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

I still don't know what faults you are talking about but I'm not sure it matters.

The ones the between the Supergroup and the Vishnu sequence.

However, if the Paleozoic strata post-date the G.U. simply by superposition, ...

Okay, so refute the principle of superposition.

... that is, simply because it's beneath the Paleozoic system, that refers well enough to the strata the G.U. is composed of,

The Great Unconformity is not composed of strata!!!!!!!!!

Please read our posts.

... all that being already there before the Paleozoic layers were formed, but it really doesn't prove that the unconformity itself, the tilted blocks of strata, formed before the Paleozoic system did. Unless I'm missing something in what you're saying.

You are missing everything in what I'm saying.

If you are going to cut a stratum with a fault, the stratum has to be there in the first place.

If you are going to overlay one bed with another that bed has to be there in the first place.

If an erosional surface truncates a fault, that fault has to be there in the first place.

This is not rocket science...

Surely it's not uncommon for there to be underground movements of rock that in themselves predate upper rock, while the movement and repositioning of the lower rock are then more recent than the upper rock. Earthquakes reflect such underground shifts, right?

Hunh? So, the faults only affect certain rocks?

Where do you get this stuff?

No. An earthquake affects all rocks that the fault line intersects. If the rocks are younger than the earthquake are not broken by the fault.

Edge, maybe it's because Faith thinks that the Precambrian is a "layer" of rocks, the Cambrian is is a "layer" of rocks, etc.? One stacked up upon each other? That's what creationists tell them what the geological periods are? Maybe Faith has been taught that unconformities are "rock layers"? Hence, the "upper" of an unconformity. Crazy, I know. But that's what they believe.

Then I guess I'm the dunderheaded exception, but I don't get it except on the scenario I've given which you disagree with. To have to be right underneath the uplift means it has to be related to the uplift somehow,

Yes, it is related in space. There is no genetic relationship. This is a major logical fallacy.

... but unless it was also affected in the uplift as I'm suggesting it was, then I don't see how you would regard it as anything but a completely random or accidental fact that it happens to be right beneath the uplift.

When you have a global phenomenon, the fact that something else is occasionally found with it is insignificant. I can see that logic is not your strong point.

???

When I say that something is relevant only to you, that means that it is irrelevant.

Just a guess of mine that seemed logical. But perhaps some time you could give some kind of account of the Great Unconformity as it is found in other places besides the GC? That would be very interesting.

A 'guess of yours' is not evidence.

Have you not heard of Siccar Point?

Let me get something clear: you aren't denying that there WAS such a stack of post Permian rocks above the canyon area? Do you also accept that the post-Permian rocks were severely eroded, forming the Grand Staircase and scouring off the Kaibab plateau?

I have no problem with that.

Very. If all that post-Permian rock could have been so catastrophically eroded ...

Who says it was catastrophic? There was certainly plenty of time for the erosion to occur.

... as we can see on that main cross section of the area, what's the problem with the possibility that the uplift put strain on the upper layers of that rock?

The fact that the rocks immediately beneath them are not so strained argues against your point. This was not a major strain event.

At two miles above the Permian those uppermost strata would be stretched a great deal by such an uplift. This doesn't seem reasonable to you?

No. In that case why (in your scenario) are the Precambrian rocks so deformed? Do you know the types of strain that would happen in a broad upwarp such as the Kaibab?

Seems quite reasonable to me. The strain is reasonable to begin with, and the breaking up of the upper strata is reasonable based on the strain which would stretch and crack the sediments.

But what does this have to do with the Precambrian rocks?

If it did all occur in the receding phase of the Flood you then have a lot of water as the mechanism for producing all that very visible erosion, including very likely the Grand Canyon itself.

Where is the evience for this 'lot of water'?

