Still at it CTD, dancing around the issues, bravely fending off the need to provide evidence to substantiate your position. Exhausting work eh?

Correct, either in their natural habitat or at some lower level if they are washed away from where they died. For marine organisms in mature marine layers this would be at the bottoms of seas and similar places, not on tops of mountains.

But we are not talking about clams being buried out of place by mysterious grave-diggers, we are talking about whole complete mature marine emvironments, including 20 year old clams and other fossils, that show a continuity of life in the sediments in question - ie in their native habitat before the sedimentary layer was covered by another one.

The question you still have not answered is how they get from the bottom of the sea to the tops of mountains, mountains like Everest (brachiopods), and mountains where marine sedimentary layers are many layers deep, covering extensive periods of time much longer than the life of a single 20 year old clam. The age of the 20 year old clam is just emblematic of your ignoring the issue of age in these sedimentary layers, and the fact that it is a clam is emblematic of your ignoring the issue of the clam being on a mountaintop does not mean that water covered the mountain.

I've pointed out how geological science explains these issues quite adequately with known and observed phenomena, and without need to invoke magic or supposedly catastrophic events that somehow leave no evidence.

But rather than omit it, I am waiting for you to explain it. You claim it is a part of creation science, yet curiously seem unable to explain how it works. Geological scientiest have no trouble explaining how normal plate tectonics works.

Personally I think it is an invention of creationists to explain the prolific evidence of plate tectonics rather than to explain the evidence of a flood, but you could help out by showing me how the evidence requires that a flood be part of the equation.

But you are claiming that the Grand Canyon was carved by the flood, so in order to rationally support that position you need to deal with the evidence that contradicts it: part of that evidence is that the Grand Canyon cuts across the ridge at a point higher than places both north and south of the canyon, that the land is sloping to the south towards lower land, that it is near the crest of a high point along the ridge and that there is lower land to the north along the ridge as well.

In other words, you either accept that uplift has played a significant role in the formation of the Grand Canyon, or you are left with the untenable position that water flows uphill and carves canyons in the sides of hills rather than at the bottoms.



The fact that you are not discussing this is just emblematic of your refusal to deal with contradictory evidence. Curiously your refusal has no effect on the evidence, and does not make it vanish.

And you still have yet to demonstrate that flood flows can create this formation:



Flood plain rivers grow meanders, but during periods of low flow, as the turbulence and inertia of the water works against the banks that contain such low flow. Floods overtop the banks, and quickly erode short cuts across meanders - again due to turbulence and inertia. This patter holds in the Mississippi, the Nile and other rivers that traverse wide flood plains:

(a) Low flow: erosion carves meanders but the flow is contained in the main channel.

(b) Flood flow: erosion destroys meanders as the flow is no longer contained to the main channel, but overtops it, and the flow direction is then governed by the energy gradient of the whole flooded surface, ignoring the low flow channels.

This is why the scablands look like they do: the water was higher than the banks of any existing channels. "Dry Falls" was completely submerged and made barely a ripple in the flow:



This flood flow pattern is missing from the Grand Canyon, instead it shows the low flow pattern of a river that -- even during spring floods and the occasional seasonal flood -- did not overtop the banks or even the hundreds of perpendicular peninsula formations.

None of which tell us how the Grand Canyon is carved in a hill side rather than points either to the north or south that are lower, nor does it explain Horse Shoe Bend and the many similar features in the Grand Canyon.

Nor do the numerous ridges and rock towers show any evidence of water flowing around hard spots, as that would leave islands not peninsula formations perpendicular to the direction of the canyon.

The ones carved by erosion by a river that stays in it's banks? The ones that geology explains quite well with normal low flow type erosion processes? Ones like Horse Shoe Bend?

Erosion. Normal erosion, just as is observed in the canyon today. The original meanders were formed when the land was relatively flat, before the land was uplifted, but they have been "locked in place" as the gradual erosion of the river has cut through the uplifting rock as fast as it lifts up. It's really simple.

Curiously the geology explains all the features of the Grand Canyon with normal known geological processes, just as it explains layers and layers of 20 year old clams on mountaintops, no magic needed.

Enjoy.