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

I am, as I said, gradually reading and responding through the thread. Your last three posts contain precisely what I suggested might be helpful a little earlier this morning, thank you. For this particular image, could you clarify what in the image indicates that the layers are tilted?

I think it would be reasonable for Faith to ask for evidence that the strata are tilted.

Edge has provided what you requested, evidence of eroded tilted strata at the surface. If you actually wanted something different then could you please describe it?

This isn't a case of winning or losing, just a case of one point getting across from one side of the debate to the other, in this case that eroded tilted strata exist at the surface. I am, as I have said several times, responding as I read along, so I don't know where the discussion went after this, but we should be clear about what you're saying. Does this mean that there's now agreement that the Grand Uncomformity is an eroded surface?

I think visual aids are making extremely valuable contributions to the discussion. If you can begin illustrating the mechanism Faith is describing, that could be very helpful.

People may be wondering what you mean by this, particularly since the Grand Unconformity has been described a number of times as potentially representing a couple miles of missing material.

I am asking all participants to repeat clarifications and explanations as many times as necessary. About your claim of "the first hundred times" you explained things, the evidence shows you claiming many times that you've already explained something, but actual explanations seem much more rare.

Please leave moderation to the moderators. If you have specific complaints or issues please take them to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread. I'm requesting that all participants clarify and explain as often as necessary.

In case it hasn't been clear from my previous messages, I'd like to encourage responses that seek to clarify and explain rather than blame.

Does Faith know about Ctrl-+, etc.?

I'd like to try to clarify for everyone what you're saying. You seem to be saying that the exposed boundary at Siccar Point used to be straighter, in the past following a line closer to the one I've drawn over the actual boundary: Battering by the fierce weather near the sea has altered this boundary over time, giving it the shape actually shown in the photograph and traced by the squiggly yellow line: To be clear, you're not saying that feet of rock have been eroded away from this exposed cliff face, eradicating the rock where the boundary was straight, and exposing a previously buried part of the boundary from deeper within the cliff face that is much less flat. That's not what you're saying. You're saying that the forces of weathering actually changed the shape of the boundary itself.Please correct as necessary.

Because people could potentially spend a lot of time responding to what they believe to be your position, it would be very helpful if you could clearly identify when we've accurately understood you. Trying again, your position is that the exposed cliff face that we see today at Siccar Point that shows a very uneven boundary between layers was once deeply buried inside the cliff face, and that before a great deal of rock was eroded away by severe weathering that the boundary that used to be visible was much more straight.And to be clear about what you're not saying, your position is not that we're looking at pretty much the same rock today (the same cliff face) at Siccar Point that we were looking at a couple hundred years ago, but that it was much straighter then.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

But what you've just said, that the cliff face was eroded after being exposed, isn't what people are taking issue with. If that's all you were really saying then everyone would agree with you because every exposed surface is always being eroded, it only being a matter of degree.We're trying to understand what you think happened to transform this from a couple hundred years ago: Into this today (ignore the blue outlined area): There are two options:

1. The part of the boundary exposed a couple hundred years ago happened to be straight. In the couple hundred years since, the cliff face has eroded back a number of feet, enough to expose a different part of the same boundary, one that happens to be much more uneven.
   ​
2. The cliff face we see today is basically the same one as a couple hundred years ago. In the couple hundred years since, severe weathering has caused the straight boundary to deform and become very uneven

Or is it something else. Please let us know. But even if the yellow line were redrawn as you would like, it would still be uneven, right?PS: Edge - Are you deleting photos from PhotoBucket that you've linked to from your messages? And me, too?

Is this the drawing you mean: The contact point between the upper and lower layers appears very similar to Edge's photo, fairly straight to the right, fairly uneven to left: The diagram was drawn from a different angle than the photo, accounting for some of what appear to be differences but probably aren't. Here's an image with some people in it to give you some perspective: Both the diagram and Edge's photo show irregular contact lines, so you need to explain both. I'm still not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that the lower layer at the boundary was eroded more than the upper layer, and that the boundary is still straight, it's just that there's now the appearance of being uneven? Here's the image without the yellow line - it might help because it gives a better idea of which layers stick out from the cliff face more than others: Edited by Admin, : Clarify last para.

I think you're saying that your squiggly yellow lines represent what you believe to be erosion that has taken place since the time of Hutton. And in Message 424 you said: Since you say my option 2 was closest, here it is: So it looks like we have an answer now. You're proposing that the unconformity boundary in the Hutton diagram became less straight over time because severe weather deformed it, thereby rebutting Edge's claim that the boundary was originally uneven.