Perhaps you are just so used to thinking in terms of slow processes this hits you as too alien to consider?Well, first of all, you too believe the uplift occurred after all the strata were in place, correct? That suggests that you believe it possible for the strata to have remained intact through that uplift since it clearly IS intact. Now perhaps you think that's because it occurred more gently and slowly than I have in mind?

To a certainty.

Actually even if it did, ultimately the upper strata so high above the Permian would have had to undergo strain from being stretched more than the lower strata.

Please prove this with some math. You are making a wishful assertion here. It does however, avoid the point that this uplift is not the only tectonic event presented in the GC rocks. It is another red herring.

I think the immense weight of all the strata would have held it together by compressing it when the uplift occurred due to tectonic force from beneath.

Probably not. But still irrelevant.

It wouldn't have had to be abrupt but it would have had to be extremely powerful, pushing up the entire stack three miles deep.

Actually, there is no reason for it to be abrupt. Neither is it extremely powerful compared to other tectonic events in the history of the earth.

The continuous relentless pushing of a continental collision seems powerful enough and not necessarily abrupt, adequate to the scenario I have in mind.

It's hard to tell what you have in mind. Please describe these forces in magnitude direction and source.

I'm not imagining anything particularly abrupt or violent, just powerful enough pressure to push the strata of the Supergroup into an unconformity and raise the whole stack of strata above.

What do you mean 'push the strata into an unconformity'. That is a meaningless statement and there is no evidence that there has been any such deformation, particularly on a global scale.

There is nothing unChristlike about calling people out on their false theology and treachery against God's word, especially when they are joining in the effort with unbelievers to undermine the faith of other Christians.

Sure Faith. The Bible tells us about Jesus pointed accusations, insinuations and insults when he had to carry his own cross. In fact Jesus condemned all of those people... Oh wait, that did not happen. Yet when you do the same, you claim to be Christ-like.

You are the one who started this thread with its impossibly high burden of proof. And while you cannot accept such, the beliefs of non-YEC believers are honest and sincerely held. And they are not matters of salvation anyway. Anyone with the tiniest powers of introspection and empathy would understand at least that. Your attempts to distinguish yourself from others as being the 'honest Christian' is what I find deplorable boasting. What would indeed be dishonest is pretending that your BS makes sense when it does not.

when they are joining in the effort with unbelievers to undermine the faith of other Christians.

In my opinion, nothing undermines Christianity as much as people learning that the history and science pushed at them by their YEC church leaders utterly fails to describe nature or to be of any use other than propping up a feeling of superiority over the better informed. Sorry, but I cannot help you spread disinformation. No one should.

Continuing my response to Message 76

Seems to be what everybody is saying, how the GU eroded flat and that created the surface for the strata to buld on. Except that it was not entirely flat, as I explained earlier.

The problem I see is that I don't see how such an upthrust piece of hardened strata could erode away to flatness. Some were not completely eroded. This is evident in your own sections.

Yes, it's really not very eroded at all considering its supposed history of being the root of a mountain and then subjected to millions of years of weathering. It’s lumpy and bumpy but still manages an overall appearance of horizontal flatness. Like if you scattered some gravel on a tabletop and then plunked down a flat piece of wet clay on top of it. The gravel would bite into the clay but the overall appearance would be of one horizontal object on top of another. Looking at the cross sections you see wavy lines indicating erosion between the G.U. and the Tapeats, but it's just a wavy line. I guess I'm arguing from incredulity here but I just can't see how that small degree of erosion, leaving a relatively horizontal flat surface, could have been the result of the processes Geology says it went through.

You are missing my sarcasm directed at others here. Perhaps you need to notice more carefully the name at the upper right side of a post to whom it is addressed. In any case I agree with you that the uplift came later. I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind when you say "it warps the youngest rocks..." The point is that whatever cause deformation of the GC Supergroup and eruption of the Cardenas Basalt did not affect the youngest rocks.

Which youngest rocks though? The layers in the Supergroup that didn't get metamorphosed, or the Paleozoic strata above?

If you mean the rocks in the Supergroup I have a question about that too. Did you ever explain how a quartzite layer got sandwiched in there among sedimentary layers? You many have, but I don't remember. Also the Cardenas basalt is odd to find as a layer in that group.

Here's the question: How is it that this block of strata, which was supposedly the root of a mountain or mountains, which I would think would have subjected it to a great deal of pressure, didn't ALL become metamorphic rock?

Uh yeah, that's the point of my argument that it wouldn't have eroded flat. And it didn't. However, I know of no law that forbids that. And there is plenty of time, your denial notwithstanding. There is actual hard evidence of long ages, all in opposition to your a priori beliefs. So, what is your point?

I remarked on this above, but why not again. Considering degrees of flatness: On all the cross sections of the GC the Paleozoic layers all sit quite firmly on a very horizontal platform composed of the eroded surface of a huge block of the diagonally upthrust layers of the Great Unconformity. Now the surface of that horizontal platform may be pretty lumpy in places, but nevertheless it IS quite horizontal and relatively flat and the strata seated on it aren’t distorted by it beyond some visible but not very demanding accommodation to the small amount of lumpiness.

That surface manages to be, to my mind, surprisingly horizontal and surprisingly relatively flat considering its supposed history on the surface of the earth being eroded down to this condition. How the eroding factors were able to reach a horizontal platform at all, even a lumpy one, with such a spiky collection of upthrust strata of different kinds and hardnesses of rock, strikes me as inexplicable – no, impossible. Why flatness to any degree at all, why horizontality to any degree at all? Such a motley block of strata could have eroded into a spiky diagonal, with the softer rock eroded farther back than the harder rock.

But I know your answer: Anything is possible in millions of years, including eroding upthrust huge spiky strata down to flatness.

I have another question too, although it's not very clear in my mind. I keep wondering about the Vishnu schist that the Supergroup seems to have built on. How come it fills up the space to one side of the G.U., in effect displacing the G.U. or the strata that was made into the G.U. that can't be found any more? and forms the surface the Tapeats then built on? I'd guess it must have gotten pushed up in the uplift along with the Supergroup but of course you disagree.

I assume the granite in the schist represents magma from below. It's got magma type "fingers" pushing up into the schist. Certainly the source of the heat that helped form the schist. As for the pressure, it's too old to have been formed in the uplift you say?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, to resolve a conflict between science and the Bible you don't choose in favor of science and make the Bible conform to it. That's a kind of dishonesty.

Edge, maybe it's because Faith thinks that the Precambrian is a "layer" of rocks, the Cambrian is is a "layer" of rocks, etc.? One stacked up upon each other? That's what creationists tell them what the geological periods are? Maybe Faith has been taught that unconformities are "rock layers"? Hence, the "upper" of an unconformity. Crazy, I know. But that's what they believe.

For your information, I was taught NOTHING about these things. I SEE what look like strata in the Supergroup. They look like strata and they are composed of the very same kinds of sediments all the strata are composed of. And despite what edge is saying, SOMEBODY back in this thread DID say it was composed of strata. It's not only me.

Faith has explicitly declared that her intrepretation of the Bible is infallible.

I would never have said that. Please find where I supposedly said such a thing or you are guilty of slander.

Nature doesn't reveal anything to us about itself or even about God in our fallen condition, it's utterly opaque to us normally, and science is the only method that can interpret it. Really? Then why does Paul say that nature reveals truths about God so plainly and so clearly that fallen man is without excuse for rejecting God (Rom 1:18-20)? What you say above disagrees with Paul!

Yes, I agree about this, but in actual fact I don't know anybody who sees God in Nature except people who already believe. So presumably that means we SHOULD see Him but our fallenness prevents it or leads us to deny what is there. In any case it's hardly on the order of something being actually revealed to us.

If death preceded the Fall then death is natural and not a corruption of life due to sin. Why do we need a Savior from something that's natural and inevitable? He came to save us from sin which is a violation of God's law and from death which is a violation of nature brought about by sin. I believe that death of animals is indeed natural. They don't sin so they don't need a Savior. Death only of man is a consequence of sin (Rom 5:12ff).

Yes I've had this discussion with others. No point in getting too deep into it. But God brought them under the curse for our sake which suggests they weren't subject to death naturally, and shouldn't have been because they can't sin; and "all creation groans for its liberation."

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If this is what you mean, there is no evidence that anything like this ever happened.

I know it never happened. The point is that it WOULD have happened and since it didn't it proves my point. But what seemed so clear to me when I wrote that post doesn't seem so clear any more. Maybe it will come back to me.

The Vishnu Schist adjacent to the supergroup layers were already there when the supergroup layers were deposited. When the stretching of the continent caused all the faulting that formed the blocks of basin and range then the lowest supergroup layers slipped to be adjacent to older Vishnu Schist layers. What we see in the region of the Grand Canyon you're looking at is just the very lowest and oldest layers of the supergroup.

Edge is now saying that the Supergroup is NOT composed of layers as you seem to be saying it is, and I thought it was.

At least this is some kind of explanation how they got in the position they're in. But the Supergroup should have originally been as long as any of the strata, IF composed of strata I guess, and there's still a question how there was room for the Vishnu to displace it if it was originally like the other strata in length.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You seem to be having a conniption fit of some sort in this post, Message 91, and I don't think I'm up to it right now.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In the Vanrhynsdorp Group in my country and the Nama Group in Namibia there's absolutely no geological unconformity found in the "rocks" between the Precambrian Namibian Era and the Cambrian period. Those sedimentary rocks straddle the boundary between the Precambrian and the Cambrian Period. No unconformity between Cambrian and Precambrian found there. Blows magic global floods during that time out of the water.

Boy are you confused! The unconformity is a huge headache for the Flood, why do you think I'm spending time on it?

1. The strata were already in place when the uplift occurred that created the mounded rise. Evidence for this is that the strata all follow the contour of the mound.

OK, for the most part yes, this seems to be true. The forces that caused the Kaibab plateau uplift appear to be a fairly recent phenomenon and the sediment at least up to the Kalibab were in place before the uplift.

2. Whatever caused the rise lifted the whole stack of strata as a block. Evidence for this is that the rounded contour is at both the bottom and the top of the canyon: it rises over the Great Unconformity instead of the strata butting in to it, as they would if it was there before the strata were laid down.

First of all, an unconformity represents a "missing" segment of time - which I understand you don't accept. I think you do understand what it means, but you worded the above kind of strangely saying that if the unconformity existed before the strata above it was laid down that it would butt into it (the unconformity). What we need to look at is the layers above and below the unconformity and see how they interact.

But so far, you thought process is ok.

3. This means that the Great Unconformity was NOT there before the strata were laid down. It was lifted right along with the whole stack, and probably tilted at the same time.

Now this is where your logic has failed. In order for the strata above and below the unconformity to be lifted along with the rest of the block, it needed to be there before the lift occurred. If you are trying to make the argument that the unconformity formed during the uplift, this line of reasoning doesn't do it. It doesn't even make sense, here's your logic:

1. The strata doesn't butt up against the unconformity
2. The whole block was lifted as a unit
3. The unconformity wasn't there before it was lifted

How does 3 follow from 1 and 2?

So I conclude that now I’ve finally proved that the Great Unconformity did NOT preexist the laying-down of the strata

Well, let's look at the contact between the Supergroup and the Tapeats (which represents this Great Unconformity).

