Evidence of the flood

You've got this all mixed up. Monadnocks are a product of erosion. They couldn't have been pushed up into "still-wet" layers and then been eroded while still covered by these "still-wet layers".Also, pushing the monadnocks up into the Tapeats would have very visibly displaced the material of the Tapeats, something that isn't observed.You're piling impossibilities upon impossibilities. There is no evidence of tectonic upheaval around these monadnocks. That's why there are recognizable as monadnocks and not as tectonic upheavals. The monadnocks didn't rise abvoe the Tapeats into the layers above, so they didn't raise "the whole stack." The Tapeats deposited around the monadnocks. This is obvious from simple observation, and is described in this excerpt from Cambrian history of the Grand Canyon region, Parts 1-2 on page 119:

quote:

---

Wheeler and Kerr, moreover, call attention to the fact that at the start of Cambrian deposition these hills must have been still higher, because their upper parts were subsequently continuously reduced by erosion during the time involved in the deposition of some hundreds of feet of marine sediments...

---

The curve of the entire stack, including the Grand Canyon layers and the Grand Canyon Supergroup is evidence that they were all affected by the same tectonic forces that uplifted the entire region. Note that the layers of the Tapeat are deposited around the single monadnock shown in this diagram that extends into the Tapeats from the Grand Canyon Supergroup: The rocks were still wet and easily bendable, but they developed cracks? And rocks do not form by drying. They form by the process of lithification, which requires great pressure. There is no evidence that the "uppermost strata broke up." If this is what had happened then this is the evidence we would observe. Instead all we see is evidence of gradual deposition as indicated by a variety of evidence that you never address, such as radiometric dating, interspersed layers of different densities, increasing difference of fossils with increasing depth, and animal tracks and burrows. You're forcing repeats of the rebuttals, which you never address. There is no evidence that the Grand Canyon Supergroup slid around beneath the Tapeats. Such a fault would have left copious evidence behind. The reason the faults stop at the Tapeats is because the Tapeats wasn't there when they formed. This would be the slippage for which not an iota of evidence exists. The law of superposition says that the "volcanism which became the Cardenas layer" definitely did not not occur in conjunction with anything happening in the Tapeats. Radiometric dating confirms that the Cardenas predates the Tapeats by at least half a billion years. The Vishnu Schist is about a billion years older than the Tapeats. The Zoroaster Granite about a billion years older, too, and is thought to be the top of an ancient mountain range. This is all a product of your imagination. There is no evidence for it, a great deal of evidence against it, and much of it violates known physical laws. It has been explained over and over again how none of it works. If you think it works then start addressing the rebuttals. Start with how it could be that level sediments surround the monadnocks if they were somehow pushed up into the overlying layer, and how there is no evidence of displacement of material as the monadnocks were pushed up.--Percy

As Wikipedia says, "It is characterized by underground drainage systems with sinkholes and caves." Do you see any "underground drainage systems with sinkholes and caves" in the Tapeats? Or in any layers of the Grand Canyon?Since nothing like these structures occur in this region, your rationale of karst as an explanation fails.--Percy

Again, nothing like "cracks tending to get bigger" and "fractures becoming wider" and "an underground drainage system" were observed in the Tapeats or any of the layers of the Grand Canyon. Karst formations have a unique appearance and are easily recognizable, they couldn't be missed if they were there. Your karst explanation fails.--Percy

What usually happens is you say something untenable and then someone says that your position can't be right because of some piece of evidence they present. Then rather than addressing the issue, you double down and make an even more ridiculous claim. And this continues ad nauseum until everyone involved gets frustrated and begins making personal attacks.For example, your original claim (from the last time we discussed this) was that water was being squeezed out of the layers and was running between the layers to form channels. I presented some evidence of how subsurface water behaves when it erodes inside limestone. Now you have doubled down with an even more ridiculous claim that it was liquefied limestone. I then complain that you are making stuff up (since there is no such thing as liquefied limestone) and you accuse me of a personal attack. It then degrades rapidly from there.So I see that the real key to preventing this process from continuing is just what Percy has been saying. Deal with the evidence presented against your position. Not in a way that doubles down on the implausibility but that seriously considers what is being brought up in a realistic an honest way.If you present reasonable and true arguments based on evidence it will be much more difficult for us to deny that what you have said is reasonable. But as long as you continue to just make stuff up as a rebuttal to the counter-evidence we present, we will continue to deny your arguments are reasonable.HBD

How can you tell there are no pebbles in those channels? Those photos are taken from hundreds of feet away. Those channels could be 50 to 100 feet deep, how could you see pebbles at that scale? You have no reason to think there are no pebbles in the bottom of those channels.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

I REFERRED TO KARST FORMATION AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DISSOLUTION OF LIMESTONE, WHICH IN THE CASE OF THE CHANNEL OF TEMPLE BUTTE LIMESTONE WAS FLOWING THROUGH, NOT FORMING KARSTS. HOWEVER, YES THERE ARE KARSTS IN THE GRAND CANYON. I'M SURE YOU CAN FIND THEM YOURSELF. ALSO, IF YOU LOOK UP MUAV FORMATION AND TEMPLE BUTTE FORMATION YOU'LL SEE AREAS THAT LOOK LIKE CAVE FORMATION IN BOTH, NOT EXTENSIVE BUT THERE. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

See Message 752 and Message 753. Your karst absurdity fails miserably.

OH GOOD GRIEF.

OH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. SO WHAT. I SHOULDN'T BE HERE AT ALL. I HAVE NO PATIENCE FOR THIS NONSENSE.I THINK YOU'VE MIXED UP MY GENERAL STATEMENT ABOUT HOW THE EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS LOOKS LIKE IT WAS CAUSED BY RUNOFF, WITH THE LIMESTONE DISSOLUTION EXPLANATION FOR TEMPLE BUTTE. I NEED TO GET OUT OF THIS MADHOUSE.

Again,How can you tell there are no pebbles in those channels? Those photos are taken from hundreds of feet away. Those channels could be 50 to 100 feet deep, how could you see pebbles at that scale?HBD

But you're not telling it the way you see it because you have nothing to see. There is no evidence supporting your position. That you are are making it up is simply an observation of the obvious. They don't assume it was on the surface. They know it was on the surface because it is a stream bed, and stream beds form on the surface. If there is a paradigm influence going on here it's that gathering facts can tell us what happened in the past.--Percy

Aannnnnd.... here we go. All CAPS. So, rather than answering the rebuttals, you resort to name calling, screaming (I am sure you realize that typing in ALL CAPS is screaming), and threatening to leave. Percy is absolutely right... how about dealing with the rebuttals rather than acting like a ill-mannered, hot tempered child. Yes, here you go... that was a very reasonable statement!!! It was caused by runoff... at the surface. aka: streamsHBD

quote:

---

Yes I get very impatient and the more this same argument comes up the more impatient I get. I always have multiple people against me refusing to acknowledge anything reasonable I say and in fact denying that I ever say anything reasonable, which is, excuse me, stupid because I know it's reasonable and it doesn't exactly inspire me to treat anything they say with any respect

---

When your "reasonable" claims have been shown to be wrong, or are obviously false or even require further support - let alone those that get to the level of raving insanity - it is far from unreasonable for people to disagree. And in fact it is far from rare for you to demand agreement with your claims even after they have successfully been rebutted, to insist that a defeated argument is "good" and must be accepted.

quote:

---

I'm sure my personality is a problem since I do have a temper and I do get impatient and I don't always remember to pray for patience.

---

Certainly it is one reason you refuse to admit that you are wrong even after it has been shown. And why you "know" that nonsense you made up is "reasonable"

quote:

---

...the Flood is the only reasonable explanation for the phenomena I'm talking about,

---

But that is not a reasonable claim at all.Firstly the "phenomena" often don't exist as you describe them or there are other factors that rule against them, and your Flood explanation doesn't always make sense (one example - far from the worst - how does the Flood produce "pure" sediments? - one of your claimed phenomena. I can't see a good reason why it should)

quote:

---

I believe the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon cross section PROVES the Flood and I've pointed to all the features that do thaT

---

And I have looked at it and seen that you are wrong. And others have looked at the actual rocks and found even more evidence you are wrong (e.g. the evidence that the Cardenas lava was erupting while the Dox formation was still being deposited)

quote:

---

When I keep getting back supposed "rebuttals" that just restate the conventional interpretation and never ever ever acknowledge the points I've made, even though I understand why that is so in this Old Earth/Evolutionist stronghold I have less and less patience with it.

---

Well that isn't true. What you mean is that you get angry because people dare to prove you wrong. You get angry because people dare to look at evidence you want to suppress. Those really aren't good reasons to get angry, even if you do get frustrated at losing all the time. But if you rely on jumping to conclusions based on a superficial examination of the evidence or worse cherry-picking or even worse inventing nonsense - then you will lose.It's no use assuming you are right all the time when it just leads you into one mistake after another. And it does. Did you learn nothing from the incident with the Triassic maps? From your insistence that I was misreading the map even when you knew that you couldn't read it ? Even when I turned out to be absolutely correct ?

I disagree, sorry.

I don't know about the Template Butte formation. I was pointing out that your experience is far too limited to be making the sort of proclamations you do.