Evidence of the flood

I noted that the section on the left appears to be closer to the viewer, so a vertical shift is not necessarily evident in this image. What IS relevant is the thickness of the Temple Butte in this image compared to the previous image where it was only in the channel.BTW, do you know what the Temple Butte formation is composed of? Limestone?Here is a description from

quote:

---

Temple Butte Formation (Upper and Middle Devonian)Purple, reddish-purple, darkgray, and light-gray, ledge-forming dolomite, sandy dolomite, sandstone, mudstone, and limestone as defined by Beus (1990). Purple, reddish-purple, and lightgray, fine- to coarse-grained, thin- to medium-bedded, ripple-laminated ledges of mudstone, sandstone, dolomite, and conglomerate fill channels eroded into the underlying Cambrian strata; channels are as much as 100 ft (30 m) deep in eastern half of map area, and about 40 ft (12 m) deep in western half of map area. Channel deposits are overlain by dark-gray to olive-gray, medium- to thick-bedded dolomite, sandy dolomite, limestone, and sandstone. Unit as a whole forms sequence of dark-gray ledges. Unconformity at base of unit represents major stratigraphic break in Paleozoic rock record in the Grand Canyon, spanning part of Late Cambrian, all of Ordovician and Silurian, and most of Early and Middle Devonian time, about 100 million years. Dark-gray Devonian rocks are distinguished from underlying light-gray Cambrian rocks by color contrast. Unit thickens from about 50 ft (15 m) in eastern half of map area to as much as 275 ft (84 m) in western half of map area, excluding local channel deposit thickness.

---

And you conclude that the Temple Butte limestone liquefied and flowed between the Redwall and the Muav and formed channels?I guess maybe you can see why that might not be so obvious to the rest of us.HBD

Faith, there is no way you can see those pictures clear enough to tell if there is stream bed debris at the bottom of those channels. And yet you feel as though you can draw that conclusion anyway. That IS making stuff up.Accusing others (who have actually examined the structures close up and in detail) of observing debris at the bottom of those formations and describing them as stream channels simply because they are motivated to do so by their personal paradigm is also making stuff up.HBD

There are also channels cut into the Muav and filled with Temple Butte limestone in the western section.To be clear:This image is from the eastern part of the canyon where there is almost no Temple Butte formation above the Muav and this image is from the western part of the canyon where there is almost 300 feet of Temple Butte formation above the Muav. If it flowed between the two layers at the eastern end, it would have had to flow between the two layers in the western end as well. How could it be otherwise?HBD

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.

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

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

I appreciate your sentiment but keep in mind that Faith's position is that none of her claims have anything to do with her religious beliefs. She comes to these conclusions based solely on the evidence. We are just asking for discussions based on evidence, her religious beliefs should be irrelevant.When someone comes to a science / evidence based discussion with conclusions that go against how things are known to work and they are unwilling to consider rebuttal evidence, it can't be much of a science / evidence based discussion, can it? It can only be bare assertions and accusations.If Faith wants to discuss her religious views, there are venues for that. If she wants to have science / evidence based discussions, she should bring evidence and be prepared to have her conclusions questioned.HBD