Proposal
Here we present an initial critical response to Tim Helble’s 2011 and 2024 analyses of creationist research concerning the Coconino Sandstone (Permian, Arizona). His 2011 paper focused on why ordinary subaqueous sedimentary processes could not have deposited the Coconino, and his 2024 paper focused on defending the conventional interpretation of the Coconino and responding to creationist data challenging the conventional viewpoint. However, Helble offers almost no new data of his own but simply reasserts the conventional arguments, many of which we have already addressed in our publications. Some of the same arguments were made in Grand Canyon Monument to an Old Earth, a book for which Helble was a co-editor (Hill et al. 2016). By contrast, Whitmore, Garner, Strom, Brand, Maithel, and others have presented new evidence based on original field and laboratory work that forcefully challenges traditional eolian interpretations of the Coconino.
In Helble’s 2011 paper, he essentially builds a strawman argument for how creationists must explain the deposition of the Coconino. He calls the sediment transport problem “the Achilles’ heel of Flood geology.” While creationists do not yet have a comprehensive understanding of how the Coconino was deposited, we think it must have been non-eolian (underwater) based on the new data we have presented. We have suggested that the best modern analogue for the cross-beds and other features found in the Coconino are marine sandwaves, but we realize this is an imperfect model. Helble is correct that the processes he outlines could not have formed the Coconino during the Flood, but the Flood model requires extrapolations beyond conditions that prevail in the present-day. If a Flood model is correct, we will never be able to observe the depositional processes that made the Coconino in the laboratory or in nature. There is, however, some potential in developing a realistic model through computer-based numerical modeling.
In Helble’s most recent paper (2024), he parrots many eolian arguments that have been presented for the Coconino for more than 90 years. Besides our work, few papers since McKee’s seminal monograph in 1934 have been published describing the Coconino in detail. We have argued in many places why Helble’s arguments are flawed, based on our new data (e.g. Whitmore and Garner 2018). Helble either glosses over the importance of our new findings (concerning, e.g. rounding and sorting, micas, angular feldspars, dolomite, cross-bed angles, footprints, ripples, timing of the sand injectites, “raindrop” prints, frosting, thickness of the deposit) or does not appreciate their significance in his defense of an eolian origin. One area where we commend Helble is his attempt to give an alternative explanation for what we claim are parabolic recumbent folds in Sedona, Arizona. Gerald Bryant, someone who has studied the folds in the Navajo Sandstone, analyzed the Lizard Head fold (Helble 2024, see note 62; also personal communication with JHW in 2021). Only one of our Sedona locations was apparently examined. Although they present some new details, they fail to grapple with or even mention an important piece of data. When viewed from all sides, the Lizard Head fold is clearly a recumbent fold that can be traced along both sides of the outcrop for at least 50 meters within a bounded cross-bed set. They fail to explain how a slumped desert dune, or a groundwater migration hypothesis, can form a consistent parabolic fold covering this distance. We continue to contend that the best explanation for the Coconino involves subaqueous deposition as proposed in our 2018 paper.
Selected references:
Helble, T. 2011. Sediment transport and the Coconino Sandstone: A reality check on Flood geology. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63(1):25-41.
Helble, T. 2024. Flood geology and conventional geology face off over the Coconino Sandstone. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 76(2):86-106.
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, J.H., and P.A. Garner. 2018. The Coconino Sandstone (Permian, Arizona, USA): Implications for the origin of ancient cross-bedded sandstones. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 581–627. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
Keywords
Coconino Sandstone, Creationism critiques, Grand Canyon, Permian sandstones, cross-beds, Grand Canyon Monument to an Old Earth, Arizona, parabolic recumbent folds
Submission Type
Oral Presentation
Copyright
© 2025 John H. Whitmore and Paul A. Garner. All rights reserved.
Helble's Critique of Creationist Research on the Coconino Sandstone Fails
Here we present an initial critical response to Tim Helble’s 2011 and 2024 analyses of creationist research concerning the Coconino Sandstone (Permian, Arizona). His 2011 paper focused on why ordinary subaqueous sedimentary processes could not have deposited the Coconino, and his 2024 paper focused on defending the conventional interpretation of the Coconino and responding to creationist data challenging the conventional viewpoint. However, Helble offers almost no new data of his own but simply reasserts the conventional arguments, many of which we have already addressed in our publications. Some of the same arguments were made in Grand Canyon Monument to an Old Earth, a book for which Helble was a co-editor (Hill et al. 2016). By contrast, Whitmore, Garner, Strom, Brand, Maithel, and others have presented new evidence based on original field and laboratory work that forcefully challenges traditional eolian interpretations of the Coconino.
In Helble’s 2011 paper, he essentially builds a strawman argument for how creationists must explain the deposition of the Coconino. He calls the sediment transport problem “the Achilles’ heel of Flood geology.” While creationists do not yet have a comprehensive understanding of how the Coconino was deposited, we think it must have been non-eolian (underwater) based on the new data we have presented. We have suggested that the best modern analogue for the cross-beds and other features found in the Coconino are marine sandwaves, but we realize this is an imperfect model. Helble is correct that the processes he outlines could not have formed the Coconino during the Flood, but the Flood model requires extrapolations beyond conditions that prevail in the present-day. If a Flood model is correct, we will never be able to observe the depositional processes that made the Coconino in the laboratory or in nature. There is, however, some potential in developing a realistic model through computer-based numerical modeling.
In Helble’s most recent paper (2024), he parrots many eolian arguments that have been presented for the Coconino for more than 90 years. Besides our work, few papers since McKee’s seminal monograph in 1934 have been published describing the Coconino in detail. We have argued in many places why Helble’s arguments are flawed, based on our new data (e.g. Whitmore and Garner 2018). Helble either glosses over the importance of our new findings (concerning, e.g. rounding and sorting, micas, angular feldspars, dolomite, cross-bed angles, footprints, ripples, timing of the sand injectites, “raindrop” prints, frosting, thickness of the deposit) or does not appreciate their significance in his defense of an eolian origin. One area where we commend Helble is his attempt to give an alternative explanation for what we claim are parabolic recumbent folds in Sedona, Arizona. Gerald Bryant, someone who has studied the folds in the Navajo Sandstone, analyzed the Lizard Head fold (Helble 2024, see note 62; also personal communication with JHW in 2021). Only one of our Sedona locations was apparently examined. Although they present some new details, they fail to grapple with or even mention an important piece of data. When viewed from all sides, the Lizard Head fold is clearly a recumbent fold that can be traced along both sides of the outcrop for at least 50 meters within a bounded cross-bed set. They fail to explain how a slumped desert dune, or a groundwater migration hypothesis, can form a consistent parabolic fold covering this distance. We continue to contend that the best explanation for the Coconino involves subaqueous deposition as proposed in our 2018 paper.
Selected references:
Helble, T. 2011. Sediment transport and the Coconino Sandstone: A reality check on Flood geology. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63(1):25-41.
Helble, T. 2024. Flood geology and conventional geology face off over the Coconino Sandstone. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 76(2):86-106.
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, J.H., and P.A. Garner. 2018. The Coconino Sandstone (Permian, Arizona, USA): Implications for the origin of ancient cross-bedded sandstones. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 581–627. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.