Climate Change

Introduction:

The secular world is full of fantastic claims that push for certain moral and ethical decisions. Many people call for support as they fight for political rights, appeal for money to spend in the aid of abused animals, or many other causes. One of the largest pushes for change and initiative in today’s world involves the shifting climate of the planet. Even political leaders have taken up the banner, claiming that if we do not stop the continued emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, drastic environmental changes will threaten our existence. If such claims are true, Christians should certainly be at the forefront of the initiative, but they are not. Are Christian leaders merely being reactionary to what they view as worldly thinking, or are the claims of global warming merely a money-grab for environmentalists?

Evidence:

            The evidence for climate change is surprisingly obvious. Since the 1950s, the level of carbon dioxide, one of the primary greenhouse gasses responsible for raising temperatures, has been measured consistently and has increased about 60 percent. It rises predictably as global temperatures rise. Other greenhouse gasses have similarly increased.

Although the overall temperature of Earth has only increased a mere 0.67 degrees Celsius over about a 100-year period, it has had a significant impact on ecology, particularly in the Polar Regions. Glaciers have receded dramatically, hundreds of meters, as mountaintops fail to retain the icy temperatures of winter. Similarly, the arctic has dropped nearly 40 percent of its summer ice sheet over the last 30 years.

            Of course, the real debate is not over whether global warming takes place, but over what its effects will be in the future. After natural processes like the fluctuations of the sun are accounted for, only about 0.28 of the observed 0.67 degrees Celsius (about 40 percent) can be attributed to mankind’s emission of greenhouse gasses. However, scientists are still concerned that the earth may have a “threshold” that, once crossed, will plunge Earth into a new ice age. However, these claims are based on readings from the polar ice cores and are popularly believed to span hundreds of thousands of years. Nevertheless, the Bible is clear that the earth is not nearly that old. Rather, Scriptural and scientific evidence seems to indicate that the ice cores were formed during the comparatively rapid ice age following the global flood. After the flood, there would have been a fantastic amount of water vapor in the air—and water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. Therefore, it stands to reason that a colossal ice age would follow a global flood. Today there is no known mechanism, such as a global flood, that could produce enough greenhouse gasses to propel the Earth over its “threshold.”

Conclusion:

The first command of God to mankind was to populate the earth and assume the responsibility of rulership over the Earth. Those who believe the Bible are commanded to serve in this office of “stewardship” responsibly. Therefore, although the Earth is far from crossing any “threshold” of global climate change, it is the Christians responsibility to eliminate negative influence on the Earth and its atmosphere. Ideally, the 42 percent increase of temperature caused by humans should be stopped. However, it seems the Earth has been enduring a natural warming phase since the 1950s regardless of the human effect.

References:

Oard, M. 2009. “Is man the cause of global warming?”. In: Ham, K. ed. The New Answers Book 3. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 69-79.

Natural Resources Defense Council. “Global warming puts the Arctic on thin ice”. NRDC.org. http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp (accessed September 27, 2014).

The Global Flood and the Geological Column

Introduction

         The geological column has long been recognized as a potential problem for creationism. The seeming progression from superficially more “primitive” organisms to creatures considered to be “higher” on the evolutionary tree of life has puzzled creationist scientists into a state of debate and divergence. Theories abound. Some creationists caution against using the geological column at all (Woodmorappe 1999 and Reed et Froede 2003), but the various fossil-bearing rock formations, such as the Scollard Formation in Saskatchewan, clearly represent differential ecosystems and the successive layers, where they can be seen, demonstrate at least some form of transition in faunal species. How do these distinct ecosystems, captured in geological formations around the world, fit in with a Biblical framework of history?

         Creationists use secular names, like Mesozoic or Devonian, to reference strata that are normally used by secular scientists to reference ages (in hundreds of millions of years). However, for ease of use, creationists retain the names as they apply to those particular layers in the geological column, without regard for secular dates. Most creationists do not accept a age of more than about six thousand years for the age of the Earth.

The Pre-Flood Boundary: Upper Mantle

         Where the global Flood should begin in geology is not as hotly debated as where it should end, but it is still an important question. Geologist Max Hunter hypothesized that the natural cause, used by God, of the global Flood’s onset was the temporary lowering of the Earth’s gravitational constant, causing the melting and differentiation of the mantle (among other things). Additionally, he tied this frame of thought in with the decreasingly popular Canopy Theory, which states there was a layer of water suspended above the atmosphere and acknowledges the hypothesis of a rainless pre-Flood world. With all these assumptions in mind, Hunter believes that even the uppermost layers of the mantle, above the transition zone, are Flood-formed (Hunter 2000). However, most creationists now believe that it is primarily sedimentary layers that should be attributed to the Flood.

The Pre-Flood Boundary: Middle Precambrian

         In an extensive study of the geology of Israel, geologist Andrew Snelling concluded that the onset of the Flood, at least in that country, correlated with a major unconformity in the center of supposed Precambrian strata (Snelling 2010). This disrupted layer, separating two very different kinds of rock, show clear signs of catastrophic, volcanic activity. He notes that these trends are also analogous to strata of the same secular age in North America. Even more recently, Snelling and microbiologist Georgia Purdom indicate that fossil stromatolites, confirmed to be biotic, were possibly growing by day three of the creation week (Snelling et Purdom 2013). Indeed, in light of Snelling’s meticulous research on stromatolite growth and Israeli geology, it seems fairly unlikely that Max Hunter’s excessively catastrophic model played much of a part in Flood geology at all. Rather, the Flood very likely began during the Precambrian, the most basal member of the geological column.

The Flood Deposits

         Exactly how the floodwaters progressed in biological effect on the earth in the inundation period of the Flood remained almost completely unaddressed until the 21^st century. Geologist Kurt Wise noticed the correlation while studying coal formation (Wise 2008). He recognized that the secular geological column, at least up to the Mesozoic (dinosaur-bearing strata), correlated well with the shift of habitat from marine to inland. To Wise, the majority of stromatolites were buried as the continental edges collapsed during the earliest stages of the Flood. Cambrian, Silurian, Ordovician, and Devonian sea life died in a similar way, buried as shallower portions of the continental shelf collapsed. As the floodwaters progressed, they soon broke down the “floating forest” swamp-life of the Carboniferous, the coastal dunes of the Permian, and, finally, the inland regions, represented by the Mesozoic. It is an amazing revelation; so obvious it is a wonder other creationists did not recognize it before. But why should Wise stop at the Mesozoic, the last layers dinosaur fossils are found? Why did he exclude the Cenozoic, a predominantly mammal-fossil series, from his model? It seems Wise assumed the end of the Mesozoic was the end of the Flood, a stance that is surprisingly controversial.

The Post-Flood Boundary: Early to Late Paleozoic

         Creationists have, for the most part, been supportive of the majority of the fossil record as Flood-deposited. Some of the early attempts to define the post-Flood boundary by creationists are very presumptive. In particular, the presence of animal tracks in sedimentary layers was understood to be a serious challenge to a Flood interpretation. Paul Garner and many other creationists propagated the idea that fossilized tracks and nests could not have been formed during the global Flood, under the assumption that floodwaters would obliterate them (Garner 1996 and Garner et al. 2003). Thus, they concluded that the Flood must have ended at the Paleozoic (beneath dinosaur-bearing strata) and Mesozoic junctions or even as deep as the Devonian strata, where animal tracks are reportedly found. The idea that all sedimentary layers above the Paleozoic has not been accepted well by many creationists because it seemed to fail to take into account the immense amount of sedimentary strata overlaying the Paleozoic deposits. In fact, creationists have confirmed that certain formations, such as the Tapeats Sandstone, have analogous layers in the United States and Israel (Snelling 2010b). Therefore, most scientists agree that at least the majority of the geologic column was formed during the global Flood.

The Post-Flood Boundary: Late Cenozoic

         With a Paleozoic post-Flood boundary doubtful, some authors concluded that all sedimentary layers were deposited during the Flood, pushing the date to the opposite extreme in the uppermost Cenozoic (Holt 1996 and Froede et Reed 1999). More contemporary articles have agreed with this stance, including many published by atmospheric scientist Michael Oard. By developing a set of criterion, such as sedimentation or fossilization independent of the geologic column, Oard concluded that most fossils were formed during the Flood, including many of those considered to be from the Cenozoic layers (Oard 2007). But should the geological column be taken so lightly? Oard’s desire to be uninfluenced by secular thinking may have caused him to make a flawed assumption: no large catastrophes took place after the Flood.

