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

I went back and reread this and I guess I really don't understand your point (I guess you were right, I just didn't think about it ) Lumpy rocks had flattish surfaces? So as long as the surface of the rock is flat, then its not a problem for it to be flat? So the Vishnu and the uplifted strata are lumpy at the surface? Wouldn't that be the unconformity? So you are saying the surface of the Great Unconformity is lumpy but it couldn't be erosion that made it lumpy? We have looked at these cross sections before and I showed you how layers pinched out or were truncated by other layers. Some layers are missing within the canyon. Some fill depressions and channels in the surface of another layer. What kind of question is this? Erosion would stop when there is no longer a differential in height or when deposition begins. Those questions make no sense, especially as a rebuttal to an unconformance being a period of non-deposition.Besides all this, we don't need to decide HOW any particular surface came to be the way it is yet. What we need to do first is determine if a contact (the Great Unconformity in this case) is consistent with a period of non-deposition.HBD

So landscapes exposed to the surface should not be flat like this: or how about this: It has monadnock structures just like the ones I have been describing in the Great Unconformity.So your saying that these areas shouldn't be flat? Not anywhere? Why?And stop yelling, it is completely unnecessary.HBD

I SAID THAT NATURALLY FLAT ROCK IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXCEPTION AND YOU HAVE OFFERED ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THESE PICTURES ARE THE SURFACE OF ROCK OF THE LUMPY SORT I'M TALKING ABOUT RATHER THAN THE SURFACE OF A LAYER THAT'S NATURALLY FLAT AND SMOOTH LIKE THE KAIBAB PLATEAU OR THE TOP OF A MESA OR TEPUI. FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT!IN FACT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER THAT SCHIST OR TILTED STRATA HAS ERODED DOWN TO A FLAT SURFACE ANYWHERE. THE WHOLE IDEA IS A PURELY MENTAL INVENTION.AND EVEN THE NATURALLY FLAT SURFACES DEVELOP TRENCHES AND LOW SPOTS FROM EROSION.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So Faith says there shouldn't be any 'flat' surfaces of deposition...How about this along the seashore in Sweden. What if we started building a sandy beach over this expanse? Here is the Imuruk Basin on the Seward Peninsula in Alaska. Pretty flat? Oh, and notice the meander loops... And here is the top of the Entrada Sandstone on the Uncompahgre Uplift that we've talked about before.Flat enough yet? So, tell us once again why we should not have flat surfaces.

Good grief. I said no such thing. I said lumpy bumpy spiky or inclined surfaces would not erode flat.Show me the rock beneath the surface of those pictures and then we'll talk.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Shouted nonsense is still nonsense Faith.If erosion/weathering moves material from high points and deposits it in the low places why would the surface not change from lumpy to smoother?

What argument? That erosion can't make surfaces flat? That lumpy, bumpy rock isn't flat? There is no argument, you don't think erosion can make rocks flat. That's not an argument.You should tell us then, what force of nature could flatten a lumpy bumpy surface into a flattish plane. What force?HBD

Well, something is eroding flat...

Sure seems like an argument going on here to me. But now you are nitpicking. "FOLLOW THE TRAIN OF THOUGHT" then. Good grief. That's changing the subject. FIRST ACKNOWLEDGE THE POINT, THAT EROSION CAN'T DO IT. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Obviously you aren't bothering to follow what I'm saying either.

.Never mind. I know what you'll say and I don't want to get into that right now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think you've made the case that it can't.But, the thing is that I have no idea what other force could do such a thing. If a surface was all jagged and bumpy and now it is flat... the only thing my limited scientific imagination can come up with is erosion.If you have a better explanation, that would be a much better argument. You changed the subject. I was discussing the Great Unconformity and whether it was actually an unconformity or not. If there was continuous deposition and the Great Unconformity does not represent a period of non-deposition, then we need to talk about something other than erosion. We need to talk about how that feature could form during continuous deposition. If that is the case and there was no hiatus in deposition, then I will concede that erosion did not make those surfaces flat.But, if it does represent a period of non-deposition, then we need to talk about what happened during that non-depositional time... was it erosion or something else?HBD

Actually we don't have to consider alternatives at all merely to recognize that one line of interpretation is wrong. It first needs to be acknowledged that erosion couldn't accomplish what you all claim it did with the Great Unconformity.I've given my own interpretation of what might have happened many times, not "during continuous deposition" but after it was all laid down.But at this point I'm not defending my own interpretation, I'm insisting that the absurdity of the conventional interpretation be recognized.

I think what you are really saying is that we should acknowledge that 'Faith is correct'. Isn't that right?I'm trying to follow your argument, but it doesn't make sense. You say that the unconformity is 'flat', even though it isn't.Then you say that erosion can't create such a surface, even though we show you places where it has.You don't seem to be doing much other than just requiring that we agree with you before engaging in civil discourse.

Just to clarify, what do we claim the Great Unconformity did? I'm not sure that you know what the conventional interpretation is.