Two young earth creation science proponents [Geologists], Andrew Snelling and Steve Austin, have proposed that proof of Noah's Flood can be seen in the strata in the Grand Canyon know [SIC] as the Coconino Sandstone (click here for their article).  Let's look at the model they propose for how this sand was deposited.  Although this is a sandstone formed from a desert [At this point in the article, without proof, this is an arrogant assumption], for their sake, lets assume they are correct that the sand was deposited from an aquatic event, and not from a dry, desert environment.

     They propose that the volume of sand deposited in this formation, which is roughly 315 feet thick and covers an area of 200,000 square miles (or 447 miles long and 447 miles wide) is about 10,000 cubic miles by their estimates  (using these same numbers they give yields a volume of 11,931 cubic miles).  They claim that the sand was brought in from the north, over the period of several days, by ocean currents, which, in their own words, "The maximum current velocity would have been almost 5.5 feet per second (165 cm or 1.65 metres per second) or 3.75 miles per hour.  Beyond that velocity experimental and observational evidence has shown that flat sand beds only would be formed."  And, in the next paragraph, "Now to have transported in such deep water the volume of sand that now makes up the Coconino Sandstone these current velocities would have to have been sustained in the one direction perhaps for days."    Please note, they propose the formation of this 315 foot thick sandstone in only a few days.  [The Creationist geologists show the required currents and depth by calculating them from the thickness of the strata and bedding planes using known mathematics for the required water depth to deposit such layers.  The water would have to be 300 feet deep.]

     I actually had to lift my jaw off the floor when I read this.  Are they actually proposing that they can move 11,931 cubic miles of sand an average distance of 223.5 miles (assuming the sand started at the northern boundary of the current formation, and if the bed is 447 miles wide, the average would be half that) with a water current of only 5.5 feet per second?  What they are proposing is similar to this...take the top 315 feet of the entire state of New Mexico, run water over it, and in a week, it will be in Texas!  [Is Neyman qualified to judge creationist geologists Snelling and Austin because he feels the idea of the flood moving so much sediment is ridiculous?  Such a reaction is not science.  It is emotional perversion.]

     There are numerous problems with this creation science theory. [So he claims.]  First, how do you erode the material at that speed? [This is a valid question, but it does not invalidate the evidence for water deposition of the Coconino Sandstone.   Walt Brown explains that the source of the sand was the fountains of the deep, and he does the mathematics to show how there could be sufficient erosion of granite and basalt crust sources.  www.creationscience.com ]  The material for the sandstone has to be eroded from it’s present position, and transported hundreds of miles.  The erosion rate would be so slow that you probably would only end up eroding a handful of sand from bedrock in a few days. [Using present uniformitarian processes this would be true, but the flood was a catastrophic event with unusual processes in play.   There have been other floods, such as the Missoula flood which give us an appreciation for the energies involved and the amount of geological work that can be done in a short period of time.]  Even if the sand was just lying there, ready to be moved, it would still fall far short of being able to move that much sand.  Why?  They cannot exceed 5.5 feet per second, or else they won’t get the cross-bedding that is evident in the Coconino Sandstone. [This sort of argumentation is infantile.  Only in the depositional stage does the water have to slow to 5.5 feet per second.   It can have much higher velocities as it picks up the sediment.  The fountains of the deep eroded the continental plates as the water was ejected.  The sediment remains in suspension of the turbulent water until the velocity slows to allow deposition.  The same is true with modern examples on smaller scales.  Sediment is picked up by high velocity currents and deposited later when the current slows to the critical value.]

     The  figure at left shows the process.  Some sand would be carried suspended in the water, but most would creep along the ocean floor. [This is the case in the depositional phase, but if you look at the long arrow in the top of the picture this represents the current flow over the beds, while the other arrows represent slower velocities.  The higher currents are faster than the critical velocity and carry the sand from far away.  When the sand finally hits the bottom it does not have to tumble very far to form cross bedding.  It is not true that most of the sand must be pushed along the floor of the current the total distance.  On the contrary, it only needs to be pushed over the next underwater sediment crest.] Sand particles are pushed along the bottom, up over the ridge, and fall on the steep side of the sand wave.  This process happens over and over, until the sand wave advances slowly (bottom figure).  [Neyman does not provide us with calculations to quantify what he means by 'slowly'.  However, a misconception is that each wave must go from one end of the formation to the next before the next wave can begin.  This is wrong.  Actually, each layer is being created simultaneously as the stair step view in the second picture shows.   Each layer is being extended at the same time.  How long does it take the water to cover 447 miles?  Answer: 5 days.  The sediment rate is not much slower than the upper currents.  Other research has shown that sediment dropped rapidly through a flume produces layers also.   The process is harmonic, the same results being produced at various speeds and loads with various energies, and then the same results also at multiples of the various speeds and energies.  It is this harmonic factor that shows up the need for the uniformitarian assumption]  With the Coconino Sandstone, this happens over and over, as layer upon layer deposits upon each other (lower figure).  [Not over and over, but simultaneously.] Considering the first, lowest deposited layer…at the proposed current velocity, it would take over 5 days just for the water to reach the other side and deposit this sand.  Then you allow the subsequent layers to deposit, and, if you even believe their model, you get many weeks of sand deposition.  The thickest crossbeds in the Coconino are about 30 feet.  Even assuming all beds were equal, at 315 feet thickness, that’s more than 10 layers.  You can’t do this process in a matter of a few “days” as the authors suggest!  [Flume experiments suggest that all 10 such layers can form in just one pass!  So yes, the process need only take one week or less.]

     The author’s are actually proposing that a 30 foot tall sand wave can be moved over 400 miles in less than a week, with a current of only 5.5 feet per second.  [Again this is misleading, because all the sand is not moved this far.   The wave moves, but all the sand does not move.  Consider a water wave.  Does the water move from one side of the pool to the other when you create a wave by dropping a pebble into it? Not at all!  The water moves the water next to it creating the wave, but the water where the pebble was dropped stays basically in that spot.  Only the energy is transferred via the wave.   Likewise, the sand is added to the end of the wave, but once emplaced it does not move.  Only the wave front moves where new sand is being emplaced.  The average travel of the sand is only half the total distance, i.e. 200 miles, and it is not pushed that far.  It is carried by the faster current above and drops out over the wave front where the water velocity is blocked creating a sort of low velocity spot behind the wave front.   Another factor Neyman is not thinking about is the change in current gradient from the top of the flow to the bottom due to the increased energy to carry the increasing load of sand toward the bottom.] In a matter of a few days, a single sand wave, under ideal conditions, would be lucky if it were to manage a move of greater than one mile…400 miles isn’t possible.  And they have to move at least 10 of these sand waves!  [They said the Missoula flood wasn't possible, yet the large ripple marks are there in the Pacific Northwest to show it.   No one should say that events at higher energies are impossible until they have run an experiment at such energies to show it impossible, and further small scale experiments show the harmonic nature of deposition energies.]

     Imagine this…at mile marker 0, the water starts moving.  The first water current carries thousands of grains over the edge of the sand wave, and continues going, leaving the advancing sand wave far behind, until that first current is 5 days away, or 400 miles away…but the sand wave is 399 miles behind, as it slowly advances.  In a few days (which the authors propose) you probably can’t get even one 30-foot wave of sand to move more than a mile!  And somehow, the authors expect the average reader to believe this model!!! [Thought experiments are not real experiments, and therefore are unscientific since the scientific method requires real experiments.   In any case, this 'thought' experiment is flawed.  The water is already moving at high velocity at mile marker 0 with a load of sand.  It merely slows down enough to begin the deposition process.   Also do we suppose that one sand wave is begun at mile 0 and the water continues 400 miles on without depositing any more sand in the remaining 400 miles?   Don't be ridiculous!   It dumps sand the whole way, and sand waves begin to form at a wavelength related to the velocity, load, and depth.  These waves begin to form the whole way.  That's a fact based on real experiment and observation.  If the wave height is 30 feet, then the wavelength is from 300 to 1200 feet.   As sand is added from above, each wave only need run over 10 waves in front of it to create a layer 300 feet high, that is they only have to migrate 3000 to 12,000 feet, 1 to 3 miles at the most.  Further, one needs to factor in a continuous source of new sand from above such that the waves do not merely migrate 1-3 miles by drawing sand from up current sand waves.  They draw sand from above, and by doing so each wave climbs up over down current waves.

