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

But you're the one who claims I'm not making sense. I think you're wrong but I do see what you are saying.

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.

And that is why you always fail to make your point. When you begin with a false preface, one that has been proven to be false by tens of thousands of facts over more than two centuries and from every body of science and every new discovery and every new technology, it is hard to ever get anything right.Even if your premise that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it were true (which it is not) you could till not explain what is seen in reality.You cannot explain how the mudstone or shale that became the Vishnu Schist was created and then a far coarser layer of sand was created and deposited on top of the Vishnu Schist and how the missing parts of the Super Group were created and then removed or how each of the other layers were created and squeeze all that into only a few thousand or even tens of thousands or even millions of years.And that is simply this one small example.You cannot explain how the chalk bed that became the White Cliffs of Dover could be created in only 6000 years.You cannot explain how the alternating fine/coarse layers of the Green River Varves could be created in only 6000 years.And as has been pointed out the list of things impossible to explain being created in only 6000 years is near endless.Today, belief in a Young Earth is not just wrong, not just silly but down right delusional at best.

I think so.

Not 6000 years, just a year or two. All sediments the result of the dissolution of the land mass in the early part of the Flood. Dover cliffs are clearly a deposit like all the rest, part of that formation even being exposed in the Middle East. White Cliffs of Dover | Answers in Genesis And speaking of erosion, the pictures of the Dover cliffs show how it cuts into such a deposition.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So present the model, mechanism, method, process, procedure that can explain what is seen.It really is that simple Faith.

Done so already. And what is your model anyway? Just a bunch of suppositions looks like to me.

And how do you know their 'former selves'?But that's not even the point here. The point is that if the weathering is so severe at the unconformity, why is there anything left of the uppermost layers? Think of it this way. Why is the uppermost dashed yellow line still intact? If you were correct, it should be battered to tiny splinters and scattered across the North Sea.By the way, I have outlined in blue some clasts of the lower sequence within the upper. How do you suppose they got there? And all of the time they were eroded, they were protecting the unconformity at this point... Then neither has the unconformity been exposed to the elements for a great period of time.

Then please explain. And remember, just repeating the assertion is not an expalanation. Nor is saying that it's obvious.

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.

This is an ordeal with a malfunctioning space bar. Must have splashed something on it.Anyway. They are sandstone strata aren't they? Have you ever seen sandstone deposited in such a fragmented splintery condition? Odd question seems to me. How long would you expect it to take? Wouldn't there have been more sandstone there that got eroded down to this level? It has simply been eroded DOWN to this level in the last 4500 years, sandstone over and around it being slowly weathered away, leaving this pathetic splintery bunch of rock. That's like the quartzite boulder embedded in the Tapeats back at the GC. It represents the zone of abrasion between upper horizontal and lower folded strata in MY model of what happened, pieces of the lower formation ending up in the lowest part of the upper. Yes, but on my model that wouldn't have been long as I think the tectonic and volcanic activity that destroyed them occurred in the last stage of the Flood, as the water was receding. After that some strata was left, probably somewhat more than we see here now, and in much better condition, at which point the harsh weather went to work on it. Correct, only thousands of years rather than millions. Enough to make quite a wreck of it but not enough to reduce it to dust yet.

As I have said before ... I have seen things out there that you can not even imagine. The answer is yes.As for the rest of your post and previous posts, they are pretty much self-serving, fantastic, unconstrained nonsense.

Great, then provide a link please.As to the conventional model I began explaining it to you in Message 4, Message 122, Message 153, Message 220, Message 225, Message 322 as well as by many other posters and in many other threads like Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. and Salt of the Earth (on salt domes and beds) and How to make sand. and explained that none of it is speculation but rather supported by all of the evidence.

Speaking of there being no reason to continue this ridiculous discussion....Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If I'm getting you, yes, I'm saying that the presently "exposed cliff face" was eroded after being exposed.But as I was looking at your version of the picture you marked with the straight line I began to doubt that edge had identified the lower strata correctly anyway. Some of it looks like it belongs in the eroded zone above it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.