Grand Canyon is younger than geologists think

Geologists often say, "the Colorado River took millions of years to carve out the Grand Canyon." Either that is a flat lie, or they just havent examined all the obvious evidence. The river enters the canyon at 2800-foot elevation, but the top of the canyon is 8000 feet high. So, the ONLY way that that river could have carved that canyon is if the river flowed uphill (rivers dont flow uphill)!Also, there are no age-old erosion marks between the layers of sedimentary rock, indicating that the layers of rock were deposited there simultaneously.
The erosion rate of the continents, also, is such that ALL the sedimentary rock would have eroded to sea level within 14 million years (indicating the earth is less than 14 million years) and since the Grand Canyon is mostly sedimentary rock, it would have eroded to sea level if it really WERE millions of years old... dont believe that the Grand Canyon is that old.

In actuallity, erosion of sediments overcomes uplift in that part of the world...Also, even if uplift did cause the Grand Canyon that long ago, the uplift would not have kept the Canyon walls preserved--it would've crumbled the rocks toward the top (if you roll your carpet up at an end, you are uplifting it, but the end will not stay preserved strait up).

Actually, I thank you for your comments. I am not a geologist, so, naturally, when I saw some of your rather convincing replies, I decided to read up a little more on both sides.The rock formations in the Kiabab uplift are at a greater-than-90 degree angle when showing run-offs into the Colorado river. This is evidence of lake drainage, and not simply tributaries. Study the plains just northeast of the Kiabab, and you might find erosion evidence in the deserted areas--indicating water was once present across some of the desert... If you built a dam across the Grand Canyon, you'll notice that a giant lake would fill in behind it, covering land from several states. Interesting enough, this is sufficient evidence to at least merrit further investigation on this topic.I apologize for some mistakes I may have come across and used it as evidence without going into greater detail in the field of geology, but I think that, before jumping to the conclusion that the canyon is "millions of years old" more research is to be done on both the creationists' and the evolutionists' sides.In Christ,
Booboo

The term "evolutionist" is a person who believes in evolution. That would include geologists, botanists, zoologists, marine biologists, archaeologists, astronomers, physicists, and cosmologists alike. To say "geologists" only study the Grand Canyon only excludes evolutionists if all geologists were creationists, and that is not true.You are quite good at focusing on the wrong part of the argument here: Try to see the point that the information itself is presenting.
Thank you,
Booboo

Okay, but answer me this, if you will:If uplift is causing the sides of the canyon to be higher than where the river enters the canyon, then why does the river continue to run through the canyon at all? It seems to me that, if the kiabab was uplifting, then the canyon bed would uplift along with the rest of the land, thus damming up the Colorado River and creating a massive lake behind the canyon. However, since the river continues to run downhill, PAST the kiabab, I do not see how the 'uplift' argument can still suggest the canyon is millions of years old in the making.