Can Glenn Morton Explain the Origin of the Coconino Sandstone?

[FreezBee]

Then it should be "professor", not "Professor"?

Ummm, it's a bit tricky.

MacNeill's blogger profile simply states that he is a "college teacher".

However, on the Evolution and Design blog, it says: "Professor: Allen MacNeill".

Of course, the "Professor" here simply means that MacNeill is the professor = teacher of the course, not that he necessarily is a full professor. But he might still be


- FreezBee

[Faid]

Well it still needs a lowercase p, if that's all we have about MacNeil's credentials. "Professor" here has a very specific meaning.

Dave? How about it? It's just one letter to change, and it would give you honesty points.

Unless you want that capital P in there, to give the impression of authority- but that wouldn't be honest, now would it?

[Steviepinhead]

RAPH:

Actually, the Grand Canyon would not have existed if those rock layers had not been eroded away. Fact is, the Canyon cuts through the Kaibab Plateau, in other words, it cuts through a major uplifted dome that has substantially lower elevations all around it. If there had been no previous existing cut (the Playa), simple runoff would have gone around the Kaibab, mostly to the north where there is a path some 3000 feet lower than the North Rim. To the south there are numerous paths ranging from 100' to over 500' lower than the South Rim. While the Kaibab is rising, it hasn't risen that much in just 4700 years.

With another mile or so of rock layers above what it there now, the water would have gone elsewhere. Indeed, up until about 10,000,000 years ago, it went plenty of elsewheres, including to the east by two different route and to the west to essentially nowhere, just out into the deserts of the time, much as the Humboldt does now.

RAPH, thanks for your correction/supplementation regarding the history and topography of the Colorado Plateau above. Are you saying that the more northerly "upper" formations never did overlie the area through which the Colorado has carved the Grand Canyon? Or just that those upper formations were already gone (as a result of the Playa cut) before the uplift--which led to the carving of the canyon--began? (Or, heh, something else which has eluded the pinhead...)

* * * * * *

Re "Prof." MacNeill, he's a college instructor, so I'm sure--if one were in one of his courses--the polite thing to do would be to address him as "professor."

But he's not, and has never claimed to be, a Ph.D. in any relevant field. In the current (and ongoing) context, in which Dave is attempting to play the "authority in a relevant field" card, Dave ought to clarify any potential ambiguity regarding MacNeill's credentials.

MacNeill's actual educational credentials (as I've provided them to Dave on the several past occasions when this question has arisen) are:

Allen MacNeill earned a BS in biology from Cornell in 1974 and an MA in science education from Cornell in 1977, and has taught the support course for introductory biology at Cornell University since 1976. As a senior lecturer for the Learning Strategies Center, Allen works with students taking both majors and non-majors introductory biology. In addition, he organizes and carries out in-service training for teaching assistants in biology and related fields. Allen also teaches evolution for the Cornell Summer Session, and has taught the introductory evolution course for non-majors at Cornell.

These are perfectly respectable credentials, but--with specific reference to biology--the highest degree MacNeill has is a BS. Concededly, the combination of that degree with his MA in science education and his interest and experience have allowed him to teach an introductory bio course to non-majors and to conduct a relevant summer seminar, as well as providing instructional training to the TAs who will be dealing directly with biology undergrads.

None of this is to be disparaged--formal educational credentials are not everything, as the examples of eric murphy and, more pointedly, Glenn Morton, ought to attest--but it's pretty clear that MacNeill is simply not (nor has he ever pretended to be) a prominent or cutting-edge research scientist publishing in the field of evolutionary biology.

Thus, while MacNeill's statements in the field are not entirely bereft of authority, they are not entitled to any undue deference either.

Dave, how about combining "senior instructor" with the "MA" designation?

[RAFH]

RAPH:

RAPH, thanks for your correction/supplementation regarding the history and topography of the Colorado Plateau above. Are you saying that the more northerly "upper" formations never did overlie the area through which the Colorado has carved the Grand Canyon? Or just that those upper formations were already gone (as a result of the Playa cut) before the uplift--which led to the carving of the canyon--began? (Or, heh, something else which has eluded the pinhead...)

Oh, those layers were definitely there at one time. But they eroded away long before the Colorado or what was the ancestor of the ancestor of the Colorado (basically whatever was draining that locality at whatever time).

I refer you to Durango Bill's website, http://www.durangobill.com/. It is by far and away the best resource I've found for that entire area and many others as well. Of course, some of his conclusions are controversial, and he admits that. But he also explains in great detail exactly why he has arrived at the conclusions he has. It's really an extremely fascinating story but much too lengthy and involved to cover in a thread post. See Bill's page.

