The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

the Coconino Sandstone and eolian deposits in general, Strahler (1999, p. 217) states: “The evidence of subaerial origin of the dune-sand formations is undisputed as to its significance by mainstream geology; in itself is sufficiently weighty to discredit the biblical story of the Flood of Noah as a naturalistic phenomenon occurring in one year.” The Coconino is thought to have been deposited during Noah’s Flood bymost Flood geologists because it is bounded bywidespread Paleozoic marine deposits, which occur both below, and above the Coconino; and of course you cannot have major windblown dune sands in the middle of worldwide Flood deposits. A wide variety of other skeptics, some theistic, have come to similar conclusions about the sandstone. Examples include Helble (2011), Hill et al. (2016), Ranney (2001), Weber (1980) and Young and Stearley (2008). PREVIOUS WORK Darton (1910) originally named the Coconino Sandstone after outcrops in Coconino County, Arizona. However, the sandstone is best known for its outcrops near the rim of Grand Canyon and along the Mogollon Rim south of Flagstaff. McKee (1934) published the first comprehensive study of the Coconino and followed it with other minor papers throughout his long career (1944, 1945, 1979). Gilmore published several papers regarding the vertebrate tracks in the sandstone obtained for the Smithsonian Institution (1926, 1927a, 1927b, 1928). Other short papers on the sparse paleontology of the Coconino have been published since then. Several theses on various aspects of the sandstone include those by Elcock (1993), Fisher (1961), Lundy (1973), Millhouse (2009) and Sumner (1999). Reiche (1938) published data on cross-bed dips within the Coconino. Blakey has published numerous papers regarding the stratigraphy of Pennsylvanian and Permian rocks of the Colorado Plateau, which include the Coconino (Blakey 1990, 1996; Blakey and Knepp 1989; Blakey et al., 1988). Middleton et al. (2003) published the most often cited technical summary of the Coconino. As far as creationist and ichnology work in the Coconino, Leonard Brand’s experiments and publications stand above all the rest; they include Brand (1978, 1979, 1996), Brand and Kramer (1996), and Brand and Tang (1991). He and some of his students have also published a number of short abstracts that have appeared in the Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs , for example. John Whitmore informally began his studies on the Coconino in 1998 when as a graduate student he began field work on the sandstone (Whitmore and Peters 1999). His first formal publication was in 2005. The Institute for Creation Research sponsored the present authors, Raymond Strom and some others as part of the multi-year “FAST” project (approximately 2006-2012) to study the Coconino. A number of short abstracts, magazine articles and publications (including this one) were the direct result of many of those studies; technical works include Maithel et al. (2015), Whitmore and Strom (2010), Whitmore et al. (2014) and Whitmore et al. (2015). A number of Whitmore’s students have also published abstracts related to the Coconino during this period (too numerous to mention). As a result of all this work, Whitmore et al. submitted a lengthy unpublished report to ICR in 2012. A few formal papers remain to be published which were side projects of the main Coconino FAST project. Sarah Maithel (student of Whitmore and later Brand) is currently doing active research on Whitmore and Garner ◀ The Coconino Sandstone ▶ 2018 ICC 582 Figure 2. Typical cross-bedding in the Coconino near Holbrook, Arizona. Most is planar tabular-shaped or planar wedge-shaped (after McKee and Weir, 1953). Vertical scale bar on left is approximately 1 m long. JHW photo 5430-2009.