Why is it every thread around here degenerates into whacko creation-science?

Oz:
Yes, the grandcanyon mb deep, but the flood was bigger so it really doesn't matter how deep it was, Einstein.
And I wasn't refering to the canyon as sand, I was mearly using the sand as an example.
We are talking about a cataclysmic event not some crappy little flood it was huge, Let me give you some examples on how rock can be cut and screwed around with in a very short time.

In the scab lands of eastern Washington is an even more dramatic example of the incredible erosion force of rapidly flowing water. An ancient lake was blocked at the end of the ice age by an ice dam in northern Idaho. When the water breached the dam it ripped through Montana, Idaho, andWashington leaving 16,000 square miles of scarred terrain and deeply cut valleys. At one location the flood cut a 50 mile long trench 6 miles wide and 900 feet deep through solid rock! An estimated 10 cubic miles of Columbia Plateau basalt was eroded in a matter of hours by this single event.

I think the Grand Canyon has been carved out by a similar catastrophic events and processes.[/b]
We know the washington scablands were made during a flood, partly because they correspond with all of the features you would expect from such an event. There are numerous examples on this planet and mars of geological features formed through flooding; the grand canyon resembles none. A flood would not create a single, deep channel. It would not create a river that meandered 5:1 in certain places. To think that the grand canyon is the result of a flood similar to the washington scablands is pure fantasy - it is not supported by any credible geological evidence.

Many qualified geologist are coming to believe this is exactly what has happened. These geologists have proposed that a large area of the Southwestern United States was covered by water which apparently broke through a natural dam and very rapidly eroded much of the Grand Canyon to its current depth. The water for this massive erosion came from gigantic lakes left on the plateau when the worldwide flood receded.[/b]
This is what people are talking about your 'answers being controlled by christianity'; there is noone in mainstream geology is proposing this model for the formation of the grand canyon. In part because the grand canyon could not have been formed by a single flood, and in part because a worldwide flood goes against all geologic evidence collected in over a century.

Neither the inability of moving water to produce the massive geological features nor the lack of evidence for a worldwide flood prevents geologists from accepting the Biblical flood account as reality.[/b]
Water can produce massive geological features, yes - but you are aware that is physically impossible for a single flood to do so, right? Take the grand canyon for example; under the biblcal model a single flood would have to both lay the sediment it is made out of and erode through it. Except receding floodwaters more 'wash away' than 'erode' freshly laid sediment. Under the flood model we would see a uniformity of features across the whole globe that correspond to massive deposits of fresh sediment being washed away at once - we just don't see that.

There is really nothing in the biblical flood model for geologists - there is no evidence for it (no predictions of the flood model pan out) and there is ample evidence against it (falsifications of the model are everywhere). You really should stray away from fundamentalist sources and read some real science every now and again. Any introductory geology textbook would do.