That is not exactly a catastrophic event such as a volcanic eruption, a giant explosion. Even if your explanation is a correct interpretation it does not support how the Grand Canyon that is 18 miles wide and 270 miles Long was formed in a matter of days, it still took considerable time to form.
I wouldnât know I donât do criminal law, my specific discipline is international trade law. Before that I was in litigation.
You left out the part about tectonic plate shift, which suggests that it was also influential in its formation.
We agree on the dimensions. What is your evidence for, âl took considerable time to form.â?
"A mudflow on March 19, 1982, eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep in the headwaters of the North Fork of the Toutle River Valley, establishing the new dendritic pattern of drainage. As ICR scientists surveyed this new terrain, they began to contemplate the processes which may have formed the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. The little âGrand Canyon of the Toutle Riverâ is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon. The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly! Geologists should learn that, since the long-time scale they have been trained to assign to landform development would lead to obvious error on Mount St. Helens, it also may be useless or misleading elsewhere. "
I stated that we agree on continental drift, but not the assumed timeline and that there is no disagreement on the dimensions of the GC. I hope for your clients sake, you read international trade laws more concisely than you are reading this debate.
How about the lava flows for starters? That theory doesnât support forming the Canyon in a matter of days, especially if there is no evidence of a precipitated event such as a volcanic eruption.
So you donât think there wasnât a catastrophic event, or the damning of the Colorado river is it?
You are right, I must of missed that part. I am not wearing my glasses and I am on my phone while typing. BTW I donât have any clients anymore thanks to this fucking CCP virus!
There was a catastrophic event as stated in the video you provided (did you even watch it?). A sudden rush of water over a short period of time carved out the canyon. This is what the video and I have stated. The difference is when.
The geological evidence shows a massive lake (or as the video stated an ocean) north of the Grand Canyon at some time in the past. The breech of the dam retaining that water catastrophically carved the GC rapidly.
I thought the water part was over a longer period of time, not days? I would not consider that as a catastrophic event.
No time frame is mentioned but inferred to be ârapidâ.
Yeah that is pretty vague. Rapid could mean less hundreds of years and not thousands. Also the video also suggested what is known as Baja Cali was also under water where the Colorado River ends.
Then you would concede it could also mean days or weeks?
No I donât believe that. Maybe if you could provide a volcano near by that could be the source of a similar event occured like Mt St Helens then I would be open to entertaining that as a possibility.
Belief is one thing that is individual. You may believe the Earth is flat even.
There are two models we have been debating, long ages or young Earth. Where does the evidence take us? âRapidâ erosion of the GC is in both models, as we have established. Where we still do not agree is with the deposition of the layers. Which model presents the most logical forensic explanation? One model was observed and recorded.
Just because one model was observed and recorded doesnât necessarily equate the same model being applied to a different event not witnessed. Furthermore a violent eruption of a volcano will certainly expedite such a transformation to take place and there is no evidence to suggest that the GC had a similar event.
That gets me to Yellowstone and itâs inevitable eruption and what will be formed as a result? BTW what is the current status of Mt St Helen? Is it still considered a active volcano?
Both models agree with extreme volcanic activity resulting in plate tectonics. There is no dispute on the Earth being covered in water at time(s) in the past, i.e. marine fossils in the GC, in the Gobi Desert and on the summit of Mt. Everest. Research proves stratification can occur rapidly. AT the MtStH event, deposits accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds identical to the GC formations.
It does not disprove it either. Correct?
I think the threshold of proving your theory is much higher that what occurred at MTSH. I am not there in accepting it as a possibility. There is simply no evidence to suggest otherwise.
On another note, what I found interesting about the article you cited had a biblical reference. Do you believe in evolution or the creationism perspective?
Fair enough. The evidence is evident, it is interpreted different depending on your belief system.
Having a blind-faith in the evolution model is illogical. If one finds a glass bottle on the beach, it is illogical to believe that sun, wind, water and time formed the sand into glass which shaped itself into a bottle.
Look up irreducible complexity in a living cell. All those components are required at the same moment or else the organism fails. Then there is the problem for evolutionists of the genetic coding to sustain that living organism. One living cell contains enough quaternary (vs. binary) genetic information (A,C,G and T) within in it to fill millions of encyclopedia size books and standard font, enough to fill the Grand Canyon. 
Massive amounts of snow and ice were present on the Colorado Plateau and elsewhere upstream from the Colorado River.
For that snow and ice to melt, it doesnât require a volcanic eruption as was the case with Mt St Helens.
When glaciers with massive amounts of snow and ice melt rapidly, as at the end of an ice age, or even at the end of Younger Dryas, the melted water doesnât just trickle down.
They are ponded or pooled in natural dams called ice tongues. When the ice walls of such dams are breached, massive amounts of water, ice, mud, and rocks rush to the ocean.