The Post-Flood Boundary: K/T

         Possibly the most widespread theory on the post-Flood boundary is that the Cretaceous (end of the Mesozoic)/Tertiary (Cenozoic) boundary correlates roughly to the end of the Flood. This darkened layer, conventionally believed to mark the place of a giant asteroid impact or volcanic eruption, is commonly referred to the K/T boundary. One of the most powerful evidences for a K/T post-Flood boundary is the distribution of the geological formations. Many of the formations in the Mesozoic, under the K/T, are distributed across multiple continents, while those in the Cenozoic, tend to be more localized, a fact acknowledged even by proponents of a later post-Flood boundary (Oard 2010a). But there are some serious objections to this interpretation.

         Michael Oard continues to be strongly apposed to the K/T boundary as the end of the Flood. Oard believes that widespread erosion and volcanic activity evidenced in Cenozoic layers means they must have been deposited during the Flood (Oard 2011). In particular, Oard annually discovers examples of uplift in Cenozoic strata (Oard 2012, Oard 2013b, Oard 2013c). However, the uplift of these regions, demonstrated by the slant of the sediments exposed on hillsides, could still be explained as a post-Flood event. In each of Oard’s articles he seems to assume that the world returned to a tranquil sate relatively rapidly after the Flood. Both late Cenozoic and K/T proponents agree that the Flood, being a worldwide event, was amazingly catastrophic. One of the prominent after affects of the Flood would be continental unrest, involving much volcanism, and perhaps uplift. Catastrophic erosion would also be expected in the years after the Flood since large inland lakes, restrained by natural dams, broke free (Snelling et Vail 2010 and Oard 2000).

         Another question brought up by Oard is, if the Cenozoic is post-Flood, why are mammals primarily absent from supposed Flood deposits (Oard 2010b)? This question is not unanswerable from the K/T proponent’s perspective, though. For example, the Bible clearly portrays people in abundance before the global Flood but no human fossils are found in Mesozoic or Paleozoic layers. Perhaps the ecosystems hosting mammals were concentrated in only a few locations, like humans, and did not chance to be in favorable location for fossilization (such as a mountain top). Indeed, creationist paleontologist Marcus Ross observed clear biological succession of the kinds of animals present in each layer in North American Cenozoic strata (Ross 2012). He noticed that each successive formation contained, primarily, the same mammal genera as the layer below it. However, in each successive layer, there were a few new genera that had been absent in the underlying strata. This progressed to the point of nearly completely contemporary genera in the uppermost layers, indicating a clear succession of environments into the present. This is powerful evidence that the Cenozoic is not, in fact, attributable to the global Flood, which describes all life dying off, but, rather, the colonization of the planet just prior to the Ice Age. Michael Oard published a rebuttal of Ross’ paper (Oard 2013a) but used essentially the same arguments he has since the early 2000s.

         Proponents of a K/T post-Flood boundary often recognize the clear climatic changes throughout the Cenozoic layers as the earth reputably became cooler, approaching the Ice Age. However, Oard points out that evolutionists make such claims of progressive climatic change for Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata as well. The environmental objection has a simple explanation, though, since Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata tend to be more geologically disrupted, the evidence often quoted for climatic change in those layers is not nearly as substantiated as for the Cenozoic.

The Post Flood Boundary: Mantle

         Some creationists carry the idea of paleobiotic succession even farther, suggesting that the geologic column represents a succession of ecosystems that developed progressively after the global Flood (Robinson 1996). However, proponents of that view are faced with similar problems as secular scientists, such as the worldwide distribution of certain geologic formations. Additionally, the vast extent and depth of the geological layers in some places means additional time to the age of the Earth, beyond the exegetical six thousand, needs to be invoked. Because of that many advocates of the Recolonization Theory do not take the Biblical genealogies absolutely literally and extend the age of the Earth to around twenty thousand years.

Conclusion

Creationist scientists have postulated many theories on how the geological column should be considered in light of Biblical Flood geology. Exactly how lithology correlates to the global Flood is a very inexact science, since it was not observable. Ultimately, every geologic formation should be analyzed independently and creationists should never presume that the Flood correlates exclusively to any member of the secular geological column. Creationists should be cautious accepting secular conclusions, such as the geologic column, paleofaunal succession, or climatic change.

There are two primary creationist views on the post-Flood boundary. Atmospheric scientist Michael Oard has written consistently and extensively, arguing for a late Cenozoic post-Flood boundary and demonstrating many evidences that do point to certain Cenozoic formations as Flood deposits. However, paleontologist Marcus Ross has recently begun to publish convincing arguments for an end to the Flood closer to the K/T boundary. Therefore, in light of Ross’ paleontological analysis of genera in the Cenozoic and the habitat distinction between pre and post K/T boundary, the end of the Mesozoic likely correlates at least partially to the end of deposition stage of the Flood. Both Oard and Ross have arranged excellent perspectives on the geological column and either one is a logical and absolutely possible explanation for the geological column. The location of the post-Flood boundary is certainly not “set in stone.”

         References

Froede, C.R., Jr. and Reed K.J. 1999. “Assessing creationist stratigraphy with evidence from the Gulf of Mexico”. Creation Research Society Quarterly36(2):51-60.

Garner, P. 1996. “Where is the Flood/post-Flood boundary? Implications of dinosaur nests in the Mesozoic”. Technical Journal 10(1):101-106.

Garner, P.A., M. Garton, R.H. Johnston, S.J. Robinson, and D.J. Tyler. 2003. “Dinosaur footprints, fish traces, and the Flood”. Technical Journal17(1):54-59.

Holt, R.D. 1996. “Evidence for a late Cainozoic Flood/post-Flood boundary”. Technical Journal 10(1):128-167.

Hunter, M.J. 2000. “The pre-Flood/Flood boundary at the base of the earth’s transition zone”. Technical Journal 14(1):60-74.

Oard, M.J. 2000. “Only one Lake Missoula flood”. Technical Journal14(2):14-17.

Oard, M.J. 2007. “Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks”. Journal of Creation 21(1):98-110.

Oard, M.J. 2010a. “Is the K/T the post-Flood boundary?—part 1: introduction and the scale of sedimentary rocks”. Journal of Creation 24(2):95-104.

Oard, M.J. 2010b. “Is the K/T the post-Flood boundary?—part 2: paleoclimates and fossils”. Journal of Creation 24(3):87-93.

Oard, M.J. 2011. “Is the K/T the post-Flood boundary?—part 3: volcanism and plate tectonics”. Journal of Creation 25(1):57-62.

Oard, M.J. 2012. “The Uinta Mountains and the Flood: part I. Geology”. Creation Research Society Quarterly 49(2):109-121.

Oard, M.J. 2013a. “Geology indicates the terrestrial Flood/post-Flood boundary is mostly in the Late Cenozoic”. Journal of Creation 27(1):119-127.

Oard, M.J. 2013b. “Surficial continental erosion places the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the late Cenozoic”. Journal of Creation 27(2):62-70.

Oard, M.J. 2013c. “The Uinta Mountains and the Flood: part II. Geomorphology”. Creation Research Society Quarterly 49(3):180-196

Reed, J.K. and C.R. Froede Jr. 2003. “The uniformitarian stratigraphic column—shortcut or pitfall for creation geology?”. Creation Research Society Quarterly40(2):90-98.

Robinson, S.J. 1996. “Can Flood geology explain the fossil record?”. Technical Journal 10(1):32-69.

Ross, M.R. 2012. “Evaluating potential post-Flood boundaries with biostratigraphy—the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary”. Journal of Creation 26(2):82-87.

Snelling, A.A. 2010a. “The geology of Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood framework of history: 1. The pre-flood rocks”. Answers Research Journal 3:165-190. https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/geology_Israel_pre-Flood.pdf (accessed October 10, 2014).

Snelling, A.A. 2010b. “The geology of Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood framework of history: 2. The flood rocks”. Answers Research Journal3:267-309. https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/geology_Israel_Flood.pdf (accessed October 10, 2014).

Snelling, A. and G. Purdom. 2013. “Survey of microbial composition and mechanisms of living stromatolites of the Bahamas and Australia: developing criteria to determine the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites”. Answers in Depth 8. https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/survey-of-microbial-composition-and-mechanisms-of-living-stromatolites-of-the-bahamas-and-australia-/ (accessed October 9, 2014).

