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.
Reading this now it strikes me as very odd and I'm not sure what on earth I had in mind. Now it just seems that the G.U. was pushed up along with the strata, it would have been lower when they were laid down over it. I'm waiting to see if I saw something then that I need to recapture but at the moment it just looks wrong.
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.
No, I just need to rethink it and I'll probably just conclude I wasn't thinking clearly at the time. But I was so sure of it I have to give myself time to see if it comes back the way I originally saw it.
As for an unconformity representing a missing segment of time, aren't you confusing different kinds of unconformity? The kind I reject is the kind that represents an entire segment of rock that OE theory says is supposed to be there but isn't.
But where I say the G.U. didn't preexist the laying down of the strata I may have confused you because in its pre-tilted condition, when it was just a stack of layers, it would certainly have pre-existed the laying down of the Paleozoic strata. But the G.U. is the tilted formation that formed from it, which I claim didn't pre-exist the laying down of the strata but was created by the Kaibab Uplift. The rock was already there, but not the unconformity, until the uplift.
I thought I'd proved this but now I'm not seeing my line of reasoning. As I said, I'm going to have to give it time to see if I've just lost a necessary perspective in the blizzard of debate that will come back to me when my brain settles down.
As for your proofs, they are very much the standard view, though maybe I'm not giving them enough attention at the moment. The only thing that's really different is that you have brought out the interesting fact that some of the "monadnocks" penetrated very deeply into the strata above. This is something I'd wondered about and mentioned in my previous post to edge. Nevertheless, despite the presence of these dramatic pieces of rock, the overall presentation of the surface of the G.U. where it contacts the Tapeats, is still a lot more flat and horizontal than I would expect. Of course my expectations are worth nothing, but it's where I'm starting.
Accusing me of "forcing" anything is not fair. I do my best to understand the actual lay of the rocks and how it all fits together.
All right, this needs a lot of clarification. The angular unconformity at Siccar Point is the entire formation that includes both the upper horizontal layer and the vertical layers beneath. This is how I've been regarding the physical presentation of the Great Unconformity as well. To reduce it merely to the eroded contact line makes no sense to me.
Oh absolute screaming nonsense. What this is after all is just the Old Earth theory of what happened to the Supergroup, those phantom millions of years of mountain building followed by erosion, interfering with my attempt to argue an entirely different explanation for the tilted Supergroup and its contact with the Tapeats. Any other view of it, such as my own, has just been handily defined away. Ha ha.
From jar's post above:
The Great Unconformity is just one of the literally tens of thousands of evidences that the Earth is old.
Actually what it is, is pure theory reified into fact, the fantasy castle built out of mental cobwebs. Emperor's New Clothes. Flimflam.
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).
I wish you would start a thread on that in one of the F&B forums since neither your position or Faith's position or even Paul's position seem to make any sense Biblically.
I don't see much point in this. You and I have already expressed our views in Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"? in the "Bible Study" forum. I'm not quite sure whether you think I'm misunderstanding Paul or you think Paul was wrong, but it is clear that you and I disagree on Rom 5:12ff.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein
“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger
There are many kinds of unconformities and this article may help you with understanding.
The Great Unconformity though is a specific example, one where a whole section of the Super Group is simply missing.
In this specific case the rock layers that make up the Tonto Group sit directly on the Vishnu Schist, the Super Group (over two vertical miles of rocks) is gone. The issue faced was "How to explain what is seen?"
The only explanation so far has been that the whole two plus miles of rock got eroded away?
That lead to asking "How long did it take to first created the various layers of rocks that make up the over two miles of the Super Group and how long would it take to erode all of that away? Then how long would it take to create all the other layers that are above the Great Unconformity? Can that be explained by any known process, procedure, model, method, mechanism that could do all that in just 6000 years?"
So far over the last couple hundred years no one has been able to present any known process, procedure, model, method, mechanism that could do all that in just 6000 years.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
It is not the rocks that are still there but rather the over one billion years of rock that are not there.
At the location of the Great Unconformity all of the Super Group is missing; 6800 feet of Unkar Group rocks, 370 feet of the Nankoweap Formation, 5200 feet of the Chuar Group and 200 feet of the Sixty Mile Formation.
Over two vertical miles of rocks had been eroded away before the Tapets Sandstone of the Tonto Group was laid down.
This means that the Earth must be at least old enough to have laid down the Super Group rocks and then eroded away the Super Group rocks at the location of the Great Unconformity and also lay down all the rock that are above the Great Unconformity; not just millions but billions of years.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Re: the Great uncomformity proves the Earth is old
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.
Oh that are indicated along the edge of the Supergroup. Now I see it.
However, if the Paleozoic strata post-date the G.U. simply by superposition, ...
Okay, so refute the principle of superposition.
No such intention.
... 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!!!!!!!!!
OK I guess I now know what you mean by this after recent discussions. The G.U. is apparently just the eroded contact between the Supergroup and the Tonto group. OK? I had been thinking of it as the Supergroup itself broken and tilted.
Please read our posts.
This time around I've been very consistent about reading all the posts. Well, all YOUR posts anyway and most of the others too. Apparently I've managed to hold onto a different idea of the G.U. nevertheless.
... 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.
Here you can see I mean the whole Supergroup as the G.U.
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...
Maybe the point can be recovered, but probably not right now.
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.
Going to have to come back to this topic when the whole misunderstanding is clearer.