Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion

edge wrote:"First, there are whopping cross-beds in the Coconino that tell
us the medium was flowing quite rapidly."peaceharris wrote:"Please give me a link with a photo to support your assertion.
Based on my observation of the photos of grand canyon, I
haven't seen cross-beds. The strata are horizontal."In message 15, Percy wrote:"You've misunderstood the definition of cross-bedding in this
context. Of course the layers of the Grand Canyon are
horizontal. The cross bedding is within the layer. In the link
provided by Arkansaw at Answers in Genesis ( Startling
evidence for Noah’s Flood ), Figure 3 shows an example of cross-
bedding. The accompanying text provides the proper definition
of cross-bedding as being inclined sublayering. In other words,
this Creationist reference understands that the Coconino contains
cross-bedding."A picture of the cross-bedding in the Coconino sandstone can be found in "Coconino Sandstone, Walnut Canyon" at: Error
Error and in "Types of Sedimentary Rocks" at:Error
ErrorWhether the Coconino Sandstone was deposited underwater or in a desert is a relatively simple question, for which Young Earth creationists ignore basic facts of sedimentology. Essentially, because of the difference in density and viscousity between water and air, the large-scale cross-bedding formed by sand waves and sand dunes are quite distinct although they superficially resemble each other. The fact of the matter is that the cross-bedding of the Coconino Sandstone is of the wind-blown eolian type. For example, the Coconino Sandstone contains abundant climbing translatent beds created by wind ripples and grain-fall bedding produced by eolian grain-fall processes. As a matter of simple physics, it is impossible, unless a person wants to argue for divine intervention in this matter, for either of these types of sedimentary structures to have formed underwater because of the diffferences in the physical properties of water and air. Thus, the specific types of cross-bedding found in the Coconino Sandstone soundly refutes that it was deposited underwater.If a person wants to argue for a submarine origin of the Coconino Sandstone, they need to explain why wind ripples, their climbing translatent beds, grain-fall bedding, and other types of bedding / sedimentary structures that can only form in terrestrial, eolian environments occur throughout it.Go look at:Claim CC365.1:
CC365.1: Coconino Sandstone deposition environment.Paleozoic Strata
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htmandHunter, R. E., 1977. Basic types of stratification in small
eolian dunes. Sedimentology. vol. 24, pp. 361-387.Deserts - wind and running water in the Eolian environment
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/geol100/lectures/34.html
http://www.geol.umd.edu/...ck/geol100/images/35/coconino.jpgThe best that Young Earth creationists can do is argue on the basis of, at best, ambiguous and woefully incomplete laboratory experiments about the effects that wetness has on how tracks are made in loose sand. Because of the ambiguous nature of the results and incomplete nature of these experiments, they fail to prove anything about the conditions under which the Coconino Sandstone accumulated.Best regards,Bill
Houston, TexasThis message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-04-2005 01:27 PM

