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

The Navajo sandstone is rocks. Sand dunes are loose sand. You equate the two because of the cross bedding, not because the rocks actually look like sand dunes. They don't. They look like rocks. Rocks that were once liquid/plastic/viscous sand.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have asked you repeatedly if you think that your scenario for the GU applies to all unconformities.You have not responded. I would never have brought it up if you had told us that the GU is different from other unconformities (which, I suppose, is pretty much standard fare for YEC argumentation).Perhaps you could tell us now, why the GU is so different from the Mosaic Canyon unconformity.

And sand deposits are sand. Sandstone is rock.Do you think that sand dunes cannot be lithified and incorporated into the geological record?Do we really have to explain all this to you? So does a fossil fish look like a fish? Yes, they are part of a process.So, does this look like a sand deposit or a sandstone, or a future sandstone: Edited by edge, : No reason given.

All unconformities or all ANGULAR unconformities. Yes to all angular unconformities, no to *all*unconformities. Sorry, not aware of avoiding it. It's not. Both are ANGULAR unconformities. My problem with Mosaic Canyon is the three dimensional iillusion in the picture that makes it hard to be sure of its actual reality. But it IS an angular unconformity and I haven't said it was different. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, then you agree. The Mosaic Canyon unconformity is similar to the GU in the Grand Canyon. The Great Uncoformity cuts the GC Supergroup at an angle.

Yes, I absolutely believe that sand dunes AS sand dunes cannot be lithified and incorporated into the geological record. I believe that you see crossbedded sandstone which reminds you of dunes so you interpret it as lithified dunes, but that the reality is very likely something else. You can restate your theory if you like but I've said above how I see it.

That is because we are talking about sand dunes as a process and you are talking about them as a geomorphic feature.Okay, so how are sand dunes recorded in the geological record? Actually, it's a little bit more complicated than that. I'm sure you are familiar with the study of sand dunes.I notice that you fail to address the differences between eolian dunes and subaqueous dunes that I have provided.All you seem to be able to provide is your observation that they "look like..." So, they 'look like it' ... to you ...Well, why didn't you say so in the beginning. That's bullet-proof evidence for me!!Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Re the picture you posted of beach sand and tsunami sand: I believe that all those dramatic sandstone formations in the Southwest, like the Navajo that Tanypteryx posted, and the Wave and others like it, were produced by the Flood and otherwise very rarely form if at all.

And your evidence is?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Don't forget the evidence for the unconformities in the Navajo Sandstone; the clear demarcation between events with direct evidence that erosion occurred before the next higher layer was formed.And I can't wait to see Faith's magic reason that "Yes, I absolutely believe that sand dunes AS sand dunes cannot be lithified and incorporated into the geological record." as she claims in Message 606.

You seem to be completely missing the context. I was describing the steps I see occurring in the Flood. The scouring is the first phase, which removes all the sediments that are loose enough to be removed from the land. There were no strata at this point. The GC did not exist nor the strata into which it was later cut.After the scouring, the sediments that were eroded from the land were suspended in the Flood waters and redeposited on the land in layers as the water ruse. ALL the strata, including the lowest levels which later formed the Great Unconformity.From an earlier post of yours showing the same misreading: Bedrock is just a term for whatever could not be eroded away after everything that could be eroded away was eroded away. There is nothing beneath bedrock. If I'm using the term incorrectly please correct it.When the eroded sediments are deposited on the land during the rising of the Flood water, which is Phase 2 as I laid it out, this includes the strata that later become the G.U. But at this stage they are just lower strata in the whole stack of strata being laid down during the Flood.This is all my Flood scenario, remember. THEN we get Phase 3, in which, after the strata were all laid down and the Flood water is starting to recede, we get the tectonic and volcanic activity that formed the G.U. and cut the G.C. and the G.S.This is all an alternate way to account for what is seen in the rock record, that you interpret completely differently. In the Flood scenario erosion does not form the GU, tectonic forces form it and there may or may not be visible erosion, created by abrasion between tilted strata and upper strata.

Well, here is a cross-section through a known and buried sand dune, and guess what... I can see the cross-section of a dune which I have outlined in yellow dashed lines showing it's migration from left to right. Does it look like a dune to anyone else?Is Faith saying that this cannot be preserved in the geological record?

Remember the magic flood does amazing things.

That is exactly the sort of thing that occurs in dry sand that proves that the same thing occurring in rock is NOT an angular unconformity which supposedly represents a time gap.THAT sand formation won't be preserved in the rock record, but wet/plastic/viscous sand itself may form similar levels and crossbeds in the process of being deposited.

AFAIK, that would be erosion.And where do you think that 'loose sediment' came from? Couldn't have been from the rocks that it set on could it? Correct, but the GC Supergroup existed. They are sedimentary and they are just below the Great Unconformity...Please explain. So you are saying that they were eroded and redeposited on top of the unconformity.The sediments were, " eroded ... and redeposited on the land", according to you. So, erosion took place before deosition...Do you have any idea what you are saying here?Are you trying to be funny?