Safari is far from "fully featured". It lacks a ton of features that one would expect from a browser today. Opera Mini is pretty basic too, but the good thing about it is that it compresses stuff between 80-90%, which saves you a lot of money if you pay per MB. And you save time if you are on a slow network.
Opera Mini also supports JavaScript, and some Ajax.
Opera Mini was also ported to C/C++ more than a year ago, so an iPhone port would be trivial. You are clearly extremely poorly informed.
Your ISP sees everything you are doing, and I'll be willing to bet that your ISP is located in a country with far worse privacy laws than Opera Software, located in Norway, which has some of the world's strictest privacy laws.
Tell me, what do blacks have to deal with that whites don't?
You know Wright's "God damn America" comments? The context was evils performed by American governments in the past. He did talk about what blacks had to deal with that whites don't, and these problems exist to this day (though to a lesser degree).
Opera has the entire UIQ user base. They don't need the S60 user base since they are making money like crazy from their Windows Mobile version. S60 already has a decent browser anyway, so if anything "costed[sic] them[sic] entire Symbian userbase", that's it.
S60 already has a decent browser presintalled. There's probably not business for Opera there. On the other hand, HTC's Windows Mobile phones are selling like crazy. Opera didn't do "the unimaginable". They did a very clever thing since they got onto high-volume handsets because mobile IE sucks. They are now making "unimaginable" amounts of money because they put their resources on WM rather than S60.
Opera Mobile 9.5 is so much better than v8 it's ridiculous. It renders pages much better. No wonder, since 9.5 is using the latest engine with lots of compatibility fixes since the outdated v8.
Just because Opera doesn't run on your favorite platform doesn't make it a bad browser. If it does run on a platform, it's excellent. Obviously there's a problem with your platform of choice which causes Opera to bug out. It works fine on other platforms.
Yeah, because knowing what the web is actually made of is completely useless to people and companies who are supposed to be able to handle said web, and need to know what to focus on...
The HD gaming market is going to be a area that Nintendo will have to address and since the purchase of HDTV's is taking off Nintendo better start thinking about a HD capable Wii
They are. They said it even before the Wii was launched. Their next console will be HD. By the time it's released, maybe HDTC is widespread enough to actually justify it as well. It isn't today.
ALL observations today assume thing to remain constant.
No, they do not. In fact, one of the typical creationist arguments, that the amount of dust on the moon and the distance to earth "proves" a young universe because such an old age would not cause what se see today, they claim, assumes that things are constant. Scientists, however, know better. So please stop lying.
All you say is that I am wrong. How do creatures NOT decay?
Did you even try to SEARCH for this information yourself? You clearly don't even want to educate yourself, because you keep denying all facts. If you paid attention and actually read my comments, you would have seen that preventing decay isn't even NECESSARY to form a fossil. There are DIFFERENT ways of forming a fossil. But you, of course, are only interested in pushing your religion on others.
I've given you much more than a prediction. I've given you some evidence that describes scientific knowledge LONG before mankind discovered this.
False. You have dishonestly and desperately tried to re-interpret Bible verses after the fact. However, the Bible clearly tells us that earth is flat, and that it is the center of the universe.
OK, tell me what WERE these supposed non-ecoli?
Why is it relevant what they are called? Please stop it with the red herrings. You just admitted defeat, so stop trying to slither your way out of it.
That is an assumption just as you are assuming that it "evolved" over eons of time by natural selection.
No, it is not an assumption on my part. All the data shows this to be the case.
The fundamental assumption of evolution is that with enough time to throw the dice, modern humans can come into existence.
This is typical of creationists: Lie and misrepresent Evolution. This is a straw man. Are you really this ignorant about Evolution?
The other one, by far the most important and powerful magic, is time.
There is nothing magic about it. Of course, to an ignorant and dishonest fool, it might seem like magic.
It is amazing how often the word "assume" is found in these authoritative appearing tomes.
Really? Where is the word "assume" being used, and what is the context?
Billions of years ago, ceaseless torrents of rain washed minerals from the rocky (minerals come from rocks) land and other compounds formed by the aid of innumerable lightening bolts into the pre-biotic soup (Campbell's?) of the warm seas. There these compounds, bumping into each other, by chance over time, made larger molecules called amino acids.
Once again you display your ignorance. Evolution does not deal with how life first arose. That's Abiogenesis. But hey, since when did creationists care about facts, eh? Furthermore, your description is just as dishonest as always.