Roxrkool wrote:
"First, I think you mean the sizes of the grains IN the rocks,
not the sizes of the rocks themselves, correct?"In Message 27 of 28 peaceharris wrote:
"I am neither interested about the sizes of grains IN the rocks
as seen today, nor am I interested in the sizes of rocks as seen
today. I am interested to know whether it is possible to
determine the sizes of particles at the time of sedimentation."Given that the Paleozoic rocks exposed in the Grand Canyon and younger strata exposed around it have **not** undergone any significant metamorphism, diagenesis, or other alteration, it is quite easy to know the size and composition (and thus density) of the particle composing them at the time of sedimentation. It is as easy as taking samples, as geologists have done, from the various stratigraphic units, making petrographic thin sections of them, and studying these thin sections under a petrographic microscope. Unless these rocks have been subjected to some very intense alteration, which the Coconino Sandstone and Hermit formation have **not**, the sizes and density of the particles in them would the same as when they were deposited.For more information, go to:1. What Is A Thin Section?
http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/globe/forengeo/thnsec.htm
http://edafologia.ugr.es/optmine/indexw.htm2. Preparation of a rock
http://edafologia.ugr.es/optmine/intro/preparow.htm3. Making Petrographic Thin Sections
Page "NOTT" Found | Union College4. The petrographic microscope
http://edafologia.ugr.es/optmine/intro/microscw.htmpeaceharris further wrote:
"If you took 2 pieces of rock from the Coconino sandstone and
hermit shale, would you be able to tell me the size and density
of particles at the time of formation?"Yes, again it is as easy as making a petrographic thin section and studying them with a petrographic microsciope. Petrographic analysis can quickly determine the size, composition, and volume of the sand grains and cement composing the Coconino Sandstone. Given that the density of minerals, i.e. quartz, feldspar, and clay do **not** change with time, it is quite easy from thin section analysis, to determine the size and density of the particles which compose these units. This is something that is taught in undergraduate geology courses. This is not rocket science as geologists have done petrographic this section analysis of sedimentary rocks since the 1890's.Below are some images of thin sections of sandstone.1. Lecture Images from Class 2 (8/26/99):
http://epswww.unm.edu/coursinf/eps462/class2images.htm2. A quartz-cemented sandstone
http://epswww.unm.edu/coursinf/eps462/graphics/qtzcem.jpg3. Calcite cemented sandstone
http://www.gly.uga.edu/...sback/speleoatlas/SAimage0223.htmlMore pictures can be found in:MacKenzie, W.S. (1980) Atlas of Rock-Forming Minerals in Thin
Sections. John Wiley and Sons, New York,Adams, A.E., MacKenzie, W.S., Guilford, C. (1984) Atlas of
Sedimentary Rocks Under the Microscope. Jossy-Bass, New York.
http://www.josseybass.com/...Title/productCd-047027476X.htmlScholle, P. A. (1978) A Color Illustrated Guide to Constituents,
Textures, Cements, and Porosities of Sandstones and
Associated Rocks. Memoir no. 28, american Association of
Petroleum Geologists,Tulsa, Okalhoma.In the above pictures, which are comparable to what would a person would see in the Coconino Sandstone, the original size and composition (mineralogy) of the sediment composing the sandstone is readily determined using a petrographic microscope. Knowing the mineralogy, i.e. quartz and feldspar, of the grains provides direct information about the density of the grains because each mineral has a specific density.More information about a petrographic microscope and optical mineralogy, the science of using a petrographic mincroscop, can found in various web pages at:Page not found - La Salle University
Page not found | The ODL drifters project
GEOE 213 Mineralogy Lecture NotesEhlers, E.G. (1987) Optical Mineralogy: Theory and Techniques.
lackwell Scientific Publications, Palo Atlo, California.Kerr, P.F. (1977) Optical Mineralogy. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York.Safferson, E.P. (1975) Identification Tables for Minerals in Thin
Sections : London, England.The details of petrographic analysis of sandstone and other sedimentary rocks and how it can determine the original size and composition (and thus density) of their constituent grains can be found in:Hutchison, C.S. (1974) Laboratory Handbook of Petrographic
Techniques. Wiley-Interscience, New York.Mueller, G., (1967) Methods in Sedimentary Petrology. Hafner
