Thanks for acknowledging that the right side shows significantly more weathering than the left side of your photo.
The reason for more wear at the top is because more flood water would wear the top as it passed to erode the rest of the Canyon. As far as cracks or broken places go. Being at the top of the Canyone and facing at an upward angle. The rock would heat and expand, cool and contract. Which means that one day it would crack and break off.
If that section were exposed to this for millions of years, I do believe that most of what was there would have already broken off. 1 million years times 365 days is 365 million times the rock would have expanded and contracted. So how did the rock face hold up to all this, super glue maybe?
Your explanation of erosion only consisting of horizontal river erosion and vertical rain erosion has problems with this one (among hundreds) cliff inside the Grand Canyon:
Or was this another lame attempt to make the flood evidence look totally stupid because you cannot totally debunk it?
(1) If the horizontal bands are due to river erosion, then how do you explain the large pile of scree? Note that the scree in this picture is higher than the remaining cliff above it.
When you drain your sink after doing dishes. Does all the food debri go into the drain all by itself?
(2) If the scree is due to vertical rain erosion, then how do you explain the horizontal bands in the cliff after all this rock has fallen off the face? There is enough scree to cover the cliff several times, so the cliff face you are seeing is what's left after the scree has fallen off.
Two wear patterns exist.
Oh? As soon as rain hits your windshield when you are driving on the freeway, does it go up or down? Does it behave the same as when your car is still, or is there a significant difference in force and direction?
Bad comparison:
1) The rock facing is not as smooth as a car winsheild.
2) The Canyon facing does no move like a car can.
Again you see the rock eroding according to the density and chemical bonding of the rock, thus the tilted erosion pattern above the river (unless you think water runs uphill?).
I see you ignored elevation of the Grand Canyon being higher at one end than the other. So I ignore this what you point out as well.
You also see the effect of a different type of rock that forms vertical cracks. Basalt does this as it cools (it comes from lava flows) and the shrinkage in the vertical direction is not impede the way it is in the horizontal direction. The cracking pattern is usually hexagonal due to the chemical bonding of this kind of rock. This is common throughout the west, and in fact does occur inside the Grand Canyon as well - you can see some of it in your first picture.
And if it wear to expand and contract 365 million times. Would much of it's rock face still exist? I don't think so.
Nor does your vertical erosion explain the tilted erosion lower down. Your explanation of horizontal erosion does not explain the tilted erosion pattern either. Thus once again you fail to explain all the evidence, even in your own pictures.
Your explaination leaves a lot to be desired as well. Still waiting on you list of 100's of things that is wrong with what I claim.
No, that would be your position. What happens is that rock erodes according to the type of rock. This simple fact explains vertical cliffs with vertical cracks, horizontal bands of sedimentary rocks eroding at different rates, and it explains erosion of tilted rocks according to the types of rock.
Cracks are also from expanding and contracting. 365 million expansions and contractions would have done away with any evidence of water erosion from the river a long time ago. 4,400 years times 365 = 1,606,000 (1 million and 606 thousand). Which would seem a whole lot more likely to leave rock facing evidence for water erosion from water due to river or flood. And which do we see? Evidence of this at the higher levels points to less time passing than more time.
But let's go a step further as well. 365 million days of "wind erosion" would have:
1) Made the rock smoother.
2) Would have removed most of the evidence of water erosion.
Why would wind erosion remove most of the evidence of water erosion? The wind blows just about everyday. It does not rain everyday. And in the winter, hardley at all.
Oh, it's even better than that: not only is the ridge that the Grand Canyon crosses higher than the upstream portion of the river, the point where it crosses the ridge is higher than the ridge both north and south of the crossing location, AND the ridge is sloped from north to south in that location:
And why was not a Canyon formed at the other end as well? The same amount of water that eroded the Grand Canyon flowed through the whole river. Millions of years should have been enough time for the erosion to be about the same at one end as the other.
Geology explains this with gradual uplift, that the ridge has become this high after the canyon was already established and where the river continued to carve out the bottom to maintain flow as the area rose.
I see what you are doing here. You are claiming that the higher elevation was lower so that your model can work. Then rose later.
So where did all the setiments go that were removed from the Grand Canyon?I fully agree that any valid explanation must account for all of the evidence, not just cherry picked talking points, and that any explanation that avoids evidence that contradicts it is not just invalid but can be delusional.
Delusional? Let's see...
1) Where is that list of hundreds of things wrong with my claims? Or was that a delusional response barring all other evidence because you want old earth to be correct so badly?
2) Ignoring that 365 million expansions and contractions would destroy most if not all of any evidence of water erosion from a river.
3) Ignoring that wind erosion looks very different from water erosion.
4) Wind blows almost everyday. It rains a lot less. And in some seasons, not as all. So water erosion should be basically non-existant in the upper rock facings.
5) etc....
Asserting that "wind erosion looks nothing like water erosion" does not make it true.
I never asserted that. I said that you were.
Still a false representation of my position: what we see is weathering and erosion (including wind, rain, snow, ice) occurring on all exposed rock surfaces based on the types of rock involved. This can be - and has been - measured. The erosion pattern we see is due to the rock types and their different density and chemical bonding affecting how easy they are to erode compared to other rock types, resulting in different rates of erosion. The horizontal banding at the top is aligned with the rock layers.
How does it feel to have it done to you as you do to me?
Where is the debri from the carved out canyon? Did time make it disappear?
