Finally
something (not much, but a beginning). Thanks CTD.
1. Global Flood. Sediments laid down. Monster lakes left over.
So we're talking perched lakes everywhere, every basin filled to the brim as water retreats into wherever it goes (where does it go?).
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.
So how do we end up with (a)
Crater Lake, and (b)
Death Valley, just for starters. Why don't we see evidence of this catastrophic flood out of every perched basin in the world?
3. Another catastrophic flood when another dam breaks. Water again follows path of least resistance. More catastrophic erosion takes place.
Is this staged timing in different places or are these repeated floods in the same place? If the latter then where do the new dams and water come from? If the former, then are 2 and 3 really different?
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...).
So after all that (nice picturesque language) we end up with Hovind's (falsified) scenario for the Grand Canyon?
Or does uplift occur later and we have trickle flow "through pathway at lowest elevation available," plus uplift raising the sides of the canyon in exactly the pattern that geologists claim?
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.
Which would then look like the scablands in all those places where you had your catastrophic flows.
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.
Yes, for the record there is still absolutely no evidence presented by CTD that shows meanders form during catastrophic flood flows.
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.
Yes, of course this is also why it is so difficult to find any pictures of rivers with active meanders ... the chances are so ultra slim that none should be visible on any given day eh?
google images for "river meand...,000 for river meanders. (0.10 seconds) Curiously all those pictures show rivers with multiple meanders ... gosh those odds are slim.
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.
Correct, and setting the record straight includes the fact that the Colorado plateau is
remarkable for it's flatness among plateaus, and that IS the one we are talking about eh? Showing that some plateaus are not flat is a red herring, nor does it affect the argument about
incised meanders existing in many places in the world.
Google image results for "inci...r incised river meanders. (0.16 seconds)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.
Which still does not address the issue of the Grand Canyon crossing the ridge at a point higher than parts of the ridge to the north or south, NOR does it address the formation of meanders in the Colorado River inside the Grand Canyon. It doesn't deal with the evidence of tributary flow into the Colorado River inside the canyon often being perpendicular or at a reverse angle to the river. It doesn't address how perpendicular ridges are formed within the canyon. It doesn't deal with the lack of catastrophic flood flow evidence either in the Grand Canyon or downstream from it. It doesn't address how this is different from Hovind's (falsified) concept for the Grand Canyon.
All in all, I would say you have missed just about every point made that shows the Grand Canyon was not formed by catastrophic flood flows.
Enjoy.
