As long as the region around the Grand Canyon is higher than the surrounding regions, it will experience net erosion.
The Kaibab Plateau is bounded on the south by the Grand Canyon and by Colorado tributaries on the east and west. It is higher than all that and yet at some point it was eroded into a plateau. On the north it is bounded by the higher cliffs of the Grand Staircase, so that is a source of water for erosion, but no normal rivers could have denuded that plateau flat as it is. On the flyover videos of that area it appears very flat indeed, and the south side of the canyon also, which is part of the greater Kaibab though not considered to be the Kaibab Plateau specifically. It's over a thousand feet lower than the plateau.
The Kaibab plateau is the surface of the limestone layer that forms the rim of the Grand Canyon and is identified with the Permian time period. Before it was eroded there was a stack of layers more than a mile deep stacked on top of it, of which only the cliffs of the Grand Staircase to the north and a small butte to the south of the GC remain. ALL THAT SEDIMENT WAS ERODED AWAY, about fifteen hundred square miles of sediment over a mile deep, leaving the Kaibab Plateau completely denuded and flat, not to mention the entire Kaibab area to the south of Grand Canyon as well which is an even larger area over which that same mile-deep stack of layers also once existed and was also eroded away. It was all washed clean and flat. This is not the work of normal everyday erosive conditions over millions of years.
But we live on a dynamic planet, and when comes a time that the Grand Canyon region is no longer higher than the surrounding regions then it will experience net deposition.
Your planet is very dynamic indeed, risings and fallings of seas and land areas galore, and yet you all accept your ridiculous version of geology and scorn mine. Lot of theory there, not much reality. No reason whatever to expect the Kaibab plateau to sink or the Grand Canyon or the Grand Staircase. Clearly the layers were all laid down one after another to a great depth, some three miles or so, before any of the large scale erosion occurred, the canyon cutting, the cliff formation, the denuding of the Kaibab etc etc etc.
You seem to think that there was a flood era during which the kind of deposition and erosion that could create a Grand Canyon and the geologic column could take place, and now that era is over and so the kind of deposition and erosion that created the geologic column no longer happens.
But I didn't mention any of that at all on this thread. I merely observed that the formation of the strata, which is the basis for the Geologic Timetable, has clearly come to a halt. It is not continuing to form above the Grand Staircase which is where it should continue to lay down more and more Recent Time layers, and this is certainly not because the Recent Time layer in that area is lower and being eroded because in fact it is the highest point in the area. What's left of it. Of course that is a silly way to put it but if it were actually continuing it would in fact be deposited onto all the cliffs and in the canyons too.
And since it has come to a halt, not only in that area but everywhere the Geo Column exists (you say not but I'm sure you're wrong) this is why you've removed the strata-building processes to newer and much much smaller-scale basins and the ocean floor. Where what is actually seen isn't comparable in scale or sedimentary structure and composition to the Geo Column anyway.
But in geology the present is the key to the past. The same forces and processes active today were active in the past, and we can project what we see happening today into the past and figure out how the geologic layers and formations we see today were formed.
Which is of course a statement of the principle of Uniformitarianism, which of course is why I'm always butting heads with it.
All it takes for net erosion is elevation above the surrounding region,
Well what we've got is a totally denuded Kaibab limestone surface that was once buried under a mile-deep stack of sediments that are now represented only by the cliffs of the Grand Staircase and a small butte to the south of the Grand Canyon. You are claiming that all that was just slowly eroded away over millions of years, and I'm saying no it had to have been washed away cataclysmically over a much shorter period of time. Just as the same depth of stacked sediments had to have been washed away from all the monuments of the Southwest, also leaving a flat denuded plain.
all it takes for net deposition is depression below the surrounding region.
That's your theory. No evidence for it of course, just pure theory based on the principle of uniformitarianism. I think my explanation is far far more realistic.
There's no such thing as a special kind of era that permits planet shaping erosion and deposition and where with its end such change ceases.
Again, I OBSERVED that the building of the strata HAS ceased. It's an observed FACT, not the product of theory. And you all tacitly acknowledge this fact by relocating the continued strata-building to the ocean floor and newer small-scale basins.
Your flood is a silly, ridiculous idea. Scientifically a world-wide flood could never create the geology of our planet. You look at it and see "Flood" for no other reason than your religion demands it, and then you make up things this "Flood" could do that are scientifically impossible.
Seems to me that once you understand that the Flood did in fact occur then it takes a peculiar blindness NOT to see its effects, exactly where science is making up the scientifically impossible silly and ridiculous fantastic stuff.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
