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

GU very level and straight.ABE: Space bar not working, have to hit it hard to get it to space.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Awww snap. And here we have been discussing the Grand Canyon which itself has been subject to severe weathering. This doesn't make any sense. If the lower strata has "dips" in it, then of course the upper strata will be shaped to fit into those "dips." edge is asking if the contact between the upper and lower strata is flat; the yellow line... is it flat?Now it seems you are suggesting that when that contact surface was formed it was flat, but now it is not (since we can see that it is not) and we can't tell that it was originally flat because it is severely weather, but that's not erosion??????HBD

If I understand correctly (and there is a good chance I don't), this was a depiction of what Faith's idea of what the layering SHOULD look like if the Supergroup were tilted before the upper layers were deposited. When she posted this, she thought the unconformity was the entire blocks that were tilted, not just the contact with the upper layers.HBD

Siccar Point gets far more severe weathering than the Grand Canyon.Erosion after the unconformity is there is not what we're talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

When you make comments like this it makes me want to ask "Do you even know what weathering is?"The yellow line is the unconformity. How was it weathered after "it" was there?

You can SEE how it was weathered. That coast of Scotland gets ferocious battering by the weather. That is not the original height or shape of the section outlined in yellow. Here's one of my posts on it at my blog. The drawing was by either a friend of Hutton's or of Lyell's, don't remember, but it's old, and it shows the unconformity as a straight line in spite of the weathering it had undergone by then as well.

You keep claiming that yet that is not what the evidence shows. Here is yet another look at the Great Unconformity where it is clearly not very level or straight and here is a whole page showing several views of the Great Unconformity and that it is simply not very level or very straight.

The pictures I posted in 213 and 313 show it very level and straight. If it's level and straight in so many places, other places where it has been disturbed after its formation are irrelevant.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking, 'is it a smooth surface'? Well, then, I'm going to say that the GU in the Grand Canyon is 'too weathered to tell what it originally looked like. Let me get this straight.You are saying that the shape of the unconformity has changed since it formed.ETA: Please describe this change at Siccar Point.This is worse than I thought. Is there really any point in continuing here? Edited by edge, : No reason given.

No Faith, sorry but pictures are relevant despite what you want.The evidence is that when the Tapeats Sandstone (as well as other layers) was laid down it followed the existing surface contours.That is what the evidence shows.That is how we know that the Super Group was exposed and eroded before the Tapeats Sandstone was deposited.That's how we know that the whole stack was not laid down in one process or was soft and malleable and then "dried out".None of this is speculation Faith but rather conclusions based on reality and the actual physical evidence.Here is a link to Message 213 and Message 313 and what they actually show is that overlying layers follow the contour of the base layer.All of the evidence shows that almost all of the material that should fill the Great Unconformity did erode away before the Tapeats Sandstone (and other layers) was laid down.There is a gap of over one billion years of deposition and erosion missing.Young Earth is DOA and simply ridiculous.AbE: More images. anudder image; note again the Tapeats follows the contours.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin and add more pictures.

If your argument is that the yellow line does not represent the actual surface of the unconformity but is an illusion caused by the erosion of the exposed surfaces, I guess that's a reasonable argument. I am not sure that is what you are actually saying though.The surface of the unconformity is not subject to weathering itself. It is protected within the rock.HBD

So if it is straight and level, it supports your argument. But if it is not flat then it must have been disturbed after its formation and therefore irrelevant?

There is another major misunderstanding here, I just can't quite figure out what it is...HBD

So, it's weathering that caused the unconformity at Siccar point to change after it was buried by the upper sequence of rocks. It went from smooth to rough.And that makes it irrelevant to the discussion.ETA: According to Faith, that is...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Something I was thinking about...there is no evidence that land plants had colonized the land even as late as the Cambrian. Of course, that could be an artifact of the erosion that wiped that surface clean, but if that is true, then none of the surface of the GU would have been secured by plant roots and would have suffered extreme erosion, at a far greater rate than we observe today.HBD