Main points - Flood Geology and Conventional Geology Face Off Over the Coconino Sandstone.pptx

The presentation was created to summarize the main points in a September, 2024 article in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith which uses essentially the same title. The presentation is built around the following twelve arguments used by flood geologists to convince people that the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon was laid down during Noah’s Flood:

• Coconino crossbed dip angles support the underwater deposition view.
• Ripples on exposed surfaces of the Coconino could be formed underwater.
• Sand grains in the Coconino are neither well rounded nor well sorted.
• Liquified Coconino sands were injected downward into cracks in the Hermit Formation.
• Fossil footprints in the Coconino were made underwater.
• So-called raindrop imprints in the Coconino really are not raindrop imprints.
• Large contorted beds in the Coconino, like the ones in Lizard Head near Sedona, Arizona, could only be formed by strong water currents.
• Mica could only be present in the Coconino if it was deposited underwater, because mica disappears in eolian transport.
• Dolomite, marine minerals, ooids, and angular feldspar have been found in the Coconino, indicating a marine depositional environment.
• The frosting of sand grains in the Coconino did not occur by ballistic collisions of grains in an eolian environment as some have imagined.
• Modern sand dunes are not as thick as the Coconino, and the Coconino could not have been deposited in a slowly subsiding basin because it crosses through many ancient basins.
• Large sand waves comparable to those in the Coconino have been found in many marine settings. The Coconino was deposited by sand waves during the global flood “in a matter of a few days.”

In evaluating the sedimentological features of the Coconino associated with these twelve arguments, it is found that each one actually points to the conventional geology explanation. It is found that flood geologists were directing most of their efforts towards presenting data to refute generalized statements from critics in the popular science literature. By placing so much emphasis on refuting critics, opportunities were missed to increase scientific understanding of the Coconino. Flood geologists’ findings were consistently framed to argue for aqueous deposition, which they implicitly equate to global flood deposition. It is shown in the presentation that an astronomical difference exists between the two.

1. Main Points - Flood Geology and Conventional Geology Face Off Over the Coconino Sandstone Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 86 - 106 August 23, 2024

2. They may just choose to ignore it. If flood geologists do acknowledge the article, it will be in videos or podcasts, not a formal written response. They will say that the article is filled with errors and misconceptions, but will provide few or no specifics. They may say the article doesn’t address all their points. (It can’t, it would take a whole book to address all their points – the article only addresses the main points they make in presentations.) They will probably say I haven’t gotten out and actually taken measurements of the Coconino. They will not deal with very many of the main points in this presentation . They will try to pick apart minor points that aren’t central to the article. They wil l avoid the aqueous ≠ global flood deposition or mica issues that I raised. Predictions For How Flood Geologists Will Respond to the PSCF Article They may call into question my credibility or whether I am a Christian or believe the Bible. P eople, especially authoritarians, don’t like their honesty being questioned.

3. Total number of main points in the article: 15 If anyone finds an error in this presentation, I will be glad to correct that error. However, it must be a factual error (e.g., experimental findings), not a matter of opinion (e.g., motives). All errors are my responsibility and not that of any reviewer or contributor to the PSCF article. Dark red text is used for additional points or notes not included in the PSCF article. It is interesting to note that Whitmore now intends focus his efforts on the Navajo Sandstone. There is no doubt he will apply the same tactics used on the Coconino to the Navajo and try to frame all the data he collects there to argue that it was deposited by water. Preliminary Notes

4. Obtaining permission to use graphics from various Whitmore et al. articles in the Answers Research Journal and Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism was assumed to be unnecessary, since this is a fair-use critique of those articles. I would also point out that three graphics that I developed for The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth (GCMAE) were used in Terry Mortenson’s Answers Research Journal article critiquing part of the book without obtaining permission from myself, the book’s authors, or the publisher. Furthermore, graphics that I developed for GCMAE have been used by other creationists without obtaining permission. Preliminary Notes Hiker standing on some steep crossbeds in the Coconino. Photo by Tim Helble

5. 1. R ather than being a response to the conventional geology view, flood geologists’ emphasis on the Coconino was more a reaction to statements by several flood geology critics in videos, websites, and the popular science literature. W hile flood geologists have gone through an exhaustive, multi-decade effort to refute their Coconino critics, they ignored my 2011 PSCF article “Sediment Transport and the Coconino Sandstone: A Reality Check on Flood Geology” and its key finding that sediment transport rates required to deposit the Coconino in a matter of days would be far too high to produce cross beds and other detailed features. All they did was include my name in a list of “skeptics.” Similarly, “The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth” provides over 100 arguments against the flood geology view of the Grand Canyon, but Terry Mortenson’s response in the Answers Research Journal focused only on the introductory and closing chapters, dealing with just two pages from the core 17 chapters which make the case for an ancient Grand Canyon. Flood geologists’ Coconino claims are having a significant impact on evangelicals . 4 main points Introduction

6. The Coconino erg (sand sea) formed 5 to 10 degrees north of the equator during the early Permian (299-252 million years ago) on the western edge of the supercontinent Pangea. At that time, large transcontinental river systems drained westward from the early Appalachian Mountains. Topography prevented the transcontinental rivers from reaching the ocean, forcing them to dump their sediment loads in the Western Interior Desert. Numerous alternating layers of sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, evaporites, halite, and anhydrite extending from central Canada into the Midwest and mountain states testify to the large, terminal lakes that once existed in this vast desert during l ate Mississippian to middle Permian time . Generalized paleogeographic map showing the regional depositional setting of the Coconino Sandstone during the early Permian ( Leonardian ). Modified from Mack and Bauer (2014) . Conventional Geology View of the Coconino Sandstone 10 main points

7. Sediments from the Western Interior Desert and local mountain sources were blown to the west and southwest. The Ancestral Rocky Mountains in what is now Colorado were being eroded down to hills, depositing large stores of sediment in adjacent basins like the Paradox Basin in S.E. Utah. The region where the Coconino was deposited was near sea level and surrounded by water on three sides. T he Coconino was deposited on top of the Hermit Formation. At first, sands blowing in from the northwest or from beaches by onshore winds just blew across the top of the Hermit and accumulated further south where crustal subsidence made room for the Schnebly Hill Formation. Eventually, tectonic forces buckling the crust created space for sand accumulation Reconstruction of the environment in which animals lived in the Coconino sand desert. Artwork courtesy Casey Brose. Conventional Geology View of the Coconino Sandstone (continued) in the area where the Grand Canyon is today. There were a few places where light-colored sands blowing in from the north/northwest interfingered with reddish sediments of the Hermit and Schnebley Hill Formations.

8. Conventional Geology View of the Coconino Sandstone (continued) Fossil footprints and invertebrate burrows at different levels show that conditions were stable enough for animals to roam around and hunt. Oasis existed in some interdune areas where animals congregated. Deposition of the Coconino ended when it was covered over by the Toroweap Sea. Oasis in the Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia. Courtesy Saudi Geological Survey. In some places, very high sand hills known as megadunes formed, which were so massive that they contained smaller dune forms superimposed over larger dunes. These megadunes sometimes had heights in the hundreds of feet and lengths in the tens of miles. The main body of large megadunes migrated southward a few centimeters per year, truncating previous dune deposits and leaving complicated bounding surfaces . Extensive invertebrate trackways and burrows in the Coconino where animals apparently congregated in large numbers. Photo courtesy Rickey Bartlett.

9. How Was the Age and Depositional History of the Coconino Determined? Fossil footprints discovered in the early 1900’s established that the Coconino was deposited sometime during the Permian period. Fossils of a plant, several species of pine trees, and a wing from a meganeurid (ancient insect resembling a dragonfly) indicated that Hermit deposition ended during the early Leonardian age of the Permian period. Fossils of several bryozoan species indicated a late Leonardian age for the Toroweap. These established a middle Leonardian age for the Coconino. The Leonardian age is a subdivision of the Permian and was later found to span from about 280 to 271 million years ago. Detrital zircon geochronology provides the “age spectrum” of grains in a sandstone and allows geologists to decipher source regions. This w as performed on the Coconino and the youngest zircons are about 300 million years, corroborating its Leonardian age. Photo of fossil trackway in the Coconino found by Noble and published by Lull (1918). 12 main points Zircon grains ground up from a sandstone. Photo courtesy USGS . Ancient zircon grains from Australia. Photo by Michael Ackerson, courtesy Smithsonian

10. Coconino zircons came from nearby and distant source areas. For distant sources such as the Appalachians, geologists proposed that massive volumes of sand were transported westward by transcontinental rivers. The stratigraphy of Pennsylvanian and Permian layers in central Canada and the U.S. Midwest/mountain states indicates that these rivers dumped their sediment loads in a vast, arid region. These sediments may have been incorporated into older Pennsylvanian and Permian sedimentary rocks one or more times before eventually reaching the Coconino. Eolian processes then brought sands further west and southward. Sands blown into the ocean were transported southward via longshore currents. Significant amounts of sand also came from the Ancestral Rocky Mountains and other local uplifts. Flood geologists say “the zircon evidence is compelling and does suggest a distant origin for some of the Coconino sand,” yet they deny the validity of radiometric dating. Some flood geologists do s ay it can be used for “relative dating.” Distribution of zircon ages (Ma, or millions of years ago) from Coconino samples at two locations. The unlabeled vertical axis represents a statistic indicating the frequency of zircons found at various ages – i.e., the higher the peak, the more zircons were found of that age. Red bar at the far left, bottom indicates the estimated age of the Coconino. Modified from Gehrels et al., 2011 . How Was the Age and Depositional History of the Coconino Determined (continued)?

11. Brachiopod from the Toroweap Formation. Photo by Andy Cattoir courtesy NPS Fossil meganeurid wing from the Hermit Formation. GCNP photo No. 3090, courtesy NPS Fossil fern from the Hermit Formation. GCNP photo by Michael Quinn, courtesy NPS How Was the Age and Depositional History of the Coconino Determined (continued)? Examples of fossils used to establish the relative age of the Coconino Sandstone.

12. (Left) Map of North American basement age provinces adapted from several sources by Leary et al., 2020. (Right) Plots representing age distributions from eight source areas in North America, based on observations and specialized types of probability analysis and modeling. This map is generalized – actual source areas have been found to be more complex and numerous. Note: ARM stands for Ancestral Rocky Mountains. From Leary et al., 2020 . How Was the Age and Depositional History of the Coconino Determined (continued)?

13. This paleographic map is a summary of the work done by numerous sedimentologists on early Permian ( Leonardian ) sedimentary formations throughout the western U.S. and Mexico. The Coconino is in the upper left section of the map. This is provided here just to give an idea of the extent to which detrital zircon research has progressed. From Lawton et al., 2021 How Was the Age and Depositional History of the Coconino Determined (continued)?

14. Crossbed Angles Flood geologists initiate their case by mischaracterizing critics as saying that all Coconino crossbeds are near the angle of repose. They then set out to disprove this strawman that they created by measuring Coconino crossbed dips. They found that bed angles ranged from 2 to 32°, with the highest number of beds at 24° and a mean of about 20°. The lee slopes of marine sand waves are typically less than 20° but are reported to reach more than 30°, so flood geologists argue that some marine sand waves are comparable to those in the Coconino. A ll crossbeds do not have to be near 33° for the Coconino to be an eolian sandstone, because all beds are not formed by sand avalanching. The Charge : Coconino crossbed dip angles support the underwater deposition view. Compilation of 214 crossbed dips measured by flood geologists in the Coconino Sandstone. Modified from Whitmore and Garner (2018 ) . Flood geologist John Whitmore measuring a bed dip in the Coconino Sandstone. Still capture from the Is Genesis History? movie. 9 main points

15. Crossbeds in the Coconino Sandstone as seen from the Grandview Trail. Photos by Tim Helble. Crossbed Angles (continued) Crossbeds are angled beds that are formed when sediment (like sand) is transported by blowing wind or flowing water.

16. Crossbed Angles (continued) John Whitmore (2023) admitted that having few crossbed dip angles in the 30’s does not prove subaqueous origin, stating: “ The Coconino often lacks cross-bed dips in the thirties, leading to the erroneous conclusion by some that this conclusively demonstrates a subaqueous origin (Thomas 2021; Thomas and Clarey 2021).” He now argues that distribution of crossbed dips in modern dunes have a wider statistical spread than ancient sandstones, thus “the sandstones probably all formed in similar non-eolian settings.” Using ”non-eolian” is a non-committal way to say that all sandstones formed through aqueous processes without being bold enough to say so. Comparing statistics on crossbed dips in modern dunes to those for sandstones is an apples to oranges exercise, because modern sand dunes have high crests separated by wide, lower areas with few steep beds, while all the low areas in sandstones have been “filled in” through various dune processes such as migration and suspension. This is why Whitmore’s plot of cross bed angles in modern dunes has two separate peaks while sandstone angles have a single peak (see his graph two pages from here). Why did they feel it was necessary to mislead? In the Is Genesis History movie, Andrew Snelling stated that the crossbeds “all come in the range of 15 to 25°,” but left out that 14% of the crossbeds measured by John Whitmore are more than 25°. John Whitmore claimed that the book The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth says Coconino crossbed dips are “ near the angle of repose,” when the book actually uses the words “maximum angles” (p. 70) or “reaching” (p. 202) in conjunction with references to the angle of repose.

17. Eolian crossbeds exposed in a pit dug into the Algodones Dunes, California, showing that all beds are not near 33 ° . Note shovel handle on the left and wind ripples at the surface (see next section). C ourtesy University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections, John Shelton photographs, PH Coll 859. Eolian crossbeds exposed in a sand dune. Photo by Bruce Perry. Edwin D. McKee drawing of crossbeds exposed in a sand dune. Crossbed Angles (continued)

18. Figure 7 from Whitmore (2023) . The graph shows Whitmore’s compilation of data from several sources. He is showing that the distribution of dip angles in modern dunes (red) is bimodal (peaks at 8° and 32°), whereas sandstones (blue) have a single peak at 20°. Crossbed Angles (continued)

19. (Top) Drawing shown in the Is Genesis History? movie, built around Andrew Snelling’s argument that the Coconino is marine in origin because the crossbeds measured by Dr. Whitmore and his students “ all come in the range of 15 to 25°” (which is NOT true) . This shows that young earth believers are still being fed the misleading and simplistic idea that Coconino crossbed angles match up better with those in marine sand waves. Note: Whitmore no longer argues that having few crossbeds over 30 ° is proof of marine deposition. Still capture from Is Genesis History? ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM82qxxskZE ), see T = 33:06 . (Right) How Whitmore’s crossbed angle distribution would appear if Snelling was correct. Crossbed Angles (continued) Whitmore’s data Whitmore’s data according to Snelling Why did he fudge another creationist’s data?

20. Suspension (grain fall) processes in action at Kelso Dunes in the Mojave Desert, California. The grains fall in beds that are less than 33 °. Photo courtesy Brenan Jordan. Avalanche (grain flow) processes in action in megadunes of the Rub al-Khali (Empty Quarter), Saudi Arabia. Notice how the avalanche deposits are accumulating on top of already existing dune forms. Dune forms superimposed over other dune forms is one of the characteristics of megadunes. Photo courtesy Nepenthes, Creative Commons 3.0. Sand avalanche Crossbed Angles (continued)

21. In a few videos, John Whitmore criticized The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth by correctly pointing out that you can’t get an accurate crossbed dip just by laying a protractor up against a photo and measuring the angle. However, the way the geometry works out, the actual dip will always be at least what you see in the photo, assuming the plane of the outcrop is facing the camera and no lens distortion. Given all the high angle crossbeds seen in Coconino walls of the Grand Canyon, it is fair to raise the question: is it possible that Whitmore didn’t have access to sufficient number of very steep crossbeds that he could set his Brunton compass on and measure the dip? It is possible that just measuring crossbed dips along trails, in quarries, or on the side of the Colorado River doesn’t provide a truly random sample. Crossbed Angles (continued) Figure 6-9 from The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth . Photo by Tim Martin, angle drawn by Tim Helble.

22. Ripples Ripples are often characterized using a ripple index (RI), where RI = length between wave crests divided by the height of crests. Kindle (1917) found that wind ripples have RI greater than 10 to 15 while RI for water ripples is less than 10 to 15. This is now widely accepted, with acknowledgement that some variation exists with grain size and wind velocity. McKee (1945) applied this criteria to 21 Coconino specimens and found that their RI ranged from 17 to 98, with fairly even distribution between the extremes. This placed all 21 of McKee’s Coconino specimens solidly in the high-index, wind ripple category. The Charge : Ripples on exposed surfaces of the Coconino could be formed underwater. High-index wind ripples in a specimen of Coconino Sandstone. Some small footprints can also be seen upon closer look. Courtesy Science Museum of Minnesota . 5 main points

23. Ripples (continued) Whitmore and Garner cite Houbolt (1968) to argue that ripples in the Coconino are similar to those on underwater sand waves , but Houbolt never stated anything of the kind. He was studying large-scale sand waves on the bottom of the North Sea, not small-scale ripples. Check Houbolt’s paper for yourself to see if this is true. Flood geologists acknowledge “low-amplitude” ripples in the Coconino, but avoid their significance as eolian indicators. While they have compiled statistics for many other features, they never did so for ripple index. High-index wind ripples in Death Valley, CA. Photo by Marli Miller.

24. Low-index water ripples preserved in the Tapeats Sandstone, Grand Canyon. Photo by Alan Hill. Low-index water ripples in the Is Genesis History movie. Note how their height is great compared to the distance between ripples. Also, the length of each ripple crest is short – ripples on land dunes tend to be much longer. Therefore, the movie was actually providing evidence that argues against their case. Ripples (continued) Low-index water ripples by a unidirectional current near Bimini. Photo by Grant Johnson. High-index wind ripples compared to low-index water ripples. Based on Pye and Tsoar , 1990.

25. Rounding and Sorting Some critics cited well-rounded and well-sorted sand grains in Colorado Plateau sandstones as evidences for eolian origin of the Coconino. Flood geologists then evaluated Coconino thin sections taken from several locations and found that sand grains were sub-angular in northern Arizona and sub-rounded in central Arizona. They also found that sorting and overall grain size in the Coconino is slightly different from modern eolian dunes that they sampled. They argue that these findings are more consistent with aqueous depositional processes. 8 main points The Charge : Sand grains in the Coconino are neither well-rounded or well-sorted. Flood geologist’s thin section showing grain size and sorting within the Coconino Sandstone at Jumpup Spring in the central Grand Canyon. From Whitmore et al 2014.

26. Lancaster (1995) noted that e ven t ough early workers suggested that eolian sands were rounded or well-rounded in shape, more recent investigations of eolian sands indicate that true roundness in the dominant 125-250  m size group is rare and most grains are sub-angular to sub-rounded in shape. Goudie and Watson (1981) noted that grains from different sand seas cluster around distinctive grain roundness characteristics that reflect their specific sand source and transport pathways. It has been known for several decades that inland dunes have a range of sorting values. For example, McKee (1979) found that while coastal dunes are composed almost totally of very well sorted fine sand, inland dunes show a much greater range in mean grain size and sorting values. Flood geologists effectively refuted a strawman constructed using critics’ statements, but g rain morphology in sand dunes (and eolian sandstones) don’t follow a fixed set of rules . Rounding and Sorting (continued) Flood geologist John Whitmore’s comparison of overall grain size and sorting of modern eolian sand dunes to the grain size and sorting of the Coconino Sandstone. Whitmore would not agree, but this could be interpreted to mean that there isn’t that much difference between the Coconino and modern dunes. Data for one dune will not be the same as combined data from many dunes. From Whitmore and Garner (2018)

27. Sand Injectites Flood geologists are likely correct that the sands were liquified, but their 2010 Sedimentary Geology article only offered t wo possible causes and time frames for the cracks: desiccation shortly after the Hermit was deposited or earthquakes on the Bright Angel Fault some 250 million years later. Regarding their first option, flood geologists correctly noted several features of the cracks that are inconsistent with desiccation such as tapering in an upward direction and splitting and rejoining. Flood geologists easily rejected their second option – the sands could not have been injected during earthquakes on the Bright Angel Fault – because “ the fault was relatively inactive between the Precambrian and the Laramide deformation.” The Charge : Liquified Coconino sands were injected downward into cracks in the Hermit Formation. 9 main points Sand injectite extending several meters downward into a crack in the Hermit. Photo by Tim Helble

28. Sand Injectites (continued) Flood geologists concluded that if the cracks did not form until the Laramide Orogeny, the Coconino would have to remain uncemented for “an excess of 250 million years.*” They failed to consider a third optio n in the conventional geology time scale – one that doesn’t fit their narrative – t he sand injectites could have formed sometime between Coconino deposition and the Laramide Orogeny, but much closer to the former time than the latter. The Hermit was obviously hardened rock when the cracks formed , which couldn’t be the case after a global Flood. Tectonic forces could slowly deform a lithified crust upward when the overlying Coconino sands were still a relatively recent deposit and saturated below a water table (or the sea). At some point, the Hermit “snapped,” cracks formed, and sand rushed in. Sand injectites in less permeable rock layers such as mudstone have been extensively documented in the research literature. Flood geology cannot explain how the silts and clays of the Hermit Formation could rapidly dewater, compact, and lithify within hours such that a sharp boundary could exist between it and the overlying Coconino. The same holds true for sharp cracks. Sand injectite in shale of the Mississippian Mabou Group near Antigonish Nova Scotia. Photo courtesy M.C. Rygel . *Of course, flood geologists do not accept a 250-million-year time span – they were using conventional geology terminology so their article could be published in a “secular” journal .

29. Vertebrate Footprints Brand (1979) observed the footprints made by newts in calm water tank experiments and argued his results show that fossil footprints in the Coconino “should not be used as evidence for eolian deposition by dry sand.” Brand and Tang (1991) conducted experiments with newts in a 1½ inch deep, 0.2 mile per hour flowing water tank. When a newt was washed sideways, its feet were pointed at almost a right angle to the direction it was drifting. They stated that similar foot orientations in some Coconino trackways indi cated subaqueous deposition. Brand and Tang provided drawings of the newts’ foot positions in the flowing water tank experiments, but no actual photos. The Charge : Fossil footprints in the Coconino were made underwater. Trace footprints of newt in a calm water tank from Brand (1979). Photo courtesy Leonard Brand. Diagram from Brand and Tang (1991) showing newt’s foot positions in a flowing water tank. No actual photos of underwater footprints were provided in the paper. 16 main points

30. In a reply to Brand and Tang’s paper, ichnologist David Loope pointed out that Coconino trackways indicate the strides of non-drifting tetrapods and if the water had been flowing a little faster, the sand would show (low-index) current ripples. Simulated current speeds over the continents produced in flood geologists’ recent global Flood models are 30 to 45 miles per hour. These would send trackmakers swirling in the water. Proposals that animals left the tracks during low-tide breaks in the Flood violate the principles of hydraulics, because deep water over broad regions cannot recede in a few hours like tides on the sea shore. A few flood geologists are beginning to recognize that trackways pose a problem because they reflect an increase in frequency and species diversity as one moves higher through the rock record, when they should have been wiped out by Day 150 of the Flood. Trackway on RAM 235 specimen in Raymond Alf Museum of Paleontology showing two 90° changes in the trackmaker’s direction of travel. Brand and Tang argued that the first 90° turn (on the right) shows where the animal was being washed sideways. Photos by Tim Helble, courtesy of Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology. Vertebrate Footprints (continued)

31. S everal studies going back to a classic paper by Brady (1947) demonstrate how modern arthropods and vertebrates can make tracks remarkably like those in the Coconino in damp/moist (not subaqueous) sand. V ery saturated substrates lack the cohesion necessary to preserve well-formed tracks like most of those seen in the Coconino. If t racks were made on sand which was then covered by water, they would be quickly erased. Brand recently acknowledged that “at present, it is not clear what the ultimate conclusion from this research will be.” Large Ichniotherium tracks in the Coconino Sandstone from a stone quarry near Flagstaff, Arizona. They do not appear to be made by an animal trying to escape rising flood waters. The small ruler is 3 cm long. Photo courtesy Spencer Lucas. Vertebrate Footprints (continued) Arthropod trackway in the Coconino that was shown in a drawing in Gilmore (1926).

32. Ichnologists have observed fresh lizard trackways on sand dunes and noted that individual tracks pointed uphill even where the animals moved sideways across the dune face. Some surfaces of the Coconino and other sandstones with fossil trackways also have high-index wind ripples, not low-index current ripples, indicating that they were made on land, not underwater. Coconino trackways have been found which go in all four directions and even make a U-turn. Fl ood geologists’ water tank experiments never demonstrated that underwater footprints could be made under conditions that were remotely close to a global Flood. Coconino specimen RAM 244 with numerous, deep footprints traveling in multiple directions. Normal, non-buoyant gait is indicated. Photo by Tim Helble, courtesy Raymond Alf Museum. Vertebrate Footprints (continued)

33. Even Brand acknowledged that fossil trackways exist at numerous different levels in the Coconino. In his 1979 paper, he described trackways at 15 locations along the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon within a 165 feet vertical span. At just one of those locations, he found tracks at six different levels within 2 feet. G iven the astronomical sedimentation rates required by the flood geology scenario, t he idea that it would even be possible for animals to leave tracks at hundreds of different levels during low-tide breaks in the Flood is an unsupportable magic wand. Dozens of track-bearing levels in the DeChelly Sandstone in the Mystery Valley of the Monument Valley region of Arizona. The DeChelly was deposited about the same time as the early Coconino. Modified from Lockley et al., 1995 . Vertebrate Footprints (continued) Artwork courtesy Casey Brose.

34. The author’s footprint in fine sand along the Colorado River being wiped out by a gentle wave. These show that the idea that footprints were made and preserved during breaks in the global Flood is unsupportable. Photos by Tim Helble, originally appeared as Figure 15-6 in The Grand Canyon Monument to an Ancient Earth . Vertebrate Footprints (continued)

35. Raindrop Imprints Flood geologists’ first argument against the raindrop imprint interpretation is that r aindrops in sandy substrates form a mottled surface rather than distinct craters like what is sometimes seen in the Coconino, T heir second argument is that “raindrop” prints in the Coconino typically occur in linear zones, not in randomly scattered patterns as one would expect. Their third argument is that some depressions are probably burrows or some other feature because the structures penetrate vertically up to 1 cm into the sand. The Charge : So-called raindrop imprints in the Coconino really are not raindrop imprints. Raindrop imprints on a Coconino specimen, most visible in the troughs of wind ripples. This specimen is from the layer that was deposited on top of the layer where the imprints were actually made, so each imprint is a small “bump.” Courtesy Science Museum of Minnesota . 6 main points

36. Raindrop Imprints (continued) Regarding what raindrop imprints look like, the deepness and spacing of depressions would depend on the size and number of raindrops and the nature of the surface. Raindrop imprints appear to be in rows because rain fell on wind-rippled dune surfaces, which flood geology cannot allow for. Differential erosion then slightly eroded the higher parts of some ripples, making the imprints appear to be in rows. Burrows do indeed exist in the Coconino, but these indicate animals living in a stable environment, not one where sediment was piling on at astronomical rates required by flood geology. Raindrop imprints in the Coconino, photographed by flood geologist John Whitmore. In his caption, Whitmore just can’t bring himself to acknowledge that raindrop imprints were made on wind ripples, stating: “ Ripples in the Coconino are often associated with parallel rows of crater-like features that some may have identified as ‘raindrop prints.’” From Whitmore and Garner (2018) Raindrop imprints in the Coconino. Photo courtesy David Elliott Burrow of a Taenidium serpentinum in the Coconino. Courtesy Museum of Northern Arizona x

37. Soft Sediment Deformation ( Parabolic Recumbent Folds) There are three sets of crossbeds in Lizard Head: an upper set, a middle set containing the contorted beds, and a lower set. Within the middle crossbed set, t he original dip was maintained above and below the deformation, indicating that the deformation was internal to the middle set. An unstated assumption of flood geologists is that water has no role in a desert, but deserts sometimes receive heavy rainfall and can have high water tables and surface water in localized areas. Evidence for the presence of water is always interpreted as evidence for a global flood. A better explanation for the contorted beds within the middle crossbed set is that downward dune collapse occurred into a zone of saturated sand which then underwent liquefaction. The Charge : Large contorted beds in the Coconino, like the ones in Lizard Head near Sedona, Arizona, could only be formed by strong water currents. Lizard Head near Sedona, Arizona. Photo by John Whitmore. 8 main points Diagram by flood geologist John Whitmore which tries to explain how crossbeds were overturned by a water current.

38. Such dune collapses could occur in slopes with unstable bedding structure and be triggered by local earthquakes. When the collapsing sand impacted saturated beds at the base of the dune, internal forces acting parallel to the crossbed dip were initiated, causing a bulge in the crossbeds along an underlying shear surface that created pseudo-bedding. Low-angle strata seen under Lizard Head, which are between crossbeds in the lower and middle sets, reveal a clear indicator of eolian processes: high-index wind ripples (measured ripple index = 150 mm/3 mm = 50). Therefore, the deformation occurred in dune deposits of eolian origin. Whitmore seems to be inventing an imaginary process: that flowing water could “overturn” crossbeds, similar to the way an omelette is flipped over with a spatula. Lizard Head with upper, middle, and lower crossbed sets annotated. The collapsing dune would have been to the right of the photo. Photo courtesy Gerald Bryant. Pseudo-bedding Soft Sediment Deformation ( Parabolic Recumbent Folds) (continued) Low-angle strata

39. High-index wind ripples Underside of Lizard Head. The high-index wind ripples show that the lamina exposed in the lower crossbed set formed in an eolian environment that was later saturated by water. Note how several “sheets” of laminae have fallen away near the tip, but all layers have wind ripples. These are known as climbing ripple laminae. Photo courtesy Gerald Bryant. Soft Sediment Deformation ( Parabolic Recumbent Folds) (continued)

40. Mica After a critic suggested that the Coconino has no mica, flood geologists found mica sandwiched between sand grains in thin sections of the Coconino . Alexander Struble, a student of John Whitmore, then conducted an experiment to test how well mica survives in a simulated eolian environment. This involved placing a small amount of muscovite-rich sand in a gallon pickle jar and running a propeller inside the lid at a speed that caused a small “dune” to migrate around the bottom. After 4 days, all mica flakes were abraded down to between 0.2 and 0.5 mm in size. By 20 days, all flakes were between 0.12 and 0.2 mm. These results were published in the journal Aeolian Research (see graph next page). The Charge : Mica was found in the Coconino. Mica disappears in eolian transport, so it could only be there if the Coconino was deposited underwater. Apparatus used by Alexander Struble to simulate the abrasion of mica in an eolian environment. From Aeolian Research article by Anderson, Struble, and Whitmore (2017) 9 main points

41. Mica (continued) This describes the size of mica flakes after four days in the pickle jar: they ranged from 0.2 to 0.5 mm, with most between 0.23 and 0.35 mm and a median of 0.30 mm A second experiment was conducted where mica and sand were tumbled in a jar with water. After a year, mica flakes could still be seen. Flood geologists concluded that aqueous processes could transport mica much greater distances than eolian processes. When describing the results of their first experiment in media targeted for lay audiences , John Whitmore states that the mica “disappears” in two (or four) days, but reducing mica flakes to somewhere between 0.2 and 0.5 mm is clearly not the same as disappearing . In one case, Whitmore stated “ all the muscovite was gone, we couldn’t find any more .” Photos of Coconino thin sections in articles by Whitmore and his associates show mica flakes between 0.1 to 0.3 m m except for one that is about 0.4 m m. Thus mica from their first pickle jar experiment, a simulated eolian environment, was the same size as mica in the Coconino. Graph from Anderson, Struble, and Whitmore (2017) showing the size of mica flakes produced in the pickle jar experiment at times specified along the vertical axis. The longer the time in the jar with the propeller running, the smaller the mica flakes.

42. Mica (continued) A major point never addressed by flood geologists is that mica flakes from the Sahara Desert, which are similar in size to those in the Coconino, are routinely blown at least 570 miles offshore to the Cabo Verde Islands and even 2,700 miles into the Atlantic. Van der Does et al. (2016) report that mica up to 350 μm (0.35 mm) was found on the Cabo Verde Islands. These Saharan dust plumes show that mica would not have to bounce great distances across the land together with sand to reach the Coconino erg. Strong winds in the Western Interior Desert could easily loft mica thousands of feet into the atmosphere which later settled over the Coconino. Flood geologists concede that mica exists in modern sand dunes that are close to a source, but they never discuss airborne transport or possible nearby sources for the Coconino. Saharan dust plume over the Atlantic Ocean. Courtesy NASA.

43. Mica (continued) Excerpt from a 2019 Answers Magazine article where John Whitmore states that mica in the pickle jar experiment disappeared after four days. Whitmore will no doubt say that there is nothing wrong with saying that the mica disappeared because they could no longer see it with their eyes. But why did he hide the fact that it was the same size as mica in the Coconino?

44. Mica size: about 130 µm (0.13 mm) Mica (continued) Mica size: about 140 µm (0.14 mm) Mica size: about 210 µm (0.21 mm) Mica size: about 190 µm (0.19 mm) The 16 images on this and the next two pages are Coconino thin sections produced by Ray Strom which were used in various articles by John Whitmore and his associates. These show that the size of mica they found in the Coconino ranges from 0.07 to 0.43 mm. All of these are less than the 0.5 mm maximum found after four days of Alexander Struble’s pickle jar experiment. The image almost always used by Whitmore in his presentations is the one with the largest flake (0.43 mm), which suggests that he knew small mica was a problem. Photos are from Whitmore, Strom, Cheung, and Garner (2014) and Whitmore and Garner (2018) . Stacked mica flakes. Photo by Pascal Terjan , Creative Commons 2.0 license

45. Mica (continued) Mica size: about 130 µm (0.13 mm) Mica size: about 430 µm (0.43 mm) Mica size: about 220 µm (0.22 mm) Mica size: about 350 µm (0.35 mm) Mica size: about 70 to 270 µm (0.07 to 0.27 mm) Mica size: about 180 µm (0.18 mm)

46. Mica size: about 290 µm (0.29 mm) Mica size: about 240 µm (0.24 mm) Mica size: about 150 µm (0.15 mm) Mica size: about 230 µm (0.23 mm) Mica (continued) Mica size: about 90 to 230 µm (0.09 to 0.23 mm) Mica size: about 110 µm (0.11 mm)

47. Dr. Whitmore was apparently unaware of, or chose to ignore, what the established sedimentology literature has to say about mica and other fines in sand dunes. In the book “Aeolian Sand and Sand Dunes” by Kenneth Pye and Haim Tsoar , which is widely recognized as the definitive tome on the subject, clay minerals and mica are listed as some of the minerals commonly found in eolian deposits (page 48) and the following is stated on page 256: Fine allochthonous* sediment components may be introduced into a dune sand body by deposition of airborne dust, by surface wash from higher ground, by laterally migrating ground water, and by release of opal phytoliths from dune vegetation. In the case of unvegetated dunes, fines settle only temporarily during periods of sand stability and are periodically injected back into the atmosphere to be carried away in suspension. The average content of fines in active dune sands therefore rarely exceeds 1%, although thin clay crusts and drapes may form in interdune hollows where rain water accumulates. In the case of stabilized dunes, deposited fines are able to accumulate and form distinctive silty horizons near the sand surface. Because of their tendency to think (or at least write) in all-or-nothing (binary) terms, flood geologists would no doubt argue that the words “fines settle only temporarily during periods of sand stability and are periodically injected back into the atmosphere…” mean that zero fines remain in the sand, while ignoring the words “the average content of fines in active dune sands therefore rarely exceeds 1%...” They would probably then imply that <1% is the same as zero, but just because the percentage is very small doesn’t mean no fines at all could be buried in the sand. *allochthonous refers to something that must have traveled a distance to reach its present position. Mica (continued) - Important Additional Point

48. In case anyone is doubting that flood geologists made misleading statements about mica to their young-earth believing target audience, consider what was stated during presentation of the paper The Significance of Micas in Ancient Cross-Bedded Sandstones a t the 8 th International Conference on Creationism. The first part of the talk is Dr. Whitmore’s students from Cedarville University discussing the results of their pickle jar experiment. The last part is Dr. Whitmore summarizing the results of their experiments. At T = 7:20, George Hartree states that “after just 24 hours, that the mean long axis of the micas that we pulled out of the sand was already down to about 1000 microns, after about 48 hours, it was even about half of that; and after 96 hours, that the micas were all less than 500 microns...” At T = 31:19, Dr. Whitmore states “…and we were astounded at how fast this mineral disappeared in air and how long it lasted in water; I mean, Calvin came to me one day after the experiment had been rolling on a lab bench outside for a year and we’re like, you know, is it time to stop this yet? I mean, it just wasn’t disappearing.” At T = 31:46 Dr. Whitmore states “But also, the other results that people have found tell us something very interesting as well. I was very pleased to come across the studies by Garzanti in the Namibia; they were frequently finding these muscovite flakes all along the Atlantic coast there in South Africa and Namibia, but as soon as that sand got picked up by the wind and transported to the sand dunes, this stuff disappears. And it disappears because it’s very soft. Dr. Whitmore seems fixated on the word “disappear,” while his students are honest enough to give the actual size. Mica (continued) - Final Point

49. D olomite, Marine Minerals, and Angular Feldspar Formations like the Coconino do not have neat, clean edges and are not made of just one type of sediment, even when their name (e.g., “sandstone”) suggests otherwise. Sediment from one depositional environment will transition to, or interfinger with, sediments of neighboring environments. It is not surprising that dolomite interfingers with northern parts of the Coconino, since the Coconino was surrounded by the sea on three sides at the time of deposition. Conventional geologists realize that eolian sands in a shoreline area can be reworked in shallow sea waters . The Charge : Dolomite, marine minerals, ooids, and angular feldspar have been found in the Coconino, indicating a marine depositional environment. Dolomite beds (numbered) interfingering with Coconino sands at Andrus Point, Arizona. This location is in the western Grand Canyon area of northwest Arizona. The Coconino is thin in this area and would be expected to show eolian/marine interfingering, since it is in the region near the sea shore when the Coconino was deposited (see paleomap to the right). Photo by John Whitmore. Andrus Point L ocation of Andrus Point on the previously shown paleomap . From Mack and Bauer (2014). 7 main points

50. Regarding ooids, f lood geologists argue that eolian transport “is difficult to envisage bearing in mind the fragility of these ooids.” O oids found by flood geologists were in the top part of the Coconino and north of the Colorado River. Flood geologists acknowledge that the overlying Toroweap Formation interfingers with northern parts of the Coconino, but ignore the impacts that the sea would have as it advanced inland and reworked upper parts of the Coconino. F lood geologists state that it is difficult to understand how angular K-feldspars could survive in an eolian environment without becoming rapidly rounded unless there was a nearby fluvial (stream) or bedrock source. They acknowledge that feldspar concentration is greater in north parts of the Coconino, b ut made no effort to identify possible nearby sources close to the northern Coconino, such as deposits of sediment eroded from the Ancestral Rockies or even closer uplifts. They even state “there are no obvious nearby potential sources.” This is probably because the Ancestral Rockies don’t fit well in their flood model. Thin slice of calcitic ooids showing the layering formed around a nucleus. Photo courtesy Mark A. Wilson Ooids found in the northern part of the Coconino Sandstone. Photo by John Whitmore. D olomite, Marine Minerals, and Angular Feldspar (continued)

51. Sand Grain Frosting Flood geologists are correct that sand grain frosting was not caused by collisions. However, researchers have known for several decades that frosting has other causes. In 1962, Kuenen and Perdok stated that “frosting of quartz grains is thought to be due in minor degree to mechanical action (1) by wind and (2) by water, but mainly to chemical action (3) by corrosive solutions and (4) by alternate solution and deposition of matter, especially in desert areas.” The Charge : The frosting of sand grains in the Coconino did not occur by ballistic collisions of grains in an eolian environment as some have imagined .* In 1978, Folk pointed out that in dunes of the Simpson Desert of Australia, silica is precipitated as scabby, “turtle-skin” crusts on top of sand grains, and is re-precipitated as water evaporates deeper within the dunes. The recycling of sands from earlier sedimentary rocks into the Coconino could also have played a role in the frosting process. Frosted sand grains in the Coconino. From Whitmore and Garner (2018). 5 main points *The only flood geology critics I have been able to find who said the frosting was caused by grain collisions wa s Steve Newton of the NCSE in a 2014 article and YouTuber Wildwood Claire in a 2014 video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5ezkFM9tGM&t=42s )

52. Thickness The argument makes the unsupportable assumption that multiple basins could not form gradually in the same deep time frame. Note: flood geologists are committing the assumed conclusion fallacy here. Differing crust characteristics on a regional or continental scale and sideways tectonic forces slowly deforming the crust could allow this to happen before and/or while the Coconino was deposited. Surveyed elevations and compiled regional stratigraphic data show that basins did indeed provide abundant space for Coconino sands to accumulate, especially south of an upward deformation in underlying rock known as the Sedona Arch. The Charge : Modern sand dunes are not as thick as the Coconino, and the Coconino could not have been deposited in a slowly subsiding basin because it crosses through many ancient basins. Northwest-southeast cross section of Permian formations in northern Arizona. This clearly shows that the Coconino fills large basins. Courtesy Ron Blakey. 3 main points

53. Sand Waves Flood geologists use diagrams developed by conventional geologists which depict cross bed patterns produced by underwater sand waves. However, they obscure the fact that depositing the Coconino by such normal processes would take at least hundreds of years. Depositing the Coconino in a matter of days would require the equivalent of regional-scale slabs of sand sliding in each day that were dozens of feet high – an impossible environment for sand wave formation. Flood geologists say they don’t think that the Coconino exactly represents sand waves, but imagine some kind of really strong sediment-laden currents that occurred during the Flood. This raises the question: why then do they keep bringing up underwater sand waves? The Charge : Large sand waves comparable to those in the Coconino have been found in many marine settings. T he Coconino was deposited by sand waves during the global Flood “in a matter of a few days.” Model of the internal structure and formation of subaqueous dunes that Whitmore and Garner (2018) borrowed from sedimentologist J.R.L. Allen (1980) . Whitmore states that “the most similar dunes to those found in the Coconino are Class IA.” 4 main points

54. Sand Waves (continued) Excerpt from a 1992 Answers in Genesis article by Andrew Snelling and Steve Austin which claimed that sands of the Coconino Sandstone were transported at least 200 to 300 miles in a matter of days. The problem with this argument is that if you transport the sand there in a matter of days, the sand has to be deposited as sand waves in its final destination in a matter of days. The next nine slides will show that this is quantitatively absurd.

55. Sand Waves (continued) Depiction in an Answers in Genesis article of how sand waves would form crossbeds in an underwater environment. Sand wave formation depicted in another Answers in Genesis article with the caption: “ Schematic diagram showing the formation of cross beds during sand deposition by migration of underwater sand waves due to sustained water flow.” 3-D computer-generated map of underwater sand waves outside the Golden Gate, CA. This is used by flood geologists to argue for aqueous deposition of the Coconino. Note how there are no sand waves where the current is strongest under the bridge. From Barnard (2006).

56. 15° 15° 16° 17° 17° 16° 14° 16° 8° 10° 5° 8° 8° 7° 6° 7° Vertical scale exaggerated Profile of underwater dunes near the Golden Gate for the two transects shown on the map at right. I (Tim Helble) then estimated the steepest angle for each slope in these dunes using the scales provided in the diagrams. Interestingly, while the dunes at the Golden Gate are used by flood geologists to argue that underwater dunes are steep, all of them are 17° or less. From Barnard (2006) Computer-generated map of underwater sand waves outside the Golden Gate, showing two transects analyzed to the right. Blue arrows show water current directions when the tide is flowing out of San Francisco Bay. From Barnard (2006) Sand Waves (continued) The Golden Gate bridge is here.

57. 6° Underwater photo of the dune slope in the B-B’ transect to the right (second one from the top), showing anchoring underwater life that allows the slope to be so steep. Also note the shells – no marine fossils exist in the Coconino. From Barnard (2006). 32° 15° 21° 28° 13° Sand Waves (continued) Profile of underwater dunes for six transects in the Long Island Sound, NY. Note the very steep slopes for transects B-B’ and E-E’, while the others are more typical of underwater sand waves. Whitmore uses these to argue that marine sand waves can be very steep. From Barnard (2006)

58. Is Aqueous Deposition the Same as Global Flood Deposition? This section deals with an implicit assumption of all flood geology arguments – that all they have to show is that the Coconino was deposited by water, then that automatically translates to global Flood deposition . Flood geology articles targeted for lay readers depict Coconino crossbeds as being formed by the washing of sand grains over the top of underwater dunes , which is a normal sediment transport process. Even if the previously discussed flood geology “charges” were correct, only normal underwater sediment transport processes would be indicated. Conventional geology accepts that many sedimentary formations were deposited in a variety of aqueous environments, but these involved plausible geomorphological processes – some gradual, some catastrophic – that are consistent with the continuity principle and laws of physics. Flood geologists must make an astronomical jump to equate normal water deposition to global Flood deposition and then hope this will go unnoticed. They have never provided any evidence for rapid deposition, only purported evidence for aqueous deposition. Crabs fossilized in marine Monterey Formation. No such marine fossils exist in the Coconino. Photo courtesy David M. Appleton Answers in Genesis. 13 main points

59. Is Aqueous Deposition the Same as Global Flood Deposition? (continued) In the 2011 PSCF article Sediment Transport and the Coconino Sandstone: A Reality Check on Flood Geology , deposition of the Coconino in a matter of days was shown to be the equivalent of thick sediment slabs advancing across a multi-state region each day. Before transport to the Coconino North South Flood geologists aren’t just arguing that the Coconino was deposited by the global Flood , t hey maintain that most of the continental sedimentary record was deposited in less than a year. The larger 150,000 square mile Colorado Plateau can be used in another reality check on flood geology. T he equivalent of a box that is about 390 miles by 390 miles by 3.2 miles deep = 480,000 cubic miles would have to be filled with sediment in less than a year. After transport to the Coconino Flood geologist Steve Austin states that the volume of the Coconino is about 10,000 cubic miles. His own scenario for Colorado Plateau deposition only allows about 10 days for Coconino deposition. The underlying map is based on the one in Austin’s 1994 book Grand Canyon Monument to Catastrophe , modified to show a hypothetical source area for Coconino sands on the left side (medium purple) and Austin’s area for the present-day Coconino on the right side (light purple). 10 Days? 10,000 cubic miles of sand

60. Assuming Flood sediments were instantly compacted and dewatered during deposition (which is physically impossible for silts and clays), they would have to pile up in the plateau region at a rate of about 75 feet per day. Alternatively, the equivalent of a 75-foot-thick slab of sediment would have to slide in sideways at about 16 mph and cover the plateau each day. With such astronomical transport rates, a global Flood would not be able to produce sand waves and crossbeds, let alone a fantastically complicated global sedimentary record with innumerable facies changes, trace fossils, body fossils, and a host of other detailed features. Schematic representation of Colorado Plateau sedimentation by the global Flood. A: Situation at start of Flood showing pre-Flood sediment accumulations totaling 480,000 cubic miles located immediately “upstream” from the empty “box” where they will be deposited as the Colorado Plateau. Different colors represent discrete types of sediment that will be deposited in different layers. B: Situation after deposition of 480,000 cubic miles of Colorado Plateau layers. Is Aqueous Deposition the Same as Global Flood Deposition? (continued) (B efore erosion)

61. Visualization of sediment transport rate required to deposit 480,000 cubic miles of Colorado Plateau strata in 224 days. This shows how each day, the equivalent of a 75 feet high sediment slab would have to slide at 16 miles per hour (23 feet per second) and cover 12,875 side-by-side football fields (390 miles wide) every 16 seconds. Such an astronomical sediment transport rate shows the implausibility of flood geology. The idea that any kind of detailed feature in the sedimentary record could be produced under such a scenario is quantitatively absurd. See animation of this graphic at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kytSz9iAxuo Is Aqueous Deposition the Same as Global Flood Deposition? (continued) The slab would have to slide about as fast as Bo Jackson in his famous 91-yard TD run into the tunnel at the L.A. Coliseum in 1987: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td4h2BCc1t0

62. Just one example of the detail in the stratigraphic record that could not be produced at deposition rates of 75 vertical feet per day. Right side: Strata revealed at the St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm , comprised of the upper 10 feet of the Dinosaur Canyon Member of the Moenave Formation, topped by the 65-feet thick Whitmore Point Member of the Moenave Formation. From Milner et al, 2009 . Upper left: Generalized stratigraphic diagram of the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area. Bracket shows where strata at right fit in the diagram at the left. Based on diagram by Tim Helble in Hill et al., 2016. Is Aqueous Deposition the Same as Global Flood Deposition? (continued) How could a layer of stromatolites form in less than a day?

