Can you explain the difference in weathering by water erosion alone?
Nice dodge of my questions, but it still does explain what I asked. You also try to switch the burden of guilt upon me, to avoid answering the questions. Sorry, the horizontal lines still exists after a supposed 100 million years. That is not my problem.
Actually, rain falls in the direction of the wind, and the angle depends on the force of the wind. I was in a thunderstorm at Flagstaff AZ, and the rain was nearly horizontal.
LOL, your attempt here is getting lamer.
1) Rain is not always wind driven now is it?
2) After rain hits the rock, the wind does not have the same effect as it did when it was free falling.
3) And because gravity pulls water down after wind can no longer affect it. The erosion will be in a downward motion.
Picture This is a picture of another canyon. Notice the two types of erosion. Now why do you think the Grand Canyon does not have this why this Canyon does?
Picture Then we have another Canyon with only verical wear.
So you are claiming that wind driven rain eroded horizontal lines in one Canyon, which means the wind blew 100% of the time. While in another Canyon, the wind never blows so we have vertical lines.
Another factor that is known to make vertical cracks in rocks is freeze and thaw cycles where water gets into small cracks and expands as it freezes. This is much more likely to have caused the vertical lines in the rocks on the right than rain.
There is a big difference between horizontal cracks and horizontal wear.
You can also see this same pattern of banded erosion on the middle hill in this picture from inside the Grand Canyon - was the water running at a funny angle (uphill?)?:
Funny you should mention uphill. Because when the Grand Canyon was not a Canyon. The river claimed to have carved it would have had to run uphill because the elevation of the top of the Grand Canyon is higher then the other end of the river that supposetly did this.
So If uphill in one instance is a no go, it also applies to the other. Unless you want to explain how the same rule bends for only old earth? And that water runs up hill just because you say it will.
Wind erosion is not just gently breezes blowing through trees, it can be dust filled howling winds that act like sand-paper on all surfaces it comes into contact with. Wind and water are very similar in their effect on rocks, just with different viscosities, and both are augmented by carrying dust and silt and sand particles.
You can try to explain this away all you like. You can be irrational, stick your head in the sand, and ignore what is plainly in front of you. But as I said before, wind erosion looks nothing like water erosion. And that won't change regardless of how you try to dress it up.
How do you think they tell the difference anyway? If they cannot, then it could be claimed that a great wind created the canyon. But we both know that won't work. So your wind idea does not either.
Actually, trying to limit erosion to be only (a) from the river and (b) from vertical rain, would be trying to rewrite the "laws" of erosion. It is what is called a "straw man" argument, one that ignores a significant part of reality.
Since you claim straw man arguement. Let's see you back it up:
1) Can you prove that "all" horizontal erosion at the top of the Grand Canyon is created by:
a) Wind erosion?
b) Wind driven water erosion?
2) Can you show us that wind erosion looks just like water erosion and that science cannot tell the difference?
3) Can you make the river that formed the Grand Canyon flow uphill without breaking any temporal laws?
4) Can you show us where all the setiments went for such a huge movement of particles? It just does not poof itself into nothing.
5) Could you prove that no vertical wear what so ever could ever form in the Grand Canyon like it has in other Canyons that have been around for the same amount of time. And for what reason would this be so?
