Summations Only

Exactly. If the reference gets to be too technical, people like Faith start to complain about details and jargon. Frankly, I have a problem with characterizing the climate of the Jurassic in simplistic terms. After all, this is a fairly large planet with land, oceans, weather and tectonism. We clearly had deserts in what was western North America at the time. Really, there is no need to generalize. After all, why couldn't climates have been similarly variable as they are today?And remember, the Jurassic Period lasted for 50 million years.

It would seem to me that the solution is simple.Faith should abandon the popular literature for information on geology and evolution and go straight to the scientific literature.Problem solved!

Come on, Faith, be honest. You ask for the Goldilocks level of information so that YOU can be personally satisfied, and yet thousands of children find enough motivation from the very sources you decry to pursue education and careers in science. What makes you so special?And really, you have already told us that nothing will sway you, so the chances of you being motivated to look up more information are nil.Why should anyone waste their time satisfying you?

I'm pretty sure that Faith does not see this as evidence of anything. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Your opinion is noted. I am sorry that things don't go the way you would like them.But to indicate that it makes any difference to you is ridiculous. I'm sure that you are an expert on how to write science articles. Maybe you should contact all of the popular science outlets directly. I'm sure you would know. Anything would be preferable to uninformed bloviation.

What Jon showed is that meanders don't start out wide as you said earlier. And they don't erode downward so much as laterally. It is not the nature of meandering streams to be turbulent with coarse gravel loads. Also, he shows that it takes time to create meanders.And sheet wash does not just 'turn into curves'. First of all there is no evidence of sheet wash or catastrophic drainage. And when it turns into streams there is less water present to erode a deep canyon.Your theory has holes enough to empty an ocean into.

Yes (sigh...)That is why we have been saying that there were two main phases of river activity. One that set the meander pattern and then another that down cut the canyon.And then of course, there is the modern canyon in which flows are regulated. Yes. Meandering rivers transport sediment as suspended silt and a bed load of sand with little gravel. I did. There is much more turbulence in steeper stream gradients such as what we see in the Colorado now. Meandering streams are not as turbulent and carry larger detritus.Your scenario does not match the development history of meandering streams. It has no evidence for break-out type flooding and it doesn't match the sediment types that I would expect to see.

Neither have you. You are just making stuff up while I am comparing it with known features and processes. I am a huge fan of catasrophic events. Millions of them.Do you have any clue how erosion works? Until we started managing the flows, the Colorado would flood probably every year. And that doesn't count the temporary dams that formed in the past and still occur today. Why not? The meander was established early in the history of the river. Downcutting occurred later. Yes, indeed; and the flows would be decreasing dramatically. The ability of this flood to erode has dissipated. It would look like a braided stream that has simply run dry.But we do not see that braided stream deposit, do we?

Do not mistake me for someone who cares what you think. If you do not see some of the basic mechanisms for erosion and mass wasting at work in the canyon, it makes no difference to me. Well, that was predictable. Sorry, Goldilocks. But what you see is what you get. If you don't understand, you could at least be civil and ask politely.Or maybe look words up. I'm not surprised that such an expert would be confused about this. The presence of turbulence tells us what types of sediment to expect in contrasting meandering streams to mountain canyons.

There is no 'upper width of the meander'. The canyon widens due to erosion of the canyon walls and transport of detritus down the river. The original meander is widened by erosion to a (semi-) stable angle. Then you agree, there isn't enough water nor time to create meanders. In braided streams when flows decrease you don't start getting meanders. For instance, where are the meanders sequential to the Lake Missoula flooding? There aren't any. Only in your mind. Where did that happen? No, the canyon walls are eroded back just as they erode today. Mostly by undercutting and toppling along with temporary dam bursts and mudflows. I cannot lie on this. Your scenario makes no sense at all.There is no 'reality of the Flood'. Only stories.

Perhaps Faith could show us where a flash flood forms meanders. That might be a start.Or not.

I did. Just trying to imagine your massive sheet runoff transitioning to a meandering stream. Not seeing it...

OKay, fine. Moving a two-mile deep body of water off the continent isn't massive. Fine with me. That's the point. It's not about the volume of water. It's about gradient and time to create meanders. That isn't what we see in the real world.And remember, you still don't have evidence of such a sheet flow in the first place. Except that we don't have sheet flow. Actually, it seems that I'm getting bored with your whimsical notions.

Other than the fact that it is only a start, no.I do have a question though, regarding gravels. If the GC sedimentary layers were kinda, somewhat slightly, more or less, not lithified when the canyon was cut, how do you get detritus from the canyon formed of extremely hard boulders in the sedimentary output of the river? I'd like to you to show us a meandering river system the forms such deposits. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The ones that occur in the Colorado River beds downstream from the GC. I'm sure you don't. But all of those rocks were deposited by the flood, not? Why are they so much harder than the rocks of the Grand Canyon such that they survived hundreds of miles of river transport?But further, if the rocks of the GC were relatively soft compared to now, how did they get to be so hard just being exposed at the surface for the last 4 thousand years?Edited by edge, : No reason given.