Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

I would also point out that that canyon looks a lot like a river drainage system.But there is a bigger and more obvious problem with Faiths view.If the canyon was carved by the receding flood waters, how did it get buried ?

I know that you have no problem with these things. That does not mean that they are remotely sensible. How would a river drainage system form underground ? If the sediments were loose, how would a canyon form ? It makes no sense.

Well that pretty much confirms my thought - you wouldn't get a canyon. The material above, being unconsolidated and under pressure would hardly wait for a canyon to form before collapsing.And that leaves aside the question of how you get the river drainage pattern - that makes sense for water flowing down from mountains or hills to join a river in a valley or canyon, but that scenario hardly applies without a solid surface - or the relative elevations.

quote:

---

I don't think it would have taken that long given the great quantity of water at great velocity, carrying a great quantity of broken pieces of strata.

---

And how would that produce the Grand Canyon as it exists today ? I cannot imagine it producing the meanders, for a start. In fact it seems odd that that would even produce a deep channel, rather than simply scouring the landscape.

The Colorado river runs along the length of the canyon, so if we give it credit for those parts, that is the main body of the canyon.And those meanders have to be in place before the canyon really starts to form.And the rock must be hard enough to prevent the normal outcome of the river "short circuiting" the meanders (which become "ox-bow lakes").Obviously the rock must be hard for must of the cutting of the canyon which therefore must take a long time.ABEIf that is not clear enough, the problem is simple. Since the meanders are in the canyon, not just the river, the force that produced the canyon must cut down, following the meanders. An erosive force that will quickly cut through rock is not enough - since that would tend to cut straight across the terrain.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Oh NONSENSE!!

---

As we all see you have failed to understand the argument.

quote:

---

The river would be what is left from the water that cut the canyon.

​

The meanders would have been cut into a flat area left after the canyon itself was scoured out.

---

Obviously you have completely managed to miss the point that the canyon itself meanders. Those meanders can't be cut "after" the canyon - they are the canyon.So much for your "NONSENSE!!"The rest of your musings fail to deal with the point, and are thus irrelevant.

Obviously that it was cut by a meandering river. Probably rather slowly.As I stated you need a force that cuts down, following the meanders. Simply supposing a massive erosive force won't do because that would tend to cut across the meanders.

quote:

---

It needed much more water flowing through it to cut such a deep meander, but there's no reason to assume a huge erosive force such as would have occurred when the canyon was first being cut. Obviously the meander was cut at a later stage, but not after the river was down to its current size.

---

If you are proposing that the Grand Canyon followed a different course when it was first cut I would like to know where that is. If not, the canyon was "first cut" following the meanders.

quote:

---

The stuff you make up is always designed to contradict anything I say but it is completely unnecessary. There are always many ways of interpreting a situation besides yours.

---

Presumably you mean that you think I tell the truth only to contradict the things that you make up. Well, you are wrong.As for other interpretations - if it were that easy you would be presenting viable alternatives. And you aren't.

You could draw pictures but that would not change the fact that the canyon meanders. If it did not originally meander - and if it was anything like the present depth - then the original course should still be visible. If the meanders were present in the original cut my point stands.

quote:

---

SINCE MEANDERS FORM ON FLAT TERRAIN, and so did the Grand Canyon meander, it WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RUSHING WATER at that point, would it? Hey?

---

That is rather a problem for your view, then.

quote:

---

REASONABLE INTERPRETATION: the canyon had been cut by the rushing water which was probably still high volume in the canyon proper, but the meander is not the canyon proper.

---

Then where is this "canyon proper" ? Why do you never answer that question ?

Redundant message hidden. --AdminEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Hide content.

quote:

---

Exactly how the meander was cut is less important than the fact that it wasn't cut by the rushing water of the receding Flood as PaulK assumed I meant.

---

When you say that the Grand Canyon was cut by water from the Flood I would assume that you meant pretty much all of it. Apparently you don't but you are being very unclear about what you do mean.Let us make it clear again. The Grand Canyon itself meanders - it has curves in it, like a river course. Are you singling out those sections and saying that they were cut by the river ? If so, why couldn't the river have cut the whole thing ?

quote:

---

That first great volume of water would have cut down through strata and carved out the canyon. It should have been a huge amount of water that also cut the Grand Staircase and scoured off the Kaibab plateau as it got down to the level of the current rim of the canyon, also the other flat areas around the csnyon. It was on such a flat plateau that the meander formed, from water left over from the receding Flood but settled down to a river running across a plateau. This is AFTER the cataracts that would have cut the canyon proper.

---

So, apparently the Grand Canyon we see today was carved by the river ? And the "canyon proper" is something else ? I keep asking you to explain what you mean by the "canyon proper" and you keep refusing to explain. Do you even know what you mean ?

quote:

---

All you would need to do is have a little flexibility and fairness.

---

Wrong. You need to stop pretending that other people are to blame for your failures to communicate. Especially when the that failure seems to be a simple refusals to explain yourself.And I note that yet again you fail to explain what you mean by the "canyon proper"

quote:

---

When I say the canyon was carved by the receding Flood water I have in mind the huge dimensions of it, I'm not necessarily thinking of every square inch of it, and you COULD be fair and suggest that since there are areas that don't appear to be describable in the terms I've given that perhaps I'm not including them

---

In fact I do deal with that possibility (second paragraph). And you might also note that even the section you quote is questioning, asking you to explain.And I might also suggest that asking you to explain is better than attributing a crazy view to you.Finally I will point out that if sections of the canyon are not attributable to your post-flood rush of waters then they certainly cannot be entirely responsible for the scale of the canyon.

quote:

---

So you force me to address the meanders. There may be meanders all along the river but the canyon itself is eighteen miles wide at one point, and that couldn't have been created by a river, whereas a great rush of water at the end of the Flood could explain it.

---

As others have already pointed out the width of the canyon is not explained by the river, but by subsequent erosion.

quote:

---

The meander in the area of the photo I put up had to have occurred after the receding water washed the plateaus around the canyon flat.

---

But - and this is the point we coming back to - the meander is the canyon, at least at that point. So are you now saying that the river formed the canyon completely ? If it formed the meandering sections, and those sections link the canyon together then it is really hard to see how any other explanation makes sense.

I notice an interesting admission in this post.

quote:

---

But there is an observable pattern that a YEC can't deny even if there is no way to explain it by the Flood: simply studying the rocks, knowing that the fossils occur in a certain order, which a Floodist could ascertain as well as anyone else, -- aren't these the ways the rocks are identified?

---

Faith has often claimed that the order in the fossil record is an illusion. Now she says that it is useful information. Remember that the order is very strong evidence against the Flood - and we see at least one good reason why an honest working geologist might wish to convert from YEC.

quote:

---

Yes I believe the OE interpretation of the fossil order is an illusion.

---

Usually you just say that the order is an illusion. Which is a far different thing from proposing that the only reasonable explanation that we have for that order is an "illusion".

quote:

---

I also think there must be a reasonable interpretation of it from the Flood point of view that will eventually emerge.

---

I think that we can safely say that there is no realistic prospect of that occurring.