Publication Company, New York.Tucker, M.E., (1988) Techniques in Sedimentology, Blackwell,
New York.Roxrkool wrote:
"Second, what evidence do you have that suggests the shale (clay
particles are <0.04 mm) within the Hermit Shale were smaller?"peaceharris further replied:
"Also, what evidence do you have that the quartz grains in the
Coconino Sandstone were smaller?"""By compaction and cementation, gravels became conglomerates,
muds became shales, sands became sandstones, and lime sediments
became limestones. " -quote from
Page not found, Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky"This quote has nothing to do the original size and shape of the original grains. Cementation of these grains typically only changes them from loose sediment to solid rock. It does nothing to change their origin size and sorting, which can easily be determined using petrographic techniques. Compaction mainly reduces the volume of space and water content by packing the grains closer together and reducing pore space. It will not change either the size or density of grains, except under the most extreme circumstances. Only in very extreme cases, which typically do **not** apply in case of the Paleozoic and younger sedimentary rocks within the Grand Canyon, will compaction change the size of grains by fracturing them.Only within very narrow fault zones within the Grand Canyon has the grain size of the sandstones, shales, and similar siliciclastic rocks been altered, inthis case, by tectonic fracturing. This fracturing is limited to a zone less than 1 to 10 meters on either size of a specific fault. It is easy to determine, using sedimentary petrography, whether the grains have been altered by any process using thin sections and a petrographic microscope.peaceharris wrote:
"I think it is plain common sense to believe that the size and density of
the particles observed today is not what it was at the time of formation."What peaceharris calls "common sense" in this case is nothing more than "common ignorance" that is easily refuted. The dominate minerals, i.e. various clay minerals, quartz, and feldspar are quite stable and are **not** going to change either their shape or density in time. The quartz and other grains are quite stable and they certainly will neither change their composition, shape, nor density. The clay minerals might change some in composition, but the density change will be minimal because they all have very similar densities.Roxrkool wrote:
"Third, what evidence do you have that the rocks have been greatly altered?"peaceharris replied
"I think that mainstream geologists would agree with me that the rocks have
been greatly altered.'Unfortunately, peaceharris's thought on this matter is completely wrong. As a geologist, I can vouch that mainstream geologists would completely disagree with his statement that these rocks have been "greatly altered". Mainstream geologists, even many Young Earth creationist geologists, would regard these rocks as being relatively unaltered. These rocks have only suffered a minimal amount compaction, cementation, and diagenesis as is the case of the typical sedimentary rock found within the Colorado Plateau region.In case of limestones, dolomites, and other carbonate rocks, they may or may not be recrystallized to the point that their original grains or either obscured or obliterated. When the original grains are preserved, thin section analysis using a petrographic microscope and other techniques, i.e. acetate peels, can be used to determine what the original size, origin, and composition or the grains composing them. For example, the component grains of a limestone showing oolites and a fossil gastropod comprising a Paleozoic limestone can be seen in "Thin Section of a Limestone" at: Limestone Thin SectionIn another example, the original grains within a carbonate mud matrix of another limestone can be seen in "Thin section of hard gray limestone, Worland Limestone" at:Thin section of hard gray limestone, Worland Limestone
Skeletal micritic limestone from Worland Limestone, Pennsylvanian
Bandera and Altamont Formations (Pennsylvanian), St. Louis, Missouri
Main menu, I-170 Pennsylvanian exposure (Altamont Formation)More examples can be found in:Scholle, P.A. (1978) A Color Illustrated Guide to Carbonate Rock
Constituents, Textures, Cements, and Porosities. Memoir no. 27,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa.Best Regards,Bill Birkeland
Houston, TexasThis message has been edited by Admin, 05-06-2005 12:06 PMThis message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-06-2005 12:34 PM

