To the last comment on this thread: I think I see what you are saying. Again, we are looking at the same data (strata, in this case) and coming up with different interpretations. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the time of the formation of the canyon is not the important point, but the layering of rock strata with fossils. I'm thinking of the canyon as the rock cut out by an incredible amount of water. It is, after all, sedimentary rock until you get to the great unconformity. As we see from Mt St Helen, the layering is caused by water, or mud flow, laid down in very finely defined strata - just like the Grand Canyon (only a 40th of size). So, from my worldview (which does not include billions of years), the strata was laid from a major flood, and then the canyon of sedimentary (by definition) rock was carved by incredible water flow as the flood receded (or, as some scientists posit, a major break in the Missoula glacier lake). I base this "belief" on actual observations - particularly the lack of erosion between layers, the planation of buttes in the area (a really good geological study there!), the lack of millions-of-years kind of erosion in the canyon itself, and a number of other factors. (Actually, I became convinced by an aerial survey - obviously a whole lot of water! It seemed to fit. ) Since fossils are 95% marine fossils anyway (found in also in higher elevations, including Mt Everest), is shouldn't surprise anyone that some are found in many various rock layers. A study of the pre-Cambrian explosion should raise questions as well, with the trilobites and the nautilus obviously NOT primitive organisms. So, your view of time really does matter and provides a bias in interpreting the data - from either worldview.