Questions about/problems with YEC

[gluadys]

I should like to keep this thread on-topic, but if none of you have any more objections with YEC, or problems with it--reasons why it couldn't have happened, than I would be glad to go on to discuss evolution.

I told you earlier I could easily come up with 2-3 dozen objections. But you have not dealt with the first two I raised yet. So, I do have lots more objections to YEC.


So, lets stay on topic. Since you are unable to deal with the specific two points I raised, let me raise a more general one.

I object to YEC because it is a blanket denial of observed physical evidence and the logical conclusions derived from that evidence.

Since it is God who created that evidence, that says one of two things to me:

1. YECists do not believe in God.
2. YECists believe in God, but not in a real creation. The creation as we observe it is an illusion.

Almost all the specific objections to YEC come back to this. We observe astronomical evidence of an old universe. YECists wave this away with nonsense about changes in the speed of light or white-hole cosmology. No YEC proposal along this line is supported by evidence.

We observe physical evidence of an old earth. YECIsts wave this away with blanket denial of radiometry.

We observe no evidence of a global flood and the presence of evidence which contradicts a global flood. YECists wave this away by denial of the evidence and notions of pre-flood environments which are incompatible with life.

We observe daily evidence of evolution. This is so strong and undeniable even YECists can't wave it away, so they euphemize it with terms like adaptation and variation within the kind and pretend it is not evolution.

We observe evidence that evolution occurred in the past as it does in the present and that we can, to some extent, trace the historical pathways of evolution. And YECists wave it away.

In short, YECists claim at almost every turn, that the observable world is not congruent with God's created world.


IMO this is a denial of the doctrine of creation which they claim to uphold.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL. I seriously doubt the Creationist community has ever dazzled anyone with brilliance. Howls of laughter yes, brilliance no.





Not they must not. They can but they don't have to.

Whenever science and scripture disagree, one is probably in error. Usually this is (interpretation of) scripture, as it is simply not understood. That science, and that scripture must be brought into agreement.

The perfect example is the age of the universe. YEC's insist on a six day creation of the entire universe. This is clearly wrong and is actually hindering them from learning the pre-history of God and the angels, as they don't think there is a prehistory. Without this knowledge nothing in the bible can really make sense. In this case true science doesn't have to concede anything to scripture.

In the case of the flood; Jesus spoke of it as an actual historic event. Therefore the christian who believes in science must first believe that it did occur, and adjust his science accordingly. Or deem Jesus to be wrong about it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We can reason through scientific facts simply through observation and experimentation, but there is very little we can say about God without His revelation. Which purpose do you think the Bible serves? Nobody considers it a problem when we can infer, from a Physics textbook, that Pi = 3.14. It doesn't, but that's not what the textbook is trying to communicate. 3.14 is sufficient for its purposes in what it is trying to communicate. When we try to infer Pi's exact value, we are asking the book (or the author) the wrong questions. When we can infer that Pi = 3 in the Bible, why should this bother anyone? It bothers many people, but that's only because they're asking the wrong questions.

I appreciate your 'soft selling' these differences. But science and religion have already engaged, and the battle rages.

I believe that most christians are pretty ignorant of science and are for the most part defenseless in these arguements.

What is troubling is that christians who 'believe in' science use it to argue against such as YEC's, instead of using properly interpreted scripture, which would be more effective, unifying, and edifying.

The only conclusion I can reach is that they have joined the secular enemy, and stand with them, against scripture.

 

[Willtor]

I appreciate your 'soft selling' these differences. But science and religion have already engaged, and the battle rages.

I believe that most christians are pretty ignorant of science and are for the most part defenseless in these arguements.

What is troubling is that christians who 'believe in' science use it to argue against such as YEC's, instead of using properly interpreted scripture, which would be more effective, unifying, and edifying.

When the YEC arguments attempt to introduce YEC as a science, I argue scientifically. When the YEC arguments attempt to introduce theology, I argue theologically. That said, traditionally, theologians have used philosophy of nature (more recently, "science") to guide their interpretations of Scripture.

The only conclusion I can reach is that they have joined the secular enemy, and stand with them, against scripture.

I don't hold to a perspective that divides sacred and secular.

 

[gluadys]

In the case of the flood; Jesus spoke of it as an actual historic event.

How can you tell from the recorded text that he was speaking of an actual historic event?

Therefore the christian who believes in science must first believe that it did occur, and adjust his science accordingly. Or deem Jesus to be wrong about it.

Indeed, the 18th-19th century geologists who discovered that the earth bears no witness to a global flood actually began with the belief that the Deluge did occur. They adjusted their thinking when the evidence showed them that this was impossible.

Whether Jesus was wrong about it is not clear. First, we do not know that he considered it an historic event. Second, even if he did, this could be an aspect of his kenosis, emptying himself of certain divine attributes in order to incarnate as a human, with the human limitations appropriate to his time. Exactly what the human Jesus (as distinct from the divine Son of God) knew is one of those theological mysteries embedded in the Incarnation itself.

Scripture itself bears witness that on a human level, there were things Jesus did not know. That is why, as a child, he had to learn them, just like the rest of us.

 

[RightWingGirl]

It's NOT a theory. How many times does that have to be said to sink in? At best it is an attempt to poke holes in science. It never makes predictions of its own. It never sets itself up for testing.

It plays the same game that cosmological nonsense model you linked to earlier. If the evidence is against it then it just inserts God when necessary. Which is necessary all the time.

I have nothing against YEC if they just say it was all supernatural and they don't care about God creating a false history. Bad theology but OK. It is when these people pretend it is actually science I have a problem with it. It isn't - it is simplistic garbage that at its root cause is put forth by a bunch of liars.

Very well, call it a theory or not, what in your opinion makes it an impossibility? What are the problems with YEC?

 

[RightWingGirl]

Trees, digging down and examining earthen deposits, ice cores, etc.



No, always. I'm sorry, but what you are saying is false geology. The Earth has been active since its conception.



The overwhelming evidence shows otherwise.



I debate based on scientific evidence, not on a presumption (which is, mind you, what you are doing).

Do you believe that the earth began as a hot, molten ball?

 

[KerrMetric]

Very well, call it a theory or not, what in your opinion makes it an impossibility? What are the problems with YEC?

The fact that evidence from many and unconnected areas in science ALL without exception point to an old Earth and not a single piece of evidence points to a young one.

I think that pretty much sums it up - YEC as a science is childish nonsense from fools.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Since you are unable to deal with the specific two points I raised, let me raise a more general one.

A summery of the two points you raised.


1. Why is there not a smidgeon of geological evidence for a global flood at any time, much less so recently, while evidence does exist throughout the geologic column falsifying the possibility of a global flood.


And I answered The geological column was formed by and through the flood. Before the food we had 2000 years of a very stable environment that would leave little, if any trace. During the flood almost all of the geological column was formed. Some instances of evidence; Footprints in layers, that could not be preserved unless buried very quickly, we have fish buried in the act of eating other fish. 90% of the fossils we find are of marine creatures. There is a fossil of an ichthyosaur shown having almost completed giving birth to a live infant, the beak of the infant is still inside mother's birth canal. We have fossils of jelly shish, which, being soft bodied creatures, would have to have been killed, buried and fossilized very quickly.
Your objection; (TALK ORIGINS) Varves within the geologic column show seasonal layers over many, many years. In many cases, such as the Green River formation, these layers are too fine to have settled out in less than several weeks per layer. Varves in New England show evidence of climate change 17,500 to 13,500 years ago, which matches climate patterns in other parts of the world (Rittenour et al. 2000). These layers prove that the geological record was not produced in just one event.
And my answer;
The Green River Formation contains not only exceptionally preserved fish fossils, but also their coprolites (fossilized faeces) penetrating through several varves (layers). How could fish faeces fossilize if they took several years to be covered up? This speaks of rapid formation of the layers. Furthermore, the number of layers (varves) between two ash layers (representing evidence for two volcanic eruptions) varies greatly, showing that the number of varves is not consistent with any supposed annual cycle of deposition The flume tank experiments of Guy Berthault and others at the University of Colorado were cited; when rock with such ‘rhythmites’ was ground up and the particles deposited in flowing water, the ‘yearly bands’ reformed. Berthault et al have conclusively shown that alternating layers form spontaneously whenever two different particle sizes are deposited in flowing water [see Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up! Sandy Stripes and Sediments]. This and the Mt St Helens pyroclastic flows were used to rebut the notion that the Flood would just mix things up and not form multiple layers.(Carl Wieland)


I do not remember if you gave any rebuttal to this, but I do not think so.