In message 33, peaceharris wrote:"OK. Eventhough clay is composed of smaller particles than sand, it is still
possible for sea water to sort sand and clay such that clay is below:"So what? Even though clay might be flocculated, individual particles, because of their high water content are less dense than sand. Thus, their settling velocities will be still significantly less than all but the finest sand. As a result, it would be completely and utterly impossible, as you falsely claim, for flocculation to explain the occurrence of clayey sediments below the sandy Coconino Sandstone.Another problem is that the Hermit Shale is **not** composed of pure clay as you incorrectly imply. Rather it consists of complexly interlayered and interfingering siltstones and mudstones. Given that silt does **not** flocculate, flocculation cannot be used to explain the presence of siltstones within the Hermit Shale and underlying the Coconino Sandstone. The mudstone of the Hermit Shale is a mixture of silt, clay, and even sand, which flocculation also cannot explain.In addition, the Hermit Shale contains numerous fossils of ferns, conifers and other plants, as well as some fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians. These are all certainly indicative of this unit in a terrestrial, nonmarine environment. Common sense indicates that the fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians certainly could **not** have been washed in from elsewhere, but had to have been created at the same time, which the Hermit Shale accumulated. For example, the Hermit Shale contains Parabaropus coloradensis (Figure 1E), "[This is one of the largest tracks in the Hermit Shale and probably represents a primitive tetrapod such as a seymouriamorph or a diadectid]", and Ichniotherium sp. (Figure 1C), "...This is a very rare Hermit Shale fossil...", documented inAN IDENTIFICATION KEY TO PERMIAN TETRAPOD TRACKS FROM GRAND CANYON
NATIONAL PARK by Adrian P. Hunt and Vincent L. Santucci in Technical Report
NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-98/01 of the National Park Service at:Permian Tetrapod Tracks Indentificationhttp://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/paleontology/pub/grd3_3/PDF File for NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-98/01and also in:TAXONOMY AND ICHNOFACIES OF PERMIAN TETRAPOD TRACKS FROM GRAND CANYON
NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONA by Adrian P. Hunt and Vincent L. Santucci in Technical
Report NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-98/01 of the National Park Service at:Taxonomy and Ichofacies articlehttp://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/paleontology/pub/grd3_3/PDF File for NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-98/01In this article, Hunt and Santucci stated:"The ichnofauna of the Hermit Shale includes Batrachichnus delicatulus,
Parabaropus coloradensis, Hyloidichnus bifurcatus, Gilmoreichnus
hermitanus, Limnopus sp. and Ichniotherium sp. and represents an
"inland" redbed facies."As roxrkool noted above in message 34, flocculates fail miserably to explain how this "global flood" could deposit contemporaneously deposit over the period of less than a year complexly interbedded and even interfingering marine carbonates, clay, sand, conglomerates, fresh water carbonate, evaporites comprising the Grand Canyon sequence. Neither they nor a global flood explains innumerable other details, i.e., bedding, sedimentary structures, fossil distribution, and so forth in addition to lithology of the different units. One of these "details" ignored by Young Earth creationists is the innumerbale buried sinkholes and caves (karst) and associated paleosols found on top of the Redwall Limestone indicative of long period of terrestrial exposure before the deposition of the Supia Formation.Information about the Redwall Limestone karst and paleosols cam be found in:Kenny, R., (1988) Paleoclimate during the Redwall karst event,
Grand Canyon National Park. Park Science. vol. 18, no. 1., pp. 21-23.Redwall Karst article, Kenny (1988) web pageTabel of Contents of Park Science vol. 18, no. 1PDF file of Park Science vol. 18, no. 1Kenny (1988) stated:"During the time the Redwall Formation was exposed to the atmosphere
(subaerially exposed), the limestone was severely altered by chemical
dissolution and reprecipitation and developed a recognizable karst
(limestone) topography replete with caves, caverns, sinkholes, chert-lag
breccias, red-residual soil, and related solution features. Detailed and
ongoing research on karst features (Kenny 1989) has produced new insights
into information about the ancient terrestrial climate (Kenny in press)."This karst had to have formed during a long period of terrestrial exposure before the deposition of the Supia Formation on top of it. Another interesting article is:Abbot, Ward, 2001, Revisiting the Grand Canyon - Through the Eyes of
Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy. Search and Discovery Article # 40018.Grand Canyon Geology article - Search and Discovery Article # 40018. This article also documents and discusses the karst (caves and sinkholes) developed in the top of the Redwall Limestone.Yours,BillThis message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-07-2005 01:55 PM

