Ah, yes! But unfortunately we first must prove that fossils are actually found IN SEQUENCE to find fossils that are OUT of sequence.Ã‚Â As many sites I've studied and seen, I must say the only fossil sequences that have been found, are located in a textbook near you.
Also, speaking of the grand canyon, we observe that the top layers are actually older than dinosaurs ( according to the textbook observation, don't get what we actually see confused with what doesn't exist.)Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Now, using common logic we see that for miles upon miles, supposed millions of years of dirt is missing from the Grand Canyon if we are supposed to accept the textbook definition.Ã‚Â
If we only just look at the canyon for a few moments we realize that it is immpossible for those layers to have accumulated without large bodies of water.Ã‚Â The major flaw with the textbook idea, is that we need to ask the question:Ã‚Â where did all the newer, dinosaur layers go.... they just seemed to magically disappear once we reach the top layer?Ã‚Â That makes no sense, you can't just skip 100 million years... Not that even 1 million let alone 100,000 years has been witnessed or even recorded.
My first point was to address that picture as "clear" evidence of anything. It is one thing to have different interpretations of data. It is another issue when the data do not actually show what is claimed. I was hoping that a picture of the same part of the Grand Canyon without the snow might be helpful.
As far as the fossil column, it appears as though you may not understand what is represented by this geological concept. It might be best to give you an example of a test of the column.
Go into the Grand Canyon, and grab 100 fossils from random locations and heights. Take them to a paleontologist and ask them to tell you what layers in the Grand Canyon that they are found. You may need to find a specialist in each type of fossil. However, I am confident that they will succeed. Cambrian trilobites will be identified appropriately as Cambrian. Devonian corals will be identified as Devonian etc.
This ability to correlate fossils with height is called the fossil column or geological column. If you doubt that a paleontologist can succeed at this test, then I think you should test one in your home state and see if they can predict the layers where you found your fossils.
The existence of fossil column does not imply that every geological era is represented. This is quite rare (but does occur in a number of places on earth). A full column requires that in every geological era, no erosion took place. Most places that are above ground are slowly eroding: they are not adding layers. Areas that that are adding sedimentary layers include oceans, rivers, drifting dunes, volcanic layers etc. Many, but certainly not all, include water since this is a common way to lay down sediment.
The Grand Canyon is part of a major uplift of rock. Here is a picture from a Creationist book showing the layers (the layers represented in the geological column) and the uplift.
I don't expect you to agree with geologists on this issue, but it is worth understanding their argument. Once these sedimentary layers were pushed up out of the ocean, they began eroding.
Currently, the youngest rock of the Grand Canyon is Permian. Based on what we know about the geological column around the world we can make a number of very very good predictions regarding what will not be found in the Grand Canyon. Anyone can pick up a geology book and check for themselves.
Of course, no mammals (no seal bones, no whale bones, no dolphin bones etc),
No Teleosts (90% of modern fish - 20,000 species - are in the class of fish called teleosts and evolved after the Permian). Therefore, evolutionary theory predicts that in the Grand Canyon, you will not find halibut, salmon, pike, cod, herring, smelt, eels, bonefish, groupers, flat fish, bass, dories, bluegill, perch, anchovies, flounders, plaice, sole, sea horses etc etc.
And evolutionary theory also predicts one will not find aquatic dinosaurs (plesiosaurs, Claudiosaurus, Cryptoclidus) although these are relatively column in the higher layers (especially Kansas).
I would like to see how Creationist 'theory' makes the same predictions.