I really suggest folks take a look at the region with Google's maps set in Terrain mode. It's amazing to see all the old formations just pop right out at you.

[deadman_932]

Just to show that I am a fair player, I will do just that. Might take me a day or two. Then we'll see if Glenn will continue to challenge me. I predict that when he sees that I will answer any challenge he puts forth as long as he reciprocates, he will stop challenging me. But I could be wrong. This will be interesting!

FADE IN:

INT. FRONT DOOR -- DAY

(Soft knocks at the door)
Voice inside: Dave? Is that you Dave? C'mon in.
(Door opens slowly)
Dave:
(Sound of slamming door )
Voice inside: Dave? C'mon in! ....Dave?...(beat)... Dave?

FADE OUT

[Augustine2004]

Maybe Hollywood will be interested. Who will play Glenn? Brad Pitt with a beard?

[Steviepinhead]

Thanks, again, RAPH! I have now favoritized DB's page...

[RAFH]

Thanks, again, RAPH! I have now favoritized DB's page...

YOu are most welcome. It's a fascinating site.
You should definitely do his trip down the Grand Canyon. It is like a mini course in Geology. All the signs to look for in judging a topography. How all the parts fit together to tell a story.

Stuff like when you look at how the Grand Canyon wraps around the Kaibab Plateau. All the way around from the east side to the west, it follows the contours. Normally water runs downhill and drainage patterns run downhill, across the contours. But the canyon follows the contours around the plateau. Of course, part of that is simply following faults, but water ways often cross faults when there is a significant slope. And on the south and west sides of the plateau there is a lot of slope, over a thousand feet.

Yeah, Bill's site is amazing.

One interesting note is now that there's been an extended drought in the Southwest, Lake Mead has been drawn down to some of the lowest levels since the dam was built. The river is cutting a new canyon through the silt it had filled the lake with. The lake had lost about 20 miles of its length due to siltation. The river just ran through mud flats. Now with the lake level so low, it's cutting back down through that silt. In the process, it has changed from the original course and now flows over what had been a ridge connecting a small peak to the valley wall. The rock of this ridge is old and hard, while the silt is new and soft. The silt erodes easily and a major rapid, 'super-imposition rapids' has formed and continues to increase in severity. If the lake keeps dropping, there could end up with a falls here. Another rapid is developing downstream as well.

[rogue06]

Let me second Durango Bill's as an absolutely excellent source of information about the GC and surrounding area

[Tiggy]

Tip o' the cap to all the good peeps who supplied wonderful background scientific info on the Coconino sandstone. Of course AFDave won't read a single word of it, but it's great for the rest of us who love to learn new things.

I'll note in passing that once again Mighty Warrior For God^TM AFDave has cut and run from his own thread when the questions got too tough. What a surprise...

- T

[RAFH]

Oh, did davey leave?

I wasn't aware he was here.

Oh, I see he was here, back on page 5. Post 67 four and a half days ago, the morning of the 8th. Wherein he promised he would address the terrestrial burrows in the Coconinos:

Just to show that I am a fair player, I will do just that. Might take me a day or two. Then we'll see if Glenn will continue to challenge me. I predict that when he sees that I will answer any challenge he puts forth as long as he reciprocates, he will stop challenging me. But I could be wrong. This will be interesting!

Seems he's forgotten he promised he would address the terrestrial burrows in the Coconinos, in "a day or two". He hasn't been back since. Let's see, today is late on the 12th and that was early on the 8th. That makes 4-1/2 days unless I have lost my basic arithmetic. That would be 3 to 3-1/2 days longer than davey said he would take. I wonder what happened. Maybe davey lost track. Maybe it slipped his mind. Maybe.

He's not answered. Ah, well. Not unusual for davey.

[rogue06]

To be fair to Dave, he has returned to the burrows thread and attempting to get started answering grmorton's questions about termite mounds with intrusive insectivore burrows and the dinosaur burrows. I say attempting to get started since Dave seems to have trouble figuring ot how to go to a library.

