[Copying this post over from FB. Original author is Tim Helble 1,2. – Dan]
I wanted to let the group know that my article “Flood Geology and Conventional Geology Face Off over the Coconino Sandstone” from the September 2024 edition of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith is now outside the paywall. Here is the link:
This post would qualify as shameless self promotion, but I really feel that we need to use the points raised in this article when dealing with young earth creationists who are parroting claims about eolian sandstones that they don’t even understand.
Below are some key points that I just finished writing up in response to John Whitmore’s brief response to my PSCF article (I left the footnote references in there):
To reiterate, the intent of the 2024 PSCF article was not to present new data. Rather, it was to expose the tactics used by Dr. Whitmore and his associates in framing the data to argue for aqueous deposition. Let’s review a few of these tactics by taking a quick look at the 11 items Whitmore and Garner listed in their abstract.
Rounding and Sorting. Whitmore and Garner found that “… the Coconino is sub-angular in northern Arizona and sub-rounded in central Arizona” and “more poorly sorted in northern Arizona compared to central Arizona.”17 In arriving at this conclusion, they basically went through a lot of effort to prove what was already known about large eolian dunes. Researchers such as Lancaster (1995)18 and McKee (1979)19 found that inland sand dunes have rounding and sorting characteristics that are similar to the Coconino. So yes, Whitmore and Garner showed that critics were incorrect in stating that Coconino sand grains are well-rounded and well-sorted, but they didn’t really advance the science. Interestingly, McKee (1934) stated: “A careful study of sand grains from 26 samples representing various horizons and localities in the Coconino formation showed that practically all were either rounded or subangular.”20 Whitmore and Garner seem reluctant to give McKee any credit for his 90-year-old observation about the rounding of Coconino sand grains, preferring to single out the errors of more recent critics instead.
Micas. This one gets interesting in a hurry. The general view among sedimentologists is that mica in a sandstone is an indicator of water deposition, although mica is also mentioned as a component of some land sand dunes. After critics Davis Young and Ralph Stearley stated that mica was wafted away when the Coconino was deposited,21 Dr. Whitmore had thin sections made from numerous Coconino samples and found mica flakes ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 mm in most samples.22 He then had one of his students test the survivability of mica in a simulated aeolian environment23 – a pickle jar with a propeller – and began informing lay audiences that the mica “disappeared” or “was obliterated” in two to four days.24 Dr. Whitmore will no doubt justify using the words “disappeared” or “obliterated” by saying that the mica was not visible to the naked eye. But then why did he hide the fact that his student’s paper, for which Dr. Whitmore was a co-author, states that the mica flakes were abraded down to 0.2 to 0.5 mm after 4 days (Figure 4), especially when this is the same size range as mica in the Coconino?
References in Dr. Whitmore’s papers indicate that he must have been aware of the widely-accepted theory that, during Coconino time, strong seasonal winds blew from the north from a vast interior area known as the Western Interior Desert.25 However, he may not have been aware of the research showing that mica flakes can travel great distances when they are suspended in the atmosphere. For example, mica flakes are routinely blown over 2,500 miles out into the Atlantic from the Sahara Desert, which is the best analog to the Western Interior Desert source existing during Coconino time.26 To support their idea that desert dunes can’t contain mica, Dr. Whitmore collected lots of data and findings on dunes which don’t have an airborne mica source, like those in the Namib Desert.
Angular feldspars. Whitmore and Garner 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.27 They acknowledge that feldspar concentration is greater in northern parts of the Coconino, but never evaluate the possibility of nearby fluvial or bedrock sources. One of the many challenges in sedimentary geology is that you are often dealing with sediment sources that don’t exist anymore, such as the Ancestral Rocky Mountains or what McKee terms “Mazatzal Land” in central Arizona. A more scientific approach to angular feldspar in the Coconino can be illustrated by McKee’s statement from 90 years ago: “Quite certainly the climate of Coconino time was at least semi-arid and probably arid as pointed out in another section (Climate, p. 110), but even so the possible distance of travel of the feldspar must have been limited by factors of decomposition.” In contrast, Whitmore and Garner’s tactic is to minimize the possibility that local sources existed and emphasize a global Flood as the mechanism for long-distance sediment transport.
Dolomite. Whitmore and Garner acknowledge that “the Coconino interfingers with a number of aqueous deposits, both laterally and vertically around its margins.”28 But then later, they argue that “The presence of dolomite, in four different forms, in the Coconino strongly argues for aqueous deposition.”29 Essentially, they are saying that since dolomite was found around the margins of the Coconino, the entire formation must be of aqueous origin. This is a classic example of the fallacy of composition – assuming that something true for individual elements of a collection is also true for all elements of the collection. It should not be surprising to find that the Coconino intertongues with dolomite along its margins, since it was surrounded by the sea on three sides at the time of deposition. What Whitmore and Garner really need to explain is how thin layers of dolomite could delicately intertongue with Coconino sands during a violent global Flood when sediment is being deposited at rates in the tens of vertical feet per day.
Cross-bed angles. On this topic, Whitmore and Garner seem to be deliberately providing information that can be used to mislead their lay target audience. They make it appear that all cross beds in the Coconino must be at or close to the angle of repose for land sand dunes (~33 degrees) for it to be of eolian origin.30 Then, they effectively dismantle that strawman with data for cross bed angles that they collected. However, if you slice open any land sand dune, you see a variety of bedding angles – some shallow, some intermediate, and some steep. I have observed in social media that various versions of Whitmore and Garner’s cross-bed angle argument have been very effective with their lay target audience, but they don’t stand up to observation. This may be why young earth/flood geologists like Andrew Snelling use it so frequently: all you need to do is hide the fact that modern dunes have a variety of bedding angles and you’ve won over those who don’t know any better.
Footprints. The science of ichnology continues to advance our understanding of fossil footprints. However, Whitmore and Garner still use the work of Dr. Leonard Brand from the 1970’s to 1990’s as if it trumps all more recent research. Sometimes, Whitmore and Garner stretch Dr. Brand’s findings beyond their original context, creating new “evidence” for a global Flood from Dr. Brand’s old papers. For example, they cite Brand and Tang’s observation of newts producing scratch marks in a calm water tank when claiming that trackways going across a dune face were made by an animal being swept sideways by a water current.31 Brand and Tang (1991) did mention scratch marks made underwater by newts, but Dr. Brand recently stated that he was referring to his 1978 water tank experiments with no current.32
Given how easily footprints are destroyed by even a mild water current, it is somewhat humorous how flood geologists still use them to argue for a global Flood. Whitmore and Garner try to turn the problem on its head by making it appear that fossil footprints on dunes exposed to the air are actually a problem for conventional ichnology. They state: “Any wind strong enough to move an animal sideways on a dune would almost certainly obliterate its tracks.”33 But they conveniently avoid how easily tracks are obliterated by gentle waves (Figure 5). Whitmore and Garner never address how “time outs” could even occur during a global Flood to allow animals to walk around on multiple strata levels. The suggestion by other flood geologists that tidal fluctuations could allow Flood waters to repeatedly dissipate over a broad region, like that occupied by the Coconino, is inconsistent with the known principles of hydraulics.
A new discovery looming on the horizon should put to rest all efforts to link footprints to a global Flood. Dr. Rickey Bartlett has found traces of an ecosystem of vertebrates and invertebrates of various size walking, crawling, or burrowing every which way on a few millimeters-thick layer of clay covering slabs of Coconino Sandstone.34 Not only does this validate the idea of airborne clay being transported by monsoonal winds, it also indicates that an oasis existed in an interdune area – something that Whitmore and Garner don’t even think could be present in the Coconino dune complex.35 An example of such oasis can be found in the Rub-Al-Khali in Saudi Arabia (Figure 6). One would not expect to find traces of an ecosystem on a thin layer of clay if sand was being deposited at rates in the tens of vertical feet per day.
Ripples. Whitmore and Garner continue to ignore the ripple index (wavelength ÷ ripple height), a long-established criteria for distinguishing water current ripples from wind ripples. A ripple index less than 10-15 indicates water ripples while a ripple index greater than 10-15 indicates wind ripples. The ripple index, first proposed by Kindle (1917),36 is widely accepted in the definitive tomes on sand dunes, such as Bagnold (1941),37 McKee (1979),38 and Pye and Tsoar (1990).39 Whitmore and Garner acknowledge that “low-amplitude” ripples exist in the Coconino and refer to them as “called ‘wind ripples’ by some,” but avoid specifically mentioning the ripple index. When McKee (1945) measured ripple index for 21 Coconino specimens, he found that it ranged from 17 to 98, placing them solidly in the wind ripple category.40
If they ever deal with the ripple index, Whitmore and Garner will probably diminish its importance by citing how the sedimentological literature says it is not a decisive parameter.41 This caveat applies to ripple indices between 10 and 15, a “zone of uncertainty” which allows for the variable effects of grain size and wind velocity. However, the farther a ripple index is from that zone of uncertainty, the more decisive it becomes. For example, for fine sand with a ripple index much greater than 10-15, wind ripples are clearly indicated as was the case for McKee’s samples. So yes, ripple index is one of “many eolian arguments that have been presented for the Coconino for more than 90 years,” but why did Whitmore and Garner avoid it? It will be interesting to see if Whitmore and Garner return to sand dunes and the Coconino to collect data for ripple index. Given their past practice of ignoring or downplaying anything that goes against their narrative, any data they present would need to be verified.
Timing of the sand injectites. In Dr. Whitmore’s 2010 Sedimentary Geology paper,42 he only considered that the Hermit cracks filled with Coconino sands could have formed either when mud cracks formed in the right after the Coconino was deposited or some 250 million years later during the Laramide Orogeny. He is still unwilling to consider the third option on the geologic time scale – that the cracks could have formed due to upward and/or lateral tectonic forces on a lithified Hermit Formation after deposition of at least some Coconino sands. Perhaps this is because he doesn’t want to admit to an error in his Sedimentology paper and has so much capital invested in the story he tells to young-earth believing audiences about how his poster on sand injectites flustered a geologist at a Geologic Society of America conference.43
Whitmore and Garner continue to ignore an inconvenient problem: if silts and clays of the Hermit Formation had been deposited all at once during a global Flood, these fine-grained sediments would take an extraordinarily long time just to dewater, compact, and lithify – certainly more than what would be available with a 6- to 10-thousand-year-old earth. This clay consolidation problem was described by Scott Dunn in a 2024 article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. This article points out that you can’t just pile heavy loads on top of just-transported, thick deposits of fines like clay and silt and expect to see sharply defined boundaries between the two. This is because so much water would exist in all the tiny pore spaces between fines that it would take thousands up to hundreds of thousands of years to squeeze it all out and consolidate the fines before they could lithify into siltstone, mudstone, or shale.44
“Raindrop” prints. Whitmore and Garner do not seriously evaluate the possibility that the imprints in the Coconino appear to be in linear zones because they were made on wind ripples.45 Even Whitmore and Garner’s own photos show wind ripples. Whitmore and Garner correctly point out that a heavy rain will produce a mottled sand surface. However, they are unwilling to consider the possibility that imprints were made during a brief “splattering” of a few large raindrops, which is common in a desert. Whitmore and Garner are probably also correct that some larger marks on Coconino beds are burrows, but these indicate animals in a stable environment, not one where sediment was piling on at rates in the tens of feet per day. Their opposition to the conventional view is understandable: wind ripples with raindrop prints don’t fit with a global Flood.
Frosting. Whitmore and Garner stake their case on refuting the idea that Coconino sand grains were frosted by grain collisions.46 It turns out they were correct, but frosting can’t be used as evidence for water deposition. Researchers have known for several decades that frosting of sand grains in desert dunes has other causes. Two “critics” who Dr. Whitmore goes after for their old earth position on the Coconino, Davis Young and Ralph Stearley, correctly describe how individual sand grain surfaces become frosted in desert dunes:
“They exhibit a distinctive texture and are termed ‘frosted.’ Such ‘frosting’ is actually a coating of microscopic silica that forms in arid environments in response to periodic, rare wetting events and subsequent drying.47”
Of course, Whitmore and Garner don’t credit Young and Stearley for their correct explanation. It should also be noted that while Whitmore and Garner often cited the work of Ron Blakey and Larry Middleton, they never mention the proposal in Blakey and Middleton’s 1983 paper that Coconino sands may have been recycled from earlier Pennsylvanian and Permian rocks to the north in Utah, Wyoming, and Montana.47 Being part of an earlier rock would certainly result in frosted grains with a very mature appearance. Whitmore and Garner probably ignore sand grain recycling because it would require deep time processes that aren’t permissible in flood geology.
Thickness of the deposit. Whitmore and Garner dismiss the conventional geology view that the accommodation space needed for accumulation of Coconino sands could be created by gradual tectonic forces. The only reason given is “these explanations do not seem reasonable for the Coconino or many of the other ancient cross-bedded sandstones.”49 This sweeping assertion would seem like rock-solid “evidence” to Whitmore and Garner’s young-earth believing target audience. However, it is more likely that the reason they don’t consider gradual tectonic forces is that flood geology requires everything to form in a “matter of days.” Basically, they are committing the fallacy of the assumed conclusion, saying in essence: “the reason our hypothesis is correct is that the Flood view is the only possible option.”
While Whitmore quickly dismiss the conventional geology explanation for how tectonic forces could deform earth’s crust below the Coconino, they offer no explanation for how the crust could nearly instantaneously lower during the Flood to provide the necessary accommodation space for Coconino sands. Justifying instantaneous isostatic adjustments with statements like “the Flood model requires extrapolations beyond conditions that prevail in the present-day” would just be a rhetorical device to keep their target audience believing in “same data, different conclusions.”
In closing out the discussion on the 11 items in Whitmore and Garner’s list, recall how they say that I am glossing over the importance of their new findings or do not appreciate their significance. This is an effective debate tactic, but it’s not scientific. Could it be that Whitmore and Garner just don’t like how their tactics were exposed? Also, it is inaccurate to suggest that I was just parroting “many eolian arguments that have been presented for the Coconino for more than 90 years.” For example, in revealing how Dr. Whitmore says that the mica disappeared in the eolian pickle jar experiment when it actually ended up being the same size as mica in the Coconino, this was new information not found in any other publication.
