A Creationist Creed

-57 said:

According to Whitmore's reports, the deposit interfingers with other formations of unquestionable marine origin, implying that the Coconino is also marine. It bears fossil trackways and burrows best understood as being related to underwater activity, not to a dry, sand dune environment. Its sand grains are poorly sorted and somewhat angular, not at all like desert sands with well-sorted and rounded grains. We suspect the research will demonstrate that the sand dune interpretation can be confidently rejected in favor of a better supported sub-aqueous interpretation. ref

Leonard Brand,13 who has done the most field work on these footprints, has also done laboratory studies of salamanders walking on various types of sand—dry, wet, and underwater. The experimental tracks that best matched the Coconino tracks were made underwater. Flowing water would also explain the sudden appearance and disappearance of many tracks, as the currents picked up animals and they landed in new places. ref

Click to expand...

RickG said:

Raindrop impressions also appear.

Click to expand...

RickG said:

Like I said, nothing but opinion. Conversely...

One of the most common observations is that the tracks have bulges or sand crescents on one side, thereby proving that they were made on inclined surfaces. (Lockley and Hunt 1995).

Tracks showing possible loping, running, and galloping gaits are found throughout the Coconino Sandstone. These can only have been made on dry land.

Tracks of small arthropods, attributable to spiders, centipedes, millipedes, and scorpions, occur abundantly in the Coconino Sandstone. (Schur [2000] has some excellent pictures.) Some of these trackways can only be made on completely dry sand.

Raindrop impressions also appear.

Not to mention the previous link I provided in detail the foot prints as well as how terrestrial sandstone and marine sandstone deposits are easily distinguishable.

Click to expand...

• This can explain why fossil tracks are so prolific on the foreset and bottomset of crossbeds. The tracks in the coconino have not been positively identified but could be either lizards or salamanders. They are quite consistent in only traveling uphill. If the tracks are from salamanders, the same salamander could potentially be producing multiple trackways on the foresets of hundreds of feet, or perhaps even miles, of crossbeds. The salamander would “hang out” in the eddy at the bottom of the crossbed, and would simply walk up the crossbed when he was getting buried, float away and catch the eddy once more, returning to the bottom of the next crossbed.
• Animals (such as lizards) which are swept away by the flowing waters would be sucked into the hydraulics and trapped by the eddy currents. Every year people die by being trapped in the hydraulics at the bottom of decorative dams and small waterfalls – the water is very powerful, even in small volume. In this case, the forming crossbeds make the escarpment that the hydraulics form at, thus trapping animals in them. The only way out was to go up the hill. Thus we see why the trackways in the coconino are almost always going uphill, and often show the creature being bouyed up to produce a trackway that goes from heavy foot impressions, to lighter, to claws only, to completely disappearing – often within only a few feet.
• The preservation of tracks within the crossbeds is now easily explained: The water along the face of the foreset is virtually still. Simultaneously, there is a continuous dumping of sediments on top of any freshly made tracks, thus protecting them until lithification of the sediments.

-57 said:

Raindrops

The observable facts. These pock marks often occur in “rows,” unlike modern raindrop prints on dry sand. They penetrate up to 1 cm through the sand, or are formed by small round nodules that have fallen out of the rock (Figure 8). When modern raindrops hit dry sand, they rarely make nice “craters.” Instead, they typically make a mottled surface. There is uncertainty as to what made the dimples in the Coconino, but they don’t appear to be from raindrops. ref

Click to expand...

-57 said:

From actual experiments:
Several lessons were learned:

• This can explain why fossil tracks are so prolific on the foreset and bottomset of crossbeds. The tracks in the coconino have not been positively identified but could be either lizards or salamanders. They are quite consistent in only traveling uphill. If the tracks are from salamanders, the same salamander could potentially be producing multiple trackways on the foresets of hundreds of feet, or perhaps even miles, of crossbeds. The salamander would “hang out” in the eddy at the bottom of the crossbed, and would simply walk up the crossbed when he was getting buried, float away and catch the eddy once more, returning to the bottom of the next crossbed.

Click to expand...

RickG said:

Once again since you didn't look at the first time: http://resweb.llu.edu/lbrand/pdf/fi...ts_and_their_paleoecological_implications.pdf

There are numerous trackways shown in this. You don't get trackways in a flood. Keep in mind that there are creation science claimed flood layers above and below these trackways. Are you saying the flood came, went, came back, and went again?

Click to expand...

RickG said:

Are you saying the flood came, went, came back, and went again?

Click to expand...

-57 said:

Your link concluded with the:

The data presented in this paper suggest that fossil footprints of the type found in the Coconino Sandstone should not be used as evidence for eolian deposition of dry sand. If the Coconino Sandstone was indeed an eolian desert deposit, then several important features of its fossil footprints are as yet unexplained.

Click to expand...

-57 said:

In some areas that would be true. The waters covered...receeded then covered again until finally covering the earth as the flood peeked.

Click to expand...

-57 said:

In some areas that would be true. The waters covered...receeded then covered again until finally covering the earth as the flood peeked.

Click to expand...

MasonP said:

Without leaving any telltales whatsoever, the whole world was covered with water and people all over the world didn't even notice, how incredible.

Click to expand...

MasonP said:

No one takes evolution on faith, either the evidence points to something or it doesn't, most people are not bothered either way but they do know that what is not known will either be found out eventually or put in the 'we don't know' box until they do know, saying it was magic or a God did it gets us exactly no where.

Click to expand...

-57 said:

The flood of Noah would have began as smaller flood....lakes...growing into larger lakes....waves washing across the land depositing sediment. Creating strata, burying animals.... As you said the flood was not uniform. As the waters receded the opposite would have occurred. Land masses would move, crashing into each other...bending the still plastic layers and forming recumbent folds in the strata as well as other geological featres. Mountains rising and valleys sinking Psalms 104:8 style....large lakes becoming smaller lakes....water gaps formed as the water level lowered and cut through the mountains...debri damns breaking and forming great canyons....

Click to expand...

RickG said:

The cococino sandstone is a transition eolian/marine sandstone. Why are you ignoring the fact that there are vertebrate trailways. Again, this is a layer between said flood layers. Your flood comes, goes, comes, and goes again. You can't have it that way.

Click to expand...

-57 said:

The flood of Noah would have began as smaller flood....lakes...growing into larger lakes....waves washing across the land depositing sediment. Creating strata, burying animals.... As you said the flood was not uniform. As the waters receded the opposite would have occurred. Land masses would move, crashing into each other...bending the still plastic layers and forming recumbent folds in the strata as well as other geological featres. Mountains rising and valleys sinking Psalms 104:8 style....large lakes becoming smaller lakes....water gaps formed as the water level lowered and cut through the mountains...debri damns breaking and forming great canyons....

Click to expand...

RickG said:

You are making stuff up. You are also ignoring the fact that sedimentary deposit thickness far exceeds that of the Grand Canyon and Mount Everest combined.

btw, just checked the NOAA site again, it is still down. When I see its up again I post the link again.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

The first order of business is to construct a flood velocity/duration/and depth, model. Then apply it to present day topography and see what happens. I would be interested in how much the land would sink under the weight of the flood waters.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

Most people are in the "we don't know" box.
By 'faith' I mean 'confidence', speaking of belief in evolution, not 'faith' as in religion.

Click to expand...

If you asked the average person who 'believes' in evolution even a simple biological evolution question I doubt if they could answer it.

Click to expand...

MasonP said:

Because they usually live in the real world and not in a fantasy dream world.That's because they are not living their lives by evolution, evolution either happened or it didn't happen either way they are alive now for a very very short period of time, what does it matter how they got here? curious? perhaps, obsessed by it? no, religious people are giving up their lives to a myth, who needs that? a better question might be "why would they do that?".

Click to expand...

-57 said:

That might be something to try...but I think the pre-flood topography was nothing like it was today. For example there wasn't the flood deposited strata we see all over the world today.

Click to expand...