Summations Only

Good grief, once in a GREAT while I give the Biblical background and you try to pretend everything I've said is derived from it. No, I've been referring to actual physical information and never refer to the Biblical source. I did so in this case to correct the statement that a YEC sees the planet as "final and complete" which does not describe how we see it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Excellent point.That is something that most of us would call 'evidence'.

"Beneath a flood" is a very very weird misrepresentation of what I said. I said whatever that formation underground is, it would have formed there, underground, AFTER the Flood was long gone that laid down the strata. And the reason to say it is simply to keep the different model in view, not to argue the case. Water does run underground does it not? There are underground rivers are there not? They run in many places quite continually. Seems quite possible that water running between layers could erode away material and bring other material to fill it. In any case a "river drainage system" could have formed underground the same way underground rivers run underground.

It IS evidence, as I acknowledged. But it doesn't kill the idea of water doing the erosion, it just suggests it didn't all run in one direction. Many different sources perhaps.

Good. That is something that is testable and possibly provides observable evidence. What have you got? A scenario is not evidence. Okay so the ocean needs to regress catastrophically. What is the mechanism and what would be the evidence to support that hypothesis? Just saying that the ocean receded is not evidence. OKay, now, what is the diagnostic evidence for your scenario? That's what we want from you. Otherwise, you are doing nothing but making things up. No one debates the effectiveness of erosion by water. We want to know what is different about your water, how it got there and what evidence do you have for your scenario. And I have snipped your little complaint.Why would millions of years of flash flooding and wind erosion leave a 'chunky appearance'? You have not made an argument as to why this is so. You only confirm my statement that you speak only from personal incredulity, saying we have to 'think about it more'.That is not evidence, nor is it an argument. So, your evidence is that you think it is 'quite odd'.Your threshold for oddness sets quite a low standard.I have a feeling that we are not getting through to you on this notion of 'evidence'. What can we do to help you?

Such tectonic activity should lend even more potential evidence for Faith's scenario especially if they could be tied together in time.Think we'll see anything like that?

It is evidence that the erosion was not caused be your flood. Correct. And wind and freezing and weathering. Correct again. Erosion from many different sources over million of years.And of course this all happened after the millions of years it took for the multiple layers to be deposited.

This site shows what catastrophic runoff leaves behind.Ice Age Floods-Discover Glacial Lake Missoula and Lake BonnevilleThis image shows megadunes related to the Lake Missoula flooding: And this one shows that Lake Missoula actually existed: These things are known as 'evidence'.In your case, I neither see the assymetric features of a catastrophic runoff, nor even that fact that some impoundment existed to create such a flood. When I look at a google-earth image, I do not see any regional flow directions in Monument Valley, just a normal dendritic pattern that we see with normal stream flow on flat-lying strata.I will track down more images if I don't get a call to work.

You referred to actual data?I missed that. Please re-post.

Who said that we deny the effectiveness of erosion by water? You misrepresent our arguments.And why would water not run in a down-slope direction?

Well I still like my post 328 with all the diagrams of the GC-GS area because that massive erosion did all occur after all the strata were in place, which I would attribute partly to tectonic activity. Also the magma dike and the faulting illustrated there, not to mention the cliffs and the canyons which were no doubt facilitated by same tectonic shakeup. All after all the strata were in place, which can be seen on the diagram. That post is great evidence for the Flood, yes, actual evidence. Takes a bit of divesting of Old Earth bias though in order to consider it properly. Take it to a high mountain, assume lotus position, think.

This image shows a space-view of a part of Monument Valley. It shows no unidirectional flow patterns that occur in other catastrophic flood locations such as in the case of Lake Missoula flooding. The pattern is pretty much dendritic, though there may be some structural controls. If, as Faith suggests (getting deeper and deeper) that water flowed in multiple directions (northeast and northwest alignments), I would like to know why that would happen. In all erosive floods that we know about the flows are in one direction, which is down-gradient.

I'm talking about a lot more water than you are talking about, all at one time too. It would if there is a clear downslope direction for the whole plain, which there may not have been. Had to cut through layers first too, which would have had some effect on redirecting the water from level to level -- so I'd guess.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You mean after1.) the Paleozoic strate were in-place,2.) and at the location of the Grand Canyon, and3.( with lesser erosional unconformities included.But your point is what? No one debates this. Please explain. I have no idea what you are talking about here. You have not shown that there was a 'shake-up'. Yes, you said that already. If so, it is also good evidence for mainstream geological interpretation. Please find us some diagnostic evidence for why your particular scenario occurred. So, you admit that you have to have a young-earth presupposition before interpreting the data? If YEC prevails, I'm afraid we will need to assume the bend-over position and refrain from thinking.

More water than the Lake Missoula flooding?If so, shouldn't there be just as good evidence as for Lake Missoula?Where are the scablands, the potholes, the megadunes? You are the one who said Monument Valley was a plain.Besides, we see directional flows from Lake Missoula. Why don't we see them in Monument Valley? Does that mean that this was a smaller flood?And I haven't really asked you why your flood was so catastrophic. Where did the water go so suddenly?