Monday, January 25, 2010
My fingers are too stiff.
My eyes are dry.
My mind too weak to find excuses.
My spirit too disillusioned to even dream.
So this is how one feels when one is at a loss.
When one sees reality all too plainly.
When one gets stabbed with the sharp truth.
Can I ask for immunity?
From the pain?
From the mounting hurt?
From the fear that chokes?
Can I borrow?
a shallow laugh to wipe the tears away.
a hallow hug to make the burden a little lighter?
a reckless moment where I can run so I can chase my floating dreams.
a crayon to color the moments of solitude.
a longer sleep to oblivion to wash the nagging truth.
Can I, just for once... pass through walls?
to wander aimlessly...
to touch the stars...
to burn with the sun...
to laugh with the waves...
to conquer dragons...
to name new lands...
to create new worlds...
humming silence wanders across the room and beyond. Along with it is my roaming mind, chasing the red diaries of the sane, prevailing beyond the hateful reality of not being able to vanish upon will. All the while preparing the sheets... tying them together, making sure it is roped correctly, tied tightly to the window, as I prepare to jump to the little escape the world is offering.
Outside, I see no one familiar.
Outside, I will not be suffocated with lies that once drove me to madness.
Outside, no walls to abide and no bricks to scamper from...no cup to pour my blood on...no boxes to store my heart...No smoke to make me cry.
Outside...where there is nothing to hold on to and everything is new. Where the strings no longer has its magic and the words pure and true.
Friday, January 22, 2010
I'm doing a project where I have identified the goal but am lost in terms of where to begin its execution. I've made the draft and written concepts and has partially completed the project design. Or something...whatever you may call it.
But I'm lost.
And am trying to retrace my steps slowly by identifying factors and returning to the reasons "WHY" I've decided to accept this challenge.
And it helped...but not enough to push me forward. And so here I am fiddling with the keyboard hoping for a strike of genius to smack me straight in my face.
Sometimes, when I am too buried in the things I do, I get lost in the swarm of information I receive that I sometimes lose my ability to interpret them. When one is overwhelmed, one can only be at awe...and sometimes...being at awe for a long time makes me just do that, be in awe. Wide eyed...open-mouthed...and probably salivating.
When this happens, I remind myself of Boyd's OODA loop.
Introduced by a friend years ago, I've managed to clasp on it until it consumed me. But this does not mean I've reached the depth of Boyd's "drestroy and create" philosophy where I can chew on his words without blinking. Nope -- I'm still struggling. Still trying to learn the meaning of his words and still trying to engage such practice in my reality.
Me struggling, and struggling some more to understand Boyd's strat ironically gives me a breather. It reminds me to step back and to re-orient myself correctly. It screams at me that I might be worrying over the wrong thing. It scolds me that my decisions may not be valid because my observation is at fault.
The project material that seem impossible to understand is now being read with fresh eyes. Things suddenly make sense.
Concepts emerge from the once invisible underlying pattern.
I've ceased to become a paralyzed idiot because of the material's impressive qualities...but it doesn't mean that surprises stop there.
What do I mean?
It all goes back to the frame of mind.
That solutions are not the best answers available but rather, solutions are the RIGHT answers to the problem at hand. And you can only get to the right answers when you begin with the correct questions.
In questioning wrongly, even the best answers will render useless. But correct questions can only be asked if you are not afraid to destroy pre-conceived notions and structures. And this does not only apply to the material at hand. It applies to our orientation. And our orientation shape our observations. That's why conventional thinking often leads to conventional reasoning.
For example, there are many ways to get a five.
Instantly our orientation would suggest the conventional thinking 4+1 and 2+3.
But isn't 1+1+1+1+1 a 5 ? or 2+1+1+1 = 5 ?
The addition need not consist of 2 whole numbers only, right?
isn't 2.5 + 2.5 = 5 or 2 1/5 + 2 1/5 = 5 ?
an example that it need not be only whole numbers too.
and the equation is not necessarily addition alone as 15-10 = 5
The mind has to broaden its perspective for it to adapt. Yes, it will be difficult. Yes, it will make you cry sometimes in frustration. Yes, you will have to understand your way of thinking first before you can scrutinize other brains and the treasure it beholds. To readily reject things you cannot understand may be the worst thing you can do to impede your growth. Not only in the aspect of work and projects but as a person.
A person who cannot adapt in the constant changes of the world is a person whose mind is not willing to understand. He will be most likely to get stuck... and his knowledge, once proven effective, may become obsolete in the process unless he learns to integrate it in the new system of the "present".
He will be most likely to be scared of changes because it meant destruction of his conventional frame. In the end, he gets disengaged in the present reality, his decisions ineffective, and his actions useless.
And this is because his mind, in its unwillingness to understand, has underestimated (or may not be aware of) the complexities involved. And many people have been killed because of this arrogance.
To underestimate immediately is to be misled.
To be misled puts one in a disadvantage.
To be in such position would most likely bring you failure.
So when you've come to a conclusion that seems to be different from the usual, remind yourself that a unique concept will always be radical. It will not always be accepted because it will most likely go against the norm. No, you are not rejecting the "norm"...actually, it is a good place to start. It can be a point of reference.
But the norm is not always what it seems.
The norm can be very deceiving.
Like the OODA loop not really being a loop to begin with.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Infatuation is when you find him perfect. But when you realize he is not and it doesn't matter...it must be something else.
tag. you're it.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
You get addicted to it.
You cannot say no.
You get angry for no reason.
You get so consumed that you feel lost in your madness.
And when the hype is all gone, you feel there is no reason for living anymore...or to get out of bed to do something stupid.
There are some days when i am so certain about what i want. Some days, I just don't know what to do with myself. And so i try to creep in into the depths of what remains inside to justify all the sudden hurting i feel.
There is nothing to do? I feel useless. It's these times that I feel neglected. It's these times that I am annoyed for no apparent reason.
Be it the sudden banging of the door.
The shrieks of the neighbor.
The slow careful steps outside my bedroom door.
Left on my own, slouching in bed, worrying over useless things and imagining even more useless things, I tend to find peace. In the oddest sense of feeling useless and exuberant to be able to laze around, I find a serenity that my working days has robbed me. Growing up with a mom to fuss over me and a nagging nanny who directly reports to the parental authorities, I find it hard to find a special space of my own to think my tinker thoughts. Now, with no mom and no nanny to invade my personal sanctum, unleashed and free to do whatever that was not allowed before, I find myself confused and with no direction. So many things to do and wanting to do it all at once ---- it is making me dizzy.
I tell myself, growing up is like learning how to walk.
One step at a time.
One single step towards whatever you want.
One single step towards experimentation and idiosyncrasy.
And if the steps are proving to be slow ones, hop and jump, and even roll.
Laugh while you're at it.
Stomp if it frustrates you.
Be careless if need be.
Just avoid being chained again.
Refuse to be tied to anything.
Leave whatever that entails imprisonment.
Cry when you want.
Forget if things got too hurtful.
Take pills if you cannot sleep.
Do not growl. You don't have to be ugly to look tough...but it helps.
and if the world got too noisy, I remind myself that I can always retreat to my own secret hiding place where no one will be admitted.
If the world got too rowdy, let them fight among themselves.
If the world is starting to get smaller, find another planet and alien to play with.
You don't have to conform.
You don't have to follow.
You play by your own rules.
Be polite to the nasty and be patient to the idiots.
Observe. Understand. and play with people intelligent enough to understand your game.
Avoid buses when driving.
Get a license.
and don't stop learning how to cook.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Christopher and Heather XXXX
XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX
Boone, NC 28607
Dear Mr. and Mrs. XXXXX
We are writing to you as members of the Evergreen Homeowner’s Association about a concern that has occupied all our minds since you moved into this neighborhood. We are a congregate group of good Christian and God fearing people. The display you have set up on the outer section of your lot has us a bit concerned as the statue appears to be a type of Pagan worshipping symbol, unlike the other lawn decorations in our neighborhood. Shirley Whitley, a neighbor of yours says that this is a Satanic being and that you may be involved in the Occult. We have all noticed strange goings on around the neighborhood. There are flashing lights in the sky and numerous dead animals in the road. We understand that you are a homeowner, but if you will read your declaration of restrictions, obscene or vulgar displays on your property are not allowed. We insist that you remove this questionable display at once. Our children are not to be influenced by Devil worship and deviant behavior.
For the Evergreen Homeowners Association
June 16, 2002
Dear Ardna (IF that’s your real name),
I am addressing the issue of my Gargoyle which the benevolent homeowners association seems to take offense to.
I will NOT be removing my Gargoyle any time soon. A Gargoyle is an ancient protector of property, and can be seen all over Europe in the architectural structure. I guess the homeowners association hasn’t gotten to them yet. My Gargoyle basically looks like a puppy with wings. Does this frighten you? I can only imagine you screaming in fear when the Snuggles fabric softener bear is speaking to you through your evil television set.
I would like to file a formal complaint about several yards in the neighborhood. The guy down at 152 has grass that’s over two feet tall. What’s he growing in there? The woman at 138 has a saddle and stirrups decorating her mailbox. What is that all about? I, for one, am not a cowboy, do not like cowboys and find it horrifying how the cowboys treated the Indians and Tom Landry. That guy was the only coach they ever had. Once they fired him, he died. Was that fair? I find cowboys to be highly offensive. Don’t get me started on the pink flamingos in the Whitley yard.
As for the flashes of light in the sky, that’s lightning, you idiot. Have you noticed at about the same time the wicked sky lights are flashing, there are evil drops of liquid falling from the sky? We are in a drought. I would think rain would make you thankful.
As far as the dead animals go, you idiots don’t know how to drive on the winding mountain roads. That is called ROADKILL. If you will notice, these are squirrels and rabbits that just walk in front of you as you drive down the mountain with your retired tunnelvisionist eyes glaring straight ahead.
We live at the top of this mountain. Your friends and neighbors cannot even see my house for all the trees surrounding it, so there is no need for you to freak out over my lawn stuff. I will not be moving things, so take whatever action you feel is necessary.
See you in hell,
Christopher and Heather XXXX
XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX:X
Boone, NC 28607
October 25, 2002
Dear Mr .and Mrs. XXXXX
We are writing to you again, not on the issue of your gargoyle, which you are determined not to remove from display in our neighborhood, but on the issue of your Christmas lights.
Are you aware that it is not yet November? You apparently put up Christmas lights the second week of this month and insist on plugging them in nightly. We can all see your glowing display late into the night over the mountain horizon. It is keeping several of us awake at night and we do not appreciate such flagrant non-adherence to the Association rules. Page six of your Homeowner’s Association guidelines specifically states that the neighborhood shall remain seasonal, with holiday displays not to be presented in a period greater than two weeks prior or after said holiday.
Your lights are a distraction to visitors. An acquaintance who works at Boone Airport has said that your lights are obnoxious and a turn-off to visitors who land at the airport. If this is an attempt to retaliate against us for the gargoyle incident, we are becoming increasingly annoyed with your behavior. Legal action may be necessary to either A) force you to move out of our
once peaceful neighborhood or B) obtain a court ordered fine for your continuing defiance of our rules and regulations.
If you think we will back down on this issue, as we did on the issue of your gargoyle, you are sadly mistaken.
In addition, we are disturbed by the constant removal of trees from your property. Sunday morning is not a proper time for you to operate your chainsaw. Our community prides itself on the beautiful forestry that surround our neighborhood and we are determined to stop you from ruining the scenery. Please leave our trees alone!
For the Evergreen Homeowners Association
November 4, 2002
Dear Ardna (I just can’t believe that is your name),
I AM aware of the date. If this neighborhood is like the last one I lived in, you will not be putting up lights at all, no matter what the date is. The last neighborhood, I was the only house on the street to put up lights, as it is Siberian-like weather here in December, perhaps the reason no one puts up lights.
Why do you care that my lights are up? Again, I live at the top of the mountain and nobody can even see my house. If it keeps you awake at night, close your freakin’ windows and quit peering out them like Mrs. Kravitz. I am not up here for your amusement. If you want a show, I will be I glad to give you one on New Year’ s Eve, otherwise, QUIT LOOKIN’ MY WAY .
I will not be taking down my lights because of your meek little letter, as it took me 10 days to put them all up. Page six of the guidelines also is the reference page that my gargoyle fell into. I am officially tearing page six out of my guidelines and wiping my ass with it. I will then post it to the tree nearest my mailbox for all your visitors to see. Feel free to take it down and examine it or use it as evidence against my in your little lawsuit.
Did someone really fly into Boone International Airport? Did they really complain about my lights? If so, then I obtained my goal. Someone noticed my lights and I gave the one person who flies into that parking lot something to go home and tell their friends about. Why did you back off on my gargoyle? Did someone tell you your letter to me, coming off as an inbred Christian fanatic was posted all over the internet, and read by many, many people? I got more feedback from people I don’t even know telling me to sue YOU for civil rights violations than you would know.
As for the trees I plunked down $140,000.00 for this house and the acre of property that goes with it. These are MY trees, and I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about what you think about me cutting them down. Aren’t you in church on Sunday Morning, rescuing the world from
gargoyle-bearing heathens? The way I see it, this is the BEST time for me to cut down my trees. There are over 300 trees on my property and I will cut them all down if I wish. Then you will have a better view of my house, my gargoyle and my feces smeared page six of the Homeowner’s Association rules and regulations nailed to the one tree I will leave standing.
Oh, and I’m not done putting up lights yet. Enjoy.
As always, love,
The Satan loving, electricity burning tree killer.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
For example, It is friday night, and fridays are always a good day to hang out with the gang. He looks at his watch and will then see (analyze) if he can sneak an hour or two with the boys. He then reaches for his phonebook and explores his friends' numbers to see if anyone is going out. He constructs a system of "what-ifs" and thinks of possible reasons that will show the urgency and necessity that pushed him to do what he did including possible answers and excuses to the nagging questions that he knows, is waiting for him when he reaches home. It would have been a perfect plan...except that he sometimes gets nervous when grilled.
Men may have the ability to easily figure things out but women are better at understanding people.
So baby, when you have constructed your reasons and apologies, practice on them...and practice it a million times. We are anticipating your move and we are very good at making allies (ehem).Plus we read minds.
Although there are still the old school patriarchs, men these days see the potentials of "compromise". They now have time to listen and are now setting time to talk their sweethearts out of her depressive mood.
Lengthy conversations are now part of their lives.
And most of all, most men are now realizing that relationships can never be always logical and rational.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
‘There is no sight on earth which matches Grand Canyon. There are other canyons, other mountains and other rivers, but this Canyon excels all in scenic grandeur. Can any visitor, upon viewing Grand Canyon, grasp and appreciate the spectacle spread before him? The ornate sculpture work and the wealth of color are like no other landscape. They suggest an alien world. The scale is too outrageous. The sheer size and majesty engulf the intruder, surpassing his ability to take it in.’1
Figure 1. A panoramic view of the Grand Canyon from the South Rim at Yavapai Point. The Coconino Sandstone is the thick buff-coloured layer close to the top of the canyon walls. Compare with Figure 2.
Figure 2. Grand Canyon in cross-section showing the names given to the different rock units by geologists.
Anyone who has stood on the rim and looked down into Grand Canyon would readily echo these words as one’s breath is taken away with the sheer magnitude of the spectacle. The Canyon stretches for 277 miles (446 kilometres) through northern Arizona, attains a depth of more than 1 mile (1.6 kilometres), and ranges from 4 miles (6.4 kilometres) to 18 miles (29 kilometres) in width. In the walls of the Canyon can be seen flat-lying rock layers that were once sand, mud or lime. Now hardened, they look like pages of a giant book as they stretch uniformly right through the Canyon and underneath the plateau country to the north and south and deeper to the east.
The Coconino Sandstone
To begin to comprehend the awesome scale of these rock layers, we can choose any one for detailed examination. Perhaps the easiest of these rock layers to spot, since it readily catches the eye, is a thick, pale buff coloured to almost white sandstone near the top of the Canyon walls. Geologists have given the different rock layers names, and this one is called the Coconino Sandstone (see Figures 1 and 2). It is estimated to have an average thickness of 315 feet (96 metres) and, with equivalent sandstones to the east, covers an area of about 200,000 square miles (518,000 square kilometres).2 That is an area more than twice the size of the Australian State of Victoria, or almost twice the area of the US State of Colorado! Thus the volume of this sandstone is conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles (41,700 cubic kilometres). That’s a lot of sand!
Figure 3. Cross beds (inclined sub-layering) within the Coconino Sandstone, as seen on the Bright Angel Trail in the Grand Canyon.
What do these rock layers in Grand Canyon mean? What do they tell us about the earth’s past? For example, how did all the sand in this Coconino Sandstone layer and its equivalents get to where it is today?
To answer these questions geologists study the features within rock layers like the Coconino Sandstone, and even the sand grains themselves. An easily noticed feature of the Coconino Sandstone is the distinct cross layers of sand within it called cross beds (see Figure 3, right). For many years evolutionary geologists have interpreted these cross beds by comparing them with currently forming sand deposits — the sand dunes in deserts which are dominated by sand grains made up of the mineral quartz, and which have inclined internal sand beds. Thus it has been proposed that the Coconino Sandstone accumulated over thousands and thousands of years in an immense windy desert by migrating sand dunes, the cross beds forming on the down-wind sides of the dunes as sand was deposited there.3
Figure 4: A fossilized quadruped trackway in the Coconino Sandstone on display in the Grand Canyon Natural History Association’s Yavapai Point Museum at the South Rim.
The Coconino Sandstone is also noted for the large number of fossilized footprints, usually in sequences called trackways. These appear to have been made by four-footed vertebrates moving across the original sand surfaces (see Figure 4, left). These fossil footprint trackways were compared to the tracks made by reptiles on desert sand dunes,4 so it was then assumed that these fossilized footprints in the Coconino Sandstone must have been made in dry desert sands which were then covered up by wind-blown sand, subsequent cementation forming the sandstone and fossilizing the prints.
Yet another feature that evolutionary geologists have used to argue that the Coconino Sandstone represents the remains of a long period of dry desert conditions is the sand grains themselves. Geologists have studied the sand grains from modern desert dunes and under the microscope they often show pitted or frosted surfaces. Similar grain surface textures have also been observed in sandstone layers containing very thick cross beds such as the Coconino Sandstone, so again this comparison has strengthened the belief that the Coconino Sandstone was deposited as dunes in a desert.
At first glance this interpretation would appear to be an embarrassment to Bible-believing geologists who are unanimous in their belief that it must have been Noah’s Flood that deposited the flat lying beds of what were once sand, mud and lime, but are now exposed as the rock layers in the walls of the Canyon.
Above the Coconino Sandstone is the Toroweap Formation and below is the Hermit Formation, both of which geologists agree are made up of sediments that were either deposited by and/or in water. 5,6 How could there have been a period of dry desert conditions in the middle of the Flood year when ‘all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered’ (Genesis 7:19) by water?
This seeming problem has certainly not been lost on those, even from within the Christian community, opposed to Flood geologists and creationists in general. For example, Dr Davis Young, Professor of Geology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in a recent book being marketed in Christian bookshops, has merely echoed the interpretations made by evolutionary geologists of the characteristics of the Coconino Sandstone, arguing against the Flood as being the agent for depositing the Coconino Sandstone. He is most definite in his consideration of the desert dune model:
‘The Coconino Sandstone contains spectacular cross bedding, vertebrate track fossils, and pitted and frosted sand grain surfaces. All these features are consistent with formation of the Coconino as desert sand dunes. The sandstone is composed almost entirely of quartz grains, and pure quartz sand does not form in floods … no flood of any size could have produced such deposits of sand …’7
The footprint trackways in the Coconino Sandstone have recently been re-examined in the light of experimental studies by Dr Leonard Brand of Loma Linda University in California.8 His research program involved careful surveying and detailed measurements of 82 fossilized vertebrate trackways discovered in the Coconino Sandstone along the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon. He then observed and measured 236 experimental trackways made by living amphibians and reptiles in experimental chambers. These tracks were formed on sand beneath the water, on moist sand at the water’s edge, and on dry sand, the sand mostly sloping at an angle of 25 degrees, although some observations were made on slopes of 15deg; and 20° for comparison. Observations were also made of the underwater locomotion of five species of salamanders (amphibians) both in the laboratory and in their natural habitat, and measurements were again taken of their trackways.
