And you claim special pleading, CTD.

Yet your previous explanation was that water flows around an obstacle and forms bends like the meander pictured. So now we start with a meander ... curiously the argument that geologists have made?

The ridge carved by the river is the obstacle that made the river go around the ridge carved by the river that is the obstacle that made the river go ... into circular reasoning:

The result of the erosion pattern cannot be the cause of the erosion pattern: it is formed by the erosion pattern.

So again we start with a meander ... still curiously the argument that geologists have made? The only argument is that it had not been cut into an oxbow before the canyon was carved deeper. This is just an argument from incredulity, as meanders could form and be cut and form and be cut many times before the uplift started, and thus the existence of one (1) meander at that time is not an incredible thing. In other words, any meander that existed when the land started to uplift would be affected by the uplift, and curiously it would not have had time to be eradicated.

Therefore the uplift must be gradual or the rising would have formed a dam at some point. Curiously the geologists say the evidence shows gradual uplift occurred.

If the whole area lifted gradually it would not change the behavior of the river ... meander formation and all ... except that at some point the river travels to a location that has not lifted, creating a change in the hydraulic energy gradient, speeding up flow, increasing erosion, and cutting back along the river bed.

Do we need to lift the whole river to get this result? No, all you need is that the uplift be less than the depth of the river. Any filling of the bottom of a river (which happens frequently when banks collapse in the normal course of erosion events) causes a flatter energy gradient upstream and a steeper energy gradient downstream, speeding up the water at this point and again increasing erosion at the lower end of the filled section. Again this erosion moves upstream and removes the material that filled in part of the bottom of the river. The effect of slow uplift would be the same, even if it was localized. Again this process is readily observed in rivers around the world: erosion and other events cause temporary filling in of the bottoms of rivers, and the river erodes the material away to resume it's flow.

The difference between uplift and other events that partially fill the bottom of a river is that the banks are also lifted where the uplift occurs, and when the erosion has restored the flow of the river these banks will be higher above the river than before: the river pattern in the area of the uplift will be increasingly constrained by the higher and higher banks.

Please do, and then consider the rest of the story, the part that starts with the alternative to "if the rise is too rapid" ... the one that, curiously, is consistent with the explanations that geologists have given.

Curiously this is also evidence that the uplift was slow, and therefore occurred over long periods of time, that the earth is - in fact - old.

So we start with a meander ... and now we add uplift ... curiously the very argument that geologists have made for the formation of the Grand Canyon?

In spite of being asked several times by several people? Or do you need a special audience?

Correct, we agree that there was no obstacle, so your previous argument about an obstacle being involved is a red herring.

Glad we got that out of the way.

As noted already this is a false assumption, as all that is needed is for a river to be making meanders while the uplift is occurring, and then when the erosion through the uplift reaches the place where a meander exists that it would become incised.

Note that the partial obstruction of the bottom creates a flatter energy gradient upstream of the initial uplift area, ideal river topology and energy gradient for the formation of meanders.

But the argument was that "normal everyday erosion" does take place and that once the uplift started that no flood overtopped the banks of the now incised meander. Again, claiming that you have shown something to be true doesn't make it so, nor does calling it a logical fallacy when you have not demonstrated that.

The products of uplift. Astounding eh?

Again the source says:

You do know what plateaus are don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plateau


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Plateau
A large relatively flat area lifted above other land.

Given that you now appear to agree that we start with a meander, that an obstacle was not involved in the initial formation, that uplift is included, plus your rational that the uplift could not have been large or sudden (thus showing it had to be slow and gradual), it would appear that I don't need much help in demonstrating the the explanation of geologists is still the only explanation that covers all the evidence, including the incised Horse Shoe Bend meander.

Enjoy.