In message 37, peaceharris wrote:"In general, sand is more dense than clay. But
according to Stokes' law, settling velocity also
depends on particle size. So after flocculation,
the size factor is dominant."There are some fundamental flaws with Mr. peaceharris statement:1. The Hermit Shale, as he falsely presumes, is **not** composed of shale derived from the compaction of a layer of pure clay. Instead, it consists mainly of complexly interbedded layers of **siltstone** and **mudstone**. Silt does **not** flocculate. As a result, flocculation cannot be used to explain the presence of finer-grained silt below the Coconino Sandstone. Also, flocculation and sorting cannot be used to explain the presence of layers of sandstone that are also found in the Hermit Shale.Go look at "HERMIT FORMATION" at CanyonDave.com is for sale | HugeDomainsThis web page stated:"Though it is often called the Hermit Shale, most of the Hermit is
not shale but siltstone or mudstone mixed with fine grained
sandstone.2. The size of a floc, an aggregation of very fine clay particles, is **not** a accurate indication of its settling velocity as the bulk of the floc consists of pore space filled with water. Since the water filling these pores is the same density as the water, through which it is settling, it contributes nothing to the weight of particle. As a result, the effective density of flocs can be extremely low because of their high porosity to the point that it significantly offsets any differences in size. Depending on the amount of pore space in them, settling velocity of a floc can range from **less** than that of the individual particles of clay composing it to a settling velocity slightly less than or equal to one of a grain of silt. Thus, it is utter nonsense and proved nothing to state categorically that "after flocculation, the size factor is dominant".Generally, the larger the floc is, the more pore space there is in it. Therefore, the density of floc decreases with size, which means that the weight and settling velocity of a floc does not increase directly with size. As a result, settling velocity of a floc increases quite slowly as it size increases, In addition, the size of flocs is limited. Flocs are very fragile and are easily broken up by turbulence, which greatly limits their size.3. peaceharris stated:"From the following website , I obtained the densities
of various sands and clays (in kg/m3)Clay dry excavated 1089
Clay wet excavated 1826
Clay dry lump 1073
Clay fire 1362
Clay wet lump 1602
Clay compacted 1746"These densities are meaningless in terms of the density of a floc. These densities are of clays that have already been deposited and extensively dewatered by drying, compaction, or some combination of thee processes. These values are totally useless in a discussion of the density of flocs and their settling velocity. A uncompacted layer composed of particles of recently settled clay flocs has the consistency and density of a thin soup.In terms of the Hermit Shale, a major problem is, as previously noted, sorting does **not** explain: 1. the complex interlayering and interfingering of layers of siltstone, mudstone, even sandstone; the specific sedimentary structures exhibited by these layers; the presence of terrestrial fossils in it; the presence of fossil tracks in it; the presence of other trace fossils such as vertebrate and insect burrows; the lack of any marine fossils; and other details of the sedimentology and paleontology of the Hermit Shale. It is revealing that Mr. peaceharris and other Young Earth creationists consistently overlook inconvenient facts, as in case of sedimentary structures unique to eolian environment found in the Coconino Sandstone, which contradicts whatever thesis they trying to argue.For example, in "HERMIT FORMATION" at CanyonDave.com is for sale | HugeDomains, it is stated:"Hermit Formation fossils include invertebrate tracks and trails,
insect impressions including a large dragonfly, and many types
of worm burrows. There are also plant fossils in abundance,
especially ferns and conifers."Some web pages of interestKarsts and the flood. Things YEC leaders never show their followers
Error | Christian ForumsSipes, C. R., and Peters, R. A., 2000, Giant desiccation polygons in
the surface of the Hermit Formation, Grand Canyon, Arizona.
Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs.vol., 32,
no. 7, pp. 310-311.
http://rock.geosociety.org/...absindex/annual/2000/51311.htmBest Regards,Bill
Houston, TexasThis message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-14-2005 12:44 AM

