John Whitmore

The Coconino Sandstone (Permian, Arizona, USA): Implications for the origin of ancient cross-bedded sandstones

The Permian Coconino Sandstone is one of the most prominent layers of rock in the Grand Canyon and is important to creationists because it has often been used by conventional scientists to discredit the Bible since it is a supposed windblown (eolian) deposit. Their argument is that deposits like this would be impossible to form in the midst of a global flood as described in Genesis. Over the past forty years, new data has been collected by us and others that we believe indisputably identifies the Coconino as a subaqueous sandstone--data that will be difficult for our critics to counter. These data include evidence from petrology, fossil footprint studies, sedimentology, regional stratigraphy and soft sediment deformation features. In our studies we found that there are many misconceptions or “urban myths” about the Coconino Sandstone including its grain roundness, grain sorting, grain frosting and angle of cross-bed dips. There are no modern analogs that match the precise sedimentology of the Coconino, but we believe that subaqueous sand waves may be a start in the right direction to understand how the Coconino was deposited. Instead of the Coconino being a problem for creationists, it can be one of our most powerful arguments in support of the biblical account of the Flood. There are many other similar cross-bedded sandstones around the world; the Coconino may be the key to unlocking their origin as well.

Preliminary Assessment of the Petrology of the Hopeman Sandstone (Permo-Triassic), Moray Firth Basin, Scotland

The Hopeman Sandstone is a cross-bedded sandstone of Permo-Triassic age that crops out in coastal exposures in northeastern Scotland. Although the unit has traditionally been interpreted as an aeolian deposit, partly on the assumption of well-sorted, well-rounded quartz sand and lack of micas, no detailed thin-section studies have been published to confirm these conclusions. The following report employs petrographical analysis to quantify the sorting, rounding and mineral composition of the Hopeman Sandstone. Our results indicate that the formation is not as well sorted or well rounded as previously suggested and that it contains significant orthoclase and trace amounts of muscovite, which may suggest that depositional models for at least some facies within the unit need to be revised. This report serves as a preliminary analysis of unusual textural trends across the Hopeman Sandstone and should prompt additional research to further characterize and interpret the sedimentology of the formation.