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

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.

In geological terms, an unconformity represents a period of missing time. If say you have a layer dated at 750 mya with a layer dated to 500 mya directly on top of it - in contact with it, then that is an unconformity - 250 million years of "missing time." But you don't detect an unconformity merely by determining there is "missing time" you look at the contact surface.

So it IS the eroded contact line that represents the unconformity.

As for an unconformity representing a missing segment of time, aren't you confusing different kinds of unconformity?

No, I don't think so. Different types of unconformities describe the different ways that the layers above and below the contact relate to each other. The Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon is an Angular Unconformity because the lower layers are truncated (terminated) at the contact at an angle.

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.

An erosional surface has removed material, obviously that's how erosion works. So if the contact is an erosional surface, there is a segment of rock that is missing. It does not necessarily mean that there is an entire layer of rock missing. It could be a time where there was no deposition occurring. An unconformity does strongly suggest, however, that the layer was exposed at the surface - which usually results in erosion.

As for your proofs, they are very much the standard view, though maybe I'm not giving them enough attention at the moment.

This is part of the "let the rocks tell the story" comment. Look back at what I presented regarding the contact between the Supergroup and the Tonto Group and ask "what does this tell me about what happened?" Forget about what you are trying to prove, or what you expect it to say, find out what it says!

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.

But there is no reason to expect ANYTHING because you don't know what happened there. Your expectations come from having a preconceived notion about what happened. It also comes from ignoring the details and focusing only on the big picture. Yes, it is surprising that that surface is so flat. Yes it is surprising that the area did not experience major tectonic disturbance for long periods of time. But that is the story the rocks tell!

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.

You think that is what you are doing, but its not. You are trying to explain it in the context of a global flood, which is not necessarily wrong, but unless you are willing to give up trying to explain it with the flood, you have no choice but to "force" your observations to fit your preconceived notion. When you stop and say "what do the rocks actually say?", then you will be able to understand them. Who knows, maybe you will find that there was a global flood...

HBD

Faith writes: Nothing you've said gets across anything about the missing two miles of rock. Don't know what you mean. That diagram you posted was already posted by Asgara and I've seen it many times already anyway.

Yes, many of us have posted that illustration for you.

Notice that it also shows places where the Super Group is below the Tapeats Sandstone.

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 Tapeats 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.

If you look again at the illustration you will see that at the location called the Great Unconformity all of the Super Group is missing.

So far the only explanation is that it was uplifted and eroded away before the area once again subsided to become marine transgression that produced the Tapeats Sandstone.

If you can present a model, method, mechanism, process, procedure that could account for what is seen in reality other than the conventional one, then it too could be examined.

We can know that the Super Group rocks were once there because we can determine the ages of both the Vishnu Schist and the Tapeats Sandstone and those formations are separated by at least a billion years. We can also see areas where the rocks of the Super Group remain and have not been eroded away.

Thanks for posting that cross section. I've seen it a million times without noticing that the G.U. was identified as the contact line.

You've been telling us how things have to be in geology and you are just now discovering what the G.U. is?

Your credibility would have dropped a few more notches, if that were possible.

What a joke!

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.

Just a completely random accidental position, not even a bit off center, not outside the uplift area at all. So OK, that's your opinion.

... 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.

Seems a bit more significant than that to me, but I've registered your opinion.

Have you not heard of Siccar Point?

I've spent a lot of time analyzing Siccar Point. It's where I came up with my idea about how angular unconformities developed by tectonic force that left upper strata intact over folded lower strata. Which of course you find ridiculous.

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.

Great. Something we can agree on.

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.

Well the word is at least descriptive of the enormous amount of sediment that was disposed of. But of course I do think it was catastrophically disposed of too, in the receding stage of the Flood. Of course I'm aware you think it took a long time.

... 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.

I don't think you are picturing what I was trying to get across. I'm talking about the uppermost layers at the very top of the post-Permian strata that were two miles higher than the Kaibab. You can't see "the rocks immediately beneath them" because that entire stack down to the Permian is gone. By strain I mean strain on the surface of the uppermost layers, from the stretching that would occur at that height over the rounded shape of the uplift and could make cracks in the highest layers. I'm of course not thinking of the uplift taking any great length of time but I would think even if it did take a long time the upper layers would get stretched and crack. n The layers WAY up there.

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?

