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

Faith.

Over two vertical miles of rock are missing.

What is the model, method, procedure, mechanism, process that can remove over two miles of various layers of rock totally if it was not at the surface?

one doesn't have to be a physicist to know that sediment is NOT going to neatly spread itself out over a contour.

Physics says that if the slope in the real world is slight enough sediment will not slide off it. The real world is not as steeply sloped as your diagrams.

If you sprinkle sediment on a mounded surface it's going to slide off the surface and pile up at the bottom of the slopes. It is not going to form an evenly distributed layer that follows the contour.

Once again, this is only true if the slope is steeper than the angle of repose.

But there's no problem with this. Of course they'd be younger. So what? That doesn't mean they have to be millions of years younger, just younger than the rocks they cut through. You can build a stack of clay and then crack it. Same timing.

But they are older than the Paleozoic rocks.

Which as I've said could not have deposited in a curve over these Precambrian formations. You still have to explain that.

Yes, the fold came later in the form of the Kaibab uplift.

But what are you talking about? What could not have been 'deposited in a curve'?

Wishful thinking edge. You haven't addressed one thing I said.

Actually, I have. I have provided a sequence of events that does not violate cross-cutting principles.

I don't "complain" about that, I consider it prime evidence against the Old Earth that they could exist so long without disturbance, and the assertion that it's not at all unlikely I find to be just that, an assertion that flies in the face of all the claims about this being such an active planet and all that.

So now you are saying that such an active planet should have only one tectonic event.

Sure, that make sense.

Nope, that placidity here is good evidence against the Old Earth, and if it's been disproved in one place it must also be the case all over the globe that the Old Earth is a false interpretation.

Okay, so how many tectonic events should there be every million years? Why could there not be tectonically quiet zones on earth?

All the shaking and twisting came after the strata were in place. You can see this in the fact that everywhere you look the twisted strata are all strata that were originally horizontally laid down and then distorted in a block.

I have just proven to you that there was a major erosional event in the middle of your flood, using your own information using the principle of cross-cutting features.

You are wrong.

And of course I am rethinking the Precambrian disturbance as having occurred after all the strata were in place along with the disturbances that are so visible from the Kaibab on up. I've been seeing it this way for a long time but now I see solid evidence for it: how the curvature of the mound of strata above it shows that it couldn't have been tilted before those strata were laid down. And you've completely failed to address this argument.

Other than the fact that your question is gibberish, actually, I have. I just mentioned that the Kaibab Plateau uplift occurred after deposition. There were, however, prior events.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

No matter how gentle the slope you aren't going to get even deposition of sediments on it. And here we're talking about an entire stack of such layers supposedly about 300 million years apart in age all following this contour quite neatly.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No matter how gentle the slope you aren't going to get even deposition of sediments on it. And here we're talking about an entire stack of such layers supposedly about 300 million years apart in age all following this contour quite neatly.

You are just making it up.

Faith.

Over two vertical miles of rock are missing.

What is the model, method, procedure, mechanism, process that can remove over two miles of various layers of rock totally if it was not at the surface?

But there's no problem with this. Of course they'd be younger. So what? That doesn't mean they have to be millions of years younger, just younger than the rocks they cut through. You can build a stack of clay and then crack it. Same timing. But they are older than the Paleozoic rocks.

The FAULTS are "older than the Paleozoic rocks." That's what you're saying?

I guess you're going to have to review your evidence for me because I'm not getting your point. How do you KNOW they -- the faults -- are older than the Paleozoic rocks-- those above the G.U.?

And how do you explain the stacking of a dozen layers following the contour of a mound and not butting into the older Precambrian formations?

Which as I've said could not have deposited in a curve over these Precambrian formations. You still have to explain that. Yes, the fold came later in the form and uplift. But what are you talking about? What could not have been 'deposited in a curve'?

What are YOU talking about? What "fold" are you talking about.

Strata. Layers, that's what I'm talking about. You know, that whole stack of them we see in the Grand Canyon, that particular block of them that starts above the G.U. that follow the contour of the mound I identify in the O.P. Perhaps you didn't really read my O.P.

Wishful thinking edge. You haven't addressed one thing I said. Actually, I have. I have provided a sequence of events that does not violate cross-cutting principles.

So OK, please explain how what I'm saying "violates cross-cutting principles" because as usual you are talking Martian rather than English.

I don't "complain" about that, I consider it prime evidence against the Old Earth that they could exist so long without disturbance, and the assertion that it's not at all unlikely I find to be just that, an assertion that flies in the face of all the claims about this being such an active planet and all that. So now you are saying that such an active planet should have only one tectonic event.

No I'm saying that according to Old Earth principles in light of the very familiar idea that this is a very active planet in which tectonic events have been going on for its entire history. that there should be LOTS of tectonic effects rather than the huge absence of them we see in the strata of the GC area.

Nope, that placidity here is good evidence against the Old Earth, and if it's been disproved in one place it must also be the case all over the globe that the Old Earth is a false interpretation. Okay, so how many tectonic events should there be every million years? Why could there not be tectonically quiet zones on earth?

