Hey, CTD, still having trouble grasping reality here eh?

As pointed out by Hovind himself, when he says there is no delta - no pile of debris left by the dam bursting, which should be spread out downstream in the same pattern seen in the scablands below the flood flow area, the area between the Pacific Ocean and the Grand Canyon. We don't see any evidence of this. Curiously, there are many rivers that do not form deltas, and the reason for this is that the seabed where the river enters the sea is sinking. The Colorado is just such a river, as it ends up in the fault line that has made the Sea of Cortez ... of course it is sinking at geological rates, and a rapid deposit such as a flood outflow would not be washed away or have sunk out of sight. Thus geology explains both ends of the river - how the river cut the canyon through what is now a high point, and how the results of that erosion are carried away.

We also do NOT see any formations that look like Horse Shoe Bend (yes it's part of the Grand Canyon) made by flood outflows when they break dams or levees:



Because to make it water would have to flow uphill AND ignore the inertia of the mass of all that flowing water at the same time. This one simple picture of one single meander among the many along the course of the river proves the concept of flood carving of the Grand Canyon to be a false concept.

But the biggest problem with Hovind's argument is that it is false by it's own argument:

IF what he said were true, then the Grand Canyon is in the WRONG PLACE. There is land both north and south of the Grand Canyon that is lower than the rim where it cuts the ridge. Thus if we ignore uplift then the "dam breaking" flow should have been at these lower points -- north and south of the Grand Canyon -- and if we don't ignore uplift then his argument is all washed up anyway.

Google maps showing terrain north and south of GC with lighter green being lower elevations


Conclusion:

(1) Water does indeed flow uphill, or,

(2) Uplift has raised the rims of the canyon as the river has carved out the base.

Either way you cut the plateau cake, Hovind's claim is false.

Even aside from that, there is no reason to assume a biblical flood in order to have the lakes he claims, and by that reason alone his argument is not evidence of a biblical flood.

So we are still left with an absolute absence of evidence of the Grand Canyon being in any way even partly due to a biblical flood.

While the evidence against this concept is batting 1000.

Enjoy.