Still trying those straws, CTD, but you still fall short.
A typical "misrepresentation", eh? Well then why don't we take a look?
The portion you've chosen says
Did I say that it was in the section quoted?
http://creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm#dating55The signs are going to have to change at Grand Canyon viewpoint displays, if new theories of its formation described on EurekAlert become the new standard. No longer will visitors be told that slow, gradual erosion over millions of years carved this classic example of uniformitarian processes. The new paradigm might well describe how massive dam breaks scoured out major portions of the canyon, including Marble Canyon and the inner gorge, within days or even hours — and not millions of years ago, but 700,000 or less.
The fact remains that the predominant portions of the canyon was, and is, being carved by slow gradual erosion. This is confirmed by a study of the actual rates of erosion:
Grand Canyon Dating Undercuts Creationism is an accessible article that refers to a recent study published in Science (
Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleothems)
According to the new paper, the Grand Canyon was cut at a rate more than 300 times slower than a fingernail grows.
Before their work, geologists had a pretty good idea of how and when the Grand Canyon formed. But they were unable to determine the rate of erosion beyond the last million years. The new paper applies recent advances in uranium-lead dating methods to a very old idea — that cave deposits could be used to date the vertical erosion of the canyon at any level, at any point along its length.
Plotting the elevation of a water table indicator above the river against the age at which it formed yields the rate of vertical erosion at that point. By plotting a number of such points, scientists worked out the style and rate of canyon cutting in both space and time. This methodology is unimpeachable. The results are completely consistent with what had been previously known.
Note in particular that the rate of erosion - even in the "accelerated" section - is way too slow for any flood model, but fits the normal geological model just fine.
This "normal geological model" btw, is not based on uniformitarianism and includes periodic floods as a matter of course: these volcanic dams are
old news to geologists.
Another of your sources was even more blatant:
The USGS scientists that reported that they found evidence of huge flood that carved out the Grand Canyon in a matter of hours or a few days. They also claim this happened about 4,000 years ago
The
wholecanyon? in a matter of hours? No, just a portion of it just downstream from one of the volcanic dams.
Lots of words, but meaningless. Rate x duration = volume. Comparing rates alone, while omitting durations, tells one nothing about total volume.
And yet curiously, what you quoted mentioned rate of flow and not duration or volume either. This is called moving the goal posts, where the creationist changes what they are talking about. It also shows that you are still avoiding the issue of the flows over the scablands being several orders of magnitude greater than any flow in the grand canyon.
One wonders why such issues are so hard to deal with ... unless you don't have any answers.
L-evo's please PM RAZD and ask him to take a break. It'll save you a lot of embarrassment.
Ah, yes, the usual content free, mockery and
ad hominem laced commentary that betrays the total lack of substance to back up your argument.
And we still have no evidence that the biblical flood carved the Grand Canyon, just a lot of little distractions, the usual misrepresentations, and insults and moving goalposts. It must be truly embarrassing to have such a lack of evidence to use for your argument, such as it is, eh?
Even the data you cite means you need to use geological ages (700,000 years ago), and anything older means you need to misrepresent it or ignore it.
Enjoy.
