Summations Only

It wasn't rock, we're talking receding Flood here, it was just-deposited sediments, compacted but still wet and malleable. The Kaibab appears to have been compacted enough to hold its shape as everything above it was breaking up, so that it became a flat plain the water washed across, becoming the meanders at the east end of the cnayon.

I was in the process of getting it formulated quite far back but by Message 783 I was quoting Steve Austin about how the meanders prove that there was originally a lot more water running a lot faster ("greater water flow rate"), and by Message 932 and Message 933 I had the basic idea figured out that I describe here. I'm sure there's more after those.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

???????It had receded to the point that it was running in streams and rivers across the flat Kaibab Plateau. Rivers cut meanders in flat surfaces. This was still a lot of water so it formed a very wide meander at first.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

By my understanding they'd been formed under a mile of sedimentary layers, quite enough to compact them sufficiently to hold their shape after the softer ones had washed away. The Kaibab was apparently quite hard enough to hold its shape by then, after the mile's depth that had been above it washed away.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Didn't I just say I wasn't talking about rock? But that was probably Percy who said it can't happen. Compaction is not lithification, but it can form something pretty rock-like if it had a mile's worth of sedimentary layers on top of it. Lithification would take longer and it's a chemical process of cementation so at the end of the Flood we wouldn't yet have that kind of rock, but at the depth of a mile something just about as hard as rock. And it may even be that that degree of compaction does cause cementation. The articles I've read on it aren't completely clear on that point. But for water to cut into it I figure it had to still have some malleability like very hard mud. It would help if you'd read the whole discussion here, it doesn't go back very far and I've said very clearly there was a lot of pressure from a stack of sedimentary strata a mile deep above the Kaibab Plateau. Heat is not necessary for lithification, you are thinking of metamorphic rocks not sedimentary rocks. What few years? The Flood started receding about ten months after it started as I recall though I could be off by a month or two, I'd have to check again, and I'm here picturing what it did as it receded. The strata were already formed, the highest layers still soft enough to wash away as the water receded, especially since I'm picturing the Kaibab uplift causing cracks due to strain at the highest levels. But the layers would have been increasingly compacted at increasing depth, the Kaibab limestone apparently being the level at which the compaction was sufficient for it to hold its shape and not break up. It formed a hard plateau, which became the rim of the Grand Canyon as well as the surface into which the meanders cut at the eastern end of the canyon. This is explained over the last dozen or so posts, but to spell it out again: The receding Flood water washed away that mile depth of sedimentary layers above the rim of the Grand Canyon and after it had all washed away leaving the flat Kaibab plateau the water became rivers and streams running across the plateau and it is streams running across a flat surface that form meanders. A very wide stream cut very wide meander walls at first, then narrower walls as the water volumn dropped until eventually the water was gone leaving that little river you see at the bottom in the picture above/ Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've seen lots of animations along those lines. I guess you are objecting to something I said but I don't get your point. Nothing you said changes the apparent situation in the picture of a lot of water crossing a flat plateau and forming a stream that becomes a very wide meander that eventually becomes deeper and narrower. What is your objection to that?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Percy has many times objected to my claim that the strata after the Flood were hard enough to be cut into a canyon rather than collapsing, so if I said something that sounds different than that it must have been in some other context and I have no idea what it was. This current discussion seems to come off No. 10 on his list above Message 79 but it doesn't seem to be the same context so maybe the number is wrong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is some question in my mind where the holes are located, but in any case are you actually defending the idea that that itty bitty little river that you say cut that enormous canyon also cut the meanders? And does that explain the coarse gravel loads or whatnot? Who said anything about turbulence? I have no idea what you are talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Let's try this again: Well I'm sure you've never seen as much water as would have been running across the plateau after the Flood so we're not talking the kind of meanders you would have seen in today's world. So what? Who said anything about turbulence with coarse gravel loads? The little meanders you see forming today probably do take more time than the ones in the Grand Canyon. Again, do you think that little river cut that very broad width of that huge meander? No, I assume it would split into rivers or streams first. THe plateau itself isn't enough evidence of sheet wash? The canyon and the cliffs of the Grand Staircase aren't enough evidence of catastrophic drainage?ABE: There's also evidence of sheet wash around the monuments in Monument Valley. /ABE I'm not talking about the canyon proper here, just the meanders at its eastern end. And yes of course there would have been "less" water but in the context of the draining Flood that would still be a lot more water than you've ever seen on any plateau. I suspect it is a failure of your imagination and not my theory.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And take a look again at this picture: There are levels and levels ln that picture, cliffs or walls similar to the walls of the meanders, where water would have run as its volume kept decreasing. Evidence of sheet wash between them seems to me that eventually formed a meander as it became a sheet and then a river on a flat place. Evidence of a receding worldwide Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nothing you've said accounts for anything I see in that picture, particularly the breadth between the walls at the top of the meander. There is no way your little river caused that. Or the canyon. If it was a big enough river to do that then it fits MY scenario, not yours.And if you're going to use jargon like "breakout type flooding" you have to explain what on earth it has to do with anything I said. Nothing that I can see.And what does turbulence or lack of it have to do with anything I said? Nothing that I can see.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Geology is just plain wrong, edge. That canyon could not have been cut by that little river, and that huge meander could not have been cut by that little river. All the features in the canyon and in that picture fit my scenario and not yours. A HUGE amount of water is needed to account for all of it.

Now you've got a big enough river to form the upper width of the meander, WHICH IS WHAT I SAID HAD TO HAPPEN. And how the flows would be decreasing dramatically is ALSO WHAT I SAID HAD TO HAPPEN. And that fits with the FLOOD SCENARIO. Always at some point you do have to bring in some evidence of the Flood and yet you always have to deny it. Like your six impossible transgressions from the Sauk on up. Obviously evidence of the Flood prompted that idea, but you refuse to see the Flood where you should see it, you have to accommodate it all to the inadequate Old Earth theory. So was the canyon ever that full of water too? Because there's no way a little river cut it. It would have to have been big and broad like the one in your picture.Obviously you're just going to keep on bringing up irrelevant factors to disqualify everything I say, refuse to see any possible exceptions to your assumptions and current observations that are so utterly inadequate to the reality of the Flood, and I'm not up to it right now Edited by Faith, : remove unnecessary comment

What ARE you talking about?

Yes and if all that water rushed over the sides of the canyon all at once then it would create a very big canyon. But it's running in a narrow track and not pouring into the canyon from all sides all at once. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.