In Message 36, Nosy Ned asked:

quote:

---

"How do you do it?
I know that you are an expert in this stuff Bill but
I would like a description of the process you went
through to build that excellent post.

​

I don't think it is off topic because it would add a
bit to the back up for the point you are making.

​

Could you try to retrace the steps you took? Did you
just know all that off the top of your head? Or are
there steps that others could follow?"

---

This is a very hard question to answer. One part of it has to do with having had my first job in the oil business in Rocky Mountain region in 1980. Since then, I have had turned over many a rock, sometimes more then twice, and examined many a geophysical log of an oil well while looking for where an oil or gas field might be found. Because of that, I became acquainted with the geology of the region. The Explorer article about the Grand Canyon, I found during the normal, and seemingly hopeless task, of reading paper after paper in order to keep up with what is being published in geology. As I have read through the literature again and again over time, it was one of many others papers that I "bookmarked" as a potentially useful items in discussing specific Young /Old Earth creationist arguments.Another part was when the price of oil crashed, I was unable to find a job in the oil business for a few years. During that time, I worked for an environmental consulting company as their "expert" on whatever they were working on. In order to keep this job and not end up either homeless or working at McDonalds, I had to learn how to use a library and databases to become an "instant expert" on almost any topic. During the time that price of oil crashed in the late 1980s, it was either adapt or "die" for many geologists. Out of the 20 geologists, including me, who lost their jobs when the Rocky Mountain Office closed down, I was one of six who continued to work as geologist. The other 14 ended up getting jobs as high school teachers, going back to school to become lawyers: computer people, and so forth: or simply vanished from the geoscience community.Finally, like many geologists, I have gone on field trips whenever possible. For example, one university field trip, on which we watched, in person, two volcanoes erupt close-up and looked volcanic deposits for two weeks in Central America. It is a different reality from college lecture to be watching an erupting volcano and realize those large black specks flying out a volcano are boulders the size of Volkswagens. Nothing substitutes for seeing geology in person. Also, as part of my list of 100 things to see in person, which most geologists have, I have been on a seven-day raft trip of the Grand Canyon. If you cannot go on fieldtrips, the guidebooks published for these field trips typically have a cutting edge summary. Many of these fieldtrips guidebooks are now online. The fieldtrips, which I like are the "Friends of Pleistocene" (FOP) ones, even though they are outside of my expertise.One thing, which you can do is to archive web pages, which you find have useful information /articles on them. All of the major web browser, i.e. Internet Explorer, Netscape, and Safari (I am Macophile), and so forth have an option in the "print" menu for saving web page as PDF files. It is also very useful Also, Adobe Acrobat is wonderful software for the purpose in that it allows a person download and save as part of the PDF file pages which are linked to the original page. Also, it allows a person to remove and add pages to a PDF files. Having the PDF copies of web pages is useful as it allows a person to look at them without being online and have an archive copy of web pages, which have long since disappeared. I have about 5 CD-ROMs full of PDF files, sorted by subject, of web pages on various topics discussed