Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood

TB posted this on the Non-Marine sediments thread but that one is getting a little crowded. Let’s examine his claim.

quote:

---

If the flood plain is carrying a lot of silt then footprints can be recorde in water. Most of trackways in the grand Canyon best match amphibian/reptiles walking under water.

---

The claim that these tracks were made during Noah's Flood is actually a great example of the absurd length that creation scientists will go to try to twist reality to fit their myth.The most famous tracks in the Grand Canyon are those found in the Coconino Sandstones.http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/cocotr.htmlIf you examine the page you will find that many of the tracks could NOT have been made underwater. Further, according to the flood scenario put forth by Steve Austin and creation "scientists" the Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale, Muav Limestone, Grand Wash Dolomites, Temple Butte Limestone, Redwall Limestone, Surprise Canyon Formation, Supai Group of four formations (Esplanade, Wescogame, Manakacha, and Watahomigie), and the Hermit Shale Formation were all deposited by the flood in a shallow sea prior to the deposition of the Coconinos. How are there any animals still alive to make tracks?? Note also that most of the tracks are distributed through the lower 2/3 of the formation so saying the animals came in on top of the Coconinos during a recession of the magical surging flood won't help.The creationist interpretation the Coconino tracks is really quite amusing and can be found on a web page written by Andrew Snelling and Steve Austin on Answers in Genesis at. Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood | Answers in Genesis Read the whole thing to see what the creationist "Flood Geologists" are actually saying here. These are direct quotes but in a different order than given by Snelling and Austin. I added some highlights"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."So according to the authors the flood water took 10,000 cubic miles of sand that it had picked up from somewhere two or three hundred miles away (they never say how or why there was 10,000 cubic miles of sand laying around to be picked up), and after carrying it all this distance without dumping it, spread it out over 200,000 square miles in formations that look very much like wind formed sand dunes while moving at a speed of no less than 2 miles an hour and no more than 3.75 miles an hours (a brisk walk). To cover 200,000 square miles at 3.75 miles an hour a water wave 450 miles wide would require about 5 days at 3.75 mph or 9 days at 2 mph.Snelling and Austin claim that small animals were somehow making tracks that got preserved in these sand dunes as they were forming in moving water that was at least 300 feet deep and was dumping 10,000 cubic miles of sand on the animals at the time. Further they were running up the dunes as the dunes were being formed trying escape the flood. Does this make sense? Does it seem to be a valid scientific explanation for the tracks or for the formation of the sandstones? Of course not but when there is no logical interpretation that fits with their myth creation "scientists" don't hesitate to put forward a totally illogical explanation as long as it fits the myth.The rock strata of the Grand Canyon could not have been formed by Noah’s flood. The claim has been falsified by the trace fossils and the details of the geology. Here are some web pages that address the creationist problems with the sediments of the Colorado plateau in more detail.
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htmhttp://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_intro.htmlRandy

The flood was not likened to filling up a bathtub where the water does nothing but increase.Different portions of the globe were covered and un covered many times prior to finally being covered by the flood.It is during these brief remissions of water that the animals left the tracks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YEC:
The flood was not likened to filling up a bathtub where the water does nothing but increase.

​

Different portions of the globe were covered and un covered many times prior to finally being covered by the flood.

​

It is during these brief remissions of water that the animals left the tracks.

---

YEC,Why is it all models I've seen have water levels steadily increasing for 40 days? What mechanism allows it to drop in one part of the globe & not others?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YEC:
Different portions of the globe were covered and un covered many times prior to finally being covered by the flood.

---

Can I get a precise chronology of events?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by YEC:
Different portions of the globe were covered and un covered many times prior to finally being covered by the flood.

---

​

Can I get a precise chronology of events?

