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

quote:

---

Well I had hope for it as proof that the G.U. was not formed before the strata above it, which IS a new emphasis. Nobody is really addressing that factor though,

---

Pointing out strong evidence to the contrary is addressing it.

quote:

---

some insisting on making a case for the strata to be laid down over a mound, though even Geology doesn't make that claim, they recognize the mound as an uplift that came later.

---

I've pointed out that it's possible, but not claimed it to be the case.

So far as I can tell it's more likely that the present "mounding" is much more recent than the tilting of the Great Unconformity and I've yet to see a coherent argument to the contrary.

quote:

---

The idea was that SINCE the strata didn't follow the contour of the mound, if the G.U. was there first they would have to butt into it. Since they didn't butt into it that's evidence it wasn't there first.

---

I really don't know what this is trying to say. So far as I can tell the surface was largely levelled by erosion between the tilting of the Great Unconformity, and the later strata deposited on top. I don't see how this is intended to address that scenario.

Faith writes: But if it happened as I visualize it less time would be needed. The layers of the SuperGroup were laid down followed shortly by all the layers above it, up to the very top of the Grand Staircase, as those layers were originally over the Grand Canyon area too; after which tectonic force pushed the land up violently into the mounded uplift, breaking and tilting the SuperGroup, shearing off the upper parts against the underside of the Tapeats, its rubble becoming schist under the intense pressure and heat, the heat being generated partly by the release of magma beneath the area (its fingers are seen on the cross section) which also created the granite that is also beneath the canyon.

But of course you offer no model, method, process, procedure, that would make what you claim possible.

In addition there is no evidence that any magma ever intruded into the Super Group or could possibly incorporate parts of the Super Group into the Vishnu Schist.

You are just making shit up.

Faith writes: The strata would have been laid down over a year or so, the tectonic upheaval would have occurred afterward, created the G.U. cracked the upper strata over the canyon area which opened up the canyon, all the upper strata down to the Kaibab being washed away in the receding Flood waters, also carving the Grand Staircase, where a magma dike was also released at this time.

Except again you have never presented a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure where that might be possible.(don't worry, no other honest person has ever done that either)

Sorry Faith but Young Earth is not just DeadOnArrival it is a really stupid idea.

It isn't new. Your claim has always been that the layers of the supergroup and all the layers above them were deposited at the same time by the flood.

Yes, but I didn't have the evidence of the order of things at the G.U. level, I didn't see how the layers would have butted up against it if deposited in the order usually accepted. It may seem a minor point but when I recognized it I knew it was new and actual evidence I hadn't had before, though, yes, I already had the whole scenario in mind.

Edited by Faith, : fix quote code

In addition there is no evidence that any magma ever intruded into the Super Group or could possibly incorporate parts of the Super Group into the Vishnu Schist.

Cardenas lava.

However, I wasn't thinking of its intrusion into the Super Group, but the Super Group's being surrounded by schist and granite, both of which show the presence of volcanic influence. As I just said, you can see the indication of the magma fingers on the cross section.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But as with most YECs, I think the root problem is more fundamental: YECs have been convinced that the Bible is the only reliable source of truth; nature is unreliable as a source of truth. This in spite of the fact that Paul said that nature is a reliable source of truth; he said that God's character is plain and clearly seen through nature alone (Rom 1:18-20).

You are glossing over the fact that science, not nature itself but the science that interprets it, contradicts the Bible with both the Old Earth and the theory of evolution. Not a problem with actual science, just with the pseudosciences of the prehistoric past.

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to find millions of years where the Bible's genealogies suggest only a few thousand, and the Theory of Evolution makes death exist before the Fall, as well as human beings before Adam and Eve, though of course they like to reinterpret them as hominids rather than true humans.

This is the work of shysters, not honest scientists.

And again, Paul referred to Nature as evidence of GOD AND HIS LAW, not of "truth" in general and not truth ABOUT Nature.

To say otherwise is to twist the truth.

But not to notice the blatant contradiction between the Bible and science's interpretations of Nature is self-delusion.

And thanks for leaving the honest Christians to take all the insults that you get to escape by siding with the world.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I really don't know what this is trying to say. So far as I can tell the surface was largely levelled by erosion between the tilting of the Great Unconformity, and the later strata deposited on top. I don't see how this is intended to address that scenario.

I do address it in Message 45.

I don't see you saying anything new in this thread. These are the same arguments you've made in previous Grand Canyon discussions.

But now she is more convinced than before that she is correct.

What better evidence could you ask for?

And again Paul referred to Nature as evidence of GOD AND HIS LAW, not of "truth" in general and not truth ABOUT Nature. To say otherwise is to twist the truth. But not to notice the blatant contradiction between the Bible and science's interpretations of Nature is self-delusion.

As you well know, the development of modern science was based largely on the Christian (especially Protestant Reformed) convictions that nature follows divinely-prescribed laws and that God has revealed truth through two "books", the book of Scripture and the book of nature (thus nature does reveal truth).

And thanks for leaving the honest Christians to take all the insults that you get to escape by siding with the world.

I avoid the insults that you receive on the issues of the timing and mechanism of God's creation. I prefer to take a stand (and receive insults) on the primary issues of the Christian faith, especially the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If you would simply quit trying to bolster your YEC views with science you would receive much less opposition. Why don't you just adopt the views of Gosse that nature looks old, we can't learn anything of its true origin through study of nature itself, so there is no point in trying to match up its own evidence of origin with Scripture?

Except the evidence I'm giving.

What you have given us is not evidence. It is wishful fantasy.

Face it, the Great Unconformity is older than the entire Paleozoic section.

The faults that preserve fragmenst of the GC Supergroup are older than the Great Unconformity.

