Why only one Grand Canyon

Wonderful pics, Yaro!

Nice pics, Yaro.The illumination on the Grand canyon pics was driving me nuts, though.

Ok, I can't stand it any more. What are you?

Creationist here. The grand canyon was formed by the waters receding from the earth and with just the Bible one could of predicted canyons etc everywhere in 1500 B.C.
Yaro in post 25 beat me to the punch that there are canyons here and there demonstrationing a concentrating of water overflow as the Grand.
Also the present water level of the sea is higher then it would of been after the flood. The level then needed to be lower for animals to spread about quickly. I've read that in the water indeed way down beside present continents there are hugh canyons. I can't quote.I would add that the previous ideas about these great canyons being formed by slow processes is not only without evidence of any depth to back it up but it is unreasonable when looking at such holes to imagine anthing but a water disaster.
Truly it was just the premise that the present is the clue to the past that brought the error. And present slow water work would need time indeed. And also floods today can cause big change anyway so this should of been figured into the options.
Rob

double postThis message has been edited by Yaro, 10-13-2004 03:33 PM

This argument holds no water (pun intended ).If the canyon were the cause of a massive flood, you wouldn't see the orderly winding, river-like crag that we have today. The waters running off would leave an imprint very similar to that we see in floodplains. Basically, it would be like a big, wide, mud slick.You wouldn’t see such a localized canyon either, because the rock the canyon is carved from is uniform for miles around it. Why would the waters only carve a hole in that specific location?To shine more detail on the matter lets take a look at the wiki again: So you see, if the entire area was covered by water, we would not see a river like canyon but rather the entire plato carved away to nothing. This would give it the resemblance of a flood.Furthermore, were it the cause of runoff from the flood, you would have to explain why the canyon is a) localized around the Colorado River b) is the only spectacular canyon in the area.Certainly all the flood waters wouldn't have concentrated themselves into one single stream? Even more unlikely considering that the entire area is essentially flat as a pancake.Imagine scraping something with a knife. You shave off a wide area of the top right? this is the action we see in a flood, slice something with a knife and we see a long, deep, slender gash. This is the action we expect with a river.This whole discussion has alerted me to another contradiction of the Noahic flood.Why are rivers still here?Wouldn't a gigantic flood, capable of carving through solid rock and destroying all of humanity, also wipe away the channels and wells that make up the worlds lakes and rivers?Why is the Nile still here? Why is the Amazon still here unchanged?Yikes! The contradictions are falling like dominoes in my head... how did the Amazon forest survive a world wide flood?Those trees can’t grow in salt water. Not only that, if they all died by submersion, how on earth could they have all grown back in time?It seems like flood theologians have allot more explaining to do far beyond how a runoff from a world wide flood, coalesced into one single river, carving one single gash, in a perfectly flat plato.This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-13-2004 03:39 PM

So Robert, were the plateaus there before or after the flood waters receded?

I'd rather not drag this thread off-topic with a response that will most likely distract other posters,thus attracting the attention of the Moose, the Cat or the Queen. I'll look at the other forums for a more suitable forum, or you can suggest one.

This plateau thing isn't my bag. However because we believe in the shifting of continents probably the plateau was lifted and then the water came off it. But its not relevant to MY line of arguement.
Rob

A lot here.
The canyon would of been formed by indeed a great river that was the last vetige of the receding waters of the flood. The waters receded as it were gently off the land but at the end there was a collecting of the remainder that concentrated in a few areas around the earth for a few weeks or so etc. Acommon thing in talk about glacial runoff.
The Colorado river was a later squatter.As to why the rivers are here is for the reason they are. The Amazon and nile probably are only post flood rivers. The only rivers surviving the flood would be the ones the Bible uses to show where the garden of eden was. And they also were changed if you read the account.
Rob

Robert, this question is VERY relevent to the discussion and your dismissal of it shows why your argument is untenable.If the Plateau was lifted before the rains, then:1) what caused the uplift if not the weight of the water?
2) what eroded and then deposited the Grand Canyon sediments?
2) the receding waters would NOT have carved a canyon within the plateau as all the water would have washed off the sides and formed a canyon at the base of the uplift.If the plateau was lifted during the rains, because of the weight of the water, then:1) what eroded and then deposited the sediments?
2) again the receding waters would have formed a canyon at the base of the uplift, not on top of the plateau.If the plateau was lifted after the rains, then:1) what caused the uplift if not the weight of the water upon the crust?
2) what caused the downcutting in that particular spot seeing as it would have been the same elevation as the surrounding land. If all the land is the same elevation, then you would see a HUGE wash plain all across the land.So what exactly is YOUR line of argument, Robert?? You've come here making grand statements about the geologic history of the Grand Canyon and then state plateaus aren't your bag. Interesting...

Sorry Rox, but Robert won't be able to answer in this thread.If you or he or someone wants to start a geology or flood thread in the bootcamp to discuss it that is fine.Be aware that in BC you will be able to carry on the discussion but you need to spend more time helping Robert rather than just debating. K?

All we need are two main things to prove global deluge:1. The fact that over 70% of the earth is still covered in water and that there is evidence of water erosion on the highest parts of all continents.2. That the boat shaped object in easter Turkey not only matches the exact dimensions of the Bible and the Koran, but it is EXACTLY situated on the spot where Berosus, the Babylonian priest, specified its location by crossing two lines and having the boat shaped object directly under the crossing point of these two lines.It's fairly simple. Anyone who does a thorough study on David Fasold's research will see that there is some pretty hardcore data here to chew on.

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

1. The fact that over 70% of the earth is still covered in water and that there is evidence of water erosion on the highest parts of all continents.

---

Ummm, did you ever think of exactly WHERE erosion occurs?

quote:

---

2. That the boat shaped object in easter Turkey not only matches the exact dimensions of the Bible and the Koran, but it is EXACTLY situated on the spot where Berosus, the Babylonian priest, specified its location by crossing two lines and having the boat shaped object directly under the crossing point of these two lines.

---

Yeah, well... too bad it's not a boat...

quote:

---

It's fairly simple. Anyone who does a thorough study on David Fasold's research will see that there is some pretty hardcore data here to chew on.

---

'Simple' being the operative word.

Edge, if you're not going to bother to flesh out what you object to then don't bother wasting time with a post that doesn't really have any content.It is also necessary to point out to Ly and yourself that the ark isn't on topic here. Thanks.