Let me give you a better visual than my blathering:
We have two images here. I'll talk about the top one first.
This shows the stratigraphy (layers) of an fossilized riverbed and its surroundings.
The black to light-grey sequence of the bed relates to the coarseness of the grains we see inside one, solid rock (conglomerate). I should add that the boundaries would not be that definite; the layers of grey would mix a bit but still keep the same gradient.
Around it, the other shades of red indicate varying types of sedimentary rock, most likely sandstone. This would be caused be a marine regression, where an ocean recedes leaving behind marsh, then rivers, then forests. Thus, the
deep burgundy is limestone (oceanic rock),
followed by coal and shales (marshlands). After that are the river(s), and the red around it would probably be
coarse sandstone from flood washes of the river, especially in its shallower (lighter) stages.
After that is pink:
shale and some more (less fertile) coal from a forest that took on the fertile land of the former river.
Each of these layers would be very distinct.
So far, we have a fossilized river inside a series of layers that indicate a marine regression, each one showing a different environment. Let me emphasize: a distinct, traceable
river inside an entirely separate series of layers.
Now, to add to the conundrum,
we have three different types of fossils found in the sandstones and shales on the distinct, observable riverbanks. (when I say distinct, I mean you can tell where the riverbanks had a cave in at some point. These are detailed.)
The blue streaks are footprints of a creature dependent on water, probably a predator that caught fish (why? Because those footprints do not appear later, when the river is shallower and no game would survive) equivalent to our modern crocodile or bear.
As the river got shallower, we find a new set of prints of a creature that probably came to the river to drink, as it was getting shallower and not much substantial game remained. Examination of the sandstone layers for environmental traces would confirm or refute this. The creatures lived in the floodplain and early forest, like our modern deer.
Finally, in the forest environment, the river is pretty much entirely dried up. On
top of it, we have a new set of footprints: an animal that was at home in the groundlevel of the forest, but not around rivers.
Follow so far? Good.
Now, the second image. We have this ancient riverbed that we would never have found had a canyon not cut through it, exposing it.
In this image, you can see the riverbed and the canyon. The red indicates where you can see the riverbed on both sides of the canyon.
This is the old-earth, evolutionist's interpretation. If you have an alternate one that jives with these bolded facts, let me know.
