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

I understand your frustration. It's really hard to debate on subjects where one is uninformed.But that can be fixed. It's a free world. Believe what you want. But if you come to a forum like this, expect to be questioned. Not if you look at all of the evidence. For instance, even at the height of the Cretaceous transgressions, there were emergent lands with volcanism and erosion in progress. I'm not sure why that should be a problem. Why do you term it a 'screeching halt'? Do you have some evidence that it happened quickly? My guess is that your only evidence is personal incredulity ... which isn't evidence. Actually, there was some. In the late Proterozoic, you had erosion of the GC metamorphic rocks (which had already been deformed and metamorphosed at least once; followed by deposition and then disruption of the GC Supergroup rocks; then more erosion followed by a long period of quiescence with a few erosional unconformities present. Then later, of course, you had uplift of the Colorado Plateau and downcutting of the Grand Canyon I've actually known this for a while. It is difficult to argue scientific points when you don't have evidence.

Just hit me what's wrong with this experiment with the rock in the container: as edge says, the sediments are deposited in transgressing seas. They'd flow around rocks, not deposit from above. And that means they would deposit in a horizontal layer around the rock. And subsequent layers also. And if it rises up over the rock it will continue to deposit horizontally until the rock is thoroughly buried.Of course now there will be plenty of rocks and hills and mountains on the continents for any future transgressing seas to flow around since there is no longer the extensive flatness formed by the Stratigraphic Column for them to flow across, depositing nice flat rocks.That would also have been the case if the rocks or monadnocks were already present when the Tapeats deposited. It wouldn't deposit over the rocks, but around them. Horizontally. Not in those sagging draping forms.Funny how OE theory has all these worldwide floods that come and go, instead of the one Flood that did it all at once.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think you are misinterpreting what edge is saying. He is not saying that deposition only happens when the sea level is rising (transgressing). Deposition happens whenever the surface is covered by water and there is a source of depositional material. Most of the time, the depth increase when seas are transgressing would be extremely gradual, just as rising sea level is today. There would be little or no current resulting from transgression. Funny how YE explanations try to fit billions of years of erosion and deposition into 6000 years.The evidence shows that the Colorado Plateau has been flooded and exposed many times over the last 2 billion years.The layers that lay below the Great Unconformity were fractured and tilted and then eroded long before they were flooded and subsequently buried by thousands of feet of more layers.Geology does not have any worldwide floods, but there have been many regional floods. These floods were extremely slow and often lasted for millions of years.Faith, basically you are trying to account for all the geological evidence on the planet with 40 days of rainy weather. There are just too many unexplained details with that explanation.

You're applying your view of what happened, a flood rushing across a landscape, and treating it as if it were the definition of a transgressing sea. A flood and a transgressing sea are nothing alike at all. Transgressing seas take hundreds and thousands of years to cross any significant distance, and they do it by biting away very slowly at the boundary between land and water, leaving behind a characteristic pattern of sedimentary deposits that are found world-wide. Floods occur in a geological instant and leave behind a completely different and easily identifiable sedimentary signature.Far from shore where waters are quiet sediments accumulate as outlined in the experiment, but since you're replying to my Message 1207, let me again present this diagram: The sedimentary layer formed around the perimeter of the rock would be deeper (and therefore tilt upward) because sediments that fall on the rock slip off the rock and fall beside it, and the rock can tend to trap sediments from any mild currents.

To be fair, our OE theories have a few billion years for loads of stuff to happen. A billion years is pretty much impossible for humans to conceptualise, but in that time, for example, the continents which we're used to seeing as immutable, can bounce together like tennis balls, and morph like putty.I guess this might seem like it's a bit convenient, but it's where the evidence leads - all of it.We've probably had enough time for several global floods, but as I understand it, there's nary a square foot of the planet's surface that hasn't been underwater for a few million years, over time, simply as a result of tectonic movement.The passage of inconceivable periods of time, combined with simple maths, is what makes the science of the earth's history so compelling.

The problem is that we actually see those sagging, draping forms; so it's not a matter of whether they exist. The first two here, we have already seen from Namibia. The third one is from Washington state.

Well, yes, the land has to be covered by water. That is critical. However, the other critical point is that we develop laterally continuous deposits by transgressing and regressing of the oceans. Otherwise, you could not get the huge sheets of sediments covering areas the size of continents.Now, you can get regressive sequences, but they are a little harder to preserve since the exposed land surface can be eroded. However, they do happen. For instance going from the Hermit Shale to the Coconino Sandstone is regressive.

Thanks. I see what you are saying. This may be a stupid question but, does this deposition of continuous sheets of material contribute to the rising sea level as it is happening by displacing water?

Nope. Sorry, Faith, This isn't going to help you.First off, you need a regression not a transgression, as the flood waters would have been receding. As the flood waters rose, they scoured the land, as they retreated, they deposited.The image below (img C) shows what a forced regression should look like (a forced regressions is regression accompanied with falling sea levels). Second, the Tapeats is one of the lowest layers in the sequence. Sea level would have been way above the level of the Tapeats, so there would be no regression or transgression sequence. The Tapeats would have had to deposit by settling.But either way, a single transgression or regression doesn't solve the problem. HBD

It's possible, I suppose; but there are other counterbalancing effect such as subsidence. As we load the crust, it will literally sink into the mantle.Rising sea levels, I think, are much more affected by melting ice caps and increased volcanism at the mid-ocean ridges.

This is correct that there have been multiple transgressions and regressions. In fact, during the Caboniferous there were many of them resulting in the stacked swampy deposits providing us with multiple coal layers. Look up 'cyclothems' sometime.However, the Tapeats --> Bright Angel --> Muav sequence in the GC is a classic transgressive sequence.When you think about it, it is easier to preserve from erosion sediments that have more sediment deposited on top of them. Since regressive sequences tend to leave more land exposed to erosion, they have a less chance of preservation. However it is still very common.On the other hand, erosion during transgression occurs mainly at the seashore where wave action destroys the land surface as the sea encroaches. However, the sand deposit representing a beach is then left behind and buried by more offshore sediments and then preserved. For instance, the Tapeats is mostly a beach sand and and slow transgression of the Tapeats sea caused it to be covered by the Bright Angel and then the Muav.I have drilled though a few of these things and I can tell you from experience that transgressive sands are generally thicker and more continuous than regressive sands.A great regressive sequence is the Hermit --> Coconino, as I mentioned before. There, we have a great erg (desert) encroaching across lowland swamps of the Hermit as sea level subsided.Keep in mind that these are the great cycles that we see in the geological record. There are many minor transgressive/regressive cycles throughout the record that give us things like stacked coal beds.

Sorry, not what I said.Rain breaks up land, starts mudslides. They meet with water starting to rise.RISING water begins deposition process.Receding water erodes. Depending on local situation could also deposit. Certainly deposits all the stuff it erodes.I figure there are also secondary risings and fallings due to tides and waves that may play a part.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Flood took five months to rise to its height. That's not thousands or millions of years but it's not "rushing" either. Behaved very much like a transgressing sea, which, really, is what it was.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I forget who suggested the rock experiment -- Thin Air? -- but it's supposed to have a flat bottom as I recall, and to be wider than it is high I think.

This makes absolutely no sense. ALL the sediments were stripped off the land and suspended in the water before the water began rising? Think about it, you have to have all the sediment stripped off the land before you can begin deposition, but then deposition begins at the bottom before the water levels rise. Where would all this sediment go while it is waiting for the water level to rise.I have no idea what you are imagining hereIt reminds me of this cartoon that RAZD posted Just because you can imagine it, doesn't mean it can actually work.HBD