by Young and Old Earth creationists. I have another 5 CR-ROMS of PDF files, including reprints on the aspects of geology that interest me.Using Google to find information is matter of knowing the keywords to use. One trick that people on this list can do is either use "ppt" with the keyword(s) for the topic being research or "lecture" and "PDF" with the keyword(s) for the topic being research. The use of "ppt" and "lecture" and "PDF" in Google will typical, but not always find lecture notes for university classes that can be downloaded. These notes can be a useful way of finding an overview / summary in a understandable format of current state art in an area of science.Finally, if a person has access to a university or college library, they often have GEOREF database available for people to use in the library. It is an incredibly useful tool in any sort geology research. The citation search engine at Geoscience World can be used by non-subscribers to a limited degree. It is found at http://www.geoscienceworld.org/ .Describing how the post was written is sort of difficult. At this point in any geologist's career, either government, academic, or private oil or consulting company, writing is an automatic process. Even the best geologic work is useless unless it can be conveyed in a coherent manner to other people. In case of the oil business, a geologist has to be able to be either an author, coauthor, or compiler, who can prepare a report, and presentations, explaining in clear English why management should spend a couple of million dollars drilling for oil at specific point on the Earth's surface.Similarly, in the oil business, a geologist often has to review proposals from other companies to sell your company either oil leases or part interest in a wildcat well. More often then not, the "science" / "geology" in such proposals are slanted, sometimes to the point of fabrication, to portray the economics of the deal in the best possible light. As a result, in reviewing such proposals, a person has to be skeptical of almost everything written in them when evaluating their merits. A person has to ask questions about the interpretations make sense from the data presented; is the science being used correctly; is the data too good to be true; is the data being twisted to fit a preconceived conclusion (oil likely will be found if a well is drilled in our lease); and so forth. As a matter of "survival" in the oil business, a geologist learns to be quite critical in evaluating written material of any type.The best I can do is say:A. Read the an article, proposal, paper, and so forth.B. Outline the basic arguments being made for a specific interpretation.C. Then go through each argument and ask the questions.
1. does the person have the basic facts /observations /data right. Are they disputed?
2. are the sources of the facts /observations /data credible?
3. is the interpretation based on sound science as discussed / documented in published literature?
4. are significant facts /observations /data either overlooked, ignored, or unknown.
5. does what is argued violate common sense? If so, is there something wrong with the arguments or with common sense?Part of Step C involves either having a background in what is being discussed from previous experience / education or looking up and evaluating what has published on the topic; or some combination of these.D. If an alternative interpretation, as either argued by other people or can be made by you, better explains what is going on, prepare the argument for such in a logic manner.E. Writing this all up in a coherent, easy to understand fashion.At this point in my life, a lot of this is automatic. It is hard to really put it into exact words. The above is my nest try.Best regards,Bill This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-14-2005 01:59 PM

