Summations Only

Nope, "just grew" implies that layers were created around the existing river, and that's just not possible. Before the uplift the river and it's meanders were there on top of all the layers that we see today in the Grand Canyon. All those layers were very slowly lifted up. As they were slowly lifted, the river cut into them as fast or slightly faster than the uplift, remaining at roughly the same level as the land was pushed up around it.If "the strata just grew up all around it to its current depth of a mile" that would require the river to be underwater during some of the deposition, and it would tot lead to near-vertical walls because soft unlithified sediment would slump to a much lower wall angle.

I gotta say that this doesn't clear up a thing for me. A river's "erosive power" couldn't somehow increase upon running over an uplifted area. Water tends to run DOWNHILL. If it has to deal with an uplift in its path, if its deep enough to deal with it at all, it's going to be SLOWED DOWN by that uplift, tend to pool and spread. Running DOWNHILL would make a river flow faster, certainly not UPHILL, which is what an uplift requires of it. Or if it has to run in a narrower channel it could flow faster and then also cut faster, but there's nothing about an uplift that would develop a narrower channel that I can see. Truly this does keep sounding like the way people think when they smoke dope, that is really how it hits me. But obviously it is impossible to communicate clearly about all this so I probably shouldn't even try.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course the illustration of the cross section at the Grand Canyon means something. But why would you think a map of the Grand Canyon would tell you anything about parts of Arizona that aren't on that map? It's also sort of a composite intended to communicate layer information, not map information. For example, the Vermilion Cliffs are not on a straight line from the Grand Canyon to Brian Head Peak.--Percy

To me that is all Hallucinogenia talk.Amounting to what I already said: that the walls of the canyon "grew up" around the river.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not interested in other parts of Arizona, just the uplift where the canyon got cut and that cross-section seems to show that it got cut into THAT particular rounded mounded uplift, the general broader uplift not being of any particular importance that I can see in the formation of the canyon.

You keep thinking of uplift as a hump that blocks the river. Not so. The height of the river at any time is the original height plus the total uplift minus the total erosion. If (as is often the case) the erosion is greater than or equal to the uplift, the river level will be the original level or lower. Never higher.Made up example: Original elevation above sea level of the river 2,200 feet. (This is about what the Colorado river is today in the GC). Uplift rate 1 inch per year (faster than realistic but it's just an example) = 0.83333333333 feet per year. Erosion rate 1.00001 inch per year (made up to illustrate the point) = 0.08334166666667 feet per year. Original bank height of the river 2 feet.After 1,000,000 years river elevation = 2,200 + 1000000*(1-1.00001) = 2,199.166666667 feet. Bank height = 2 + 1*1000000 = 1000002 feet. IOW the river just sat there at essentially the same elevation over all that time while it cut a million-foot-deep canyon.The real average erosion and uplift rates are much smaller.Of course the uplift rate varies over time, as does the erosion rate, and the height of the banks can play a role if the uplift is fast enough, so a real calculation would be much more complicated. But that illustrates the principle.Uplift plus erosion that keeps up with the uplift = deep canyon.

Yeah, that reality stuff really bothers you. Define "grew up". It certainly seems to me that you were claiming that the layers we see today were not in existence at the time that the GC started forming. That's false, as I pointed out.

.Edited by JonF, : Duplicate

I would ask "how are you not getting this still?" with all the incredulity and disdain that would be warranted after it has been explained so many times, but the answer is clearly that you are refusing to understand. Why else would you keep indicating over and over that the river would at any point have been flowing uphill? I'll say it again:The river was never running uphill; the uplift was gradual.Get it?

Just a quick note... this may have happened, but the pooling isn't a necessary requirement (depending on the exact conditions).If the conditions allow for the water to speed up enough to reach equilibrium over the "shallower part" (made shallow by the uplift)... then it's possible for there to be no pooling at all.Or maybe I'm a bit behind... do we know for certain that some pooling actually occurred? If so, then just disregard my comment and I'll be on my way...

I know you've really impressed yourself with the "Hallucinogenia" thing (by which I assume you mean Hallucigenia, the bizarre Cambiran orgnaism), but how about being more specific. What part of this is confusing you? Gradual uplift occurs, river continues to incise the channel. Because the river is incising the channel at least as quickly as uplift occurs, the walls of the canyon reach higher and higher. Imagine pushing a soft block of butter up into a knife; the sides rise up while the knife remains in place.Try explaining exactly what you don't understand about this simple concept instead of giving trite answers like the above example.

Notice the difference between the fairly straight U bottom form of the canyon and the Grand Canyon's meandering V bottomEnjoy.

In a word... yes. This is basically what happened.Like the picture Percy provided earlier: See how the sides "grow up" around the river in Percy's picture?
Just like that... the walls of the Grand Canyon "grew up" around the river.In regards to sea level... if you stood at the river of the Grand Canyon before and after the uplift... you would be at roughly the same height. It's the walls (rest of the land in the area) that were uplifted.That's why they call it "uplift"... because the land was lifted up.In exact reality... the river may be lightly lower than it was before (with regards to sea-level). But it would be a small change.

ALL THE LAYERS WERE IN PLACE AS I"VE SAID A MILLION TIMES.I should probably only be discussing this with ONE person who has FOLLOWED what I've said.

And yet you chose to respond to that post instead of the many other posts explaining the very simple concept you're doing your best not to understand. Why not respond to the posts that explain the concept with a clear explanation of what you don't understand? And are you ever going to explain how your Flood created a meandering canyon?