Summations Only

Unless the entire river source-to-mouth is uplifted evenly uplift will change the slope of the river.It's called gravity and hydrodynamics. Both are well-understood. What laws of physics do you think are violated?

You've got in both cases a VERY LOW WALL OF SEDIMENT compared to the miles deep stack of the GC. Sorry, no comparison.

if the slope changed the river's speed would change, but that's not what anyone said. You all said the UPLIFT all by itself forced the river to cut deeper. And the slope COULD have changed in the opposite direction and reversed the flow of the river too, but that didn't seem to be an option in anybody's mind.The laws of physics concerning how raising its height would make water cut deeper.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's God's wprd AND God's world and we expect science to confirm God's word so we look for alternative explanations when science contradicts God. In the case of Coyote's constant theme about dating methods, they directly contradict God's word, not just the speculations of creationists, and once in a while he needs to be reminded Who he's arguing with, not me but God.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, you don't know much about them. You seem to think a quick scan of a website makes you an expert, but in reality you just cherry-pick a tidbit or two while not understanding, or misunderstanding, the rest.The real experts have studied that area for 40 or 50 years and have a deep understanding of it.But then they're doing real science...

I can't speak for others, but I never said anysuch thing and I remember messages from Percy and RAZD that said what I just said.Uplift causes a change in slope. Duh. A change in slope leads to water running slower on the very slightly more uphill side and faster on the very slightly downhill side. Duh. The faster running water increases the erosion rate. Duh. This erosion "moves" upstream by eroding the very slightly downhill side of the uplifted "bump" until the "bump" is eroded away where the river runs and remains where the river doesn't run. An extreme example in Niagara Falls where the falls themselves have moved significantly upriver since they were first discovered by Europeans.

When the erosion of the GC started you are propsoing a stack of sediment about a mile deep, not miles.The sediments at the top of the stack would not be significantly compressed.But those sediments were eroded to near-vertical walls.Doesn't fly.

Exactly, Faith, very good, glad you noticed that ... because that is HOW catastrophic cascading flow erodes -- it makes a wider canyon than it is deep because the sides are easier to erode than the bottom.That is why the Grand Canyon cannot have been formed this way.And don't try to use cracks to explain it -- the Palouse cut-off followed a fault line through the ridge ... and still made a wide flat bottomed channel.Everything you say happened we can find evidence of ... the problem (for you) is that they don't look like the Grand Canyon because it didn't form that way.Enjoy.

Could you demonstrate that you're not you but God by doing a miracle? A nice plague of frogs would be fine. Otherwise, I'm gonna think that you're you. Actually, I was thinking that you were you anyway, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. So, frogs. I'm in Las Vegas, if that's any help. I'll leave the choice of species up to you and your omniscience.

Every creationist argument I've seen against radiocarbon dating has been nonsense.They try the stupidest little tricks, thinking they have the magic bullet to kill off scientific dating. Most of the time their little tricks result from their lack of understanding of the method; the rest of the time they're just lying.

A very common alternative explanation is that your unusual and fallible interpretation of the Bible is where the problem lies. It fits all the evidence much better than your fantasies.

Falls moving upriver isn't the result of uplifting land. And again nobody said anything about changing slope, they kept saying the river cuts deeper when the land is uplifted and that's ALL they said. Again, the river's course COULD even have been reversed if uplift changed the slope in the opposite direction but that also didn't seem to occur to anybody.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I believe you have created a false dichotomy for yourself. For you, it boils down to either the Bible is wrong or the evidence is wrong. But perhaps there is a third option... remember that the Bible (specifically Genesis in context of this discussion) was not written to twenty-first century, scientifically knowledgeable people, but to bronze age nomads who had just left Egypt and who God intended to make into a great nation, the nation he promised Abraham. Yes, the Bible was written for us but not to us. You must understand the Bible in the context of its original audience. I won't go into it any further here, but suffice it to say that the third option might be that you simply misunderstand what the original intention of the passages were. If that position is correct then both the physical evidence and the Word of God can be true. It doesn't have to either / or. No dichotomy needed.Back to the topic at hand, I found these charts in An Introduction to Geology. Its kinda old (1921 ?) so I'm sure more evidence has been added since then but he has some good illustrations spanning the time period we are talking about (particularly the unconformity between the Muav limestone and the Redwall limestone. (hatched areas = known deposits, black areas = exposed areas)Now for the purposes of this exercise, there is no need to assign dates to any of the layers, simply to recognize that they were laid down sequentially and to note the pattern of distribution. The order is:Cambrian (there is not a distribution map available in this book), Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian.Ordovician: Notice there is a large circular area near the beginning of the canyon that has no Ordovician deposits but all around it there are? What can you conclude from that? Consider that we are talking about that area being uplifted at some point in the past. Does that area look like it might be higher than the surrounding areas (that were seas)? Could that be why there were no Ordovician deposits - because the land was above sea level?Silurian: Notice the large area north and south of the GC that have no Silurian rocks?Devonian: Notice that there are Devonian deposits in the upper GC area but they aren't extensive. Further down into the canyon, they are more widely distributed. Does the distribution of rock in this layer look similar to the Silurian period but with more area under water? Could this be due to a rise in sea level?Mississippian (Carboniferous): Notice how extensive Carboniferous deposits are in North America. Most of the US and Mexico were underwater.Muav limestone is Cambrian. Ordovician and Silurian rocks are missing from the formation. Devonian is represented by Tempe Butte formation. And Mississippian is represented by Redwall limestone.Consider that the layers were laid down while they were under water (they are sedimentary rock after all). What do these distribution charts tell us about what the land was like during the times when the layers were being laid down?Bottom line is this ... How can a global flood explain these patterns of distribution? And how could that explanation do a better job of explaining this pattern than deposits made sequentially over an extended period of time (doesn't even need to be millions of years)?Another point. I live in Michigan and we are experiencing glacial rebound that has been measured to be up to 15 inches per century in the northern Great Lakes region! that is more than 1/8" a year! I've never even noticed it. No bedrock cracking, no problem with our rivers flowing. Uplift is not as big a problem as you think. Yea, if it lifts 10 feet in a year - that would be a problem. But not a couple inches a century. Our world is pretty flexible.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

I even changed the wording of that post because I knew it could be misread that way. Ah well, trust Dr. A to exploit it.

JonF - I believe she is talking about the layers that made the staircase cliffs So they were stacked up way over the top of the canyon rim, causing the sediments to lithify, and then they were eroded by the catastrophic cascade while they were still wet before lithifying and then the river deep into the still unlithified sediment but as soon as the sides were exposed they litified due to all that weight that is now gone ... do try to keep up.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : piclink