Absurd YEC claims about the Coconino Sandstones.

Indeed, the type and distribution of trace fossils in the Coconino argue strongly against Austin's theory. If you look lower in the Grand Canyon at the Tapeats Sandstone, which IS a shallow marine deposit, you find both (locally abundant) marine fossils *and* marine trace fossils and burrows, for instance the U-shaped burrow diplocraterion, the vertical burrow skolithos, plus several varieties of horizontal trace fossils and trails, including cruziana, which is a trilobite trail. You find none of this in the Coconino, despite the fact that many delicate arthropod trails of spiders and so forth ARE present and fairly common!

The subaqeous sand-wave theory promoted by Austin (1994) is rendered dubious on other sedimentologic grounds as well, which overwhelmingly support the eolian interpretation. For instance, whereas the angles of cross-beds in subarial dunes frequently exceed 25-30 degrees, sand waves possess very low angle cross-beds, deviating from the horizontal by about 1-10 degrees. One of Austin's own sources, Allen, writes:

"We cannot emphasize too strongly that sand waves possess low to mild slopes ... it is clear that the sides of the waves rarely dip more steeply than 10 degress overall and can slope as little as 1 degree ..."

The bedforms are also inconsistent with subaqeous deposition. Middleton et al. (p. 195) write:

The low height-to-wavelength ratio of the wind ripples as measured in plan view exposures of many foresets is consistent with those recorded from modern coastal and inland dunes.

Cuffey notes:

"Careful examination of modern dunes [such as the Great Sand Dunes, White Sands (Collinson, 1986b), Monahans Sand Hills, Nebraska Sand Hills (Ahl brandt & Fryberger, 1982), or on Padre Island (Brookfield, 1984)] indicates that climbing translatent strata, with coarsening-up laminae and rare foreset laminae, form only by the migration and accretion of low amplitude wind ripples in eolian environments (Hunter, 1977; Kocurek & Dott, 1981). Such strata and ripples are ubiquitous in the [Coconino,] Navajo, Entrada, and similar sandstones (Kocurek & Dott, 1981), contradicting a subaqueous origin. Modern eolian sand dunes exhibit internal cross-bedding that is remarkably similar to that in the Colorado Plateau sandstones" (Ahlbrandt & Fryberger, 1982, p. 19; McKee & Ward, 1983, p. 147; Collinson, 1986b, p. 104).

"Cross beds within the Coconino dip consistently toward the south, indicating that the sand came from the north. However, along its northern occurrence, the Coconino rests directly on the Hermit Formation, which consists of siltstone and shale and so would not have been an ample source of sand of the type now found in the Coconino Sandstone. Consequently, this enormous volume of sand would have to have been transported a considerable distance, perhaps at least 200 or 300 miles (320 or 480 kilometres). At the current velocities envisaged sand could be transported that distance in a matter of a few days!

“Cross beds of that height imply sand waves at least 60 feet (18 metres) high and a water depth of around 300 feet (between 90 and 95 metres). For water that deep to make and move sand waves as high as 60 feet (18 metres) the minimum current velocity would need to be over 3 feet per second (95 centimetres per second) or 2 miles per hour. The maximum current velocity would have been almost 5.5 feet per second (165 cm or 1.65 metres per second) or 3.75 miles per hour.

"Now to have transported in such deep water the volume of sand that now makes up the Coconino Sandstone these current velocities would have to have been sustained in the one direction perhaps for days. Modern tides and normal ocean currents do not have these velocities in the open ocean, although deep-sea currents have been reported to attain velocities of between 50 cm and 250 cm (2.5 metres) per second through geographical restrictions. Thus catastrophic events provide the only mechanism, which can produce high velocity ocean currents over a wide area. "

"Indeed, when the locomotion behaviour of the living amphibians is taken into account, the fossilized trackways can be interpreted as implying that the animals must have been entirely under water (not swimming at the surface) and moving upslope (against the current) in an attempt to get out of the water. This interpretation fits with the concept of a global Flood, which overwhelmed even four-footed reptiles and amphibians that normally spend most of their time in the water."

I have this funny image of all these little ants and things sprinting up sand dunes trying to avoid even more sand and the fact that they are probably underwater while they are doing it. then drowning eventually, because everything that wasn't on the ark died.

all we need to verify the flood theory is ant snorkels and small manuals on "swimming for workers".

Well,

This is my first visit to this page of the forum... and the first thing I read was the notice from the webmaster who specifically asked that members not post from Answers in Genesis, but to think for themselves.

I can think for myself and I don't appreciate your intentional use of AiG materials and your intended "mockery" of the statements they have posted.


Why don't you do as the webmaster asked, think for yourself?

~malaka~

lol you're all wrong and here is proof:
http://www.talkorigins.org

Well,

This is my first visit to this page of the forum... and the first thing I read was the notice from the webmaster who specifically asked that members not post from Answers in Genesis, but to think for themselves.

I can think for myself and I don't appreciate your intentional use of AiG materials and your intended "mockery" of the statements they have posted.


Why don't you do as the webmaster asked, think for yourself?

~malaka~