Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

I don't have any clear idea what I'm looking at so I have no opinion about whether what you call the unconformity surface was ever flat. My problem is that I don't see any "upper beds," I see a flat ground-level surface of sand with an upright sort of wall behind it. So I don't see any contact let alone abrasion or dissolution. I need to see this from another angle, or as HBD suggested, without the yellow outline. There is no smooth surface on any side of the lengths of rock, they look to be gouged and misshapen on all surfaces. On all surfaces? Broken lengths of strata much battered on all surfaces. I can't assume it's the upper part of an unconformity based on this picture so I can't even speculate about your question. If I can't see what you say is there I can't possibly answer your question.So if this is all I get I suppose it will simply remain a mystery.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If it were flat, I'd like to hear how it got to be its current shape. This seems to be your main argument for this entire thread. You 'don't see it'. Here we are again. You don't understand the viewpoint of the image. It is of a wall. It is not like looking at a map. I see several contacts, but no I don't see any evidence for abrasion or dissolution.So, are you abandoning your scenario for unconformity formation? My guess is that you would never have enough pictures to satisfy you. Those are normal intersections of bedding with fractures. Why do you say there is a 'lot of weathering'? Is the rock weathered to clay? Are there solution cavities? Is that a paleosoil? Is the iron-oxide coating heavy? Why not? There are fractures and bedding planes that you have noticed. Yes, erosion would break off fragments of the rocks. What do you mean by 'battered', do you see scratches, gouges, voids? Right. You 'cant see it'. So, there is no need to explain anything that everyone else sees. That is convenient for you. You seem to have a lot of mysteries.

It's probably an optical illusion created by the angle of the photograph but I absolutely cannot see the sand as anything but background, completely unrelated to the stone formation which seems to be lying on top of it. completely unrelated, not touching each other at all --- on the unconformity surface I mean -- certainly if the rock is lying on the sand there is contact but not contact at the unconformity surface. I can't seem to get them to look like anything but stone lying on sand. If they really do make up an angular unconformity I simply can't see it. Yes, seeing the original might make a big difference. What you are apparently seeing I simply am not, and I can't get it to look the way you are seeing it, the way one can with an optical illusion. I suppose they must be but they look more like battered pillars of stone, well, except for those in the foreground that look more like strata. Yes I know it's strange that I have this strong impression when clearly it looks so different to you, but I'm stuck with it. Sure, but they don't appear to be on the same plane. Kind of looks like somebody battered them with a sledge hammer. Can't see any contact. Maybe it will suddenly snap into the right perspective eventually. I'll take your word for it but I can't see it. Yes, an angle that shows more of the context or environment would help.ABE: The picture again, for reference: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It looks like we have a visualization problem here. Perhaps you cannot perceive the third dimension in most of the photographs that we have provided you. We seem to have this problem over and over where you see something completely different.You might just have to trust us on this. There is no other viewpoint available. Here is the original: I know you are going to have problems seeing this, but the top of the image is up if that helps. The bedding planes in the lower dolomite rocks tilt moderately to the right and the fragmental stratum in the upper part of the picture is actually a solid rock.

Thanks for putting up the original. Now I see the dolomite as embedded in the sand. At least there's contact with the stepped surface now. But I'm going to have to come back to this later, or tomorrow.

HBD made the same request. I was able to find this:

Reposting images into your message is extremely helpful. It makes no difference that the image has been posted a dozen times already, it is really helpful to have it right there in your message. It is even more helpful to annotate the image if you're calling attention to a specific part. When annotating, if it wouldn't be too ambiguous you might consider using circles, ovals, boxes and so forth instead of lines to identify boundaries, because at least in this particular discussion obscuring the boundary seems to raise doubts in the minds of some of what they're actually seeing.

Indeed, because the mechanism of Walther's Law is the different settling rates of different sediments by their sizes and densities, which gets back to Stokes' Law. When we look at the graphic for Walther's Law provided by Percy in Message 9 of the Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law thread: We can readily see that these different layers are predominantly sorted by their settling rates (based on size and density). We can also see that the Sands and Siliciclastic Muds are products of erosion that are necessarily products of the adjacent lands being eroded there and deposited here, rather than being transported from some distant transoceanic location.Then we refer to Message 50 of Dr A's excellent geology thread Introduction To Geology we can see that one element of the the Carbonate Sediments would be produced by the erosion of limestones exposed in the adjacent eroding landscape -- a chemical process that dissolves the Calcium Carbonate in fresh water which then precipitates in salt water when transported to the oceans.However, other more dominant components of this Carbonate Sediments layer are the shells and detritus from inter-tidal, reef and other littoral zone organisms growing in situ (within the zone that sunlightpenetrates).And then we have the last layer group, Coccolith Foram Ooze, which is formed from Biochemical sediment from the shells of diatoms, foraminifers, etc., in the Epipelagic and Mesopelagic zones of the open ocean (again the zones where sunlight penetrates).This gives us the horizontal distribution above We can also see that there should be some interbedding of the marine life detritus with the Sands and Siliciclastic Muds layers, and that only when the horizontal reach of Siliciclastic Muds is reached would you find marine life growing on top of the previous generations of marine life in a distinct layer.Now I find it rather difficult to envisage a system of waves orbiting a flooded globe that could duplicate these deposition conditions and environments, but perhaps Faith can explain these details from her armchair of profound knowledge ....Enjoy

So (a) how do you generate these periods (where does the water go)? Are there now towers of water slowly moving around the planet ???And (b) how do you explain the life that grows over periods of years in just a couple months? ....Enjoy

I think this particular photo is a problem because there is no indication of where the top and bottom are, no environment, just the formation. If anything I think I'm seeing a third dimension that isn't there. That's probably just a darker color at the bottom of the ibex formation but it looks like a shadow and that makes it look perpendicular to the sand beneath it rather than on the same plane. But at least now that the outline has been removed, the dolomite doesn't look like it's separated from the sandstone, now it looks like it's embedded in it.Anyway I can now at least surmise the unconformity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I said, with Walther's Law I'm not thinking of waves, just the changes in sea level, which is probably quite enough to explain the whole Flood scenario. Waves may not play a part in the Flood scenario at all, they simply occurred to me as something that would probably happen as the land was reappearing.

Some creationists have good ideas about where the water went, mostly involving the collapse of the sea floor I think, but that's not part of the Flood scenario I'm up on. In any case we're getting too far off topic in this thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Agreed. We can get back to this some other time.Enjoy

This is the photo: This image is from a different part of Mosaic Canyon, but it provides a rough idea of the context. The sand with the embedded rocks was deposited atop the light-colored dolomite: It might be helpful to clarify this portion: It isn't clear what you're implying when you say you previously thought the dolomite and sandstone layers were separated. Why do you think it possible for rock layers to be separated (I assume you mean by air - of course rock layers can be separated by other rock layers), what do you think that implies about the angular unconformity, and what do you think the absence of a separation implies?

I wanted to offer you this explanation about how an uplifted, jagged landscape can be reduced to a level surface. What this does is illustrate what jar has been saying about how material is moved from high places to low places. It is overly simplistic but should give you the idea behind how erosion could work over time to wear down a landscape. This first photo shows uplifted tilted blocks with a valley in between them - very much like what we see with the Supergroup. I have drawn it as an island to keep it as simple as possible. One thing to keep in mind is that we should be talking about energy gradients here; erosion moves material from high energy potential to low energy potential. The water level indicates lowest energy potential, the mountain peaks indicate high energy potential and the valley indicates low energy potential. Image 2 shows how erosion has worked to round off the sharp peaks. Because there is still an energy gradient from the valley to the water level, sediment coming from the peaks will be carried away from the valley through runoff.(A good contemporary example of this is the Adirondacks as compared to the Rocky Mountains. The Rockies have sharp jagged peaks while the Adirondacks’ peaks have been rounded off by erosion) Image 3. When the valley has worn down to the point that there is no longer a sufficient energy gradient to carry sediment away, it begins filling with sediment. Erosion continues at the places where there is still a high enough energy gradient to carry material away. Image 4. When enough sediment accumulates in the basin, the energy gradient increases until sediment can once again be carried away. Sedimentation stops and the valley once again becomes an area of net erosion.The process repeats between image 3 and 4 as energy gradients shift back and forth and the area shifts between net deposition and net erosion. In the end, there is nothing that CAN happen BUT a flat plain created. Eventually, this water will come up onto the land and will further level the landscape by eroding the highs and filling the lows. Image 6 illustrates what would happen if there was continuous and equal erosion on all surfaces. It could not happen this way. A negative energy gradient would be created in the valley and there would be nowhere for erosion products to go. They would HAVE to accumulate - which would take it back to image 3Your images of erosion in Message 345 show what happens when water runs off the surface rapidly and in high volumes, not what happens with normal, long-term erosional processes. (commentary: If a world-wide flood did shape what is now the surface of the earth, this is the type of erosion we should see everywhere. But it’s not instead we see evidence of these slow, long term processes).I think this post illustrates the model as to how rugged landscapes can be worn down to flat plains. It is more than just fantasy, it is based on real, physical processes and principals that we observe.Is this what happened to the surface of the Grate Unconformity? Maybe, maybe not This post is not meant to address that particular question, but to give a model for landscapes being reduced to a flat plain. I realize my model is overly simplistic, but it is the principles you should focus on.The ONLY thing that erosion CAN do is reduce a lumpy, bumpy landscape into a flat plain - because erosion does not act alone but in conjunction with deposition.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : typo