Why only one Grand Canyon

If you look hard enough, anyone can find 'evidence' for the Flood:-- the Black Canyon of the Gunnison-- the channeled scablands in eastern Washington-- Niagara Falls (and any other high falls)But a reason for why there isn't another Grand Canyon? I suppose it would be because something happened in the Grand Canyon region that didn't happen in other places (e.g., tectonics caused by the flood waters resulted in uplift of the Colorado Plateau), or the rocks were just right, or the water was channeled just right in that area.

That's the thing, Rockhound, YECs tend to look at one tiny piece of the puzzle at a time. They can, albeit badly most of the time, explain away most anything because they divorce it from not only from its own inherent details, but also from local, regional, and global geology.They have so far found it impossible to present us with a coherent model for the flood. All they can do is point to the Grand Canyon, the Black Canyon, the scablands, etc., but they cannot SHOW us how they are all connected geologically.Mainstream geology can. We have no problem going into new ground, doing a little fieldwork, and coming out with a geologic tapestry that is compatible with adjacent geology. The details may be a bit sketchy and need more work, but in the end, WE have a picture - they have empty words.They are imaginative, I'll give them that, but their imaginations are not grounded in objective reality, but rather wishful thinking, ignorance, and worse, arrogance.

dupeThis message has been edited by roxrkool, 10-10-2004 12:42 AM

I don't know, however, the same question can be asked of the mainstream interpretation. What DID cause the uplift of the Colorado Plateau? What about the Uncompahgre uplift? What about the Gunnison uplift? We have ideas, theories, all backed by data, but we weren't there. We can never be 100% certain.Thing is, they can, if they put their minds to it and took the time for it, come up with some sort of fantastical scenario for how flood waters affect tectonics. Something about the weight of the water on the crust. And the reason only in certain parts, well, maybe there was more faulting, different rock type that allowed uplift, who knows?And because they aren't presenting those ideas to mainstream science, but rather to laypeople, they don't have to back their theories with more than one or two lame bits of evidence.What an easy life those YEC scientists... strike that, scholars have.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 10-10-2004 12:44 AM

Who has the better explanation for what you see?

Nice pics, Yaro.The illumination on the Grand canyon pics was driving me nuts, though.

So Robert, were the plateaus there before or after the flood waters receded?

Robert, this question is VERY relevent to the discussion and your dismissal of it shows why your argument is untenable.If the Plateau was lifted before the rains, then:1) what caused the uplift if not the weight of the water?
2) what eroded and then deposited the Grand Canyon sediments?
2) the receding waters would NOT have carved a canyon within the plateau as all the water would have washed off the sides and formed a canyon at the base of the uplift.If the plateau was lifted during the rains, because of the weight of the water, then:1) what eroded and then deposited the sediments?
2) again the receding waters would have formed a canyon at the base of the uplift, not on top of the plateau.If the plateau was lifted after the rains, then:1) what caused the uplift if not the weight of the water upon the crust?
2) what caused the downcutting in that particular spot seeing as it would have been the same elevation as the surrounding land. If all the land is the same elevation, then you would see a HUGE wash plain all across the land.So what exactly is YOUR line of argument, Robert?? You've come here making grand statements about the geologic history of the Grand Canyon and then state plateaus aren't your bag. Interesting...

quote:

---

It's fairly simple. Anyone who does a thorough study on David Fasold's research will see that there is some pretty hardcore data here to chew on.

---

errr... I'm confused. Are you referring to the same D. Fasold who co-authored the following paper:Collins, L. G. and Fasold, D. F., 1996, Bogus "Noah's Ark" from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure. Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p. 439-444.

Actually, with the earth being so old and its dynamic nature, we wouldn't expect a whole lot of Grand Canyons.However, since the Flood only occurred ~4,000 years ago and it was global, how come we DON'T find a bunch of Grand Canyons on every continent?

I agree Nosy, there are many large canyons, but not so many on the scale of the Grand Canyon. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison is impressive, the Columbia River Gorge is impressive, Canyonlands is spectacular, but not anywhere near the size of the Grand Canyon.There should be several Grand Canyons on every continent if a global flood is responsible for depositing most of the geologic record and then creating the Grand Canyon.