Summations Only

I have never called you stupid, nor have I called you a liar or evil. I don't believe I have even called creationists in general any of those things. But I have said that you were wrong and that creationists in general were wrong about particular points ... is being wrong the same thing as being evil?His comments may very well be true, IDK, but it is irrelevant how extensive that particular formation is. The main point is the relative sequence of the layers. Didn't figure it would, but I tried.HBD

Well apparently the guy who wrote the blog doesn't see how his own experiments support a global flood.A couple quotes from this pageHe comments on an article by John Trumble and says

quote:

---

Read this and weep — scarcely a sentence goes by that does not include utter, mind-boggling-numbing, lying, rubbish. I despair.

---

He then quotes the article titled "Richland man sees sandstone proof of global flood" and comments:

quote:

---

Mr. Trumbo, you are welcome to get in touch with me — or any other professional geologist - should the bizarre notion of adding a counter-argument disturb your intellectual complacency.

---

Then, on the same page, he comments on Walt Brown's In the Beginning by saying

quote:

---

Walt Brown, Ph.D (in mechanical engineering) is the father of "hydroplate theory" - a lunatic explanation for everything, the main proposal being that monumental volumes of water erupted out of "the mid-ocean ridge" to form the earth as we know it today. And this happened - you've guessed - 6,000 years ago.

​

and ...

​

There are, of course, many well-considered detailed refutations on the web of hydroplate theory - let's face it, it's not tough.

---

So .... another professional geologist who has studied how sand sorts and layers naturally disagrees with you. Who woulda guessed?HBD

Do you realize how thick the continental crust is? 20 - 40 miles thick! Raising and sinking a mile is not really that much compared to the overall thickness.Also, why is the oceanic crust only 4 - 6 miles thick instead of a thickness similar to continental crust?HBDABE: As far as sea levels raising and lowering, do you have any idea how much water is locked up in polar ice caps? As the ice caps grow or melt, sea levels will lower or raise respectively.You acknowledged the uplift occurred after the Kaibab was laid down, so the sea level did not have to raise a mile to get that under water. You are the positing that sea levels rose much higher than that (I don't know how tall you claim the mountains to be at that time, but the sea had to get over them)Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Who would you expect to find proof of the flood ... theologians? And we look to geologists to develop theology?Doesn't make any senseHBD

You're not looking at the big picture, you are just focusing on one tiny little piece of the puzzle that you think supports your idea. That's what I'm saying.HBD

Again, I think you are not looking at the whole picture but only that part hat you think supports your point. Since angle of repose is the maximum angle that a pile of material can assume, it cannot be a range of angles for a given set of conditions. So while there may be some overlap in the maximum angle that can be form by wet sand and dry sand, the other conditions would need to be different. Three conditions are needed to determine the exact angle of repose. Do you know what those 3 conditions are?Now apply that. Which of these conditions do we know from the Coconino Sandstone and what is the data? From that information you should be able to determine the unknown (which is the environment the deposits were made).I am asking this partly because I don't really know what the actual measured data is. Without that, I can't personally make any judgement (and neither can you) on who is right. I just have to take the word of those who have studied it. If you think those individuals are wrong, show the data and how you arrive at your conclusions. No more speculation ... data!HBD

I want to show you that I am open minded and want to offer you evidence that you may be right about the Coconino sandstone having been (at least partially) deposited underwater. A paper by Leonard Brand, published in a peer reviewed journal, provides evidence that vertebrate footprints were made underwater.

quote:

---

ABSTRACT
Numerous fossil vertebrate trackways in the Coconino Sandstone of northern Arizona
exhibit several features that imply that these trackways were not made in subaerial conditions.
Some trackways begin or end abruptly on undisturbed bedding planes, and in other trackways
the individual prints are oriented in a different direction from that of the trackway. These
features indicate buoyancy of the animals in water. The animals were swimming in the water
part of the time and at other times walking on the substrate, and they were sometimes orienting
upslope on the surface of the underwater dunes, while being drifted sideways by lateral
currents. Observations on salamander locomotion in a sedimentation tank with flowing water
support this model.

---

and from the conclusion:

quote:

---

These data and other features of the trackways reported by Brand (1979) indicate that the fossil trackways do not lend support to the hypothesis of an eolian sand-dune origin, but rather they point to subaqueous deposition

---

However, being the scientific minded person I am, I can't just look at this one piece of evidence and say its conclusive. The Coconino sandstone is said to cover 200,000 sq. mi at 300 feet thick, which means that over 11,000 cubic miles of sediment was deposited in just 17 days (according to the "150 days to deposit all canyon layers" chart) ** Note: I know you may not agree with this chart exactly, but the time frame would have to be similar to what is shown.How could any animal have survived such sedimentation, let alone left footprints. Besides, the Bible says that the flood killed ALL living creatures (which some argue may not have included fish or insects but certainly included reptiles and amphibians) and the Coconino deposits began on day 113, way to long for these animals to be still swimming, struggling to survive.So, once again, the issue of whether the Coconino sandstone was deposited subaerially or subaquatically is moot to the primary issue. The presence of footprints in and of itself indicates that the Coconino sandstone WAS NOT laid down by the great flood.Sorry, I tried to help you, but I just can't get past those pesky facts.HBD

Touche', You got me Except I never mentioned what I "believed" and the amount of sediment being laid down was an assumption based on the flood scenario. It is clear from the text that after the 40 days and nights of rain all living things that moved on the face of the earth died. That fact is mentioned in verses 21 - 23. Only Noah and those on the ark were left alive. After the death of all living was declared, then verse 24 indicates that the water prevailed for 150 days. At the end of 150 days the waters were abated (8: 3) so that the ark came to rest on Ararat.So ... we have lizard-like animals running around in the Coconino sandstone, which is very far up the GC "stack" (which means it was deposited towards the very end of the flood depositional period). Whether this layer was put down underwater or sub-aerially is actually irrelevant to the problems this presents. There are a couple of options.1. All 3600 feet of sediment was scoured off the land and deposited in the Grand Canyon area in 40 days and these lizards were some of the last holdouts and managed to survive the massive deluge (unlike any other flood ever imagined) for 40 days and then run along the bottom while that layer was being rapidly (understatement) being deposited.2. We don't use a clear reading of the text and allow for some animals to survive past the 40 days and nights and survive up to 150 days. If we take this view, then the 150 days of deposition chart I posted is a good approximation of the time frame involved in depositing the GC layers. That brings us back to 11,000 cu. mi.of sediment in 17 days. That means that for every hour for 17 days an average of 8 inches of sediment is being deposited ... and these lizards are running up these sand banks. Also it must be fairly close to the surface because these appear to be land dwelling creatures (they breath air). And don't forget, this rate of sedimentation has been going on for the entire 150 days. And these lizard-like creatures have been treading water for well over 100 days without food (maybe they were able to eat floating carrion).So, yea ... I'm incredulous. I don't know what else to say. Even if this point is valid, and the whole stack was laid down before there were any disturbances (which you have been repeatedly shown that there were major disturbances between the layers) you just can't look at this one piece of the puzzle and think that it resolves all the issues.You see, that is what I believe to be the problem with YE creationists; their ideas actually serve to move people AWAY from the Bible rather than towards its. At the beginning of this discussion, I would have said that I was about 95% certain there was not a global flood; there was still a small amount of openness I had that there could be misinterpretation of the data and that there actually could be evidence provided of a global flood. However, now I would say I am 99.9% certain that there was not a global flood. And it was NOT the "old earth atheists" that convinced me of that ... it was you! (more precisely, your arguments).Faith, I know you mean well. I respect your perseverance and commitment, I really do (and I have seen others on here express those same sentiments). I have never called you a liar because I really don't think you are a liar. But I wish you could see how harmful this line of reasoning actually is to the Word of God; to the faith. There is no "compromise" needed. God wants us to abandon "wrong thinking" not embrace silly notions. I know you think you are defending God's Word, but it really isn't working out that way.I guess I'll stop there.HBD

To add some evidence to my incredulity, here is a paper where author Timothy K. Helble does some calculations for the amount of sediment needed to be transported by the flood waters to deposit the Coconino sandstone using Steve Austin's Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe . A Reality Check on Flood Geology - (Published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

quote:

---

A second way to demonstrate the problem posed
to Flood geology by sediment transport is to calculate
the rate needed to move 42,000 km³ of sand
across the 1,600 km boundary in twelve days. The
computations are straightforward as shown below.
What total volumetric rate in m³/sec would be required
to move 42,000 km³ of sand across any boundary in
twelve days?

​

4.1 x 10⁷ m³ / sec *

​

What sediment transport rate in m³/sec/m would be
required to move 42,000 km³ of sand across the 1,600 km
boundary in twelve days?

​

25 m³ / sec / m *

​

What sediment transport rate in kg/sec/m would be
required to move 42,000 km³ of sand across the 1,600 km
boundary in twelve days?

