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

So, no evidence of shearing, right? Well, it's not the Tapeats. It's the Bright Angel. how did the layers warp around the boulder?If from shearing, where is the evidence?

Sure: the boulder was broken off during the sliding of the upper stack (which apparently at this location was the shale?} over the Supergroup and became embedded in the shale, clearly above the contact line, showing that it wasn't already sitting on the Supergroup when the clay sediment was deposited. The clay was already there in a damp soft-enough condition but clearly as layers and not loose sediment, and the boulder displaced the layers as it was broken off, pushing the ones above upward and to the right, which accounts for the upward direction of the layers on both sides. And it twisted some during the event and rather violently broke the strata below, bending it downward. The black holes in the strata are evidence of its forcing the strata aside, and along with the clearly stratified condition of the shale is evidence that the shale was already there as softish strata when the boulder was forced into it. The boulder forced the strata around it out of its original horizontal alignment too. No, it created the depression when it forced itself into the shale, as described above. Because the clay was still soft and the twisting entry of the boulder forced them in those directions;. Sure. This is of course not an example of loose sediments depositing after the boulder was in place, because then there would be no strata formation at all and all the spaces would have been filled in by the sediments. It is because the clay is somewhat formed yet soft enough to deform that it was displaced by the boulder as you see in the picture. You've obviously misunderstood something I've said then.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There should be, at the contact line. The "famous YEC boulder" as I think you called it is what I was talking about, the one in the video by Paul Garner, and that is embedded in the Tapeats sandstone. I get to the one in the shale in the next post, which I just posted above. Shearing wouldn't displace the strata around a boulder. The forced entry of the boulder did that --again, speaking of the boulder in the shale which you posted, not the boulder in the Tapeats which is in that video I posted a while back.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And to become embedded in the shale, it had to deform the shale beds, pushing then downward, right? Yes, creating 'drag folds' in the sediment, right? Yes, bending the sedimentary strata. So, the strata are forced out of their 'normal' orientation... So, the strata were able to bend and absorb strain. So, it was so heavy that it settled into the shale, and pushed the strata downward. So the shale was so soft that it could wrap itself around the boulder...Right? But they are soft sediments, right? And they do show deformation around the boulder, right? Why not? We see the presence of layering in sediments as they are being deposited. When do you think that the layers form? What spaces? You said that the boulder would sink into the sediments deforming them downward. So it is displaced forming drape-like folds. Right?Are you getting the point here? You you have said that sediments cannot deform around an irregular surface of pre-existing basement material; and yet here, you are admitting that the sediments do deform around this boulder.

Well, finding that would be evidence. Fine. Maybe there is more than one boulder. I don't keep track of them... So, a big boulder like this moving through the shale would have no effect on the structures within the shale, like disrupted bedding or sheared contacts, etc.? I'll tell that to the next stabbing victim I see. "The knife didn't really cut anything, it was just a forced entry, doing no real damage at all in its pathway through your body."

Here is a couple more interesting images On the left is a carbonate mound. On the right a dropstone.HBD

More evidence of warped strata that cannot exist...

First of all, I consider myself a contender for the title of "least competent geologist to have graduated from a reputable university geology department". But I do think what competence I have achieved, is to well recognize my limited competence (and perhaps also others limited competences). Much respect to herebedragons (he has done a lot of good postings), but I do think he sometimes tends to make statements a bit beyond his competence. It's easy to find flaws in creationist reasoning - What I chose to more pursue is to question some responses from the science side. I really don't like seeing dubious rebuttals to creationists.In my original "Bogusity alert" message, I was concerned about overly grand conclusions from A DIAGRAM. Geology diagrams tend to be simplified illustrations (and non-geologists tend to not know or think about that common thing "vertical exaggeration").I wasn't even thinking about the difference between rock stratagraphic units and time stratagraphic units. Anyway, there may well be some diagenetic (dewatering) sagging, but I think the bulk of the sagging is the basin development itself.For whatever it's worth:Michigan Basin - WikipediaTracking down a Michigan map having a scale, it appears that the Michigan basin is about 150 to 200 miles across.That would make the horizontal dimension of: to be something c. 100 miles, with a basin depth of c. 3 miles. C. 3 miles vertically and c. 50 miles horizontal would be the ratio, or a vertical exaggeration of c. x15. So, reduce the vertical dimension to c. 1/15th to get a more realistic view of the basin. Not much dip there really.ABE - (more or less) true scale image: MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : ABE: Added true scale image.

Yes but also upward. AS I SAID. Yes, as I said though I'd forgotten that term for them. Yes, as I said. Yes, AS I SAID. Yes, as I said, they were formed AS STRATA, that is, they were not freshly deposited LOOSE sediments, which would have filled in the holes and gaps around the boulder, they were formed and identifiable AS strata, yet soft enough to be deformed by the boulder's pushing in among them. Heavy and hard, and it pushed the strata upward as well as downward, with a slight twisting movement, which is what my arrows were meant to indicate. Yes, edge, soft but firm enough to preserve its basic form as strata, and I wrote all that with the understanding that it contradicts you and HBD, but now you're acting like this has been your view all along. Yes, edge, and all of the above contradicts the idea that the boulder was there first and the strata were deposited over and around it afterward, which I thought was your argument. But now you are sounding like a YEC arguing for the Young Earth order of events, because according to Old Earth assumptions that boulder, having come out of the basement strata of the Supergroup, is many millions of years older than the strata above, of which the shale is part. Loose sediments would deposit horizontally around the boulder filling in all the spaces. Perhaps not PERFECTLY, ok? But they would not look "draped." They would not be consolidated enough to maintain the form of strata or bend around the boulder maintaining that basic form of layers when they were just depositing as LOOSE sand, or clay or whatnot. No I didn't, It also deformed them upward, which I've indicated on my marked copy of the photo, also forced them out of their original horizontality, and I also drew arrows to point out the spaces, those black areas, caused by the boulder's intrusion. I can't figure out how you get such strange impressions of what I'm saying. It's all there in the photo if you find my English ambiguous, and I don't see that it's ambiguous anyway. You just about repeated the first part of my post above after all. Yes, edge, but the whole point of my argument is to give a different order of events than HBD had in mind when he posted those diagrams, which I thought you agreed with. That is, HBD has been arguing that the monadnocks, the rock beneath the strata, were there FIRST, which is the usual Old Earth understanding, and then loose sediments deposited over and around them in that draped fashion, which I've been arguing is impossible. The rock HAD to have intruded from beneath into formed but soft layers for the strata to have acquired that "draped" look-- it was the result of the intrusion, it couldn't have occurred during deposition of loose sediments. And again, I thought you agreed with him, but in the first three-quarters of this post you are saying things that agree with ME instead of with him, seeming to agree that the boulder intruded into the strata after the strata were already there. This is a puzzle. I hope you can see what I'm talking about. You seem to have been completely missing my attempts to make a clear distinction between the LOOSE sediments as they would have originally been deposited, and the formed-but-ductile sediments that would already have existed as firm-but-ductile strata when the lower rock intruded into them. In that firm but soft state they can deform around an INTRUDING object; but as depositing loose sediments they would only fill in the spaces around an object that was there first, and any apparent stratification would be horizontal, not bent, not forming "drag folds" and not losing their horizontality.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your usual straw man confusion. I certainly NEVER SAID THEY CANNOT EXIST, what I'm saying is that they had to BE THERE BEFORE THE CARBONATE MOUND INTRUDED AND BEFORE THE DROPSTONE DROPPED. The sediments were SHAPED AS STRATA at the time but SOFT ENOUGH to be deformed by the intrusive objects. They were NOT LOOSE SEDIMENTS which would simply have filled in the spaces around those objects if the objects were there first. But they weren't there first, they intruded into the already existing sediments that were already formed into layers, firm enough to maintain their stratified shape but soft enough to be deformed by the intruding object.AS I'VE SAID AT LEAST A MILLION TIMES BY NOW. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Both of those images fit my YEC interpretation and NOT your OE interpretation. See my Message 1045 to edge.THE STRATA WERE THERE FIRST.THE STRATA WERE THERE FIRST.THE STRATA WERE THERE FIRST.THE STRATA WERE THERE FIRST.THE STRATA WERE THERE FIRST....Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I had trouble seeing the strata, too. Also, in the past Faith has mistaken scree for something else.Lines identify but also obscure boundaries, so arrows might serve better.I am, as always, responding as I read forward. No need to do anything if it isn't relevant to the current discussion.

Okay, so strata cannot warp around pre-existing irregularities, but they can form around bodies that penetrate the sedimentary layers.Is that your position?I also see that it is your contention that such things as drop-stones and carbonate mounds and 'monadnocks', are intrusive into the overlying sediments.Is that also your position? If so, I have a few points/questions.

In coarse-grained beds, layering is often irregular, but should be visible to most people.The point of the photo was to show that layers can be deposited with an original inclination.I guess the point of my comment was that Faith would find some way to deny the observation. This just gets to be tedious.

It helps that you don't see the strata either. But if edge is frustrated because he thinks I'm pretending not to see it, [saying he expected me to "find some way to deny" that it's strata] I'm certainly no less frustrated with him since he so often fails to get what seem to me to be the simplest statements. Anyway if he's going to insist that's strata this whole discussion is futile.As for your remark that I confused scree with something else, I have to show what you are referring to because those white blotches in the picture of the G.U. look like streaks of paint (of course I know they aren't paint) or perhaps patches of sunlight.Here's where we discussed it: EvC Forum: Why the Flood Never HappenedAnd here's the picture where I circled some of the patches: There may be a bit of scree highlighted IN those patches, especially if they are sunlight, but not much in any case.Here's what Wikipedia identifies as scree, which doesn't look much like those patches: And just in case you are trying to make me look bad, that's the same discussion where you and RAZD both didn't recognize the ledge/overhang of sandstone protruding from the Tapeats shelf. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.