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

Well, that's not the Great Unconformity ... Well, I can see a number of differences, mainly in that the mineral orientations shown in your example of a shear zone is not present in your surmised shears zones.

So we end up with the cognitive dissonance that all of your posts represent.A kind of Alice-in-Wonderland fantasy world, where whatever you wish can actually happen.And no one understands what the heck you're talking about...

But not enough strain to cause shear textures. And no evidence that it happened.I know. You don't care. Except that you have no evidence for such abrasion. I like the erosion theory better. I have no problems with boulders sitting in beach sands as this picture from Viti Levu shows. I don't see any abrasion going on to get this boulder into place in the sand. In the case you are talking about it is a boulder of Shinumo Quartzite sitting in the transgressing Tapeats sand. Or else there was no flood... Well, let's see, we have boulders in sand without any apparent abrasion occurring, and we see no expected effects of abrasion.I suppose it's logical to you that abrasion occurred anyway.

Actually, that's already been done. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Not if they were eroded to a relatively flat surface. Perhaps they do not exist. Could it be that the folds are planed off by erosion? You don't understand the diagram. the folded layers were subject to stress by moving the two end books (the ones standing upright) closer together. It's pretty obvious that the overlying book was not compressed.The point of the flat-lying book is to simulate a confining pressure. It has no real representation of rock. No. Not in this case.What you are talking about, in the geomechanical sense, is a 'beam'. What a beam does is absorb and transit stress elsewhere. It literally keeps the softer rocks around it from deforming. Not the other way around.If this model represented only compression (i.e., one event) the end books should overlap the flat lying one and that flat books should absorb all of the stress of compression until it fails. At that point, we would find folding, shearing and faults in both the beam and the softer rocks around it.The Lyell diagram is simply a way of showing how flexural slip (like a deck of cards) folds are created.ABE: Yes, I've watched this before. It sounds good to the uneducated, but basicaly, Garner is pulling the wool (he is in Scotland, after all....) over your eyes. If he paid for a Geology degree, he should get his money back.For one, he makes the same mistake that all creationists seem to fall prey to. He says things like, 'this unconformity represents 500 million years of missing time'. That is completely false. It is 500 million years of missing rock record. It was not eroded for 500 million year as he suggests. It could have been eroded in just a few million.Then he goes on to discuss catastrophic deposition of some parts of the Tapeats Sandstone (in the form of debris flows), implying that mainstream geologists don't believe this can and has happened. He evidently does not understand uniformitarianism.And again, he implies that geologists do not believe that the Tapeats could be deformed in a soft sediment manner. This is false. I see soft-sediment deformation all of the time. Its just that not all deformation occurs in the soft state. And he is kind of vague on you you would determined this, I might add.At the end he seems to equate this soft-sediment deformation with uplift of the Kaibab Plateau. This is nonsense. There is absolutely no reason that one could not have soft-sediment deformation on the flanks of the Shinumo islands in the Tapeats sea and then much later have the entire region uplifted in the Cretaceous-Tertiary timeframe.So, you are being deceived. The only question I have is does Garner really know what he is doing to you.By the way, his entire presentation supports the idea of the GC being a major erosional surface. Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Faith, I think what they are saying is GIGO.Now, let's move on.

Except that we have shown you several instances where erosion can do this. Likely because there are no fold troughs, or the crests have been planed off. Except that there is no evidence of abrasion... Then you understand that the confining pressure is just part of the boundary conditions for the experiment. The book has no true geological equivalent. Well, we know that's not possible. Is your rant done yet? I notice that you are not addressing my points (which have mostly been made here numerous times, by the way..) What do you mean by 'misplaced'? And why? I thought we were talking about geology. Just trying to help out here. Better than what? You don't think that it explains a certain folding mechanism?

Perhaps as a foundation for future discussions and to help Faith understand where we come from, I extracted this quote from a somewhat whimsical webpage that provides some basic insight into a couple of geological principles applicable to this thread. Sometimes I don' think I/we have explained things very well, but this seems to capture the ideas fairly well. So, using these principles, practically anyone can formulate a series of events needed to develop the schematic geological section shown here: Even if we don't count the deposition of each stratum as a separate event, there are still 4 major events depicted.

This article gets into a very technical discussion of the Great Unconformity and surrounding events in the earth's history.Written In Stone...seen through my lens: The Great Unconformity at Baker's Bridge: Part III - Regional Geological and Global Bio-Evolutionary SignificanceSome of the diagrams are pertinent and instructive to what we have discussed on these pages. This one: ... pertains to the late Proterozoic history, focusing on some of the Grand Canyon elements. What I'm interested in here is the period called the 'Cryogenian'. It contains two periods of glaciation that resulted in what we have come to know as the 'snowball earth'. Some of the biological, climatic and geomorphic changes are discussed.My point is that perhaps some of the 'straight and flat' surfaces that Faith has referred to may be a result of those periods of glaciation.Let me clarify that I do not think these particularly refer to the Great Unconformity in the specific locations we've been looking at in the GC; but more broadly to some of the images where we do see (relatively) flat unconformities elsewhere as shown in some of Faith's non-GC photographs.One of the hallmarks of glacial erosion is the limited depth of weathering
in the underlying rocks. Another is the erosion of those rocks to 'basement' type lithologies. Another is the production of such surfaces at this one (no, not the highway...) on the Baltic Shield: I'm proposing that there are (at least) three basic ways of getting 'staight and flate' erosional surfaces (not depositional surfaces such as some we have discussed here).-- Erosion by continental ice sheets, suggested here,-- Wave-cut benches which have been shown in several images (although rejected by Faith),-- Subaerial erosion to a flaty-lying, resistant stratum (not yet discussed here, but possibly shown by the Kaibab Limestone erosional level at the Grand Canyon).Further discussion?(As you can see, with the prices of both gold and oil in the doldrums, I have way too much time on my hands...)

Actually, Faith, I was hoping to reignite a reasonable discussion with or without you.Simple denial and argument by unsupported assertion aren't going to cut it any more.And if you don't understand a point, ask questions, don't hurl insults.

Yes, I read several sections from that paper, thanks. It's one of the reasons I've gone into the subject of glaciation a bit more.

Evidence, Faith, evidence. ...

That's whom I was addressing. We have nothing more to discuss on this.

You may suggest whatever you want.As I indicated earlier, I am not responding to simple denials or baseless assertions.

As you should know, this is not evidence. It's no better than saying that the ice on the lake looks solid. Again, this is the farthest thing from evidence. Where do you come up with these numbers? Again, you seeing something is not evidence. Trained observers might see something completely different. Perhaps we would look for supporting evidence than just relying on appearances. That isn't evidence... Not at all. Everyone here but you provides evidence. For instance you might say the ice looks solid on the lake, because there are no cracks in it. That would be evidence. You have provided pictures but no evidence supporting your interpretation of them. Shearing has occurred because why? What is it that makes you know this? If you are relying solely on ancient myth then you are the anti-scientist. No, we have given you counter evidence, such as 'no evidence for shearing at the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon.'And no, we are not going to stop asking for evidence.