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

Here is a couple more interesting images On the left is a carbonate mound. On the right a dropstone.HBD

Biology is my area of "expertise." I am currently a masters student in plant pathology and will most likely go on to get my PhD (my PI has already told me that funding would be available). I haven't even taken a geology course, but would love to... my PI doesn't seem to want to pay for me to take one, something about not applying to my field of study I told my wife that when I finish my pathology degree I was going to go on and get my PhD in geology . She said "OH NO YOUR NOT!!!!" Wives Anyway, my goal for posting here is not to prove Faith wrong, but to learn and to practice developing arguments. Geology is fascinating, but yes, I am learning as I go. However, I rarely post anything off-the-cuff, but I do quite a bit of research and try to be reasonably confident about points I am making. The "Michigan Basin" was a poor example that I chose because I was in a hurry. I should have know better because I am actually somewhat familiar with the area.My point to all this is that I would welcome any corrections that you or anyone more knowledgeable about geology than myself could offer. My goal is to learn, not just to prove YEC wrong. However, I think "bogusity" is a bit harsh.HBD

If the carbonate mound pushed up there should be fractures where it detached from the layers surrounding it or at least it should have distorted them. Do you see that? I think these types of formations are formed by carbonate saturated water dripping from above and building up the mounded deposit over time - like stalagmites (I saw a picture of one of these types of formations in the GC, but I can't find it right now).ABE: edge pointed out this formation is a stromatolite (see Message 1065) probably formed underwater Yes, it is clear where it dropped into into the sediment that already existed, but there is no "path" through the sedimant above it. What I find really odd is your response to the 5 basic geological principles that are used to determine relative order of geological events. Your response to these principles is inconsistent.1) Principle of Uniformitarianism - completely reject
2) Principle of Superposition - this one is OK
3) Principle of Original Horizontality - this one is uncompromisable
4) Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships - You can waver on this one depending on the situation
5) Principle of Fossil Succession - completely rejectThe thing is that these principles are all on equal footing with respect to knowing what happened in the "unwitnessed past." They are simply principles that guide us in unraveling the order in which geological events happened. By what standard do you accept or reject these principles.I can't even remember what got us started down this "draping" rabbit hole, but the point is that yes, in general sediment is deposited horizontally. However, there are situations where deposits are not horizontal, like edge said once, things are usually more complicated.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.Edited by herebedragons, : spelling correction

Thanks for the correction --- stupid English language HBD

The area in the red circle is not detached. There is no indication that it moved upward. If it moved upward, the entire column would move along with the layers that were supporting it, but it sure doesn't look like the bottom where it is attached moved upward. I don't see how you think that it looks like it lifted up. It was formed on the layer it is sitting on, which is not deformed.Also notice that the layers that are bent are not all bent to the same degree. The ones at the base are bent more than the ones that drape over the structure. No. You can see behind the strata? It looks to me like it fell from above - where things usually fall from. The area the red arrow is pointing to looks like "splash" to me. It appears this rock hit the surface with considerable force, not just rolled along until it sunk in. Objects drop straight down not from an angle.HBD

No, in fact it is so glaringly obvious that I keep thinking there must be some weird misunderstanding going on here (from one side or the other), but once again, I can't figure out what it is.HBD

I just want to make sure we are all talking about the same thing. Here is the order of events we see in this dropstone image: Sediment was deposited to the level of the red line in roughly horizontal layers. A stone fell from above, distorting the layers that were already there. Finally, the red layers were deposited on top of the older layers and the stone.The layer marked with yellow "X"s was not there at this time. You are not suggesting they were elastic are you? So they would go back to their original shape after deforming? They stretched down and then sprang back up over the stone? This doesn't really have much meaning. What does "soft" stone look like? The bottom is deformed down, the top is deformed up. So what would you do to demonstrate this is true? I have shown you how and why loose sediment will stick to an incline. We know it happens in sand dunes, even in underwater dunes. Why would it NOT form small slopes on either side of the stone that is projecting above the present layers?HBDEdited by herebedragons, : typo

Right. What can seem like a simple diversion ends up being a huge obscure mess.It all comes back to these images... and how to interpret them.Faith's position seems to be that these hilly structures must have pushed up into the layers above because layers are deposited horizontally - which I take to mean "perfectly horizontal" not even a couple degrees off under any conditions.She seems to think we are arguing that the principal of horizontality is obsolete, or in her words "compromised", but the only point is that there are circumstances where materials deposit in a non-horizontal way. So, yes it would be good to get this sorted out. Without that understanding what's the point of talking about foreset beds?HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

I guess I would not consider unconsolidated material to be stratum, although I guess it would fit the definition (which also includes soil, so...) The important thing, though, is that by understanding how unconsolidated or loose gravels bed gives us insight as to how geological formations were formed. But if one rejects Principle of Uniformitarianism... then anything goes, I guess. Just to be clear, it doesn't have to be sedimentary does it? Ash flow would form a definable layer, as would surface lava flows. Would not those be consider strata as well?HBD

Sure. It all goes back to the images I posted of the Great Unconformity from McKee's book. You say that the hill structure must have pushed up through the overlying sediment because the rock around the hills was not horizontal.Here is a clip from one of those images How did that pattern form from the hills pushing up? Doesn't that look like the image I posted where the sediment source was coming from one side?edge mentioned "dewatering" somewhere back. I had not heard that term before, but I think what he may be referring to is when the materials were being compacted (which would force water out of the spaces between sediment grains). This compression would also explain some of the distortion around the sides of the hills.Here are those images again Bottom line... these images indicate that the surface labeled "Algonkian" and "Archean" were there BEFORE the overlying sediment was deposited. It did not tilt or slide or lift to produce those patterns - those are depositional patterns. The image on the left labeled "c" may be partially caused by lifting while sediment was soft and image "e" is kind of complicated, but other than those two, it should be clear they are depositional patterns.HBD

I know, right. And all because you want to deny that the surface of the Great Unconformity is an erosional surface. And because it diverts attention from the main subject - the characteristics of the unconformity.How does uplift cause this pattern in the Tapeats? Doesn't this look like the image I showed where sediment was filling a basin from a source on one side? ---------------And here is a sketch of one of the monadnocks I have been talking about Red arrows indicate the surface of the Shinumo quartzite that protrudes above the Tapeats and into the Bright Angle Shale. How did that Algonkian block rotate in such a way as to make the Tapeats dissappear?Note: Algonkian is the old name for what is now called the super group. Archean is the metamorphic suite (schist and granite)-------------------
Why in this image is the Tapeats not deformed equally along the whole length. Why is the area in the circle have layers that are not horizontal? --------------------How does horizontal deposition and uplift form crossbedding in the Tapeats like this? Is the Tapeats not strata now? Is it OK for the bedding planes to be non-horizontal but not the whole strata?HBD

How could you possibly be so certain about this that you would have to shout? Since it all happened in the unwitnessed past, you cannot possibly prove this.Or to put this in a non-sarcastic way... How could you know that "strata do not form this way. ever." How could you know that?HBDEdited by herebedragons, : typos

Come on, don't tell me you can't see the layers in that image... they are the dotted/dashed lines. They are internal layers, or bedding planes. They are distinct from one another, but of the same general consistency and composition. Yes, the overall impression of the stratum is that it is horizontal, but what if sedimentation would have stopped at the top of those hills. Notice the layers flatten out once the obstacle is buried? Physics.------You should be replying to this Message 1140. What about the other images in that post? Especially this one: How does uplift of horizontal strata produce crossbedding?HBD

Why do you venerate Steno so? Did you know he was born a Protestant and then after studying and comparing theologies, he converted to Catholicism? He even became a bishop.How can you trust the reasoning of a man who converted from the true faith to the faith of the anti-christ? Nicolas StenoWhat did he say was the nature of the boundary between this continuous forming stratum and the solid body that "stood in the way?"HBD

Oh Ok! I get what your saying now. Sediment can deposit non-horizontally as long as the final, top surface is flat. Ok so we are back to this same image again. We suppose that the upper surface of the Tapeats is horizontal and flat, but the bedding inside the layer does not have to be flat and horizontal (like the Coconino Sandstone). So then we can agree that the surface of the unconformity is not flat in this image and that it is not because of deformation after the Tapeats sediment was deposited.Whew! we are finally getting somewhere. Surface of the Great Unconformity NOT FLAT in the area this drawing represents!!!HBD