Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion

Here is picture of the Canyon layers. The Coal Black Vishnu group is labled VG. The group high up the cliffs labeled CS is the Coconino Sandstones. Notice all the formations between. In your model the flood must have deposited at least some of these before bringing in the sand to form the Coconinos and spreading it over wide areas in formations that look like dunes. It is past time for you to either a rational model for the formation of the tracks in the dunes or admit that they are not flood deposits.RandyThis message has been edited by Admin, 05-25-2005 09:56 AM

I think you have a responsibility, both to yourself and to the rest of us investing so much time with you, to take the discussion seriously. There is no evidence of coal strata at the Grand Canyon. Until you have evidence, please drop this issue.Returning to the other issues, do you now understand that the trackways in Grand Canyon strata could not have been created while underwater, that sediments can not be deposited beneath under sediments, and that the lower strata of the Grand Canyon are not local river deposits?--Percy

I think that Peaceharris' arguments are a fine example of what I was talking about here

I have been taking these discussions seriously. I thank you for investing your time. But I do not wish to do so.I will be ignoring Randy in the future as he has been consistently using stupid arguments, and I can't be wasting my time with him.The black color in the photo he posted is due to the shadow.The true color of the Vishnu Schist is definitely not coal black. I believe Lucy Bryan's description matches the description of coal. I also believe that we can extrapolate the situation of tracks found above the coal mines of Utah and Chinle to other footprints, unless a drill hole explicitly proves the absence of coal.I have spent a fair amount of my time researching through google, the environment around which these footprints have been made, and based on this research I can confidently say that there is not the slightest bit of evidence that the tracks were made after ~1000 feet of sand first being sedimented.The proofs which you have supplied, such as citing the diagram of the strata found in textbooks is what I consider an argument not worth replying to.The other stupid argument 'proving' the absence of coal was Message 152. The website he cited doesn't claim that seismic studies have proved the absence of coal.

Peace, I suggest you refrain from stating Randy's arguments are stupid. They are not. The truth is, you have made some pretty wild assertions, some of which you retracted, and still no one has called your arguments stupid. And to be honest, this latest stuff is laughable.You are actually attempting to prove the existence of coal in the Grand Canyon based on a reporter's hiking log. She says the sheer cliffs are the COLOR of coal. Not that the cliffs ARE coal.The fact is that 'Lucy' could have been looking at the cliff walls in shadow. You can't possibly know (since Lucy doesn't tell us) what the conditions were when she was in the canyon. Also, perhaps the part she as looking at WAS black, while the picture you posted was washed out. You need to think about this a bit more.The Vishnu might not ALL be black, but it certainly IS pretty darn black in places:

Look, Peace, I'm going to give it to you straight, no pussyfooting around. My long experience in these discussions tells me that those who don't understand evidence-based discussions aren't going to get it just by explaining it to them. Such efforts are almost always fruitless. And I've said many times here over the years that I do not want EvC Forum playing host to nonsense discussions. So you get one chance to get this, okay? So pay attention. You're either going to buy into what I'm about to say or you're not, but if you're not then there won't be any further meta-discussions and I'll switch to Admin mode in this thread.First, you can't ignore rebuttals, whether from Randy or anyone else.Second, using labels like "stupid" is contrary to the forum guidelines and won't be tolerated. If you have rebuttal based upon evidence or argumentation then use it. If I were not a participant in this thread I would have already given you a 24 hours suspension.Third, Lucy Bryan's article in the Chapel Hill News about her trip to the Grand Canyon is not evidence of coal. If you don't understand why then you don't belong here, but let me give you a few clues. Lucy Bryan said "cliffs the color of coal", not "cliffs of coal." Even if she had written "cliffs of coal", Lucy Bryan is a journalism student at the University of North Carolina, not a geologist. And The Chapel Hill News is the twice weekly paper of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, North Carolina, not a geology journal.Fourth, you say this: I presume you're talking about the Coconino. I don't know where you get your ~1000 foot figure. the Coconino isn't that thick. But you're ignoring the point. People are asking you how animals lay down tracks in sediments in the process of being deposited. That's ridiculous on its face. Either describe how this is possible or drop this point.Fifth, you say this: The diagram reflects the geological knowledge of the strata of the region between the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase. This is what geologists have discovered. You can inquire about the evidence used to develop the diagram, but you cannot ignore the diagram.I'm serious, Peace. Either figure out what evidence is (relevant evidence, not evidence from the other side of the state) and start using it or I'll start taking administrative action.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 05-25-2005 01:21 PM

Does anyone know what Peace means by the above statement?I am absolutely baffled by Peace's line of reasoning.Exactly when were those tracks supposed to have been made? Before the sand was deposited??? Was the top laid down before the sand underneath?Honestly, I am at a loss for words regarding this argument...

OK. I accept all the other 4 conditions, except this one. You decide whether I should be allowed to post here.