​

---

JM: Could you also let me know which strata mark the onset of, peak period of, and end of the flood?ThanksJoe Meert

Mark24The only models I would believe in detail would be ones that reproduce the known sea-level curves and hence the global innundation geo-col data. Any other model is extremely low resolution.My personal theory, irrespective of E vs C incidentally, is that plate subduction events are 'delayed' relative to the build up of pressure at the trenches by subduction friction. The swelling of the newly created sea-floor causes sea-level rises. When a frictional threshold is overcome at the plate-plate boundary subduction occurs releaving presure at both the subduction zone and the mid-oceanic trench thus lowering sea-level again. In this way the sea-saw 'first order' sea-level curves are qualitatively reproduced.This may or may not be news to anyone involved in plate tectonics although I haven't found this simple explanation in the geo-literature yet. If it isn't there I plan to publish it and I will call it 'delayed subduction' . The first order sea-level curves call for such a systematic, cyclical process because the sea-levels repeatedly rise with an exponentially decreasing RATE and then suddenly drop (just like a capacitor charging/discharging). The drop is significantly quicker than the rise. This is exactly the dynamics one gets when fighting a frictional threshold with a fleixible medium.Anyway, regaredless of this mechanism or not, the major sea-level innundaitons were global of course and that is not debatable - it can be correlated across the globe. In terms of the flood I put down the '1st order' surges to this process and the lower order surges to tidal processes which have bee nshown by simulaitons to generate high amplitude tides on an earth 90% covered by water (as more or less agreed by the mainstream discoveries).So I quite reasonably see the potential for major global cycles of marine/non-marine exposures due to tectonic events as well as hundreds of smaller tidal cycles during the flood year. There is plenty of opportunity for tracks, nests and evaporites.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-09-2002]

quote:

---

The only models I would believe in detail would be ones that reproduce the known sea-level curves and hence the global innundation geo-col data. Any other model is extremely low resolution.

---

Of course it doesn’t bother you at all that there is no evidence that there ever was a totally global flood.

quote:

---

My personal theory, irrespective of E vs C incidentally, is that plate subduction events are 'delayed' relative to the build up of pressure at the trenches by subduction friction. The swelling of the newly created sea-floor causes sea-level rises. When a frictional threshold is overcome at the plate-plate boundary subduction occurs releaving presure at both the subduction zone and the mid-oceanic trench thus lowering sea-level again. In this way the sea-saw 'first order' sea-level curves are qualitatively reproduced.

​

This may or may not be news to anyone involved in plate tectonics although I haven't found this simple explanation in the geo-literature yet. If it isn't there I plan to publish it and I will call it 'delayed subduction' . The first order sea-level curves call for such a systematic, cyclical process because the sea-levels repeatedly rise with an exponentially decreasing RATE and then suddenly drop (just like a capacitor charging/discharging). The drop is significantly quicker than the rise. This is exactly the dynamics one gets when fighting a frictional threshold with a fleixible medium.

---

And this happens how many times during a flood year? This still sounds a lot like runaway subduction which cooks the earth to death thousands of time over as was explained to you on the Baumgardner thread. Good luck trying to publish it.

quote:

---

Anyway, regaredless of this mechanism or not, the major sea-level innundaitons were global of course and that is not debatable - it can be correlated across the globe.

---

It seems to me that Joe and Edge and others have not only debated this on other threads but totally falsified it but that is not the point of this thread.

quote:

---

In terms of the flood I put down the '1st order' surges to this process and the lower order surges to tidal processes which have bee nshown by simulaitons to generate high amplitude tides on an earth 90% covered by water (as more or less agreed by the mainstream discoveries).

---

I seem to have missed the mainstream discoveries that show that earth was 90% covered by water but it doesn’t solve your problem because these super high tides will kill all the animals and wash away their tracks. The Coconinos were supposedly deposited by sand brought from 200 miles away to the north. How do tides produce this effect?

quote:

---

So I quite reasonably see the potential for major global cycles of marine/non-marine exposures due to tectonic events as well as hundreds of smaller tidal cycles during the flood year. There is plenty of opportunity for tracks, nests and evaporites.

---

Read my first post above again then explain where the animals including insects who made the tracks in the Coconino sandstones were hiding out while a few thousand feet of sediments including 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. Tell us how are there were any animals still alive to make tracks after all this happened. Did they come running down from somewhere to make the tracks between the surges of 300 foot deep water that deposited the sandstones? From where? Maybe the Navajo sandstones. There are dino tracks in them. But wait. The Navajo sandstones are above the Coconinos so they weren’t even deposited at the time. According to Austin the water that supposedly formed the Coconinos has to have been a least 300 feet deep and carried the sand at least 200 hundred miles before dumping it. The tracks are distributed throughout the lower 2/3 of the formation and many on them are completely inconsistent with formation in water. When taken it its entirety the Snelling-Austin AiG page is seen to be totally absurd even though written by two of the top flood geologists. This is because flood geology is nonsense and any attempt to explain the actual features of the world in terms of nonsense will necessarily produce more nonsense.As to evaporates you still need most this to happen in about a year. How do you get thick salt layers forming between flood surges? Do you do it by boiling the oceans? Remember that this cooks the earth to death. Meanwhile you need to have soil layers forming and trees growing to maturity in other places between these supposed surges. You just can’t seem to see how totally ridiculous this all is.Randy

quote:

---

The only models I would believe in detail would be ones that reproduce the known sea-level curves and hence the global innundation geo-col data. Any other model is extremely low resolution.

---

JM: You have no such model occurring at time scales needed to rescue a young earth

quote:

---

My personal theory, irrespective of E vs C incidentally, is that plate subduction events are 'delayed' relative to the build up of pressure at the trenches by subduction friction. The swelling of the newly created sea-floor causes sea-level rises. When a frictional threshold is overcome at the plate-plate boundary subduction occurs releaving presure at both the subduction zone and the mid-oceanic trench thus lowering sea-level again. In this way the sea-saw 'first order' sea-level curves are qualitatively reproduced.

​

This may or may not be news to anyone involved in plate tectonics although I haven't found this simple explanation in the geo-literature yet. If it isn't there I plan to publish it and I will call it 'delayed subduction' . The first order sea-level curves call for such a systematic, cyclical process because the sea-levels repeatedly rise with an exponentially decreasing RATE and then suddenly drop (just like a capacitor charging/discharging). The drop is significantly quicker than the rise. This is exactly the dynamics one gets when fighting a frictional threshold with a fleixible medium.

---

JM: You really need to read the literature before re-inventing the wheel. There are several key points. One is that faster spreading alone will raise sea level. This is not per 'delayed subduction' due to frictional force per se, but rather due to the fact that subduction is occurring at a slightly slower rate than spreading (see the Cretaceous for example and papers by Larson in the 1990's). Second, all subduction and all spreading and any motion on the globe is subject to frictional forces. I fail to see the 'great TB revelation' unless stating the obvious is a revelation? I thought you had a Ph.D. in physics and you just now seemed to realize that frictional forces occur within the earth lol! Finally, whose sea level curves are you looking at?

quote:

---

Anyway, regaredless of this mechanism or not, the major sea-level innundaitons were global of course and that is not debatable - it can be correlated across the globe.

---

Eustatic sea level curves are global, yes. Not all sea-level curves are eustasy curves and global does not mean 'covering all land'. This is important to point out so that the unasuming reader sees the word 'global' and thinks aha!

quote:

---

In terms of the flood I put down the '1st order' surges to this process and the lower order surges to tidal processes which have bee nshown by simulaitons to generate high amplitude tides on an earth 90% covered by water (as more or less agreed by the mainstream discoveries).

---

JM: Sadly, there is no global flood and there certainly is no global flood as you want it to happen described in the Bible. Once again, you have to compromise the very book you deem infallible to fit your worldview.

quote:

---

So I quite reasonably see the potential for major global cycles of marine/non-marine exposures due to tectonic events as well as hundreds of smaller tidal cycles during the flood year. There is plenty of opportunity for tracks, nests and evaporites.

---

JM: No doubt it seems 'quite reasonable' to you because you've rationalized your faith, your science and the bible to make it so. Blissful ignorance is not good science.CheersJoe Meert

