IS
THERE EVIDENCE FOR A RAPID FORMATION OF THE GRAND CANYON?

Bob Goettea

Yes. But before we look at some of the evidence, let us pause a moment on the South Rim and contemplate this magnificent formation – 277 miles long, including the 60 mile long Marble Canyon, 3000–6000 feet deep, and 4 to 18 miles wide. In order to produce the present form of the canyon 1000 cubic miles of sediment had to be removed! All of man’s trash could be placed in just a small part of it (we hope that will never happen!)

According to Dr. Steve Austin, Institute of Creation Research geologist, some of the evidences for a relict1 landscape and youthful canyon follow.

(1) The prominent slopes of the canyon are generally in an arrested stage of development. An example of this is the rather sheer Redwall Limestone cliffs which have a red surface coating derived from the overlying reddish Supai Formation. The Redwall cliffs are not now eroding back to any major extent in the canyon.

(2) The deepest and oldest rocks, found in the inner gorge of the canyon, are covered with desert varnish. The Vishnu Schist, as these non-stratified metamorphic rocks are called, are believed by many creationists to be Creation Week rocks. This dark, sometimes shiny, coating of brown to black manganese oxide and clay minerals is deposited on the rock surface over hundreds of years. Thus, the presence of desert varnish indicates a long period of stability and not continuous erosion.

(3) The relatively flat surface of the Kalbab and Coconino plateaus which form the north and south rims, respectively, of the Grand Canyon are not now evolving.

(4) The many side canyons which branch off the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon area are typically short, rather wide, quite deep with bowl-shaped heads. These are not typical of the W” shaped gullies formed from stream erosion. In fact, streams are rarely found at the head of these canyons today – thus suggesting they are relict features. The bowl-shaped heads suggest collapse where water oozed out of wet sediment causing the supporting layers of sediment or rock to be removed.

(5) Dr. Austin writes,2 “Just up stream from Grand Canyon in Marble Gorge [Canyon], the channel of the Colorado River forms incised meanders. Laboratory experiments indicate that these elaborate meandering canyons could not have formed by the continued action of the present river. Greater water flow was required. Thus, the present Colorado River can be considered ‘underfit’ relative to its canyon.”

Dr. Austin’s study of the after

BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 78

Figure 1. Computer-generated shoreline of the ancient lake which would form behind the Kaibab Upwarp if the Grand Canyon were blocked at 5,700-feet.

effects of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption3 revealed a 1/40th-sized “Grand Canyon.” The North Fork of the Toufle River had been blocked with debris and volcanic ash on May 18, 1980. Subsequent catastrophic breaching of the dam on March 19, 1982 eroded, with mud and water, this “miniature Grand Canyon” with many forms similar to those in the Grand Canyon of Arizona. These observations suggested to Dr. Austin the ‘Catastrophic Drainage Theory’ for the formation of the Grand Canyon.

He states,4 “… it seems certain that the Kaibab Upwarp [see Diagram 1] was established before the Colorado River was positioned across northern Arizona… the uplift of the plateau [could] have created a drainage basin east of the Grand Canyon which completely filled with flood water [this could have been happening in the latter part of the year of the Flood as land masses were readjusting and the waters were receding]. There is evidence that an impounded mass of water existed on the east side of the Kaibab Upwarp.” Sedimentary deposits east of the Grand Canyon in the Bida-hochi Formation, “contain regular layers of silt and sand which look like lake deposits which would have been deposited from accelerated erosion in the drainage basin now occupied by the upper Colorado River… the large dam crea-

BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 79

ted by the Kaibab Upwarp [could] have been breached (dams do not fail slowly, but catastrophically) allowing the ‘lake’ behind it to drain over the plateau through northern Arizona initiating the erosion of Grand Canyon.”

Most evolutionary geologists have given up the ‘Antecedent River Theory’ which says that the Grand Canyon was cut by the Ancestral Colorado River which continued to cut through the Kaibab Plateau as it was being uplifted over supposed millions of years. Reasons for abandoning this theory include (1) The million cubic miles of sediment which would have had to be removed, based on current rates, are not found near Pierce Ferry at the western end of the canyon. Rather, a relatively pure limestone bed is found (Hualapai Limestone). (2) Radiometric dating, even with its faulty assumptions, does not support an old date for the lower part of the Grand Canyon.

Rather, most evolutionary geologists currently favor what is called the ‘River Capture Theory’ or ‘Precocious Gully Theory.’ This theory states that the Ancestral Colorado River was the Little Colorado River, flowing westward toward the Kaibab Upwarp and then alongside It [see Diagram 2A, below] and back to the southeast eventually emptying into the Gulf of Mexico. A westward flowing drainage was supposed to have eventually (over 5-10 million years) cut back eastward into the Kaibab Upwarp and captured the Little Colorado River [see Diagram 2B] which reversed its direction of flow to join what is now known as the Colorado River. Then, over the years, the rest of Grand Canyon was formed [see Diagram 2C].

Dr. Austin, in critiquing this theory, sayss, “There are many elevated plateaus in the world, but none of them have Grand Canyon gullies through them… [there is] no major structural reason why the enlarged drainage should have been situated where the Grand Canyon is today. The gully must enlarge to the east through a sloping plateau which has drainage to the south. There should have been intense erosion generally to the plateau lands [surrounding the Grand Canyon], not just in one enlarged gully. No obvious abandoned channel.., can be found southeast of the Grand Canyon… no colossal quantity [of alluvial sediments] occurs east of Grand Canyon.”

Thus we see that there is a great deal of evidence to support the idea that the Grand Canyon was formed by catastrophic drainage which is not now operating. It could well have resulted from Noah’s Flood, sent by God as a judgment upon man’s sin. There is abundant evidence, too, that the Grand Canyon is “not a constantly evolving landform in equilibrium with slow, modern, erosive processes.”