You know there have been cataclysmic events that occurred in quite a short period of time...such as in after the crucifixion of Christ. I don't have any website for you on that, though.
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.
So now RAZD et al are 'geologists'? Why doesn't someone tell me these things?
Note that there is more than one
actual trained geologist who finds the features of the Grand Canyon consistent with the theory mentioned by Kent Hovind. Not that this will change much; the appeal to authority will just morph into an appeal to popularity, as it always does.
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.
When it suits your purpose, you claim there's always uplift. But when it doesn't, you argue as if the topography's always been the same. Doesn't take an expert to diagnose this fallacy.
Interesting response from someone who calls himself a servant of Christ.
I've always found it interesting that so many evolutionists claim to be the intellectual superior of creationists, yet they regularly resort to feigned stupidity rather than acknowledging information provided which would further their understanding.
Not that
all stupidity is necessarily feigned. A good amount is the direct result of the habitual self-delusion and mental laziness required by the religion of evolutionism. All pro-evolution propaganda is based upon faulty assumptions and/or logical fallacies, absolutely all without exception. To be an advocate for such in the presence of intelligent criticism entails obtaining evogoggles.
I can't speak to the idea that the Grand Canyon is on a fault line at the Kaibab uplift.
There goes your plate tectonics. The other well-known source of uplift is vulcanism. Odd that you didn't choose to attribute your perpetual uplift to vulcanism. Odd, until one reminds oneself that you're a proponent of gradualism, and vulcanism is generally associated with catastrophic events.
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.
According to the local team of 'experts'...
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.
Oh? What about this feature?
![[Linked Image]](http://www.yecheadquarters.org/images/flood/Compare_21.jpg)
Which I encountered at
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1515&st=50# 