Hi JoeWith accelerated decay and runaway subduction a rapid drift is conceivable whether any particular early model has major problems or not. Early QM could not handle anything but the H-atom and yet they knew they were on the right track.I'd love to see refs that try and account for the first order sea-level curves deterministically. I am trying to account for (i) the cyclicity of the 1st order effect and (ii) the detailed shape of that curve. From my views of these curves it nicely fits the scenario I outline in detail, better than a 'subduciton is slower' idea which simply accounts only for sea-level rises. A slippage threshold accounts for the rapid sea-level drops and the exponetially falling rate during sea-level rises is consistent with a restriction due to increasing 'plugging' at the trenches. I agree I may be reinventing something but I am yet to see that (after searching georef etc). I may be clarifying and extending something too. Nice simple models like this can account for essential dynamics in complex systems.So we all understand the sea-levlel riss, but why the cyclicity of falls and rises? I think it is slippage and I know I can qualitatively account for the shape of the curve because it looks diagnostically like a cycling charging/discharging capacitor plot. So I immediately know the driving force is approximately constant, that there is a threshold event and that there is a plugging event.Which sea-level curves? I'm not sure becasue I've only seen it in three places (but do not have it in my hands) including the introductory Hamblin and Chamberlain (?) as well as a modern book on oceanography. In both cases I don't think a primary ref was cited. Can you direct me to the primary source for this 'standard' curve, and other, sea-level curves?I'm fully aware that not all sea-level curves are eustasy curves and that global dos not mean all earth. But in the Cretaceous it means about 85% or so of the earth. Good point about the casual reader.Q: So how do you justify your pronouncement of "Sadly, there is no global flood and there certainly is no global flood as you want it to happen described in the Bible".We've talked about this before and can you argue against this: the largest covereing (in the Cretaceous I'm pretty sure) determined from the extent of marine beds has to be a lower limit. Weathering would have eroded marine strata in the highlands first. There could even have been a global covering at some point in the geological column since we are not sure of the height of all mountain ranges at all points during the formation of the geological column.For the uninitiated: Looking at a map of North America we see that the Rockys and the Appalcians don't display marine strata at the same time that most of the rest of North America does. But of course marine strata in the highlands would be erorded first if ther had been a global covering! The source of sediment is the highlands and basins collect sediments.The typical 'there is no evidence of a glopbal flood' is extremely misleading. There is evidence of a very high global lower limit of marine covering of the earth.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-09-2002]

RandyThere is proof of an 85% covering of the earth's surface and see my above post where I demonstrate that this is undoubtedly a lower limit.My model, which may be a reinvention of the wheel, or wrong for that matter, transcends E vs C. To accelrate for YECs of course the model would be mixed with accerlated decay and runaway subduction. But the essential dynamics would genrate the typical sea-level curve cyclicity and shape irrespective. A large proportion of the sea-level curves occurred near and including the flood year after which it exponentially decreased in rate presumably (eg due to accelrated decay falling of).I would never publish an accelerated decay version of 'delayed subduction' mainstream! I'm quite interested in the essential dynamics regardless of E vs C.The earth was about 85% covered during the Cretaceous (mainstream). The land surfaces were approximately 50% covered (and this is a lower limit). That is why you can find marine fossils almost everywhere on land!The super high tides wont kill the animals in the 50% of the land surface not yet innundated of course. With the first order and lower order sea-level curves there is plenty of opportunity for animlas to tread and settle on newly created strata during the flood year. In our model some evaporates may be genuine and others may be precipatative due to tectonic expulsions of brine etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
There is proof of an 85% covering of the earth's surface and see my above post where I demonstrate that this is undoubtedly a lower limit.

---

If you have proof, we would be glad to see it. If any creationists are reading this you'd have to wonder how TB knows this. Was he actually there? How do you 'prove' such a thing?And actually, you did no such thing. You simply stated that this was a lower limit. This is also wrong because there are plenty of times in the geologic record where the amount of land covered by water was less than 85%.

quote:

---

My model, which may be a reinvention of the wheel, or wrong for that matter, transcends E vs C. To accelrate for YECs of course the model would be mixed with accerlated decay and runaway subduction. But the essential dynamics would genrate the typical sea-level curve cyclicity and shape irrespective. A large proportion of the sea-level curves occurred near and including the flood year after which it exponentially decreased in rate presumably (eg due to accelrated decay falling of).

---

Can you explain to us then, why accelerated decay happened only during the flood?

quote:

---

The earth was about 85% covered during the Cretaceous (mainstream). The land surfaces were approximately 50% covered (and this is a lower limit).

---

There you go again! You offer no evidence except your statement that this is a lower limit.

quote:

---

That is why you can find marine fossils almost everywhere on land!

---

So, explain how we get terrestrial fossils and sedimentary facies in the Cretaceous for example, then.

quote:

---

The super high tides wont kill the animals in the 50% of the land surface not yet innundated of course. With the first order and lower order sea-level curves there is plenty of opportunity for animlas to tread and settle on newly created strata during the flood year.

