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

I realized there are eroded stumps of the strata of the lower section that should be highlighted too so I marked them on another version of the photo: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The fact that you ask if I understand an unconformity the way you presented it in that diagram does give a possible direction to go in toward possibly understanding this endless experience of miscommunication.Clearly, you and edge both think within Geological definitions. Let me explain what I do or think I do or try to do: I try to stick to what I think are simple ordinary descriptions of the physical phenomena I'm talking about. I am quite willing to use any geological terms that will better communicate what I'm trying to say,but some geological terms are so intimately bound up in Old Earth interpretations that I reject, it would cause at least as much if not more communication confusion if I used them while at the same time trying to explain my different interpretation. I think this may be at least some part of the problem but I'm not sure.I do, though, try to find simple descriptive words for what I'm talking about, that I assume anyone could understand. When I use the word "strain" I mean it the way it is used in normal nontechnical English. When I talked about rocks that are "naturally" flat -- as opposed to lumpy rocks like schist and folded strata -- such as the Kaibab plateau and the tops of buttes, it would never have occurred to me that could be misunderstood.Now, obviously this isn't working. Edge seems to completely misunderstand or not even be able to read at all, some descriptions I think are nothing but simple English. I'll even go back to a post that to him makes no sense and to me it's perfectly clear and it seems to me he just couldn't have read it because it's all there. Then of course when I do describe my own alternative view of what happened he just dismisses it completely.So, if this sort of thing accounts for the miscommunications maybe it can be the basis for sorting some of it out. Or maybe it's just hopeless and this says why.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Geology is the subject being discussed. Geology is a science. After a few years, the people studying each science start to develop definitions for as much of their terminology as possible. That way, all the people studying that science, young and old, will be able to understand each other. Whenever a new term is invented, the inventor describes what the new term means and refines the description until everyone agrees. Sometimes there is already a term with that meaning or another term stands for that meaning. One of the things that is expected of scientists in a field, is to point out discrepancies in the terminology so everyone understands everyone else.A major part of studying a science is learning the terminology that describes objects and processes. This is how you avoid miscommunication.Not studying GEOLOGY is what leads to miscommunications in GEOLOGY discussions.Not learning and using the terminology of GEOLOGY is what leads to miscommunications in GEOLOGY discussions. This is what leads to your miscommunications in every single science thread you participate in. That is not what you do though. You continuously try to us the terminology incorrectly, insist on different meanings, and introduce new terminology for things that already have defined terminology. What do you suggest? If you want people to understand you and listen to what you have to say, you have to study the subject.There are no high school or college course titled Faith's Biology, Faith's Genetics, Faith's Geology, etc.

That's beautiful. Now find us one that has a level flat surface. And hard as schist too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The problem is not that you are using simple English, it is that you are rejecting established science on the basis of religious belief.This leads you to make statements, come up with definitions, and argue fine points that have long since been settled in science--just because you can't accept the evidence.It wouldn't matter whether you used simple English or the finest technical terms--your whole approach is to argue against established science, much of it up to 200 years old.The problem is compounded by lack of knowledge of these technical fields, and absolute rejection of the findings they have made.It is no wonder you have problems communicating: But I don't think simple English is the solution.

Faith, meet Faith.

No, but it does have to be level if not totally tabletop flat and smooth. I go by the STRAIGHT lines shown in Message 213.

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.

Dr Adequate's image does appear as if it may be composed of soft material, and additionally the bending must be due to deformation. So I don't think his image is evidence for boundaries between layers forming unevenly.You've given participants the impression that your position is that layers do not form unevenly, that they only become uneven later. But what you've just said, that you want evidence of a level flat boundary, puts this interpretation into question, so perhaps it would help if you reexplained your position. By calling what looks to be a contradiction to your attention I'm trying to avoid you finding yourself in the position where you believe no one is listening to what you're saying.

I'm not replying to Faith, just clarifying. Faith's point here is that erosion cannot produce flat landscapes upon which sediments could be deposited to form the layers we find in the geological record. Briefly recapitulating the discussion, Message 213 contained images like this of straight contact boundaries: Faith later posted images like this to show how erosion makes a landscape uneven: The responses were a bit scattered (i.e., each response only included part of the explanation), but the explanation was that the very flat landscapes were produced by erosion, that if those landscapes later became buried that you'd have a very flat contact boundary with occasional stream and river channels cut into it, as is found in the geological record. Because the explanation was spread about, I'm not sure Faith understood that this is what people were trying to say.

The extra lines are irrelevant. They are drawn on the modern unconformity not the ancient one.Yes, the lower strata are eroded and weathered with the detritus falling into low spots on the unconformity surface. That debris is considered part of the overlying sequence of rocks.Now a couple of my questions that have been completely ignored.1.) Why are the bedding planes in the uppermost layers in the photograph not similarly roughened by the same process that has made the unconformity rougher (according to Faith). Demonstrably, they should have been exposed to more severe weathering than the unconformity itself. And yet, there they are just as straight as when Hutton first described them. Please explain.2.) If the Great Unconformity was smooth and then made rough by some unrevealed process, what about other unconformities? Are they likewise always smooth when formed? If they are different, why so?After seeing this photo Message 436, I'm beginning to agree that Faith still does not understand that the unconformity is a surface of no thickness that it extends as a 'sheet' into the layers of rock and is exposed more and more as erosion of the upper layers occurs.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This despite the fact that we have shown numerous examples of flat rock surfaces which could be subsequently buried by younger sediments.On the other hand, this just seems like another YEC all-or-nothing proposition that if some surfaces are flat, all of them must be flat. And if they are not flat now, they must have been flat in the past.At the same time, no one here is arguing that extremely rough surfaces do not exist. Certainly, there are some irregular unconformities and some 'flat' unconformities.As Faith has shown, erosion can form very irregular surfaces, and certainly, irregular erosional unconformities occur in the geological record. But what's weird is that she denies this. Buried valleys and irregular surfaces such as at Siccar Point simply do not exist (except that now they do because of some unspecified and undescribed recent process that only seems to happen to unconfomities and not bedding planes).At the same time, we have actually proposed several mechanisms for producing 'somewhat' flat surfaces. Examples are erosion to base level, wave-cut terraces, and glacial planation, not to mention depositional surfaces. What has Faith given us by way of explanation?Nothing.This is not a good faith (so to speak) discussion.By the way, the first picture in your post, with the yellow line, ignores the channel cut in the lower strata. I believe that HBD or Jar pointed this out earlier. I think Faith may want to take this picture out of her cherry-picked catalog of flat unconformity surfaces...

That's my position as well. I tried to demonstrate that with my color spectrum example in Message 271, but the evidence suggests that when something is embedded, contrary evidence gets danced over.JB

Perhaps you should ponder the possibility that your 'basic rejection of the idea' (religious dogma) not only prevents you from thinking in such terms, but prevents you from thinking outside of that box at all.You are colliding headlong with reality on these very pages. That is the cause of this mass confusion that we see exposed here. Why? What is your complaint? What is your alternative? The fact that you reject evidence is certainly part of the problem. I'm not sure what your problem is with the diagram. HBD has given you one of the most transparent explanations of how an angular unconformity occurs in the geological record. All you need to do now is erode the last diagram to show the modern exposure.