A detailed statistical analysis of these data led to the conclusion, with a high degree of probability that the fossil tracks must have been made underwater. Whereas the experimental animals produce footprints under all test conditions, both up and down the 25° slopes of the laboratory ‘dunes’, all but one of the fossil trackways could only have been made by the animals in question climbing uphill. Toe imprints were generally distinct, whereas the prints of the soles were indistinct. These and other details were present in over 80% of the fossil, underwater and wet sand tracks, but less than 12% of the dry sand and damp sand tracks had any toe marks. Dry sand uphill tracks were usually just depressions, with no details. Wet sand tracks were quite different from the fossil tracks in certain features. Added to this, the observations of the locomotive behaviour of the living salamanders indicated that all spent the majority of their locomotion time walking on the bottom, underwater, rather than swimming.
Putting together all of his observations, Dr Brand thus came to the conclusion that the configurations and characteristics of the animals trackways made on the submerged sand surfaces most closely resembled the fossilized quadruped trackways of the Coconino Sandstone. Indeed, when the locomotion behaviour of the living amphibians is taken into account, the fossilized trackways can be interpreted as implying that the animals must have been entirely under water (not swimming at the surface) and moving upslope (against the current) in an attempt to get out of the water. This interpretation fits with the concept of a global Flood, which overwhelmed even four-footed reptiles and amphibians that normally spend most of their time in the water.
Not content with these initial studies, Dr Brand has continued (with the help of a colleague) to pursue this line of research. He recently published further results,9 which were so significant that a brief report of their work appeared in Science News10 and Geology Today. 11
His careful analysis of the fossilized trackways in the Coconino Sandstone, this time not only from the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon but from other trails and locations, again revealed that all but one had to have been made by animals moving up cross bed slopes. Furthermore, these tracks often show that the animals were moving in one direction while their feet were pointing in a different direction. It would appear that the animals were walking in a current of water, not air. Other trackways start or stop abruptly, with no sign that the animals’ missing tracks were covered by some disturbance such as shifting sediments. It appears that these animals simply swam away from the sediment.
Because many of the tracks have characteristics that are ‘just about impossible’ to explain unless the animals were moving underwater, Dr Brand suggested that newt-like animals made the tracks while walking under water and being pushed by a current. To test his ideas, he and his colleague videotaped living newts walking through a laboratory tank with running water. All 238 trackways made by the newts had features similar to the fossilized trackways in the Coconino Sandstone, and their videotaped behaviour while making the trackways thus indicated how the animals that made the fossilized trackways might have been moving.
These additional studies confirmed the conclusions of his earlier researches. Thus, Dr Brand concluded that all his data suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil tracks should not be used as evidence for desert wind deposition of dry sand to form the Coconino Sandstone, but rather point to underwater deposition. These evidence from such careful experimental studies by a Flood geologist overturn the original interpretation by evolutionists of these Coconino Sandstone fossil footprints, and thus call into question their use by Young and others as an argument against the Flood.
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 ‘sand waves’. 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 Young’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 25° 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 25°, with some beds inclined as much as 30° to 34°, the angle of ‘rest’ of dry sand. On the other hand, modern oceanic sand waves do not have ‘avalanche’ 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 ‘parting lineation’, 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.
Sand wave deposition
Figure 5. Schematic diagram showing the formation of cross beds during sand deposition by migration of underwater sand waves due to sustained water flow.
A considerable body of evidence is now available which indicates that the Coconino Sandstone was deposited by the ocean, and not by desert accumulation of sand dunes as emphatically maintained by most evolutionary geologists, including Christians like Davis Young. The cross beds within the Coconino Sandstone (that is, the inclined beds of sand within the overall horizontal layer of sandstone) are excellent evidence that ocean currents moved the sand rapidly as dune-like mounds called sand waves.14
Figure 5 (right) shows the way sand waves have been observed to produce cross beds in layers of sand. The water current moves over the sand surface building up mounds of sand. The current erodes sand from the ‘up-current’ side of the sand wave and deposits it as inclined layers on the ‘down-current’ side of the sand wave. Thus the sand wave moves in the direction of current flow as the inclined strata continue to be deposited on the down-current side of the sand wave. Continued erosion of sand by the current removes both the up-current side and top of the sand wave, the only part usually preserved being just the lower half of the down-current side. Thus the height of the cross beds preserved is just a fraction of the original sand wave height. Continued transportation of further sand will result in repeated layers containing inclined cross beds. These will be stacked up on each other.