---

So, your tidal surges just happen to coincide in time with the runaway subduction surges... Why is that? And how many times are you going to do this in a year? And how are you going to develope paleosoils, etc. in the several days between flood surges? You have diligently avoided this question. How about an answer now.

quote:

---

In our model some evaporates may be genuine and others may be precipatative due to tectonic expulsions of brine etc.

---

Hunh? How do you expel brines into the ocean and end up precipitating salts on the scale that we are talking about? Can you point out where these expulsions have observed or occur in the geological record?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
For the uninitiated: Looking at a map of North America we see that the Rockys and the Appalcians don't display marine strata at the same time that most of the rest of North America does. But of course marine strata in the highlands would be erorded first if ther had been a global covering! The source of sediment is the highlands and basins collect sediments.

---

Except for the fact that we have very good information as to the fact that there were source areas for Cretaceous deposits such as the Mesa Verde Group. We can see that they came from an eroding land mass, not that they were deposited everywhere and then eroded away in uplifted areas. In fact, if it were deposited everywhere, as in your flood scenario, then exactly was was the source? Your data is, as usual, limited. You really need to take your first geology course someday.

quote:

---

The super high tides wont kill the animals in the 50% of the land surface not yet innundated of course. With the first order and lower order sea-level curves there is plenty of opportunity for animlas to tread and settle on newly created strata during the flood year.

---

The problem that you have is that the land where the animals supposedly made the tracks must have been underwater to deposit 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 before the Coconinos were deposited and in fact it must have been under a lot of water to deposit all those sediments.Now you say that animals were around to make tracks in the sandstones that were deposited on top of these sediments.Where did they come from? Could the animals make tracks in water deep enough (300 feet according to Austin) to make the sand waves? Obviously not and some of the tracks must have been made in dry sand.The tracks are distributed throughout the lower 2/3 of the formation. Where there successive waves from the North 300 feet deep that receded to allow the animals to come in from somewhere? From where? By what mechanism did the waves form?Why would the animals come down to the recently deposited sand from wherever they were that must have been at least 300 feet above the level of the Coconinos?How many times could this happen during whatever little portion of the flood year was available to deposit this part of the Grand Canyon sediments?The animls would have to have been some place that had NO flood deposits during the time that the Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale, Muav Limestone, Grand Wash Dolomites, Temple Butte Limestone, Redwall Limestone, Surprise Canyon Formation, Supai Group and the Hermit Shale where deposited or they would have been wiped out and buried in the deposits. Where was this? Were they in hyperspace or something.The whole idea that all the sediments of the Colorado plateau were deposited by a global flood and that the animal tracks in the Coconino Sandstones were made during this flood is totally absurd.Randy

EdgeIt is a mainstream result that around an 85% covering of the earth's surface has occurred. It is easy to see from the distribution of marine strata. Thre is no data processing involved let alone interpretaiton. But this figure must be a lower limit becasue the highlands, which incidnetally would have got the thinnest deposits due to being covered for the least time, would be preferentially eroded.I did not just state it would be a lower limit - I explained why as I have repeated here. Here is what I said:

quote:

---

Weathering would have eroded marine strata in the highlands first.

---

The marine distribution clearly identifies a lower limit of the extent of epeiric seas. This is kindergarten level geology.The envelop of accelerated decay could be due to a fundamntal evoltuionary process of the universe or due to the hand of God or both as I have mentioned to you before.You ask "how [do] we get terrestrial fossils and sedimentary facies in the Cretaceous for example [if we have marine innundations]"? Answer: becasue the marine innundations were cyclical as we know empirically giving time for temporary terrestial habitaiton. You know this is our answer. Why ask again?The tidal surges deterimnisticlly turn up at high sea-level as seen in global hydrodynamic simulations where you simply remove much of the earth's land surface! Baumgardner I think. No mystery at all.Your paleosoils are typically assumed. These envronemtns could be due to deposition from floating mats for example.I'm no expert on the expulsion of brines. One of the well known creationists has cited evidence of this.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-10-2002]

RandyYou are simply painting the worst possible picture. We paint the best possible picture but empirically:* there are huge sand waves
* even mainstreamers have reinterpreted these as water laid
* there are footprints
* in other GC strata there are oriented fosils suggestive of catalcysmic processesThe 300 ft deep environment of formation doesn't have to be at the same time as the footprints with surging.