Origin of the Flood Layers

I have no objection whatever to how it is worded. The point was that if it simply looks like something on the surface, then it's open to interpretation. A tongue in cheek remark, that's all. I guess I shouldn't risk moments of levity OR mere suggestions.

It was supported by the fact that you aren't absolutely certain it was once surface. That leaves it open to interpretation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If nothing else, such a long drawn-out discussion about absolutely nothing, as we've been having for pages now, is convincing me to avoid making ANY kind of remark off the cuff. Sheesh. It won't make a difference though. It doesn't matter what I say I always get a bazillion objections to it that require endless laborious explanations. Support or no support, I don't think it matters, I'll be subjected to a barrage of complaints and objections.

Sigh.

I didn't say they were scientific reasons and it's none of your business anyway. They are necessary strategy for mustering my resources as *I* need to muster them, not being a scientist.

Fine. Nevertheless it's about a river in a valley, running water. So far you haven't said anything to explain why this couldn't happen underground. And why couldn't such a system have formed underground as well? And I never said one thing to imply I think such things formed underwater. UnderGROUND is what I've said. And AFTER the Flood, not during it. Are you also "reasonably certain" that it couldn't have formed underground, and if so, why? Still haven't given any evidence why this HAS to be so, why it couldn't have formed underground. But as I said I'm looking for the best way to make a case. There are lots of "important issues" but it doesn't make sense to work on those I have the least chance of proving.Again I never said any of it formed underwater. I don't know where you are getting this idea. Thinking it formed during the Flood would be harebrained, but I don't think that. I think it formed afterward.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I may come back to this later but for now I never said and don't believe that the system was created by RECEDING Flood waters EITHER. Water continues to run underground all over the earth long since the Flood came to an end. AND such valleys on the surface have formed after the Flood so I see no reason to suppose there wasn't time for it underground. I'll think about the sediments that filled it all in later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You know what would help a lot? Seeing what the surface above this underground phenomenon looks like. Any way to show that? Also it would help to know the depth of the formation and the situation of the rocks above it.

Thank you for the info. It will take time to digest it all, but I can respond to a few things: First I don't know why he thinks anybody thinks it would have formed IN the Flood. Who has said such things? If some have, then I disagree with them. There is no need to think of these things as forming IN the Flood, and every reason to think not. I do think of them as being the result of water running underground and don't know why that isn't a possibility.At 17,000 feet deep it is about where the Ordovician layer should be, I suppose, though in the Grand Canyon it's not that deep even counting all the layers above to the top of the Grand Staircase. But I don't suppose that matters.It would be very nice to know what the rocks above it look like though, and the surface of the earth at the top. Unless it wasn't completely dry after the Flood. Unless it DID get eroded away in the last stages of the Flood. That much erosion does suggest that as an explanation, especially since that is the only possible explanation for the immense erosion above the Kaibab in the Grand Canyon area.But besides, I've thought that limestone is particularly vulnerable to the kind of erosion that creates karsts and caves, just from the dripping of rain water. None of this has to be explained by the purely mechanical erosion of rainfall. But that's also the case with the Grand Staircase area, which is drastically eroded into the stairs of the staircase plus canyons from the Kaibab to the top of the formation, more than a mile. If that can happen on the surface why not underground where the rocks may also have been tectonically shifted and water continues to run? Yes I know this occurs on the surface but why not underground too. All it would take is the tilting of rocks to form the valley and provide an incline and probably other features for tributaries to form on. How long and how do you know? What is a water escape structure? I've always figured that the water drained out between the layers, and in some places the layers could have been tectonically disrupted enough to speed up the drainage. ABE: Or just collect it where it can form larger streams of water. How do the Appalachians get into this story? These time estimates tend to be guesses though. Why hardened? What unconformity is this? I'm not following the last part of this discussion at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was not talking about the formation of the rock but of the erosion of the rock which I'm thinking occurred after the Flood. You are asserting that the erosion is older than succeeding rocks but how do you know that? Are you sure you got it right? People are always getting my stuff wrong. I've proposed that it isn't SOLID, it's been tectonically altered to some extent and there are spaces as well as changed positions of the rocks.But it's also possible in the case of a limestone layer that it eroded in its soft wet stage at any point in the laying down of the whole stack, because limestone seems to be susceptible to all kinds of erosive possibilities. No, the idea is that the rocks were already deposited that deep. The erosion of the Ordovician layer occurred after they were all in place. Perhaps you haven't noticed that nothing I say about rocks has to do with my religion. I'd be happy to propose a model if I knew exactly what is meant by a model. As far as I can see all the different ways I try to explain the geological situation add up to a model. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You have misread something. In this whole discussion I've assumed all the strata were already in place and that what happened to a layer low in the stack happened afterward. You are assuming the erosion occurred at the same time the layer was deposited. I am not. If it occurred after the layers above were deposited then the principle of superposition is not violated. I'm afraid that whole paragraph makes no sense to me.

As usual I have another scenario in mind about how it could have happened after the strata above it were in place but I'm tired of battling all this right now so you are spared an attack of high blood pressure or whatever it does to you.

The thing about my what-ifs as you call them, is that they are in many cases plausible alternatives to the conventional view. I think just the alternative views I've accumulated so far, in both geology and biology, add up to a very serious challenge to the conventional view. You never know, one of these days such a what-if may actually present itself with the inescapable evidence I've been hoping to find. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Most of the "refutations" are built on complete misunderstandings of the point I'm making. I get tired of trying to correct them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Come to EvC and get psychoanalyzed. They don't get your arguments but they sure know all about why you make them.