Yes.
But the nature of many of your claims and questions indicates that you haven't looked much beyond "what your creation buddies present you".
I would hasten to say, no.
I would hasten to say that your snap judgements are often wrong.
Have you ever seen a river flow uphill 3,000 feet?
No, but since the Colorado River doesn't do that, that's a nice straw man you've got there.
Have you ever seen a global flood? Have you ever seen a global flood produce ice beds with 40,000 annual layers? Have you ever seen a global flood that wouldn't leave large amounts of terrestrial debris on the sea floors? Have you ever seen a flood that would "sort" all dinosaur remains under all elephant remains? Have you ever seen a flood deposit layered fossil forests? Have you ever seen a flood deposite layers of salt? Have you ever seen a flood deposit thousands of meters of limestone in a short period of time, gathering such unbelievably vast amounts of microscope sea life from *where*, exactly? Have you ever seen a flood that could produce 5 x 1022 grams of limestone without boiling all the oceans of the Earth (and poaching Noah and his family) from the exothermic reaction which forms calcite?
That river did not cut that canyon. It was formed rather rapidly at the flood.
So... You're saying the Grand Canyon couldn't have been formed by flowing water, instead it was formed by flowing water?
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v15n1_grandcanyon.asp
Nice, try, but that page is full of errors, straw men, failure to address all the evidence, etc. Here's a nice piece of transparently false overstatement:
At first glance this interpretation would appear to be an embarrassment to Bible-believing geologists who are unanimous in their belief that it must have been Noah’s Flood that deposited the flat lying beds [...]Um, "unanimous"? Hardly. First, most "Bible-believing geologists" believe the Grand Canyon rock formations were laid down over millions of years. Worse, just TWO PARAGRAPHS LATER they themselves quote a Christian geologist who states, "no flood of any size could have produced such deposits of sand..." I'm sorry, wasn't the Flood hypothesis supposed to be a "unanimous" one? Worse, they flatly contradict themselves later on the page:
and not by desert accumulation of sand dunes as emphatically maintained by most evolutionary geologists, including Christians like Davis Young.Do they even think about the claims they make, or do they just say whatever sounds good?
Your link discusses two points of argument: 1. "Those aren't surface animal tracks, those are amphibian tracks, dangit", and 2. "Those aren't sand dunes, those are underwater sand piles." The reason they want to argue for underwater processes instead of in-air processes is, as they freely admit, because this would cause a major problem for any Flood scenario. But their own attempted explanations leave a lot to be desired.
Let's examine each of them and see how well they hold up:
1. The Coconino sandstone layer of the Grand Canyon strata unmistakably shows animal tracks across its (many) surfaces. And yet, the creationist version of the the Grand Canyon story maintains that the thousands of feet of layers were laid down almost instantaneously (no more than a single year total, actually much less according to their beliefs about what the Flood did when).
So to "explain" (or "explain away") the animal tracks, they suggest that the sands were a) laid down underwater by the churning Flood waters, b) the animal tracks were made by aquatic amphibians running for their lives across the sea floor.
This fails on almost every level. First, there are many lines of evidence clearly pointing to a wind-blown sand dune origin for these sands, including fossilized raindrop impressions. You just don't see many raindrops under the ocean...
Second, the mighty straining to write off one kind of animal track as amphibious instead of reptilian, besides being contrary to the evidence, very conspicuously fails to even attempt to address the insect and mammal tracks which are also present in the sands. Last time I checked, there weren't a lot of spiders, scorpions, or mammals trotting around on the sea floor.
Spider track (along bottom), raindrop impressions, and piece of bark:
Bark floats -- what's it doing lying flat on the "bottom of the ocean" on top of several cubic miles of sand that has just washed into place (according to AiG) next to some raindrop impressions and the tracks of, um, an aquatic spider?
Scorpion tracks (note the characteristic tail-dragging):
There are also animal burrows preserved in the sands. Pretty amazing for animals to manage to burrow into sand as 10,000 cubic miles of it are being violently water-transported 2-300 miles through the ocean in just a few days, eh? (These are AiG's OWN FIGURES).
They also say that this happened at least 300 feet under the surface of the water, a considerable period of time after the Flood allegedly started. Just how many amphibians do they think would be left alive at that point to make countless tracks along the sea floor 300 feet underwater after all that titanic churning of rock and wave?
2. AiG claims that rather than being sand dunes accumulated over millions of years, the Coconino sandstone layer of the Grand Canyon was, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, violently shifted several hundred miles by "flood action" in incredible volumes and dumped over 200,000 square miles in "a matter of days".
There are, shall we say, several little problems with this.
The first is that such a massive "move and dump" would leave the "internal" structure of the sandstone just an amorphous pile of well-mixed sand. But that's not what we see. Instead, it's made up of many, many layers of overlapping dunes and wavy horizons:
Second, the sandstone is layered:
Note that this slab consists of two thin layers of sandstone, and must have been lifted off yet another layer since the spider tracks are a "cast" of the underlying tracks (they bump "out" instead of "in"). How exactly is the "10,000 cubic miles dumped in just days" scenario going to explain how multiple distinct thin layers of sand were nicely stacked?
Worse, animal tracks occur BETWEEN layers at various depths. AiG wrote their web page in a way to give the impression that animal tracks only occur on the *top* of the thick layer of sand, as if it was dumped there, and then animals went skittering across the top of it. That is not the case, but they sure seem to believe it themselves when they write of "catastrophic deposition of the sand by deep fast-moving water in a matter of days" followed by "in its waning stages, build huge sand waves in deep water". This begs the question, how exactly did those spiders and such manage to stroll across the various underlying surfaces of the sand as more was being "catastrophically deposited" on top? And how did *any* animal tracks (at any level) survive what AiG calls the building of "huge sand waves in deep water"? It seems that AiG would also expect to find clean animal tracks inside the remains of a massive mudslide which had been subsequently bulldozed -- from animals which made them during the mudslide itself and/or bulldozing. Color me skeptical.
Finally, the whole exercise is a graphic example of one of "scientific creationism's" favorite tactics: "resolving" one issue by proposing ad hoc scenarios that make NO SENSE in even their own larger picture. But we weren't supposed to notice that...
For example, they've tried to explain *ONE* layer in the Grand Canyon by proposing massive currents bringing in 10,000 cubic miles of sand, then "waning" to the point where it could appropriately make wavy shapes on the deposited sand. Okay, fine, so they propose that the flood waters had "waned" once the sand was deposited and then it was time to make pretty swirls on top. That's nice. THEN WHERE IN THE HELL DID THE SIX HUNDRED FEET OF ADDITIONAL ROCK OVER IT COME FROM?
See the layer marked "CS"? That's the Coconino Sandstone. See the enormous layers marked TF (Toroweap Formation), KFf (Kaibab Formation - Fossil Mountain Member), and KFh (Kaibab Formation - Harrisburg Member)? That's 600 additional feet of rock on top of the Coconino. AiG sort of "forgot" to explain how *those* ended up on top of the sand after the Flood waters had "waned".
Nor do they even acknowledge, much less explain, the 2500+ feet of rock layers *under* the Coconino sandstone, along with all their (varying) fossils, tracks, compositions, and histories.
Rather a schoolchild willing to learn than one WILLFULLY ignorant.
You are invited to point out exactly what you believe he has demonstrated "ignorance" of.
I doubt very seriously that you have ever considered flood geology, or studied Mt. St. Helens eruption and the geology of that catastrophy.
You doubt many things which you should not.
For those who care to learn, there are many articles online and elsewhere. Here is one of them: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm
This one boils down to, "a gully a hundred feet deep can form in ash and mud in a few years, therefore the Grand Canyon, over a mile deep, could too". Not convinced.