Evidence of the flood

I disagree, sorry.

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

Disagreeing with the facts - and much of what I said is clear fact - is not a reasonable position.It is a fact that your points are often directly addressed. It is a fact that the people addressing them often do more work in answering you than you ever did in making the original post. It is a fact that they often muster more evidence and better reasoning than you have managed. And you say that you lose respect for them because of that? You feel entitled to deny that they addressed your points at all? You complain that people don't agree with you despite the successful rebuttals?Why should anyone have respect for you when you behave like that?

I disagree, sorry.

The strata were all laid down in the FloodThe Flood was a lot of water. The sediments were all wet when laid down. There was plenty of opportunity acidic water to cut a channel through which liquid limestone could run after the Flood water receded.A channel rather than a layer certainly suggests liquid running through it. Flat upper surface suggests it occurred between the layers after the Redwall and the Muav were already there. Channel was cut through the Muav. It was filled up with Temple Butte in liquid form.The caves one can see in the Muav and the Temple Butte are not near the river. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then you are doomed to endless frustration here trying to bully us into agreeing with your foolish fantasies. That is not good for anyone. There is simply no way for you to win short of honest argument and if your refusal to accept reality gets in the way of that then that, sadly, is your problem.Certainly I can do no more than try to get you to see the truth. But you just refuse to do so. Too bad for you.

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

It's a channel. It was filled with liquid limestone.

Why don't you stop being a vindictive creep?

I would be astonished to find pebbles in the bottom of the Mississippi River anywhere in Louisiana. Heck, anwhere south of St Louis! Riverbeds don't get pebbles when they can only carry silt.

What the hell is liquid limestone, Faith? What are you smoking?

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

That's not a scientific argument; it's more like the automatic unthinking response one learns in catechism class.