Evidence of the flood

Evidence is information you gather from the real world.--Percy

Why do you say things that are so easily rebutted? Here's a diagram from the Wikipedia article on the Great Unconformity. Note that the erosion of the top of the Muav Limestone is not miniscule: Here's an image of the Muav Limstone that happens to show a channel (riverbed) eroded into it's surface by the Temple Butte Formation: And you would be wrong, incredibly, deeply, acutely wrong, ha ha. Some surface erosion looks like the badlands of South Dakota: But some looks like Kansas: What we find in the geological strata is a record of what happened. What we do not find is strata following a set of rules invented by Faith. Oh, gratuitous insults. Well, then, sorry about your ignorance, ineptitude, evidence avoidance and pigheadedness. Yet more insults. If you can manage to say anything that is true then no one could deny it. But if you're just going to continue to make things up then your situation is hopeless.--Percy

No one misrepresents what you say, particularly Percy. We compose detailed rebuttals of your ideas which you then ignore. You just responded to a 300 word message of rebuttal with a one liner. How do you expect to overcome any rebuttals with rubbish like that? You're in essence just letting the rebuttals stand, and then you have the chutzpah to complain about how no one gives your ideas any credence. You have to defend your ideas, not repeat them from scratch over and over again like a parrot.--Percy

No, that's wrong. You misunderstood what Edge was saying and posted an irrelevant tirade on a different subject. You're again simply restating your position absent any evidence and as if it hadn't been rebutted dozens of times. This, too, has been rebutted dozens of times. How can you honestly keep restating your positions from scratch as if there had never been any rebuttals? Naturally the intrusions in the Grand Canyon Supergroup layers occurred after the supergroup strata were all in place, but not after the rest of the strata of the Grand Canyon was in place. And there is not only no evidence that the supergroup rotated after being physically buried, it isn't even physically possible. As I said before, take a pile of plywood and rotate the bottom four sheets upward 30 degrees. What does that get you? Well, more insults. You're the one that dropped into one-liner mode. If you're going to do childish things like that how can you expect to be understand?But the fact of the matter is that we understand your positions very well. You have repeated them probably a hundred times over the years - there's no escaping them. And they've been rebutted as often. If the rebuttals are so idiotic then you shouldn't have any trouble responding to them, should you? But you don't. Why is that?--Percy

This is, once again, a bald declaration with no supporting evidence. What is it that you see in the evidence that makes it "clear" that they were "formed after the strata were all in place"? By the way, liquified limestone is not a naturally occurring geological compound but is something you can buy online:

quote:

---

Liquid limestone is a mixture of concrete, crushed limestone and other additives that is used in the construction of driveways, pool surrounds, and patios.

---

Actual limestone does not liquify. If you heat it then it "decomposes to atmospheric carbon dioxide and CaO (calcium oxide, or "quick lime," a powder)." See Can limestone become a liquid?What you're probably talking about is limestone in suspension in water. What are you looking at in the evidence that tells you that limestone saturated water caused the topology of the Mauv Limestone?--Percy

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

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

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

Oh, I see we're back to all caps again. Can one-liner responses be far behind? You know, if you're going to behave like a six-year old throwing a temper tantrum in a department store, don't you think it's going to negatively impact your credibility and how seriously you're taken? The way you're acting seems to reflect an attitude of, "I can't muster any effective arguments, so I'll just be as annoying as possible." You make all these complaints about how you're treated, but you bring it all on yourself.The Temple Butte limestone are sedimentary deposits, not anything that resulted from limestone saturated waters. We're not talking about the layers next to the Colorado, which of course are influenced by water. We're talking about how the layers formed before the Colorado even existed. Flowing limestone saturated water and karsts were not a factor in the formation of any of the layers of the Grand Canyon. Layers not adjacent to the canyon do not have caves or karsts. Yes, of course, in caves formed by the Colorado. Now, in strata not adjacent to the Colorado would you like to explain how you could possibly be correct given that all the strata are sedimentary and do not contain caves and karsts?--Percy

Oh boy, a one-liner response, did I call it or what. If history is any guide can threats to abandon the thread be far behind?--Percy

OMIGOD, my next prediction, threats to leave, am I hot or what! The Temple Butte streambed is filled with sedimentary layers. "Limestone dissolution" somehow filling the streambed would leave completely different evidence. There's nothing unique about EvC Forum. It's just a normal discussion board. The same problems you experience here would follow you to any other discussion board. Even at a discussion board that shared your viewpoint you would find ways to argue with everyone. The only reason you stay at this discussion board is because the dark background is easier on your eyes.--Percy

We know the strata were not deposited by the Biblical Flood because floods don't sort layers by material, fossil order and radiometric age. We know they can't intersperse layers of dense material with layers of lighter material. We know they can't intersperse land layers with marine layers. We know they can't deposit layers with tracks and burrows. We know they cannot deposit layers with unconformities. As mentioned just before, the layers in the stream channels are sedimentary, not material that condensed out of limestone saturated water, which wouldn't exist in the volumes necessary anyway. Of course liquid ran through it. Water ran through it when it was a river on the surface. Again, the layers are sedimentary, precisely the same in composition, density, texture, etc., as the rest of the layers of the Temple Butte formation. Limestone saturated water would have left deposits of a completely different nature. Of course they're near the river. If they weren't near the river in the walls of the Grand Canyon then we wouldn't even know they exist.--Percy

It's a streambed. It's filled with the exact same kind of sediments as the rest of the layer.--Percy