I'm sure he is aware of the data, but does he deal with it at all? Does
he attempt to explain the wind ripples, the cross-bedding and the sand
grain composition as a result of aqueous deposition? If so, what is his
explanation?
> 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.
I don't think that is the case. Let me explain why. Even if Brand is
correct about the trackways (and so far I have only seen his aqueous
explanation for a single type of track, the salamanders. I have asked
whether he deals with the various ichnospecies and reptile tracks, but
got no answer), it seems to me that that only requires that the Coconino
sandstone to have been covered with water at some point AFTER
deposition. Since the Toroweap formation above the Coconino is made up
mostly of limestone, the sandstone HAD to be covered with water after
deposition. Why does his study of the trackways prove that the Coconino
was **deposited** underwater, especially in the light of the geological
evidence of subaerial deposition?
> 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.
Is this true of tracks other than the salamander tracks?
> 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.
I accept that Brand has done serious work, published in peer reviewed
journals, that advocates a global flood model as an explanation for the
deposition of the Coconino sandstone. I am just trying to examine that
work to determine whether it is correct in its conclusions or not, as
well as examine the larger picture of the geological explanations for
this formation. Pardon me for saying so, but you seem to have a chip on
your shoulder about this. Given that my discussion with you on this
issue has been entirely focused on the evidence, with no mention
whatsoever of anyone's religious predispositions, I'm not sure why you
chose to vent that on me. I am much more interested in just discussing
the evidence and the inferences drawn from that evidence.
Ed