63. When flood geologists argue that the Coconino is part of a much larger regional sand sheet covering all or parts of 14 western U.S. states, they make the sediment transport problem even worse. Obscured in their maps and charts attempting to link dozens of different formations across these states is the fact that these formations are not all linked in one “sheet” as implied and not all are pure “sandstones” that originated in the same depositional environment. The larger the area, the more astronomical the lateral sediment transport rate must be to deposit the “Flood layers” in that area during the flood year. It can be shown using simple math that each time the area of a region is doubled, the sediment transport rate (volume/time per unit length of line crossed) required to fill it must increase by a factor of √ 2 . Specific sandstone formations that Whitmore attempted to link using five cross-section diagrams that cross multiple states. Modified from Whitmore, 2019 . __ Is Aqueous Deposition the Same as Global Flood Deposition? (continued)

64. Conclusion In the final analysis, deposition of the Coconino Sandstone by wind over a long period of time and not a one-year global flood is indicated by: T he presence of wind ripples, even in places where flood geologists tried to use features to argue for aqueous deposition; T he presence of animal trackways which were clearly produced at numerous different levels and times in sediment exposed to the air; T he sharp boundary between the Coconino and underlying Hermit Formation at most locations, indicating that Hermit muds had at least multiple centuries to dewater, compact, and lithify before sands were added on top; and T he astronomical deposition rates that would be required for a global flood to deposit the entire Coconino in a matter of days, which would preclude existence of any kind of detailed features, including ripples, animal trackways, sand waves, and crossbeds. 2) Some of flood geologists’ Coconino findings may have the positive effect of spurring future researchers to collect more data and develop improved hypothesis. 22 main points

65. Conclusion (continued) M ost of flood geologists’ findings are of limited usefulness because they are basically playing a “look here, not there” game. For example, they use trackways in calm or very low current water tanks to argue for a catastrophic global Flood. In placing so much emphasis on refuting their critics and seeking to frame their data to support aqueous deposition, flood geologists missed opportunities to increase scientific understanding of the Coconino. I n setting out to find and present data which they believe refutes their critics, flood geologists limit themselves to the older research tradition – cataloging features and characteristics. The newer approach used in conventional geology distinguishes process from features and characteristics, seeking an understanding of how the data fits together through processes known to operate in the real world (actualism). A 1998 editorial cartoon by John Trever of the Albuquerque Journal. This basically summarizes the approach used by flood geologists in their Coconino research. Used with John Trever’s permission.

66. Conclusion (continued) C onventional geologists see how formation A points to aqueous deposition and neighboring formation B points to eolian processes, then seek to develop a viable process-response model which explains how both could be true at the same time. With flood geology, the predetermined goal is to persuade people that both formations A and B point to aqueous processes. Flood geologists’ Coconino Sandstone arguments may seem convincing at first to those unfamiliar with the earth sciences, but can be addressed after careful research of both flood and conventional geology sources. Medano Creek in Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve in Colorado. If this area became part of the rock record at some point in the distant future, geologists would be able to see where eolian sands were reworked by water flowing in from a distant source. This doesn’t mean the whole dune system was deposited by water. Photo by Patrick Myers, courtesy National Park Service.

67. The way the results of the pickle jar experiment were characterized as “the mica disappears after two (or four) days” illustrates how flood geologists must shoehorn their findings into a mold shaped by their own narrative and leave out the data and explanations that do not fit. The same holds true for their crossbed dip argument and many others. Conclusion (continued) Christians are offered a false choice – either accept this approach as good science or you “don’t evidently believe God’s Word is true.” Perhaps it is time to consider that God operated over long eons of time in ways that are more difficult to comprehend than explanations supposedly required by so-called “literal interpretations” of the Bible. Flood geologist John Whitmore in a Youtube interview trying to characterize critics as saying that all Coconino crossbeds are at the angle of repose.

68. The young-earth ministries have become very proficient at using articles, videos, and presentations to frame features like the Coconino Sandstone in ways that convince Christians who are unfamiliar with the complexities of geology, that science really supports a global flood. Conclusion (continued) When trying to shoehorn the observational evidence to support a young earth, what get s lost is that the Christian faith and an ancient earth are both true. Many Christians have unwittingly accepted the idea that it is just a matter of “same data, different conclusions” or “there are PhD scientists on both sides of the issue.” Flood geologist Andrew Snelling at a 2009 creation conference using Austin’s graphical procedure from Grand Canyon Monument to Catastrophe to claim that 10,000 cubic miles of Coconino sands were deposited by 2 to 4 mph water currents “in just a few days.” Note: this argument is quantitatively absurd in the extreme, but the audience at Thomas Road Baptist Church had no way of knowing this. Whitmore never uses this argument. Photo by Tim Helble

69. A very important lesson to be learned from all this is that flood geology critics need to keep up on the latest research on eolian dunes and eolian sandstones. Much of what flood geologist John Whitmore wrote used over-generalizing or incorrect statements by flood geology critics as launching points for his arguments. Also, it is very important for flood geology critics to be familiar with what flood geologists have published in creationist and conventional geology journals. Many times, critics have made statements which showed that they haven’t read the articles published by flood geologists. This gave flood geologists a propaganda advantage with their target audience because they could say that the critic hasn’t bothered to read their articles. When characterizing critics to be saying that “ all Coconino crossbeds are near the angle of repose” or telling lay audiences “the mica disappears in two (or four) days,” Whitmore and his associates appear to be arguing for propaganda purposes rather than engaging in a effort to advance scientific understanding. By presenting information as if there are only two options, flood geologists seem to be assuming that their target audience can only think in all-or-nothing (binary) terms. Flood geologists and conventional geologists are really writing to different audiences. The persuasive writing style used by flood geologists and the way they avoid evaluating obvious alternate explanations shows that they are writing to a lay audience for propaganda purposes. In peer-review journals, conventional geologists are writing to other scientists, trying to convey information which can be used to develop or refine process-response models that explain how all the features fit together in an area. Conclusion (continued, additional points not in the article )

70. There is a huge elephant in the room that is being ignored: If the Coconino was deposited by water just like all the other Grand Canyon formations, can flood geologists explain why it is so dominated by angular crossbeds while the formations immediately above and below the Coconino have mostly horizontal beds? How did the characteristics of raging Flood waters change so suddenly and drastically to produce this obvious change in bedding pattern? Conclusion (continued, additional points not in the article )

71. Whitmore and Garner (2018) came close to acknowledging the implausibility of depositing the Coconino in a matter of days when they stated: “It is likely the Coconino was deposited during the Flood by depositional processes operating at rates that we have not yet been able to model in the laboratory or with the computer.” Conclusion (continued, additional points not in the article ) Coconino Sandstone pinnacle near the Grandview Trail. Photo by Tim Helble.

72. For an excellent discussion about current and future research on the Coconino where the geologist is just following the data wherever it leads, please see Dr. Rickey Bartlett’s 43-minute presentation entitled Ancient America: The Riddle of Arizona's Coconino Sandstone at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFp_qNiwyjo Interestingly, the above graphic appears in Bartlett’s presentation. It came from Whitmore and Garner’s 2018 article in the Answers Research Journal . This shows that at least one conventional geologist is reading what flood geologists are publishing.

73. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Drs. Gerald Bryant and Spencer Lucas for their reviews and comments on the article, Dr. Ron Blakey for providing graphics and answering many of my questions, and Dr. Ricky Bartlett for his update on current trackway research . Thanks also go out to the anonymous reviewers in the ASA ; James Peterson, the editor of the PSCF ; and Lyn Berg, the layout specialist for the PSCF . Special thanks go to Daniel Gibson, who lined up many Coconino Sandstone experts who contributed to this project.