Snelling, A.A. and T. Vail. 2010. “When and how did the Grand Canyon form?”. In: Ham, K. ed. The New Answers Book 3. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 173-185.

Wise, K. 2008. “Sinking a floating forest”. Answers3(4):40-45.

Woodmorappe, J. 1999. Studies in Flood Geology: A Compilation of Research Studies Supporting Creation and the Flood. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.

The Scientific Accuracy of Genesis

Sometimes Christian scientists are tempted to read rather deeply into certain passages. There are three that seem to get some attention in the hands of enthusiastic theorizers. First is Genesis 1:6-8. “And God said, ‘Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.’ So God made the vault and separated the water from under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault ‘sky.’ And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.” Most folks interested in creation science have heard about “the water canopy theory.” The idea is derived from these verses. It hypothesizes that the “water above” the sky was some kind of liquid or vapor “canopy,” such as an ozone layer, that contributed to a global tropical climate. Other less well-known theories hypothesize that this “water canopy” was actually much farther out in space, possibly encompassing more celestial bodies than just the Earth (the verses addressed below, Genesis 1:14-19, certainly seem to indicate that the planets and stars are within the “sky.” However, I think the solution could be far simpler than that. It helps to try to think with the mindset of those to whom the book was written—namely the Hebrew nation, under Moses’ command. When a comparatively ancient culture like the Israelites received this text, I doubt that they would have thought of the “vault” as anything beyond what they could see with their eyes. The water below, reflecting blue, looked like the blue sky above—the waters above. This seems overly simple and scientifically impossible at first glance, but is it really? Among the other gasses of Earth’s atmosphere, water vapor certainly makes up a portion (it is a greenhouse gas). Actually, I don’t think I would expect God to mention the various elements that make up the atmosphere because there weren’t even any names in human language for those things. Essentially, to the understanding of the day, it was water above. I don’t think God was being deceptive; but he might have been keeping it very simple.

There are other cases of God “oversimplifying” scientific concepts that we generally never think of as being a problem. “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on earth.’ And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.” We all know that the moon does not actually give off light—it merely reflects the light of the sun. So was God deceptive? Absolutely not! Light is certainly shining from the moon and that, more than likely, fit within the cultural definition of a “light” in Biblical days. The scientific definitions and details of our modern understanding of science are of no importance here.

Finally, I would like to address this popular idea that there was no rain before the global flood. It is certainly possible that it never rained before the flood, but it probably didn’t cross the mind of the authors and readers of the Bible when it was written. The context of the source verse for this idea is actually subject to a lot of unnecessary controversy. “Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:5). It says, “the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth,” some like to quote. However, the context of the verse is a description of when “no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up.” I’m sure there were plants growing between the creation of man and the flood. But one might argue that it is chronologically ordered, I suppose, but that doesn’t work. The next verse says that God “formed the man.” So, man was created. If one had just read the previous chapter, it was abundantly clear that plants came before mankind. Rather, it seems to be simply a vague, non-detailed description of the world before a completed creation. Let me know what you think in the comments below, but it seems like God doesn’t value scientific detail as much as we might today.

Stegosaurus stenops

This Dinosaur Has God's Name All Over It!

No other dinosaur displays our Savior's handiwork quite like Stegosaurus.

Remains: Two complete skeletons and many partial and fragmentary skeletons. Both Adults and juveniles (Weishampel et al. 2007).

Size: 6.5 meters (21 feet) long and 3.5 tonnes in weight (Paul 2010).

Location: Lived in the lower Morrison Formation of the Preflood world. Skeletons are now found fossilized in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah (Weishampel et al. 2007).

Habitat: The Morrison was a semiarid habitat of mixed prairie and damp woodland riddled with rivers.

Ecology: Stegosaurus would have browsed on shrubs and small trees. When full grown, the only predators large enough to face it would have been large theropods like Ceratosaurus nasicornis and Allosaurus fragilis.

