What I think about the Grand Canyon is completely in accord with what creationist GEOLOGISTS think about it . . .
We are more interested in conclusions that are in accord with the evidence. Showing adherence to a theological dogma may play well in church, but it doesn't play well amongst scientists.
I haven't misunderstood the Grand Canyon at all, . . .
I am pretty sure you have.
1. Coconino sandstones: these are windblown sand dunes. They are not flood deposits.
2. Great unconformity: A great picture can be found
here. In this case, we have sediments tipped at about a 30 degree angle to the rest of the formations. How does a flood make these deposits? One flood can't. It is completely inconsistent with a flood.
3. Incised meanders: Catastrophic flooding does not produce incised meanders like those found
here. Catastrophic erosion by flooding produces wide, straight channels, often with braiding. Only a slower moving river produces those types of meanders, and a slow moving river will not excavate the Grand Canyon in the time needed.
Those are just 3 problems with your claims. There are many others. Again, don't tell us that your views are consistent with creationists. We want to see views that are consistent with the evidence.