Grand Canyon was formed very quickly.
From 28:00 or so
Which is of course supported by absolutely zero evidence.
You can’t move that much mud and debris quickly without creating a new mountain range filled with silt, sludge, and boulders the size of high rises. It would also create a flood plain many miles wide and deep beyond the canyon which of course cannot be found.
If there is a flood, mud and debris will be washed downhill, whether you like it or not.
(The author also shows a short clip from Malaysia where things went south, so to speak.)
There were large bodies of water on the Kaibab Plateau which drained suddenly. There was also a lake in what is today Tuba City in the Navajo Reservation, where you find a lot of fossilized dinosaur droppings because this area was inhabited by long-necked dinosaurs.
(This again shows that dinosaurs existed until fairly recently, but it’s another issue)
In the video Dr Zillmer also mentions a site where 20 meters of strata were formed in 3 days, not in thousands of years.
For that much material to flow at all in a short time it would be flowing like concrete, not like muddy water. It would in fact be much like a volcanic flow.
His three day claim simply isn’t supported by any verifiable fact.
That much material being displaced all at once would create it’s own dams because of the density and volume of material being displaced.
We’ve never in history seen that kind of volume of water moving anywhere other than in our oceans.
Like I said, there’s a short clip of what happened in Malaysia. Watch it first.
I’m not watching over an hour of BS to try and find your claimed nugget.
According to USGS over 1,000 cubic miles of material had to be eroded away to create the grand canyon. Even at a 100:1 ratio which would be required for a rapid liquid flow that would be over 100,000 cubic miles of water required to remove that much material in a few days, months, weeks, or years.
That much water flowing over otherwise dry land would require the overnight melting off of one of the largest glaciers in human history or the rupture of something the size of Lake Erie suddenly rupturing into a narrow canyon over a mile deep.
Such a flow of water has never been recorded anywhere.
Of course not. Who was out there with a camcorder to record that in prehistoric North America.
Not just N. America, anywhere at anytime.
The entrance of the Colorado River into the Grand Canyon is lower in elevation than the downstream rim, meaning the river would have had to flow uphill for the river to have carved the canyon. More likely was a runoff of the Colorado Plateau as it uplifted about 5,000 feet during the runoff phase of the Great Flood.
The Mt. St. Helen’s event has shown that rapid erosion can carve a substantial canyon in a matter of hours through sediments recently deposited.
https://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04/
Neither of those of course is true.
Even if the south rim was substantially highr than the north rim at the time all that is required is for one pass or valley through there for water to flow.
Elevation at the north rim averages about 8,000’, Max is 8,800, at the south rim average is around 6,800’ with a max elevation of 7,400’.
How does water flow 1,200 feet uphill? Your sources, and mine, can only assume what is factual.
Mine is an alternative explanation for the formation of the canyon based on what can be observed currently. Any speculation of what happened in the past is one’s interpretation of the observable facts coupled with known scientific laws, i.e. water flows downhill.
There are many features in and around the Grand Canyon that long-age evolution believers can not explain, but do align with an event such as the Great Flood. Science is not consensus.
It didn’t have to flow uphill. The rim is higher in the north, lower in the south and again, all that is necessary is for the water to find a channel that allows it to pass between high points.
No great mystery there.
Even if we assume the great flood indeed covered the entire globe in hundreds or thousands of feet the water did not all fall overnight nor did it drain off overnight. It would have taken thousands of years for sea levels to return back to pre flood levels following such an event as it would take that long to build back the ice caps and glaciers which of course would be the only possible source for that much water to begin with.
Geologic evidences show the whole earth was covered by water. Computer modeling shows if the mountains were laid low and the ocean floors were leveled off, there is enough measurable water on the planet to cover all dry land to a depth of about 8,000 feet. This does not take into account the subterranean water which is thought to be equal to the ocean water.
During and after the Genesis Flood the mountains rose and the sea floor sank (and is still sinking). Huge tides and tectonic movement caused thousands of feet of sediment and planar erosion surfaces. Water runoff on the continents into the new sea floor caused great gorges through these planar surfaces all around the earth creating vast flat plateaus and even shearing off tops of uplifted vertical sediment layers and depositing rounded (water eroded) boulders hundreds of miles from their origin.
Warm ocean waters from hundreds of volcanic activity especially on the sea floors along the ‘ring of fire’ in the Pacific and the tear in the Atlantic sea bed, caused rapid evaporation of the waters, falling as snow. The Earth cooled due to the volcanic particulate matter in the atmosphere and cloud cover resulting in a cool Summer and colder Winter. The snow built up in a century or so creating what we recognize as the glaciation during the Ice Age. (The layering within ice cores is thought by secular scientists to be the result of annual snowfall, but recent observable readings prove multiple layers are laid down in a single season.)
All of this is observable in our geography today and falls in line with the Genesis account in the Bible. No secular theories have any definitive answers for much of the known observable evidences.
The Earth/ solar system could not be more than one million years old based on the decay of Earth’s magnetic field, regression of our moon away from the Earth and the Earth from the Sun, shrinking (consumption) size of the Sun, ratios of the measure of decay of radio isotopes, decay rate of the Earth’s rotation, rate of the loss of heat from the Earth’s (and other planets) core. (2nd Law of Thermodynamic)
There is plenty of scientific data from unbiased sources supporting a young Earth and catastrophism if you are interested in educating yourself rather than relying on the secular indoctrination in K-12 and most universities.
There’s absolutely no evidence to support this version of reality.
If all the glaciers and ice sheets on the planet were to melt we’d have less than a 300’ rise in sea level.
How much does the water in your glass of ice water rise when the ice melts? Now consider that he North Pole ice cap is floating on the Arctic Ocean.
BTW, there is beau coup evidence for the exact scenario I laid out above. You just need to open your mind to the possibility and away from the religious dogma of church of evolution.
Oops, I missread this. If the sea floor and mountains were laid low (We agree the mountains lifted up. Right?) the water would cover the Earth to over 8,000 feet
My mind is open to facts and the calculations have been done by numerous qualified scientists.
There isn’t enough water on earth to create a 5000’ rise in sea levels.
Not with it’s current topography, no.
We agree there are sea creature fossils on top of the highest mountains. We agree the sea bed is sinking now and in the past. Well, there you go, the Earth was flatter during the Noahic Flood event.