Why only one Grand Canyon

A worldwide flood should have worldwide effects so why do we not see grand canyons on all continents??

It's an awfully short opening post but I couldn't think of what else needed to be added.Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-09-2004 05:45 AM

A worldwide flood could not have produced the Grand Canyon, so the point is somewhat moot.This is one of the biggest problems for the flood. For something that was supposed to be global in scope, it left close to zero geological evidence.

Of course, but if there had been there and it made the Grand Canyon there should be more grand canyons. The lack of them leaves a gaping hole in all of the YEC theories.Thanks for the reply!!

If you look hard enough, anyone can find 'evidence' for the Flood:-- the Black Canyon of the Gunnison-- the channeled scablands in eastern Washington-- Niagara Falls (and any other high falls)But a reason for why there isn't another Grand Canyon? I suppose it would be because something happened in the Grand Canyon region that didn't happen in other places (e.g., tectonics caused by the flood waters resulted in uplift of the Colorado Plateau), or the rocks were just right, or the water was channeled just right in that area.

Ah, speculative geology. No wonder YEC geologists are rare. Trying to fool oneself is practically a prerequisite.Explaining away the Grand Canyon as a result of the flood is relatively simple; however I'd love to see anyone try to explain away Ireland or Scotland in the same fashion. The sheer effort of resolving so much conflicting evidence would make their head explode.

Uplift has the same problem as the the Grand Canyon. Why did it not uplift anywhere else?

That's the thing, Rockhound, YECs tend to look at one tiny piece of the puzzle at a time. They can, albeit badly most of the time, explain away most anything because they divorce it from not only from its own inherent details, but also from local, regional, and global geology.They have so far found it impossible to present us with a coherent model for the flood. All they can do is point to the Grand Canyon, the Black Canyon, the scablands, etc., but they cannot SHOW us how they are all connected geologically.Mainstream geology can. We have no problem going into new ground, doing a little fieldwork, and coming out with a geologic tapestry that is compatible with adjacent geology. The details may be a bit sketchy and need more work, but in the end, WE have a picture - they have empty words.They are imaginative, I'll give them that, but their imaginations are not grounded in objective reality, but rather wishful thinking, ignorance, and worse, arrogance.

dupeThis message has been edited by roxrkool, 10-10-2004 12:42 AM

I don't know, however, the same question can be asked of the mainstream interpretation. What DID cause the uplift of the Colorado Plateau? What about the Uncompahgre uplift? What about the Gunnison uplift? We have ideas, theories, all backed by data, but we weren't there. We can never be 100% certain.Thing is, they can, if they put their minds to it and took the time for it, come up with some sort of fantastical scenario for how flood waters affect tectonics. Something about the weight of the water on the crust. And the reason only in certain parts, well, maybe there was more faulting, different rock type that allowed uplift, who knows?And because they aren't presenting those ideas to mainstream science, but rather to laypeople, they don't have to back their theories with more than one or two lame bits of evidence.What an easy life those YEC scientists... strike that, scholars have.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 10-10-2004 12:44 AM

what about the valles marineris on mars?oh wait.

Sea vallys?

This thing: APOD: 2002 August 27 - Valles Marineris: The Grand Canyon of Mars

it was a joke. a world wide flood on earth could not possibly have caused a canyon on mars.

Thanks, great pic!