1. The context of my quote places this as an interpretation by flood cataclysmists, not evolutionary geologists.
But, I
am a catastrophist.
2. When a water current in a large bay flows across a sandy bottom, sand waves (similar in formation to subaerial sand dunes) are formed.
This is known, but not relevant. Subaqueous dunes have other features that you conveniently ignore. Please read the rest of the section on comparing the geology with the flood model.
3. As the water flows up the back of the sandwave it strips the surface of the sandwave by picking up sand grains.
4. Once the crest of the sandwave is reached much of the sand falls into the low-energy water on the leeward side of the sand wave.
Ah, so you are saying that there is some erosion going on? Hmm, that means that laminations formed earlier are destroyed. Do you factor this into your notions of how long it takes to make these deposits? How many times do you think a lamination is formed before one is actually preserved?
5. On this leeward side of the sandwave, where the crossbedding feature is formed, the sand softly drifts to the crossbedding surface, forming layer after layer.
"Softly drifts...", doesn't sound very cataclysmic to me. However, this is wrong. Brethault describes the process as miniature landslides on the lee slopes. THat is why they form so rapidly.
6. In the Flood cataclysm model, an amphibian runs/plods UP the crossbedding surface on the leeward side of the sandwave. (note: ALL fosil traces go UP the crossbedded surface. NO fossil traces go DOWN or ACROSS the crossbedded surface, which is a problem for a subaerial interpretation. "One Way" signs at the bottom of the dunes?)
So you are saying that in water-logged sediments you can maintain a track as the laminations are formed rapidly?
7. As soon as the tracks are made, they are filled in by the continually falling sand forming more crossbeding layers and instantly preserving the traces.
Wrong. THe process is much more rapid than that. Your little amphibian would be choked and buried by sediment long before scurrying up the dune. You can't have it both ways here.
8. When the amphibian reaches the crest of the sandwave it is exposed to the high energy current and is picked up by the current only to be dropped beyond/below the sandwave again. The amphibian then tries to escape up the crossbedding slope again.
This is nonsensical when we consider that you have to deposit the entire Coconino in a matter of hours. It is also nonsensical when you look at the other evidence for eolian deposition, such as uniform grain sizes, etc. not found in subaqueous dunes.
9. This explanation comes from Austin, "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe."
This is an ad hoc explanation that ignores other data, including some of the ramifications of flood deposition.
10. In a Flood cataclysm model, the flood waters may well be near saturation level and so much of the sand dropped on the crossbedding surfaces will be from the floodwaters as it looses energy and therefor carrying power, rather than just the moving of sand that happens in bays today.
Could you rephrase this? I have no idea what you mean by 'floodwaters being near saturation level.'
e: The point was that if presuppositions are so strong, then why did scientists who had presuppositions of YEC so quickly abandon them in the second half of the 19th century? The only interpretation could be that those old presuppositions were so weak that they could not explain the data.
ARB: The issuse is not how strong the presuppositions were, but rather that many naturalists adopted interpretations without understanding or being aware of the presuppositions. It is likely that most simply did not recognize that there were presuppositions [just as many scientists today]. They did not realize that much "emperical evidence" was actually interpretation based upon persuppositions..
Not the point. THe point is, 'why were presuppositions of pre-evolutionary science so weak that they could be overcome by mere evidence?' And yet now you are saying that all of this evidence is not strong enough to overcome the existing presuppositions. This dog won't hunt.
e: You guys haven't come up with anything new in nearly a century. I am sure that science will change what we think now, but I am also certain that we will NOT go backwards, as you would like.
ARB: For the most part, there has been no need to come up with anything new because the major arguments remain the same.
Yes, I've noticed. One would think that since those arguments have failed to save science so many times before that you'd come up with something new.
Its not a matter of going backwards, but rather of getting back on track.
That's exactly what it is. We abandoned YEC and the flood a long time ago for good reason.
™ Version 4.2
