 3; a list of example craters found in North America and South America is provided in the post script, below.

Figure4 blogFigure 3. Several hundred IO fragment-created craters of various sizes are shown in this map. The long axes of the larger craters measure approximately one kilometer whereas the smaller craters are one-tenth that size.

I knew to look for ice chunk-created impact craters in South America because I had located the flood-inducing impact site in the Southern Ocean. It is shown on Figure 4. Note what appear to be parallel central scrapes. They are the sides of a lengthy trough that was carved by the solid, central nucleus of the impacting object (IO) immediately after it hit. This trough indicates the direction of travel taken by the IO, and back-propagating its direction indicates to us that the object overflew North America and South America immediately prior to impact. Along the way its ice fragments rained down and created the many craters that we can find on the new maps.

Impact and mag anomaly overlay 8Jan2018Figure 4. The IO impact, shown in Google Earth (top) along with its magnetic anomaly overlay (bottom) is found in the Southern Ocean south of Madagascar and north of Antarctica. The parallel central scrapes delineate the trough carved by its solid nucleus that served as the gravitational attractor in the Oort Cloud where the IO formed. Minerals and other debris delivered by the IO are found in deposit mounds interior to the crescent. The gap in the crescent was caused by IO fragmentation on its Earth approach; impact velocities and associated forces strew minerals and other debris nearly 1000 miles to the northeast through the gap, evident in the magnetic anomaly overlay.

Among its many names, the IO is known in various cultures as Phaeton, Set, and Satan, and it was one of a class of objects from which smaller comets are but fragments. It was loosely packed (as are its fragments that we call comets) due to small gravitational accelerations induced by its dense nucleus as the object formed in the Oort Cloud, far from gravitational effects from our sun and other stars. The IO impact crescent measures roughly 2500 km (~1500 miles) in diameter, and the width of its central trough measures somewhat less than 100 km (~60 miles) in diameter. The IO’s loosely packed nature likens its Earth-impact to a huge, porous ice-ball with a rock in the middle hitting a brick wall.

We know about comet composition from NASA’s Deep Impact mission (A’Hearn et al. 2005, Wilson 2005), and so we can estimate the volume of water delivered by the IO’s melted ice. From the IO’s radius, we can calculate the volume of water it contained, and once we have that number we divide it by the surface area of the oceans. This calculation yields average depth, which in this case comes out to be a bit more than two miles. (Jaye 2017) This is a nearly incomprehensible amount of water, and its addition to the Earth ecosystem forever changed the planet. The IO’s waters flooded the planet, and they did so from the abyss upward – they did not inundate presently exposed landscapes. In addition, the IO’s impact created the recently discovered nano-diamond layer (Kinzie et al. 2014), and its ecological influences are known as the Younger-Dryas effects. The IO’s waters ushered in a new geologic era that I call the Post-Diluvian.

The waters nearly killed our species. Naked human survivors were evicted from their natural environment by the flood, and having to adapt to a new environment changed their nature; they and their ancestors struggle to survive. In the ensuing millennia, nomadic humans sought habitable regions as the Earth transformed from its pre-flood state to the present ecosystem for which human survivors are maladapted. In the context that humans are a maladapted, surviving species: modern, complex social structures and our environmental abuse are survival mechanisms; we would be extinct were it not for our brains.

Yet we recognize none of this because of geology’s historic error. “No flood, ever” is an immense mistake: two branches of science, geology and anthropology, are fundamentally incorrect. This renders Google Earth as the historic equivalent to Galileo’s telescope – each ‘device’ revealed data that led to overturning incorrect scientific paradigms.

The task remains: how do we get geologists to recognize their error?  Should we treat them with derision? Do we mock them for adhering to an incorrect tenet as if it were religious dogma? I am not sure, but this much is certain – they must recognize their error. They must be asked: Why do you believe there was never a flood? and Do you not recognize the logical error committed by your predecessors?  We must make them reform. We must carry out the task of correcting the most profound error in the history of science. Meanwhile, let us begin to consider the error’s effect on Anthropology.



