Summations Only

I don't think it's a dip. I think it's an illusion of perspective.If it's really what you think it is then it should be easy to find images showing it unambiguously.--Percy

That's not a fact, though. You're like a kid saying "I didn't hit him, and anyway he hit me first!"The strata are all undisturbed, you say, and anyway all the disturbances happened after they were all deposited. If you know nothing about the scientific method, this would be a great place to not discuss it.

What you think are tilted layers is also an illusion of perspective, and the image shows neither the Great Unconformity nor the layers of the supergroup. Here's the image again: The supergroup layers have just a tiny amount of exposure at the very bottom of the canyon - they're not in this image.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.

This is still a blatant double standard, faith. You insist on the importance of this evidence (which, by the way, relies on your assertion that it disproves an OE) while denying the importance of other evidence that is even more straightforward than your point. The canyon meanders, your model can't account for this. Very simple. You didn't respond to my last post in which I asked you three questions. I'll repost it here for your convenience:

HUH?What makes you think there are no unconformities other that the Great Unconformity? Don't you think the fact that that one is named would imply that there are more than just one?"Their neat parallel placidity" like the god you market exist only in your mind and you have repeatedly been shown examples.

I just love it how creationists, whose only interest in science is destroying it, feel so free to lecture scientists on the nature of their profession.What a joke!

Yes there are. We showed you photographs, remember?

That is in fact the Great Unconformity as seen from Lipan Point. Here it is again. Note that this page belongs to Dr. John Merck, professor of geology at the University of Maryland, who presumably knows an unconformity when he sees one.

There is no unconformity anywhere in that long stretch of parallel layers shown on the cross-sections of the GC to the top of the GS that have been posted a number of times. There are only the parallel layers a mile deep. There is an unconformity at the very north end of those layers, and there is the Great Unconformity beneath the canyon. Neither changes the fact that there is a stretch of hundreds of miles of undisturbed parallel layers a mile deep between the GC and the GS, which on OE time covers according to Dr. A three quarters of a billion years. Long time for no tectonic or volcanic or earthquake or visible erosional activity to happen to any of the layers during that long span pver such a large area. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes there are. This is why I was able to show you photographs of them.

This is peculiar. Do you not understand that accepting the existence of any unconformity means you are accepting that erosion occurred, something you have steadfastly insisted didn't happen.And I am still waiting for a justification of why the shape of the entire GC is irrelevant. You have made it clear that you don't want to address it because it doesn't prove your point (and in fact refutes it), but you haven't been able to explain how this is logically justified. And now that I have modified the tone of my posts your continued refusal to address them is evidence that it is the points you find objectionable, not the tone.

I know nothing about geology and even less about the Grand Canyon so maybe I can mediate.You're saying:1. There's a section of the GC that's (how many) hundreds of miles long showing flat, undisturbed sedimentary layers.Is this true chaps?2. These layers represent about 750m years.True?3. If both those things are true, is there anything remarkable about it? Should we be surprised that a particular stretch of land has not been subject to disturbance? Is there anything special about this stretch that says that we should expect it?4. My ignorance of the GC is complete, so are the layers that Faith is looking at formed underwater? Do they contain fossils of sea/lake living organisms?5. Does erosion of the sort we're talking about only occur after an uplift or retreat of water so that the layers become susceptible to the sort of erosion I'm familiar with caused by rain, frost, wind? Or can erosion occur under water. (Obviously it can at areas of turbulence near a coast or in shallows, but my mental image of deep water is of extreme calm.)In the end, it seems to me that Faith has a fairly simple question 'is it reasonable for there to be a hundred or so miles of undisturbed layers of sediment for such a long period?'To be honest I can't think of a reason why it's not, particularly as we have the evidence of massive disturbance at both ends of the hundred miles. The question seems to me more like 'is it reasonable to expect all the sediment layers to be broken up many times and in many places and if so, how much jumbling should we expect?'

Holy cow! You just provided the other perspective that I suggested RAZD try to find: I had no idea the Grand Canyon Supergroup was so incredibly prominently visible anywhere at the Grand Canyon. I've only seen images of a few exposed meters just above river level, and diagrams like this that show just a tiny bit of the supergroup visible at the canyon base: Anyway, commenting about the image from Dr Merck, if RAZD sees a dip at the unconformity he should point it out in this image. If it's there it will be much easier to see when viewed straight on than from that other image with the angled view.--Percy

I believe that I can offer some clarifications.

quote:

---

1. There's a section of the GC that's (how many) hundreds of miles long showing flat, undisturbed sedimentary layers.

---

We have no clear idea of how long this section, or sections, is. Only that faith doesn't want us to consider other locations, apparently because they don't support her argument.However, it is not true that they are undisturbed, only that the effects of the disturbance is not visible in photographs taken form the opposite side of the canyon. That's a really major difference (and as we've seen the two dimensional nature of photographs does seem to make interpreting the pictures difficult).So far as I can tell this is not a very good argument. Plains exist, so I'm not sure what a region of mostly flat land - when it's even above water - is meant to show. Especially when the sort of erosional features Faith talks about seem to be visible in the strata in other places.

Actually I don't know a heck of a lot about the strata of the GC either but... does that stop me? For there to be a large area of flat, undisturbed layers you'd need something depositing sediment there for a long time. What could possibly do that? Magic?Oh, how about an ocean? The layers would vary with the surrounding conditions and do oceans last 100's of millions of years? Well, it seems they do.How long should we expect a given continental area to remain "undisturbed" (discussed more below)? We'll from my limited knowledge major orogenies are caused by tectonic plate movements (not isolated volcanoes). Someone is lumping them all together because they don't understand any of it. How frequently should we expect them? once in 10 million years, a 100? , a billion? They result when the supercontinents form and breakup. The Appalachians are a worn down stub of the orogeny when pangea formed (IIRC). That sat there for a looong time. Then the Atlantic started to open and North America started to plow up the Rockies. Since the continents take 100's of millions of years to crash together, sit around and then start to split up we would expect 100's of millions of years between orogenies.Why anyone would expect other wise I can't guess. (and they aren't telling)Volcanoes are, of course, associated with tectonics but don't have to be over much of an area and can arise and fade awary in millions to 10's of millions of years so they can operate on time scales about an order of magnitude smaller than major orogenies.That's my thinking anyway. So no, on a large scale we shouldn't be surprised at what we see. Of course, half of what is being said isn't true anyway.