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

I'm just going to respond to two points in your post right now:Yes you missed the lines over the dropstone on the right side of my diagram, which I put there at the same time I redrew the stone on the left. You are right, they shouldn't be there.As for your question about this image: The fact that it's a FORMED LAYER that had to have sagged AFTER ITS FORMATION. As I've said five billion times already.But be careful about that idea I "conceded" what you say. All I said was that I don't care and it doesn't interest me whether sediments can deposit on a slope or not, I don't regard that as "draping" or anywhere near the basis for a stack of draped layers.

The plastic strata in the McKee diagrams was deformed into draping by being pushed up by the underlying rock. Implying rebound. Yes, that's true. I'll have to think about it.

If you or anyone can see sloping sedimentary layers following the contours of underlying Archean layers, please describe where to look in this image:

I can tell by your insistent tone that you think this answers the question, but I have no idea why. It still leaves me wondering what in the image is telling you that the circled layers had to have sagged only after they were deposited: But just a short while ago you were insisting that Steno 350 years ago was the final word on horizontality, and you called people who disagreed insane and the science a fraud. You seemed to care a great deal, and it seems very relevant now to how you know those layers weren't already sloped when they formed. I'm not taking a position either way - I'm just explaining that it's important to the discussion that we understand how you know they were originally horizontal and only tilted later.

Then where is the evidence that the sagging is tectonic?But it's all moot anyway. You are still talking about sediments in a sedimentary environment, not rocks in a tectonic environment.Which is the whole point of this exercise: the Great Unconformity formed the base for sedimentation during Tapeats time.

Good, then you agree that they are sediments deposited on top of the unconformity.By the way, can you tell what direction the sediments were being transported from in these diagrams?

Argument by assertion. You make no support for your statement.

But you said they were soft. But if they were deposited on a slope then it is a sedimentary environment. I don't know of any other possibility.If the gneiss is 'intruded', I presume it would be along faults. Where are those faults? If those layers were 'formed', why weren't the layers above them 'formed' also? They should show some faults extending from the gneiss into the layers.Maybe you could explain your 'intruded' mechanism a little better.

Fine. Show us the mechanism for being 'pushed up'. Show us the faults or shears associated with this tectonic deformation.ABE: Oh, just to clarify, that would be 'evidence'. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Drag would suggest shearing. So, where is the evidence for shearing.But let's look at the schematics a little closer. Do you see in image 'g', that gravels are found adjacent to the Archean body? Gravels are usually found close to their source, so could it be that the Archean hill is the source of the gravels?Now look at image 'a'. See the dike that is cut off by the unconformity? Do you realize that, according to Steno, that means the dike is older than the unconformity? So, could it be that there was some igneous activity before the Cambrian Tapeats deposition? How does that comport with your scenario of only one igneous event at the end of the geological record. Of is Steno out to lunch on this one?Now on to image 'c'. do you see the little squiggly lines in the Archean rocks close to the unconformity? Do you see how they fan away from the high point of the 'hill'? do you think McKee just accidentally drew them that way? To a geologist this pattern indicates downhill 'creep' of layers that were once vertical. We see that in weathering of rocks on a hillside where there is plenty of water and soil development. It was one of Hutton's first observations of the rocks just below the soil of his farm.In image 'b', as PaulK has mentioned, there is an assymetric draping of sediments coming off the two Archean high points. Do you know what this means?Now, my points are that the drawings indicate a surficial environment for deposition of the Tapeats; and also that McKee put enough detail into the diagrams that I would be shocked to find out that he missed a bunch of faults that uplifted each one of these Archean high points.

Faith, snow has "draped" over these cars. It did not happen by a smooth, 'horizontal' layer of snow falling and the the cars rising up through said layer. Instead, the conforming layer was deposited one particle at a time within the material's angle of repose How do we know? ... Because when blocks are forced up (or down) through smooth layers, faults are visible and the layers are torn and fractured just as those in the picture below. JB

I think it's pretty obvious that those cars were intruded into the snow...

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Dropcars

OK. I'll get to that at the bottom of the post. It's frustrating to keep being dragged back to that basic argument while the issues that concern me get ignored. I still believe Steno was right but trying to prove it would take a lot of extra time and I don't feel like arguing it with people who are determined to deny it.HOWEVER, perhaps I really don't have a choice. But here's another attempt to answer your question from a slightly different angle: Here's another image to help explain: In this case I've marked some indicators of the deformation of the rocks. The arrows point to the contacts between the layers, showing that the layers are separated from each other, not laid neatly one on top of the other as you see in fresh deposition; and I circled places where the rocks broke at the edge, or "hinge" if you will, of the area to the left that sags away from the central area. The larger circled area shows the general disturbance that occurred in the stack at that point, and the smaller circled area shows where the layer itself was broken. These are clear indicators that the layer was already formed when the disturbance occurred that caused the left side to sag. Formed enough to break but soft enough to sag.If the layers had been deposited into that low place after the disturbance had occurred there would be no gaps between them or breaks in the sandstone at all. So there's some evidence that doesn't rely on the horizontality argument.Again I don't want to keep making an issue of that because of all the resistance and the difficulty of proving it. Partly I know they were originally horizontal BECAUSE of the Principle of Horizontality which so many here deny, absurdly I'd say but oh well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.