Your question doesn't make sense to me. I think you didn't understand what I was saying and mean something different by "strain."

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?

Nothing except that I'm thinking of the uplift as causing both the strain at the uppermost levels above, beginning the massive erosion of that area, and the tilting of the Supergroup beneath the canyon. Same uplift, two different effects, one above, one below.

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'?

Well it all looks to me like it "washed away," especially the surface of the Kaibab but also the way the cliffs of the Grand Staircase broke up as they did. Also of course I figure a huge amount of water was responsible for a great deal of the carving out of the Grand Canyon. Water could do such things. Don't know what you'd consider evidence though.

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.

Always nice to figure out what you think.

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.

This is a sort of thing to be visualized not calculated. Also, no avoidance going on, I simply believe there was only one major tectonic event that caused the Kaibab Uplift and all that massive erosion above the Permian, and the tilting of the Supergroup beneath the canyon.

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.

Irrelevant to what? Apparently I'm not addressing whatever you think the subject is. But I thought I was answering the question how the Paleozoic rocks managed not to be disturbed while the post-Permian strata were getting broken up and the Supergroup was being tilted.

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.

OK. That fact too would contribute to the preservation of the Paleozoic stack of strata. Had to be just powerful enough to tilt the Supergroup and lift a three-mile stack of strata.

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'd have to find all that out from you.

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.

I don't get this global scale thing. I consider it local. and now that I know the unconformity isn't the Supergroup but the contact line above the tilted supergroup I will avoid such language in future. What I meant was "enough pressure to tilt the Supergroup and raise the whole stack of strata above. "

I've always regarded an angular unconformity as comprising the entire physical unit of upper horizontal and lower folded strata. The idea that only the "missing" time is included in the definition is new to me. And I actually suspect that's not always the case.

Also, no avoidance going on, I simply believe there was only one major tectonic event that caused the Kaibab Uplift and all that massive erosion above the Permian, and the tilting of the Supergroup beneath the canyon.

You don't still believe this do you??? After you have been shown that the Great Unconformity is an erosional surface?? That it has features that protrude up to 240m (800ft.) into the layers above??? That there are large Vishnu clasts that have been incorporated into the Tapeats at the point of contact???

Sure sounds like avoidance to me.

(Unless you were merely pointing out what you WERE thinking before you were shown it could not have happened that way )

HBD

I don't think you are picturing what I was trying to get across. I'm talking about the uppermost layers at the very top of the post-Permian strata that were two miles higher than the Kaibab. You can't see "the rocks immediately beneath them" because that entire stack down to the Permian is gone. By strain I mean strain on the surface of the uppermost layers, from the stretching that would occur at that height over the rounded shape of the uplift and could make cracks in the highest layers. I'm of course not thinking of the uplift taking any great length of time but I would think even if it did take a long time the upper layers would get stretched and crack. n The layers WAY up there.

Please describe this strain. Give us some kind of evidence that there was such a thing. How do you create that strain without affecting the Paleozoic rocks?

Your question doesn't make sense to me. I think you didn't understand what I was saying and mean something different by "strain."

My definition of strain is the creation of certain features and structures within the rock. It would be the result of some kind of deformation. So, what are the signs of strain?

On the other hand I do know that those rocks were softer than the Paleozoic rocks. So, why is it necessary to strain those rock selectively?

Nothing except that I'm thinking of the uplift as causing both the strain at the uppermost levels above, beginning the massive erosion of that area, and the tilting of the Supergroup beneath the canyon. Same uplift, two different effects, one above, one below.

Except that we know the signs of strain in the lower rocks are older than the Paleozoic. I have already explained this to you.

This is a sort of thing to be visualized not calculated. Also, no avoidance going on, I simply believe there was only one major tectonic event that caused the Kaibab Uplift and all that massive erosion above the Permian, and the tilting of the Supergroup beneath the canyon.

You can believe as you wish, but that does not explain your theory.

You don't still believe this do you???

Faith has to check with, and develop, her personal interpretation of scripture before she can address any real-world evidence that you present.

Your evidence doesn't matter. All that matters to Faith is scripture and her interpretation of it.

Faith doesn't know what the Great Unconformity is? No problem, its wrong anyway. And on learning what the definition is, she may choose to accept it or not, depending on how it affects her beliefs. Your evidence doesn't matter.

She doesn't know any geology? No problem, anything in geology that contradicts scripture is wrong. Faith doesn't care about the evidence, if one fantasy gets too much pushback she'll try another, and yet another, and so on, eventually cycling back to the first again as if nobody will notice. Belief is more powerful than evidence any day.

This resembles the traditional Christian apologetics. According to wiki, Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology which attempts to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections.

But, can we coin a new word for what we see here, Christian apologistics? I propose the term Christian apologistics as a field of Christian theology which attempts to present a multitude of irrational bases for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections.

And for this new term, Faith has earned the honor of being the poster-child.

Oh that are indicated along the edge of the Supergroup. Now I see it.

Yes, they truncate the Supergroup rocks, but not the Paleozoic rocks. They are, therefor, older than the Paleozoic.

No such intention.

Well, if you reject the superposition of younger over older, then you should explain yourself.

Going to have to come back to this topic when the whole misunderstanding is clearer.

It's actually pretty clear right now. I could imagine ways of localizing deformation within a rock sequence, but in every case, there would be obvious evidence. We are quite good at deciphering such things.

But even without that, you have a problem explaining the unevenness of the Great Unconformity related to erosion resistance of the different layers in the Supergroup. Just look at the section and it's pretty clear.

This resembles the traditional Christian apologetics. According to wiki, Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology which attempts to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections.

Sorry, but I disagree. Yes, Christian apologetics attempts to develop rational, logical arguments to defend the claims of Christianity. But what Faith has been doing in this thread is very different. Rather than arguing for the claims of Christianity, she has mainly been arguing against the claims of mainstream science.

This echoes a common tactic of YECs. Rather than presenting alternative scientific theories, they just try to poke holes in mainstream science. Their view is that if mainstream science fails, then YEC wins by default.

I'm giving up on this thread at this point. I've concluded I didn't have the OP thought out and don't have the evidence I thought I had. Thanks.

ll 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.

The unconformity is the contact ("contact line" in cross-section). It is an unconformity because of the nature of the rocks below and above. There is evidence of a major time break - Deposition, folding, erosion, more deposition.

Moose

I couldn't possibly claim that I understand the Bible infallibly, I'm sure you've misconstrued something.

I asked you explicitly if your interpretation of the Bible was infallible and you sid yes. More than once. Can't find those right now but I do see that someone else noticed:

Faith writes: She has started several times that her reading of the Bible is infallible. Never said any such thing. JonF pointed out where you said exactly that in another thread, and in this very thread you stated that the Bible is the final word, that you and others like you have the correct interpretation, and that though there are differences among you that you all concur on the important points, and that religions whose interpretations differ on important points (like the Roman Catholic church) are false churches. Your rule seems to be, "Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong." The rule everyone else is following is, "If you can't support your arguments with evidence, please go find some evidence before continuing the discussion." By the way, the evidence has to be connected to the arguments. You *have* cited a great deal of evidence, but almost none of it connects to your arguments. It's all non sequiturs as bad as, "I'll be faster if I carry Usain Bolt sports cards in my back pocket." You always emphatically insist that everything you say is correct, but only until the absurdity of something you've said finally dawns on you, at which point you switch to delivering a lecture on how we willfully misinterpret or exaggerate or overliteralize everything you say. Lecture time again, I presume? --Percy

It's obvious that you think your interpretation of the Bible cannot be wrong, and you continually state that what you write is God's words. to me that means infallible.

As I wrote before and you ignored, will you now declare that your interpretation of the Bible could be wrong? That when you claim to be promulgating God's word it's just the opinion of a fallible human? If you can't declare that you think your interpretation is infallible.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

can we coin a new word for what we see here, Christian apologistics? I propose the term Christian apologistics as a field of Christian theology which attempts to present a multitude of irrational bases for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections.

No need to invent a new term, we already have one that fits this description... Creation Science.

HBD

I'm giving up on this thread at this point. I've concluded I didn't have the OP thought out and don't have the evidence I thought I had. Thanks.

Fair enough, but I suspect you have not given up on your belief regarding the formation of the Great Unconformity and the tilting of the Supergroup etc... You just realize you can't continue to argue it here. In 6 months or so, you will be trotting this whole idea out again, whether at EvC or at your blog or whatever, as if none of this discussion ever happened.

I hope I am wrong about that...

HBD