http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080409-grand-canyon.htmlEvolutionists are a hoot. They're never gonna sort their story out at this rate. Anything-but-the-truth-ism is alive & kicking.
Compare their junk to what real science has to say.
1. Global Flood. Sediments laid down. Monster lakes left over.
1a. Sediments partially harden. Weaker and stronger parts are present in the mud & young rocks. With that much mud, the water's not going to stay put too well. Beneath the surface there'll be water moving.
2. Catastrophic flood when natural dam breaks. Water follows path of least resistance. Catastrophic erosion takes place. Any cave-type formations or under-the-surface weaknesses will be natural targets, since their elevation is lower & pressure is higher.
3. Another catastrophic flood when another dam breaks. Water again follows path of least resistance. More catastrophic erosion takes place.
4. In the aftermath, water trickles through pathway at lowest elevation available, like water always does.
Now I've forgotten exactly when the uplift took place. We have a window from the end of 1 to the start of 3 (actually up until the crest of 3, but that's so close...).
Note that we're not talking about normal floods here that raise the level of a river. There may not even have been a river prior to 2, particularly above ground. These floods aren't interested in following a channel. Where there's soft rock or mud, they erode a
new channel. Where there's hard rock, they erode it more slowly. The only time it's relevant to talk about river behaviour is at 4, after the final canyon is formed.
Should about wrap things up. According to the Meanderczar's original story, meanders are removed by flooding. A 4500 year old river should have no meanders left due to this. 4500 years is a drop in the evotime bucket, so from the very start this was destined to backfire. The argument was only presented because it was assumed nobody'd be able to figure out the real deal. Had I presented this argument first, it would have been labeled "creationist Pratt". Had I presented it as an evoargument, it would have been tagged as a straw man, and rightly so.
For the record, there's no absolute requirement for meanders to all be cut out of rivers. There's a very strong tendency, and that's the basis of this strong creationist argument, which RAZD has disastrously attempted to pirate. The evolutionist has to bail out with the ultra-slim odds of multiple meanders somehow surviving all those evoyears. But the evogods are all about overcoming ultra-slim odds, so... nothing new.
About the only part of RAZD's latest attempt to confuse things that might reasonably succeed is the part about plateaus. That's because the term is a tad misleading. It is applied to areas that are flat,
or appear to have been flat in the past. Check out the
Ozark Plateau. There's nothing flat about it at all. I've been there more'n once, and calling the Ozarks flat is only good for laughs. Up to try it, RAZD?
Doesn't really matter much for purposes of discussing the Grand Canyon, but one likes to set records straight.
And we could bump the special pleading up a notch higher to Super Extra-Special Pleading if we include the evomythology about the climate of the region having been much wetter in the past. Not worth the trouble. It's not a full consensus view among experts, although it's what you'll find in most of the propaganda.
Unless I've missed something, that should about conclude my input in this thread. I see no outstanding questions from parties who have not clearly indicated a strong desire to ignore evidence and sound reasoning. I have better things to do than post information that I have been assured will be ignored.