Your objection; (TALK ORIGINS)There are many different kinds of surface features preserved in the middle of the geological column. These features include soils, mud cracks, evaporite deposits, footprints, raindrop impressions, meteor craters, worm burrows, wind-blown sediments, stream channels, and many others.

And my answer;
Many of these are in fact proof of a global flood.
(AiG) Further evidence against long ages is the existence of footprints in successive layers. There could have been no long ages between strata, otherwise they would have been eroded—how long do you think one of your footprints would last? They must have been preserved when the next macro-layer (often comprising many fine laminæ) was laid on top, especially with the cementing action of dissolved minerals. In Queensland, Australia, where we live, they have recently uncovered fossil footprints, and to illustrate our point, they very soon had to build a protective shed over them because they started eroding so quickly when exposed to the elements



I do not remember if you gave any rebuttal to this either.




2. How did the immense diversity arise in all the realms of plant and animal life in the short period of time since the flood? In fact in the short period between Noah and Abraham, for nothing suggests that the ultra-rapid evolution this would require was still happening in Abraham's lifetime or later.

And my answer;
The majority of plant life would survive the flood, either in floating mats of plant life or separately. If it survived the flood then it would not have to evolve after the flood, but remain in much the same diversity and numbers that it was created in.

Objection; (TALK ORIGINS)Not all plants could survive the Flood for some of the following reasons:
· Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed if soaked for several months in water, especially salt water.
· Some plants do not produce seeds; they would have been killed when the Flood either uprooted or covered them.
· Not all seeds could survive a year before germinating (Benzing 1990; Densmore and Zasada 1983; Garwood 1989).


My answer (AiG) Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water (Howe, 1968, CRSQ:105-112). Others could have survived in floating masses. Many could have survived as accidental and planned food stores on the ark.

Ironically, Charles Darwin himself performed experiments floating snails on, and submerging seeds in, salt water, convincing him that they could have survived long sea voyages on driftwood and the like

 

[RightWingGirl]

Indeed, the 18th-19th century geologists who discovered that the earth bears no witness to a global flood actually began with the belief that the Deluge did occur. They adjusted their thinking when the evidence showed them that this was impossible.

Could you give me some names and sources?

 

[gluadys]

Could you give me some names and sources?

"There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phaenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together....Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which led many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation."

~~Adam Sedgwick, "Address to the Geological Society," Proceedings of the Geological Society of London 1 (1831): 313-314. Sedgwick's early ideas about the flood may be found in his essays "On the Origin of Alluvial and Diluvial Formations," Annals of Philosophy 9 (1825): 241-257, and "On Diluvial Formations," Annals of Philosophy 10 (1826): 18-37. On Sedgwick's life, see Colin Speakman, Adam Sedgwick, Geologist and Dalesman: A Biography in Twelve Themes (Heathfield, UK: Broad Oak Press, 1982).

cited in "History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

Emphasis added. Rev. Adam Sedgwick probably came to change his mind as a result of the work of Louis Agassiz (who was a life-long creationist and opponent of evolution) which showed the surface moiraines and gravels to be a result of Pleistocene glaciations, not a single year-long flood.

Also note that at this time, geologists had already established that the earlier parts of the geological column were not remnants of the flood. As Sedgwick notes "many excellent observers of a former century [referred] all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. " Emphasis added. He also notes that they were in error concerning those formations, just as he was in error concerning surface features.

By the beginning of the 19th century, this was known to be false. Sedgwick, at the time he made this speech, was stepping down as Chair of the Royal Society, and he chose this occasion to explain why he was recanting his former belief that at least the surface geological features were remnants of the flood.