In Message 36, Nosy Ned asked:"How do you do it?
I know that you are an expert in this stuff Bill but
I would like a description of the process you went
through to build that excellent post.I don't think it is off topic because it would add a
bit to the back up for the point you are making.Could you try to retrace the steps you took? Did you
just know all that off the top of your head? Or are
there steps that others could follow?"This is a very hard question to answer. One part of it has to do with having had my first job in the oil business in Rocky Mountain region in 1980. Since then, I have had turned over many a rock, sometimes more then twice, and examined many a geophysical log of an oil well while looking for where an oil or gas field might be found. Because of that, I became acquainted with the geology of the region. The Explorer article about the Grand Canyon, I found during the normal, and seemingly hopeless task, of reading paper after paper in order to keep up with what is being published in geology. As I have read through the literature again and again over time, it was one of many others papers that I "bookmarked" as a potentially useful items in discussing specific Young /Old Earth creationist arguments.Another part was when the price of oil crashed, I was unable to find a job in the oil business for a few years. During that time, I worked for an environmental consulting company as their "expert" on whatever they were working on. In order to keep this job and not end up either homeless or working at McDonalds, I had to learn how to use a library and databases to become an "instant expert" on almost any topic. During the time that price of oil crashed in the late 1980s, it was either adapt or "die" for many geologists. Out of the 20 geologists, including me, who lost their jobs when the Rocky Mountain Office closed down, I was one of six who continued to work as geologist. The other 14 ended up getting jobs as high school teachers, going back to school to become lawyers: computer people, and so forth: or simply vanished from the geoscience community.Finally, like many geologists, I have gone on field trips whenever possible. For example, one university field trip, on which we watched, in person, two volcanoes erupt close-up and looked volcanic deposits for two weeks in Central America. It is a different reality from college lecture to be watching an erupting volcano and realize those large black specks flying out a volcano are boulders the size of Volkswagens. Nothing substitutes for seeing geology in person. Also, as part of my list of 100 things to see in person, which most geologists have, I have been on a seven-day raft trip of the Grand Canyon. If you cannot go on fieldtrips, the guidebooks published for these field trips typically have a cutting edge summary. Many of these fieldtrips guidebooks are now online. The fieldtrips, which I like are the "Friends of Pleistocene" (FOP) ones, even though they are outside of my expertise.One thing, which you can do is to archive web pages, which you find have useful information /articles on them. All of the major web browser, i.e. Internet Explorer, Netscape, and Safari (I am Macophile), and so forth have an option in the "print" menu for saving web page as PDF files. It is also very useful Also, Adobe Acrobat is wonderful software for the purpose in that it allows a person download and save as part of the PDF file pages which are linked to the original page. Also, it allows a person to remove and add pages to a PDF files. Having the PDF copies of web pages is useful as it allows a person to look at them without being online and have an archive copy of web pages, which have long since disappeared. I have about 5 CD-ROMs full of PDF files, sorted by subject, of web pages on various topics discussed by Young and Old Earth creationists. I have another 5 CR-ROMS of PDF files, including reprints on the aspects of geology that interest me.Using Google to find information is matter of knowing the keywords to use. One trick that people on this list can do is either use "ppt" with the keyword(s) for the topic being research or "lecture" and "PDF" with the keyword(s) for the topic being research. The use of "ppt" and "lecture" and "PDF" in Google will typical, but not always find lecture notes for university classes that can be downloaded. These notes can be a useful way of finding an overview / summary in a understandable format of current state art in an area of science.Finally, if a person has access to a university or college library, they often have GEOREF database available for people to use in the library. It is an incredibly useful tool in any sort geology research. The citation search engine at Geoscience World can be used by non-subscribers to a limited degree. It is found at http://www.geoscienceworld.org/ . A major secret to making a post is not knowing something, but knowing where to find it in the vast geolgoic literature.Describing how the post was written is sort of difficult. At this point in any geologist's career, either government, academic, or private oil or consulting company, writing is an automatic process. Even the best geologic work is useless unless it can be conveyed in a coherent manner to other people. In case of the oil business, a geologist has to be able to be either an author, coauthor, or compiler, who can prepare a report, and presentations, explaining in clear English why management should spend a couple of million dollars drilling for oil at specific point on the Earth's surface.Similarly, in the oil business, a geologist often has to review proposals from other companies to sell your company either oil leases or part interest in a wildcat well. More often then not, the "science" / "geology" in such proposals are slanted, sometimes to the point of fabrication, to portray the economics of the deal in the best possible light. As a result, in reviewing such proposals, a person has to be skeptical of almost everything written in them when evaluating their merits. A person has to ask questions about the interpretations make sense from the data presented; is the science being used correctly; is the data too good to be true; is the data being twisted to fit a preconceived conclusion (oil likely will be found if a well is drilled in our lease); and so forth. As a matter of "survival" in the oil business, a geologist learns to be quite critical in evaluating written material of any type.The best I can do is say:A. Read the an article, proposal, paper, and so forth.B. Outline the basic arguments being made for a specific interpretation.C. Then go through each argument and ask the questions.
1. does the person have the basic facts /observations /data right. Are they disputed?
2. are the sources of the facts /observations /data credible?
3. is the interpretation based on sound science as discussed / documented in published literature?
4. are significant facts /observations /data either overlooked, ignored, or unknown.
5. does what is argued violate common sense? If so, is there something wrong with the arguments or with common sense?Part of Step C involves either having a background in what is being discussed from previous experience / education or looking up and evaluating what has published on the topic; or some combination of these.D. If an alternative interpretation, as either argued by other people or can be made by you, better explains what is going on, prepare the argument for such in a logic manner.E. Writing this all up in a coherent, easy to understand fashion.At this point in my life, a lot of this is automatic. It is hard to really put it into exact words.Best Regards,Bill