Summations Only

Yeah disturbance on too small a scale to mean what the OE theory says it means, that's the point of getting back to appreciate that fact, really very simple and obvious if you don't have the OE blinders on.

Oh, is that all that is required for a rebuttal? I asked you to explain how the runoff explains the disturbances of the layers locked within the strata, which was all laid down at once in your theory. Explain how these structures formed for me, if you would? Others have already explained to you how the evidence lines up with OE theory, you have yet to propose anything outside of water acting against the principles of hydrodynamics.Although, that doesn't matter since all I'm required to post for a rebuttal is of course it's obvious to you with your Biblical Bias coloring your view. At least according to your response.Also, I will continue to ask where are the ancient canyon areas where the ancient riverbed existed post-flood, but prior to the meanders being carved? If you cannot answer this you are blatantly ignoring evidence and everyone can see it. If the river changed course to carve the meanders after the canyon, there would be signs of an ancient riverbed, complete with a section of canyon that was originally carved in the flood. These locations would have to be near the current locations of meanders in the Colorado river, so please find them and post your evidence.

What a surprise, Faith. You have once again latched on to some new posts and steadfastly refused to explain how your imaginary Flood could have cut a meandering canyon. As others have said, if you want to call this obvious physical impossibility a miracle then go right ahead. But don't pretend the structure of the GC actually supports your fantasy. You keep telling us to look at the canyon from far away (the better to ignore those pesky details that also refute your model) and yet you wish to ignore the big-picture problem RAZD originally explained and which I have been trying to get you to respond to for some time.The canyon meanders. How do you reconcile this with your model, Faith? Your continued silence on the matter is proof that you know just as we do that such a reconciliation is impossible.

I'd like a word like "stick," but not "stick." I think I'll stay with "stay."Faith, do you have any clue as to what a goober you sound like talking like that?

I'm just trying to fit your concepts into real geology Faith verb (used with object), lithified, lithifying.
1. to change (sediment) to stone or rock.hardened
[hahr-dnd] Show IPA
adjective
1. made or become hard or harder.
2. pitiless; unfeeling.
3. firmly established or unlikely to change; inveterate: a hardened criminal.
4. inured; toughened: a hardened trooper.
5. rigid; unyielding: a hardened attitude.Doesn''t appear to be a geological term, but there is a hardness test used by engineers to categorize the properties of various materials. What hardness are you thinking of? That aren't there anymore so there is no additional hardening -- so they should be in the state we see today ... rock that takes a long time to erode.As soon as you start your erosion scenario your "hardening" scenario is de facto finished, caput, ended, and no longer applicable because all those over layers are now gone.You can't just pretend that the material world changes behavior to suit you, whether it is water or sediment or rock. and by every other source of erosion -- wind, rain, seeping groundwater, freeze-thaw cycles ... anything easy to carve will have an angle of repose that is less than the canyon walls.In fact you can see many places where erosion of the sediments follows that nasty unforgiving angle of repose between sections of vertical rock ... these occur as the sides collapse as the river cuts deeper.Easy to cut also means easy to fracture, to break into smaller pieces and fall down until an angle of repose is built up.It doesn't work Faith.Enjoy

Faith makes it abundantly clear that FAITH is all she has in this discussion.
The Seventh-day Adventist church set up the Geoscience Research Institute to find evidence for YEC and the Flood. In 2010 the GRI reported to the General Conference session of the church (held every five years) that after 50 years of trying they could not produce a model of YEC and Flood that explained the evidence. Faith is unlikely to do much better!

The difference being ... {drumroll} ... uplift.That river in its current form eroded through three (3) lava dams ...Enjoy.

Pre Hoover Dam form?

Actually the bottom of the canyon shows extensive incised meanders within the overall canyon boundaries ... that also meander more than a catastrophic cataclysmic cascade could cause: These three detail sections almost overlap in the portion of the canyon from Meadow Creek (seen in the right hand detail) west.The cliffs shown by closely packed topo lines are over 1000 feet high, and they follow the meanders of the river below, thus they are incised for that depth.This meandering would only occur after Faith's river "settled down" to normal behavior, after the rocks had gotten as hard as they could get before the overlying sediment was removed, rocks that had to be as hard as they are today because there is no other means to harden them except long geological processes.These portions of the canyon of cliffs closely following the meandering river can only occur after all of Faiths frantic fantasy hand waving has finished.And there is no more time to dig this deep a channel in the rocks we see today.Faith also has not explained Meadow Creek to me yet. It flows into the Grand Canyon from the south through land that rises to the south rim.Enjoy.Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.Edited by RAZD, : piclinks

correct, but don't confuse Faith with facts ...Edited by RAZD, : Enjoy

Nothing.The falls exist because of uplift. It's an extreme example of what happens on the downriver side of an uplift. Both the downriver and upriver side get eroded away.

Gee, I sure thought you did. I apologize. But since your claim is that they were laid down within a year there's no time for them to become lithified or hard or whatever you want to call it. Consolidated probably, but still soft. Whether you said "soft" or not.How would you characterize sediments that have been compressed but have not been existence long enough to "harden"? "Hardening is a chemical reaction (actually it's lots of chemical reactions in different cases) with a rate depending on the availability of the reactants, the thermodynamics of the reaction, and the temperature. The availability of the reactants that are dissolved in the water is pretty low, the thermodynamics are the thermodynamics, and the temperature isn't a lot higher than we see today.

Again, I never said the cascade caused meanders, I said the river did when it all settled down to the river.

Here's a rebuttal using a picture. It OUGHT to be obvious that the kind of erosion on the surface of the layers that you have to get up close to see isn't the kind of erosion that actually occurs on the surface of the earth, but here's an example of the real kind so you can see that it WOUJLD be visible from across the canyon on any layer if it had ever actually occurred:The Fantasy of Evolution: erosionEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And because there are different layers with different "hardness" ... from that slide show again: And we can measure the erosion rate for the falls to move upriver and see where it has been and then calculate how low it took to get to where it is today.Enjoy.