Summations Only

Well, that was the deepest clear erosion I could find, but really if any layer had been at the surface for a million years you'd see erosion that cut completely through the layer into the layer below and so on. The point is nothing like that occurred to any of the layers in the laying-down process. And in all your pictures, even the ones with the most deformation, you can always see those nice neat parallel layers that show that the deformation occurred AFTER the deposition of the strata and not during.Edited by Faith, : add comma

I think I actually succeeded in uploading a picture! (and I think the most important information came from RAZD when he said to be sure there are no spaces between the code and the URL.) Thanks to both RAZD and Percy. I've saved your instructions.Here is another picture of erosion, of the Dover Cliff I believe, which may be more to scale. I just remembered I had it on my blog somewhere and went and found it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This feature is still no more than a couple meters deep. It is no more helpful to you than your last attempt.Hey, still have no answer for how those meanders formed? Or have you given yourself permission to ignore this question are too ashamed to try to justify it to us like you usually do?

I usually just skip past your rude posts, and I don't care about the meanders, same as I don't care about the sand grains, I focus where I think I can make a case as I've said; and if erosion on the necessary scale can't be found that only confirms that the kind of erosion that would have occurred in the long long ages of supposed surface exposure didn't actually occur because the long long ages didn't occur. However, a couple of meters of erosion ought to distort the horizontal lines enough in enough places to be visible across the canyon. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So now you're going to move the goalposts.A few hours ago, you were showing us this picture: ... and telling us that something that big is what we'd see if erosion had occurred.Now I convince you that the layers show erosional features a hundred times bigger than that, and so suddenly you change your ideas of what erosion would have achieved by more than two orders of magnitude, in order to ignore the evidence I've presented.You realize this makes you look ridiculous, right?Also, it's not gonna work. Read on ... Apart from the Surprise Canyon Formation, the Temple Butte Formation, everything above the Kaibab Limestone, the formations of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, and maybe lots of other layers which we don't know about because they were entirely destroyed by erosion. You have no way of saying how many of those there were. If you mean that strata were only eroded after they were deposited, you may for once be telling the truth. This is entirely congruent with geological theory, which does not allow time to run backwards or a surface to be eroded before it's formed.If you mean something else, it's probably wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Faith, just as there are lots of places without mountain-forming going on, so there are lots of places without active volcanoes. In fact, nearly all places have no active volcanoes. I have traveled in three continents and never seen an active volcano or set foot on an ongoing orogeny. Vast geological areas are tectonically placid for enormous periods of time. No. I should think somewhat less for an average spot on the Earth's crust.How many orogenies do you have evidence for in the Grand Canyon region? I count two.

Dr. A, your examples of erosional features are not between the layers in the way they would be had they been acquired during exposure of that layer at the surface, your erosional features are part of a general upheaval that occurred after all the layers were in place.Yes, I want a picture you can agree is visible, but the point of that first picture was to show that real erosion is deeper than the erosion that actually exists between the layers, and even a foot of erosion is deeper than that little bitty amount of erosion that you practically need a microscope to see but that is claimed to represent surface erosion. What's really needed is what HBD showed on a diagram a while back, a depth of erosion that cuts into lower layers, and lots of it making a mess of the horizontal impression even at a great distance. Because you can see the horizontality in those expanses of strata that have not been tectonically distorted, and real surface erosion should show up on all the supposedly exposed layers (and I've been wondering recently how many are supposed to have been exposed and for how long anyway; it's only been said in general that risings and fallings expose layers).

I only counted two, based on the OE view, giving you the Supergroup beneath the Tapeats, but I really think there was only one which included the Supergroup, but not an orogeny, merely tectonic and volcanic activity causing the breaking up of the strata, the canyons, the hoodoos, the faultings, the lava fields at the very top of a dike that penetrates the entire stack ... all of that I listed as occurring after the strata were in place that you said No to. I say yes. I'm even giving you the "orogeny" of the Supergroup/Great Unconformity beneath the Tapeats, saying the disturbances I'm listing occurred to the billion years of strata above the Tapeats. Or two billion. What's a billion more or less anyway. But again I include the Great Unconformity in the one period of tectonically created eventsA billion years of placid absolute nonactivity can't happen ANYWHERE on this active earth, but I guess if OE theory needs it to be that way you'll assert it WAS that way, because after all there is no way to prove it one way or the other. "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be masterthat's all." Those who have the power and the influence call the "science."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is obviously untrue, as we can see that there was no "general upheaval", but that the irregularity is confined to the erosional surface and the conforming surface in contact with it. And as it turned out to be a hundred times less than the erosion that actually exists between the layers, this would be a great time to admit that you were wrong. How can you go on lying about this, Faith. How is it even possible? 120 METERS IS BIGGER THAN A FOOT, FAITH.Are we ... are we having this sort of conversation?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't even know WHAT I'm wrong about. That a foot of erosion would show across the canyon if there were lots of it along the length of each contact line?

If that was true, then I guess that would explain the two orogenies and the Uinkaret Volcanic Field and the sills and the dikes and the Cardenas Basalt.

That would actually make a good epitaph for you. Or, on a more cheery note, it's how you should introduce yourself at parties. "Hi, I'm Faith, and I don't even know WHAT I'm wrong about!" It'll break the ice.

That doesn't even make any sense. The two billion years of placidity occurred BETWEEN those events. THAT'S MY POINT. Those things happened AFTER the strata were all in place. Oh I forget I'm condeding the Great Unconformtiy as an event BEFORE it all. But in between, NADA.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually I realize I DID lie. I hate to admit it bevcause I'm always being accused of lying when I'm not. But I hadn't had the enormous height of the canyon walls in mind, I had something more like fifty to a hundred feet in mind, maybe three to four hundred, even though I know they're a mile deep. So a foot of erosion might not be visible. It would have to be the serious kind of erosion that would actually have occurred, which apparently didn't occur.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No they didn't. There's only about 750 million years between the Grand Canyon Orogeny and the Laramide Orogeny. Three-quarters is less than two, I counted.