>So: let's please take care in dishing out the criticism about research
>practices.
I agree. So let's look at what Austin says in his Grand Canyon book. None
of this is directed at Kurt since I have seen Kurt frankly and honestly
admit to areas where he can not explain the data. As I have mentioned to
you before, Paul, Kurt was the only real friendly face at the First Int.
Conf on Creationism when I gave my talk "Geologic Challenges to a Young
Earth." Kurt very honestly admitted, and supported my contention that
burrowing was a problem for the YEC position. For his support, he earned
my deep respect for his honesty. I have seen him do the same thing with
regard to the whale transition which supported what I was saying a year
ago about the Mesonychids being "stratomorphic intermediates" (to use
Kurt's term) when several on this board were saying that mesonychids
weren't. Kurt at least admits correctly what the data is.
In my opinion, Steve very selectively chooses what data to report to his
reader and what data not to report. Consider his attempt to show that
burrows found at the Grand Canyon are not burrows but are escape
structures (escape tunnels if you will) by animals being buried in the
flood. If burrowing took time, then the sediment can't be flood
deposited. This is the problem. Austin writes:
"Burrows in the Bright Angel Shale are of two types:
horizontal and vertical orientations. three types of horizontal
burrows (Palaeophycus, Phycodes, and Teichichnus) were observed by
Elliott and Martin in the Bright Angel Shale. Each of these
horizontal burrows was recognized by the researchers to have been
formed by marine organisms burrowing, and which were entirely
burried within the sediment. Because these horizontal burrows had
no connection with the overlying water column, the organisms which
produced them did not require cessation of sedimentation, and their
activity would have little restriction by the overlying
sedimentation, whether slow or fast.
"Two types of vertical burrows (Diplolocraterion and
Skolithos) were observed by Elliott and Martin in the Bright Angel
Shale. These burrows have direct refence to the rate of
sedimentation question, because they connected vertically to the
water column which overlays the sediment. We might suppose that
these vertical burrows are the dwellings of organisms, and that
they represent occupation levels upon which marine burrowers lived
and died. A long time period might be suggested - an
interpretation which might be favored by evolutionists, and which
would call into question the model of flood sedimentation.
"An alternate interpretation can be proposed for vertical
burrows. Instead of representing occupation, or dwelling-sites of
organisms, they may have been excavated by organisms escaping
vertically from rapid sediment burial. The modern wormlike
organism Phoronopsis viridis constructs burrows which closely
resemble Skolithos. Laboratory experiments show that burial
induces an escape response from the organism which can produce
either vertical or horizontal burrows. Dipolocraterion, the
commonest vertical burrow in the Bright Angel Shale, could have
been made also by upward movement of an organism in response to
rapid sedimentation. Two geologists admit, '...Dipolocraterion
cannot be dismissed as an escape trace.' If vertical burrows in
shale are regarded as the traces of animals escaping from sediment
which was burying them, then the long time period needed for their
formation dissappears."~~Steven A. Austin, "Interpreting Strata of
Grand Canyon," in Steven A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: A
Monument to Catastrophe, (Santee: Inst. for Creation Research,
1994), p. 40.
Steve cites this article as justification for his belief that the burrows
are escape structures but he ignores the following and does NOT tell his
reader of this possibility. And since most of his readers are not versed
in geology, they swallow it hook, line and sinker. Here is what his
reference says [MY EMPHASIS]:
"Some workers have rejected Skolithos and Diplocraterion as true
indicators of the burrowing depth of their producers. However, not
all specimens of these trace fossils represent upward movement of
their producers. Most escape structures not associated with
discrete burrows are characterized by down-bent laminae around a
pooly defined axial zone and thus are READILY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM
SKOLITHOS AND DIPOLOCRATERION."[ Molly Fritz Miller and Charles W.
Byers, "Abundant and Diverse Early Paleozoic infauna indicated by
the Stratigraphic Record," Geology, 12, Jan. 1984, p. 40.
In my mind it is not being entirely honest if you don't address this
issue. And his readers don't know enough geology to know to even ask such
questions.
Another example; this one a MISQUOTE:
Here Austin is trying to make the case that there are no conglomerates
made of Hermit material found in the unconformities at the top of the
Esplanade. Austin writes:
"In his review of several unconformities, Davis Young cited
'the unconformity between the Supai Group and the overlying 'Hermit
Shale' as an example of an unconformity which 'marks an extended
period of the consolidation of underlying strata uplift,
weathering, erosion, and renewed sedimentation.' He argues that
these 'weathering and erosion effects could not have been produced
by a catastrophic flood." Young is relying on the detailed studies
of E. D. McKee.
"The report by E. D. McKee contains many honest admissions.
McKee even considers the possibility that the Esplanade Sandstone
was not lithified when Hermit deposition began:
'The general lack of conglomerate on the erosion surface at
the Esplanade-Hermit contact is notable...Possibly the scarcity of
conglomerate is the result of the hiatus being so short that the
Esplanade did not become lithified prior to Hermit Shale
deposition."~Steven A. Austin, "Interpreting Strata of Grand
Canyon," in Steven A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: A Monument to
Catastrophe, (Santee: Inst. for Creation Research, 1994), p. 50
So? Mississippi River sand unconsolidated after 5,000 + years.
Cretaceous sands on east coast unconsolidated after 65 + million
years. Age does not equal consolidation and Steve knows this very well.
Secondly, here is the real quote by McKee and notice what Steve left out!
He left out the sentence talking about the conglomerate!
"The general lack of conglomerate on the erosion surface at the
Esplanade-Hermit contact is notable. A small lens of conglomerate,
which consists of rounded limestone pebbles, was found in a channel
at Bunker Trail and a sequence of limestone and conglomerate, a few
feet thick occurs at a place near Thunder River Trail, but
elsewhere it is scarce or absent. Possibly the scarcity of
conglomerate is the result of the hiatus being so short that the
Esplanade did not become lithified prior to Hermit Shale
deposition." ~Edwin D. Mckee, "The Supai Group of Grand Canyon,
USGS Prof. Paper, 1173, p. 171.
Compare this to what Steve used. This is selective editing.
Another example:
Steve writes of the red Hermit Shale:
"Again, uniformitarians might suppose the red color came drom
oxydation of iron on a continent exposed to weathering, but no red
sedimentary units are being deposited in modern river, floodplains
and deltas. From where did the red silt and clay come? The
underlying Esplanade Sandstone could not be the source, as it has
little clay and silt and is not deeply channeld or eroded. Thus a
very distant source of silt and clay must be supposed."Steven A.
Austin, "A Creationist View of Grand Canyon Strata,"in Steven A.
Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe, (Santee:ICR,
1994), p. 75.
This is absolutely false. Has Steve never heard of the Red River which
forms the southernmost boundary between Oklahoma and Texas? It does not
have the name, RED, because it is colored BLUE!!! All the sediments along
it are reddish in color and they remain red as they flow through
Shreveport and on south into Lousisiana where most of the Red River flow
enters the Gulf of Mexico along a distributary channel known as the
Vermillion River (If you don't know, Vermillion is another name for a
shade of Red). Geologically, red beds have a variety of actual colors
from red to yellowish brown. All of these colors are created by the highly
oxidized minerals. I can assure you that the Huang He (Yellow River) of
China is indeed yellowish brown. I have stood on its banks and seen it
with my own eyes. There are "red" beds (in the sense of highly oxidized
minerals) being deposited all along the river channel. In fact, there is
so much oxidized sediment in the Yellow River that the entire sea is
colored Yellow (I have see that also) and the Sea is called the Yellow Sea
(go look on a map).
Austin, in his book does not inform his readers that prior to the time the
canyon was eroded, there was at least 1000 feet more of sediment covering
the region than there is today AND that sediment had time to lithify.
Here is the evidence:
On the SE part of the park is Cedar Mt. which is topped by Triassic Chinle
formation. This is the farthest southeastward outlier of the Chinle. It
is 95 miles south of the next Chinle outcrop to the north. Thus, at one
time there was Chinle and underlying Moenkopi (1000 feet total) covering
the entire canyon and it is now eroded off except for Cedar Mt.
Even more fascinating, is the fact that the Chinle is found in collapsed
Redwall Limestone caves in the Grand Canyon. The Red wall is quite a bit
below the Esplanade and Chinle. Caves formed (takes 100,000 years or
more) then the cave collapses filling with the overlying sediment. Wenrich
and Hunton write:
"The breccia pipes formed as sedimentary strata collapsed
into dissolution caverns in the underlying Mississippian Redwall
Limestone. Upward stoping through the upper Paleozoic and lower
Mesozoic strata, involving units as high as the Triassic Chinle
Formation."~Karen J. Wenrich and Peter W. Hunton, "Breccia Pipes
and Associated mineralization in the Grand Canyon Region,
Northern Arizona," Geology of the Grand Canyon, Northern Arizona,
28th Int. Geol. Congress, Field Trip Guide Book, (Washington:
AGU, 1989), p. 212
These filled caves have NO Chinle currently over them yet they occur
throughout the Grand Canyon with a density of 6 per square kilometer! Why
does Steve not mention these and their implications, Paul?
I am sorry, but this is not very good work.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm