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

Again Faith, reality has totally refuted that assertion as you have been shown again and again.The Navajo Sandstone is aeolian and so cannot have been deposited by a flood.All of the fossils found also refute your idea of hydrological sorting during a flood. We never find human remains in the same area as dinosaurs yet we do find human remains even older than 6000 years all over the world.Now it's fine for you to keep claiming that every scientist has the dates wrong but so far you have never provided any evidence, any model, any method, any mechanism, any process, any procedure that can explain why anyone should believe you as opposed to what reality itself tells us.

And rainfall is going to leave behind a straight and level surface? Please support this statement.And furthermore, when all of this 'erodible' material is 'scoured' from the 'bedrock', where does it go?And then, how does it get back onto the land surface? You are washing down these 'hills', taking the sediments into the sea and then it comes back?And now, you've got limestone forming in the sea, having all of this mud washed in on top of it and then being washed back on to the land forming nice pure limestones???ETA: Sorry, but Walther's Law is not going to apply to slurries. /ETAThis isn't passing the giggle test, Faith. And yet we have hills that have survived rainfall for thousands if not millions of years.Moving on, I'm concerned that we are not on topic. As I understand the title of this thread it is about evidence that the GU is younger than the overlying sediments.I haven't seen any yet.Never mind the mechanisms, explanations, geological processes and principles, what is the evidence? An example would be, for instance, Tapeats Sandstone depositionally overlying Pleistocene gravels or something like that.So, where is it? And no, I'm not talking about "looks like" or "must be" or "to my mind". I'm talking actual, hard evidence. Maybe this is all preamble, but let's cut to the chase here after over 600 posts. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Well, if you are going to provide evidence for your premise (as the title of this thread suggests), it might be important to know.

No, didn't say that. Just talking about how the land got eroded in the early phase of the Flood. HBD assumed it was the rising water, I said the rain would already have done most of it. It's suspended in the sea water, which is rising in this early part of the Flood. The water is rising colntinuously for a few months, with the sediments suspended in it, and they settle out over the land during this period of rising. If it settles out from the water according to Walther's Law, why not? That's HBD's word. It should apply to sediments suspended in sea water. I've lived where just a few days of more rain than usual causes mudslides and produces flooding that leaves mud to dry in the streets and where people worry about the stability of their houses in the hills. It's not uncommon to see news stories of local floods and mudslides caused in a short period in various places. Depends on the hill I suppose, but forty continuous days and nights of heavy rain pummeling every square inch of land ought to dislodge just about anything, but if not then the rising water should. Yes we're off topic. Just a side description of the Flood scenario was so misunderstood it was necessary to try to clarify.As for the thread topic, yes the claim is that the GU is younger than the overlying sedimentary layers, but just to be clear, not the Supergroup --- its strata would have been laid down before the strata above, of course. Remember, I abandoned the claim in the OP. This thread got revived on other grounds, perhaps with my pictures in Message 213 showing unconformity contacts too level to have been formed by erosion over the millions of years required by Old Earth theory. I consider that evidence against the usual explanation. Perhaps it's time to close the thread.

Whatever is beneath all the volcanic and metamorphic and sedimentary rocks .

. I misspoke saying no sedimentary rock in a recent post but meant no sedimentary strata. There was probably sedimentary rock but not strata before the Flood. But there would have been no volcanism before the Flood, so no metamorphic rock. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If it settles out from the water according to Walther's Law, why not?

---

Walther's law is about the sorts of sediments that arrive at locations under normal conditions. The way existing sediment settles out would be pure hydrodynamics.

I didn't say that you did. I'm asking if this is how you get your 'straight and level' unconformities. I'm just looking for evidence on your part. I don't see any. So, you've got the sediment to form miles-thick sedimentary sequences suspended in the water column, that has gone to the sea where it just sits there like it's in a blender? So this blender runs for the good part of a year? Keeping limestone fragments, siltstone, sandstone and conglomerates grains and boulders in suspension?Then it suddenly decides to overrun the land and start depositing on the land surface but not in the oceans?This is interesting. And that's what you would have: a slurry. To have that much material in suspension would result in a slurry.And all this on a global scale... And we have a hard time managing slurries in pipelines!So, does this help you get 'straight and level surfaces' for the Great Unconformity? I'm just imagining the 'straight and level' surface that this process is creating. I don't mind off-topic threads at all. I'd just love to see your evidence. Okay, so where did the Supergroup come from. All indications are that it is sedimentary. So there was erosion and deposition before the Great Unconformity, contrary to you scenario? So, you have bailed out of the idea that the GU is younger than the Grand Canyon sediments.Do you now admit that it is older? I don't think I read those words from you... I can see that as a good strategy for you.

And I'm sure you can tell us what that is; seems like that should be part of your scenario.

So you have unbedded sediments?Okay, so where did they come from?And what were they deposited upon?

No. ??The sea is rising steadily over the land, steadily depositing sediments. Sediments, no boulders. Being continuously deposited, not just kept in suspension. Don't know about conglomerates, something to think about. I'm sure it did deposit in the oceans as well. "Suddenly decides to overrun the land?" Remember I'm trying to describe what would have happened in the worldwide Flood. The sea is rising continuously, it's full of sediments washed into it in the early stages and probably picks up more as it rises. No. That I've explained many times as the result of shearing between layers caused by tectonic force in the final phase of the Flood. Then you are completely missing the point. You aren't getting something but I'm not sure what so it's hard to answer you. I've been describing the erosion and deposition I'd expect to have occurred at the beginning of the Flood, there is no other, it accounts for ALL the strata that exist, and none of it is "contrary to my scenario." I don't know what you are imagining but this has been described over and over but you still are getting some kind of wrong idea in spite of it and I don't know where to start to try to correct it.The Supergroup strata would have been among the very first layers of sediment to be deposited in the earliest phase of the Flood when the water was just beginning to rise. No, I merely gave up on the particular argument in the OP. Of course not. That was just one argument that turned out not to be what I thought. But the evidence for level contacts is an argument against the Old Earth view if not positively for my view.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, since we had given you a few ways of producing 'straight and level' erosional surfaces, and you seemed to reject them, I thought maybe... But at first, the mud has to go to the ocean, right? When it gets to the sea, there must be something to keep it in suspension and not be deposited, right? And that something must be stirring up limestone from the sea bottom as well, right?So, then the sea starts to rise an cover the land. And somehow, those sands and gravels have to stay in suspension until they reach far into the continent, right?Hmmm, I'm not getting this.How do trace fossils survive this turbulence? Okay, then, maybe you can point out all of the submarine dune deposits on the abyssal plain of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Oh, and the limestones. There's gotta be a lot of limestone out there in the mid-ocean. Or coal. How about coal deposits on the Pacific seamounts? Yeah, me too. Hmmm, more erosion, eh? I thought that was only in the early phase of the flood... Well, you know what they say, "Conglomerates happen". Ah, right! All of that evidence you provided for shearing. I forgot. Well, it finally got you to use the word 'shearing'. Now we can look for that evidence. I don't suppose you'd entertain the possibility that you are grossly incorrect.At least now you are saying that the GU is erosional in origin. But then they were tilted and eroded prior to the Tapeats deposition, right? So, you admit that you have no evidence? To most of us that would be a problem. Other than the fact the flat erosional surfaces exist in modern environments?How can you say that?

What?
Remember, the sea is RISING and filling up with all these sediments, then depositing them over the land with every increment of rise. But they aren't way out to sea, the sea is rising, already on the continent fringe at least, but if HBD is right then it was already covering most or all of the land anyway, and already sediments would be starting to settle out. I would suppose the heavier particles got picked up later. Perhaps your expertise on such subjects could provide a possible scenario for this. Well nothing is a fossil yet, but also nothing much survived either. Dead creatures would have been carried along with the sediments to be deposited with them. Wouldn't you suppose it mostly got dispersed in the water? Limestones would have originated in the water anyway so now a lot of that is up on the land, but nothing new in the ocean. And coal is originally plant matter, so it either rotted away or got eaten by the sea creatures that managed to survive the Flood. This still IS the early phase of the Flood. No, that didn't occur until the last phase of the Flood when tectonic and volcanic forces began. What? Again, you are desperately confused in some way I can't fathom.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And with every incremental rise it has to fill the ocean just that much also. Consequently, most of that slurry has to go to the ocean.

This just gets funnier and funnier; Faith never let's us down.If Faith's imaginary made up magic flood with magic rain happened we must see a clear pattern of a severe erosion event comparable to the Great Unconformity at every point above sea level during the last 6000 years followed by a single sea transgression event that follows the contours of the land that was above sea level during the last six years from low point to high point followed by a single deposition period of all that slurry with more deposition in the sea and decreasing in depth as we move from low point to high point and again followed by a single regression event that again follows the contours of all the land that was above sea level 6000 years ago but this time from high point to low point.This pattern must be repeated at every point world wide but only if one of the Biblical floods actually happened.Of course should we find that reality is not as neat as her fantasy then of course it would be proof that all she has is her fantasy.