A paper was recently published in Science that suggested a lake may have helped carve Grand Canyon.¹ This hypothesis has been scattered throughout conventional literature since 1934 but hasn’t become largely accepted.^2,3 Those that propose a lake’s involvement, or that of a series of lakes, recognize the need for more water than what the Colorado River alone could provide to remove over 1,000 cubic miles of rock to form the canyon. It is just too much material, even with the six million years that conventional scientists give the river.

The research team, led by John J. Y. He from UCLA, sampled zircon crystals from several rock formations surrounding Grand Canyon, including the Miocene Bidahochi Formation east of Grand Canyon, and dated them using uranium-lead isotopes.¹ These dates, however inaccurate they may be, can still be useful in identifying common sources for scattered sedimentary material, sort of like fingerprints for rocks.

Interestingly, the research team found significant differences between the upper and lower members (sedimentary layers consisting of a specific rock type unique to a particular layer) of the Bidahochi Formation. These distinctions suggest there were different sources for the two units’ respective contents.¹ Although the researchers never discuss the source for the lower member, they did find that the upper member was likely fed by the upstream Colorado River drainage system that presumably came from the north. Based on their zircon dates, they claim this occurred about 6.6 million years ago. Moreover, they found that that the upper Bidahochi member better matched the signature of rocks in the downstream portion of the Colorado River, beyond Lake Mead.¹

Using this information, they proposed the upper Colorado River (including the Green River) began filling a lake that was dammed by the Kaibab Uplift, a large upheaval on the east end of Grand Canyon, about 6.6 million years ago (Upper Miocene). This claim was further supported by similar fossil fish species found in the upper Bidahochi and sediments surrounding these upstream river systems.¹ The researchers note that the first occurrence of similar zircon-dated sediment in the lower part of the Colorado River (beyond Lake Mead) didn’t appear until after 5.6, and possibly as late as 4.8, million years ago.¹ This gives a lag in time of 0.4 to 1.2 million years when a dammed lake could have been holding back water until it “spilled over” and made it downstream.¹

The study team admits that this lake probably didn’t carve out the entire canyon, since it likely wouldn’t have had sufficient water; but they do suggest it established the course of the downstream Colorado River by etching the surface.¹

Interestingly, the researchers concluded,

It is notable that lake spillover would have established the route of the river, allowing the initiation of new fluvial [river] incision, but catastrophic flooding during the process is not necessarily invoked as contributing substantially to canyon deepening.¹

So, a lake spillover is claimed to have happened but not flooding because it would sound too much like the Noahic event. However, one critic said that “it’s still possible the water took a different route.”⁴

There is another glaring issue. The massive Kaibab Uplift was in place by the time the Bidahochi was being deposited, blocking the river’s pathway to the Pacific Ocean. So, somehow, the proposed lake had to cross this 7,500-foot-high uplift to get to the other side and carve, or at least etch, the canyon.¹ In the past, conventional geologists have suggested that the Colorado River got through the Kaibab Uplift by tunneling through via caves or by carving a path via a river from the west side of the uplift.⁴ But all of these ideas have serious flaws and end up being just-so stories.

To counter this Kaibab Uplift issue, the team identified what they interpreted as “beachrock” and “shoreline” deposits as high as 7,380 feet in elevation.^1,4 Although still too low to topple the uplift, they suggested that “a possible paleocanyon notching the Kaibab arch or a north-facing scarp may have localized incision in the middle of the southeastwardly plunging arch,” thereby accounting for the inconvenient difference in elevation between their proposed lake and the height of the uplift.¹ But this is no different than the flawed suggestions mentioned above. Even other conventional scientists, like Matthew Heizler of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, doubt these are truly beachrock and shoreline deposits.⁴

So, where does that leave us? What carved Grand Canyon? Some creation scientists suggest a big lake or even three lakes, similar to the one proposed in the recent paper, carved the canyon as a catastrophic outburst. They envision this as an Ice Age lake system that built up after the Flood was over. But the so-called lake sediments of the Bidahochi Formation are too old to be from the Ice Age. About 150 Ice Age lava flows that cascaded down the side of the canyon demonstrate it was already in existence prior to that point.⁵ Furthermore, there are too many massive side canyons all along the length of Grand Canyon to be carved by a single catastrophic lake outburst, such as Separation Canyon and many others. And even this spillover or breached dam scenario has to somehow get through the Kaibab Uplift, too.

The simplest solution to the canyon’s formation is the receding water of the global Flood.^6,7 It provided ample water to remove 1,000 cubic miles of rock and sediment and sweep the canyon clean. It also better explains why there are so many deep side canyons all along the 277-mile course of Grand Canyon. Receding floodwater likely drained (receded) off the west flank of the fledgling Colorado Plateau and the surrounding Rocky Mountains in multiple directions, funneling into the Colorado River basin and carving deep gorges and canyons in the process.

The Flood also explains why so many rivers are able to cut through massive uplifts. It’s simple—at one point, the floodwater was higher than these features. The water didn’t have to tunnel through uplifts, wait for two rivers to serendipitously coincide, or follow caves through the rocks. As I explained in an earlier article,

water follows the easiest path. Receding floodwater would naturally have followed the cracks and fractures in the freshly deposited and uplifted Flood sediments of the Colorado Plateau. The water draining off the Colorado Plateau would have flowed westerly toward the Pacific Ocean. Rapid uplift and surface drainage of receding floodwater provide both the path and the necessary volume of water to quickly carve out Grand Canyon. And this process would have concluded prior to the Ice Age, eliminating any timing conflicts with the canyon formation and the later lava flows . . . . No hypothetical lakes are necessary as a water source in this explanation.⁵

The deposits of the Bidahochi Formation and the fossil fish found there were most likely from an earlier part of the receding phase of the Flood. Naturally, there could be some “ponding” of water in low-lying areas. But the best explanation for Grand Canyon, its timing, and deep side canyons is still the receding floodwater.

References

1. He, J. J. Y. et al. 2026. Late Miocene Colorado River Arrival in the Bidahochi Basin Supports Spillover Origin of Grand Canyon. Science. 392 (6795): 289–295.
2. Blackwelder, E. 1934. Origin of the Colorado River. GSA Bulletin. 45 (3): 551–566.
3. Helble, T. and C. Hill. 2016. Carving of the Grand Canyon: A Lot of Time and a Little Water, a Lot of Water and a Little Time (or Something Else?). In The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah’s Flood Explain the Grand Canyon? C. Hill, G. Davidson, T. Helble, and W. Ranney, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 163–171.
4. Voosen, P. 2026. Ancient Lake’s Flood May Have Etched the Grand Canyon. Science. 392 (6795): 238–239.
5. Clarey, T. 2020. Lava Flows Disqualify Lake Spillover Canyon Theory. Acts & Facts. 49 (10): 10–12.
6. Clarey, T. 2018. Grand Canyon Carved by Flood Runoff. Acts & Facts. 47 (12): 10–13. 
7. Clarey, T. 2020. Carved in Stone: Geological Evidence of the Worldwide Flood. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 342–348.

* Dr. Clarey is the director of research at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his doctorate in geology from Western Michigan University.