Re: Coconino - Evidence for a flood?

Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swac.edu)
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:02:45 -0800

At 07:43 PM 2/20/98 -0500, Steven Schimmrich wrote:
>
> Bottom line. Brand's work is interesting and the type of work
paleontologists
>should be doing (and many are) in order to interpret trace fossils. But
Brand has
>not, by any stretch of the imagination or wishful thinking, "conclusively
demonstrated"
>that the Coconino was subaqueous. It's still possible to interpret these
trackways
>as being formed in damp eolian sands. Even if these are subaqueous, which
is unlikely
>given the trace fossil assembleges there, it would be shallow water and
hardly evidence
>for a raging global flood that had already deposited thousands of feet of
sediment.
>I remain skeptical since I believe the burden of proof to be on those
proposing
>radical reinterpretations of earth history.
>
> I'm currently teaching historical geology and utilizing examples from
the Grand
>Canyon to teach students about various topics (unconformities, relative
time,
>transgressions and regressions, correlation, faunal succession, etc.) in both
>lecture and lab. Nothing I've read in Brand's work convinces me that I'm
misleading
>my students.

Dismissing for the moment your ad hominem arguments (I thought better of
you!), It will always be possible to interpret the trackways or anything
else as something other than what the preponderance of the evidence
suggests, particularly in the area of earth history. And you could be
right. Having worked with Brand in the field on occasions, I have seen
trackways consisting only of manus imprints moving horizontally across the
foreset slopes. I have seen (and in fact discovered) the trackway that
floats diagonally across the slab on the North Kaibab trail. Lockley's ad
hoc arguments are certainly amusing, and Brand has responded to them in
print. If he had actually seen the trackways in question, he would have
had to deal differently with them. You really should read Brand's book,
rather than just attacking his motives. He is very clear about all of the
concerns you have in print. And you would have learned that Brand is not
out to "prove" anything about a global flood or "disprove" evolution. His
motives are very clear. I hope people will examine their own after reading
his book.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu