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

According to Faith.

Don't know if this helps or not, but it makes some sense. Think it would work here? I have my doubts.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe5pv4khM-YIs this why repeated attempts to extract an explanation, end up in oblivion?

In this case probably not. This is just one of those things about unconformities that is not intuitive. Unconformities can intersect each other. On the Wiki page for unconformities there is something called a 'biconformity'. I can't find a very good diagram, but it looks like this. Now just imagine that everything above the red line has not been deposited yet and you are standing on that red surface.It would be directly analogous to Siccar Point. There are actually two unconformities:-- the ancient unconformity outlined in black, and
-- what I call the modern unconformity in red.In actual fact, the modern unconformity isn't really formed yet, because there is no overlying rock, but you can see the principle.It appears that Faith is talking about both. Perhaps that is why she says that the unconformity is changing.My point is that they are different unconformities. The original unconformity, as defined by the gently tilted rocks overlying the vertically tilted rocks does not change with time. It actually formed in the Devonian, as the Old Red Sandstone covered older, deformed Silurian rocks.The modern unconformity is in the process of forming and can indeed change because it is undergoing active erosion.The only change that the ancient unconformity can suffer at this time is is destruction by the modern erosion. It is not becoming deformed, nor is it changing shape by any other means. It is literally being obliterated.

Yes. In order to fold the lower rocks, but not affect the upper rocks, you would need to have some kind of detachment between the two bodies. It is like pushing a brick along the concrete sidewalk. They cannot be attached to each other and there has to be some kind of friction in between. That friction should be evident as some kind of a feature in the rock. I can't tell. I thought she was saying that some process actually deformed the unconformity surface in situ, kind of like salt dome formation; and that it happened within the last 200 years. However, she might just be confusing ancient with modern erosion.Perhaps my previous post would help explain. If there was abrasion at the time of deposition, that doesn't sound like a sedimentary process. I suppose one could say that the upper unit slumped into place, but that would also cause some kind of evidence to that effect. For instance, cross-bedding would probably not remain intact.

The rest is just details.

Heh, heh,...That was the one question I was afraid of. I'll try to check it out. They look very like azurite, but that wouldn't quite fit the environment of deposition. I'm pretty sure that's the case. I think it's a flat area with some pebbles laying on the surface, but you're right, it's hard to tell. There's nothing like actually being there to interpret geological features. What I'd really like to see is a view from the right looking at the scarp face. That would give some idea of the third dimension.

The other contacts are not important to the point I was making, but I probably should have made that clearer. Many times there are knife-edge contacts between rock types, but what also happens is there is what we call a gradational contact where rock types will switch back and forth for a while. This is exactly right. I could make the argument that every bedding plane is a brief disconformity or paraconformity. But usually, such periods of time cannot be resolved in the record anyway.

Here we are arguing about a photograph again...I find it strange that you consistently see something different from everyone else. Yes, there is no evidence that the unconformity surface was ever flat. If you think it was flat, please tell us why. Partly because there is no disruption of the upper beds and because there is no abrasion or dissolution at the contact. Please explain what this weathering looks like. Of course they were weathered, that would be the nature of an erosional unconformity. They were likely laid down as normal sediments, lithified, tilted and then eroded. What else would they be? I'm sure you don't see it. But that's irrelevant. Why would there be cross bedding? No, it probably wouldn't help. This is what you get. You can deny all you want, but most people see something different. How are you going to make your point by just saying, "I don't see it"?Now, why don't you answer my question?

Heh, heh... you know, when I first looked at the picture, I didn't even notice the blue colors. Probably because I was so interested in the basal sand and its internal textures, and then the breccia with the very angular clasts and what they might mean.I thought it was pretty clear that the beds are eroded since that's what happens when you take bedded rocks, break them up and transport the fragments away... perhaps even into the next unit above(?). Of course, to Faith that isn't erosion until it occurs in modern times, even though the fragments above look exactly like they came from the underlying dolomite.Then, of course, those clasts are mixed in with other material that was broken off other rocks (erosion?) and transported from somewhere else. How does that occur in Faith's scenario? How does she transport those sediments to their current position if the fine sand is created by abrasion of the dolomite?I mean, it isn't possible to have erosion in the Proterzoic, is it? So it must be something else.

Ummm... that would be a contact... Usually, we highlight the contacts to make them easier to see.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

If it were flat, I'd like to hear how it got to be its current shape. This seems to be your main argument for this entire thread. You 'don't see it'. Here we are again. You don't understand the viewpoint of the image. It is of a wall. It is not like looking at a map. I see several contacts, but no I don't see any evidence for abrasion or dissolution.So, are you abandoning your scenario for unconformity formation? My guess is that you would never have enough pictures to satisfy you. Those are normal intersections of bedding with fractures. Why do you say there is a 'lot of weathering'? Is the rock weathered to clay? Are there solution cavities? Is that a paleosoil? Is the iron-oxide coating heavy? Why not? There are fractures and bedding planes that you have noticed. Yes, erosion would break off fragments of the rocks. What do you mean by 'battered', do you see scratches, gouges, voids? Right. You 'cant see it'. So, there is no need to explain anything that everyone else sees. That is convenient for you. You seem to have a lot of mysteries.

It looks like we have a visualization problem here. Perhaps you cannot perceive the third dimension in most of the photographs that we have provided you. We seem to have this problem over and over where you see something completely different.You might just have to trust us on this. There is no other viewpoint available. Here is the original: I know you are going to have problems seeing this, but the top of the image is up if that helps. The bedding planes in the lower dolomite rocks tilt moderately to the right and the fragmental stratum in the upper part of the picture is actually a solid rock.

I think that, in the context of the current discussion, the point is that material will be moved from high elevations to low whether in the air or in any other fluid.The intent of the erosion to base level notion is that, in general, rivers cannot cut more deeply into the earth than whatever water body they flow into. In fact, they are more likely to deposit their loads as soon as velocities decrease in a standing body.Now, we can understand that there are exceptions such as density currents or turbidites that will erode soft sediments, and there are such things as slumps or debris flows that we usually treat as depositional features, but indeed they can erode soft sediments. In fact, if you want to include glacial erosion, we could argue that material is actually transported to a higher potential energy state.The point is that we have to make some generalizations or we would need to bog ourselves down in endless details; and, of course, this is an advantage for the YEC side of the discusssion.

So now you are saying that there was erosion at the Great Unconformity surface?

From right here: Then you go on to describe your flood.