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

And in all of the photos we posted, it was not so straight and level.But certainly you have a point here. What is it? Why do you insist on Good, then you agree that erosion can make a rock terrace that is straight and level, because we have shown them to you. Who said it was the 'roots' of a mountain range?And how much weight was there? Remember, the Paleozoic section was not on top of it until it had been eroded.Metamorphic grade is dependent upon geothermal gradient It is entirely possible to have low gradients and preserve the original mineralogy and textures to very deep regions.

Because now we are going down another rabbit hole of what is flat and what is smooth, etc. ... Not in the technical sense...

Sure I did. I posted the one of Siccar Point. It's actually a very rough surface, even in two dimensions. Okay, let's put it this way... Why do you care that the unconformity surface is so smooth? No. I have shown you tilted rocks below a modern unconformity. Well, they're all natural. What are you talking about? And I recently showed you one exactly the same with no overlying rocks and yet the only explanation is erosion. I suggest you check your references. The metamorphic complex was likely at the root of a mountain range, but the Supergroup, not so much.

Actually, they are relevant to the point that unconformities are not just smooth planar.ETA: Faith, I detect your level of frustration. But you can fix that. Learn some geology and see how it all comes together. You don't have to shoehorn everything into a young earth and a flood. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Faith, how about you check out my post Message 286 and tell me if it satisfies your demands. Please tell us what formed that surface as shown if not erosion?Then check out me post Message 281 and tell me that the rocks under the modern erosional surface are not tilted.

So you are saying that if it were eroded for millions of year it should look different, maybe rougher?So, why should that be? So, tilted strata are not natural? Naturally planar and tilted?ETA: Ah! I think I see now. You are saying that some of these examples are not erosional, but depositional. You know if you weren't so disagreeabe, we might be able to help you with these things. I try to read everything you write, but it's a lot of work figuring out what you mean. It's not necessary to be angry when someone asks you for clarification. Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Faith the rock surface is more straight and level than the road in the foreground. You cannot get more 'straight and level'.But have it your way, Faith. That's why I highlighted them with yellow lines. There is also one in the foregound.

Zoom in on the yellow highlight line in the upper left and you can see the layering in the outcrops. In this image, the upper contact is smooth and almost flat. The schist has a near vertical, gray, platy schistosity about parallel to the direction of the roadway.

The three best pieces of evidence and the ones we have been relying on mostly are:--sedimentary clasts of the lower rock series within the upper--stream channels or karst features cut into the lower series, etc.--the identical appearance of the unconformity surface to the existing surface, along with the lack of any other known process that would form the unconformity surface.Faith's scenario fails to explain all of these.In a more general explanation of unconformities, there are other features such as paleosoils or regolith above the surface and weathering effects below it (I'm pretty sure we have seen evidence of this in the GC). Sometimes there are root systems or other fossil features in the lower sequence (which I may call the footwall from time to time), and things like glacial striations. In some places you might find ejecta from hot springs or geysers. As nearly as I can tell I/we have given her several examples. My most recent being only a couple of posts back (that same picture for the third time, by the way); and actually, the image you include with this post of yours shows a modern surface that would be an unconformity were it buried suddenly by a rise in sea level. Remember, my point in showing the Siccar Point picture is to show that the surfaces are not always 'smooth'. And that location is truly an unconformity.

Put simply, McKee (?) is saying that the surface effects of chemical weathering of rock extend well below the bedrock surface. Again, put simply, some of the rocks weather more slowly than others, probably due to mineralogy and how broken up they are. To a trained person, these points are clear pretty clear. I'm glad someone is interested enough to ask. If it was eroded away, yes, the surface would depress by that amount. However, in this instance, it means that the chemical effects of weathering affect the bedrock to that depth but the rock is still intact.

Sometimes it would be good for someone to ask for an explanation. In this particular case, it could get into kind of a time-consuming, technical discussion relying on some visual interpretation that could be simply denied (of course, that never happens around here). But if someone really wants to know...

Not having been there, I'm not exactly sure what the rock type is, but I think you can see the layering which tilts steeply to the left toward the sea. The large flat surfaces face toward the sea and stand at about a 50 degree angle. Those surfaces are cut off at the top where a soil is developed and humans have constructed a lighthouse.On the lower elevations, at wave level, you can see another flat bench starting to develop. Someday if it is uplifted, it will also develop a soil and someone will build on it. The current lighthouse, of course, will be eroded away...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

So images in Message 312 and Message 284 are not eroded? Not a clue?

Personally, I think it looked like this Message 257, but you haven't really told me if the surface is smooth or rough in that picture.And then, there is Message 281 which you have not yet addressed.

A question for Faith.So, are all unconformities prior to the modern one non-erosional?