​

4.8 x 10⁴ kg / sec / m *

​

These calculations indicate a slab of sand 25 m high,
1,600 km wide, and 1,000 km long would have to be
continuously sliding southward across the boundary
at one meter per second to form the Coconino Sandstone
in twelve days. This corresponds to a sediment
transport rate of 4.8 x 10⁴ kilograms (48 metric tons)
per second per meter!

---

* See paper for actual calculations they were too difficult to type out and would not cut & paste properly.** See the paper for the assumptions he uses in his calculations

quote:

---

An initial reaction to these findings might be to suspect
that the calculations were set up to produce
results unfavorable to Flood geology. Actually, at
least nine assumptions were made in favor of the
YEC position.

---

Can you see why I'm skeptical?HBDABE: One additional quote from the paper

quote:

---

It becomes clear that Flood geology is not just another way of, as frequently maintained by YEC leaders, looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions. It also becomes clear that the YEC ministries are placing Christians in the unfair position of having to choose between biblical authority and straightforward reasoning from observation of God’s created world.

---

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Hi Percy, I've been meaning to respond to this but honestly, it has been difficult to find good information on the Coconino sandstone. Most recent work seems like it is coming from YEC sources, in particular, Cedarville College, spearheaded by ICR graduate Dr. John Whitmore. This article gives some insight into the motivation behind this research.

quote:

---

The goal of this multi-year research project is to investigate the nature and character of the Coconino Sandstone and discover if its depositional history can be better interpreted within the context of the great Flood of Noah's day.

​

Please pray for the success of the study and the safety of the researchers as they attempt this sometimes hazardous work.

---

"the success" obviously meaning to prove the formation was deposited underwater, not to arrive at a truthful conclusion.Brand (author of paper in question) is also a YEC and so shares this motivation.Anyway, the paper in question was published in a peer-reviewed journal (Geology) so there should be a certain amount of confidence in the validity of the work. The conclusions stated in the paper were rather ambiguous, which probably don't reflect his actual interpretation but were necessary to be accepted into a peer reviewed journal.Work that describes the actual features that geologists use to determine that the Coconino is aeolian must be in books that predate the internet, because I was unable to really find anything. But below are some of my thoughts about it based on what I have read. Correct, it would not be expected that toe prints would be left in completely dry sand, let alone a way to lock them into place in order to preserve them so they didn't get blown away. I would be critical of Brand's paper in that he makes very little effort in his methods section to be clear that the conditions of the sand in the laboratory represent what we see in the Coconino deposits. All it refers to is "fine sand." What does that mean exactly? How does his "fine sand" compare to the sand in the slabs he investigated? It's unclear, but it doesn't appear that he used any kind of sand/muck combination.I would also be critical of the fact that he did not describe any of the actual tracks left behind by his test animal (which also is another criticism since he only tested one type of animal). What the paper states is that he video taped the salamanders walking in the sand and used the video tape to construct the pathways. No indication that there were significant footprints left behind. There doesn't appear to be any indication that there are marine deposits of any kind in the area (in the Coconino), so there would not be an issue of tides. I suspect that any water that may have been involved had significantly lower energy than tides, which have rather high energy (at least when in association with waves). Brand did his study using a current of 8 cm / sec, which actually seems like a fairly strong current. But perhaps without significant disturbance such as riffles, the energy would be low enough to leave footprints behind.I do think that Brand makes a good case that there was water involved. The trackways are oriented in different directions than body orientation suggesting that they were being pushed sideways by a current. Also there is indication of body buoyancy where trackways start and stop unexpectedly and sometimes only the rear feet are touching the surface and leaving tracks.My thoughts on interpreting all this is that there were seasonal fresh water inundations that created lakes and some flowing water. Tracks were made during this time and the water quickly percolated down into the sand. Fresh deposits were blown in from the North and covered the tracks while they were still damp.A modern analog to the Coconino desert may be the Namib Desert.The type of inland lake I am thinking of: This particular area has extensive salt and clay deposits, but we wouldn't necessarily need to find salt or clay in the Coconino if those minerals weren't being blown in from the source. An interesting thing about the Coconino is that there don't appear to be any plant material preserved anywhere in the layer. A discovery of plant material would go a long way in helping to answer some of the unknowns.Also remember that during the Permian, this area was between the equator and the tropic of cancer and would be subject to topical northwesterly winds due to the Coriolis effect. It makes a lot of sense that there would be heavy seasonal rains.Anyway, that's the short answer to your question. HBD

