Summations Only

She's repudiated her original claims (without, of course, acknowledging it). Now she's claiming that the majority of the canyon and pretty much all the geology of the Southwest is caused by cracks from the uplift, which just happened to form the shape of widened meandering rivers, and the meanders are just minor add-ons.Since she's moved from just the GC to the entire Southwest, the Goosenecks of the San Juan are now relevant: So, Faith, where how deep did the original crack go and how much of the current depth was carved by a slow-flowing river in hard rock?

OF COURSE NOT. WHO EXPECTS SOMEONE TO KNOW EVERYTHING WHO IS JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH ONE POINT? THE FLOOD BUILT UP THE STRATA IN THE SOUTHWEST TO SOMETHING LIKE THREE MILES DEEP. AT OR NEAR THE END OF THE FLOOD THE TECTONIC FORCES BEGAN, ASSOCATED WITH THE VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, ALL CAUSING THE EARTHQUAKES AND THE FAULTING, AND CAUSING THE UPLIFT AND THE CRACKING OF THE UPPERMOST STRATA WHICH ALLOWED THE WATER TO RUSH IN, BRINGING CHUNKS OF THE STRATA ABOVE THE KAIBAB WITH IT, WHICH IS WHAT CARVED OUT THE CANYON AND SCOURED OFF THE KAIBAB AT THE SAME TIME. WHAT? AT SOME LEVEL THE WATER WAS MORE OF A RIVER THAN A DELUGE. RIVERS CUT MEANDERS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN. THE RIVER IS WHAT WAS LEFT OVER FROM THE FLOOD WATERS WHEN THE FLOOD HAD PRETTY MUCH DRAINED THROUGH THE CANYON. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? CHANGING COURSE? SEPARATE RIVER FROM FLOOD? WHAT KIND OF NONSENSE ARE YOU TALKING? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

THE CRACKS WERE IN THE UPPERMOST STRATA THAT WASHED AWAY. THE CRACKS ALLOWED IN THE DELUGE, THE RIVER DIDN'T "RUN" IN THE CRACKS. EITHER THE CANYON WAS CARVED OUT TO A LEVEL THAT IT HAD A FLOOR FOR THE RIVER TO CREATE MEANDERS FROM OR THDE MEANDERS WERE CREATED BY THE RESISTANCE OF THE BUTTES AND STANDING WALLS THAT THE RIVER HAD TO FLOW AROUND. THE KEPTH OF THE CANYON IS ONLY TO THE KAIBAB. THE STRATA WERE BUILT TO AT LEAST A MILE ABOVE THAT, AND IT WAS THE TOP OF THOSE STRATA THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CRACKED. \\THEY HAD BEEN UNDER OVER A MILE OF STRATA, PLENTY OF WEIGHT AND PRESSURE.YES THE WALLS CAVED IN. WATER RUSHING IN WOULD CDERTAINLY HAVE FACILITATED THEIR CAVING IN.
MY SCENARIO HAS NOT CHANGED.A MILE OR MORE OF STACKED SEDIMENT WAS WASHED AWAY ABOVE THE KAIBAB LEVEL DURING THE FORMING OF THE CANYON. THE CRACKING OCCURRED TO THE UPPERMOST LEVEL OF THAT UPPER STRATA. I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY STORY.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All caps doesn't make your story any more realistic.So now you are saying that the river carved most of the canyon, in what you have referred to as "hardened rock".Not enough time. Plenty of pressure but not enough heat and time. Nowhere near enough. It's not a lie, but looking back I see I was wrong. You have not been clear but you did have the same story a few weeks ago. I apologize.

If the river was formed from the remaining water after the flood waters receded, then there was an original course to the river through the canyon (which you claim was carved by the flood). However, your claim for the meanders is that they were not carved by the flood, but by the river after the flood receded. This would mean that originally after the flood, we are left with a river with no meanders inside the canyon, correct? Somehow, the river has to adjust its course creating the meanders within the canyon, but shouldn't there be an original shape to the canyon without the meanders included, since they were not carved until after the flood waters receded? This would leave sections of canyons from where the river originally settled near the current meanders in the river/canyon. These sections would contain the ancient riverbed from the original course the Colorado River took post-flood. No need for name calling, that is the behavior of a child and I will not reciprocate this emotional attack. Plus, you have no reason to call me an idiot as I was trying to be quite polite to you. Tectonic activity does not cause meanders to be carved, so it must have been caused by the river, correct? While I know you are incorrect in how the canyon was carved, I am simply pointing out one issue with your concept that the river carved the meanders after the flood carved the canyon. Slow moving rivers, on flat land cut meanders, not all rivers do so. Which is what I said your statement was. But the flood receding couldn't carve the meanders, so the river must have done so after the flood in your model. Which means that the river originally settled in a canyon with no meanders and then carved the meanders afterwards. This would have left sections of the canyon with the old way the river went prior to the meanders being carved. These sections of ancient canyon should be located near each meander within the canyon. The fact that these ancient canyons are not present refutes your statement that the river carved the meanders after the canyon was formed. Rather, what we do see is that the canyon naturally follows the meanders of the river, which can be explained through uplift and a river with meanders cutting into the bedrock as the land around is pushed upwards. The idiotic blather, as you so eloquently put it, is what your model requires for the river to carve the meanders into the canyon post-flood. The fact that even you call this idea idiotic (which your whole process requries) should show you that your concept of how the canyon was formed is based upon idiotic principles. Therefore, why should any of us give it any credence. If I am an idiot according to Faith, that must mean I am intelligent to most of the rest of the world, so I will take this as a compliment. Also, if you could grow up and at least attempt a civilized discussion, that would be most excellent. Also, I will not get off this thread as you are unable to answer my point that refutes your statement.How did the river carve meanders into the canyon, after the canyon was formed? Maybe you are not explaining yourself clearly enough, but your current scenario requries that the canyon is formed witha river in the bottom but no meanders, then this river begins to carve meanders post-canyon forming. This would require a directional change by a river that was originally forced to settle into a no meander canyon. Therefore, ancient sections of canyon should be evident wherever the river changed course to carve the meanders into the canyon. Please, point out these ancient sections of canyon to me or consider your scenario as impossible as it actually is.Faith, you may as well just say Goddidit, at least that would be somewhat honest instead of trying to force evidence to fit your ridiculous ideas.Shame that you have simply resorted to name-calling and you wonder why no one is willing to take your ideas seriously (I mean, besides the fact that they are completely ignorant and require way too much magic).

Edited. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Just to clarify, BDT is Breached Dam Theory, which is Faith's scenario with breached glacial lakes flooding catastrophically over the landscape to carve the Grand Canyon, and RFS is Receding Flood Scenario, with the receding flood waters carving the Grand Canyon. The article (A receding Flood scenario for the origin of the Grand Canyon) takes the position that the BDT approach advocated by Faith is incorrect and instead advocates RFS.Both approaches have all the same problems, except that RFS postulates even softer sedimentary layers than BDT. In either scenario, rock soft enough to be that quickly eroded would have slumped into canyon, especially the lowest layers which would practically have been extruded into the canyon by the sheer weight of the layers above. There's no evidence of any such slumping.Alos, if the sedimentary layers of the canyon were not yet lithified and so were still soft and unconsolidated when the canyon was formed, then those at the top of the canyon would have remained soft and unconsolidated because they had no overlying layers to compress them.Note to Faith: Looks like help has arrived.--Percy

My issue with the section on meandering lies in the fact that the author requires the Marble Canyon section of the GC to be carved into soft sediments, which then must harden into the stone we know currently exists within the span of at at most (according to a large majority of Biblical chronologies) 10,000 years. Also, as Percy has mentioned, if the sediments were still pliable when these meanders were carved than the sides of the canyon would have slumped into the canyon itself. In fact, the comparison to the wet sediments of the Wadden Sea shows that it would require very soft sediment for this pattern to be seen. Yet, we do not see wet sediments, but hard rock, which there is not enough time to form within the YEC viewpoint. No one is claiming that hard rock was on top when the river first began to take its shape, but rather that the river took its shape and then through the slow uplift of the region was able to maintain its course throughout the canyon building process. Once the course was set deeply enough into the sediment, the extremely gradual uplift would not cause an issue to the river flowing along its path. The Colorado River then begins to cut into the bedrock through erosion. This was explained long ago in this thread. All that is required is that the uplift is gradual enough to not force a change in the river's course. And this lack of alluvium is interesting, especially when one reads the Wiki definition of alluvium: SourceWouldn't the sediments in this region, such as limestone, be considered lacustrine deposits? Any alluvial deposits (loose unconsolidated soil) would have sat on the top and been worn down by the process that created the canyon. Plus, these soils would be at the top meaning they would not undergo the pressure required to transform them into rock. Also, these same deposits are what is required for Scheele's scenario as well, so if the lack of finding them is a problem for geology, then it is also an issue for his proposed mechanism as well.All of this has no bearing on Faith's argument, which requires that a catastrophic dam burst caused the initial carving of the canyon, leaving the Colorado River in the bottom. Forming the canyon this way would not create meanders, which would then have to be caused by the river adjusting its course and carving through rock. This would create the ancient side canyons near all meanders that are required for Faith's scenario to work.ABE - If anyone has issues with my explanation, please let me know as I would like to ensure I am at least somewhat correct in my thought processes.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Just thought I'd point out the mote in your own eye. You know, for when you complain about people slagging you off.

You should provide some interpretation and argumentation of your own rather than telling people to go read something.His scenario is incompatible with Faith's, she thinks the canyon was carved mostly or completly after the vast majority of the fludde waters had drained away.Your source is pretty obviously very ignorant of geology:

quote:

---

One prerequisite for a river to meander is that the sediments it flows across are soft, not hard. Meandering is caused by a combination of erosion and deposition of sediments. What could possibly explain that the Colorado River is meandering in hard rock? The likely answer to this would be that such rock wasn’t that hard when the Colorado River originally carved its first shape.

---

He doesn't even know the difference between a surface meander and an incised meander! Yes the original meanders were in relatively soft material and from slow flow in a flat area. Of course meanders in hard rock are possible given enough time.Meanders can be formed by receding water when the surface profile is appropriate. I don't see any hairpin turns in Figure 19 nor is there any indication of the width-to-depth ratio which in the GC is much much less than 1. Such a ratio requires hard walls.

quote:

---

The uniformitarian explanation for this feature is that the river first formed in deposited alluvium and that after uplift of the Colorado Plateau it continued eroding down through the hard rock.10-15 Nevertheless, at Marble Canyon there is no alluvium on the plateau, neither is there any trace of a previous alluvium.

---

Yup, the alluvium all eroded away.

quote:

---

Figure 18. In Marble Canyon the Colorado River meanders through hard rock, which is impossible. The arrows indicate branches that face upstream against the flow of the Colorado River.

---

Exactly why is it impossible? Looks like circular reasoning to me: The Earth must be young so carving meanders through hard rock is impossible therefore the Earth is young.And WTF is a problem with side canyons flowing opposite to the Colorado? Uplift occurs in fits and spurts and there's no reason why all tributaries should flow in the same direction as the river into which they flow. What prevents a local portion of the uplift creating a downslope near the Colorado but opposite to the direction that the Colorado flows?Here's blow-ups of his second-from-the-top "impossible river". What do you see that's impossible? Sorry, not a credible source.

Hi Faith,I was able to find out more about the meander in this outlined area: Here's the closeup image of the meander, which it turns out is named Point Hansbrough: The photograph is incredibly rich in detail, so don't forget that you can click on it to see it enlarged.A key question that should be asked about Point Hansbrough is why the upper portion is sloped and the lower portion vertical. The answer is the differing rock hardnesses of the geologic layers. The upper sloped portion is the Supai Group, which is fairly hard sandstone, while the lower vertical portion is Redwall above Mauv, both much softer limestone. If you dig into the Redwall and Mauv layers you'll find that they're not really red. They're only stained red by water runoff from the overlying Supai Group.There was a point in time before the river had eroded down through the hard Supai Group layers into the softer Redwall and Mauv limestone layers. When the river finally did erode through the Supai Group it would have first occurred at a lower elevation many, many miles downstream from Point Hansbrough. Erosion through the limestone layers would be much faster than through the higher sandstone layers of the Supai Group, and in no time there would have been a good sized differential in height of the riverbed, i.e., a waterfall. Given the heavy sediment load of the Colorado and the much more rapid flow of water across a waterfall, the waterfall would have quickly cut back upstream, very neatly following the course of the river around all the turns and meanders. The nearly vertical sides of the Redwall and Mauv sections occurred because they were cut relatively rapidly, probably on the order of a few centuries.As mentioned before, when a river cuts into a landscape, or rockscape in this case, the riverbanks erode back away from the river. Each little sublayer of the Supai Group took thousands and thousands of years to erode away, and so the higher the Supai Group sublayer, the longer it has been eroding away. That's why each sublayer is so much smaller than the one below, and why the slope is around 45 degrees.The underlying Redwall and Mauv layers that were all eroded away quickly leaving vertical sides have also been eroding away. Notice the very deep scree at the base of the Mauv just above river level, which is the debris from all the above layers.Those who have memorized all the layers of the Grand Canyon might ask, "What about the Temple Butte layer that lies between the Redwall and the Mauv?" The answer is that it isn't present here. In many parts of the canyon the Temple Butte is only partly eroded away, but at Point Hansbrough it is completely eroded away, and I expect some of the Mauv, too.But here's an image from just a short ways downstream of Point Hansbrough of a small smile-shaped portion of Temple Butte Limestone underlain by Mauv limestone and overlain by Redwall: SourceThis is a much more clear illustration of the effects on erosion on layers of an uplifted region before a subsequent subsidence when it begins collecting sediment again. A stream or river eroded a channel into the top of the Mauv, the region subsided and the channel filled with limestone sediment that we now call the Temple Butte, then the region was uplifted again and the Temple Butte eroded away in this area all the way down to the Mauv, except for this little section of creek or riverbed.--Percy

Ah yes, my devious antics are legion. I feel that I should have a horde of minions and a maniacal laugh. But could you be more precise in your complaints? What is it you feel I've taken out of context? The only clue you give us is that it's a "careful description" of something and ... no, I can't find anywhere you've done that. It's evidently not your forte.

Wow what a beautiful image. There really is incredible detail.I marked the image below with arrows that seem to indicate where there once was a level plain. It appears to be at the upper part of the Supai group. You can even see similar features in the background, but its difficult to tell if they are on the same plane. This area looks to have been eroded rapidly by a much broader river creating a wide flood plain which the river eventually could have settled into and began its meandering. I am not sure how the time frame would work out or if this idea is supported in other parts of the canyon, but it is one of the first features I noticed when I looked at this image.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : fix image link

Hi Chuck 77Seems you've removed your post.The reference was Grand canyon origin flood - creation.comThe first thing I noticed was this image

quote:

---

Figure 1. A Digital Elevation Model of the Grand Canyon region with an artificially raised water level. It shows the contours of the lakes that could have formed east from the Kaibab Plateau when the GC still would have been ‘closed’. The arrow indicates a more logical point for a breaching event than through the current higher point of the Kaibab Plateau.

---

The arrow is only one of many places that are lower down than the ridge elevation would have been without the Grand Canyon. Another one is south of the canyon in line with the "Hopi Lake" label, and another further south from that. What is of interest is that NONE of these other low points show ANY evidence of water channel erosion across them, even though they are several hundred feet lower.Curiously the only place I can find reference to "Hopi Lake" is in creationist literature. Similar for "Grand Lake" as a prehistoric lake, even though there is a Grand Lake in NW Colorado.I also find it curious that the full extent of these lakes are not shown ... perhaps because to do so would expose the existing low points that would have provided outflow.

quote:

---

The Receding Flood Scenario (RFS) is able to explain a cut through higher ground very well. ...

---

Actually it doesn't, but other than that there is no explanation for why there is NO evidence of water erosion over those lower points ... that issue seems to be forgotten, once it has been used to discredit the "breached-dam theory" ... even though the same problem applies to the "Receding Flood Scenario" (which they have the honesty? not to label as a theory).Then there is this fantasy scenario:

quote:

---

The water follows many routes flowing out of the area from higher to lower regions. When there is a submerged landform, such as a plateau, mountain, hill or ‘sandbank’, the water will not only flow to the left and right of the landform but also over its top as long as it remains submerged. The water flowing over the top will, at a certain point, increase in speed, since there is less and less room for the water to find a way. Therefore some parts of the top of the landform will start to erode faster than other parts or the sides. In this way a channel or gully will form right through the higher parts of the elevation (figure 6). Figure 6. Schematic of how a canyon is carved through higher ground as water levels lower (phases 1—5). Image B is a cross-section of image A at the vertical dotted line. When the water in image A flows from right to left over a submerged elevation it may carve out a gully in the elevation (image B), even though water still flows at the sides. As the gully deepens, it grows in the opposite direction of the water flow (image A).

---

What the water will do is increasingly flow around the obstruction and erode the sides and the top of the whole mound until it was all gone. All gone.Nowhere in the world is there an example of this receding water making a channel through high points the water flows over. Nowhere, not even in those tidal flats.Furthermore, where the Grand Canyon crosses the ridge is not the highest point but up the side -- it rises higher to the north before dropping down to that obstinate arrow location -- so even this fantasy fails by its own argument.And this process -- even if it did work -- would still have eroded just as big (if not bigger due to more flow) channels over the low point marked on the map (and all the others that aren't shown). There is STILL no explanation for why there is NO water erosion channel across this location or other low point locations.This is typical half-truths mixed with conjecture. It fails to explain the lack of an erosion channel either north or south of the Grand Canyon which would have had to have as much if not more flow than the Grand Canyon in its infancy. It misrepresents how flows over landscape of varying heights erode the land, and it does not explain why the Grand Canyon crosses the ridge at a location that is neither the highest point nor the lowest point. Nor does it explain the meander of the whole canyon.It does not explain the evidence.What you have are a bunch of cobbled together conjectures forced to fit the existing canyon location and formation and forced to fit a flood scenario with stuff that doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. It's magic.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ..

Image link is dead.