Sand waves have been observed on certain parts of the ocean floor and in rivers, and have been produced in laboratory studies. Consequently, it has been demonstrated that the sand wave height is related to the water depth.15 As the water depth increases so does the height of the sand waves which are produced. The heights of the sand waves are approximately one-fifth of the water depth. Similarly, the velocities of the water currents that produce sand waves have been determined.
Thus we have the means to calculate both the depth and velocity of the water responsible for transporting as sand waves the sand that now makes up the cross beds of the Coconino Sandstone. The thickest sets of cross beds in the Coconino Sandstone so far reported are 30 feet (9 metres) thick.16 Cross beds of that height imply sand waves at least 60 feet (18 metres) high and a water depth of around 300 feet (between 90 and 95 metres). For water that deep to make and move sand waves as high as 60 feet (18 metres) the minimum current velocity would need to be over 3 feet per second (95 centimetres per second) or 2 miles per hour. 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.
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. Modern tides and normal ocean currents do not have these velocities in the open ocean, although deep-sea currents have been reported to attain velocities of between 50 cm and 250 cm (2.5 metres) per second through geographical restrictions. Thus catastrophic events provide the only mechanism, which can produce high velocity ocean currents over a wide area.
Hurricanes (or cyclones in the southern hemisphere) are thought to make modern sand waves of smaller size than those that have produced the cross beds in the Coconino Sandstone, but no measurements of hurricane driven currents approaching these velocities in deep water have been reported. The most severe modern ocean currents known have been generated during a tsunami or ‘tidal wave’. In shallow oceans tsunami-induced currents have been reported on occasion to exceed 500 cm (5 metres) per second, and currents moving in the one direction have been sustained for hours.19 Such an event would be able to move large quantities of sand and, in its waning stages, build huge sand waves in deep water. Consequently, a tsunami provides the best modern analogy for understanding how large-scale cross beds such as those in the Coconino Sandstone could form.
We can thus imagine how the Flood would deposit the Coconino Sandstone (and its equivalents), which covers an area of 200,000 square miles (518,000 square kilometres) averages 315 feet (96 metres) thick, and contains a volume of sand conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles (41,700 cubic kilometres). But where could such an enormous quantity of sand come from? Cross beds within the Coconino dip consistently toward the south, indicating that the sand came from the north. However, along its northern occurrence, the Coconino rests directly on the Hermit Formation, which consists of siltstone and shale and so would not have been an ample source of sand of the type now found in the Coconino Sandstone. 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!
Thus the evidence within the Coconino Sandstone does not support the evolutionary geologists interpretation of slow and gradual deposition of sand in a desert environment with dunes being climbed by wandering four-footed vertebrates. On the contrary, a careful examination of the evidence, backed up by experiments and observations of processes operating today indicates catastrophic deposition of the sand by deep fast-moving water in a matter of days, totally consistent with conditions envisaged during the Flood.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
I wonder what cecile is doing right now.
I wonder if my mom is still up...
I reached for my almost dead batt phone and then changed my mind...my fingers are too painful I am almost scared to move them....
OK, its not that bad..im just lazy. =P
I'm not that lonely and desperate.
Plus I need to rest.
I Spent the New Year island hopping and here I am now -- burnt and crisp to the bones.
Makes me think...so this is what i waited in line for two hours at the barge eh?
The only thing that is white right now are my eyeballs...oh yeah...my lips...the water was so salty my lips was so pale. waaaah!!!!
But it was so much fun. We caught a dead puffer fish (yes, I said dead--so?), an octupus, gathered sea urchins (planning to have them for dinner but opted for the cup noodles instead --safer too), and collected the all-time favorite sea stars. In the collection of sea stars, we found the star of Bethelehem. Notice how the star that guides the sheperds have this weird 4 star "wings"...We found a sea star that is just that...It's kinda odd though...The bethelem star is shining, that's why the missing one "arm" is not that prominent...this sea star we found...was thorny...hardly a compensation for its deficiency to shine. But sea stars are not supposed to shine, moron.