E. Are any cross-bedded sandstones eolian? In this paper, two sets of cross-bed dip angle data were considered: those from modern dunes and those from sandstones. The study was initially conducted to compare the cross-bed dips of the Coconino with modern eolian dunes. The study was extended to include other sandstones. The data shows that all of the sandstones examined have similar means, but very different distributions when considering the complete set. Especially telling is the abundance of low cross-bed dips in modern dunes and the differences in the standard deviations of cross-bed angles between sandstones and dunes. All of the sandstones examined have narrow standard deviations and a lack of low dip angles when compared to dunes, showing the sandstones can be clearly distinguished from the modern dunes and that the sandstones probably all formed in similar non-eolian settings. Whitmore and Garner (2018) showed that many characteristics of the Coconino were non-eolian in origin; this study shows one more non-eolian characteristic that is not only applicable to the Coconino, but a host of other sandstones as well. F. Future work To corroborate the conclusions of this paper, more dune measurements need to be made in large dune fields. Current technology may be able to help in getting an almost infinite number of accurate slope measurements. Hi resolution lidar imagery could be used with programs like ArcGIS to calculate dune slopes in specific areas with a grid overlay. An approach like this would help eliminate bias. I predict this approach will not radically change the data in this paper, but nonetheless, the approach should be tried. V. CONCLUSION In consideration of more than 6,000 cross-bed inclinations of modern dunes and more than 5,000 inclinations of sandstones, many of which are supposed eolian deposits, it is concluded that measurements reported from modern eolian dunes do not compare well with their supposed counterparts in the rock record. Most creationists have thought that eolian cross-bed dips are steeper and water-laid crossbed sets are shallower. This is not exactly true, or a good way to characterize the differences. Although central tendencies of the two sets of data are similar, the standard deviation of dune measurements is 10.1 compared to the standard deviation of sandstone measurements which is lower at 5.7, meaning the sandstone data are more “bunched” together (Fig. 7). Most significantly, 25.5% of the dune data measurements are less than 10°, where only 1.4% of the sandstone data are less than 10°. 17.3% of the dune data are greater than 30°, whereas only 3.0% of the sandstone data are greater than this value (Fig. 6). Sedimentary compaction and erosion of steeper angles near the top of the foresets have usually been cited as the reasons for this discrepancy. Some lowering of cross-bed dip values certainly occurs by this mechanism as porosity is reduced, but the reduction of dips cannot explain the near absence of low cross-bed dips in sandstones. My data clearly show that modern eolian crossbed dips cannot produce the collection of cross-bed dips that we see in ancient sandstones (Fig. 10). Additionally, when individual sets of ancient sandstone cross-bed sets are compared, like the Coconino, Wescogame, and Tapeats of the Grand Canyon, the groups cannot be statistically differentiated (Fig. 9), despite their supposed different depositional environments and cross-bed set thicknesses. Considering cross-bed set thickness alone is not a reliable way to determine the depositional environment, as many have done. Sets of cross-bed inclination angles may be a more reliable way to help determine the depositional environment. Eolian cross-bed angles have a wide spread ranging from 0-40° and a standard deviation of about 10 (Fig. 7). None of the ancient sandstone data that was examined in this study matched those parameters, suggesting the sandstones in this study did not form in eolian settings. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank Cedarville University which has supported my work for many years. Several reviewers suggested changes that corrected errors and helped improve this paper. I appreciate their input and their time spent with this paper. Any errors remaining are my responsibility. REFERENCES Ahlbrandt, T.S., and S.G. Fryberger. 1980. Eolian deposits in the Nebraska Sand Hills. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1120A:1–24. Allen, J.R.L. 1963. The classification of cross-stratified units, with notes on their origin. Sedimentology 2:93-114. Allen, J.R.L. 1970. The avalanching of granular solids on dune and similar slopes. The Journal of Geology 78:326-351. Bigarella, J.J. 1972. Eolian environments: Their characteristics, recognition and importance. In: J.K. Rigby and W.K Hamblin (editors), Recognition of Ancient Sedimentary Environments, pp. 12-62. Bigarella, J.J., and R. Salamuni. 1961. Early Mesozoic wind patterns as suggested by dune bedding in the Botucatú Sandstone of Brazil and Uruguay. Geological Society of America Bulletin 72:1089-1106. Bigarella, J.J., R.D. Becker, and G.M. Duarte. 1969. Coastal dune structures from Paraná (Brazil). Marine Geology 7:5-55. Boggs. S., Jr. 2012. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy, 5th ed. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall. Carrigy, M.A. 1970. Experiments on the angles of repose of granular material. Sedimentology 14:147-158. Collins, L.G. 2022. Eolian or water deposition of the Coconino Sandstone. Retrieved December 29, 2022, from https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/ Nr91Eolian.pdf. Corey, M.A., B.M. Simonson, and D.B. Loope. 2005. Physical compaction as a cause of reduced cross-bed dip angle in the Navajo Sandstone. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 37(7):254. Emery, M., S. Maithel, and J.H. Whitmore. 2011. Can compaction account for lower-than-expected cross-bed dips in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian), Arizona? Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 43(5):430. Fryberger, S.G., N. Jones, M. Johnson, and C. Chopping. 2016. Stratigraphy, exploration and EOR potential of the Tensleep/Casper Formations, SE Wyoming. Search and Discovery Article #10851. Wyoming Geological Association, Casper, Wyoming. Glennie, K.W. 1972. Permian Rotliegendes of northwest Europe interpreted in light of modern desert sedimentation studies. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 56:1048-1071. Hill, C., G. Davidson, T. Helble, and W. Ranney, (editors). 2016. The Grand Canyon Monument to an Ancient Earth. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications. WHITMORE Cross-bed inclinations 2023 ICC 609
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=