Taxonomy: Belongs to the Stegosauridae monobaramin with Tuojiangosaurus, Gigantspinosaurus, and Kentrosaurus. There is at least one other species of Stegosaurus, S. ungulatus. It defers from S. stenops in that it was slightly larger (7 meters and almost 4 tonnes) with narrower, more pointed back plates.

Stegosaurus was the epitome of large theropod disembowelment. Unlike most other dinosaurs, Stegosaurus had no stiffening fibers running the length of its tail. Such fibers would normally function in stiffening the tail to aid in balance but the heavy bodied stegosaur wouldn't have needed them. In addition to this unrestrained feature, the stegosaur had extra space between its caudal (tail) vertebrae allowing for ultimate flexibility (Bakker 1986). This feature alone would have made Stegosaurus the ultimate in self-defense, but the Creator thought better. To increase its range of motion, the stegosaur had special features on its forearms too. Each humerus had an immense deltoid crest for the attachment of the deltoid muscles. This growth on the bone almost seems disproportionate but looking at the muscle attachment regions on the scapula (shoulder bone) indicates a very large deltoid muscle, indeed (Bakker 1986). With extra power, the stegosaur could pivot on its front legs to swing its entire hindquarters into the blow, allowing the dinosaur to deliver a hit to a predator attacking near its head. Such a powerful blow would drive the four spines at the tails end so deep into a theropod's guts it would have killed it certainly.
Despite all these incredible features of self defense, the stegosaur's head was still vulnerable. To compensate, this dinosaur had a tight network of bony rounds under its chin to protect the throat. The back plates too ran up to the back of the head. Considering that the predators of the Morrison were nearly 2 tonnes in weight, the stegosaur's armory wasn't overkill.

Stegosaurus was well equipped with a horny beak
and battery of leaf-shredding teeth.

Of course, Stegosaurus didn't spend much time battling theropods (not many dared risk a confrontation). Its massive gut needed filling. Stegosaurus lived in a habitat crawling with giant sauropods. While their long necks were reaching into the tops of the evergreens, the underbrush was being cropped by smaller hypsilophodonts and dryosaurs. Stegosaurus, on the other hand, was perfectly designed for reaching the vegetation that grew in between. It had a perfect beak and battery of teeth for processing its food, this equipment was carried fairly low to the ground. To gain extra height, the stegosaur could rear an extra few feet into the trees. To do this, Stegosaurus had a system of muscles and ligaments running the length of its tall vertebral spines. It worked just like the cable of a crane, levering the stegosaur's beak up into the leaves (Bakker 1986).

Dorsal view of a Stegosaurus stenops skull.

Stegosaurus plate design and function is still debated. Based on some of the best specimens, it is a general consensus among paleontologists that the plates were arranged in two rows in an alternating fashion (Lessem et Glut 1993). The purpose of the plates, however, is far from settled. Some have postulated that they served as solar panels that exposed a network of blood vessels to the hot sun. Or perhaps those blood vessels served a function in communication, turning the plates bright red as the blood flooded the microgrooves in the bone. Not that Stegosaurus needed more weaponry, but even if the plates did serve one or both of the former functions they most likely worked at defense as well. The plates were not attached to bone and it's probably safe to presume that they didn't just flop around limply (an evolutionist partial to vestigial organs might think so). Rather, they almost certainly had attachments for skin muscles (Bakker 1986). These muscles, lying on the surface of the skeletal muscles, would have provided control of the direction of the plates. As an allosaur charged in at the stegosaur's side, it could orient its plates to face the foot-long jaws.
All said and done, Stegosaurus stenops was the ultimate in mega self-defense. It had incredible armory and perfect design for herbivorous feeding. In the predator/prey balance put in place after God's perfect curse on creation, stegosaurs were the perfect piece. When one thinks of design in creation, Stegosaurus doesn't often come to mind. I hope it does now.

This sketch illustrates Stegosaurus stenops lifting to pluck a choice bit of greenery from a limb.

References:

Bakker, Robert. 1986. The Dinosaur Heresies. William Morrow & Company, Inc. New York.

Lessem, Don and Donald F. Glut. 1993. The Dinosaur Society Dinosaur Encyclopedia. Random House, Inc. New York.

Paul, Gregory. 2010. The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey.

Weishampel, David B., Peter Dodson, Halska Osmolska. 2007. The Dinosauria. University of California Press. Berkeley.