Summations Only

Kaibab Limestone on the top, then the Toroweap Formation, then the Coconino Sandstone. Note the highly visible irregularity of the erosional surface at the top of the Coconino Sandstone; in the close-up picture, note how the cross-beds of the Coconino Sandstone are sharply truncated by the unconformity rather than grading into the Toroweap Formation.

The upermost line is the unconformity and its presence proves that the layers were not deposited in one rapid, continuous process as you claim.An you're still not going to respond to my last couple posts eh? It is as I suspected; your complaint about my manners, while genuine I'm sure, was merely an attempt to evade the points I made. You have asserted that the meanders of the canyon are irrelevant and you have asserted that we don't know the Flood couldn't have caused them. But you have not once yet supported either of these assertions. Also we do in fact know, based on all observations of how large, high-energy flows work, that the Flood could not have produced meanders. I don't understand how you can honestly pretend this is a minor detail. The entire canyon can not honestly be considered a minor detail. You have said that you only want to focus on the points where you feel you can "make a case". As I pointed out to Coyote, this indicates to me that you know there is no way you can "make a case" that the meanders were caused by the Flood. If you know your model can't explain this, it is very intellectually dishonest to ignore it.Edited by Atheos canadensis, : added shtuff

If you want to study floods, and what they do, "The catastrophic floods from Glacial Lake Missoula and Lake Bonneville are among the largest known floods in geologic history."Caution: This website contains data. Creationists proceed with caution!Ice Age Floods-Discover Glacial Lake Missoula and Lake Bonneville

Uppermost line? The very top of the Kaibab?I can't even find the Toroweap in that picture. It looks to me like the top of the Coconino is a fairly deep shelf with a low shelf of Kaibab limestone on top of it, and a lot of erosion off the front of the Kaibab obscuring the flat shape, no Toroweap. Same below the Coconino. I see no problem for anything I've said in that picture.P.S. You do not exactly endear yourself to me with your constant accusations, I just avoid you all the more.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Data is not the problem, interpretation by Old Earthers is the problem. I've read about those lakes, the best interpretation is that they were lakes left standing after the Flood and then eventually drained catastrophically. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't say anything about an overhang. I just think the angle of that image makes it very difficult to see any dip (I can't see any), and if you have to add your own lines before it can be seen then it must be pretty ambiguous. For something to be persuasive and unambiguous to Faith means it must require no detailed explanations or artificial enhancements.Dr Adequate posted an image of the same formation that is better suited for spotting the effects of erosion because it is straight on. Can you point out your dip here: --Percy

It's either an overhang or a dip. It looks like an overhang to me and I see a shadow from the overhang in both pictures, right under and to the right of the feature in question.I also don't see that the second picture is from a different angle than the first, it merely takes in more of the formation, at least to the right of the overhang/dip.There are other problems with that picture such as the whitish blotches that look somewhat like paint smears. What are they? Patches of sunlight, or snow, or what?But if any picture is ambiguous enough that three different people see it in three different ways, what use is it?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, that is not the best explanation.That is just you grasping at strawmen in a desperate effort to shoehorn your beliefs into real world evidence.You should take the following advice to heart -- this passage seems to have been written expressly for you:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

​

Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

Here are the images again, the one from RAZD on the left, the one from Dr Adequate on the right: The two images are of different angles of the promontory. The one on the left is an angled view of the promontory, while the one on the right is from straight-on. The one on the right also appears to be from a slightly lower elevation, and because it is a head-on view it should be much easier to make out the dip RAZD thinks is there. Debris from erosion covers much of the shelves, dips might be tough to discern. Everyone is familiar with a flood's known propensity for depositing sediments into neatly sorted layers. Anyone who's ever had their house flooded knows that the muck they have to shovel out afterward is neatly sorted into sedimentary layers. So the white streaks must be flood layers. White usually means limestone layers, which form over thousands of years beneath warm quiet seas. Agreed.--Percy

It does not look like it's from a different ANGLE to me, Percy, it just looks like it's taken from farther back and includes more of the right side and upper area. I know exactly what RAZD means by the dip and there's less of it showing in the second picture. It's really an overhang of part of the upper layer.Yes, so white indicates limestone, you still have to explain why we're seeing blotches of it instead of layers of it.And any erosion that "covers much of the shelves" is not the sort of erosion I've been questioning, which occurs BETWEEN the layers. Erosion that occurred after all the strata were laid down is just part of the whole scenario that includes ALL the disturbances that occurred afterward. Which I do believe even include the Great Unconformity itself, but I've given up on trying to prove that for now.But I've lost track of why we're even thinking about these pictures.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The images are of the same promontory from two different angles, in the same way that these are two images of the same person from two different angles: You can see the edge of the promontory in one image, and in the other you cannot. That's what makes the images of different angles. By "overhang" are you referring to the promontory? There's nothing I can see resembling an "overhang" in either image, and I see no dip. And I didn't say it was. What I said was that the detritus from current erosion is obscuring quite a bit. I don't see how you could make out a dip even were it there. RAZD was trying to provide images containing evidence of erosion at unconformity boundaries between layers.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Don't see anything like such different angles. SLIGHT difference at best, very slight, but mostly same angle farther back.Perhaps the "promontory" is the same as the "overhang," but the point is it extends into space over and in front of the tilted layers and isn't a dip INTO the layers themselves which is how RAZD sees it. And did he succeed?And wasn't it Dr. A who put up the pictures?

I've put the two images side by side and drawn yellow boxes around the promontory in each. Click on the image to see it in a larger size: In the left image you're looking at the edge of the promontory. In the right image you're looking at the promontory straight on. In my opinion? No, I see no dip. You said you can see the dip, but I'm as yet unable to tell what you two are seeing that is a dip.But I provided some images, poor ones in my opinion, of erosion at unconformity boundaries back in Message 514. I was hoping someone could provide better ones.--Percy

Do you think you have the same structure yellow boxed in those two pictures? 'Cause I am as sure as I ever am that you don't.
The upper left corner of the left picture yellow box is displaced about a little finger width fomr the lower right corner of the yellow box in the right image.

It's really rather simple. You don't need to assign any age, old or young, to make sense of these charts. The layers are defined by the assemblage of fossils that are found in them. This is known as Biostratography using Index Fossils. Deposits in different locals can look vastly different but contain characteristic fossil assemblages. So when a particular assemblage of fossils occur in a layer, the layer is defined as Ordovician, Devonian, ect.It is erroneous to claim this is a case of the fossils dating the rock and the rock dating the fossils. Instead, this method establishes relative ages of the layers and rocks defined as Ordovician are found to have been deposited after rocks defined as Cambrian and before rocks defined as Silurian regardless of where in the world they are found. This method was well established even before Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, so it is not a product of that philosophy but simply a way to categorize different layers of sediment.So what I am asking is that you offer an explanation for the distribution patterns we find in these various layers. If this occurred in a single, catastrophic event, how could it explan the patterns in the different layers? Here are the images again. They only cover the unconformity between the Muav limestone and the Redwall limestone.Ordovician (missing from GC formation): Silurian (missing from GC formation): Devonian (intersperced in erosional features between Muav limestone and Redwall limestone: Mississippian (Carboniferous) (Redwall limestone): Also see Percy's Message 508 for his suggestion as to how to make the interpretation of these charts clearer.
_______________I found this image that outlines the kind of time frame involved for these deposits to be laid down during the great flood. 3600 feet of deposits laid down in just 150 days???? Erosional features between layers; sequential layers missing; erratic depositional patterns; sediment not sorted large to small; terrestrial layers within the stack ... on and on. How is this possible???
_______________ Did you not point out that if the stack was deformed after it had been laid down and lithified that it would crack and break and not bend as it has? Well, that kind of deformation is happening right here in Michigan without breaking or cracking.
_________________ Here is a good overview of how the canyon was formed.In the section "Why does it look like it does?" the author states

quote:

---

The reason that it looks the way does is due to the sequence in which the events that help to create it happened.

---

It took a unique order of events to form the canyon the way it is and that is why it is the only formation like it on earth. If the sequence of events were significantly different, the canyon would not have formed like it is and would just be an "ordinary" canyon. This point is important to recognize in trying to determine "how" it happened.Scroll down to the section called "When did all this happen". Ignore the dates that you find objectionable, just focus on the sequence of events. This sequence is important. Now cram that sequence into 150 days. How???? I didn't say that the Bible did not address you (or all of us modern people), I said it wasn't written TO you. There is a distinction. What there is to discus is the inconsistent way you determine what absolute Biblical truth is and how anyone that disagrees with your position is a compromiser.HBD