Well CTD, that was a long and empty post, devoid of any real reply to the facts and evidence.

The only thing I see are repeated claims that one just needs to "scroll up" to see your evidence. The problem is that I have read the whole thread and I have seen none. I've seen some creative fantasy, but not one piece of real solid objective evidence.

Conversely I have no problem repeating the evidence that contradicts your claims.

... False again CTD, what I said is that the existence of 20 year old clams means that the sediment cannot be explained by a flood measured in days - a point you agree with.

You still have yet to explain how those clams get on tops of mountains, seeing as you agreed that they did not grow during the flood, and I rather doubt you'd think they grew after (however now we have two floods ...). It doesn't "disprove the flood" it just means that clams and other mature marine deposits cannot be used as evidence FOR a flood, they are inconsistent with the duration.

Just with them being on tops of mountains. Unless water flows uphill.

You need to explain how water lifts clams and surrounding marine life up on top of mountains and deposits them undisturbed, layer after layer. Geology explains both the layers of sediment building up with long periods of mature marine growth, as well as how those layers end up on mountain tops by plate tectonics and uplift -- movement that can be measured today and that is (shock?) still going on.

No you haven't, all you've done is claim to have dealt with it.

The reason there ARE meanders is because they were made by a slow process, erosion, just as river erosion is creating meanders today, and not by a catastrophic one, such as a flood outflow, which even today does not create meanders, especially ones that double back on the flow:



Which does not answer the question of why the Grand Canyon cuts across the ridge at a point higher than places both north and south of the canyon:



The link I provided gives a clear picture of the geological explanation of the Grand Canyon cutting both the across ridge AND at a high point on the ridge. It also explains why one side of the canyon is higher than the other, while showing the same layers on both sides.

Just because you make up arguments doesn't mean they are real or even remotely based on evidence. Floods do not create this shape for a number of reasons:



Now you could provide evidence that "flooding also creates meanders" instead of just asserting it, but that would be too much like honest debate based on evidence, eh?

The other characteristics of flood flows are still absent from the Grand Canyon, the formations seen in the Scablands and other places. Curious that we now have two biblical floods that fail to leave this evidence.

Which doesn't answer the question of how the rock pillars are made by floods. This is just another failure to deal with the evidence.

Here again is a picture from the scablands for reference -- notice the complete lack of rock pillars in the valley:



Notice also that there are no branching perpendicular canyons, another feature of the Grand Canyon that is inconsistent with flood flows.

No, CTD, the problem is that flood flows do not make pillars and meanders, and side canyons and many other features found in the Grand Canyon, while slow erosion does. If the Grand Canyon was made by flood flows these features would not exist because they would not have been made, and instead you would have features like those found in the scablands.

Conversely if these features were pre-existing and not damaged by your flood flows then those floods were not of much consequence.

Enjoy.