First, here is a cross section

Note that the Tonto Group (the Tapeats being the lowest member) contacts the Vishnu Basement through the Sixtymile formation. Also note that the Tapeats DOES butt up against the Supergroup. Wikipedia say this of the contact between the Tapeats and the Supergroup

quote:

---

The contact between the Tapeats Sandstone and Bass Formation and the rest of the folded and faulted Unkar Group is a prominent angular unconformity, which is part of the Great Unconformity. The differential erosion of the Unkar Group left resistant beds of the Cardenas Basalt and Shinumo Quartzite as topographic highs, ancient monadnocks, that are now buried by sandstones, shales, and conglomerates of the Tapeats Sandstone. These monadnocks served locally as sources of coarse-grained sediments during the marine transgression that deposited the Tapeats Sandstone and other members of the Tonto Group. The contact between the Bass Formation and the Tapeats Sandstone forms part of a relative flat surface that lies between the monadnocks.

---

One of the layers that is not identified in the above image is the Cardenas Basalts

quote:

---

The lava flows of the Cardenas Basalt represent the subaerial eruption of basaltic and andesitic magma. The interbedded sandstones and hyaloclastites provide evidence that these eruptions occurred in wet coastal environments such as river deltas or tidal flats.

---

It is 300m thick in some places! These lava flows (subaerial) make up some of the features that were resistant to weathering and formed these monadnock structures that protrude not just into the Tapeats but some even into the Bright Angle Shale!

quote:

---

Though this surface is typically a plane, differential erosion of the tilted strata of the Unkar Group left resistant beds of the upper layer Cardenas Basalt and the middle layer Shinumo Quartzite as ancient hills, called monadnocks. These ancient hills, which are ridges formed by block faulting, are up to 240 m (800 ft) tall. Thin drapes of Tapeats Sandstone of the Tonto Group either cover or drape onto most of these ancient monadnocks. However, the summits of the highest monadnocks protrude up through the base layer Tapeats Sandstone and are blanketed by overlying Bright Angel Shale as can be seen at Isis Temple.

---

Unkar Group

Here are a couple of pictures of the Great Unconformity

quote:

---

(above, left)Close-up of The Great Unconformity with Vishnu Schist below and Tapeats Sandstone above. Quartz clasts rest right at the surface of the unconformity

---

quote:

---

(above, center)Notice the “loose” fragments of Zoroaster pegmatite from the underlying Grand Canyon Metamorphic Suite incorporated within the contact below the basal-most Tapeats Sandstone. Inclusions can often be utilized to recognize a nonconformity such as this.

---

quote:

---

(above, right)A small scale channel within the Tapeats Sandstone just above the unconformity. These channels were likely cut as the waves of the Tapeats Sea washed back across the surface.

---

OK, you get the point... the contact between the Tapeats and the Supergroup was there BEFORE uplift.

A more likely order of events (simplified, of course):

1. Supergroup deposited
2. Supergroup fractured and tilted
3. Surface which would become the Great Unconformity weathered
4. Paleozoic rocks deposited
5. Uplift of Kalibab plateau
6. Cutting of the Grand Canyon

I think that order is pretty well universally accepted. Of course, some of the details and the timing are debated, but it should be absolutely clear that the unconformity did not form during uplift, the surface that would become the unconformity was there before both the uplift and the deposition of the Paleozoic strata.

There are of course many different reasons why the Geologists think the Great Unconformity was there long before the strata were laid down, but if what I've said above is true, it makes all the other reasons wrong.

Those reasons being that they let the rocks tell the story not try to force a preconceived notion onto them.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : spelling

Edge is now saying that the Supergroup is NOT composed of layers as you seem to be saying it is, and I thought it was.

Didn't edge say the Great Unconformity was not composed of strata? Not the Supergroup??

Faith writes: ... that is, simply because it's beneath the Paleozoic system, that refers well enough to the strata the G.U. is composed of, edge writes: The Great Unconformity is not composed of strata!!!!!!!!!

From Message 91

HBD

But the Great Unconformity IS the Supergroup, tilted and broken. If the Supergroup is composed of strata, so is the G.U.