[tbratz]

The Coconino was not laid down by Noah's flood, but rather was deposited at a time before the flood. There is ample evidence to suggest that the Coconino Sandstone deposits are the fossilized remnants of a great desert, dune environment. The Coconino was not deposited in a single layer from a single great event. Yes, it may be up to 300 feet thick in some areas, but it was deposited over time layer by layer. I regularly collect fossil mammal-like reptile and insect tracks in the Coconino near my home. These tracks are found in the different layers throughout the sandstone deposits. If the Coconino was laid down in a 300 foot deposit than there would not be layer after layer of such tracks. Since the Coconino is layered, it was probably deposited by wind much the same as the great sand deserts of today are constantly shifting and being formed. Again, these layers were deposited by the wind over time, not by some giant wind that just dumped a 300 foot thick pile of sand over much of what is now the American Southwest. I have replicted today using live insects such as spiders and scorpions, similar tracks that are found fossilized in the sandstone. These tracks were made by insects on land and not by equatic creatures as some have tried to explain. Plain and simple... the Coconino was once a great eolian deposited dune environment, not fossilized deposits from a single water event. My intentions here are not to dispute Noah's flood, as I am a creationist who beilieves the great flood did occur. But, I rather feel it occured after the Coconino was deposited. In the area above the layers of Coconino Sandstone where I do my studies, there is a thick deposit of fossilized sediments that was obviously deposited after the Coconino was formed. This layer contains a number of fossilized aquatic creatues such as crinoids and various crustaceans. These things clearly shows that a great flood event occured after the Coconino was deposited and the Coconino was not the result of such an event.

[rogue06]

The Coconino was not laid down by Noah's flood, but rather was deposited at a time before the flood. There is ample evidence to suggest that the Coconino Sandstone deposits are the fossilized remnants of a great desert, dune environment. The Coconino was not deposited in a single layer from a single great event. Yes, it may be up to 300 feet thick in some areas, but it was deposited over time layer by layer. I regularly collect fossil mammal-like reptile and insect tracks in the Coconino near my home. These tracks are found in the different layers throughout the sandstone deposits. If the Coconino was laid down in a 300 foot deposit than there would not be layer after layer of such tracks. Since the Coconino is layered, it was probably deposited by wind much the same as the great sand deserts of today are constantly shifting and being formed. Again, these layers were deposited by the wind over time, not by some giant wind that just dumped a 300 foot thick pile of sand over much of what is now the American Southwest. I have replicted today using live insects such as spiders and scorpions, similar tracks that are found fossilized in the sandstone. These tracks were made by insects on land and not by equatic creatures as some have tried to explain. Plain and simple... the Coconino was once a great eolian deposited dune environment, not fossilized deposits from a single water event. My intentions here are not to dispute Noah's flood, as I am a creationist who beilieves the great flood did occur. But, I rather feel it occured after the Coconino was deposited. In the area above the layers of Coconino Sandstone where I do my studies, there is a thick deposit of fossilized sediments that was obviously deposited after the Coconino was formed. This layer contains a number of fossilized aquatic creatues such as crinoids and various crustaceans. These things clearly shows that a great flood event occured after the Coconino was deposited and the Coconino was not the result of such an event.

Welcome to tweb tbratz!

I also agree that the Coconino shows definitive signs of being an aeolian deposit.

[lao tzu]

Greetings, and welcome to TWeb, tbratz!

My intentions here are not to dispute Noah's flood, as I am a creationist who beilieves the great flood did occur. But, I rather feel it occured after the Coconino was deposited. In the area above the layers of Coconino Sandstone where I do my studies, there is a thick deposit of fossilized sediments that was obviously deposited after the Coconino was formed. This layer contains a number of fossilized aquatic creatues such as crinoids and various crustaceans. These things clearly shows that a great flood event occured after the Coconino was deposited and the Coconino was not the result of such an event.

I'd lay long odds you'll find evidence of burrowing throughout that deposit, and separate layers as well, making a deposition within the bounds of a great flood insupportable. I'd also lay long odds the "number of fossilized aquatic creatures" is too great to represent a contemporary population transported from elsewhere and spread out across the pre-existing desert. The existence of aquatic creatures above the aeolian deposits, combined with evidence of long-term presence of burrowing benthic organisms, argues for a much different interpretation.

These are two of Glenn's most telling criticisms of flood deposition. First, the lack of an identifiable layer that can be correlated with a flood, and second, the sheer biomass of life that would be necessary to fill any given candidate to the extent we find when examining them.

Of course, my own criticism is more pointed. The biblical flood tale is clearly derivative of the Mesopotamian family of flood tales, and widely divergent from any of the other families, implying that any literalistic reading of the biblical tale is in contradiction to all otherwise accepted tenets of textual criticism. Tales do not become more accurate over time, which is why biblical scholars strive to reconstruct the original documents.

As ever, Jesse


ETA: You've got a welcome thread waiting for you already. Be sure to stop by!