Thanks again, ikester7579, for so clearly presenting the creationist logic and use of evidence.

Yet I quoted you. Here it is again:

I do hope you are not going to resort to equivocation on this, and I'll be happy to let you say it was due to just a cursory reading, rather than an attempt to understand what I said in detail.

Let me see if I can get this straight: the reason that the erosion at the top of the canyon is different from the erosion at the bottom is because the water was deeper, and the top sections were more eroded than the bottom sections. This results in distinctive different patterns of erosion as surface is removed from the top than from the bottom.

Forgive me if I don't see how it can result in the differences seen between the upper sections and the lower sections. I can see that it would have eroded away more top rock than bottom rock, but not that the exposed surfaces would be different. In fact I would expect the bottom layers to show more erosion as the flood waters receeded ... perhaps you can clear up this mystery for me.

This is a good beginning description of weathering and erosion by wind and snow and rain and ice. There are still some more elements that are missing from your presentation, including chemical changes to the rocks that show weathering.

As a result the rock face has continually eroded, cracked and fallen off, exposing new rock to the effects of weathering and erosion from wind and snow and rain and ice. This is the source of the scree that is all over the canyon sides and floors.

You can see them in the pictures.

National Park Service Photo Gallery of the Grand Canyon (100 photos)

Here is one picture of the many provided that shows vertical sections alternating with horizontal ones:



So you have your vertical rain erosion occuring below the horizontal river erosion? Also notice the scree covering all the ledges and filling them up as much as possible. Notice how the horizontal banding pattern of erosion follows the horizontal layers of rock, even around bends and into side canyons.

Here is one that shows the formations of dry peninsulas perpedicular to the flow line, and that also shows the same patterns of vertical (basaltic) cliffs alternating with horizontal (sedimentary) layers, each showing the erosion typical for that type of rock, based on density and chemical bonds. In the distance you can see a while layer that extends from one end of the picture to the other.



In the middle of this picture you can see a wall perpendicular to the flow line down inside the canyon. Can you explain how this was not eroded away if flood waters covered this area?



In fact it is hard to find a picture of the Grand Canyon that does not show several alternating layers of vertical cliffs with basaltic fracture formations with horizontal sedimentary layers that show erosion parallel to the sedimentary layers.

Curiously your sink does not represent floods flowing in canyons with sufficient force to tear bits and pieces of rock from the banks. I'm sure you've seen riverbanks erode and watched the sediment carried off downstream.

Curiously the scree slopes are at what geologists call the angle of repose, and this angle is different in water (the rock is less dense relative to the water), so even if they did fall and magically remained behind during the flood flow, then they would not have formed such steep slopes.

Good, you've grasped that point.

Now take the next step and apply those patterns to the pictures and see how your explanations for the two different wear patterns can explain the evidence seen in the canyon. How do you get your rain erosion patterns below your river erosion patterns? How do you get either at tilted angles?

Or is there another explanation that does show how the different patterns occur? One that includes mechanisms for more than two processes of erosion, one that includes weathering processes? Processes that are known to exist and whose effects can be measured?

Curiously this does not address the issue of rain hitting the surface with the force of the apparent wind (whether your car moves 50 mph, the wind blows 50 mph or both travel at 25 mph towards each other), that this force is substantial.

Curiosly this does not address the issue of raindrops hitting rock at 50 mph dislodge particles from different rock types dependent on the density and chemical bonding of the rock.

This would be a childish approach to debate if it did not also ignore the fact that the higher elevation was addressed. I see you addressed part of that answer later. Again, I'll be happy to let you say it was due to just a cursory reading, and that you didn't go back and correct the earlier part of your post. Here it is again, just in case you don't want to scroll up to see it:

Note that the "A" balloon marks where the canyon crosses the ridge. Note further that the uplift of this area is still going on and can be measured. Curiously the rate measured today is sufficient to explain the rise of the canyon walls to their current elevation in the time that the canyon has existed.

Curiously I am still waiting for a creationist explanation of the canyon cutting the ridge at a high point along the ridge when there are locations both north and south that are at lower elevations: why is the Grand Canyon where it is rather than at one of these locations?

I agree, and this is why you have a problem with upper layers showing horizontal erosion patterns perfectly matching sedimentary layers when those surfaces have been exposed by the scree falling off the previous cliff face: the face you see was not exposed to river water, and the pattern of erosion you see is dictated by the type of rock involved.

