FIGURE 3.7. Close examination of the actual rocks in the Grand Canyon makes the “flood geology” hypothesis
completely absurd. (A) Large mudcracks in the Precambrian Grand Canyon Series, in the lowest tilted
sequence in the Grand Canyon. There are layer after layer of cracks like these in these shales, showing that
there were hundreds of individual drying events—not possible with a single flood. (Photo by the author) (B)
In other places, there are layered algal mats known as stromatolites, which were formed by daily fluctuations
of sediment and algal growth. Some actually record decades or centuries of growth. These are abundant in
the tilted late Precambrian limestones beneath the Paleozoic rocks of the Grand Canyon. (Photo courtesy U.S.
Geological Survey) (C) The lower Cambrian (left) Tapeats Sandstone and (right) Bright Angel Shale are full
of layer after layer of sediments with complex burrows and trackways, showing that each layer had been
part of another sea bottom that was crawled upon and burrowed into and then buried again and again.
(Photo courtesy L. Middleton) (D) The Pennsylvanian-Permian Supai Group and Hermit Shale are also full of
layer upon layer of mudcracks, showing that they went through hundreds of episodes of drying, completely
falsifying the flood geology model. (Photo courtesy U.S. Geological Survey) (E) The Permian Coconino
Sandstone is composed entirely of huge cross-beds that could only have formed in desert sand dunes, not
underwater. (Photo courtesy U.S. Geological Survey) (F) The Coconino dune faces also are covered with the
trackways of reptiles that could never have been formed underwater. (Photo courtesy U.S. Geological Survey)
(A) (B)
(C) (D)