A’Hearn, M.F., M.J.S. Belton, W.A. Delamere, J. Kissel, K.P. Klaasen, L.A. McFadden, K.J. Meech, H.J. Melosh, P.H. Schultz, J.M. Sunshine, P.C. Thomas, J. Veverka, D.K. Yeomans, M.W. Baca, I. Busko, C.J. Crockett, S.M. Collins, M. Desnoyer, C.A. Eberhardy, C.M. Ernst, T.L. Farnham, L. Feaga, O. Groussin, D. Hampton, S.I. Ipatov, J.-Y. Li, D. Lindler, C.M. Lisse, N. Mastrodemos, W.M. Owen Jr., J.E. Richardson, D.D. Wellnitz, and R.L. White. 2005. Deep Impact: Excavating comet Tempel 1. Science (310) 5746: 258–264.

Firestone, R.B., A. West, J.P. Kennett, L. Becker, T.E. Bunch, Z.S. Revay, P.H. Schultz, T. Belgya, D.J. Kennett, J.M. Erlandson, O.J. Dickenson, A.C. Goodyear, R.S. Harris, G.A. Howard, J.B. Kloosterman, P.Lechler, P.A. Mayewski, J. Montgomery, R. Poreda, T. Darrah, S.S. Que Hee, A.R. Smith, A. Stich, W.Topping, J.H. Wittke, W.S. Wolbach. 2007. Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions of the Younger Dryas cooling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:16016-16021.

Jaye, M. 2017. The Worldwide Flood: Uncovering and Correcting the Most Profound Error in the History of Science. Bloomington, IN: Archway Publishing.

Kennett J.P., D.J. Kennett, B.J. Culleton, J.E.A. Tortosa, J.L. Bischoff, T.E. Bunch, I.R. Daniel Jr., J.M. Erlandson, D. Ferraro, R.B. Firestone, A.C. Goodyear, I. Israde-Alcántara, J.R. Johnson, J.F. Jordá Pardo, D.R. Kimbel, M.A. LeCompte, N.H. Lopinot, W.C. Mahaney, A.M.T. Moore, C.R. Moore, J.H. Ray, T.W. Stafford Jr., K.B. Tankersley, J.H. Wittke, W.S. Wolbach, and A. West. 2015. Bayesian chronological analyses consistent with synchronous age of 12,835–12,735 Cal B.P. for Younger Dryas boundary on four continents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (32): E4344–E4353.

Kinzie C.R., S.S. Que Hee, A. Stich, K.A. Tague, C. Mercer, J.J. Razink, D.J. Kennett, P.S. DeCarli, T.E. Bunch, J.H. Wittke, I. Israde-Alcántara, J.L. Bischoff, A.C. Goodyear, K.B. Tankersley, D.R. Kimbel, B.J. Culleton, J.M. Erlandson, T.W. Stafford, J.B. Kloosterman, A.M.T. Moore, R.B. Firestone, J.E. Aura Tortosa, J.F. Jordá Pardo, A. West, J.P. Kennett, and W.S. Wolbach. 2014. Nanodiamond-rich layer across three continents consistent with major cosmic impact at 12,800 Cal BP. The Journal of Geology 122 (5):475–506.

Sedgwick, A. 1831. Address to the Geological Society of London, on retiring from the President’s Chair, February 18.

Wilson, E.K. 2005. An Icy Dustball in Outer Space. Chemical & Engineering News 83 (37): 12.

Zamora, A. 2017. A model for the geomorphology of the Carolina Bays. Geomorphology 282:209-216.

Post Script

IO fragility can be inferred from an understanding of the small aggregating accelerations induced by its central core. Newton’s law of gravitation and his second law of motion allow us to determine IO-induced accelerations in the Oort Cloud. The acceleration of one object due to the mass of another is:

a = G * M/r^2

where: M is the mass of the attracting object, r is the distance to that object’s center, and G is the universal gravitational constant, G = 6.67*10^–11.

From this equation we can show that the acceleration of an object near the earth’s surface is roughly 9.8 m/s^2 (first set of calculations, below). From there we can compute the acceleration at the surface of a 50 km sphere composed of a very dense material. Then we add a porous ice-debris outer layer like that of the IO and calculate the acceleration at its outer surface.