Some of these bacteria and other single celled organisms floating around in the lukewarm oceans, again by chance, came together as beneficial co-ops of multi celled groups.
Not by chance, no. But we know by now that you are a dishonest, ignorant scumbag who always lies.
Somehow, maybe by trial and error (chance) some did not dry out, but figured out (smart, because they had brains already) how to breathe air for a while
Once again, a blatant mispresentation.
Please stop lying and misrepresenting Evolution now, please.
Many highly educated and very smart people call this story factual and label it science.
No, they do not. Your story only shows your amazing ignorance. You didn't even come close to describing Evolution.
It is truly amazing the way I expose your ignorance and dishonesty, and yet you continue to spew out more lies and misconceptions.
Tell me, exactly who was here to observe all that?
This is basic geology. A number of observations today confirm that this is the case.
So now evolutionists or evolutionary geologists extrapolate this two centimeters per year linearly and come up with some numbers in the millions.
No, they use a number of observations that all confirm this.
One of my points, which neither you nor any evolutionists ever addresses about fossils is how to prevent decay.
Again, you are wrong. Please educate yourself.
The fact is that fossils do NOT form naturally today and nobody has demonstrated a plausible process whereby they might have formed in the distant past.
Again your ignorance shines through. This is a process that doesn't take place overnight.
They are an integral part of the design of an engine and viruses are integral part installed in living organisms
Viruses are not usually an integral part. Again, educate yourself please. You are making all sorts of bogus assumptions. The fact is that the placement perfectly matches evolutionary predictions.
Maybe you can give me some predictions evolutionary theory makes and on what observations and experiments these are based.
Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).
With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pest.
Let's not forget Tiktaalik, though, which was found because one predicted based on evolutionary theory that such a fossil would have to be found in layer in that area.
I have already given you some Bible statements and the predictions based on them.
And I have already explained that re-interpreting something after the fact is not a scientific prediction.
Which has never been demonstrated in our time.
It has. Please stop lying.
no matter how many generations are applied, the millionth generation of a life form, such as fast multiplying fruit flies or e
Yes, by evolutionary OPINIONS and beliefs, but not the facts.
False. In this post, I thoroughly refuted your misconceptions, and exposed your ignorance.
The facts are that there are very few places, if any, on this planet, that were not at one time covered by water.
But not a global flood.
We find fossils even in the mountains of the Himalaya. Either the waters covered the highest mountains, such as we are told in the Bible, or the mountains arose after the flood.
Your ignorance is astounding.
The Himalyas are formed by the collision of the Indian and Eurasion landmasses which were originally separate. This collision uplifts the mountains, which is why they are still rising.
From around 200 million years ago the area between the 2 separate land masses was covered by the Tethys Sea which was filling with sediments and had sea creatures which left fossils in the sedimentary rocks formed there. Around 70 million years ago the land masses collided and this started pushing up the seabed of the Tethys. Over the years a number of phases of uplift occurred with resulted in the mountain range we see today.
Currently the indian landmass is still moving north at about 2cm a year and the Himalayas are still rising at about half a cm a year.
So the Fossils found in the Himalayas are those formed in the ancient sea bed of the Tethys Sea, now exposed and pushed up to form mountains.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
Even evolutionists will acknowledge that fossils are only found in sedimentary rocks.
Once again your ignorance is astounding.
Sedimentary rock is just one of the three main rock types (the others being igneous and metamorphic rock, which form from magma and other rocks respectively). Rock formed from sediments covers 75-80% of the Earth's land area, and includes common types such as chalk, limestone, dolomite, sandstone, conglomerate and shale.
Fossils so happen to be one of the cornerstones of evolutionary belief and are cited constantly in almost every textbook on the subject as one of the primary evidences for evolution. It is really strange, that evolutionists give fossils as evidence, but have not the foggiest notion how to make a fossil.
And AGAIN your ignorance AND dishonesty is exposed. We DO know how fossils are formed. Did you use Google to educate yourself like I told you?
I do know, as I explained in the previous post, that fossils MUST form quickly. There is no way to make a fossil over a period of thousands or even millions of years.
Again, just because YOU are ignorant doesn't mean that everyone else is. FYI, there are five different ways ways an organism can become fossilised:
Permineralization (Petrification) - This process involves the replacement of the original organic tissues with minerals from the surrounding rock, including silica, calcite or pyrite.
Unaltered preservation - This occurs when the organism is preserved in its original state and protected from the affects of permineralization. Examples of this include insects which become trapped in tree sap, which later turns to amber.
Would you please explain HOW fossils or ERVs or any FACT of science contradicts the theory that an intelligent designer
ERVs are entirely inconsistent with the "magically created out of nothing" nonsense. ERVs are viruses which have infected germ cells after the life form appeared. It has then been spreading through the generations, and is found in the same locations in species that are separate today, but that have been shown to have a common ancestor.
Furthermore, the fact is that Evolution makes predictions that turn out to be true, and it has practical applications. We can use our knowledge of ERVs in practical work, and indeed use them to verify if predictions made based on Evolution are true. For example, if chimps and humans share a common ancestor, we would expect to find ERVs in the same places, and we did! Neither of these apply to creationism.
What makes you assume that ERVs are flaws?
They are viruses that were once separate, but which were embedded into the genome.
ALL mathematical models make assumptions
What assumptions?
If e-coli or other organism are altered so they cannot reproduce, that doesn't make them COMPLETELY different.
A bacteria without the characteristics that are special for e-coli is not e-coli. E-coli turned into non-e-coli.
Experiments with fruit flies make all sorts of mutations, but the creature are still essentially fruit files.
But they cannot interbreed, which means that speciation has taken place. So we have shown that speciation takes place, and we have shown that evolution causes fundamental changes (e-coli or even nylonase, where a new protein/enzyme appeared, which means that there is no limit to how the entire organism can chance).
The theory of an Intelligent designer can explain every single FACT of observational and experimental science.
No. To claim this, you must ignore facts. Like the list I gave you refuting your claim about the Grand Canyon.
For example, you mentioned fossils. The only FACT we now have, is that there are fossils. Nobody has ever made one or watched one being made. Today, any living organism decays quickly after death, long before it can be fossilized. So what conditions would be needed today to make a fossil?
LOL. Just because you don't know how fossils can form doesn't mean that no one knows. Just use Google and educate yourself.
Would you please explain to me how these conditions to make fossils came by any slow evolutionary means?
LOL. Fossilization is not part of Evolution. Your ignorance shines through again.
Here is the explanation , or interpretation, of the fact that we do find fossils, as seen through the eyes of the biblical world view.
Unfortunately, your "explanation" ignores evidence and is basically completely bogus. The fact that you are relying on a claim of a "global flood", which has been refuted a long time ago shows your dishonesty and/or ignorance.
No, it is an INTERPRETATION of facts based on world view.
It is an EXPLANATION which is supported by all facts.
It is a fact, that scientists have never been able to make evolution of even simple one celled organisms happen.
False. Evolution is descent with modification.
Nobody has ever transformed an amoeba into a paramecium or an e-coli into a spirochete.
This shows your incredible ignorance. Just like other ignorant creationists you think Evolution is about existing life forms turning into OTHER existing life forms.
Thousands of generations of fruit flies have always without even a single exception produced ONLY more fruit-flies.
False. Speciation has taken place.
There is a barrier in reproduction of living things that has never been crossed.
False. Even something as simple as the domestic banana. Completely different from the "wild" banana, and can't interbreed. Even something as simple as dogs. They have a HUGE variety in looks and function.
In Genesis we read that the creatures were designed to reproduce after their KIND. That statement has never been shown to be false
Creationists can't even explain what "kind" means.
For every LINEAR process in nature, I can name at least one or maybe two that are highly nonlinear.
What linear process in nature? Evolution does not work along a line. It's a branched tree. Again your ignorance shines through.
In geology, there is plenty of evidence of sudden catastrophic events making sweeping changes to the surface of the earth.
So what?
Can anyone who has ever stood at the edge of the Grand Canyon really believe that the teensy-weensy river at the bottom could have done THAT? It looks more likely that it was formed by an Ocean's worth of water suddenly carving a gigantic gully in the plateau.
1. We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:
a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
streamlined relict islands.
2. The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.
3. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.
4. Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.
5. The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.
6. Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.
7. Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted no
Slashdot Mirror
Safari is far from "fully featured". It lacks a ton of features that one would expect from a browser today. Opera Mini is pretty basic too, but the good thing about it is that it compresses stuff between 80-90%, which saves you a lot of money if you pay per MB. And you save time if you are on a slow network.
Opera Mini also supports JavaScript, and some Ajax.
