Ah yes,experimental data no one can argue with,thats what i'm talking about.
First of all,lets falsify the assumption that the lowest strata "The Cambrian Muav" must be the oldest strata "The Law of Superposition".
Now we know that organisms above the Cambrian could have been covered up before the organisms below.
It also corroborates the Coconino sandstone being formed by high flow in water and not by winds in a desert.
The desert sand dune model for the origin of the Coconino Sandstone has also recently been challenged by Glen Visher12, Professor of Geology at the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma, and not a creationist geologist. Visher noted that large storms, or amplified tides, today produce submarine sand dunes called â€˜sand wavesâ€™. These modern sand waves on the sea floor contain large cross beds composed of sand with very high quartz purity. Visher has thus interpreted the Coconino Sandstone as a submarine sand wave deposit accumulated by water, not wind. This of course is directly contrary to Youngâ€™s claims, which after all are just the repeated opinions of other evolutionary geologists.
Furthermore, there is other evidence that casts grave doubts on the view that the Coconino Sandstone cross beds formed in desert dunes. The average angle of slope of the Coconino cross beds is about 25Â° from the horizontal, less than the average angle of slope of sand beds within most modern desert sand dunes. Those sand beds slope at an angle of more than 25Â°, with some beds inclined as much as 30Â° to 34Â°, the angle of â€˜restâ€™ of dry sand. On the other hand, modern oceanic sand waves do not have â€˜avalancheâ€™ faces of sand as common as desert dunes, and therefore, have lower average dips of cross beds.
Visher also points to other positive evidence for accumulation of the Coconino Sandstone in water. Within the Coconino Sandstone is a feature known technically as â€˜parting lineationâ€™, which is known to be commonly formed on sand surfaces during brief erosional bursts beneath fast-flowing water. It is not known from any desert sand dunes. Thus Visher also uses this feature as evidence of vigorous water currents accumulating the sand, which forms the Coconino Sandstone.
Similarly, Visher has noted that the different grain sizes of sand within any sandstone are a reflection of the process that deposited the sand. Consequently, he performed sand grain size analyses of the Coconino Sandstone and modern sand waves, and found that the Coconino Sandstone does not compare as favourably to dune sands from modern deserts.
He found that not only is the pitting not diagnostic of the last Process to have deposited the sand grains (pitting can, for example, form first by wind impacts, followed by redeposition by water), but pitting and frosting of sand grains can form outside a desert environment.13 For example, geologists have described how pitting on the surface of sand grains can form by chemical processes during the cementation of sand.
The Coconino and Navajo Sandstone were transported at minimum 1,000 miles from their nearest source of origin (something the flood predicts,but uniformitairians do not).
Ofcourse a global flood would leave the completely opposite kind of evidence that we would expect to see from a uniformitairian formation.So now we move to a different line of evidence.
REGIONALLY EXTENSIVE MASS KILL OF LARGE ORTHOCONE NAUTILOIDS, REDWALL LIMESTONE (LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN), GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONA
AUSTIN, Steven A., Geology Department, Institute for Creation Rsch, Santee, CA 92071-2833, firstname.lastname@example.org and WISE, Kurt P., Bryan College, Box 7585, Dayton, TN 37321-7000
Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.
Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.
Discovery of the extent of the packstone bed, inventory of nautiloid fossils, and interpretation of depositional process were made possible within Grand Canyon National Park by special use permits allowing motorized raft operations with geologists on the Colorado River. Float boulders with nautiloids directed our attention to the source bed within the Redwall cliff. Because of the Antiquities Act, we chose to collect nautiloids for research from outside the national park. Our investigations provide an interesting example of how paleontological discoveries can be made in remote areas of national parks.