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

You're assuming it was just one event when they could have been separate events.The layer could have "sagged" while it was being deposited and then later after it solidified the circled parts broke off.

It may not be in the case described in your quote, it may be the result of sedimentary processes themselves as is claimed. The important point for me at the moment is just that drape occurs to FORMED BUT SOFT ROCKS, not newly deposited sediments. Actually I've consistently had in mind FORMED LAYERS THAT ARE SOFT ENOUGH TO DEFORM AROUND OBJECTS, neither sediments nor rocks. Soft enough to deform, hard enough to maintain their shape as layers. The underlying rocks, however, are all apparently lithified, metamorphosed etc. and, I'm arguing, probably tectonically pushed upward. And in many places provided an extraordinarily level platform for the purpose.l.....OR the GU formed after the Tapeats was already there.

I must have said "FORMED AS RECOGNIABLE LAYERS BUT SOFT ENOUGH TO DEFORM" at least 9422 times by now. One time I don't say the whole phrase and you forget that? 1. I don't understand your remark about its being a sedimentary environment if they were deposited on a slope. Of course I don't think they were, I'm arguing they were already there when the underlying rocks pushed up into them, already there in a FORMED BUT SOFT ENOUGH CONDITION TO DEFORM or drape around the intruding rock.2. If faults are a necessity and you don't see any faults I guess I'm stuck with just the impression of the draped sediments as my evidence for the intrusion of the underlying rocks into the Tapeats, and you reject that, so perhaps the argument is at an end for now.3. bI don't know what you mean by asking why layers above the formed layers weren't formed. I assume they all were formed into layers, which is clearly illustrated in the drawings, don't know how I gave a different impression.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I say in my previous post to you, if faults are the evidence you need then perhaps the argument is over for now, since my main evidence is the draping of the sandstone layers, and since you reject that as evidence that's that for now. Perhaps some other evidence will show up.**Back later**Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Those are overhangs, not separations. The layers are resting directly on each other, whether or not you they are neatly or messily stacked

Sedimentary environments can't be sloped? Tell all the ponds and lakes and oceans they're doing it wrong.Oops, I forgot that you don't define a sedimentary environment as a place where sedimentation is taking place but rather as something else altogether.

That is what we would call soft sediment deformation.So, basically, no matter how it happened, you have a sedimentary environment with sands being deposited on an irregular surface. I don't care if it happened on a sloping surface, in cross beds, or as soft sediment deformation - it is sedimentary. Not tectonic. Makes no difference: they are soft sediments. They are not rocks until lithified. They are, however, strata. But without evidence, yes. For which you have not found any evidence, yet.

If sediments are being deposited, then it is a sedimentary environment. But there is no evidence for intrusion. To get the amount of relief shown in the McKee diagrams, a fault should be obvious. But in this case the deformation does not extend into the overlying rocks. Even in your 'deformed area' the bedding passes through with almost no offset.

Exactly correct. And this argument was predictable. On another thread, we spent a number of pages debating what part of the outcrop was in shadow and what part not...So tedious...

Say you really, really want to build a house. You're really anxious to get on with things and build that house, but people keep holding you up and bothering you with details that you don't care about like laying a foundation. Naturally you find it very frustrating, but only until you come to understand the importance of laying a foundation.It's the same here. You keep getting dragged back to basic points because they're the foundation for the issues you're so concerned about. Naturally you find it very frustrating, but they're as important to your issues as a foundation is to a house. This is a road cut. Any separation of layers and broken rocks are a result of cutting and/or blasting the rock to make the road cut and of any subsequent weathering due to wind, rain, snow and freeze/thaw cycles. The larger circled area shows a bush and discolored rock with a more irregular surface, but that's a function of making the road cut. There's nothing to indicate a tectonic disturbance, The smaller circled area shows rock that was broken when the road cut was created or maybe by later weathering, and a shadow. Again, nothing to indicate a tectonic disturbance.So there's no evidence that tectonic activity changed the tilt of the layers, so the original question remains. What leads you to believe the layers must originally have been horizontal?

Speaking of cheesy ad hoccism... How you know this is beyond me but I don't feel like fighting it.It really doesn't make any difference to my point because clearly these are disturbed contacts and represent the overall disturbance to the rock we've been talking about. Layers don't deposit with overhangs, that's evidence of displacement after deposition just as separation would be. Evidence for this disturbance is the nice tight contacts between layers above these. Obviously these lower layers collapsed while formed but soft just as I've argued, whether the deformation produced overhangs or separation at the contacts.Strata don't just messily deposit, don't make sloppy contacts. Here's the original again. Note the very tight neat contacts between layers above the ones we are discussing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OMG Faith. You do realize that the cut in that picture was jack hammered into swiss cheese and then dynamited into oblivion?

Well, there are the drag folds themselves for evidence.... I would suppose so, and since they appear to be a bit of a distance from the hill and embedded in the sandstone it seems very likely they were sheared off that hill during the intrusion. You know what's odd about that? The fact that there is no lava spill indicated at the "unconformity," i.e. the surface of the hill, such as occurred at the top of the Grand Staircase over the Claron, and in other parts of the Grand Canyon. Here it is illustrated as abruptly cut off.I'd guess it was all part of the same tectonic event that created the GU everywhere, and that there WAS shearing involved in the push of the underlying rock up into the Tapeats, which displaced the upper part of the dike. In this case I suppose it should be found somewhere in the Tapeats. Just a guess but it IS odd how it's just cut off like that.I guess you'd say it was eroded away over millions of years before the Tapeats deposited? I don't discount anything on such a diagram and I wondered what those lines indicate. So they indicate VERTICAL STRATA? Into which water has seeped, deforming the layers on the sides? How about water from the already-deposited but formed and still soft and damp sandstone it intruded up into perchance? I'd suggest perhaps it means an assymetrical entry of the intruding rock myself, causing asymmetrical drag. Seems like you've made a decent case for your view. I still like mine of course and continue to view the draping sandstone as my best evidence, but I also like that embedded gravel for evidence too.

Hold your horses, I'm coming to that eventually.Hint: Those layers on the left were SOFT when they sagged into that position. The road cut was made in lithified rock.ABE: Unfortunately I need a break and I suppose there will be another ton of stuff to answer when I get back.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ah, good.You are using the presence of drag folds as evidence that they are drag folds. Then you can provide evidence for shearing, right? Well, if that were the case, the it would show that the dike is younger than the unconformity, right? After all, you do understand Steno's principles, don't you? And, of course, you can do that? So, you think it happened during sometime while the Tapeats still consisted of soft sediments? And, of course you have some kind of evidence for the kinematics of that intrusion? Can you tell us which direction the older rocks were moving? What is 'embedded gravel'?And perhaps you can show us your evidence that it was emplaced by shearing?Edited by edge, : No reason given.