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

Sorry, I don't think you answered anything.I think the fact that the Navajo Sandstone is made up of sand dunes and that it is smack in the middle of your flood layers refutes the flood as the origin of those layers. You were the one who brought up ypur "comprehensive global theory and I was trying to get some clarification about how it explains the evidence.The topic of the tread seems to be unconformities. I would think that the top and bottom boundaries of the Navajo could be considered unconformities.

It's interesting that Faith's only answer always comes back to magic, the imaginary flood deposits material but no mention of how the material was first created so that it could then be eroded or how the imaginary flood decides to create over six million alternating layers of fine and then coarser material or all the chalk that became the White Cliffs of Dover and the eroded them to turn them into cliffs or put dry sand dunes in the middle of imaginary flood deposits or any of the tens of thousands of other examples that prove the earth is old and that neither of the Biblical flood stories ever happened.It's interesting that not only is her only explanation for reality magic floods but that she also has to make up stuff that simply is not even in either of the Biblical flood stories.When you are totally divorced from truth or reality it is amazing what is possible.

Umm ... that's not an explanation.

But the GU is a nonconformity in places and regardless, it still represents an erosional surface which you said did not happen. But they are eroded. You have as much as admitted this. I see. So, no you admit that not only was there erosion, but there was also deformation before the upper sediments were deposited.

Even if it is not always an angular unconformity, it is all the same formation, presumably formed under the same circumstances and at the same time wherever it appears, and I'm describing how I think it formed in relation to the Flood, which surely doesn't have anything in common with the Old Earth view of how it formed.As for the "erosional surface," I don't recall discussing it in those terms at all. I provided some pictures of very level contact lines Message 213 and Message 313, which to my mind contradict the idea of millions of years of erosion at the surface of the earth, which wouldn't produce such a level surface as shown in those pictures; but I don't deny that there is evidence of erosion at some of the contact lines, that hasn't specifically been addressed. And of course I have a different interpretation of how it came about. Not "they," I said it all eroded down to BEDROCK. I'm describing what must have happened in the first phase of the Flood, the erosion off all the land mass of all erodible sediments, leaving bedrock I would suppose, not a surface that later became one of the unconformities we are discussing. There would have been no strata whatever to become the base of the Great Unconformity, just bedrock, all the sediments washing down to meet the rising sea and becoming suspended in the water. I don't see how this scenario has anything in common with your millions of years scenario. I just explained this above. Perhaps I don't say it clearly enough here. For the angular unconformities you need strata, not bedrock, but I'm suggesting that in its early phase the Flood scoured the land down to bedrock. There was no strata at all at this point, and no deformation because they didn't exist to be deformed, and in this Flood scenario there was no tectonic activity to deform anything until the last phase of the Flood.1) Land scoured to bedrock first;
2) strata laid down in rising sea water second;
3) erosion and deformation of this stack of strata third, as tectonic and volcanic activity occur.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it's a comment I made about it looking water-soaked, followed by a cross section that demonstrates where the Navajo Sandstone falls in the strata, above the Grand Canyon area, since Tanypteryx wrongly thought I'd eliminated that formation altogether.

Okay, let me rephrase the question. Is your focus on the overall three-dimensional appearance of images leading anywhere, because if not then it might better aid understanding if your comments addressed the larger message they convey about how angular unconformities form. I don't think we know what your view really is. Earlier in this thread, after some discussion deriving from your opening post, you posted this in Message 131: So if your view is not represented in the opening post I think it would be helpful if you described your view of how angular unconformities form. We know you think the Great Unconformity formed as a result of tectonic forces and uplift, but there are open questions, and there are many angular unconformities around the world not in a region of uplift.Again, I'm not trying to debate the issues. I'm more just trying to identify the issues, which it seemed were getting lost in all the discussion about what was actually in the images. Questions can be raised about almost any image (e.g., "Is that a shadow or a recess?"), but I'm working at trying to keep the focus on those parts of the images relevant to the discussion.

But it was not water-soaked or wave produced but rather dry, wind blown sand dunes.So the question yet again is other than "magic" do you have a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to explain how the sand was created and then transported, deposited and covered?

In the view of this moderator, discussion of other angular unconformities around the world seems important to a better understanding of the processes that cause them.

Apologies if I have this wrong, but has Faith really conceded that the surface of the Great Unconformity was formed by erosion? This is similar to one of my earlier responses to you where I wasn't sure what Faith was saying, and so I'm not sure what you thought she was saying, and for that reason am not sure what your response means. Could you clarify a bit?

I just questioned Edge about what he thought you believed about erosion being a contributor. Could you clarify what you mean? When you say that some of the contact lines display evidence of erosion, does that include the Great Unconformity or other angular unconformities?

I don't know if I can respond to your request as you'd like. That picture throws me every time I look at it. In my opening post I thought I had a good argument in favor of my view of how angular unconformities form, the view of how they form hadn"t changed. I came to see that I hadn't worked through that particular argument, that's all.The basic idea is that after all the strata have been laid down to their maximum depth, lateral tectonic pressure pushes the lower strata into folds, which pushes upward as well as laterally against the stack above which remains horizontal. This would occur at whatever point there is both a textural difference between the rock layers and equal resistance between the tectonic force and the weight of the stack above. That is, the tectonic force can only move the lower strata to the point that the weight above resists the movement. That's what creates the two different sections, upper and lower. There may be visible erosion at the contact line but if the movement was smooth enough maybe not.The Great Unconformity is unusual in that the upper stack remained completely intact, at least up to the Kaibab/Permian. Siccar Point is a more typical angular unconformity I think, in that only the layers immediately above the contact remain. There are lots of such images online of folded or tilted rock with just a single layer perched across it. I'm figuring there would have been a deep stack of strata there that broke up and eroded away, in the Flood scenario I have in mind washed away in the receding water. In the Grand Canyon area this massive erosion only occurred to the very uppermost strata, leaving the whole stack into which the canyon was cut. Yes, but this one for me doesn't look like an angular unconformity at all. I can only assume that it is, I can't see it.

That wasn't a question about an angular unconformity.ABE: He's bringing in the idea of how supposedly dry "dunes" are explained in terms of the Flood. That is a completely other subject.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I understood it, edge was introducing the idea of an "erosional surface" which implies the interpretation I've been arguing against so I certainly never would have said anything to support the idea.But there is some vislble erosion at some angular unconformities, not the "erosional surface" that would alter the very level lines at the contacts in the pictures I posted, and erosion isn't visible in those pictures anyway. But erosion occurred for instance where the quartzite boulder appears embedded in the Tapeats, which was shown in the video of Paul Garner's presentation on the Grand Canyon, which I posted at least a couple years ago, and edge pointed out a similar situation at Siccar Point where fragments of the lower sandstone appear embedded in the upper.ABE: But edge now is confusing the erosion I've described as having to have occurred in the first stages of the Flood with the erosion he believes created the unconformities, and there is simply no relation between the two ideas.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I referred to images plural, you quoted nothing from me, you include no image, so please understand why I have no idea which picture you're talking about. When I said you were focusing on minute details of images I was referring to images from the Grand Canyon, Siccar Point and Mosaic Canyon, among others: Does this refer to the same image you referenced above? Again, I don't know which one you mean.