But in that case we don't have the same evidence. No-one with the slightest knowledge of how water and rock interact in a dam burst would see such a phenomenon in the Grand Canyon.
OK, I see the required gratuitous insult, but I am searching... and I don't see your explanation or an attempt of a refutation (I guess "science" only requires insults)
... you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill
The Colorado River flows downhill last time I looked.
Yes, but the if you look carefully at a topographical map, you will see that the headwaters of the Colorado river are several thousand feet lower than the Kaibob uplift. I much prefer to hear your theories about "how water and rock interact" in such a way where a creek that is at lower elevation than the rock it is supposed to chew a mile's depth through accomplishes what it did. I am also intrigued by your theories in hydrodynamics of how these remnant tributaries break from the river, not lead to it. Don't rivers usually join not separate?
But no, you must scoff at the Creationist as you ignore the maps, ignore the fact that a huge basin lies to the north of the Grand Canyon, and that how the "rock" would break apart isn't so hard to understand when one considers the type of rock and the Creationist's simple and consistent with the evidence explanation of how not-yet-solidified "rock" would break apart when saturated with water.
LOL!!! Do you stand-up work? Let me guess how you perceive the existence of the internet. (oh, this is priceless)
Billions and billions of years ago there was nothing.
One day, out of a chaos of random elements (that evolutionists conveniently exempt themselves from describing how it got there) copper and silicon molecules bonded together in extraordinary ways, all without any intelligent input whatsoever. These copper and silicon molecules, bonded with plastics gold and other synthetic materials (one of the missing links here) and organized themselves into routers, switches, computers, modems, wires and power supplies. There were countless beneficial mutations of the power supplies as one formed out of the chaos that supplied one million volts of power and blew up the entire primeval internet, but because there were billions and billions of years, and 10^80 molecules all working synergistically for a common goal it was able to rebuild itself and "learn" from the mistakes of a million years ago. One day, a scientist on contract for DARPA went to the Galápgos islands and saw a variety of modems, some DSL, other cable, and he found the "fossil" ancestor of the cable modem called the ISDN, buried in layers of earth below this, he was even able to spot a Radio Shack 300 Baud plug-in modem (whose parents were US Robotics). So excitedly he returned to his native homeland deep inside a government bureaucracy and drew gill slits on the embryonic modem, which after full gestation turned into a Cisco Router. He proved that all elements of the internet had a common ancestor in the telegraph. A single transistor, with the cathode missing was found buried in a sanitary landfill, miles away, a broken RJ13 cable connector was discovered, and soon museums and libraries around the world had taken these two "fossils" and constructed an elaborate display of what is now AOL....
Then Al Gore came along, and said that He was the Creator of the Internet. After that claim, millions of unthinking myrmidons who readily accepted the Words of the Creator Al Gore soon wanted to worship him as a President over all. Others looked at the internet and said "Surely this had to come about by intelligent design" yet they looked at Al Gore and didn't see intelligence there, and went on New Age theories and syncretisms of evolution and catastrophism. Maybe Al Gore sort of put the elements together and through evolved design over six "ages" finally became what it is today. Then there are people like you, who look at the Internet and say, that it all came about by itself with absolutely no intelligent design at all.
Please don't project your the lack of intelligence in your posts by saying that there is a lack of intelligence put into the internet.
LOL!!! Do you stand-up work? Let me guess how you perceive the existence of the internet. (oh, this is priceless)
(snip comical fable)
You appear to be the one doing stand up, and very funny too. But your joke has little to do with what I wrote. "..some interesting analogies to evolutionary behaviour" is not the same thing as saying the internet grew entirely spontaneously by evolutionary processes. The science I was referring to in my first sentence was the vast body of physics that would collapse if young-earth creationism were shown to be true. (constant light-speed, sub-atomic particle behaviour, relativity etc)
Please don't project your the lack of intelligence in your posts by saying that there is a lack of intelligence put into the internet.
More ad hominems from the poster who gets upset if 10% of what he dishes out comes back at him.
OK, I see the required gratuitous insult, but I am searching... and I don't see your explanation or an attempt of a refutation (I guess "science" only requires insults)
Once again the poster who freely chucks around words like "liar" and "God hater" and "ape" as insulting epithets and who likens his opponents to Nazi leaders is thin-skinned.
... you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill
The Colorado River flows downhill last time I looked.
Yes, but the if you look carefully at a topographical map, you will see that the headwaters of the Colorado river are several thousand feet lower than the Kaibob uplift. I much prefer to hear your theories about "how water and rock interact" in such a way where a creek that is at lower elevation than the rock it is supposed to chew a mile's depth through accomplishes what it did.
The clue is in the word "uplift"
I am also intrigued by your theories in hydrodynamics of how these remnant tributaries break from the river, not lead to it. Don't rivers usually join not separate?
Not necessarily, no, look at a delta for example. But I am not aware of "these remnant tributaries" or what their purported significance is.
But no, you must scoff at the Creationist as you ignore the maps, ignore the fact that a huge basin lies to the north of the Grand Canyon, and that how the "rock" would break apart isn't so hard to understand when one considers the type of rock and the Creationist's simple and consistent with the evidence explanation of how not-yet-solidified "rock" would break apart when saturated with water.
Imagine a huge dam burst across Northern Arizona. Big enough to carry away billions of tonnes of rock in a short time. If the rock is strong it won't dig a huge canyon (as you implicitly acknowledge with your unsupported statement that the rock was "not yet solidified" when the canyon was cut), it will spread out and take the path of least resistance. If OTOH the rock is weak then the walls of whatever canyons that form will be shallow, not steep. Any canyon formed would be much wider and shallower. The rock needs to be strong to support the huge vertical drops that we see in the Grand Canyon but strong rock would not be cut away quickly in some kind of post-noachian drainage event.