>I am familiar with Brand's work on the trackways, .... You say that Brand
argues for
>subaqueous deposition based entirely on the trackways. Does he deal with
>the geological evidence for terrestrial deposition at all?
Of course he is aware of the data that are interpreted by most geologists
to indicate the Coconino to be subaerial. He is also aware of the
criticisms of his work by those committed to a subaerial model. There are
also more than a few geologists who quietly affirm to Brand that they think
he is right, who have no committment to a global flood. And Brand's data
are not ambiguous to anyone with an open mind on the subject. You can't
have it both ways. The data require that the environment be completely
subaqueous. Some who do not know the data well, or choose to overlook the
relevant facts, have suggested the tracks they cannot explain as subaerial,
were made by animals in intermittent interdunal ponds. Thus far those who
advocate subaerial trackways have been at a loss to produce a single track
with the attributes of the fossil trackways.
Again, Brand thought of the idea because he believes the Biblical account
of origins is valid. But he does not attempt to use his finding to suggest
anyone else should believe his model, nor does he think he has solved all
of the problems of geologic column. I think some of the people on this
reflector are not prepared for a scientist who has a global catastrophic
model, but does good scientific research, published in peer review
journals, and does not misuse his data. In fact there are plenty of people
who believe this attitude is myth. Well, there are those of us who feel
that the global flood is a valid model, who don't feel that we can, or have
to, answer all of the questions at once, but who have faith to believe that
we can hack away at problems one at a time, and come out ahead as
scientists because of the insights that we are advantaged by.
Art
http://biology.swau.edu