Hey Jeanie,

One way would be by looking at fault lines, which you can find in the Grand Canyon and surrounding area, and by looking at the orientation of the sedimentary layers. Most of the sedimentary layers are still fairly level, and fairly unbroken, which would argue against these layers being "shaken up" - even a little.

There are some areas - one of the pictures posted to ikester - that show movement of rocks, here an outcrop with sedimentary layers is at a ~45° angle:

This is the kind of evidence that shows that rocks have been moved by large forces - tectonic (uplift, earthquake) or other. There is also evidence of fault lines crossing the canyon

Except that I am not saying it didn't happen at all. What I am saying is that I have not seen evidence that it has happened in the Grand Canyon.

I have seen evidence of large flood flows covering areas larger than the Grand Canyon, and I've seen evidence of flood flows where levees. There is evidence of this kind of flow and erosion, but not in the Grand Canyon. The scablands even eroded the same kinds of rock seen in the Grand Canyon, but the result is nothing like the Grand Canyon.

Neither this:

... Nor this (a scaled down example of what Hovind claims, with the levee representing the ridge):

...... Looks like this:

......... Or this:

Or any other picture listed here:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/photos/

Where you can see many full size pictures of the Grand Canyon.

Science lays no claim to being conclusive about anything, it just claims to have the best explanation for the evidence we know about, according to the knowledge we have, and it is subject to change by (a) developing a better explanation, (b) uncovering new evidence contrary to such explanation, or (c) developing new knowledge that looks at things in a different way.

Then I guess you will have to study that issue yourself, perhaps take a geology course at the local college. You may also need to evaluate your expectations to see if they are realistic (depends on what you level of explanation is that will be satisfactory). One question to ask is whether you are looking for the truth or just satisfaction according to what you believe.

In general it doesn't, so one would need to provide instances that are not general behavior.

Generally water flows along the hydraulic energy gradient. This gradient usually follows the ground slope, but it can cause water to flow uphill in some instances: if you look at the picture of the levee break you will see a wave running backwards against the flow, and this is called a hydraulic jump. This behavior is common in rapids, and you could have several such jumps, one after the other, where the surface water would appear to move upstream with the waves, while the majority of the water moved downstream under them.

There are also several places in the world that advertise "reversing streams" that are due to tidal flows and tidal bores.

In addition there is historical evidence of a large earthquake in the Mississippi basin that severely altered the landscape, river location, and at one point cause the river to flow backwards for a period of time. (Note this also liquefied a lot of ground area that has since had some large cities built on -- if this happened now it would not be pretty).

Any of these could be your backwards running river, but without a more specific question I can't find/provide anything more specific for an answer.

One of the questions this (and Great Salt Lake) pose, is how do you find answers to "life's persistent questions" (as Garrison Keillor likes to say in the "Adventures of Guy Noir, Private Eye" on Prairie Home Companion).

How do you look for information on stuff you don't know?

Perhaps that would be another excellent question to study and see if you can find out how anyone (scientist or layperson) could determine that.

Enjoy.