You still have to explain why there are footprints at all ... HBD

I have been doing some more research on this and I am not convinced Brand has built a convincing case that these footprints were formed underwater. This whole line of research essentially becomes an argument from necessity, not truly an investigation into explaining the observed features. Everything I have read indicates that the Coconino is almost pure quartz, well sorted and fine grained. There is no indication of contamination with silt or clay. That was one of my criticisms of his paper, none of his pictures showed any of the marks made by his test subjects. I suspect they were not very good matches to what was found in the Coconino samples.In fact, the prints found in the Coconino don't have the characteristics of being made underwater; no scouring or evidence of turbulence around the feet.Perhaps underwater in completely still water? But that basically renders his argument about drifting caused by current (his strongest argument for underwater formation) moot.There was definitely water involved, whether simply rain or an temporary inland lake, but the footprints were almost certainly made in a terrestrial environment.HBD

Let me see if I can make sense of this part of it for you.Let's start with a river flowing over a flat plain. It is 24" deep (average), 25' wide and flowing at a rate of 1000 cu. ft./ min. It would have a velocity of 20 ft./ min. Now, imagine an area of the river uplifts 6". At that point the water would only be 18" deep but would retain to same width of 25' and the same flow rate of 1000 cu. ft./ min. This would mean that the velocity would have to increase to 26.6 ft./ min to maintain that same flow rate. This would be a 33% increase in velocity and would provide 33% more energy for erosion of the up-lifted portion. It would also increase the sediment load to the downstream portion (since erosion rates have increased at the uplift) and increase erosion of the downstream section somewhat as well.Now once the uplifted section is eroded level, the section uplifts again and the cycle repeats. Do this several times and the uplifted portion will eventually be above the original water level, but the river bottom will remain level with the portion that has not been uplifted.Yes, if the uplift occurred faster than the river could down-cut, it would eventually create a dam that the river would have to go around, or build up behind until it breached the dam.So it doesn't violate the physical laws of the universe, it relies on the physical principal that faster moving water has more energy than slower moving water. The problem is that the area is enormous! You can find really good topo maps of areas of the canyon, but to make a map that is viewable on your computer screen requires that the map scale be quite high and so, not very usable in this context. One of the best sources for topo maps is the USGS. You can download free PDF files here at the USGS Store. Navigate to the GC area, change the selection to "MARK POINTS", place a mark at the point you want a map of, then click on the marked point to view available maps. Then select the map you want to download. I downloaded the GC 1984 30x60 grid.HBD

I understand what you have been trying to say regarding this point, but it is simply wrong.Why is the Coconino 65 feet thick at one end, 600 feet thick in the middle and 57 feet thick on the other end? Not flat.Why is the Tempe Butte limestone 100 feet thick to non-existant? Not flat.Why does the Mauv limestone end abruptly near the Mesa Butte fault and the underlying Bright Angel Shale contact the Redwall limestone above it? Not flat.Why does the Hermit Shale end near the San Francisco peaks as does the Bright Angel Shale? Not flat.And include the erosional features between the layers that have been pointed out numerous times. Not flat.What you seem to have difficulty wrapping your head around is how such deep sediments could have been laid down. How could there be a build up of a mile or two of sediment unless there was two or three miles of water initially? What you need to consider is that the continental crust floats on the underlying mantle and as weight is added it can sink into the mantle. At some point, the crust becomes weaker since the underlying metamorphic rocks are incorporated into the mantle and volcanic activity occurs. We observe these phenomenon today and it explains the features well. If you look at this image again and consider the questions I asked above, then draw your diagram based on actual thicknesses of the layers. Maybe draw one layer at a time so that the top of each layer is flat when laid down, I think you will find a trend towards the area forming a basin as subsequent layers are formed.Finally, there is no reason why an area cannot go for a long period of time without major orogenies. Why do you think there MUST be a major orogeny in the Grand Canyon stack prior to the uplift?HBD

It appears the both Austin and the geologist in the video the shalamabobbi presented in Message 1297 simply used the contour lines on a map such as Percy presented (not sure of the elevation) to establish the boundaries for these giant lakes. The main problem I see is that there is a much easier exit for the waters just north of the Arizona border where highway 89 runs between Big Water and Kanab. Which is what you have brought up several times ... Why is there no canyon there?Another problem is the evidence for Lake Bidahochi (Lake Hopi) is much more restricted than what they are saying. It certainly is not a "megalake", at least according to the known deposits. Also, in the video, he mention that the Bidahochi deposits were green shale (?) which can only be laid down in deep water. But everything else I have read about Lake Bidahochi suggests it was very shallow and ephemeral. Who is right?What do you think about this guy's explanation for the formation of the canyon? He incorporates Lake Bidahochi, but doesn't make it the central player. It seems to give the cutting process a boost in the early stages.HBD