YECs, how do you explain meandering canyons?

Roxrkool,Here is a link to Walt Brown's proposed Grand Lake.Also, Walt Brown, like many creationists, conclude that Grand Canyon formed several centuries after the Flood (the kaiabab and albert squirrel populations fairly demanding such a conclusion); so all the sediments would have been fully cured (hardened). If you scroll down a little in the above link, you'll find:

quote:

---

Catastrophic dumping of Grand Lake took place through what is now the gap between Echo Cliffs and Vermilion Cliffs. Before this natural dam eroded, both cliffs were a single face of a block-faulted mountain. Release of Grand Lake’s vast waters first eroded hundreds of meters of relatively soft Mesozoic sediments off northern Arizona. Once surface erosion was completed, downcutting through the harder Kaibab limestone began. As erosion cut deeper beneath the water table, more water, under greater pressure, was released from the water-saturated sediments flanking the canyon. This escaping water cut dozens of side canyons entering the Grand Canyonlarge canyons previously unexplained because they have no significant surface flow entering them. Subsurface flow and landslides were extreme.

​

The weight of material removed from northern Arizona produced isostatic uplifts that account for the uplift of the Kaibab Plateau. This produced much faulting and volcanism, the barbed canyons, and layered strata that dip down and away from Marble Canyon and Grand Canyon. ~ emphasis mine

---

I quote this section because it seems to cover several of the mini-subjects I recall being discussed here. In particular, I bolded the reference to "soft sediments" because, in this quote, Walt Brown compares relative softness/hardness between two types of sediments. This has nothing to do with the sediments being soft due to having just been left by retreating flood waters.Hope this helps. It is, I think, about the extent of my knowledge on the subject.{added by edit}
Actually, it is not even MY knowledge of the subject; it is Walt Brown's...I know pretty much nothing about geology.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-18-2004 10:14 PM

Edge,I was mainly providing Roxrkool with a map of Walt Brown's proposed Grand Lake location and pointing out that many (probably most) creationists consider Grand Canyon to post date the Flood at least by several centuries. The albert/kaiabab squirrel populations (very similar squirrel populations separated by the canyon) seem to require this conclusion.The reason I included Walt Brown's ideas about relatively soft Mz sediments versus harder limestone sediments wasn't because I thought it was undeniable truth (I have no way of knowing), but I just wanted to point out that Walt Brown is using the words "soft sediments" in comparison between Mz sediments and limestone sediments--as opposed to "soft sediments" left behind by a recently retreated Flood. I was just emphasizing the idea that many creationists propose the canyon to have formed some centuries AFTER the Flood; that's all. If I understand Walt Brown correctly, he is attempting to explain the barbed canyons, of course, which apparently run in the OPPOSITE direction of the flow of the Colorado river.Your last two sentences (in the quote above) seem to offer SOME support to his ideas. Is it possible for his overall Grand Canyon theory to have merit while some details are incorrect?I think his reference to "subsurface flow" is an attempt to describe water from the water table running into the canyons formed by the breached dam (probably not two completely separate and independant events).My Understanding of Walt Brown's Canyon Formation Scenario

---

If I'm getting the picture in my mind correct, the land has a slight tilt counter to the flow of the river (above the river, apparently). So, I *think* that Walt Brown is proposing the dam broke and Grand Lake emptied. The backwards tilt of the land wasn't enough to overcome the general flow of the water from the breached dam. The Grand Lake waters made their own canyon system flowing away from Grand Lake, but this canyon system cut beneath the water table. The water in the water table (influenced by the backwards tilt of the land) made the canyons that run in the opposite direction of the Colorado River flow. Of course, this whole scenario would probably make a different water table level; so it could happen only once.About the Meanders

---

(This is addressed really to everybody, not just Edge.)Now, here I go out on a limb. How much merit would there be to the idea of (assuming a breached dam scenario) the breached dam waters creating meanders due to the backwards tilt of the land? Seems that the proposed Grand Lake waters would have a general downhill flow (due to it being a breached dam), but the backwards tilt might have been a somewhat countering force to the general flow of the Grand Lake waters.

---

{Added by edit}
I find the idea that the Flood laid down the sediments in the rising stages and then cut the canyon in the receding stages a bit unrealistic. The idea about the cliffs not being able to support themselves at this stage pretty much refutes such reasoning. That's why I keep emphasizing that many creationists do not take this view.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-20-2004 09:22 AM

Rats! I thought I really had it, too.

Hi TrueCreation, I can't seem to find the online article now, but somewhere in AnswersInGenesis.org's archives there is an article explaining that the separation of the albert and kaibab squirrel populations requires that the canyon formed after enough time had elapsed after the Flood¹ for the parent squirrel population to have become established on both sides of what is now Grand Canyon.Apparently there is also a American Indian (Navajo?) legend about the Canyon forming.These two lines of evidence (though one is anecdotal) have apparently convinced Answers In Genesis that the Canyon was formed several centuries after the Flood. Since Answers in Genesis has a broad realm of influence in the Creationists' thinking, I concluded that many Creationists do not posit the receding Flood as having created the Canyon.Those two lines of evidence (though the one is anecdotal) plus the fact that it seems hard to imagine the rock could have lithified enough during the receding stages have convinced me, at this time, that the canyon formed centuries after the Flood.However, I will not say that it did NOT happen that way.--TheLiteralist

---

¹Added by edit (TheLiteralist) This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-12-2005 00:44 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-12-2005 05:35 AM

Ned,I was wrong! Please note my correction in Message 31 above. I don't know Answers In Genesis's position...I was mixing up websites in my mind --TL

Hi DiggerDowner, I believe the sediment was laid there by Noah's Flood. Are you sure the Colorado river carved out the canyon? How do you know this? Are you referring to the Grand Canyon with these questions? If you are, it has already been determined over and over again that I don't know much about the Grand Canyon formation or geology in general. However, there are Creationists who propose that the Grand Canyon is the result of a breached dam. Under this model, the sediments on both sides of the dam would have been laid down by Noah's Flood, and so, should be the same age. But, then, according to the Flood model, very, very, very few sediment layers would be older than 5000 years old.

Hi JonF,Well, the three-headed alien model would explain the Canyon AND perhaps those wierd circles in the cornfields. I believe several reputable papers I've read (these can generally be picked up in checkout lanes at the supermarket) have described many beings such as you posit in this rather unique model. Might be onto something there, Jon.{just kidding ) Very well said! As I said, I am nearly completely ignorant of the Grand Canyon formation (and this only gets clearer everytime I type). For this reason, I only clarified what the model would predict (layers on both sides of the dam would be the same age, almost no layers older than about 5000 years) and asked questions of the fellow.Are there any formations or features of the Grand Canyon that the "Carved by the Colorado River" Model doesn't explain well or at all? Is there anything that is "mysterious" under this model?Also, do traditional scientist have any other ideas or models about the origin of the canyon besides the "Carved by the Colorado River" Model?You'll probably just say, "No." But just in case...Thanks,
--TheLitThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 02-06-2005 13:40 AM