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

Right! You didn't know what posters were talking about, so you proceeded to opine away from ignorance rather than looking things up.That is happening all the time. Some of the posters here are true experts their fields, while you are completely unfamiliar with those fields. But you operate from the assumption that you know better than the experts and proceed to opine at length, resisting mightily any attempts to clarify things or to actually learn something.That is why some of these threads run on so long, and follow so many unnecessary rabbit holes into the depths. It is not the fault of posters who are far more patient than you deserve, it is because of your unwillingness to accept anything outside of your pre-conceived beliefs--no matter how well documented, or how much evidence is presented.

quote:

---

The problem is that they (the gravel from the hill which are drawn at some distance from the hill) are being talked about as if they were there before the sand was deposited which would put them in mid-air.

---

I think that's just one of your weird misreadings. Certainly, the post that you were immediately replying to said nothing of the sort. And let us not forget that you were claiming that gravel as evidence for your view before then. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I wasn't responding to something anybody said, but to the diagram itself which shows some of the gravel to be at some distance from the surface of the rock it came from.I'm still happy to claim it for my view, since it makes sense that the gravel would be transported by abrasion between the rock and the sand and not by mere deposition of sand.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sure that you didn't get the idea out the gravel having to hang in mid-air from the diagrams either.And the fact that the location of the gravel is hard to account for given your view, and relatively easy given the conventional view makes the gravel evidence against your position. No matter how "happy" you are to claim otherwise.

I'm not sure what distance you are talking about, but I'm also not sure how much closer the gravel symbols can be to their source in this diagram which HBD highlighted for you. Perhaps then you would also be happy to explain to us, using a schematic, exactly how and where you think this abrasion occurred in such a way as to transport the gravels. What is the pathway of these fragments?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

According to the principle of superposition (Steno again), the gravels were there before the sands above them, but after the sands below them.Once again, we see a process of deposition through time while you seem to see a disjointed set of events having little relationship to one another. You appear to be one of those shoppers who picks up a steak from the freezer but have no idea how it got there. One story is just as good as another. Edited by edge, : spelling correction

I didn't highlight that image, Percy must have...but anyway, here is what McKee says about coarse fragments at the base of these hills

quote:

---

Monadnocks which persisted as rocky islands in many parts of the Cambrian sea during early stages of deposition show definite evidence of a shore environment. Walcott reports that the flanks of some of these hills are covered with large rock fragments which obviously were broken off from near-by ledges, probably through the action of the sea, and were buried in drifting sand where they fell. Later geologists working in the region have recorded other excellent examples of coarse materials, especially large angular blocks, on the sides of various Ep-Algonkian monadnocks (pl. 3c). In many places these boulder accumulations grade off into conglomerates containing gravels which are subangular or rounded, doubtless as a result of pounding and rolling by waves, and still farther away, at what presumably was the gravel limit, they grade into normal sand of the formation. Sharp has also described what is believed to be a marine slide breccia, located at Ninety-one Mile Canyon. It appears to have been caused when oversteepening by wave action of the slopes on a monadnock flank resulted in a great mass of material breaking loose and sliding into the sea, moving out over fine beds and deforming them locally.

​

Other evidences of wave action are found in the profiles of hills on the Ep-Algonkian surface. An undercut carved in a monadnock of Shinumo quartzite and preserved in cross section beneath the Tapeats sandstone in Hotauto Canyon is considered by Noble to be an ancient sea cliff, and is described in detail by him. Other hills of Pre-Cambrian rock on which the slopes have been sharpened and the profiles modified, apparently by wave action, are mentioned by Sharp, and the flat top on one monadnock, believed to be the result of marine planation because it forms a sharp angle with the steep hill slope below, has been pointed out by him as especially significant.

---

From Cambrian History of the GC - pg 122It is a really poor quality image, but here is plate 3 which show some of the coarse sediment being described above.I spent some time the other day using Google Earth to try and find some of the structures McKee illustrated, but it is just to hard to tell from photos. There are some great 360 degree panoramas though.

