Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion

I know that you are an expert in this stuff Bill but I would like a description of the process you went through to build that excellent post.I don't think it is off topic because it would add a bit to the back up for the point you are making.Could you try to retrace the steps you took? Did you just know all that off the top of your head? Or are there steps that others could follow?Thanks.

huh?Who cares what you suspect? What, exactly, does this have to do with the discussion? What are the measured contents of the average water?
What is the actual content of sea water and the flood's rain water?What about the other quesions asked above?

And how do those pictures tell us what the content of the ocean, rainwater or the average ground water is?

So what?The scenario described is a catastrophic world wide flood in the middle of laying down 600 feet of one of several desposits. It doesn't matter if there were other layers of foot prints lower down(though you have to explain why there would be more than one -- everything was killed in the 40 days of rain -- was it not?). There are footprints near the top. While the whole earth is under water?Those foot prints near the top were what you have been asked to explain. Pointing to ones lower down doesn't seem to do that. I think you can figure that one out yourself. Have a go at it. If this is true then I assume there will be no continuation of these layers back away from where the river has cut. They will be local deposits surrounding the river. Is that what you would say?In addition, there are 5 more formations abouve the Bright Angel and Tapeats, you neglected to explain those.PH, leaving out most of the issues and focussing on one or two (some seemly totally irrelevant) doesn't make for a complete explanation.Oops Randy beat me too it. Sorry about the duplication.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-16-2005 11:20 PM

No, you didn't. You explained (in your view) why one set of trackways at one level didn't get washed away. You haven't handled the tracks at different levels in the sediments that you say were all laid down by the flood.

I'm trying hard to imagine this in the middle of your flood when 100's of feet of sediment has been laid down and is still being laid down by something or another. Are you now saying that everything below this is NOT flood and most of the Coconio was not flood either?I don't recall that you have explicitly described the sequence of events perhaps you should recapitulate.

I'm going to be a bit stronger than Randy.If you are saying that the RF you marked lower in your photo is actually lower than the other then you are being foolish.You are being given leeway because you are trying to use evidence. However, this is utterly ridiculous! It is obvious to the most casual observer that the "lower" RF is miles closer to you than the other and are at approximately the same level in actual fact.Note the rest of what Randy has to say. You are not making any real progress here. Clutching at staws starts to look silly.

Generally, that is the current thought.There are interspursed marine and non-marine layers in the rocks making up the grand canyon. It was underwater at various times.I believe it is still rising up as North America plows into the pacific. Which is, IIRC, when it started to life as the Atlantic opened up.