(This article can be freely copied and distributed, as long as it is unaltered and a link back to the original article appears on the page)   [We have right to alter slander and lies to expose the truth]

     Young earth creationists have a problem. [A lie]  According to their creation science model, all the fossil-bearing rock layers in the world need to be created during the Flood of Noah. Fossils, in ancient rock layers, imply that death occurred before the Fall of man, which is contrary to their interpretation of Scripture. [First it is an oversimplification to say that creationists believe 'all' fossils came from the flood, however it is granted that the Coconino Sandstone is an artifact of the flood.   Second their was no death before the fall by any legitimate 'interpretation' of the Scripture.  God said that everything he made was 'good' before the fall, yet after the fall he is sorry that he made man.   A hypocrite is entitled to any interpretation of Scripture, but that does not make it a true.   A real Christian does not close their eyes to the truth.]

     The most visible rock layers in the world are those in the Grand Canyon.  For many years young earth creation scientists have invested a lot of time and research into the Grand Canyon. [For the record, so have evolutionists] They believe that if they can find a model to explain the canyon rocks, then their followers will probably accept the rest of the earth’s rocks as young. [This last statement misrepresents the creationist strategy.   Creationists already have a scientific model that explains the rocks better than the evolutionary dogma, which fits biblically valid  parameters.  The idea that creationist theory on the canyon is needed to get people to accept a young earth is also false.   Rock layers everywhere show the same evidences that support the scientific conclusions of the creationist.]

Coconino Sandstone

     One of the problems that the young earth model encounters in the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone.  [Creationists do not regard it as a problem.  But it is a problem for the evolutionist as made clear in the creationist article Neyman references below] I’ve already discussed this in another article, so let me only summarize here.  [Evolutionary] Geologists have stated that this formation of 315-foot thick sandstone was created by a desert environment, and is a deposition of wind-deposited sand dunes. [But this does not mean it is so.  Careful Geologists have stated that it was created by the Flood.  The sloppy geology of the evolutionists was exposed by the Missoula Flood Controversy.   Only now are they reversing themselves and agreeing with a lone geologist (Bretz) who showed that a flood created the scablands of the Columbia Plateau.   It turns out that the catastrophist was the careful Geologist while those with evolutionary and uniformitarian commitments were wrong.]

     The problem for young earth creation science is that this rock layer is topped by two other fossil-bearing marine rock layers, the Toroweap Limestone and the Kaibab Limestone.  [This is now a classic straw man argument, a tactic unworthy of a true Christian.   It is not a problem because the scientific model of the creationists does not accept the conclusion that the Sandstone was created in a wind blown desert.] This presents a problem to the young-earth model because if the sandstone originated by wind, then obviously it could not have been produced by Noah’s Flood. [But this is only a hypothetical argument, and it is putting the conclusion before the non-existent evidence that is supposed to support it.]  The young earth scientist would have to explain how the water receded, then the sandstone formed, then the water came back and deposited the other layers. [Only if it were true that the sandstone was deposited by wind.   Neyman is begging the question.]  However, in the Biblical Flood account, the waters rose, then fell.  There were no cyclic water levels [This is untrue.  Creationist theory allows for cyclic water levels on a biblical timescale.] , nor was there a massive amount of time during the flood for a desert environment to create a 315-foot thick rock layer [Again Neyman begs the question and assumes that the desert theory of his evolutionary buddies is true without fairly comparing it to the scientific model proposed by creationists.].   The desert formation of this sandstone would disprove its formation during the Flood, and would disprove the young age of the earth. [If the premise of a desert formation is untrue, then the conclusion is untrue.]

     Several young earth creationism experts have attempted to explain this away [This statement misrepresents the creationist position.  First, there are not any competent creationists who support the desert theory, or if there are they are in a very tiny minority of young earth creationists still befuddled by evolutionary uniformitarianism.  Second, the creationists put forth valid scientific explanations of how the sandstone formed.  The charge that they 'explain away' with words is false, and unworthy of one claiming to be a Christian brother.], claiming [based on the evidence] that this sandstone was created underwater, and thus is not a desert sandstone.  I dispute this theory because their model does not have the necessary forces [This is the same excuse that the uniformitarian naturalist uses to dismiss any divine intervention in history.   Of course, the flood was divine intervention.  The primary force behind it was the power of God's judgment.   So the claim that the necessary forces do not exist is a commitment to philosophical naturalism.  Further, Neyman's notion of natural forces is based on present observation.  The forces in play during the flood are not now directly observable, but must be inferred from the remaining evidence.  Also, Neyman's claim that the science of the creationists does not hypothesize the necessary forces is false.   Their model does give some approximation of the forces needed to explain the evidence we see today.] to create the Coconino Sandstone (see their article here [A. Snelling and S. Austin's article is very good.  Their calculations show the depth and velocity of the water needed to create the sandstone, the very forces set in motion by God which Neyman denies is present in the creationist model], and see my rebuttal here)  [Yes, I read this.  It does not address a major point in the creationist article -- damming evidence that the track ways were created under water].   However, that is not the purpose of this article.

     Other sandstones which are desert in origin will also disprove the young age of the earth. [Such sandstones only exist in the mind of the evolutionist] Therefore, the young earth scientist must discredit every desert sandstone in the world. [Neyman is trying to lay a burden of proof.  However, since the creationist scientific explanation is sufficient to overturn the mistaken evolutionary explanation of the Coconino sandstone, then it follows that the evolutionary explanations of other sandstones are not based on fact either, and are only motivated by their religious philosophy.] If one desert sandstone exists with a fossil-bearing ocean-deposited layer on top, it discredits the entire young earth creation science flood model, and proves the old age of the earth. [And if one claim to a desert sandstone is overturned by the evidence, then it is probable that all such claims are false.   Neyman's use of logic here is unworthy of Christians.  First he claims that creationists must discredit all the evolutionary propaganda, and then he claims that only one case of successful evolutionary propaganda is needed to discredit the creationist position.  Meanwhile, he is blind to the fact that showing the superiority of the creationist scientific position on this one sandstone is sufficient to cast doubt on all evolutionary claims of desert wind created sandstones.]

     Let’s look at other desert-origin sandstones. [This begs the question.  Are their really any such sandstones to look at?]  I will continually add to this article as I read through the research and discover other sandstones. 

Navajo Sandstone

     I’ll start with the Navajo Sandstone.  This sandstone is most evident in the tall cliffs of Zion Canyon National Park in Utah.  The thickness of this formation varies from 1,600 to 2,200 feet.  It is evident from the excellent cross-bedding in this formation and other features that this is created from a desert environment. [This is abuse of the evidence, or ignorance of the origin of cross-bedding.  It is known that underwater currents can create such cross-bedding on a massive scale.  It has been demonstrated in labs on small scales.  What are the other features?] Below the Navajo there are thousands of feet of rock layers, including the layers of the Grand Canyon.  Again, please note…all the layers of the Grand Canyon are below the Navajo.

     Looking at the rocks above the Navajo, the problem for the young-earth scientist gets even more complicated. [So he claims.]   Looking at the Navajo at Arches National Park, there are at least 1,500 feet of rock layers above the Navajo at this location alone.  The first is the Entrada Sandstone, which consists of three units, the Moab and Slick Rock members, (which are themselves desert dune sandstones [So he claims, but where is the evidence?]), and the Dewey Bridge Member, which is about 200 feet of marine deposits.  Above this is the thin Summerville Formation, siltstone from a lake/lagoon environment [Such siltstones were created during the flood, and not in a lake lagoon as claimed by evolutionists.  They are only assuming that it was a lake or lagoon].  Then comes the most serious problem for the young earth model...the Morrison Formation.  This formation has yielded thousands of dinosaur fossils, supposedly killed during Noah's Flood. [This is not a problem.  The dinosaurs were good at escaping the flood waters.  They were only buried when they could no longer swim or find high ground.  Of course the 'problem' is predicated on the assumption of long-age deposition processes such as the 'desert-dunes' claimed.]  Above the Morrison are the Dakota Sandstone (beach environment) [So say the religious claims of the evolutionist, but there is no evidence of beaches here.  They say 'beach' because there are marine fossils in this sandstone, but they want to retain the desert so they claim it was a desert next to a beach or a very sandy beach.  The actual evidence will not show this.] and the Mancoa Shale (shallow marine.  [What Neyman is passing off as 'accepted knowledge' here is nothing more than evolutionary propaganda.] 

     In fact, all the dinosaur fossils are far above the Grand Canyon sediments.  The young earth model says the Flood killed most of the dinosaurs¹...and according to their model, all the layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited during the Flood².  That is over 1 mile of sediment. [Plus all the layers 'above' the grand canyon mentioned above.]  The first dinosaur fossils appear in the Chinle formation, which is two formations above the Grand Canyon layers.   

     How did these dinosaurs survive the deposition phase of the flood, which deposited over 8,000 feet of sediment before we see the first dinosaur fossil?  [Deposition sediments concentrate as they sink.  It has been shown on a small scale that animals that can swim or find floatation can float while sediment is being deposited below.   Many dinosaurs can swim.  Other's may have clung to vegetation mats or they migrated inland.  But we do not have to explain this.  After all the fossils are there.  The dinosaurs evidently managed to escape burial until late in the flood.  What Neyman is asking for is a macrocosmic explanation of the deposition process.  What creationist can provide with the current research is specific evidence of the rapid water laid nature of the specific layers.  Also, Neyman's implication is that creationists have a harder time coming up with a macrocosmic description than evolutionists.   This is contrary to the truth.  The evolutionists have a greater problem, and the macrocosmic model they do propose is invalid because it is based on bad science, uniformitarian philosophy, and is contradicted by specific evidences at many points.]  Young earth creation science explanations (see sources below) fail to offer a valid explanation of this problem…they make absolutely no sense out of the solid facts of the rock layers.   [So he claims.]

     Given the young earth creationism model, the flood waters must have created all these layers.   However, you can’t have Flood-deposited rocks of the Grand Canyon, topped stratigraphically by a desert sandstone, the Navajo, to the north of the Canyon, and then covered by more sea-deposited layers. None of these layers above the Grand Canyon, including the layers above the Navajo, can be accounted for by the young earth model.  [But the Navajo sandstone was not deposited by wind blown sand forming desert dunes.  It was laid by water just as the rest of the layers.]

Evidence From Creation Scientists! [Notice the ridicule here?  This is unworthy of someone claiming to be a Christian.]

     Here is the most amazing evidence for the desert, wind-formed Navajo Sandstone. [What evidence?]  Creation scientists themselves admit it! [Where? Proof?] I don't know if they are aware of this or not. [Why wouldn't they be aware of it if they admitted it?  Something smells here.]  I’ve done a review of the cornerstone book [Are these your words, or the creationist opinion of the book?] of young earth proof of Noah's Flood and the Grand Canyon (see Book Reviews).  The book is called Grand Canyon:  Monument to Catastrophe. [Yes, I have this book, so well check up on Neyman.]  It is published by the Institute for Creation Research.  This book was put together by 14 of the pre-eminent young earth creation science experts in the world.

     On page 32 of this book, they are making a case for the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon.  They claim it was deposited not in a dry, desert environment, but in a water environment.  Figure 3.10 shows a plot of grain sizes for the Coconino, two modern water environments, and a "Desert Sand Dune."  [Yes, I see it.] Through this plot, it is shown that the desert dune plots out to a straight line, whereas the Coconino, and the water environment sands, plot out as jagged, irregular lines.  This is used as proof that the Coconino is not a desert sandstone. [Yes, this graph and the point of the water deposition of the Coconino Sandstone was made by Glen Visher, Professor of Geology at the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma, and he is not a creationist geologist.  The graph shows four plots.  1) A modern Desert sand dune plot, 2-3) two underwater sand plots, and 4) the Coconino Sandstone sand plot.  The graph shows that the two underwater sand grain size plots compare favorably with the Coconino grain size plot, and none of them with the modern desert dune plot.  Clearly, sand and wind sort out grain sizes in two different characteristic ways.]

      The amazing thing is the source of the "Desert Sand Dune" grain size plots. [The straight line in the plot.  There is only one modern desert sand dune line, so it is not 'plots' in the plural.] The first paragraph in the right column, first sentence, gives the source as footnote number 44.  If you turn to this footnote, the source of the desert sand grain size plot is "Stratigraphic Analysis of the Navajo Sandstone," published in the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology! [45 (1975): 651-668] That's right!  These creation scientists are using the desert-created Navajo Sandstone to argue against the Coconino as being desert in origin.  [So Neyman is implying that the straight line graph in the chart is based on sand from the Navajo Sandstone and not a modern sand dune?  But just because graph may be in an article about Navajo Sandstone does not mean the "Desert Sand Dune" plot was derived from Navajo Sandstone.   In fact, the plot did not originate in that article.  The footnote continues, "G.S. Visher and J.D. Howard, 'Dynamic Relationship Between Hydraulics and Sedimentation in the Altamaha Estuary', Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 44 (1974): 502-521".  It just so happens that this latter article is the source, as proved by the fact that two of the plot lines are from sand in the Altamaha Estuary, and the fact that this article was published first in 1974 and the second article in 1975.   The 1975 article merely shows the graph from the 1974 article, probably for the sake of a discussion, where the question is posed, "Could the Navajo Sandstone also be water deposited?"

