>>I can understand why organic deposits like dung would be oxidized into
>>oblivion in an extremely arid desert. I have difficulty with the idea that
>>all organics would be destroyed in a subaqueous environment
>
>Maybe you can also explain why these animals were living on a barren
>desert. What did they eat?
At least with the Mongolian deposits I can cite the rhizoliths as evidence
of former vegetation. I will admit to more trouble with the Coconino and
Navajo in regards to food. I have lots and lots of articles on order for the
Navajo and Coconino (first shipment due tomorrow) and we will see.
Anyway, Brand has demonstrated convincingly
>that the trackways were made subaqueously, so any further discussion on
>this point is moot. There is no semblance whatsoever between tracks made
>on dry sand and those made in the Coconino. I think we can safely move on.
Not so fast. :-) Brand has never explained to me why there are tracks which
have the appearance of scorpion tracks on the Coconino. And even more
troubling is the fact that scorpions leave a different type of track as the
temperature rises. We find tracks that look just like the tracks scorpions
make when it is cool and then when it is very hot. There are fewer feet in
contact with the sand when it is hot. Since the temperature wouldn't rise as
much in a subaqueous environment, I see no reason to ascribe those tracks to
a hot-footed underwater scorpion. So I don't think the issue is as moot as
you do. But good try. :-)
>
>
>>I am not just now concording with you on this point. I agree that glauconite
>>is marine. But it's lack in the Coconino and Navajo (as far as I have been
>>able to find) should also be significant!
>
>Not at all. Nobody, myself included, thinks the Coconino or Navajo were
>deep water deposits. It would be exceedingly anomalous if glauconite were
>found in either of them.
I don't think glauconite implies deepwater deposition. It is found quite
abundantly in the coastal plains sediments of the eastern United States and
those are generally considered to be relatively shallow water deposits. But
they were MARINE. (see N. Spoljaric "Geology of the Delaware Coastal Plain",
in John C. Kraft and Wendy Carey, ed. Trans. Delaware Acad. of Sci. 7, 1976,
pp 93-95)
There are lignites and estuarine deposits associated with glaconitic sands
immediately above. (See Schuchert and Dunbar Textbook of Geology 1933 p. 356)
Of the Arabian carbonate deposition I wrote:
>
>>Yes, and I will admit that I don't have a good one. So, what is your
>>explanation?
>
>Well, for starters, that they don't represent 260 million years of
>depositional history. We can go from there....
Please continue. That is hardly enough to explain these things. It seems to
me that there is more of a problem with mixing in a global flood when
everything is supposed to be eroded from the preflood world, then
redeposited. Surely there was some mixing of lime and clastics the likes of
which we don't see in an actualistic or uniformitarianistic world.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm