Summations Only

The rocks of the Grand Canyon show numerous instances of subaerial erosion and deposition.First, of course, there is the Great Unconformity. We should note that despite what Faith says, the rocks beneath this (known collectively as the Grand Canyon Supergroup) do not consist exclusively of basement rocks, but also incorporate sedimentary rocks such as the Dox Sandstone. Below is a photograph of the Great Unconformity. From the point of view of real geology, the explanation for the Great Unconformity is obvious: the strata were deposited, tilted by uplift, and eroded.From Faith's point of view ... from Faith's point of view we shouldn't be discussing this. The layers, she says, are horizontal with flat tops. When we point out the existence of the Grand Canyon Supergroup and the Great Unconformity, she explains that she's not talking about that.We come next to the disconformity between the Muav limestone and the Redwall limestone. According to Faith, the interfaces between formations are flat. Unlike, for example, this one.Then there is the disconformity between the Redwall limestone and the Supai formation, a surface the irregularities of which are visible even at a great distance: This consists of large-scale erosion: ... which Faith prefers to describe as "minuscule", because after all 100 meters or so merely cuts more than halfway through the entire Redwall limestone.Contrary to what Faith says: ... karst erosion is in fact a completely normal way for limestone to undergo subaerial erosion. Karst landscapes can be seen from England to New Zealand, wherever the surface is limestone.We should pause a moment to look at one of Faith's more amusing conceptual blunders. She originally maintained that irregularity of one surface would cause "all" the layers to be irregular. She has now retracted this claim in its full florid stupidity, having been convinced that the irregularity would not propagate downwards. But she is still convinced that it would propagate upwards.This is a triumph of theory over plainly visible fact, since the large irregularities in the top of the Redwall Limestone are not repeated in the top of the Supai Group, only the bottom of it, which for obvious reasons conforms to the top of the Redwall. Faith should go and shout at the Supai Group and tell it that it's doing it all wrong.Reading through Faith's gibberish on this subject, it seems as though she really thinks that if a surface as shown in figure 1 below were to be covered by sediment, the result would look like figure 2: One supposes that she never played with sand when she was a little girl.Finally, there is the erosion at the top of the canyon. To see what I'm talking about, observe this pretty geological cross-section: ... or this more utilitarian scheme. Evidently vast amounts of erosion were required to expose the Kaibab formation at the top of the canyon. Creationists require this process to be compressed within about the last 4,000 years.It would be fun to look at the other strata shown on these diagrams, but Faith wishes to confine the discussion to the Grand Canyon, because if you want to argue for a flood that covered the whole face of the Earth, it is apparently a good idea to look only at one small locale.As an example of subaerial deposition, let's look at the Coconino sandstone. As we can see by looking at modern dunes ... ... they have a distinctive sedimentary structure which we see replicated in the Coconino sandstone ... ... which also has the sort of grain characteristic of a sandy desert, and also terrestrial fauna and footprints. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well then, it appears that you admit that one layer being eroded would neither affect the horizontality of the surfaces below it nor above it. Good.I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you, but when you make statements like this: ... that does leave one with the impression that you think surface irregularities caused by erosion can somehow propagate upwards and downwards through the stack. Yeah, only the surfaces that are exposed get erosional surfaces. This much is true.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Oh, OK. Faith would like me to remind everyone that not only would she like us to look only at the Grand Canyon when considering whether or not there was a worldwide flood, but she would also like us only to look at it from a distance so's we get a really poor view of it. And no peeking below the Great Unconformity. If you find yourself in danger of getting a glimpse of any actual rocks, hold the Bible in front of your eyes and pray to God for myopia.

But it isn't, any more than "You're stupid" would be a serious argument.For every stratum in the Grand Canyon, we can point to an actual process that is right now laying down similar strata. It seems, if not ridiculous, than at least redundant, to suppose that some other process which we have never seen was responsible for the strata visible in the Grand Canyon. It's like seeing a chicken hatch from an egg and saying "But it's ridiculous to suppose that those chickens over there hatched out of eggs. It's far more plausible to think that some other process that we've never observed and which involves God doing magic was responsible for those chickens."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But not to people who have looked at the strata, who have studied geological processes that actually occur, and who don't need to be shown photographs to know what a beach looks like. People who think the Pope isn't the Viceregent of God on Earth have no idea what the Christian faith is all about. Also, it turns out they're flammable. Though I must have missed the bit mentioning the Grand Canyon. And the existence of America. But they do. Science has to look at the facts. All the facts. Or it ceases to be science. For example, in science, as opposed to your religion, it is not legitimate to demand that conclusions about the Grand Canyon should be reached by looking at the rocks from a distance of no less than four miles.

It did. Hence the uplift of the Grand Canyon Supergroup in the Grand Canyon Orogeny, the production of the Great Unconformity, the dike swarms, the unconformity at the bottom of the Redwall Limestone, the unconformity at the top of the Redwall Limestone, the unconformity at the top of the Coconino Sandstone (link provided because I haven't showed you any pictures of that yet), the erosion of everything in the Grand Canyon region above the Kaibab Limestone, the volcanic activity in the Uinkaret volcanic field, the uplift (by two miles) of the Colorado Plateau in the Laramide Orogeny, and that great big canyon you must have heard of. Yeah, she's got us there. I can't find a single example of strata being disturbed before they were laid down. This can't just be a coincidence, it must be a miracle from God.

Well, that settles it. When it comes to sedimentology, the decisive factor should always be the unsupported opinion of someone who needs to be shown photographs before she knows what a beach looks like.

This is exactly what we see.

And if only you could provide a good argument for this, instead of just saying it, your wish would be granted. And if only you could provide a good argument for this, instead of just saying it ...

That isn't actually interbedding, they're lying. The words "Bible website" should have been a clue.Actual examples of what Faith is talking about are supplied by the Surprise Canyon and Temple Butte formations, as she'd known if she'd ever taken an interest in the Grand Canyon.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Then since they are now exposed at the surface, must we conclude that they were never underwater? Those aren't arguments. They're assertions. False ones.

You said that there was no tectonic distortion, and that I'd shown you a photograph of it. Feel free to supply context. I think you were right when you said that I'd shown you a photograph of the tectonic distortion, and wrong when you said there wasn't any.

Yes, but it's bollocks. How often are things with the word "Bible" on them true?