      I do not have the articles in the footnote, however, it would not make any sense for Visher to use Navajo derived sand for the 'control' element of his experimental comparison.  If he had the peer reviewers of the journal would have thrown out his research since the conclusion that the Coconino Sandstone is water deposited would throw doubt on the validity of the use of Navajo Sandstone as the control.   Only a comparison with undeniably real modern dune sand is a basis for a conclusive conclusion.

     Further, as often as the case is, appeal is made to some source that the public cannot readily examine.  So we have to judge on what is available.  Neyman did not supply us with a quote that says that the control line was derived from Navajo Sandstone.  Presumably if such a quote existed, it would be to his advantage to produce it.   Yet he did not include one.  Why?   And why does he leave us with the conclusion that the title of the second article is a sufficient basis to conclude that the control line in the chart was Navajo Sandstone?

     Update:  I went online, and obtained an abstract of the second article:

    This clearly shows that the second article supports the water deposition of the Navajo Sandstone as well, and explains why the graph from the first article is included in this article.

     Here is the abstract of the first article:

    It now appears that the graph came from this source, but was modified with a graph line for the Coconino Sandstone in another article.

       I examined the following from Visher's book:

I found this in google books.   I found a modification of the same graph as in Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe.  On page 509 a grain-size distribution is charted for 1) Altahama River Sandwave, 2) Coconino Sandstone, 3) Navajo Sandstone, 4) a composite of 2 and 3.  The desert sand dune graph is not shown in the picture at all.  But the Navajo Sandstone is, and it is not a straight line.   Therefore, the straight line graph in Grand Canyon: Monuement ot Catastophe is NOT the Navajo Sandstone.   This further supports the conclusion that the Navajo Sandstone was also water desposited.

     However, the Navajo is overlaid with many fossil bearing rock layers, including the Morrison Formation, with thousands of dinosaurs killed during the Flood of Noah.  This can't be!  We now have proof, from young-earth creation scientists themselves, that the Navajo Sandstone formed as a dry, desert sandstone, right in the middle of Noah's Flood!!!!  Without meaning to, they have proved the old age of the earth! [Neyman is lying when he says that the control line for 'desert sand dune' in the graph is Navajo Sandstone.   The real Navajo Sandstone graph is shown in Visher's book, and it is clearly not the straight line of the 'desert sand dune'.   Despite Neyman's confession of Christianity, it is clear that his lying does not support his claim to faith.]

Conclusion

     The Coconino and Navajo are only two desert-created sandstones. [So far we have no proof of any desert created sandstone.   It seems that Visher's methodology of plotting sand grain size to determine the sorting differences between wind and water was a valid approach.   He concluded that both Sandstones were deposited underwater.] No doubt the desert formations in China and Mongolia would also disprove the young age of the earth. [This dogma is based on Neyman's faith in his own lie.]  I will post others here, as I have time to research them. [If Neyman had done valid research, he would have shown us the quote that the straight line was Navajo Sandstone.   Obviously he can't because the real line represents segments at different angles and matches the underwater control samples.]  Unfortunately for the young earth creationist, it only takes one example of desert sandstone to disprove the young age of the earth. [The logic may be correct here, but the example of such a sandstone has not held up to examination.]  As you can see, the earth is old, just like the geologists have told us, and just as God’s creation testifies. [What we see is that Neyman lied.  It was not an easy lie to prove, but the available evidence shows just that.]

 -----------------------------------------------

¹ The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, by Michael Oard

²  Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, by Steven Austin (book, from the Institute for Creation Research)  (see my Grand Canyon section under Articles to see my review of this book.

     If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth.  Click here for more.  [First there are many churches that believe in billions of years: Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, etc.   So there is no shortage of heretical Christianities to choose from.   It is simply untrue that the Church 'always' preaches a message contrary to the evolutionary dogma.  On the contrary, to its shame it regularly embraces it.   Therefore, there can't be any 'hold outs' for that reason.   Neyman obviously is a member of one of these heretical Christianities, and as such his behavior reflects on the reputation of those he represents.   Sad to say, it does not reflect well, since he had to lie to make his point.  And indeed, his poor argument is just another example of the heretical foundations of these groups.]

    Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism?  Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? [Logically, if the bible is true, and God's creation is true, then there are no difficulties in creation that point to an old earth that cannot be solved within a young earth framework, and any claims to the contrary must be lies.] If you are a young-earth creationism believer, click here.