Curiously I don't need to list 100 things wrong with it: all I need is evidence that contradicts it to show that it is a false idea (this is how falsification works). Your concept fails to explain alternating layers of horizontal erosion (perfectly in line with sedimentary layers) and vertical erosion (looking like typical basaltic vertical patterns), and it fails to explain any tilted examples. These examples contradict your explanation.

Congratulations, you have shown that the horizontal pattern seen at the tops of the canyon are not due to river erosion, now you just need to take the next step and explain why the pattern of erosion looks the way it does, with horizontal banding perfectly matching the sedimentary layers that are being eroded.

The rocks on the right side of the picture are more weathered, each layer is worn away with rounded edges, even the vertical lines from cracks are rounded. Wind erosion, however, will not erode hard rock at the same rate as it will erode soft rock, so when there is a difference in rock densities this will show up in wear patterns following the rock layers - no matter how those layers are oriented. We see this pattern throughout the Grand Canyon.

Wind and rain and ice and snow erosion and weathering have removed most of the evidence of river water erosion. Now take the next step: how are the patterns that exist made? (waits for shoe to drop ...)

Indeed. Perhaps river erosion is not the whole picture. Perhaps there is something to that concept of uplift ...

Meanwhile, when we look at the creationist claim of flood waters being involved then there should be evidence of an alluvial fan where the river exits the canyon onto the flatter land after the ridge. The total absence of this formation shows that there was never a flow out of the canyon large enough to fan out and deposit sediment in this pattern:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvial_fan
CTD may appreciate the technical points of energy rather that simple water spreading out when it leaves the canyon, and depositing sediment in a cone shape in the process.

The conclusion that follows is that either the flow stayed in the banks of the river down to the sea, or that something magical removed it.

Next we look at where the river enters the Sea of Cortez. When we observe this today we do not see delta formation, nor is there any history of delta formation.

Again we do not see evidence of any sudden large deposition in the past, nor of anything different from what we see today: sediment is carried out into the Sea of Cortez.

We also see that continued tectonic activity is spreading the Baja peninsula from the mainland of Mexico, so this area is being stretched.

Carried out into the Sea of Cortez, just like all the sediment removed from the canyon today is carried.

The fact that there is no remarkable evidence of the huge amounts of rock and other particles is evidence that past erosion patterns were not significantly different from patterns we see today.


I agree that this applies to anyone who holds on to strongly held beliefs in spite of being provided with evidence that contradicts that belief. Doesn't matter whether that belief is that the earth is flat or that elvis still lives. You don't need to take it personally, you don't need to see if the shoe fits, all we are doing is discussing the evidence and how various concepts can or cannot explain the evidence. If we apply the scientific method and discard concepts that are invalidated, then this should not be a problem.

Again, I don't need hundreds when one example contradicts the concept that only rain and river erosion are responsible for the Grand Canyon. The simple existence of multiple alternating layers throughout the canyon make this simple explanation inadequate. It cannot explain a single layer of parallel sedimentary layer erosion above a single layer of vertical column like erosion.

Except that they are not ignored: this is part of the ongoing weathering and erosion from wind and snow and rain and ice. What you see in those pictures of the canyon is almost completely due to those factors.

Except that your continued assertion that this is so, curiously does not make it fact. The effect of wind with rain and dust and dirt can be just as erosive as water containing dust and dirt, just with a different (longer) time frame. You can think of it as a river done as time lapse photography.

You are also ignoring the fact that the erosion pattern involved is not due to the force causing the erosion, but to the types of rock being eroded, and this is why the pattern follows precisely the layers of sediment where those are eroded and is vertical whenever it involves basaltic rock formations, whether one is on top or not.

Agreed. Now take the next step: explain the evidence that looks like water erosion.

That's the tough one. Dealing with all the evidence, not just the cherry picked bits that fit a cherished concept.

So far I have not seen any creationist explanations that come close to explaining all the evidence and what explanations I have seen have all been contradicted by other evidence in the Grand Canyon.

So far the geological science explanation is the only one that covers all the evidence, and all the patterns of erosion seen in the Grand Canyon, and it says that the formation of the Grand Canyon is not consistent with any known flood flow patterns.

Enjoy.