Wow. It really hurts to have your arguments called stupid by a guy who thinks that a reporter describing coal black cliffs in the Grand Canyon means there is coal there. What it amounts to is that you can't refute my arguments. They falsify your myth forcing you to call them stupid and ignore me. Thanks for conceeding.Randy

Addressing rebuttals is explicitly addressed in the Forum Guidelines:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

That you were ignoring rebuttals was why others began speculating whether you were a troll. It's why the same questions were asked of you again and again. If you don't follow rule 4 there's no reason for you to be here.This is not a negotiation, so I'm suspending you for 24 hours. Whether you continue to post here or not is up to you, but if you don't like suspensions of posting privileges that will gradually increase in length then follow the Forum Guidelines, argue the evidence and not person, and stop posting nonsensically with items like "cliffs the color of coal". The moderators are not here to tutor you on how to do this. Arguing rationally and forthrightly is not rocket science, you should be able to figure it out.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Peace,If you decide to return to this discussion, could I recommend the book Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail. Vail has been a river guide in the Grand Canyon for many years, but he holds a profoundly Creationist view of it's origins. Contributors to his book include many of the greatest lights of Creationism, including Henry Morris, Steven Austin, John Baumgardner, Duane Gish, Ken Ham and Andrew Snelling. If you can trust any book to tell you the truth about coal in the Grand Canyon it's this one. You would also find out whether it lends any support for your other views about the canyon.Added by edit:Found this amusing review at Amazon.com: That makes two of us! --PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 05-26-2005 04:38 PM

I previously asked PeaceWill you please tell how these animals didn't all drown while the Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale, Muav Limestone, Grand Wash Dolomites, Temple Butte Limestone, Redwall Limestone, Surprise Canyon Formation, Supai Group (Esplanade, Wescogame, Manakacha, and Watahomigie), and the Hermit Shale Formation were all deposited by the flood prior to the deposition of the Coconinos.The reply on the wrong thread was This dodge doesn't really help for several reasons.1. Do you think that none of these are flood deposits? Are they all preflood? In post 69 you wrote You consistently argued the that salty waters of flood caused the Hermit "shales" to flocculate and settle out faster than the sand that makes up the Coconinos. The Hermit Shale ranges from the 100 feet thick near Seligman at the eastern end of the Canyon to 900 feet in the Toroweep and Shivwits Plateau areas. The Coconinos range range in thickness from aobut 60 to nearly 1000 feet thick. The tracks are not just found where the sandstones and other layers are the thinnest but are distributed through the canyon are both laterally and vertically, though in the thicker areas they are only found in the lower 2/3 to 1/2 of the formation. Still, they are found distributed vertically and of course the Coconino Sandstones are always above the Hermit formation which is always above all the others so a lot of stuff has to be laid down before these tracks can be made.2. Your flocculation model doesn't actually make sense considering actual geology of the area as Bill has pointed out but let's grant it for a minute. How deep do you think the water must have been to hold the sand of the Coconinos in suspension while the Hermit separated out considering the depth of these layers? The water must have been widespread (don't you say worldwide) as well as deep. How did the animals survive to make tracks? I assume you will at least agree that the tracks could not have been made until after the Hermit and Coconino formations were separated and the dunes the tracks are in formed.3. Now look at the picture I posted in 166 above. You can see the Coconino Sandstones very clearly as a band all along the picture. This is where the tracks in question are, though there are also tracks in the Hermit Shale. The Hermit Shale, Supai Group and other layers are below the Coconino Sandstones all along the cliffs and their total thickness amounts to thousands of feet.It would have taken a LOT of water from somewhere to carry and sort all those layers in the flood model. How were there air animals around to make these tracks after the other layers formed? Why didn’t they get swept away by all the water and or buried beneath the rapidly depositing layers?RandyThis message has been edited by Randy, 05-28-2005 01:25 PM

A reference for this please. Please be specific. We'll just discuss a single track. You tell me exactly where this particular track is and the depth of the sandstone and other layers at this particular location.

quote:

---

A reference for this please. Please be specific. We'll just discuss a single track. You tell me exactly where this particular track is and the depth of the sandstone and other layers at this particular location.

---

I have given you references before. I really don’t think you appreciate how widespread these tracks are. The main reference I have is the chapter by Middleton, Elliott and Morales on the Coconino Sandstones in Grand Canyon Geology by Beus and Morales which has a page of pictures. Gilmore collected tracks from several locations and Brand (who is creationist) reports 82 trackways in the Hermit Trail area alone.My favorite web page which had pictures of vertebrate and invertebrate tracks and raindrop impressions from the Coconinos is no longer live. I did find this page by Hunt which describes a trackway also in the area of the Hermit trail.
Hunt Paper on TrackwayHere is an image of some other tracks from the Hermit trail area. The Coconino Sandstones are over 100 meters thick in the area of the Hermit trail but most of the tracks are found in about the middle of the formation. None are found at the very bottom and a few are found higher up. The Hermit trail is along the South Rim of the Canyon. South RimIf one descends past the Coconino formation along the trail one comes to the Hermit Shale, which also has some tracks, the Supai group (Esplanade Sandstones, Wescogame, Manakacha, and Watahomigie formations), and the very thick, sloping Redwall limestones before Mauv Limestones, (added actually the Hermit trail ends on the Bright Angel Shale atop the Tonto Platform, the Tapeats underlie the Tonto) and Tapeat sandstones far down the cliffs.
South Rim LayersHow did the animals that made the tracks survive all the deposition of at least several of these layers by a "global flood" and how did they make tracks 40 meter high on sandwaves that were being deposited by flood? In your model the sandstones were being separated from the Hermit Shale material because the sand managed to remain suspended while the salty waters flocculated the Hermit material so that it sedimented faster. How did anything make tracks with that going on?Added in edit: A 3D view of the Hermit trailRandy
This message has been edited by Randy, 05-28-2005 10:53 PMThis message has been edited by Randy, 05-29-2005 08:30 AM

Randy,
Regarding the text book reference, I can't argue about data contained in that book, since I don't have that book.Regarding the online references you have given, not a single one tells me how deep is the sandstone under these tracks.In the 2nd photo of Message 170, would you agree with me if I claimed that the light brown portion at the right half portion was originally sand, and the black portion at its right was originally a tree? The dark brown/ black color cliffs in the above photo, what do you think it is due to?My interpretation of the white just above it is limestone, and the black is coal.