Summations Only

Nope --- the Tapeats was way below the river. The river was in the upper sedimentary layer you see at the north and south rim, which was all relatively level across the river at that time.Also at that time the tributaries Kanab Creek and Meadow Creek were also at that basic level and flowed into the Colorado. From north and south, so there was most likely at least a gentle slope to the Colorado and along the length of the Colorado at that time.This sediment would be easy to erode, and would likely develop the overall meander pattern of the Grand Canyon. It may have wandered back and forth a bit at that time -- we wouldn't know because that area is eroded away as the canyon got wider. Consider the upper diagram to represent the flow before uplift and the lower diagram to represent the flow after the uplift, with the uplift at section 1 and section 2 below the uplift.The flow at section 2 does not change. The flow at section 1 is faster in the lower diagram than in the upper diagram so that river flow CFM (cubic feet per minute) is the same at both sections in both diagrams.Note the absence of change in the surface level of the water from the upper diagram to the lower diagram.So AS the uplift occurs there is offsetting erosion due directly to the hydrodynamics increasing the velocity in that section.The river is known as the "color red" river due to the sediment load in it -- and (as Percy has said) this acts as sandpaper on the rock, especially in spring flood stages. No. The strata was lifted by the uplifting and as it lifted the river cut into it, AND those tributaries cut into it, and kept flowing as shown in the above diagrams.It is simple Faith. If you don't understand it then that is because your cognitive dissonance is preventing you from understanding it.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : sp

And it DOES still run downhill as is clearly shown in these diagrams: Consider the upper diagram to represent the flow before uplift and the lower diagram to represent the flow after the uplift, with the uplift at section 1 and section 2 below the uplift.The flow at section 2 does not change. The flow at section 1 is faster in the lower diagram than in the upper diagram so that river flow CFM (cubic feet per minute) is the same at both sections in both diagrams.If you had a third section upstream of section 1 that was like section 2 it would have the same flow before and after uplift at section 1 and the surface of the water would be no different.Water is actually liquid Faith, and that means that the surface follows the energy gradient and not the bottom of the river.This should be blindingly obvious if you ever go look at a stream and all the variety of sections it flows through -- each section has the same CFM and there is a variety of velocities in different size channels to accomplish this flow.Again this is simple basic information.Enjoy.

Faith,I would appreciate it if you would download this PDF file and study it in detail USGS PDF topomap of Grand Canyon -- it shows the topography in great detail.It is HUGE because the original is a chart sized document. You can get in close (control+ or control and mouse scroll up). The lines are topo lines -- lines of constant elevation -- and where they bunch up there are cliffs and where they spread out there are flattish areas.The blue line is the Colorado -- notice how much it meanders from one end to the other with small meanders overlaid on large meanders. Typical of rivers all over the world.Notice how the cliffs generally match these meanders for most of the length of the canyon, demonstrating that this pattern has become incised into the rock.Notice ALL the tributaries that cross the rising uplifted land to reach the Colorado because they too have incised into the rocks and sedimentary layers as the uplift occurred and they still drain to the Colorado even if the land surrounding them is rising to the rims. How could they have formed by your scenarios Faith?ALL of this is evidence of how the Grand Canyon formed. ALL of it is consistent with uniformitarianism and gradual uplift countered by increased erosion of the stream beds in response, all according to basic hydrodynamics. NONE of this is consistent with rapid massive cascades of waterflow.The Grand Canyon PROVES the earth is old because no rapid formation scenario explains ALL the details.I had hoped to find a section taken along the center of the river showing the water elevation, the riverbed elevation and either (or both) rims, but this is the closest I could find.Enjoy

Hi Faith,I didn't say uplift was like a dam. I described a play dam a child might build being overflowed and then being eroded away, because I thought that if you had engaged in such play as a child that it might be a helpful analogy, and then I said uplift is like a partial dam in that the water would flow over it and be eroded away. If the analogy doesn't work for you then we should move on. You're correct that doesn't act like a dam, but it does interfere with the flow of water. The more the uplift the more the flow of water is impeded. The water will have a higher level and greater speed through the uplifted portion of the river (lower volume means greater speed because the same amount of water has to flow through), it will be able to move more and heavier sediment with greater erosive effect, and at the end of the uplift it will drop across a greater height also with greater effect. "Serious uplift" sufficient to divert the river is something that can happen, but it is not the only thing that can happen, plus it is much more rare than gradual uplift. There are many regions around the world experiencing gradual uplift or subsidence. Only very occasionally is there a geologic event causing uplift sufficient to divert rivers. Rivers deeply incised into landscapes are evidence of gradual uplift.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.

You had argued how unlikely it was that the uplift would have occurred only beneath the Grand Canyon unless it had some specific cause that we were refusing to acknowledge, so I provided the topographical map of Arizona so that you could see that the Grand Canyon is just a small portion of a very large region of Arizona that has been uplifted.--Percy

NO

I'm afraid that is another misreading of something I wrote, I have no idea what.

I've been mostly trying to fathom OE theory here but of course I do have YEC views of these things as well. In this case that slow gradual uplift that is observed today reflects the very slow continental drift of today, the very slow movement of the tectonic plates, but on the YEC view the current speed is what it's all settled DOWN TO since the Flood, having started out much faster. On the OE view, of course, but I'd tend to think of it as evidence of a formerly deeper and faster river cutting deeply into the landscape before settling down to its current size. That's what the meanders in the Grand Canyon suggest to me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure, I know about that flood and I don't think it disproves the idea that the Grand Canyon could also have been cut by a huge volume of water. Palouse is basalt not sedimentary rock, the water there was all flowing in one direction versus water flowing in from above over all sides of the GC and then later flowing mostly east to west until it had settled down to today's river, and other differences as well.

That document you linked has many links, I don't know which one to open.

deleted so I can include this info in post above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Don't forget, the dates for the Channeled Scablands that formed the Palouse area are three times older than those attributed to the global flood.Why do we see the Scablands floods, that are so much older, in such good detail while not seeing any evidence of the claimed more recent and much larger flood?(And don't try to claim that our dating is off. Mindspawn tried that and RAZD handed him his posterior, giftwrapped. He hasn't shown his face for a week now. Hiding out?)

Your dating is off.

And when that does happen it looks like this:This is a wide canyon with a relatively flat bottom cut through basalt rock by massive flood waters from melting glaciers. This happened ~10,000 years ago, so it is still too old for you. Evidence is like that all around the world.It is not at all like the Grand Canyon.There are some flat areas in the Grand Canyon and I could be generous and let you think that they were carved by your catastrophic cascade ...... but that still leaves you with the Colorado cutting the canyon out below those flats, several hundred feet below those flats which are closer to the rim than the bottom: Contour intervals are 25 meters or ~82 feet of height between lines. I count between 12 and 15 from the flat to the river height, of ~1,000 feet that the river has cut since those flats formed ... by normal river erosion.You cannot explain the actual real earth evidence with your fantasy Faith -- it doesn't work. And those cliffs in the bottom of the canyon follow those meanders, even the little ones.Your model doesn't fit the facts. And there is no known cause to change those rates, and if you try to fit all the movement of the earth plates into a few thousand years ... it would melt from the friction. Where did all that energy go Faith? What made it slow down?Enjoy

I have given Faith a cheer because her replies are getting so bad they are good!
Her respondents have been patient and clear in trying to explain the GC, though they probably have headaches from bashing their heads against their computers She should respond to Atheos caladensis's posts 386 and 390 and say just what parts of the explanations she does not understand.