Summations Only

Hi Faith,Getting back to the meanders, the river meanders and the canyon meanders are one and the same. There is nowhere where the canyon meanders one way and the river meanders another. Your other objection to the Grand Canyon meanders was that they are too way big, but the meander that was provided as an example is only a mile across, which is pretty standard: This image also contains a perfect example of slope retreat, which is caused by erosion of the riverbanks as the river carves more and more deeply into the landscape as the region uplifts. Such erosion takes a very long time and is more evidence of the ancientness of the Grand Canyon. Slope retreat at an angle could not be present on any rapidly cut canyon, whose sides would be vertical.--Percy

Faith, you have never said the rate of tectonic movement you need for your scenario. Remember the original suggestion of 20 feet per day has been shown to be woefully inadequate for getting it over before people would notice it. Then there are those pesky details of the associated quakes and volcanoes.

Faith, get some modeling clay and a camera. Uplift or fault the clay in such a manner that you get curvy cracks and breaks in it. Post a picture of your results here on EvC.And get pictures of underwater piles of sand with a twenty-degree angle of repose while you are experimenting. My offers of the past three years to send you sand, a protractor, and a Pyrex cake pan still are open.

Thank you for the smiley Curiously I've made pots this way without cracking or breaking.What is your mechanism for drying out the sediments once the flood vanishes?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

Normally, you have pretty good to excellent grammar, but in your last few posts, including this one, it's atrocious. So I'm not going to bother trying to unscramble that mess of a post, not only because it is near impossible to understand, but because what I can understand is simply stupid and not worthy of a reply. Just how much clay occurs in the GC column, Faith?You can't even explain how a FLOOD can create and deposit carbonate, for that matter. And now you're suggesting that the entire GC stratigraphic column is composed of clay. Otherwise, why in the world would you ever assume a big ball of damp modeling clay is an appropriate analog for the GC seds?And by the way, damp clay does not behave the same way as damp sand. I can't even believe that needs saying.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Will it form incised meanders?

Now now, Faith, let's not get mean. You and I at least were having a cordial exchange of late. I understand that you are feeling threatened and put upon, but let's make an effort to be nice to each other.Let's clarify. So you think tectonic forces cracked open the upper strata and then Floodwater poured in to excavate the rest of the canyon. There are a couple problems with this. First is that, as I have pointed out and as you can see from the photographs, the canyon meanders from base to top. That close-up hairpin meander in particular definitely doesn't fit the model of a giant crack opening up in the crust. Second, even if the upper strata were split apart by rifting, the Flood water flowing in still doesn't explain the meanders formed by the walls of the canyon lower down. Rifting followed by Floodwater flowing into the rift will not produce the meanders we see. If you do not understand this, please ask for specific clarification instead of declaring it idiotic and insane which is quite unproductive.

Faith, back in message 662 of this thread you said: I'm fully aware that this has been your position on "old earth" topics through your time here at EvC. But I'm curious, if off-topic, as to whether you regard the "natural reading" of "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" to be that you shouldn't be here at all? Or that "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ." is talking about $11 per hour hired help, and not chattel slaves?Why just the start of Genesis?

YOU MADE YOUR POTS WITHOUT STRETCHING THE ROPES, ISN'T THAT OBVIOUS, MR. POSTER OF ENDLESS IRRELEVANCIES? IF WET SEDIMENTS ARE STRETCHED THEY WILL REACH A CRACKING POINT.

AFTER THE INITIAL PHASE OF THE EXCAVATION OF THE CANYON, WHICH NO RIVER COULD DO, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE CANYON IS BROADEST, I WOULD EXPECT THE WATER TO RUN MORE AND MORE LIKE A RIVER, FARTHER AND FARTHER DOWN IN THE CANYON, AND RIVERS CREATE MEANDERS.

​

IT MIGHT ALSO HELP TO BE REMINDED THAT THE CURRENT KAIBAB PLATEAU ORIGINALLY HAD MORE THAN A MILE OF STRATA ABOVE IT THAT ALL ERODED AWAY IN THE CANYON AREA. IT WAS THE TOP OF THAT WHOLE STACK I'M CLAIMING GOT THE CRACKS IN IT DUE TO THE UPLIFTING OF THE AREA. BY THE TIME THE UPPER STRATA HAD BROKEN UP AND WASHED AWAY, SCOURING THE CURRENT PLATEAU AS WELL AS THE CANYON ITSELF, IT'S NOT LIKELY THAT THE ORIGINAL ORIENTATION OF THE CRACKS HAD MUCH TO DO WITH THE EVENTUAL SHAPE OF THE 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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here's DR. A's SLEAZEBALL SUMMARY, MSG 853 I complained about in MY MESSAGE 874 which got ignored because everybody wants to make a federal case about the meanders, which I DO NOT CARE ABOUT. But I do care about Dr. A's blatantly unfair misrepresentation of my argument, which five of you nevertheless CHEERED. If you track back from that post of his you'll even find him taking my careful description of the tectonic activity I had in mind OUT OF CONTEXT, and I complained at the time. BUT YOU STILL ALL APPLAUD THIS PIECE OF SLIMEBALL "DEBATING." THE CLAIM THAT EVC HAS ANYTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH SCIENCE IS BELIED BY THE DEVIOUS ANTICS OF DR. A ALONE, WHICH ARE LEGION HERE. WHAT A JOKE. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually you can stretch clay quite a bit, but really the irrelevance is you using clay as an example. Limestone is not clay, nor does it form underwater, sandstone is not clay.Wet sand is not clay. Unlithified sediments fall into cracks. Water does not flow faster in cracks it slows down.Enjoy

Because the meanders prove you are wrong.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

I understand that you claim to not care about the meanders, but shouldn't your explanation be able to cope with all of the available evidence, including said meanders?If this is the case, let me see if I have your scenario correct. The Flood came across the whole of the land and when the waters receded, the canyon was carved (albeit minus meanders, which would later be carved by the river). This left some water contained within the canyon, which began the process of carving meanders into the canyon.Now, if I have your position correct, my question would still remain (from many messages ago), "Where are the original portions of the canyon that had to first contain the river prior to any meanders being carved by the Colorado?" If the river had changed course to carve meanders, which could not be carved by the quick removal of flood waters, then it must have originally been in a different location within the canyon. Then, the river changed course and began to carve out the meanders, but these mysterious sections of canyon that are required to exist with your model are not seen anywhere, especially where they should be seen, which is near each meander in the river. If your situation is correct and the flood carved out the canyon with the river carving the meanders, then near every meander should be a more ancient section of canyon with no river flowing through it anymore and simply a dry riverbed. This could show that the river did change course after the canyon was carved.As I see that multiple maps have been posted, could you kindly direct me to where in these maps you see these ancient dry riverbed canyons that do not follow the meanders, but rather the path that receding flood waters would have carved?

The river did not widen the top of the canyon to its current extent. Wall collapse did that, as we see happening today.Not all rivers create meanders. Only slow flowing ones on reasonably flat ground. Rivers running in cracks don't create meanders.Many of the meanders you have been shown form most to all of the depth of the canyon, and therefore were there at or very near the beginning.Cracked soft wet sediment does not support tall vertical walls as we see all over the canyon.Rock does not form by drying out. In your latest scenario the top layers would still be unconsolidated.No matter how big you make your letters, your latest fantasy is even more ridiculous than your original one. Do you even realize that you have totally changed your story