Opera Mini was also ported to C/C++ more than a year ago, so an iPhone port would be trivial. You are clearly extremely poorly informed.
Opera Mini doesn't even have a browser engine. It's a thin client, and all the site handling is done by Opera's servers.
Except Opera Mini is much, much better if you pay per MB or your network connection is slow. Stuff is typically compressed 80-90% or so.
Opera Mini was ported to C/C++ more than a year ago.
Your ISP sees everything you are doing, and I'll be willing to bet that your ISP is located in a country with far worse privacy laws than Opera Software, located in Norway, which has some of the world's strictest privacy laws.
Apple fanboys...
Um, Opera Mini shows pages in an overview mode by default, laid out like on your PC. You can then zoom in, just like in Safari.
Those Westerners don't force women to wear veils and stuff like that.
Communism is exactly like organized religion, only with a supernatural God replaced by an all-powerful leader.
No, it's the same. Because it's the exact same mechanisms at play. Communism is as vile and evil as Christianity.
You know Wright's "God damn America" comments? The context was evils performed by American governments in the past. He did talk about what blacks had to deal with that whites don't, and these problems exist to this day (though to a lesser degree).
And there is every reason for one who is not a Christian to oppose Christianity.
No Flash, but it compresses stuff mostly up to 80-90%.
Opera has the entire UIQ user base. They don't need the S60 user base since they are making money like crazy from their Windows Mobile version. S60 already has a decent browser anyway, so if anything "costed[sic] them[sic] entire Symbian userbase", that's it.
S60 already has a decent browser presintalled. There's probably not business for Opera there. On the other hand, HTC's Windows Mobile phones are selling like crazy. Opera didn't do "the unimaginable". They did a very clever thing since they got onto high-volume handsets because mobile IE sucks. They are now making "unimaginable" amounts of money because they put their resources on WM rather than S60.
Opera Mobile 9.5 is so much better than v8 it's ridiculous. It renders pages much better. No wonder, since 9.5 is using the latest engine with lots of compatibility fixes since the outdated v8.
Opera Mobile 9.5 is free of charge.
Just because Opera doesn't run on your favorite platform doesn't make it a bad browser. If it does run on a platform, it's excellent. Obviously there's a problem with your platform of choice which causes Opera to bug out. It works fine on other platforms.
What isn't working on your site? BTW, Opera Mini is a proxy based browser. Did you try Opera Mobile 9.5 which is a full browser?
What redirect does Opera Mobile fail on?
Yeah, because knowing what the web is actually made of is completely useless to people and companies who are supposed to be able to handle said web, and need to know what to focus on...
They are. They said it even before the Wii was launched. Their next console will be HD. By the time it's released, maybe HDTC is widespread enough to actually justify it as well. It isn't today.
No, they do not. In fact, one of the typical creationist arguments, that the amount of dust on the moon and the distance to earth "proves" a young universe because such an old age would not cause what se see today, they claim, assumes that things are constant. Scientists, however, know better. So please stop lying.
Did you even try to SEARCH for this information yourself? You clearly don't even want to educate yourself, because you keep denying all facts. If you paid attention and actually read my comments, you would have seen that preventing decay isn't even NECESSARY to form a fossil. There are DIFFERENT ways of forming a fossil. But you, of course, are only interested in pushing your religion on others.
False. You have dishonestly and desperately tried to re-interpret Bible verses after the fact. However, the Bible clearly tells us that earth is flat, and that it is the center of the universe.
Why is it relevant what they are called? Please stop it with the red herrings. You just admitted defeat, so stop trying to slither your way out of it.
No, it is not an assumption on my part. All the data shows this to be the case.
This is typical of creationists: Lie and misrepresent Evolution. This is a straw man. Are you really this ignorant about Evolution?
There is nothing magic about it. Of course, to an ignorant and dishonest fool, it might seem like magic.
Really? Where is the word "assume" being used, and what is the context?
Once again you display your ignorance. Evolution does not deal with how life first arose. That's Abiogenesis. But hey, since when did creationists care about facts, eh? Furthermore, your description is just as dishonest as always.
Not by chance, no. But we know by now that you are a dishonest, ignorant scumbag who always lies.
Once again, a blatant mispresentation.
Please stop lying and misrepresenting Evolution now, please.
No, they do not. Your story only shows your amazing ignorance. You didn't even come close to describing Evolution.
Why do you insist on lying?
This is basic geology. A number of observations today confirm that this is the case.
No, they use a number of observations that all confirm this.
Again, you are wrong. Please educate yourself.
Again your ignorance shines through. This is a process that doesn't take place overnight.
Viruses are not usually an integral part. Again, educate yourself please. You are making all sorts of bogus assumptions. The fact is that the placement perfectly matches evolutionary predictions.
With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pest.
Let's not forget Tiktaalik, though, which was found because one predicted based on evolutionary theory that such a fossil would have to be found in layer in that area.
And I have already explained that re-interpreting something after the fact is not a scientific prediction.
It has. Please stop lying.
False. In this post, I thoroughly refuted your misconceptions, and exposed your ignorance.
But not a global flood.
Your ignorance is astounding.
The Himalyas are formed by the collision of the Indian and Eurasion landmasses which were originally separate. This collision uplifts the mountains, which is why they are still rising.
From around 200 million years ago the area between the 2 separate land masses was covered by the Tethys Sea which was filling with sediments and had sea creatures which left fossils in the sedimentary rocks formed there. Around 70 million years ago the land masses collided and this started pushing up the seabed of the Tethys. Over the years a number of phases of uplift occurred with resulted in the mountain range we see today.
Currently the indian landmass is still moving north at about 2cm a year and the Himalayas are still rising at about half a cm a year.
So the Fossils found in the Himalayas are those formed in the ancient sea bed of the Tethys Sea, now exposed and pushed up to form mountains.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Once again your ignorance is astounding.
Sedimentary rock is just one of the three main rock types (the others being igneous and metamorphic rock, which form from magma and other rocks respectively). Rock formed from sediments covers 75-80% of the Earth's land area, and includes common types such as chalk, limestone, dolomite, sandstone, conglomerate and shale.
And AGAIN your ignorance AND dishonesty is exposed. We DO know how fossils are formed. Did you use Google to educate yourself like I told you?
Again, just because YOU are ignorant doesn't mean that everyone else is. FYI, there are five different ways ways an organism can become fossilised:
Permineralization (Petrification) - This process involves the replacement of the original organic tissues with minerals from the surrounding rock, including silica, calcite or pyrite.
Unaltered preservation - This occurs when the organism is preserved in its original state and protected from the affects of permineralization. Examples of this include insects which become trapped in tree sap, which later turns to amber.
Carbonization (Coalification)
ERVs are entirely inconsistent with the "magically created out of nothing" nonsense. ERVs are viruses which have infected germ cells after the life form appeared. It has then been spreading through the generations, and is found in the same locations in species that are separate today, but that have been shown to have a common ancestor.
Furthermore, the fact is that Evolution makes predictions that turn out to be true, and it has practical applications. We can use our knowledge of ERVs in practical work, and indeed use them to verify if predictions made based on Evolution are true. For example, if chimps and humans share a common ancestor, we would expect to find ERVs in the same places, and we did! Neither of these apply to creationism.
They are viruses that were once separate, but which were embedded into the genome.
What assumptions?
A bacteria without the characteristics that are special for e-coli is not e-coli. E-coli turned into non-e-coli.
But they cannot interbreed, which means that speciation has taken place. So we have shown that speciation takes place, and we have shown that evolution causes fundamental changes (e-coli or even nylonase, where a new protein/enzyme appeared, which means that there is no limit to how the entire organism can chance).
No. To claim this, you must ignore facts. Like the list I gave you refuting your claim about the Grand Canyon.
LOL. Just because you don't know how fossils can form doesn't mean that no one knows. Just use Google and educate yourself.
LOL. Fossilization is not part of Evolution. Your ignorance shines through again.
Unfortunately, your "explanation" ignores evidence and is basically completely bogus. The fact that you are relying on a claim of a "global flood", which has been refuted a long time ago shows your dishonesty and/or ignorance.
It is an EXPLANATION which is supported by all facts.
False. Evolution is descent with modification.
This shows your incredible ignorance. Just like other ignorant creationists you think Evolution is about existing life forms turning into OTHER existing life forms.
False. Speciation has taken place.
False. Even something as simple as the domestic banana. Completely different from the "wild" banana, and can't interbreed. Even something as simple as dogs. They have a HUGE variety in looks and function.
Creationists can't even explain what "kind" means.
What linear process in nature? Evolution does not work along a line. It's a branched tree. Again your ignorance shines through.
So what?
1. We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:
2. The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.
3. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.
4. Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.
5. The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.
6. Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.
7. Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted no