Deposition and Erosion of Sediments

I ran across an evolutionist here on another thread -- have to learn to keep notes on these things -- stating that such a flood would carry an enormous quantity of sediment picked up from the land it covered, supposedly the entire earth you know, and that over the year it took for the flood to settle, the sediment would have precipitated out until the whole world would have been covered with a layer of sediment to a great depth. It was his contention that since no such obviously expectable layer of sediment is observable anywhere that this is proof against the Flood idea altogether. In any case here is an evolutionist who seems to have no problem with the issue you are raising.And he agrees with creationists I've read too. Starting with a continuous rain for forty days that must have eroded tons of landscape, assuming the absolute saturation of land to some terrific depth, following with currents and tides and waves, I don't see any problem with the idea that the flood waters were thick with sediments. As long as that much is acknowledged, I don't see what's wrong with creationist ideas that the sediments were precipitated out in layers of different kinds according to some principle or other.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2005 09:53 PM

I meant SIGNIFICANT erosion as the layers actually exist as layers, which it seems to me would simply not be the case if they were exposed to erosion during the long time periods they supposedly represent. I did list some of those questions later. And the big question is how extensive is it? How could any layers have remained layers at all if exposed to normal erosion during millions of years? Even mountains of solid rock supposedly erode away, and the erosion effaces their layered construction, leaves piles of rubble, not recognizable layers. I'm staying within the theory and the pertinent known facts it seems to me and raising questions about how the stack of layered rocks could possibly have been built up given those ingredients and assumptions.If you think crucial ingredients are being left out, kindly supply them.

Thanks for the diagram of the Grand Canyon. It was helpful on the other thread and it's helpful here. As for posting pictures, I was thinking of doodling my own diagrams and sketches, using the awkward Paint program, to get across what I'm visualizing, and figuring out how to get those onto a thread, but actually I don't feel the need any more. No, not proposing anything, just finding what SEEMS to be the going idea about how they got there scientifically impossible. Because presumably the idea is that the erosion occurred in the time period of the formation of the layer. If it occurred after the column was formed, I have no problem with that -- that's just water being pressed out of the sediments and between the at-least-semi-hardened layers and taking some of the layer with it.But my questions have to do with the period in which a given layer was forming. How could there only have been a merely superficial erosion that left the structure of the layer intact if we're talking about millions of years of exposure to the elements? If it was underwater presumably there would have been NO erosion. So if there is some and it is thought to have occurred during the time period the layer represents, how could it only have been a superficial rather than drastically effacing erosion? Surely if it was millions of years under water it would have been a million or so above water. So are you picturing a layer of sediment on dry land extending dozens, maybe hundreds of miles in all directions, only sedimentary limestone say, nothing else, as we're building a limestone layer here, that is accumulating over MILLIONS of years, and subjected to MORMAL weather patterns over those millions of years? No. And if sedimentation really can build up in spite of erosion over millions of years resulting in a rock layer that really is a coherent layer of homogeneous content over many miles of real estate, and to a depth of no more than a few feet, upon which a completely different kind of sediment has built up in the same fashion to exactly the same result over millions of years, and if this same process more or less could be repeated over some 600 million years altogether until all the layers of the column were present, though at the end of it all something drastic happened in the way of erosion that hadn't even thought of happening during those 600 million years, then you've got me. I give up. You win.Now. Can you also explain how so many different kinds of sediment took turns building up each during its own period of millions of years, just that one kind for millions and then another kind for millions until the whole column was built up? Yeah, lots of erosion between the layers. While not underwater then. Somehow pretty level after the erosion anyway since the layer is intact and sandwiched in with all the others...I guess you guys can imagine things happening over millions of years I just can't imagine happening over millions of years. Obviously I have a deficient imagination. Oh well.

Where, under water or on dry land? What kind of force could erode those diagonally upthrust strata at the base of the canyon to such level neatness? See, already that boggles the mind. Something ferociously violent had to happen to shear them off like that.Besides, if normal erosion could do THAT, then what on earth is the problem imagining that it would obliterate a stratum in its formative period, say the first layer that dared to start to build itself up on top of that supposedly flatly eroded mountain? OK. They get eroded out of water. But how did they maintain their horizontal configuration through erosion? And yet somehow the whole shebang has maintained its overall horizontal stack-of-pancakes configuration. Yes, I've encountered stories like this. We are to think in terms of landscapes. I find it ludicrous. I get how the idea develops, extrapolating from how each kind of sediment is normally laid down and trying to account for observed irregularities in the layers and certain contents etc etc etc, but I keep coming back to the original overall impression of the layers themselves and making a "landscape" out of a layer of limestone over most of the world or even just the greater Grand Canyon area just does not compute. (And correct me if I'm wrong but it IS supposed is it not that that limestone layer WAS originally there, but was disrupted or erased, as the Geo Column supposedly parallels the idealized Geo Time Table.) So they say. And thanks for filling out the whole scenario. All I can say after all that though is"A likely story!!"

But what is ALSO clear on those diagrams is that the layers through which the Grand Canyon cut are parallel layers and not eroded in any way that distorted that configuration. It's also interesting that they are represented as gracefully draping themselves over slopes without losing their parallel configuration, and continuing intact at the lower level as well for quite a distance. Kind of like the way damp clay can be draped and stretched. Doesn't quite fit the idea of millions of years of formation. First of all sediments don't collect in layers on slopes, so the sloping or sinking or rising had to have occurred to the whole column after the layers were formed, same as the Grand Canyon cut through them after they were formed. Since the slope had to occur after the layers were formed, meaning after the 600 million years, that would certainly suppose the rigid hardening of at least all the lower layers, which would imply resistance and breakage rather than malleable conformity to the underlying terrain as is illustrated here. Suggests the layers were still damp from top to bottom to me, not yet lithified. Yes, thank you. MUCH appreciated. OK, tell me more. Are you talking about rock that was originally in layers like all the others, and is found in layers in Utah and Montana? And if so, can you explain how entire parallel layers happened to disappear out of a stack of layers without doing irreparable damage to the overall parallel configuration? OR, conceivably, the record of one humongous catastrophic Flood. Seems to me what you have offered here in fact supports that kind of event a lot better than it supports the scenario you just sketched out.{Edit to add afterthought: If the idea is that the "missing" layers were eroded away after the underlying layers were formed but before the overlying layers had formed, that's a ferocious lot of erosion being implied there, and what's remarkable about it is that it so neatly removed some layers, but didn't cut a canyon or in any way disturb the parallal configuration beneath.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2005 11:59 PM

This is a very taxing enterprise I have undertaken here, to answer all these unanswered posts, but it's been illuminating and fun if exhausting.Yours is next but I have to take a breather.

Entire parallel layers, not just one even but several -- two or three or more? On that diagram of nice parallel layers draped over a sloping landscape and cut through by the canyon they just aren't there. Of course I realize that's just a sketchy diagram.But it certainly does seem to me that if those layers "should" have been there or once WERE there even, that there'd be some evidence at the place in the stack from which they are purportedly missing. Some Geologists think proof against the Flood is that supposedly there is no evidence of one particular layer of sediments they expect would be there, standing out in the stack itself in some way. Well, by the same reasoning it seems to me that a gap as large as the one you are describing would leave evidence of its having once been where you say it should be. But apparently there isn't even a fragment of those layers left anywhere in that entire area, a part that escaped erosion, anything to show it once was there. I gather that this was during the time of their formation, during the millions of years during which the dinosaurs supposedly roamed? Somehow ONLY those layers were eroded away, ONLY those layers? And they were eroded away PERFECTLY, leaving no trace of their prior existence in the stack, none whatever, no lumps to disturb the parallel profile, not an errant stubborn rock or an embedded dinosaur bone the erosion couldn't dislodge? AND despite all that severe erosive activity over millions of years that totally erased multiple thick layers lumpy with dinosaur carcasses, the erosion left the underlying layers completely intact?This is truly miraculous! Certainly, but it wouldn't occur without leaving a LOT of evidence of its having occurred on such a scale as you are describing. Yes, all these facts are far more consistent with the Flood than with the Geo Time Table, or the hypothetically complete Geo Column. The layers that are supposed to be "missing" were simply never there. The idea that they are missing is based on the theory that they represent huge spans of time. But there is no evidence of their ever having been where you say they are missing. One layer sits on top of another without any evidence of an eroded-away layer in between, no hunks of it that didn't get eroded away, etc., and without this supposedly surgically precise erosion having disturbed the layer below either. Different areas showing different events and results is EXACTLY what would be expected of such a flood. The layers deposited over the world would of necessity be different from place to place, as they would have carried the contents of the environment from which they originated, probably not have been redeposited TOO far from the original environment unless they were light enough to float great distances. And in that case you'd also expect to find different deposits in different places. There must have been enormous quantities of both plants and animals that washed down from higher places and buried some distance away. There is no reason to suppose that dinosaurs or anything else would have been equally distributed by the Flood throughout the earth for instance. Most were probably buried pretty near where they existed in the greatest numbers.No, the "missing" layers are evidence AGAINST the Geo Time Table and FOR a great flood. Well, I'm following from what you told me about the missing dinosaur layers in the Grand Canyon. As long as you answer in generalities you are not actually answering me. Dealing with specifics, let's look not at a general "period of millions of years" but at the actual strata in the Grand Canyon at the point you claim the dinosaur layers come up missing. Apparently these would have been quite thick layers. Simply applying educated imagination to the situation it seems obvious that had such layers actually existed in the stack at one time, there would be some evidence of the fact remaining, and not just some evidence but quite a bit of evidence. The layers above and below such a large missing belt of sediments would have been seriously distorted at that point -- but for miles in all directions the layers look like they were put there as is. There would have been some remains of the missing layers and there would have been some disturbance to the underlying layers, and not just some, but a LOT. The more you guys say about the "Geo Column" the more evidence accumulates in the opposite direction, against the time table idea and for something like a great flood. What's remarkable is that this isn't recognized. What you consider evidence for the Geo Time Table, the "missing" layers, in actuality is anything but evidence for such a thing, it is evidence AGAINST it. The Geo Time Table is simply taken for granted and the idea is IMPOSED upon the actual facts. The facts do not support it.To repeat:The idea of missing layers is evidence against it, much better evidence for a flood.The appearance of malleability of the "column" over a sloping landscape as depicted in the diagram you posted is also evidence against millions of years of formation of the stack as it would have been hardened and not malleable. Better evidence for a flood.Add that to what I've been maintaining from the beginning, that the relative regularity of the strata in the canyon walls, their parallel configuration, their relatively undisturbed appearance, is not consistent with millions of years of formation, but much more consistent with deposition from a great flood.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-20-2005 09:32 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-20-2005 09:47 AM

If after, the erosion would have not only removed the dinosaur layers but most of the superimposing layers during which time it occurred. It is hard to see how erosion that occurred before the dinosaur period would have eroded anything from the dinosaur period at all unless it continued through the dinosaur period. And that's a lot of erosion in that dinosaur period. Must have rained a lot in that period in that part of the world. Funny it didn't make some canyons in the underlying strata. But I digress. No, I'm working only from what you tell me, but I'll try not to be silly. The supposition was based on the fact that you had only mentioned missing dinosaur layers, no other missing layers, and mentioned no disturbances in the canyon strata that would be evidence of them, and to the naked eye it does seem to me there is a conspicuous absence of any disruption that one would expect from such prodigious erosion, erosion that would completely eliminate an extremely thick belt from the dinosaur period without leaving a visible mark of its supposed former existence in the column. The only evidence that anything is missing that you gave was the fact that such layers are found elsewhere.Now you go on to say that in fact there is other evidence, in the canyon column itself, but only negative evidence, no positive evidence. That's an ENORMOUS amount of erosion you are talking about. So it took out not only the dinosaur layers OVER AN AREA OF HUNDREDS OF SQUARE MILES but much of the underlying and overlying layers as well. One wonders how the parallel appearance of the canyon strata remains at all, not only in the canyon area per se but over the surrounding terrain as depicted in the diagram you posted. But isn't that marvelous, that there is not the tiniest artifact of it left at all? Negative evidence drawn entirely from the time table theory. OK, then show me where it all went please. Are there huge dinosaur beds downslope from the canyon area? (Away from the canyon of course, not in the canyon itself as that was created later, though beds there would be interesting to know about too).The problem is that you are positing an ENORMOUS amount of material over miles and miles in all directions that you suppose did indeed get deposited as part of the canyon strata at one time, but was all washed away, leaving the strata of the canyon walls nevertheless, yes, to the naked eye, quite neatly parallel, which parallel configuration is confirmed in your own diagram, not just my imagination. It's on your own diagram, it's affirmed in basic geology courses -- somebody just posted one recently here -- it is visible to the naked eye. Yes, I thought it was clever too. You are positing an ENORMOUS force of erosion to explain nothing but a SUPPOSEDLY missing layer for which there is NO DIRECT POSITIVE evidence that it was ever where you say it should have been. Not one dinosaur bone as I say, not one rock from that period. And the whole idea that such a layer was ever there is completely derived from THEORY.While that's fair as a working mode of thinking, it is not fair when the positive evidence that is missing for your theory is in fact good evidence for the opposing theory but you stubbornly deny it. "Missing Layers" should go in the CON column for evolutionism and the PRO column for creationism. Again, where is it? That much stuff ought to show up in an incoherent unlayered pile of sediments and bones somewhere nearby I would think. Large enough nevertheless to raise reasonable questions about how it could disappear and leave no meaningful evidence that it was ever there.No doubt what you see is the remains of dinosaurs that were washed into Utah, Montana, Arizona and Mexico but not into the Grand Canyon strata by the Flood. No, but I'm referring to the fact that the strata remain intact to the naked eye. This appearance of the strata is infact evidence. You point to disturbances of a lesser magnitude than would disrupt this parallel appearance, so let me hasten to allow that I'm sure that is the case, that there are many such disturbances you could show me, but I am trying to suggest that an event of the magnitude of the complete erasure of such quantities of material as you describe would have made it impossible for the column to continue to build in as neat parallel layers as it in fact did TO THE NAKED eye at the very least.Apparently you are saying that all eroded areas were just filled in with new deposits and that maintained the overall structure, and I can see that for depressions, but erosion that would have erased whole deep layers had to make sloping troughs or gullies for the exiting of all that material it seems to me and that would have made further visibly level sedimentation on top of it extremely difficult and I'd say impossible. In summary, you can point to many areas of disruption but not to anything of the magnitude that the erosion you are describing would have caused IMHO.Look at the diagram you posted. Of course it's idealized. Of course lots of discontinuities could be shown to exist within it on a more realistic view, but for the parallel structure to be exhibitable AT ALL as presented there after entire layers were washed away just doesn't compute by the physical laws of this universe. Of course erosion works on exposed layers. BEING ERODED AS WE SPEAK. YES. Erosion has OBSERVABLE EFFECTS over VERY SHORT PERIODS OF TIME. I've based most of my complaints about the strata on this fact. I suppose they may be filled in and covered up by new deposits in some places under some conditions, but erosion does have the effect of obliterating structures even if new ones are later formed. This is OBSERVED all the time on planet earth in normal human time frames. The question is why it didn't do more damage to the layers in the strata during the enormous long periods of their formation, how they could have remained layers over millions of years during which long periods of exposure to the elements are also postulated. Some washes away, some fills in but how can that process have gone on for millions of years -- or even thousands -- and yet retained the overall parallel appearance. YES IT HAS AN OVERALL APPEARANCE OF HORIZONTAL PARALLEL LAYERS. To keep denying that with pictures of the Grand Canyon showing its dramatic parallel layering is RIDICULOUS. Jar, I either argue it from where I'm at or I don't argue it at all. I've chosen to do what I can with what I've got and what I pick up as I go. I'm happy to learn whatever there is to learn as I go, and will no doubt study some more, but the odd thing is that the more I learn just here, the more convinced I am of the point of view I started out with. Your carrying on about my monumental mistakes is out of proportion. Despite drawing a few wrong conclusions from the facts you have given me, they appear minor to me, and my overall impression remains that the evidence is on my side, not yours, and it has only increased with the information you and otherw have given. I've answered it. It's not the total disaster you tried to make it out to be by a long shot. None of what you have said accounts for an actual erosion away of an entire huge layer the entire length and width of the greater canyon area, without disturbing the rest of the entire column to a visibly drastic degree, but the canyon retains its horizontal layered appearance and your own diagram confirms this.There was no dinosaur layer in the canyon strata ever. They happened to be washed into the other areas you mention but not the canyon area. The strata do not represent great ages of time. They most probably represent the disposition of sediments by water throughout the world, in broken arrangements because they never were together and there is no physical principle that requires them to have been together in any particular combination whatever. Sure I'd love to. I am certain they would provide evidence for my side of this argument. Yes, the dogma of the evolutionist. Flat refusal to admit the other point of view for a moment. Jar, even if there were no physical evidence of it, that would not prove the Flood hadn't happened, as there must be plenty of things that happened in the distant past that left no evidence we are able to ascertain, or actually most likely, that left evidence we misconstrue and evidence we overlook because we are hung up on some other notion about how things happened and simply cannot see it.The Flood was a reality whether or not physical evidence for it is ever affirmed. Jar, God wrote BOTH the universe AND the Bible and they cannot contradict one another because they have the same Author. I AM in awe of this universe, jar, and it is BECAUSE I believe the Bible is God's word, not men's.To pit science against the Bible is evidence of a lack of faith in God's word to us. The universe is God's, but science is done with our own fallible minds, but the Bible was inspired by the God who made it all.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-20-2005 06:44 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-20-2005 06:48 PM

Are any of these books online anywhere that you know of? (There is a great site for public domain Christian works. There should be such sites for all the information in the world).

The debate is over. Jar says I have to subject the Bible to doubt. Won't happen. I haven't argued science from it at all anywhere but as usual he and everybody else falsely think I have. This place is a kafkaesque nightmare for a Biblical creationist. Catch-22 with a science horror story twist. So thanks anyway but no more great debate for me.

Science is done by fallible humanity, and all the conclusions you think you have about the origins of the earth can claim no final authority.Genesis was authored by God and there's no "interpretation" that could change the straightforward descriptions of the creation of humanity and all things and the destruction of all in the Flood.Period.JonF's questions are nothing but badgering, and the post he is taking issue with was clear and excellent reasoning and evidence exactly as written. When you all get off your fantasy version of science high horse long enough to recognize the fine reasoning on the other side of the issue it will be worth it for creationists to come here.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-21-2005 11:36 PM

Funny, that's EXACTLY my diagnosis of the blindness on the Evolution side.They actually think they've refuted something when they bring in this or that interpretation from their own theory to answer a creationist. They wonder why creationists continue to repeat themselves. They really think that informing us of evolutionist deductions, inferences, guesses refutes anything.

I'm going to try to work my way through this now. Still have no idea whether I'm committed to this conversation or not but we'll start and see. I'm a "she" by the way. All right. I'll go there then and get back to this later.

OK I started a reply to this Message #19 and had to park it for a while. meanwhile I looked up information about the Grand Canyon area and got quite involved in it. Found some terrific photos of the whole area on up into Utah and a great diagram of the underlying strata of that whole area of fantastic and beautiful formations.It got me back to Square One, back to my very first observation about these formations, that it is very odd to think that the layering that is so conspicuously displayed in all these formations was built up slowly over millions and millions of years, some of which time it was exposed to the air and not underwater and yet only in "recent" times has it been so dramatically eroded as we now see it.And besides that, the whole shebang looks like a planet that was drowned in water at one time.Grand Canyon, especially clear photos, at least on my old computer:
Page Not Found - Removed | University of North Dakota
Grand Staircase:
Page not found | Stone Canyon Inn
Bryce Canyon site. Scrollable diagram of the whole region down the page:
Requested Page Not Found (404)Sorry you've been kept waiting for me to get back to this, but it's still hard to get focused on it.

quote:

---

You seem to have the largest problem with sedimentary depostion on dry land. Is this correct?

---

It's one of the problems. It just seems to me it couldn't maintain its form as a recognizable layer over a million or so years of exposure to normal weathering, but I also have a problem with the building up of sediments under water over such an enormous period of time, first one kind for a million or so years, then suddenly a completely other kind and so on. It's the millions of years part that boggles me most.

quote:

---

I will go ahead and proceed assuming that it is.

​

The first thign to note is that most deposition does happen under water. The majority of the layers of the grand canyon were formed under water so there is no problem with those. When a particle of silicate falls to the bottom of the ocean there is not much that will necessarily move it and it will likely get buried. Just so we are clear, do you have any issues with this basic fact?

---

Not with that basic fact, no, just a problem with the idea of a million years of buildup of one particular kind of particle followed by a million years or so of buildup of a completely different kind of particle on top of the earlier buildup, followed by a million or so of yet another and so on.

quote:

---

Do you recognize that as material enters calm water it will settle out and pile up over time? Do you recognize that it is very difficult for a natural process to remove material from the bottom of a body of water?

---

Been assuming it as a matter of fact but I appreciate your confirmation.

quote:

---

No on to the dry land sediment which you claim cannot build up because it is doomed to be eroded. First of all, the one dry land layers of the GC that I can think of off the top of my head has ample evidence of erosion. The Coconino sandstone is cross-bedded showing that wind moved around the sand particles in a way that creates that feature like how we think of sand dunes in a desert. The reason this layer was preserved is that the wind did not erode the sand into other locations faster than sand was being put into the environment by other types of weathering. We can see this happening today in deserts that are near mountain ranges. Let me explain.

​

A high profile area like a mountain is subject to much more weathering than a flat coastline or plain. Because of this a the rate of erosion on a mountain is much greater than the rate of erosion on a plain. So if the source of material for the desert that created the Coconino sandstone was a more high profile area then the desert that produce the Coconino sandstone then it is likely that more sand was ending up in the desert then was being removed by wind, rain, etc. This is how depostion works. If more sand HAD been removed the Coconino sandstone would not have existed and we would be looking at an erosional disconformity in the GC rather than a layer of sandstone.

---

This formation keeps coming up in conversation here, in terms of its representing a sandy "landscape." I did find some good photos of this formation closeup and now I recognize it in the Grand Canyon wall from a distance. I have trouble understanding how it got compressed into stone over such a distance in such a horizontal configuration, flat on top and so on, but I grasp that it was formed of blown sand somehow.Nice clear shot of Coconino Sandstone layer:
http://www.kaibab.org/mc96/mc96imga.jpg
Closeup of same:
EPOD - a service of USRA
Wonderfully clear photos of specific formations in the Canyon, some with the Coconino identified:
Page Not Found - Removed | University of North Dakota

quote:

---

Key note here. No is is saying that the all the sand that ever got dumped into the desert that produced the Coconino sandstone stayed there. All the layers tell us is that, overall, deposition was greater than erosion at and between the layers of sediment at the GC when it was being deposited.

​

A basic understand of this does not have to be difficult. All it takes are a few key concepts.

​

1. Weathered material settles in low places.
2. Over a very wide area the tendency of settling material is to spread flat with respect to the area. This is easily observable today in modern lakes, oceans, deltas, and deserts.

---

OK, that's informative, thanks.

quote:

---

3. The rate of weathering in these low areas affects how much weathered material will stick around. Material in calm bodies of water like the ocean or lakes experiences the least amount of weathering so most of the material that makes it here will stick around.
4. When the type of material changes all it does is begin to cover up the material already there. When this happens for a long enough period of time a differnt type of layer is made on top of the old one.

---

Of course. The problem is explaining how just one sediment could continue depositing for millions of years as just that one material, and then how there could be an abrupt change after all that time to a completely different kind of material which is deposited over more millions of years. It's the millions of years part and the change and the maintenance of horizontality. Even thousands of years. Maybe even hundreds, but hundreds is getting more comprehensible, though so far there still hasn't been clear evidence of such an ongoing layering that is like that in the geo column.When do you see a CHANGE from one kind of sediment to another in any depositional environment? What time frame is involved in such a change if it occurs? Do you see actual layers building up anywhere to the depth of those in the geo column? Where? How many layers? What depth? What explains the change from one kind of sediment to another? How long to get how deep a deposit? (Taking into account compression factors or whatever else). How common is such an event as the layering I'm talking about if it occurs at all anywhere? If a total change in "landscape" is postulated, how does the horizontality remain? This last question is hard to formulate. I may have to figure out how to ask it better later.

quote:

---

5. As long as the rate of deposition is greater than the rate of erosion, material will pile up and bury older material. We can watch this happening today in modern depositional environments.

---

OK. Where is it seen and how similar is it to the strata?Still the main problem is accounting for horizontality. Also depth of deposition of one kind of sediment, relatively even thickness of the deposition, change to different kind of sediment and depth of that sediment and repeat of the process. I understand you are focusing only on erosion and I accept your ratio, but there's more to the problem in my mind than just the idea that erosion would destroy the horizontal configuration of any given layer. Actually that's still a question too. The material may be replaced more or less, but how is the shape maintained? If underwater no problem for the shape but then erosion doesn't occur underwater anyway. But how do SAND DUNES become compressed to a horizontal layer in the geo column?

quote:

---

6. If the rate of erosion is higher then the rate of deposition then layers are removed rather than formed. This is also happening today in high profile areas. At the top of Sandia peak where I live are old layers of limestone. It is very hard for material that falls on top of the limestone to stick around because the rate of weathering is extremely high. Eventually, the evidence that that limestone exists will be destroyed.

​

Faith's argument boils down to this. Faith believes that no where on dry land does there exist a place where the rate of erosion is less than the rate of deposition for any significant period of time.

---

Not really. The idea is that erosion carries material AWAY, which changes the shape of the eroded area but our layers have to end up as layers to fit with what is seen in the Grand Canyon strata and indeed for miles toward the north and east from the Canyon from what I've been reading (and seeing in the photos above). The Coconino seems to be relatively even in thickness from a distance, very horizontal, and it's hard to imagine that for millions of years there was this steady erosion plus deposition effect that maintained any such coherence over any large area.I found this really informative site about depositional environments with very helpful pictures, and I find it very hard to extrapolate from any of these types of deposition to the enormous scale and original horizontality of the strata of the geological column. Only the playas come close to both the scale and horizontality both. I haven't found any pictures of currently-forming layers of different sediments anywhere. Some posters have informed me that these are seen in rivers. I'd like to see pictures of that sometime.http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~millerm/depenv.htmlAlso in the case of something like the Coconino what would have caused it to harden into sandstone since it wasn't formed under water, and at what point in the millions of years?

quote:

---

Unfortunatly for Faith this is not true. I happen to live in an environment where more deposition is happening than erosion.

​

The Rio Grande Valley is sitting on top of many layers of ancient alluvial fans. ...
Basically, the only material leaving the valley is via the river. Because the mountain weathers MUCH faster than the river can carry away the results, the net result is that alluvial fan after alluvial fan have been buried over the course of time.

---

The basic information is very helpful, thanks. And here are some pictures of alluvial fans I found that helped too.http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~millerm/fan.html