None of the geological evidence known then has changed or disappeared. New geological evidence discovered since then is consistent with what was known in 1835. Nothing has been discovered that would change the scientific conclusions geologists--including Christian geologists--came to 200 years ago.

PS--check the contributions made to geology by Nicolas Steno, James Hutton, William Smith and Louis Agassiz. All were Christians and creationists. Steno even believed in the biblical flood.

Oh, and be sure to read the link.

 

[PaladinValer]

Do you believe that the earth began as a hot, molten ball?

There are a few possible cosmological theories.

However, these deal with cosmology, not biology. Evolution isn't dependent on how the Earth formed, nor is it dependent on how life first came into being.

It deals with how life develops and diversifies.

 

[gluadys]

A summery of the two points you raised.


1. Why is there not a smidgeon of geological evidence for a global flood at any time, much less so recently, while evidence does exist throughout the geologic column falsifying the possibility of a global flood.


And I answered The geological column was formed by and through the flood.

And your opinion is still not evidence, no matter how many times you repeat it. Please bear in mind that I am speaking about evidence. Evidence of two kinds.

1. Evidence of a global flood that should be there if such a flood occurred, but has never been found.
2. Evidence which has been found that could not exist if a global flood had occurred.

Before the food we had 2000 years of a very stable environment that would leave little, if any trace.

At what point in the geologic column do you think the flood deposits began? Beginning of the Cambrian? Somewhere in the pre-Cambrian? Or near the very beginning of the pre-Cambrian?

Do you have estimates of how much rock formation is required for each of these time periods? Scientific estimates of the time from the beginning of the pre-Cambrian to the beginning of the Cambrian is on the order of 3 billion years. From the beginning of the Cambrian to today, just over 1/2 million years. So where you set the beginning of the flood deposits makes a huge difference in the amount of sediment you have to account for either before or during the flood.

During the flood almost all of the geological column was formed.

Have you any idea of how many different types of rock there are? Do you know that each requires a different environmental condition for its formation? How could all these different environmental conditions exist during a flood?

Do you know under what conditions shale will form? limestone? quartz? chalk? Please explain how each of these could be formed numerous times in many different locations, interspersed with each other, during a year-long flood.

Some instances of evidence; Footprints in layers, that could not be preserved unless buried very quickly, we have fish buried in the act of eating other fish.

Buried quickly, fossilized slowly, and the sediments in which they were buried lithified slowly. This sort of thing can occur without a global flood. Nothing indicates that all such organisms died and were buried within the same short time frame. In fact, the evidence indicates that they were not.

90% of the fossils we find are of marine creatures.

Marine environments, especially quiet shallow seas, are much more conducive to fossilization than terrestrial environments. I find it hard to equate the usual creationist descriptions of the flood to quiet shallow seas.

There is a fossil of an ichthyosaur shown having almost completed giving birth to a live infant, the beak of the infant is still inside mother's birth canal. We have fossils of jelly shish, which, being soft bodied creatures, would have to have been killed, buried and fossilized very quickly.

Quick burial does not imply quick fossilization. Quick and complete burial can preserve a soft body from decay so that fossilization can take place.

And none of this is relevant evidence for a global flood unless you can substantiate that all such burials occurred within the time frame of a global flood.

And my answer;
The Green River Formation contains not only exceptionally preserved fish fossils, but also their coprolites (fossilized faeces) penetrating through several varves (layers). How could fish faeces fossilize if they took several years to be covered up? This speaks of rapid formation of the layers. Furthermore, the number of layers (varves) between two ash layers (representing evidence for two volcanic eruptions) varies greatly, showing that the number of varves is not consistent with any supposed annual cycle of deposition The flume tank experiments of Guy Berthault and others at the University of Colorado were cited; when rock with such ‘rhythmites’ was ground up and the particles deposited in flowing water, the ‘yearly bands’ reformed. Berthault et al have conclusively shown that alternating layers form spontaneously whenever two different particle sizes are deposited in flowing water [see Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up! Sandy Stripes and Sediments]. This and the Mt St Helens pyroclastic flows were used to rebut the notion that the Flood would just mix things up and not form multiple layers.(Carl Wieland)

One of the things you need to learn about AiG is that they only cite evidence that supports their propositions, but never evidence that contradicts it. Science is only science when it deals with all the available evidence. To see what AiG did not tell you, check out this page, written by a Christian who is a professional geologist and former YECist.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm

Some of the items you mentioned above are included in Morton's document. e.g. the volcanic ash layers.

Your objection; (TALK ORIGINS)There are many different kinds of surface features preserved in the middle of the geological column. These features include soils, mud cracks, evaporite deposits, footprints, raindrop impressions, meteor craters, worm burrows, wind-blown sediments, stream channels, and many others.

And my answer;
Many of these are in fact proof of a global flood.
(AiG) Further evidence against long ages is the existence of footprints in successive layers. There could have been no long ages between strata, otherwise they would have been eroded—how long do you think one of your footprints would last?

Obviously most footprints do not last long. But a footprint in mud will last several days, even months under the right conditions. Some very dry conditions are also suitable for preserving footprints by having the print buried in light dust that does not disturb the outlines of the print.

What is essential in either case is that the footprint be buried (and thus preserved from erosion) by a material that does not disturb the print. This implies a gentle filling of the print. And after this, a slow lithification of the sediment.

But this is contrary to the conditions of a flood which disturbs and moves sediments. The existence of footprints indicates that there was no global flood at the time the prints were made.

And footprints are only one item on that list. How could you get evaporite deposits during a flood? How could you get wind-blown sediments during a flood? How could animals take time to dig burrows during a flood? And how could the burrows be preserved during a flood? What about bird and insect nests? And rain-drop impressions?

Remember, science has to deal with all the evidence. Every smidgeon of it.

And my answer;
The majority of plant life would survive the flood, either in floating mats of plant life or separately. If it survived the flood then it would not have to evolve after the flood, but remain in much the same diversity and numbers that it was created in.

I don't know why you think the topic of survival answers a question about diversity. The source of this question relates to the capacity of the ark. Most creationists contend that the number of species in the ark was much smaller than the number of species we see today. e.g. where there are 3,000 + species of frogs today, the ark would contain only a pair of the frog "kind". So how can one account for so much diversity emerging in the frog kind in the relatively short space of 4,000 years (and actually much less).

My answer (AiG) Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water (Howe, 1968, CRSQ:105-112). Others could have survived in floating masses. Many could have survived as accidental and planned food stores on the ark.

How long? How do you know?

And even if many could survive a full year, as your source points out "Not all could".

In science you must deal with "all" not "many". You have to show how those plants which could not survive in salt water, not even in floating masses, survived the flood.

Ironically, Charles Darwin himself performed experiments floating snails on, and submerging seeds in, salt water, convincing him that they could have survived long sea voyages on driftwood and the like

And what do you know of the specifics of these experiments? Did he submerge any of them for a full year? Would it take a full year of drifting on a current to travel a long distance? What distances are being referred to? And what is the speed of travel?

Unless you can show that the parameters of his experiments are consistent with the demands of a global flood, this is irrelevant evidence.

How do you know he was not thinking in terms of weeks rather than a full year?


As you can see, some of your answers are irrelevant, and some not detailed enough, and some do not take all the evidence into account.

This is typical of the supposed evidence that favours a flood. Most people who believe that a global flood can be supported by the evidence or can explain the geologic column simply don't have any idea of how much evidence there is to explain and how much of it contradicts a global flood.

Every single item above can be and is explained by standard geology. Until flood proponents can provide as good an explanation, with evidence, as standard geology does for every single one of those items---and many more, there is no case for a global flood.

Half-measures won't do. It is not enough for example, to show that in some cases strata can be formed quickly. It must be shown that all strata did form quickly. That is a very different proposition.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When the YEC arguments attempt to introduce YEC as a science, I argue scientifically. When the YEC arguments attempt to introduce theology, I argue theologically. That said, traditionally, theologians have used philosophy of nature (more recently, "science") to guide their interpretations of Scripture.



I don't hold to a perspective that divides sacred and secular.

I'm glad to hear that, and I don't either.

Here's the problem.

You may be aware that every Christmas season many fundamentalist ministers preach Jeremiah 10 to condemn the practice of the Christman tree, as certain verses seem to refer to such practice. This was true in my church for many years. As I followed along in my bible I realized that there was nothing in the text that referred to decorating an evergreen tree with ornaments. In fact, by believing so, one is led away from what the scripture actually means.

As for the flood of Noah, which seems to be a favorite topic on this thread, the same holds true in that:

The flood that most christians believe in never happened, because they are misinterpreting the bible account, just like they do Jeremiah 10.

Similiarly, geologists are debunking a flood that never happened, as they are looking for evidence of the same flood that most christians mistakenly believe happened.

 

[artybloke]

Similiarly, geologists are debunking a flood that never happened, as they are looking for evidence of the same flood that most christians mistakenly believe happened.

I suspect that most geologists don't spend too much time looking for a flood that never happened. They're too busy documenting what really did happen, by looking at the evidence on/in the ground.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

And I answered The geological column was formed by and through the flood. []During the flood almost all of the geological column was formed. Some instances of evidence; Footprints in layers, that could not be preserved unless buried very quickly,

The Grand Canyon is something over a mile deep.
Several hundred meters from the top in the Coconino Sandstone formation are spider tracks and raindrops.

Somehow a spider survived while a mile of sediment was dumped, then the water disappeared long enough for the spider to come out and walk around before it started raining again and another 600 meters of sediment was dumped.

(That last is something of a simplification, there are footprints throughout something like 200 meters of the coconino sandstone with 500+ meters of rock above that.)

The tracks are described here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10491325&postcount=42
(unfortunately the source for the photos is not available.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I suspect that most geologists don't spend too much time looking for a flood that never happened. They're too busy documenting what really did happen, by looking at the evidence on/in the ground.

If true, why do they say that the great flood never happened?

(I tried to delete this response but was unable to. Sorry.)

 

[KerrMetric]

If true, why do they say that the great flood never happened?

(I tried to delete this response but was unable to. Sorry.)

They only say it when Creationists types bring the subject up. I doubt a single geology journal paper has been written addressing a Noachian deluge in 100 years.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The Grand Canyon is something over a mile deep.
Several hundred meters from the top in the Coconino Sandstone formation are spider tracks and raindrops.

Somehow a spider survived while a mile of sediment was dumped, then the water disappeared long enough for the spider to come out and walk around before it started raining again and another 600 meters of sediment was dumped.

(That last is something of a simplification, there are footprints throughout something like 200 meters of the coconino sandstone with 500+ meters of rock above that.)

The tracks are described here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10491325&postcount=42
(unfortunately the source for the photos is not available.)

This account strengthens my belief that:

An ancient pre-Adamic earth was flooded many times over millions of years, laying down many well-formed sediment layers, thus indicating less than turbulent flood waters, at least in this area.

A single huge, violent flood eroded it's way through all these layers to form the Grand Canyon. The Colorado River is just the remaining drainage for the canyon.

A great example of science and scripture in agreement.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This account strengthens my belief that:

An ancient pre-Adamic earth was flooded many times over millions of years, laying down many well-formed sediment layers, thus indicating less than turbulent flood waters, at least in this area.

A single huge, violent flood eroded it's way through all these layers to form the Grand Canyon. The Colorado River is just the remaining drainage for the canyon.

A great example of science and scripture in agreement.

excuse me, but if the flood was worldwide then water could NOT move from one place to another as you propose. all it can do is rise up uniformly. the volume of water through the canyon can not exceed the volume falling in the catchment basin nor can it exceed the sink capacity, which itself is filling up at the same rate as the catchment basin. to get a canyon requires either a long time or burst a very large reservoir. all of the flood geology i've read says that the surface of the earth was rather uniform, with mountains etc pushed up during the flood or soon there after. this they do to minimize the sheer amount of water required to put the tallest mountain underwater.

but in either case, to create canyons via a castastrophic event requires a reservoir not a global flood.

look at it as a source flowing through the canyon to a sink.
in a global flood the sink and source fill up at roughly the same rate. there is no where for the water to go but up.
no, a global flood can not create canyons like the GC, nor is there any evidence of massive floods doing it, but rather lots of evidence for just what you see, a small river working over a very long time.
...