Summations Only

So... how many years do you think it took to carve out the Grand Canyon and turn all that material to "dust" and carry it away. Were you thinking like 10 to 15 million years?HBD

These is no fast rule. I would say that a contact between layers or beds is of no thickness. It would be like two sheets of paper, one on top of another. The contact between formations, however, can be from no thickness to tens of feet. In fact, some formational contacts have been disputed in geology. Sometimes it might be the bottom of the first sand or the top of the last mudstone. Or it might be the fist occurrence of a certain fossil.For instance the Kayenta Formation is in gradational contact with the overlying Navajo (meaning that the beds alternate back and forth between a wind-blown sand and mud until the sand completely replaces the mud. However, any given contact between beds can still be very sharp.From a photograph we can't really tell anything. I would probably put the band with the Hermit because it seems to be slightly recessive. However, from here I cannot tell what the composition is.

This is a fact.Any method of transport that could carry all of that sediment of all those sizes and composition would have to be so turbulent to mix all of the sediments and dump them at once in a chaos deposit. The closest thing we have to such a deposit are mudflows. They do not have formations or beds, and therefor, no contacts. Especially when those waves would consist of heavily sediment laden slurries. It staggers the imagination to think that sand could be so sorted from silt and clay to form formations, and that they all could be laid down evenly so as not to disturb the underlying sediments.

This discussion gets weirder and weirder. You are mixing up two different discussions now, the one about erosion time and the one about the tight contact. You should at least start by acknowledging that nobody said you could reduce any formation to dust in a few thousand years. Just your saying that means I can't expect to have a real conversation with you.And you keep trying to make the contact line discussion into a Flood issue but as presented the Flood has not come up. The whole thing foundered on whether the contact was as tight as I was saying it is and until that is clearly acknowledged I don't want to discuss anything else that may or may not be related to it.

Ok, the contact is tight, so what?How does that "justify" the flood?How does flood water deposit multiple layers, some with knife-edge thin contacts and some with thicker blurred contacts?How does any flood deposit randomly alternating bands of completely different sediments?If the flood was worldwide and the land was all one continent, as you have many times asserted, why aren't the sequence of layers the same everywhere?How does a flood deposit fossils that are increasing different from modern organisms the more deeply they are buried?How could any flood carry trillions of tons of sediment in suspension , enough to create miles deep rocks, on land, but not in the oceans?These are all questions that you have failed to answer convincingly, but that geology and physics and other sciences answer incredibly well. All the observations fit together. There are no aspects of the evidence are ignored, all the details are considered and when questions arise science attempts to understand, not dismiss.

Uhmm... no I'm not. I made a comment about the panoramic views at that website and that you could see all the debris on the ground. That didn't happen quickly. It took a long time to break those pieces of rock down. I was using your term "dust" to refer to what erosion does. And erosion is what carved the Grand Canyon, is is not, or am I misrepresenting your scenario? That's why I don't spend much time discussing with you anymore. That's how it always goes; it's always everyone's fault but yours. You are the epitome of rational discussion and everyone else is [insert your favorite insult here]I did acknowledge it. The contact is tight. I won't use the term "knife-edge" because it has little meaning to me. The contact is remarkably tight in the area you are pointing to. (I have seen other areas where it is not so tight, but I know that is irrelevant to you).Again... what's the difference to your argument whether the contact is less than an inch thick or "knife-edged." What "thing" foundered on whether the contact was as tight as you were saying? How does it being "knife-edged" matter to your narrative?HBD

Mainly it defies the idea of millions of years between layers.

More to the point, how does the silly Biblical flood transport intact cross bedded sand dunes along with animal tracks?

The discussion is what foundered.I'm not interested in my "narrative" at the moment in relation to this issue, the point became the argument about whether the contact was tight, that's all. Percy claimed it was one inch thick and it isn't, and that's all this is about. Fine, you finally acknowledged it, thank you, but others need to acknowledge it or there's no point for me in continuing the discussion. This went on for days already and I got accused of all kinds of things because of it. Not interested in continuing it under those circumstances.

My scenario is that the canyon was cut by the receding Flood waters.

So that's not erosion reducing the material to dust?Have you even looked at that website to see what I'm taking about? Let me guess... you haven't looked at it but you already know that there is nothing there that can dispute your scenario. Do I have that right?HBD

The idea about reducing a formation to dust is about how long it would take from its formation to be completely disintegrated. What website?

I have a hard time imagining how water could carry in suspension the volume of material to create layers of solid rock miles thick. There must be limits to the amount of solid material with particle sizes from clay to boulders that water can keep suspended no matter how turbulent.We see what happens when really swift, turbulent rivers carrying lots of sediment reach any large body of water, turbulence is quickly reduced and the sediment begins falling out of suspension. Sediments eroded from the land are deposited in lakes and in the oceans relatively near shore, heaviest and densest closest and lightest furthest from shore.Trying to imagine how this fantasy flood ended up redepositing the sediment that it scoured off the continents back on the continents and looking just like it had been deposited and eroded successively by transgressions and regressions of the sea over millions of years shows how absurd it is. "Chaos deposit" sums it up perfectly. If Faith's Fantasy Flood was true there should be a single Chaos Deposit layer worldwide, including in the ocean basins.

It has been pointed out to you that erosion does not start with its formation because it is deeply buried when it becomes rock. The material that buried it must be eroded first. The burial and subsequent erosion of overlying material could take millions of years before the formation is completely disintegrated.Don't you get it? The formation has to end up at the surface before erosion can start working on it. The Grand Canyon did not start eroding when the formations were deposited. The GC began eroding after the overlying material was eroded, and millions of years after the formations were deposited.

Remember the canard about the canyon sedimentary rocks being soft (or in Faith's scenario, 'kind'a, sort'a, maybe soft enough) so that the canyon could be eroded quickly?There's a whole pile of rounded boulders, gravels and sand down here that say that's just silly. How did those boulders get to be so hard after they were washed away so easily?