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

So can wind. In fact, the grain size distribution, the scale of cross-bedding and the grain surface abrasion all suggest eolian transport and deposition of Coconino and other sands.As to dew on the sand dunes being localized, it may have something to do with on shore breezes where desert meets the sea. There are insects that trap wind-born moisture on the Namib Desert along the Namibian shoreline. I can easily imagine morning moisture on sand dunes being buried later by dry sand. Interesting idea. There is also the possibility of local groundwater seeps. The point being that there are a number of ways to get small amounts of water in the desert to aid in the preservaton of tracks.

No, you didn't. You explained (in your view) why one set of trackways at one level didn't get washed away. You haven't handled the tracks at different levels in the sediments that you say were all laid down by the flood.

You just have to extrapolate what I said to different situations.Imagine an underground spring flooding the area. As the water flows, some particles coagulate and sediment out rapidly. The animals which are walking/ running at this period would have caused the tracks which we see at the Hermit shale today.Some sandy particles are deposited more slowly, maybe a few hours later. The animals which are running at this time would have caused the Coconino tracks which we see today. Brand wrote they may have been swimming when going with the water current but would drop down and walk on the bottom when moving against the current. New particles would be deposited above the footprints. The difference between these particles have enabled erosive forces of today to remove the layer above, preserving the layer below.

quote:

---

Imagine an underground spring flooding the area. As the water flows, some particles coagulate and sediment out rapidly. The animals which are walking/ running at this period would have caused the tracks which we see at the Hermit shale today.

---

Are we imagining an underground spring carrying enough sediment to deposit the Coconino Sandstones and the 300 foot thick Hermit shales or does it also have enough sediment load to form the other sedimentary rocks we have discussed?

quote:

---

Some sandy particles are deposited more slowly, maybe a few hours later. The animals which are running at this time would have caused the Coconino tracks which we see today.

---

Why would the sand of the lower Coconinos deposit more slowly than the fine sands in the Hermit formation? How deep do you think the water would have had to be to keep the sands of the Coconino Sandstones suspended "a few hours" after the 300 foot thick Hermit formation was "coagulated" and deposited? Were the 900 feet of sedimentary rock of the Supai formation also being "coagulated" and deposited from the sediments in this imaginary spring?

quote:

---

The animals which are running at this time would have caused the Coconino tracks which we see today

---

Running from where and to where? The whole area would have been under very deep moving water loaded with sediment in your scenario. There wouldn't have been any animals running anywhere.

quote:

---

Brand wrote they may have been swimming when going with the water current but would drop down and walk on the bottom when moving against the current.

---

Brand did his experiments in laboratory tanks with still water that was not depositing anything let alone a massive sediment load. One thing I can't find in Brand's paper is how deep the water was but you can be sure it wasn't deep enough to suspend hundreds of feet of sediments.Here is an intersting quote about some of Brand's work. The Brand paper being referenced is Journal of Paleontology 70 1004-1010 (1996). The reference is in a paper titled Walk, Wade, or Swim? Vertebrate traces on an early Permian Lake Shore, B. A. Swanson and K. J. Carlson Palaios 17, 123-133 2002. It shows trace fossils made by amphibians that apparently were actually swimming in an ancient lake and they look very different from those found in the Hermit Formation and Coconino Sandstones.

quote:

---

New particles would be deposited above the footprints. The difference between these particles have enabled erosive forces of today to remove the layer above, preserving the layer below.

---

There would have been no footprints. All the animals in the area would have been swept away by very deep moving water loaded with sediment.We haven't even discussed what these animals were doing while the Redwall Limestones and other layers below the Supai group were being deposited by global flood waters but your scenario is falsified without even considering those.Added in Edit: And of course we didn't even discuss the invertebrate trace fossils and raindrop impressions in the Coconino Sandstones and dried mud cracks in the Hermit formation which also falsify your scenario.RandyThis message has been edited by Randy, 05-31-2005 04:41 AM

The above classification is taken from Grandhikes.I have marked an exposed limestone and shale formation at the same altitude. Both of these cannot simultaneously extend in all directions.Both of them are lithified river deposits.I have also marked the Redwall formation. You can see that they exist both higher and lower than the Tonto group. If you keep digging horizontally through the Tonto group, you will meet the Redwall formation.

Added in edit. If this is looking toward the North Rim then both could extend simultaneously because the North Rim has been uplifted compared to the South Rim by the Kaibab uplift but I still think it is a trick of perspective. What I say about your mistaken interpretation of photos not trumping the observations of hundreds of field geologists who have actually been there and studied the rocks should be emphasized again.Where are the altitudes marked in the photo? This shot was apparently taken looking down from the other rim. I think you are being fooled by a trick of perspective. I still find it amazing the you think your mistaken interpretations of photographs somehow trump the observations of all the field geologists who have actually been there and studied the rocks.RandyThis message has been edited by Randy, 05-31-2005 08:39 AMThis message has been edited by Randy, 05-31-2005 08:55 AMThis message has been edited by Randy, 05-31-2005 08:57 AM

I'm trying hard to imagine this in the middle of your flood when 100's of feet of sediment has been laid down and is still being laid down by something or another. Are you now saying that everything below this is NOT flood and most of the Coconio was not flood either?I don't recall that you have explicitly described the sequence of events perhaps you should recapitulate.

I'm going to be a bit stronger than Randy.If you are saying that the RF you marked lower in your photo is actually lower than the other then you are being foolish.You are being given leeway because you are trying to use evidence. However, this is utterly ridiculous! It is obvious to the most casual observer that the "lower" RF is miles closer to you than the other and are at approximately the same level in actual fact.Note the rest of what Randy has to say. You are not making any real progress here. Clutching at staws starts to look silly.

Peace, all the evidence points to the Coconino being an eolian deposit - ALL OF IT. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest the Coconino was deposited by water. The reason only terrestrial trace fossils are found in it is because it is a terrestrial deposit.The reason the cross-beds look like modern sand dunes is because it REPRESENTS a lithified dune field. Even the grains themselves with their frosted appearance (resulting from grain-grain abrasion) and spherical shape point to eolian processes. Water will not result in frosted or spherical grains - water acts as a buffer against abrasion.It doesn't matter how many scenarious you think may have been responsible for its formation, it was wind. Simple as that. Your continued persistence that the Coconino is water-lain is tiresome.Additionally, your photographic interpretations are also becoming farcical, Peace. The coal one was bad enough, but now you are suggesting that a photo, with an obviously skewed perspective, shows elevation differences between formations and indicates those formations could not have been laterally continuous.Do you realize how inane such an argument is?

Just a couple of points.As far as I can see Muav limestone seems to generally be considered a marine rather than a river deposit.I really can't distinguish 2 different formations that you have marked apart from appearing as slightly different colours. Are you identifying them simply based on the colour they appear in this picture?TTFN,WK

Hi Peace,Your efforts to base your arguments upon evidence are admirable, but the evidence has to make sense. I don't think I could be any more successful than anyone else in this thread at persuading you of the ridiculousness of some of your arguments. If you don't see this yourself then you don't belong here. If you do see this then you are a troll and you don't belong here.I don't believe rational thinking can be explained to inherently chaotic thinkers. I believe this would be a worthless exercise. All I can do is try to motivate you to offer evidence in a rational way. If you'd like to remain here on a consistent basis then please stop wasting people's time with silly evidence.You're suspended for 24 hours.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Not to dispute the eolian origin of the Coconino, but there is information that frosting may also be of chemical etching origin. Source: Sedimentary Rocks, F.J. Pettijohn, Harper and Row Publishing, Third Edition, 1975, p.62.Higher in the same paragraph, the Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone is cited as an example of a quartz sandstone with well rounded and frosted grains. The paragraph is rather ambigious, whether the frosting of the St. Peter is to be attributed to chemical etching. My impression is that the "chemical etching" hypothesis is given more credit than is due.Moose

Somewhere I have a paper which states that the most certain diagnostic feature of eolian sandstones is the nature of the ripple marks. Wind ripples are parallel for longer distances compared to water ripples which are bifurcated. You can see this in modern dunes, I have some pictures I took but can't upload them here. The ripples in the Coconinos look like wind ripples and not water ripples. Anyway this picture from Creation Science and Earth History shows wind ripples.Now if only I could find that paper. I am going to be out of town for the next week so I can't even look for it.Randy

There are exceptions to every rule. This is one I hadn't heard about before, but I find it to be a reasonable alternative. Although I can't imagine such a process would be at all that common or widespread. I wonder if hydrochloric acid could do the same thing...I suspect an alternative explanation for frosted quartz grain textures would have been investigated if the sandstone (St. Peter Sandstone) was not the result of aeolian processes. I have to wonder if the frosting in the St. Peter Sandstone wasn't due to quartz overgrowth during diagenesis, however. And that's something that's easily seen under a petrographic microscope.Anyway, I should have been more conservative with my statements. It's always dangerous to use the word 'always' in science.

A quick look at my Geology of Minnesota - A Centennial Volume, ed. Sims & Morrey, indicates that the St. Peter is thought to be a littoral (tidal) zone deposit. Which, of course, isn't to say that the sand grains don't also have eolian processing in their earlier history.I believe the tidal/beach wave zone is also considered an effective area of grain rounding. I would guess NOT such for frosting. Anyway, frosting in itself is not an indicator that the final deposition is eolian.Mooseps. My geologic dictionary indicates that aeolian is not an incorrect term, but eolian is the more preferred spelling.