Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion

quote:

---

Based on this, we need not be surprised that the canyon could be formed in a period of a few thousand years.

---

Perhaps you can explain how you have reached that conclusion. It's not obvious from the material you posted, nor from the sections of the paper I have looked at.

That's one location, and it doesn't even consider the time taken to cut the canyon in the first place. Even if I were convinced that a factor of 45 were enough at that point in the canyon, how can that possibly be sufficient evidence to support your conclusion ?

Wouldn't compression and compaction tend to flatten out the sand ?

Unless the footprints come from the current top surface it is not clear to me that they would be more flattened than they already are. If the sand at the top were looser then it might be more affected by compression.And if erosion is the answer then it doesn't matter if the erosion happened when the area was sand (before it was buried) or after it had lithified. Asking which would be more easily eroded is no answer, because the time is available for either to happen.This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-12-2005 02:50 AM

I think that Peaceharris' arguments are a fine example of what I was talking about here