Deposition and Erosion of Sediments

No, PS he is saying that he doesn't think any layer could build up over 20 million years on dry land. He didn't say (in fact has agreed that sediment can form under water)that sediment can not form.I think I would like to know which layer it is that geologists are saying formed on dry land for 20 million years. Could you tell us which layer you are refering to Faith.I also think that the point made about net depostition needs to be understood.

You may have said it but is it true that the erosion only happened after the layers were built up?You have only seen photographs. What real evidence are you using besides some tourist pictures? We should, perhaps, ask the geologists if there is any erosion of layers in the middle of the pile?The problem might be, Faith, that you are reaching conclusions without having all the evidence at hand. You can not make any firm statements about the Grand Canyon since you know nothing about it.

Are we missing some pretty basic things that Faith doesn't get?Let's keep focussing in on more details.The redwall formation has been chosen. Faith suggests that it can't have been deposited over a long period of time based on the idea that it is one layer, level and consistent through out.If is my understanding that she is wrong on all counts.It is a name given to a group of layers that have distinguishing characteristics. It is generally level but is not flat and horizontal. It only looks that way in picture she is using.There are erosional surfaces in it. Several in fact.Are the above statments true. For this formation? For any of the formations?Faith, have I summarized what you think the facts are?

What you are being told is that many of the things you think are facts are not.(eg. the canyon being formed under water -- in fact many of the layers of sediments but not all were formed underwater. But they did not spend all of the time from forming the lowest layer to forming the top most under water.Your inferences don't stand up when all of the actual facts are considered.In addition to the facts that you don't get right. There are a huge number of facts and details that you know nothing about. These additional pieces of information also make your inferences unsupportable.It has been pointed out to you, a number of times, that until you have a reasonably great number of the facts in hand you are not nearly ready to begin to refute this science.You start off with an objection to great ages. Yet you don't tackle the dates and dating forum threads that go into that in great detail.You make statements like "horizontal" but do you know if the layers in the canyon that you think are horizontal actually are? How close or far from horizontal are they? These are some of the details you don't have.You think that the major "layers" that you see are it. That they are uniform. It has been pointed out to you that this is not true but you have yet to appear to incorporate this into your inferences. You may think this but it is clear to others that you do NOT KNOW what geologists have said. You have a half baked idea of some of what is said and very little idea about almost all of what is said.