Summations Only

I have followed along with this thread for its entirety and I think that this is an excellent example of futile work on behalf of those who trust (not believe, but trust) in the tenets of science and the scientific method.Faith, you ask that people look at the Grand Canyon from a distance, but how is that not forcing yourself to wear blinders when looking at the evidence? As an Arizona Resident and avid hiker, I can say that I have looked at the GC from a distance on several occasions and also looked at the walls up close and personal as I hiked through the canyon. Plus, I have actually seen the power and energy that is contained within the Colorado River. For you to doubt the power of that river shows me that you have never been to the river banks and seen the forces the rapids produce.You constantly claim that this massively powerful river, cannot compete with a few millimeters of upift per year raising the landscape around it, but you have no evidence. Handwaving and speculation is pointless, especially considering that your speculation does not answer any of the questions that are posed by a view of the canyon. You claim neat horizontal layers, but only from a distance, which is stupid. Scientists have looked from a distance and realized that it does not answer anything. In other words, they looked at the forest, but learned nothing...the only thing left is to look at the trees. Perhaps, you should take the time to look closer and see the actual details that exist within these massive structures.I understand your awe at witnessing the canyon, as it is still one of the most awe-inspiring landscapes I have ever had the honor to look upon. The main difference in this thread, at least as I have seen, is that science takes the facts and tries to come up with speculation that does not deny any of the available evidence. Could it be wrong, yes, but currently it accepts all aspects of the canyon.One question you have steadfastly refused to answer is how the river cut the meanders (against conventional reasoning that it must be running slowly to do so)after the flood cut the canyon. But how? This would mean there would be an original course to the river, which it was diverted from to then carve the meanders. However, this action would leave two things, (1)an empty riverbed contained within (2)an original section of canyon near the newly made meanders. However, as someone who has hiked this area, traveled it extensively, hiked many of the side canyons, I can tell you that this feature, required by your model, does not exist. Plus, science would have already found it if it did. So, please enough with the hand waving (it is not helping your case anyway) and explain to me where you see this ancient riverbed contained within a canyon just as deep as the GC, that is situated near a meander in the current course of the Colorado? Without this, your speculation is already beginning to deny actual evidence...not the suppositions of science, but physical evidence. This would make your God either a trickster or a liar...and while I know you hate the Catholics, I believe Thomas Aquinas said it best, The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.To the other individuals on this thread, thank you for the great information you have been posting, it has greatly increased my knowledge of how one of the greatest wonders of the world was formed, and the reasoning is sound, especially with having witnessed the actual power the Colorado River contains.ABE - I am in agreement with the statement that if your answer is that God must have done it, but we don't know how...just say that. At least when individuals say that it is honest, maybe not intellectually honest, but honest nonetheless. Instead of fighting against science, just accept your word of God and don't bother those of us who would like to actually understand how the world works with your false facts. I am great friends with a creationist, but it is because she is willing to say Goddidit and not try to explain it using false science and denying evidence. Her statement is simply, God said he made it, so he made it. Why not just go with that and leave science to those who actually try and understand it?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

No, I knew you meant it for the purpose of looking for erosion from surface exposure, but this does not change the fact that you need to actually look at these rocks up close to see the evidence of exposure, the evidence you even admit is there when you state this: So there is visible disturbances on the layers when you remove your blinders of looking from a distance. you claim that it is not enough disruption from surface exposure, so what is your evidence against this being enough disruption. From the examples you were given showing gathered data from others in this thread they showed you rocks that were visibly disturbed within the structure of the Canyon. Remember, looking at the walls in the distance is looking from very far away, how could you even begin to see any sort of disturbance standing an average distance of 10 miles from the other side of the canyon. That would be like looking at a plate of spaghetti from 500 yards away and expecting to see individual noodles, are you serious? Even the shortest distance across the GC is 5 miles, still a ridiculous amount of distance to expect to see surface distortions contained within a rock wall matrix. SourcePlease explain exactly how this runoff creates these signs of surface disturbance (something geologists know how to look for) while still locked within the strata and covered by other layers? Correct, anything can be rationalized. However, your rationalization involves removal of evidence or explaining ways that are against hydrodynamics, observed uplift, and other areas. Whereas, the OE viewpoint has an explanation for each piece of evidence observed within the Canyon. You have yet to provide an example a structure in the Canyon which individuals in this thread could not find included within the OE theory. So, where is the flaw other than that it does not conform to your pre-existing bias (which you stated when you had your little Goddidit moment and argue with God statement). First, I will continue to enjoy my hikes, the American Southwest provides some of the greatest landscapes and different environments to explore within just a few hours from the Valley of the Sun (Phoenix/Metro Area). Second, as explained above, I did not miss your point...your point was simply incorrect and was your attempt to handwave evidence you could not fit within your "theory". (In quotations because calling it a theory is gracious on my part). I'm quite aware of the other more powerful rivers, but do they exist on a region that is going through uplift (an important aspect to how the GC was formed)? And, this answers my question that you have never witnessed the power of this river. Please, take a trip to the Colorado (no rafting required), you can even take a mule or a helicopter down if you do not want to walk the trail there. But just sit on the banks of that river and watch the waters rushing. Just because it is not the most powerful, does not mean you cannot get a feeling for just how powerful it is by actually witnessing it within your lifetime.Finally, I noticed you completely avoided the question about the ancent dry river bed and section of canyon that appear to be missing for your river formed the meanders after the canyon was cut scenario. Could you kindly explain how the river completes this process without leaving these two large pieces of evidence?

Oh, is that all that is required for a rebuttal? I asked you to explain how the runoff explains the disturbances of the layers locked within the strata, which was all laid down at once in your theory. Explain how these structures formed for me, if you would? Others have already explained to you how the evidence lines up with OE theory, you have yet to propose anything outside of water acting against the principles of hydrodynamics.Although, that doesn't matter since all I'm required to post for a rebuttal is of course it's obvious to you with your Biblical Bias coloring your view. At least according to your response.Also, I will continue to ask where are the ancient canyon areas where the ancient riverbed existed post-flood, but prior to the meanders being carved? If you cannot answer this you are blatantly ignoring evidence and everyone can see it. If the river changed course to carve the meanders after the canyon, there would be signs of an ancient riverbed, complete with a section of canyon that was originally carved in the flood. These locations would have to be near the current locations of meanders in the Colorado river, so please find them and post your evidence.

I understand that you claim to not care about the meanders, but shouldn't your explanation be able to cope with all of the available evidence, including said meanders?If this is the case, let me see if I have your scenario correct. The Flood came across the whole of the land and when the waters receded, the canyon was carved (albeit minus meanders, which would later be carved by the river). This left some water contained within the canyon, which began the process of carving meanders into the canyon.Now, if I have your position correct, my question would still remain (from many messages ago), "Where are the original portions of the canyon that had to first contain the river prior to any meanders being carved by the Colorado?" If the river had changed course to carve meanders, which could not be carved by the quick removal of flood waters, then it must have originally been in a different location within the canyon. Then, the river changed course and began to carve out the meanders, but these mysterious sections of canyon that are required to exist with your model are not seen anywhere, especially where they should be seen, which is near each meander in the river. If your situation is correct and the flood carved out the canyon with the river carving the meanders, then near every meander should be a more ancient section of canyon with no river flowing through it anymore and simply a dry riverbed. This could show that the river did change course after the canyon was carved.As I see that multiple maps have been posted, could you kindly direct me to where in these maps you see these ancient dry riverbed canyons that do not follow the meanders, but rather the path that receding flood waters would have carved?

If the river was formed from the remaining water after the flood waters receded, then there was an original course to the river through the canyon (which you claim was carved by the flood). However, your claim for the meanders is that they were not carved by the flood, but by the river after the flood receded. This would mean that originally after the flood, we are left with a river with no meanders inside the canyon, correct? Somehow, the river has to adjust its course creating the meanders within the canyon, but shouldn't there be an original shape to the canyon without the meanders included, since they were not carved until after the flood waters receded? This would leave sections of canyons from where the river originally settled near the current meanders in the river/canyon. These sections would contain the ancient riverbed from the original course the Colorado River took post-flood. No need for name calling, that is the behavior of a child and I will not reciprocate this emotional attack. Plus, you have no reason to call me an idiot as I was trying to be quite polite to you. Tectonic activity does not cause meanders to be carved, so it must have been caused by the river, correct? While I know you are incorrect in how the canyon was carved, I am simply pointing out one issue with your concept that the river carved the meanders after the flood carved the canyon. Slow moving rivers, on flat land cut meanders, not all rivers do so. Which is what I said your statement was. But the flood receding couldn't carve the meanders, so the river must have done so after the flood in your model. Which means that the river originally settled in a canyon with no meanders and then carved the meanders afterwards. This would have left sections of the canyon with the old way the river went prior to the meanders being carved. These sections of ancient canyon should be located near each meander within the canyon. The fact that these ancient canyons are not present refutes your statement that the river carved the meanders after the canyon was formed. Rather, what we do see is that the canyon naturally follows the meanders of the river, which can be explained through uplift and a river with meanders cutting into the bedrock as the land around is pushed upwards. The idiotic blather, as you so eloquently put it, is what your model requires for the river to carve the meanders into the canyon post-flood. The fact that even you call this idea idiotic (which your whole process requries) should show you that your concept of how the canyon was formed is based upon idiotic principles. Therefore, why should any of us give it any credence. If I am an idiot according to Faith, that must mean I am intelligent to most of the rest of the world, so I will take this as a compliment. Also, if you could grow up and at least attempt a civilized discussion, that would be most excellent. Also, I will not get off this thread as you are unable to answer my point that refutes your statement.How did the river carve meanders into the canyon, after the canyon was formed? Maybe you are not explaining yourself clearly enough, but your current scenario requries that the canyon is formed witha river in the bottom but no meanders, then this river begins to carve meanders post-canyon forming. This would require a directional change by a river that was originally forced to settle into a no meander canyon. Therefore, ancient sections of canyon should be evident wherever the river changed course to carve the meanders into the canyon. Please, point out these ancient sections of canyon to me or consider your scenario as impossible as it actually is.Faith, you may as well just say Goddidit, at least that would be somewhat honest instead of trying to force evidence to fit your ridiculous ideas.Shame that you have simply resorted to name-calling and you wonder why no one is willing to take your ideas seriously (I mean, besides the fact that they are completely ignorant and require way too much magic).

My issue with the section on meandering lies in the fact that the author requires the Marble Canyon section of the GC to be carved into soft sediments, which then must harden into the stone we know currently exists within the span of at at most (according to a large majority of Biblical chronologies) 10,000 years. Also, as Percy has mentioned, if the sediments were still pliable when these meanders were carved than the sides of the canyon would have slumped into the canyon itself. In fact, the comparison to the wet sediments of the Wadden Sea shows that it would require very soft sediment for this pattern to be seen. Yet, we do not see wet sediments, but hard rock, which there is not enough time to form within the YEC viewpoint. No one is claiming that hard rock was on top when the river first began to take its shape, but rather that the river took its shape and then through the slow uplift of the region was able to maintain its course throughout the canyon building process. Once the course was set deeply enough into the sediment, the extremely gradual uplift would not cause an issue to the river flowing along its path. The Colorado River then begins to cut into the bedrock through erosion. This was explained long ago in this thread. All that is required is that the uplift is gradual enough to not force a change in the river's course. And this lack of alluvium is interesting, especially when one reads the Wiki definition of alluvium: SourceWouldn't the sediments in this region, such as limestone, be considered lacustrine deposits? Any alluvial deposits (loose unconsolidated soil) would have sat on the top and been worn down by the process that created the canyon. Plus, these soils would be at the top meaning they would not undergo the pressure required to transform them into rock. Also, these same deposits are what is required for Scheele's scenario as well, so if the lack of finding them is a problem for geology, then it is also an issue for his proposed mechanism as well.All of this has no bearing on Faith's argument, which requires that a catastrophic dam burst caused the initial carving of the canyon, leaving the Colorado River in the bottom. Forming the canyon this way would not create meanders, which would then have to be caused by the river adjusting its course and carving through rock. This would create the ancient side canyons near all meanders that are required for Faith's scenario to work.ABE - If anyone has issues with my explanation, please let me know as I would like to ensure I am at least somewhat correct in my thought processes.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

I have to agree with you here Rox! I have suggested to many of my friends that are interested in knowing more about the world that they look up this thread to begin to understand the structure of the canyon. While Faith's evidence has been dismal and relied upon thinking about each aspect in isolation from other portions of the canyon, the evidence that everyone else has given in rebuttal can give anyone a great understanding of the mechanics that worked to give us the Grand Canyon. In fact, even having lived in the state, visited many times, read about the canyon, watched videos about its formation, and hiked through the canyon on several occasions, I have found so much information in this thread that only continues to support the ancient beginnings and the processes that can be seen in the walls. I look forward to visiting again soon and looking at the canyon with even more clear eyes.