Summations Only

Yes it is. The land upstream of the falls is uplifted relative to the land below the falls. By tectonic forces over millions of years. Sorry, we all are mistakenly assuming you are capable of thinking for yourself. I'll try to remember that you can't. After all you did just write "Uplift would lift a river along with the land, not make it cut deeper unless it changed the slope of the river." Did you really think that the Colorado Plateau uplift did not change the slope of the river in some areas? Do you really have to be told that explicitly? WTF "opposite direction"? Uplift creates a slight-less-downhill portion upstream of the crest of the uplift and a slightly-more-downhill portion downstream of the crest of the uplift. Uplift changes slope both downward and upward in different areas.If the uplift was significantly faster than the erosion then the river's course could have been changed significantly. Which would have left traces that we have looked for and do not see. Therefore it did not happen.

Too much going on in your post to deal with all at once. But the maps of the different layers do look interesting so I'll probably eventually get to it. But you ask how a worldwide Flood would explain the patterns in the maps, and the first answer off the top of my head is that a lot happened TO the strata after they were laid down, due to tectonic movement and volcanic activity and earthquakes and the rapid eroding away of some parts of the strata and so on, so I would expect some of it to be explained by those factors.But it's the Bible stuff I want to answer here. Actually, not the EVIDENCE, but the INTERPRETATION of the evidence. But absolutely, if anything clearly contradicts God's word it's wrong, period. Oh, there always is. Even fourth and tenth options. Compromisers are a creative lot. indeed, and you somehow assume the original context is overlooked by Bible believers? Not so. God is astute enough to address His nomadic peoples AND His twenty-first-century peoples in one message. God knows the mind of every generation including the scientific discoveries of the future. We never get to the bottom of anything in the Bible, it's always giving us new perspectives, IF we take it all on faith, of course, not if you treat it as just another book you can subordinate to your own opinion. I don't rely on my own reading of the Bible alone, I hear sermons almost every day, I've read many of the old books as well as the new books, it's not as if the greatest preachers and theological minds of Christianity just sort of didn't take into account the "original intention" of the passages. There is no way both sides of an out and out contradiction can be true. Anyone who honestly reads the Bible can see the contradictions with -- not science as such, I do have to keep saying that since I believe true science honors God -- but with evolutionist and old earth science. What compromisers REALLY do is simply get rid of what God said. Easy. Which is what you are doing by claiming Genesis could only speak to primitive people, which is essentially saying God lied to those people because, well, they're primitive so they're stupid and it's OK to lie to stupid people, which totally violates the character of God and destroys the reliability of His word, but despite that you think we should accept SOME of it? If He would lie to nomads He'd lie to me, but I know He's lied to nobody because God can't lie.it always IS a choice. There IS no way to reconcile the two. The thing is, when you hold onto the choice that it's all God's word you get vistas and depths you'll never get from rejecting any part of it.I don't claim my way of understanding how the GC formed is the truth, all that is my own speculation, but I do claim that a worldwide Flood occurred about 4300 years ago and since current sciences about the past deny it I try to understand how it may have happened. And it seems to me once you know it happened the evidence for it is absolutely everywhere, and the GC is a glaring bit of evidence for it whether how it happened can be known or not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Since lithification is apparently a technical term, I'd rather say "hardened." But well-hardened from the compression of sediments above. No, I never said they lithified when exposed, you are making things up. They were already hardened enough not to slump, but quite easily sculpted by rushing water. Same thing happened to the Grand Staircase and to all the formations of the Southwest, the draining Flood water pared away huge quantities of the strata leaving the shapes, and of course over the millennia since then they've been subjected to further shaping by yearly erosion as well.That's a nice cross-section, I like it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Compressed, but not lithified. If you must say hardened then they were not hardened. "Hardening" takes lots of time while the "cement" that joins the grains forms.

I just want a word for hardening without lithifying.

You complain of being misunderstood a lot, and maybe that's what's going on here. Because it sees like you're making the absurd claim that the GC is evidence for the Flood despite the fact that you can't come up with an explanation of how the Flood could have produced all the features of the GC. You're not being that ridiculous, are you?And you're still backing down at every opportunity from explaining how a high-energy, large-scale flow could produce a meandering canyon. You have skirted around the issue with vague statements but have so far lacked the courage to actually explain how your imaginary Flood could have produce the structure we see in the GC. Though I guess you've made it clear in the above quote that you are convinced that the Flood produced the GC regardless of the fact that you can't explain the structure of the GC in the context of the Flood. Soft sediment would indeed weather more easily than rock, but this is yet another problem for your model, not its salvation. A high-energy flow like you imagine would presumably be even more likely to produce a straight channel if it were cutting through soft sediment instead of rock. You seem to have convinced yourself that the scale of your imaginary Flood means that it would not obey the laws of physics as we know them, but this is nonsense. A flow of water on the scale you describe would, by virtue of its size and energy, be even more prone to cutting a straight channel than the more normal flood examples RAZD has posted.You excused yourself from addressing the various glaring logical inconsistencies and physical impossibilities I presented to you by claiming that they were irrelevant/too boring for you, but those excuses don't apply here. You claim the GC as powerful evidence for the Flood, so you can't pretend that this latest physical impossibility is irrelevant to your arguments.So gain, how did the Flood produce a meandering canyon? I encourage others here to really hammer Faith with this question because it completely destroys her position and she is clearly afraid to address it.

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.

There is no word for a phenomenon that does not exist. Sediments may be loose, consolidated (closely packed but still soft), in the process of lithifying (which takes a long time) or lithified.Edited by JonF, : added second paragraph

I had a specific purpose for asking that, it isn't to be taken as THE way I think the canyon should always be looked at. You are wrongly making a general rule out of something that had a limited purpose. Which was, that if you look at some of the long vistas of the canyon walls from a distance you can see there are no disturbances to the layers, which proves they were never at the surface of the earth, not a one of them, which is an Old Earth belief. Disturbances to the strata occur to BLOCKS of strata, not individual layers. I still think that is obvious and a very important observation against OE theory. The slight disturbances between the layers that are taken as evidence for surface exposure can only be seen from close up and are far from the kind of disruption real exposure at the surface would have caused, which I kept saying would be visible from that distance if it had happened. They don't cut it, are easily explained by runoff from between the layers, and that's what I wanted to be seen. But anything can be rationalized if necessary when there is no way to actually prove it. Well, unfortunately you completely missed the point I was trying to make, but enjoy your hikes. There are many rivers in this world that are a lot more powerful than the Colorado that didn't even begin to cut a canyon. There is no way that river in its current form cut that canyon.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'll stick with hardened, thanks anyway.

Hardened = not soft. So your claim of soft sediments is false. Hardening takes a long time. So your claim of the GC forming in a year or two is false.Water is water, gravity is gravity, erosion is erosion. lithification is lithification, a rose is a rose. Changing the label doesn't change the thing.

Not all rivers cut canyons. That doesn't mean that no rivers cut canyons. That's because it isn't just the presence of a river that's required. There are quite a few rivers that were uplifted and cut straight or meandering canyons, just not as big or impressive as the GC. I've posted links to images several times, but here they are for you to ignore again.

I NEVER SAID THEY WERE "SOFT" EVER.

What's wrong with simple erosion due to the action of the falls on the rocks as explanation for the falls moving upriver?

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?