First, I don't think you guys even NOTICED this fact until I pointed it out to you and if you go back over those threads I think you'll find even roxrkool saying she would have expected quite frequent tectonic events too. How many? In hundreds of millions of years a LOT, that's all. A three hundred million year "quiet zone" is NOT the idea most of us get from standard presentations of geology.

All the shaking and twisting came after the strata were in place. You can see this in the fact that everywhere you look the twisted strata are all strata that were originally horizontally laid down and then distorted in a block. I have just proven to you that there was a major erosional event in the middle of your flood, using your own information using the principle of cross-cutting features.

No you have used a lot of geo-jargon and you can't prove anything that way. You've said something muddy about cross cutting, communicating absolutely nothing. I've asked you to explain it again, and try to use ordinary English please.

And of course I am rethinking the Precambrian disturbance as having occurred after all the strata were in place along with the disturbances that are so visible from the Kaibab on up. I've been seeing it this way for a long time but now I see solid evidence for it: how the curvature of the mound of strata above it shows that it couldn't have been tilted before those strata were laid down. And you've completely failed to address this argument. Other than the fact that your question is gibberish, actually, I have. I just mentioned that the Kaibab Plateau uplift occurred after deposition. There were, however, prior events.

I don't recall you saying that and I have no idea what the point is anyway. And I didn't ask a question, gibberish or not.

But the problem here is familiar. You speak Geo Jargon and I speak English and I don't think there's any way to talk to each other at all.

Over two vertical miles of rock are missing.

Oh right, the phantom mountains that supposedly grew from the Great Unconformity. Sure I can account for their being missing. They went *poof* and disappeared when the Old Earth Fairy who had poofed them into existence decided to do away with them.

Well, no Faith I'm not talking about your fantasies.

I even provided an illustration that I thought might help you.

The reality is that part of the Tonto Group lies directly on the Vishnu Schist; the whole two miles of the Super Group are missing.

Nothing about phantom mountains.

What you need to do is provide a model, method, procedure, process, mechanism to explain how the whole section of the Super Group could get eroded away if it did not exist before the Tonto Group was formed.

It really is that simple.

We are all waiting.

Then the missing stuff is incorporated in the Vishnu schist:

Closeup of the Great Unconformity, Tapeats sandstone of Cambrian age (~550 m.y. old) deposited on top of preCambrian metamorphic rocks. They are commonly called 'Vishnu Schist,' but K. Karlstrom and other have shown that they are really a mess of many different original rock types of several different ages.

Yes that occurred to me and I forgot to mention it. The only thing it changes is that any new layers would have butted up against the Vishnu rather than the GU itself,

The layers are falling on top of the Vishnu, which is butted up against the GU, and they are also falling on the GU. And they're piling up on the one before them.

Same situation basically though. Originally depositng layers won't climb up over obstacles.

They're is no obstacle to climb up over. The Vishnu goes all the way out to the left.

The bump is there because the land is getting squished. The next techtonic plate to the west is pushing inward towards the one this is on.

It'd kinda be like if you took a piece of paper laying on your desk, and held the right edge down against the desk with your right hand. Then, placing your left hand on the left edge of the paper, and moving it inwards towards the right.

The paper will buckel upwards and make a bump.

Now, both this image and that paper will be horribly exagerated in the upwards direction. Take a look at the spacestation image:

How far out do you think the GU goes?

How thick do you think it is?

The "bump" is the uplift over which all the strata maintain their form, which shows that the uplift occurred after they were all in place. If it is the Vishnu schist that is pushed up into the "bump" form, fine, it really doesn't matter. The point is that the strata were NOT laid down after these formations were in place because they would NOT conform to the shape of the "bump" in that case.

Faith writes: Then the missing stuff is incorporated in the Vishnu schist:

Too funny but again, you are just making shit up.

What is the model, method, procedure, process, mechanism to explain how the whole section of the Super Group could get "incorporated into the Vishnu Schist"?

The "bump" is the uplift over which all the strata maintain their form, which shows that the uplift occurred after they were all in place. If it is the Vishnu schist that is pushed up into the "bump" form, fine, it really doesn't matter. The point is that the strata were NOT laid down after these formations were in place because they would NOT conform to the shape of the "bump" in that case.

The slope of the bump is really small. The height of the bump in the images is distorted.

The strata can maintain levelness and conform to the shape of the bump if the slope is really shallow.

Like, if the piece of paper you made a bump with only came up from the desk by a fraction of a millimeter, then you could have layers form on that without sliding down or bumping up against it or having to jump up over an obstacle. You could sprinkle sand on a piece of paper and have it conform to the bump if you keep the bump short enough.

Also, have you considered that some of the layers could be forming while the bump is being uplifted? When the bump isn't too high, they can still conform to it.

I'm sorry, I just find all this rationalization about how the layers could have conformed to the mound ridiculous. Utter and complete nonsense. That is not how the world works. You are not going to get nice even layers over a "bump." Especially if the layers are forming under water as even OE Geology says most of them were. And those layers are tens to hundreds of feet thick too.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.