Summations Only

And yet this "HUGE cataclysm" erosion started up the slope of a rise that was 1600 ft higher than the pass to the north, which at the level of the rim at the ridge crossing was miles wider than anywhere in the canyon ...... and the canyon ridge crossing was 800 ft higher that the pass to the south, which also was miles wider than anywhere in the canyon ... Compare the distance between the red lines in these two locations to the width of the grand canyon in the first picture ...And there is absolutely no evidence of any water carved channel across either of the passes.The purported flood somehow started well over the tops of these features but in the process of drainage somehow missed these wide open locations that would have carried several times the outflow you imagine for the Grand Canyon.Why?See If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS? for more details.

---

Edited by RAZD, : 2nd picEdited by RAZD, : finEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Made the unzoomed versions of the images a bit smaller.Edited by RAZD, : piclink

The emptying of Lake Missoula is the explanation given for the creation of the scablands in Washington. In the case of the GC it would have to do with the shape of the uplifted land and, I think, the cracking in the upper strata, that directed the flow of a huge quantity of water so that it cut out the canyon. it also of course ran all over the southwest and cut the formations of the Grand Staircase and scoured off the Kaibab plateau . For this the lake might not be enough water, which makes the standing Flood waters idea better to my mind. Anyway, at first it was a cataclysm, it only later settled down to river size. I guess you missed all the stuff about the \meandering of that river which they keep trying to make into some kind of impossibility for the Flood.

RAZD you are describing the situation NOW. There was at least another mile or more in depth of strata above the current land surface, that was eroded away, I believe as a result of the uplifting land and the tectonic disturbances that followed the Flood, and right after the Flood the uplifting would most likely just have begun.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it's NOT "hand waving," it's an EXPLANATION. There is no reason for the Flood to have done what YOU think it should have done. It did what it did. Your argument is basically what everybody accuses me of, an argument from incredulity.The WIDTH of the canyon in places needs a lot more than just a bigger river, but go ahead, tell me HOW big it used to be. Whatever it was it's still whatever was left after the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That might be interesting Faith if it wasn't for the worrying facts that you offer no evidence that there ever was a flood, that your imagined lake ever existed, and that it really is impossible for a cataclysmic flood to produce the meanders seen in the Grand Canyon.

Anyone who can't see the evidence for the Flood all over this planet is blind as a bat. And rivers create meanders, not the Flood, which I've said over and over. The Flood eventually simply BECAME the river. And that ought to be obvious too.

And it did all this without leaving any trace of any water erosion channel from cataclysmic water flow in either of the north or south locations.Or carving a canyon larger than the Grand Canyon in either location ... which should have happened according to your model.Nothing.How?

---

Edited by RAZD, : .

You keep making blind assertions like "Anyone who can't see the evidence for the Flood all over this planet is blind as a bat.", but never provide any evidence.It might be interesting if it wasn't for the worrying fact that you never provide any evidence of how the flood became the river that cut the meanders.

"It did what it did" is in fact perhaps the ultimate in handwaving. The difference is that we have detailed physically possible mechanisms which an be observed, whereas you have vague magical mechanisms which can't be observed. Once again, I find myself wondering if you even know what a river is.

Where did the water go? Standing flood waters can only drain away to somewhere lower with less water. Water at the destination of the flood waters had to go somewhere else to get out of the way so the flood waters would have somewhere to flow to.Was there a big drain plug that got pulled somewhere so all this water covering the whole earth had somewhere to run off to?There is no scouring off the Kiabab Plateau unless there is some place for that water to go.No evidence or explanation of where the water went is one of the reasons why the flood never happened.

Specifically, they're the sort of blind people who know what shape a riverbed is, who know what a beach looks like, who recognize a meander when shown a photograph of one, who don't say that large things are small, who don't say that irregular surfaces are flat, who don't say that visible things are invisible, who don't think that something two feet in diameter would be visible across an eighteen mile wide canyon, and who don't look at the layers in the Grand Canyon and claim that "there is no difference in their appearance one from another".

I believe her model has the ocean bottoms sinking catastrophically as mountains rose, contrary to any know tectonic behavior, and meanwhile the middle east plate was perfectly stationary while everything else moved across oceans and even though the ark landed on a mountain that was formed within days by tectonic action so that Noah and family would not notice any shaking aftereffects.Perfectly reasonable eh?

So, you're prepared to admit that erosion can produce flattish rocks. Good.You don't explain why you think the Coconino wasn't rock when the erosional surface was formed, but it barely matters, since a fortiori what can flatten rocks can flatten loose sediment. If you look at exposed sediments which are still depositing, in the real world outside your head, they do not typically exhibit dramatic erosion. The impossibility of this explanation has been pointed out to you. Has it ever occurred to you that sometimes when you don't understand something the problem might be at your end? For example, maybe your inability to understand geology doesn't mean that all the geologists are idiots. Just a thought. Apart from a time period of forty days and forty nights, yes? And since geologists have given serious thought to it, and it is not obvious to them, you are wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Erosion flattened off the top.Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that all depositional processes, whether of wind or of water, that produce cross-bedding also produce an undulating surface. We both have to explain where it went. My explanation doesn't involve magic.

Love the sinner, but hate the sin.