Acceleration at Earth’s surface:

Radius: 6,380,000 meters
Volume: 1.0878E+21 meter^3
Density: 5497.31393 kg/meter^3
Mass: 5.98E+24 kg
Acceleration at surface: 9.799088059 m/sec^2               =  G*mass/radius^2

Acceleration at the IO’s core surface:

Radius: 50,000 meters
Volume: 5.23599E+14 meter^3
Density: 5497.31393 kg/meter^3
Mass: 2.87839E+18 kg
Acceleration at IO core surface: 0.076795361 m/sec^2   = G*mass/radius^2

Acceleration at the IO’s outer surface:

Radius: 1,250,000 meters
Volume: 5.23599E+14 meter^3
mass, 1km^3 water: 1E+12 kg
H20 mass, outer layer: 1.28779E+21 kg
mineral mass, outer layer: 5497.31393 kg

a_combined mass core+shell: 0.198841398 m/sec^2    = G*[(H20+mineral mass, outer                                                                                                              layer) + core mass]/outerradius^2

IO’s acceleration, expressed as a fraction of Earth’s acceleration:

a_core/a_earthsurface = 0.007836991 = 0.70%
a_(combined mass core + shell)/a_earthsurface = 0.020291827 = 2%

Therefore, the IO’s small attracting accelerations in the Oort Cloud created a porous and fragile object that began to fall apart as it neared Earth impact. Hence the gap in the impact crescent, as well as the abundance of impact craters strewn along the IO’s broad and lengthy approach path. We get an idea of the IO’s approach from the impact trough that was carved by its dense nucleus: back-propagating the trough direction reveals the impact approach path. In doing so we find that the IO’s center of mass approached over west-central North America then western South America before crossing Chile and Argentina and flying over the Falklands. Listed on the table, below, are latitude-longitude coordinates for some ice fragment impact craters along the IO approach path. The list is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it is meant to illustrate the multitude of craters created by IO ejecta. The latitude-longitude pairs are provided so that you might discover them – and others – using Google Earth. The term “eye” refers to the suggested altitude from which to begin crater investigation. The “Comments” describe locations and some features intended to pique interest. The progression of impacts listed on the table moves the viewer from north to south.

Impact Coordinates    Eye                 Comments

Northern Latitudes
40.6341N 98.0162W     7,800 ft       Nebraska; might be difficult to discern among crop circles
40.4670N 98.0381W     17,000 ft     Nebraska
39.1658N 75.8462W     3,500 ft       Maryland
34.8719N 79.0371W     46,600 ft     South Carolina, swarm of elliptical craters
34.8370N 79.1854W     20.3 mi       South Carolina, elliptical craters
32.8604N 82.0342W     12.5 mi       Georgia
33.4013N 104.0641W   40,600 ft     New Mexico
34.6756N 103.9874W   37,500 ft     New Mexico, swarm
34.8448N 104.1021W   45,000 ft     New Mexico, swarm
32.2140N 102.4217W   30,600 ft     Texas, swarm with one crater in someone’s backyard
32.5304N 100.6679W   17.5 mi        Texas
26.3530N 97.7112W     28,300 ft      Mexico
25.7206N 97.3893W     23.7 mi        Mexico
20.3999N 87.4530W     37,800 ft      Mexico; impact string visible at large view scale, running SW-NE
20.0234N 87.5228W     40 mi           Mexico, swarm of large impact craters; some carved shoreline
19.1279N 87.8039W     16 mi           Mexico, swarm
18.3340N 88.2799W     13 mi           Mexico
14.4011N 83.3440W     13,000 ft      Mexico

Southern Latitudes
6.1710S 80.7380W       28,500 ft       Peru; equatorial latitude impact crater
10.5931S 76.3234W     28.0 mi         Peru; impacts in mountainous region
22.8193S 66.8091W     47,000 ft       Argentina; swarm
34.8117S 61.6309W     20 mi             Argentina
35.0281S 62.4160W     31,000 ft       Argentina
35.8648S 62.3402W     32,000 ft       Argentina; impact swarm
37.6990S 61.0177W     18 mi             Argentina; swarm
41.2603S 68.0857W     13.5 mi          Argentina; check out the drainage runoff patterns from ice melt
41.3549S 67.7267W     16 mi             Argentina; swarm
45.1512S 70.6540W     24 mi             Argentina; small swarm, some drainages observable
50.5908S 70.3878W     37 mi             Argentina; large swarm
51.5756S 70.0404W     30 mi             Argentina; large swarm
51.9179S 70.0099W     30 mi             Argentina (barely); large swarm
51.7803S 59.1534W     28,000 ft        Falkland Islands
53.6401S 68.2996W     40 mi             Argentina; swarm of large craters

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s