> Even if I grant this, that is hardly a Grand Canyon with 5000 feet of
> erosion and it is for a short distance, not the hundreds of miles of length.
> Has anyone on your side calculated how much water would be required to
> suspend the quantity of sediment needed to excavate the Grand Canyon? Could
> that lake you all propose have held that amount of water? It is time for
> you all to do a calculation. :-)
>From "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe", Steven A. Austin, Editor,
Institute for Creation Research, 1994, pp 92-93.
"If Grand Canyon were blocked by material filling it to an elevation of
5,700 feet, an enormous lake would form on the saucer-shaped plateau.
Figure 5.8 shows the outline of the lake which would formtoday if Grand
Canyon was blocked and the basin to the northeast was allowed to fill
with water. The lakes would cover an area of more than 30,000 square
miles and contain 3,000 cubic miles of water."
Loose sand is about 1/3 air, so I would think a slurry of 50% water and
50% sand would be flowable as a "mud flow." If rock were solid with no
porosity (overly conservative), and abraded into a sand, then a 50-50
slurry with 3,000 cubic miles of water would carry 3,000 cubic miles of
rock. If Grand Canyon were 100 miles long, 1 mile deep and 10 miles
wide (assume a flat bottom and vertical sides), then the volume of the
Canyon would be 1,000 cubic miles. I would think there is enough water
to cut the Canyon catastrophically.
Bill Payne