Did I not mention somewhere back there that whether Faith excepted the principal of superposition depended on the circumstance? The principal of **erosion --> deposition --> erosion** supersedes principal of superposition. We can't have **erosion --> deposition --> erosion --> deposition --> erosion --> deposition --> erosion** can we? Reminds me of Alex the Lion from Madagascar talking about his steak... "Come on, look at this. you won't find any of this in the wild. This is the kind of refined, food-type thing that you do not find in the wild."HBD

This is the impression I have gotten as well, like strata comes in sheets that are laid down all at once. Even if the general idea is that individual grains are deposited one at a time, the whole thing has to happen so rapidly, that it would appear as being dropped all at once. Imagine 300 - 400 feet of sandstone spread out over a hundred square miles being deposited in a matter of a week or so...HBD

Interesting article:Even setting evolution aside, basic geology disproves creationismhttp://phys.org/...-evolution-basic-geology-creationism.html

In the ongoing conflict between science and creationism, evolution is usually a main point of contention. The idea that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor is a major problem for creationists. As a geologist, though, I think that the rocks beneath our feet offer even better arguments against creationism. For the creationist model doesn't square with what you can see for yourself. And this has been known since before Darwin wrote a word about evolution.

​

What the rocks say

​

I don't have to travel very far to make this case. There's a slab of polished rock on the wall outside my department office that refutes so-called Flood Geology: the view that a global, world-shattering flood explains geologic history after the initial creation of Earth by God. This eight-foot-long slab is a conglomerate — a rock made from water-worked fragments of older rocks.

​

It's what you'd get if you buried a riverbed composed of many different types of rock deep enough below ground for temperature and pressure to forge it into a new rock. Preserved in it, you can see the original particles of sand, gravel and cobbles made of various kinds of rock. And if you look closely you can see some of the cobbles are themselves conglomeratesrocks within rocks.

​

Why does this disprove the creationist view of geology? Because a conglomerate made of fragments of an older conglomerate not only requires a first round of erosion, deposition, and burial deep enough to turn the original sediments into rock. It requires another pass through the whole cycle to turn the second pile of sedimentary rock fragments into another conglomerate.

​

In other words, this one rock shows that there is more to the geologic record than creationists describe in their scripturally-interpreted version of earth history. A single grand flood cannot explain it all. Embracing young Earth creationism means you have to abandon faith in the story told by the rocks themselves. This, of course, is no surprise to geologists who have established that the world is billions of years old, far older than the thousands of years that creationists infer from adding up the generations enumerated in the Bible.

​

More

His book is well worth a read. I did find one 14C erratum, which he acknowledged and may be fixed by now.

You're all so eager for any claim against the Flood, how pathetic, you'll buy the flimsiest straw man argument. Invent an inadequate Flood and shoot it down. SO easy isn't it? There's no reason the conditions to form that rock wouldn't have been available in the Flood scenario, which includes volcanic and tectonic activity as well as deep burial.

What's wrong with our scenario?Yours is far too vague. Details. When and how did the original rocks formed, when and how did they get eroded, When and how did did the get buried deep enough to form metamorphic rock, when and how did they get exposed to the surface, when and how did they get eroded again, when and how did they get buried deep enough to form metamorphic rock, again,and when and how did they get exposed again.We have detailed and physically possible answers to all those questions, and as a bonus those answers fit with everything else we know.You just blow smoke.

The thread should return to discussing the topic. Recent on-topic discussions were about the faulting that is normally associated with drape folds, and the evidence for the original horizontality (or lack thereof) of sedimentary layers.

I think we were discussing drag folds in the context of faulting.To me, a drape fold is more like and unforced fold related to gravitational settling or compaction. I would consider the types of 'folds' shown in this diagram to be drapes. If you will notice, the author of this guide does not even refer to them as 'folds' but as 'drapes' or 'bent' layers. I believe that this is what we are seeing when we look at dropstones, for instance, such as this one: ... where sediments are draped over the top of the stone, but compacted beneath the stone. There are two different phenomena, really, one caused by impact of the stone and the other caused by continued sedimentation over a topographic high point. I think that this is a slam-dunk. Local conditions cause deposition on non-horizontal surfaces. We have provided testimony and diagramatic documentation of this. There is no evidence that the layering occurred before draping of the sediment over the dropstone shown above.If the deformation occurred during some kind of 'intrusive event', as Faith posits, there is no evidence for it. If people want, we can look at the deformation around a salt dome to show what an intrusive event would do to the surrounding rocks.