A few abstracts I clipped:

Morphology and internal structure of sandwaves in the Bay of Fundy ROBERT W. DALRYMPLE 1   1 Department of Geological Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada Copyright 1984 International Association of Sedimentologists ABSTRACT Intertidal sandwaves in the Minas Basin and Cobequid Bay, Bay of Fundy, occur under a wide range of conditions (mean grain size 0.274-1.275 mm; velocity strength index (V1)0.46-3.34; and velocity symmetry index (V2) 0.011-0.294), and they vary from symmetrical to strongly asymmetrical in cross-section. Heights and wavelengths average 0.81 and 37.9 m respectively. They are straight to weakly sinuous and laterally continuous in plan, occasionally show crestal branching reminiscent of wave ripples, and are commonly skewed relative to the strongest currents because of differential migration rates along their length. The average migration rate is 0.11 m/tidal cycle. Megaripples occur on each sandwave crest, at least during spring tides, but the areal extent, sinuosity and size of the megaripples increases as the dominant current speed increases. The megaripples have heights averaging 24% of the sandwave height, are oriented perpendicular to the fastest dominant currents, and have life spans of several tidal cycles. They are believed to be in quasi-equilibrium with the sandwaves and play a key role in sandwave dynamics and internal structure formation: periods of lee face steepening and rapid forward migration (megaripple crest at sandwave brink) alternate with times of non-deposition or erosion and slowed or reversed migration (trough at brink). Dominant-current cross-bedding predominates in the two intergradational varieties of translation structure observed: Inclined Cross-Bedding—decimetre-scale cross-beds separated by gently inclined (9° average) erosional surfaces; and Large-Scale Foresets—cross-beds with thicknesses greater than half the sandwave height, interrupted by weakly erosional to conformable discontinuity surfaces. These are overlain by a vertical growth or repair structure, Complex Cross-Bedded Cosets, that consists of nearly equal volumes of dominant- and subordinate-current cross-beds stacked without a preferred set-boundary dip. The translation structures correspond well to forms predicted by Allen (1980a, fig. 8) but the inclined set boundaries and discontinuity surfaces (master bedding planes) are produced by megaripple troughs rather than by current reversals. Consequently, Allen's regime diagram is unable to predict structure occurrences. The repair structures suggest that 'curvature-related mass-transport' (Allen, 1980a, b) is important in tidal sandwave maintenance, although it is not necessarily responsible for sandwave initiation. (Manuscript received May 1980; revision received August 1983) DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI) 10.1111/j.1365-3091.1984.tb00865.x About DOI

]

     Finally, Austin argues that the angle of the slope of the cross beds indicates an origin other than eolian.  He claims the average angle for Coconino cross beds is about 25° [This would be the lee slope], which is less than the average angle of slope observed in sand dunes today.  He states that sand dunes today exhibit angles as much as 30°, and even up to 34° (notice he doesn't actually give the average angle observed today). [He does not have to because the average figure for large dunes that have the characteristic wind 'dead zone' behind them is 32 degrees.  Austin is more accurate here by giving the range 30-34 degrees, i.e. plus/minus 2 degrees. ] By contrast, oceanic sand waves are less. However, as one of my readers has noticed (thanks David), a casual reading of geologic literature shows records of wind-deposited cross beds which are as low as 10°.  [But this is not a figure for any large dune with a dead zone and an avalanche slope at the angle of repose.  We expect large dunes to have a dead zone with this angle, and we would expect it of large dunes that are supposed to have formed crossed bedding from a wind blown source.   The cross beds should be 30-34 degrees on the lee of large dunes.] They have been found to range from 10° to 34°, but typically, they average between 25° and 28°.1 [Yes, but these cannot be the large dunes with wind dead zones behind them.   They have to be smaller incomplete dunes where the height is not enough to create an airflow dead zone where the only force left to pull the sand down is gravitational collapse of the slope.  In smaller dunes, the eddy current backflowing up the lee side deposits enough sand to keep the less slope shallow.   In large dunes, the the height causes gravity creep to dominate creating the maximum slope.  One would expect cross bedding in a large wind deposited sand dune to be at the angle of repose.   Underwater cross bedding can be a much steeper or much shallower angles.   Deviation from the 30-34 degree range indicates a non-sub aerial origin for large scale cross bedding.]

     Second, it is obvious that young earth creation science advocates come up with these theories, and they are posted to the web or published, and they don't consider the impact to each other's theories. [Now Neyman is changing the subject and accusing the creationists of something that Evolutionists are even more guilty of.]  In an article by John Baumgardner and Daniel Barnette, “Patterns of Ocean Circulation Over the Continents During Noah’s Flood,”, these creation scientists have developed a model for creating ocean circulation to cause the erosion needed to deposit all these layers of rock, and they say that the ocean currents top out at 87 meters per second over the continental land masses. [Such ideas ought to be investigated.  Is Neyman saying they ought not research it?]  These currents are localized in gyres, and compressed towards the western margin of the continents. 

     If the current is too great, the sand particles stay in suspension, carried along by the current, until the velocity drops and the sand falls to the bottom.  With the Baumgardner/Barnette study, these currents would carry the sand away from the continental masses, and deposit it in the deep ocean basins. [Where indeed there is a lot of sediment!]  In other words, we would never see the sand today, as it would be deeply buried. [And this contradicts what other creationist research?  Neyman implied as much 'they don't consider the impact to each other's theories';  clearly in the microcosm the layers were water laid, but the explanation of macrocosmic events remains more speculative, just as the evolutionary geologist speculates with even more assumptions based on his or her world view and religious commitments to naturalism or and old earth.   So some inconsistencies are to be expected.    I favor Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory: www.creationscience.com, which does not have this particular problem as the macrocosmic explanation for the source of the sand.] 
     The model does not account for this pattern of ocean circulation. [Is Neyman being unclear here on purpose?]  If you accept the Baumgardner and Barnette theory, then you eliminate the theory of the floating forests being used to make the coal deposits we see today!  (see my article on this). [Not at all.  Creationists theories allow for divine guidance in the destructive process.  After all the flood was a divinely ordered destruction.  God probably shepherded the destruction somewhat to leave the record we see today as evidence of his vast power.  (That's why evolutionary geologists try to explain away the evidence in the rocks by telling fables about it.)  But we do seek to explain God's actions in the most economical way.  If a physical cause effect exists to explain the evidence we prefer it, and we seek to put God's efficient cause further back in the chain of events. (He is wise enough to use physics with maximum efficiency as a demonstration of his wisdom.) The evolutionary philosophy, which some Christians adopt to their own destruction, disallows any divine intervention. Yet the bible is clear.  God intervened with the flood.  So the principle of total naturalism is voided.   B. and B.'s theory is not invalidated by the problem Neyman brings up because, a) there may be some other mechanism sending the sediment back over the continents, and b) if there is not, then divine intervention may be invoked -- God arranged other causes to elevate the sea bed, or to sink the continents.  But again, B. & B. theory is based on the creationist foundation of geological field work demonstrating the rapid water deposited nature of the whole geologic column.  Neyman does not accept this.  But accepting the creationist scientific conclusions in the microcosmic field studies is a necessary prerequisite to the sitting in judgment of creationist macrocosmic theory.  In other words, Neyman is not qualified to speak here because he rejects the clear evidences that form the foundation.]  We are at least proving one erosion theory...if you closely examine young earth theories, they erode!

     [Let's summarize the evidence for the water deposited nature of the Coconino Sandstone:

1. Examination of the animal track ways in the beds and comparison with modern  experiments of track ways made under various sand conditions show that they were made under water. Brand.

2. The grain size plot shows the signature of sand grains moved by water rather than wind. Visher.

3. The paucity of examples of the characteristic large dune signature angle of repose (30-34 degrees) casts grave doubt on the eolian origin theory.  Austin.

4. The presence of 'parting lination' testifies to the water deposited nature of the stone. Visher.

5. Pitting and 'frosting' marks have been shown to be non-diagnostic. Kuenen and Perdock.

6. Clearly the beds were planed off below before deposition, and planed off above after deposition.  Only water accounts for this.  A fast current planes.  A slower current deposits, and then a faster current planes before the next deposit.  Was the sand a dry crossbeded desert before being planed off above?  This would be impossible since any water planing it off would have sunk into the desert and eroded it destroying the cross bedding or redepositing it as water laid crossbeds erasing all the evidence of the mythical desert.

7.  The solid nature of the sandstone testifies to its being a water mix.  Otherwise, the cementing agents for the sandstone could not be chemically active.  One cannot plead dew or light rain for this because this does not explain the relatively flat bottom or top of the formation.

8.  The planer crossbedding observed can be formed by sand waves or tubidity currents.

9.  The current height and velocity conditions can be calculated from the thickness of the beds sand wave height.

10.  This is not all the evidence.  But it is enough for now.]

     Third, a rate of 5.5 feet per second equates to 3.75 miles per hour (about as fast as you can walk).  Remember, the authors' state that the sand moved into place in a few days.  Since the formation is 447 miles across, at 3.75 miles per hour, it would take the water itself 119.2 hours (about 5 days) to reach the other end of this sand formation.  How is water at this rate going to deposit sand 447 miles away in "a few days," when after only five days the water itself barely reaches the other side? [Neyman fails to consider that only the bottom depositional current needs to run at 5.5 feet/sec.     It is likely that the bottom current flowed at 5.5 feet per second depositing the  cross beds as a turbidity current.   However more sand was being supplied from above by a somewhat faster current.  Therefore, the sand was falling from above into the slower current.   In which case the maximum time would be five days plus the time for sand to fall from the fast top current to the bottom at the extremity of the deposit.   Since all the layers are being built simultaneously via Berthault's experiments, the whole formation is built in one pass.   The problem with Neyman's view is that he keeps assuming that the sand is pushed lateraly the whole way at a velocity of 5.5 feet/sec:

]

     The authors conclude "Consequently, this enormous volume of sand would have to have been transported a considerable distance, perhaps at least 200 or 300 miles (320 or 480 kilometres). At the current velocities envisaged sand could be transported that distance in a matter of a few days!"  How can they conclude this!!!  In a matter of a few days they can barely get the water there, much less move the sand too!!!  [As the concentration of sand rises and the velocity of the water increases the speed of the sand approaches to the limit of the speed of the current.  The current only has to slow down for deposition.]

     Even if this was feasible, what about the other 16 layers of sedimentary rock?  [Begging the question.] Look at the cutaway on the Answers in Genesis article, showing the layers of rock in the Grand Canyon.  The Flood model must deposit those as well! [The water laid nature of most of these other deposits is not disputed] Let's even consider the tilted layers beneath the canyon.  By young earth creation science models, these must have formed, then the catastrophic plate tectonic events took place, uplifting them, and then the rest were deposited.  This opens up many other problems that we need not consider here.  Just be aware they cannot be explained by young earth theory. [Ok., if you say so.  But we find that your say so is not reliable.]

     I will say this though...for the first 40 days of the Flood, it rained.  The water was on the earth a total of 375 days.  There are seventeen strata shown in the Grand Canyon diagram, and they must be deposited in 375 days.  In other words, they must average 22 days of deposition per layer! [Sounds like more than the five days required by a factor of 4]  In order to prove this, their model must account for this [Hardly!  When we have scientific proof of what happened in microcosm, we don't have to explain the macrocosm to validate the microcosm!], and not just the isolated example they try to give for the Coconino Sandstone (in reality, it must also account for another 10,000+ feet of sediment in layers stratigraphically above the canyon...for more on this, see Stratigraphy). [Same answer] They know they cannot prove this, [The scripture proves it happened.  We are not required to prove the mechanism to prove what the scripture says.] so they try to trick the reader into believing a small portion, in the hopes that the reader will "assume" the rest!  [The evolutionary geologist lies about the small portion and then assumes the rest.  That's the truth.

     The creationist explains the microcosm correctly.  This is the small scale field evidence.  The evolutionist lies about the microcosm and tells fables about it and then they create the macro cosmic theory of evolution and its billions of years for an old earth out of their whole cloth story telling.  When the evolutionary geologist cannot refute the creationist explanation of the microcosm, they switch to criticizing creationist speculations or attempts to explain the scientific side of the macrocosm.    They then assert that their own macrocosmic view is fact.    Yet, we cannot know all things.  We trust that the Bible tells us what we need to know about the macrocosm, and the microcosms support this when we choose to examine them.  But do we need to have the scientific explanation of the macrocosm?    No it would be arrogance and pride to claim to have this in hand as the last word on fact.   Yet this is exactly what the evolutionists do who insist on their macrocosm against the microcosmic evidences all around them.]

Conclusion

     The proposed young earth creationism model to explain the deposition of the Coconino Sandstone during the short time of Noah's Flood completely erodes away when you examine it closely. [As we have seen, when Neyman is exposed to a second opinion, his argument falls apart] And, if you accept the theory as fact, then you deny the erosion rates proposed by other creation scientists to create the material needed to deposit the sandstone. [Like, I said, Brown: www.creationscience.com explains where the sand came from.]  In other words, you can't "have your cake and eat it too."  Part of the title of their article is “Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood.”  The only thing startling about it is how fast it fails when a little common sense is applied. [It only seems that way to Neyman, but he ignores some evidence and slanders the legitimate conclusions of other evidence to make his point.   This is dishonest and unchristian.   It is not the evidence one expects from one who claims to be a 'Christian'.]