True. There is the idea that the formation of the Grand Canyon could be from a cataclysmic event, namely the runoff from the Flood. Kent Hovind (prisoner #1348576) has made the claim that the Grand Canyon was formed from the cataclysmic drainage of 2 lakes that had formed as a result of the Flood. Let's assume that the idea is a valid hypothesis, which we must until it is shown to be wrong. So, what does the evidence say?

If lots of water drained over a period of weeks or months, what should the erosion look like? Geologists have looked at areas that have undergone massive dam breaks like that and concluded that the Grand Canyon does not show the kind of damage that massive flooding would cause. RAZD pointed that out and CTD has not responded except to hurl insults and claim that RAZD, LindaLou and I are arguing against a strawman Grand Canyon creation theory.

If the water in the lakes were to rise high enough to cause a break in the Kaibab uplift where the Grand Canyon goes through it, then the lakes would have already overflowed in other places on the uplift where it is lower. RAZD also made that point which I reiterated. CTD's response was to ignore that one point in my post and instead to call me stupid, delusional and possibly mentally unstable. Interesting response from someone who calls himself a servant of Christ.

You have brought up an interesting possibility. What if an earthquake caused a rift in the Kaibab uplift right where the Grand Canyon is now? That would explain the direction the water took through the high ground instead of the lower ground. So...what does the evidence say?
I can't speak to the idea that the Grand Canyon is on a fault line at the Kaibab uplift. That would take a little research. However, the waters of the lakes would have rushed out and we would find indications of that rapid drainage...which we don't. No matter what we decide for the initiating cause of the Grand Canyon, slow erosion is the best explanation for all the features we see there.