The GC Supergroup is older than the the faults that preserve it.

The Vishnu rocks are older than the GC Supergroup.

This is all based on irrefutable principles and field evidence.

Faith writes: However, I wasn't thinking of its intrusion into the Super Group, but the Super Group's being surrounded by schist and granite, both of which show the presence of volcanic influence.

But the Super Group is not surrounded by schist and granite so once again you are just making shit up.

Faith writes: As I just said, you can see the indication of the magma fingers on the cross section.

Yes and an honest person can also see the extent of such intrusions and that they are unrelated to the Super Group.

And you still have never offered any model, mechanism, method, process, procedure to create over two vertical miles of material, erode those two miles away and then lay down all of the other layers that are above the Super Group as well as lower every thing so that several of those later layers are created under a sea, and then raise the whole shebang to over a mile above sea level.

We await your presentation of the model, mechanism, method, process or procedure.

Faith writes: I recalculated the rise of the mounded area. It's a rise of 160 feet in one mile. Pretty shallow but still I don't see how layers are going to follow its contour. PaulK isn't the only one who tried to make that absurd case. Both Tanypteryx and Cat Sci did also.

A rise of 160 feet in one mile is 1 inch in 10 yards. You couldn't see that rise with the naked eye. Why do you imagine that sediment following that essentially level 'contour' is absurd?

Cardenas lava.

Good. Another event that is older than the Paleozoic section but younger than the Unconformity.

In fact, the Cardenas is younger than the lower part of the Supergroup, but older than the upper part.

However, I wasn't thinking of its intrusion into the Super Group, but the Super Group's being surrounded by schist and granite, both of which show the presence of volcanic influence.

What do you mean by 'volcanic influence'?

As I just said, you can see the indication of the magma fingers on the cross section.

There are a number of intrusive events in the Grand Canyon area, of different ages and compositions. This is clear from the data.

PaulK isn't the only one who tried to make that absurd case. Both Tanypteryx and Cat Sci did also.

I was pointing out that your blanket statements that sedimentary layers cannot follow a contour in underlying strata. I think that was the point PaulK and Cat Sci were making also.

Faith in message 14 writes: one doesn't have to be a physicist to know that sediment is NOT going to neatly spread itself out over a contour. 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.

We were disputing Faith's rule #?

It is clear from the evidence that the strata that makes up the GU was tilted long before the overlying sediments were deposited. Most of the material was eroded away over millions of years before being covered by more sediments.

Faith, your whole problem is trying to twist your imaginary scenario into a one year flood and a few thousand years after that. That is an absurd notion that ignores all the details that have been pointed out to you.

You say that millions of years for all the strata to erode, be deposited, erode some more, be deposited some more, over and over is absurd.

But that is all you can say, IT IS ABSURD.

Not if it took millions of years. Then it nakes perfect sense and explains all the evidence we see. Sedimentation takes lots of time, erosion takes lots of time, see level rising and falling takes lots of time. TIME, MILLIONS OF YEARS OF TIME, explain it all. You don't want that to be true because then it will make your magic book wrong, but the evidence is there, in the rocks.

Besides, we also have the interesting fact that the Great Unconformity is smack dab right beneath the highest part of the mound, and in very close proximity to the canyon.

It's also smack-dab right under most of the continental crust of the entire planet.

I've argued before that the canyon had to have been the result of strain in the upper strata, ...

Which seems to hardly exist. What strain are you talking about?

... which were more than two miles deep at that point, caused by the force of the uplift that also broke and tilted the strata that became the Great Unconformity.

So, this 'Force' acted across the crust of the earth from Scotland to the Grand Canyon? Please explain this force.

Sure is suggestive that all the events are related. And I still think that view has to be correct, however hard it is to prove it.

In an overly simplistic mind, I suppose; but how do you get all of those cross-cutting features and inclusions of older rocks in younger rocks?

But of course maybe not hay? Maybe the strata had no problem spreading themselves along the contour of the mound, wet or not, ...

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. Why could the sediments not have been deposited then warped by the Kaibab Uplift?

... and maybe the Great Unconformity was the root of a mountain chain that managed to erode down absolutely flat, :eyeroll: ...

How do you know it was flat and what would be the problem with a flat surface?

... which is what I thought the strata supposedly built on, but that would mean the mound wasn't there yet. OR, the mound WAS there, which is it?

If by 'mound' you mean the Kaibab Uplift, of course it came later. It warps the youngest rocks present in the system.

Nothing caused it though. But then eventually there was some kind of uplift etc etc etc.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Do you understand that the Great Unconformity is an irregular surface? Not a solid entity?

I was pointing out that your blanket statements that sedimentary layers cannot follow a contour in underlying strata.

I'm not even sure what Faith means here. Is she saying that layers maintain parallelism to older layers or elevation contours?

I think this is kind of a red herring. Sediments will tend to be laid down in horizontal layers, but when they encounter topography, the layer will become thinner and after compaction, look like it is draped over a high point. In general, deeper parts of a basin will have thicker layers. This is where we get the concept of a 'depocenter'. In the case of continental shelf deposits such as those in the Paleozoic of the Grand Canyon, this effect is minimal and most variation in thickness is caused by erosion.

One observation apparent in the GC Supergroup is that the layers are of variable resistance to erosion and the Shinumo Quarzite actually formed island in the Tapeats sea. If you look carefully in most cross sections, you can see this 'bump', effectively refuting Faith's contention that the Great Unconformity is planar.

I continue to be a little confused as to what Faith thinks the 'GU' actually represents. There is no GU rock. It is an irregular surface representing the land surface at one particular time. It does not include the GC Supergroup or the Vishnu metamorphics.