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

They do?You have some evidence for this? Something to support your point?

Ummm, that's not evidence. Actually, I'm calling for it. What is the evidence for your abrasion at the Great Unconformity? Fewer steps is not evidence. I'm asking for evidence. Why would older rocks be less resistant to erosion?

While it's always a bit of a walk on the wild side trying to guess what Faith might be thinking, I'm going to hazard a guess. My guess is that when she looks at a cross section of strata exposed in a canyon or elsewhere, she momentarily forgets that the layers have been buried for most of their history. It's then just a short step to receiving the intuitively divined certain knowledge that the really old layers should have weathered more than the younger layers, despite their not actually having been out in the weather the whole time.

That notion crossed my mind as I shut down earlier. It kind of rang a bell when I remembered some YECs talking about dinosaur fossils being found at the ground surface .... so, how could they be old?We still haven't made progress on that one.

But why are you asking me for evidence when you merely spelled out the basic principles of horizontality, superposition and crioss cutting, and described the order of things you believe occurred to create an angular unconformity, and all I did was respond that if things happened as I suppose rather than as you suppose the order would be different. It's a simple if-then logic, not calling for evidence at all. You may ask for evidence, but not in that context.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not assuming that weathering is the only force that could age rocks, it just happens to be the case at Siccar Point, where to my eye there is no difference in decrepitude between the upper and lower sections --both are rather dramatically decrepit. Surely at least while the upper strata were supposedly depositing on the tilted section, which may have taken hundreds of millions of years, the lower section was already supposedly millions of years old and now getting older. As for strata buried deep underground I would be thinking of weight and pressure causing deformation over time, and signs of "erosion" between layers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

HBD, you jumped on that explanation because it suits your "intuition." Your math is based on an interpretation of how the crust formed that can't be proved, and I have no reason to trust anything about it myself. I'll let you know if and when I see your error.

Edge, if you'd just read in context you'd have known I was being sarcastic.

I think we can be forgiven if we're all, including HBD, not precisely sure who you consider legitimately Christian. Your history is to deny Christian status to those who disagree with you.Nor would most Christians grant that Christians all know the minds of other Christians. Certainly it is not unknown amongst devout evangelical Christians to hear the question, "What did you mean when you said..."Also HBD is not the only participant. At a minimum there was at least one other person (namely me) who read your words and found the claims inappropriate and spectacularly overblown for a science discussion.So as I suggested twice previously, in the science forums it might be best to only claim knowledge deriving from scientific methods and evidence.

Since whichever way the Grand Unconformity happened would have left evidence behind, I'm trying to encourage the discussion to focus on that evidence. I'm avoiding becoming involved in the discussion, but I'm going to attempt a clarification of what I think people are trying to say to you on this point.The appearance of age that you think you're seeing in the rocks at Siccar Point is actually just the effects of weathering. That appearance is a result of how long the rock has been exposed, the nature of the rock itself, and the type of weathering (wind, rain, sea spray, freeze/thaw cycles would be applicable at Siccar Point). This appearance has nothing to do with the age of the rock itself.But buried rock shows no effects of weathering. Buried undisturbed rock does not show any effects of the passage of time - it will just sit unchanged for millions and millions of years.I'm aware that the effects of weathering can extend some distance from an exposed surface, particularly a horizontal surface, but I'm going to have to throw myself on the mercy of the geologists for information about the nature and extent of those effects.Concerning the appearance of age of the rocks at Siccar Point, you can't use that appearance as an indication of actual age. The lower layers are a very hard sandstone, the upper layers a softer sandstone. The softer sandstone is more vulnerable to erosion, and so where exposed it quickly comes to have an appearance that you interpret as ancient. But if you were to take a core of that sandstone you would find that where not exposed it has no appearance of age at all.

I think your point / observation is valid. Depending on the method of exposure (fault, erosion, etc) the older rock in a cross section may have been exposed to the same amount of weathering, or more commonly less weathering than the younger rock above. Certainly as a river cuts its way down through undisturbed strata the older rock will have seen less weathering than the younger rock. Where the sea is battering and eating through an exposed cross section, it would surely follow that both layers would have seen essentially the exact same weathering as they become exposed at the same time. I'm sure there might be logical and easily explained exceptions, but at my knowledge level that would seem to be the rule.It seems from her (hard to follow) posts, that Faith thinks that the OE model would mean that the lower rock would have received millions/billions of years more weathering/battering and thus would have to "look" more weathered. As Percy points out, no weathering occurs until exposure.JB

The evidence has been provided to you in hundreds of posts prior to that exercise. For instance:---The unconformities cross cutting layering in the GC metamorphic rocks,---The faults cutting Supergroup rocks but not Tapeats,---Eroded fragments of older rock found in the sequence above the unconforities,---The presence of straight and flat unconformities in modern settings,---The lack of shearing textures at the unconformities.Those things are evidence. All you have given us is 'looks like'...

So what are the other 'aging forces' for rocks?Why should there be any difference in weathering of the two ages of rocks? Is this a straw-man argument, or are you just that unaware of geological processes? Faith, rocks do not age as people age... Are you talking about lithification making rocks weaker?And what 'erosion between layers' are you talking about? Do you mean unconformities?

There is a bit of contention here that we have not addressed that I know of. In Faith's video, the speaker says that there is no evidence of weathering beneath the Great Unconformity; and yet, the reference that HBD(?) provided earlier specifically said that weathering affected those rocks (in places) to a depth of 20 feet or more, IIRC. I'm quite certain that the latter is correct.

You have given me no response but personal incredulity. On what grounds, what reasoning, by what logic does what I calculated not represent your scenario? That's for sure! It is based on YOUR model of how the continents drifted apart at an average speed of 10 feet per day. Would you like to revise your model to something that can be supported? I would like it if you gave me an honest evaluation, but you all you have said is that you "have no reason to trust anything about it." Since you KNOW that your model is right, it is obvious my calculations are wrong and not your model. No need to look into it further.As far as I am concerned, unless you provide some rationale for dismissing these estimates of heat generation, continuing to claim that the continents traveled at an average speed of 10 feet per day since the flood is nothing but dishonest.I'll move on now. I would rather get back to the GU and this tilting block hypothesis.HBD