Summations Only

I considered that, but the other layers don't show that dip and that section does not hang out over the others.It also appears that there is a pointed end to this island and you do see similar layers behind it that would be some distance away so you cannot use them.What to look at is the tops of the dark gray layers ending shorter than the light gray. About 40% of the dark layer is gone at the left end from what is under the light gray layers.Shadows show an absence of overhang as you can see shadows of the vertical cliff in a couple of places.Edited by RAZD, : ...

If you give a creationist something other than your argument to focus on, then they will use that to avoid the argument.Enjoy

If it were an overhang then there would be a shadow below it -- you can see shadows of the tops further to the right, and from this you can estimate the angle to the sun.It is high enough that any overhang would have a shadow.Starting from the left end and looking just over the first white dusting mark you can see every layer without shadow, the second and third white dusting locations have shadows above them that match the top edge shape being cast down and to the right at a high angle from the vertical cliffs at that location.So I don't see any overhangsEnjoy

In other words you cherry pick the evidence you can interpret according to your beliefs and ignore anything else ...Enjoy.

Where is the rubble from that erosion? What I see is a clean demarcation between layers in the supergroup (that -- other than being tilted -- are as undisturbed as the other layers) and the layers above.A lot of rock had to be removed -- where did it go?Enjoy.

Indeed, anyone can see the rough edge at the top of the supergroup with significantly more erosion to the left than seen on the right.Anyone can see that there is no layer of ground up rubble between that and the sedimentary layers above.Thus it is obvious that they were deposited on an eroded surface. It's not a matter of what I think is possible, rather it is a matter of seeing what the evidence says.If there is no visible or discernible evidence at any location for "major disturbances such as earthquakes, tectonic movement, volcanic intrusions and so on" then the probability is high that they didn't occur. Curiously I'm well aware that you don't look at the evidence to see what it says but rather try to tell the evidence what you want to see.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : finished quote

look at the shadows Percyno shadow underneath = no overhangthat's as unambiguous as I needEdited by RAZD, : .

If anyone can show me where the light gray layers "B" disappear by perspective have at it.Likewise the dark gray layers "C1"I see them slanting up and ending at the boundary with "A"The dotted line is ~50% of the dark gray layers, "C1" and "C2"At the left end of the picture layer "A" meets layer "C2"Below the dark gray layers are the red layers "D"There are shadows on the end of "C1" from the top of "A"There are no shadows on "C2" from "A"And I can count more layers in "A" at the left end over "C2" than at the right end over "B" showing that it was filling in a low pointEnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : piclink

The part with no shadow on the left appears lower than the part with no shadow to the right of the shadowed area for three reasons:(1) it appears lower from just looking at the picture -- in both views(2) the cut into the dark gray layers is at a steeper angle than seen at the top of the light gray layers, which is fairly horizontal if somewhat ragged, and(3) the layers of white limestone over it appears thicker and to have more layers than further to the rightThe shadow section gives you the angle of the sun and shows that if there were an overhang at the very left side (the no shadow area) that there should be shadow there: there isn't, therefore it does not overhang the lower rocks (which would have caused the perspective of being lower) and with that possibility removed it becomes rather obvious that it is then in fact lower than the line of discontinuity to the right of this area.But if you want to ignore it then feel free to do so.Whatever, there is no large layer of debris between these angled layers and the horizontal layers -- and that is what Faith's "interpretation" for the angled layers would require: if the layers were angled and ground up against the bottoms of the horizontal layers there is a lot of rubble that just disappears by magic.Erosion before deposition of the horizontal layer explains the removal of the vast amount of debris.But of course we could all agree that the picture of the dinosaur petroglyph is best. EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : piclink

no biggie

I ran across this doing research on Lake Suigetsu:Davidson, G., Wolgemuth, K., Christian Geologists on Noah's Flood: Biblical and Scientific Shortcomings of Flood Geology, BioLogos Forum, September 7, 2012, [2013 December 25], BioLogos - Not Found (404) - BioLogos; September 8, 2012, [2013 December 25], BioLogos - Not Found (404) - BioLogos; September 15, 2012, [2013 December 25], BioLogos - Not Found (404) - BioLogos; September 17, 2012, [2013 December 25], BioLogos - Not Found (404) - BioLogos,The first two parts deal with biblical, while parts 3 and 4 with scientific shortcomings of Flood Geology.Part 3 deals with the Grand Canyon:

quote:

---

Grand Canyon: Order of Deposition

​

The Grand Canyon is made up of a sequence of layers that defies any reasonable attempt to explain by a single flood. The alternating layers of limestone, sandstone and shale each form in unique environments. If these deposits were formed at different times under various sea-level stages, it is quite simple to explain the different grain sizes and rock types as a function of depth and distance from the shore line. If explained with a single catastrophic flood that abided by God’s natural laws of physics and chemistry, logic must be stretched beyond the breaking point.

​

As a very simple observation, consider instructions given in virtually every gardening book. A good soil will have a mix of sand, silt and clay. To determine the quality of your soil, you take a handful or two, put it in a clear container, add water and shake it up. When you stop shaking, the coarse grained material will settle out first resulting in a sequence of layers: sand on the bottom, then silt, then clay. You can readily see how much of each you have by the thickness of each layer.

​

This is informative of what we see in flood deposits. As moving flood waters slow down, finer and finer grained sediment settles out resulting in a fining upward sequence. If most of the Grand Canyon layers were laid down by the Flood, then we should see the same thing — a fining upward sequence. Instead, we see a series of alternating layers of fine and coarse grained material, with smaller-scale alternating layers within the larger ones (Fig. 2). Increasing the violence of a flood does nothing to negate the standard order of deposition. Repeated surging of flood waters across the surface likewise offers little explanatory power; in this case we might expect successive layers, each with their own fining upward sequence, but such is not what is observed. Further, the Grand Canyon includes multiple layers of limestone, which are never found in flood deposits of any magnitude. Even in floods as massive as one thought to have catastrophically deluged the once dry Mediterranean Sea basin with thousands of feet of water — limestone beds are conspicuously absent.

​

​

If we revisit the Grand Canyon for a moment, is it not striking that there is not a single dinosaur, mammoth or bird in the entire exposed sequence? Not one. To find these, you have to go to younger sediments found in deposits outside the canyon that have not been fully eroded away yet. How could such a lack of mixing be possible if the Flood was violent enough to move continents?

​

---

​

Dr. Gregg Davidson is chair of the Department of Geology and Geological Engineering at the University of Mississippi and conducts original research in geochemistry and hydrogeology, often employing radiometric dating methods to determine the age of groundwater and sediments. In 2009 he published a book about his keen interest in integrating a lifetime of studying geology with his firm conviction about the infallibility of God’s Word, When Faith & Science Collide — A Biblical Approach to Evaluating Evolution and the Age of the Earth.

​

Dr. Ken Wolgemuth is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tulsa and a Petroleum Consultant teaching short courses on petroleum geology and Geology for the Non-Geologist. Over the last 10 years, he has developed a keen interest in sharing the geology of God’s Creation with Christians in churches and seminaries.

---

I suggest you read the whole site. Consider this my Christmas present to you.Enjoy.

But how do you explain it Faith?

quote:

---

As a very simple observation, consider instructions given in virtually every gardening book. A good soil will have a mix of sand, silt and clay. To determine the quality of your soil, you take a handful or two, put it in a clear container, add water and shake it up. When you stop shaking, the coarse grained material will settle out first resulting in a sequence of layers: sand on the bottom, then silt, then clay. You can readily see how much of each you have by the thickness of each layer.

---

Have you ever done that Faith?When you say layers were deposited by the flood and those layers do not show these characteristics then you have some explaining to do.These are Christians telling you that your view of the GC is wrong, and giving you evidence to back it up. After a brief discussion of lake varves they conclude with this:

quote:

---

Figure 4 shows varve data from Steel Lake and Lake Suigetsu extended to the limit of carbon-14 detection. Serious consideration of this data should be sobering for the committed Young-Earther.

​

The high degree of linearity (straightness) of this data has two possible interpretations.

​

Option 1: 50,000 varves represent roughly 50,000 years, and the fact that the Suigetsu varves continue to about 100,000 means the earth’s history also must extend to at least 100,000 years.

​

Option 2: God started with a fast rate of carbon 14 decay and dozens of diatom blooms and die-offs each year, but then intentionally and precisely slowed down each independent and unrelated process in such a way as to make it falsely look as if the data confirms the accuracy of carbon-14 and varve counting as legitimate methods of determining age.

​

Option 2 should be unacceptable to all Christians, for it means God manipulated his creation so that a study of it would convincingly tell a story that was not in fact true.

​

Conclusions

​

We argue with great conviction that Option 2 above does not reflect the God of King David who proclaimed that the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19), nor of the Apostle Paul who stated that God’s eternal character and divine nature are manifest in what he has created (Romans 1:20). If the creation speaks of a specific history, it is our belief that God’s creation speaks truthfully and the history is real.

---

Is that your god Faith? a faker of evidence? Is that how you explain the speleothems?Note that mindspawn appears to have abandoned the Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD debate on age counting systems at about this level of evidence, as he is running out of excuses to jigger each independent method and still end up with the appearance of correlation with high degrees of consilience.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : link

• a single Bristlecone pine is 5,063 years old
• Bristlecone pine, Irish oak and German oak dendrochronologies extending over 8,000 years into the past
• continuous age measurements that extend well past any YEC model known
• layers of sedimentation that cannot occur by single event floods -- alternating coarse and fine layer for example, alternating terrestrial and marine deposits for another
• Lake Suigetsu varves
• Green River varves
• distribution of fossils by depths found, not jumbled
• foraminifera evolution over 65 million years
• existence of salt beds mixed in with layers of sediment
• evidence of old age in Uranium halos
• evidence of old age in speleothems in the Grand Canyon walls
• lack of matching DNA species bottlenecks in all species
• lack of any short lived radioactive elements that don't occur by decay
• the natural fission reactor at Oklo
• thousands of years of undisturbed marine life deposits in single locations including delicate formations
• many layers of marine deposits on mountaintops, including Everest -- spanning thousands of years
• evolution of fossils shown by progression in later layers
• multiple ice ages
• formation of sand
• formation of organic soil
• plate tectonics and vulcanism compressed into a few thousand years would create an inferno like Venus
• evaporite beds (evaporative, arid environment; prolonged surface exposure
• lava dams (13) in Grand Canyon at different times
• air-fall tephra (surface exposure)
• orbits of the moon around earth, planets etc
• age of the universe

etc etc etc with more to be added as whim strikesin essence ∑{ALL OF SCIENCE}Virtually everywhere you look there is evidence of great age.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : +Edited by RAZD, : .

While ignoring the information of grain size distribution in the layers that show they were not deposited in a single flood event, the information that shows slow meandering erosion instead of large catastrophic cascading erosion (like the scablands and Palouse canyon exhibit), the information from the speleothems that show long time erosion at different levels during the development of the canyon, the development of the canyon from west to east instead of east to west, the evidence of surface erosion on many of the layers that show time between deposition, depositions that were terrestrial alternating with marine, and many other facts.Science doesn't cherry pick among the facts but develops explanations that include all evidence as best as possible. Which is just your undereducated opinion based on belief rather than science. Unfortunately opinions have shown an extremely poor record of being able to alter reality in any way shape or form.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Pollux was making joke out of it -- it is certainly a curiosity this mind that is so closed.Enjoy