CTD has so far demonstrated the "creation science" position in this thread by being unable to answer any of the following questions:

Posts #35985, 37313, 37390, 37689, 37849, 37911
Why does the Grand Canyon not show the features of an area carved by flood release, such as the channeled scablands in Washington? (links provided by RAZD)

Posts #35986, 37749
Why does the Grand Canyon contain layer after layer of sediment all containing fossils of shellfish that are many years old? (links provided by RAZD)

Post #37327
Why are fossils sorted in layers in the Grand Canyon, in the same order in which they are sorted across the world? There are stromatolites at the bottom and larger, more complex life forms above them -- why is that?

Post# 37679
Why do you link us to a web page which says that part of the Grand Canyon is 700,000 years old, when you yourself believe that the entire world is only 6,000 years old? And when that same page (in a scientific news magazine) links to another page on the same website saying that other parts of the Grand Canyon are tens of millions of years old?

Post #37776
Where in the geological record is the flood layer which must exist if the Biblical flood were a real event?

Post #37776
If the Biblical flood carved the Grand Canyon, how do you explain the fact that ripple marks appear in the Hermit Shale, the Hakatai Shale, and the Bass Limestone; quadruped footprints have been found in the Supai Group from the Pennsylvanian period, and the Hermit Shale; and paleosols (fossilised soils) are also found between various layers?

If the Biblical flood carved the Grand Canyon, why did it not carve similar grand canyons on all of the continents? Weren't the waters receding all over the world?

Post #37735, 37736
How do you explain uranium-lead dating which has dated the erosion of the Grand Canyon to have been happening for millions of years? (Links provided by RAZD)

Post#37821
Please explain why LinearAQ's information is wrong:
First Hovind says that the two lakes (left behind after the Flood?) were behind the Kaibab uplift and a breach in the uplift (dam) caused rapid erosion of the Grand Canyon. However, the Kaibab uplift is 4000 ft high and 270 MILES thick. So, what caused a breach in something that tall and thick? Typically, a dam is only a few meters thick at best and the force against the sides of a rift will be concentrated by that relatively thin cross-section. The "dam" in Hovind's theory is 270 miles thick...there would not be the same concentration of force against the sides of the rift.

Secondly, the Kaibab uplift is not made of just dirt like a farmer's dam would be. It contains hard stone from volcanic activity and deposits that have been hardened from extreme pressure that could not occur due simply being dumped there from a flood. Besides it is called an uplift for a reason...a cross-sectional view of it shows signs of the entire ridge having been pushed up from below. This hard substance is not rapidly worn away by water in the same way that a dirt dam would be.

Post #37849
Why would the Grand Canyon be cut into land which is higher than that surrounding it to the north and south?

Finally, you have been asked several times what your own position actually is. We are now 9 pages into this thread and you have not defined what it is you are trying to argue for. What we do see is zero evidence that the Grand Canyon is young and that it was carved by a flood.

Are you still claiming that creationism is science? Scientific theory explains all of the available evidence. If there is evidence which contradicts it, the theory has to be revised. Science cannot ignore evidence when it's inconvenient or doesn't fit with someone's beliefs about what it should show.

I'll make this easy for you. Please pick one of the questions above, and address it in your next post. Thank you.