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

This was exactly the meaning of my question. I'm having a hard time wording it so that Faith can understand.

I think I know why the rock in the larger circled area (excluding the bush) seems more irregular and extends outward more than the rest of the rock of the road cut. Here's the image: The blast holes extend all the way down to the top of the light colored sandstone layer everywhere except in that area. For some reason they just didn't drill the holes as deep there. Note that the light colored standstone layer also extends out further from the rest of rockface in this area.Here's the distance view that clearly shows the blast holes extending all the way down to the top of the light colored sandstone layer everywhere on the road cut except in that area: The image doesn't show any drill holes in the light colored sandstone layers, but my guess is that the drill holes extended through them also (except in the aforementioned area), but that because it is softer the holes were completely obliterated there.

Once again, thank you for translating.

Heh, heh, good observation. I was also wondering if there isn't some kind of slight change in orientation of the roadcut surface.If we were there, it would all be much clearer. Time for a field trip...

I'm not seeing the problem here. "Being deposited that way" and "being deformed when soft" seems like a fine distinction. The real issue is how do we determine that they were deformed by an 'intrusion'? We do not see a mechanism for intrusion in any of the diagrams and photographs presented. That is not to say that they do not exist anywhere on earth, but we certainly do not see it in the Grand Canyon area.Heck, to a petrophysicist, all rocks are soft (well, 'plastic' anyway).And if the base of the Tapeats is still soft after being buried by 2 miles of sediments, what about the rest of the rock record? The Navajo Sandstone must have been a slurry, and the Claron must have had the strength of the head on a pint of Guinness.

It's a few miles east of Alexandria Bay, NY, on Route 12. I found it using street view with Google Maps. If someone lives up that way I can give them the exact location.

Would you please put up this picture with the blast holes or drill holes circled?

Then you are missing one of my main points. Nothing new there of course, and I'm too exhausted and discouraged by this excuse for a debate to care much what sort of mess you make of my arguments any more. The distinction is huge and central to my point. Figure it out or don't. Since major evidence for that has to do with their being formed but still soft rather than "deposited that way," which you just dismissed as a minor distinction, I can't expect you to make any sense of at all on any grounds. Well, what YOU do or do not "see" is of course the determining factor here and nothing I say matters in the slightest, and you have everybody on your side, there's no point in my saying anything at all, is there? Aw heck, guess that nails it. Well, MY opinion doesn't count of course, but I have many times addressed this, not that you care. Yes the higher you go in the strata or rock record the softer the sediments/rocks would be, but there was still a lot of weight of strata even above the higher layers. At least in the GC-GS area there's hardly anything left of the Claron at the very top of the GS, which may or may not say something about its being less compacted than the ones that were preserved better. Not that you could possibly consider anything I say as meaning anything since you are the only one here, along with your little gaggle of sycophants of course, who knows anything about anything.Another suspension coming up no doubt.But I do hope someone will post the picture of the road cut with drill or blast holes circled whether or not I return.

They ARE away from the surface according to McKee's diagram. So if the sand merely deposited over them and they didn't suffer the abrasion of intrusion the question becomes how deposition separated them from the surface. At least intrusion would provide an active cause.Let me guess: you don't know what I'm referring to and you'll answer something in your head instead of my post.

Idyot.ABE:
HBD: Should not have called you an idyot. Should instead have said to spare me your unwelcome and inappropriate advice. I do not need the advice of someone who has rejected God’s word in favor of forming alliances with unbelievers against Christians so you can get their pats on the back at our expense. Funny how you get along so well with them and are determinedly at odds with the Bible inerrantist. If there’s one thing the Bible counsels against most consistently, it’s alignments with the world. You need to wake up, but if you are committed to your path then at least don’t presume to advise me. About anything. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course it would be much better to be there, but I placed blue lines slightly to the right of every outline of a blasting hole that I could make out: Although Google Street View is low resolution, it does allow you to view this feature from further to the left and right, and it appears possible that the bump upward of the red line in the right hand third of the image is misdrawn. It should perhaps remain straight at that point. But again, it would be better to be there.But there's a more fundamental question. The rock face is the result of dynamite blasting. Why should how the rock face looks after being blasted indicate anything about tectonic forces and movements? This seems like just another one of those absurd ideas that you insist upon when you want to stop discussing something else.I just suspended you for 24 hours for Message 1480.AbE: Faith asked me to change the lines I drrew on the image to yellow, so I did.Edited by Admin, : AbE.

I'm asking everyone in this thread to patiently explain their points as many times as necessary. I hadn't read this message yet when I suspended you for Message 1480, but very good forecasting by you here. Your wish has been granted. See Message 1481.

That's one of the really strange things about this particular exchange. I think of looking at a cut like that as looking at the edge of a book -- with an edge view we can see how thick the pages are, what color they are, what they are made of, etc. If we tear the book in half and look at the torn face, we can still see all of the above, but we certainly can't then claim knowledge of the past by whether someone tore the book straight across or at an angle. Likewise, when with bulldozers and dynamite they cut through a hill (yes Faith, that's the actual location of the image we've been looking at) the shape of the cut and the route they chose to dig isn't rationally part of an YE/OE argument.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Just to clarify, you and HBD and Edge are discussing this diagram: You're asking HBD and Edge how the gravel from the Archean layers became suspended in layers of the Tapeats. If they haven't stated it explicitly already, it occurred by the same familiar processes that create many sedimentary layers. It was weathered and eroded from the higher elevations of the Archean and carried there by water and gravity. Your view of the Archean as an intrusion is hard to fathom. Intrusions are magma, so there would be no gravel. Intrusion of a solid but soft mass would also produce no gravel. Intrusion due to underlying tectonic forces of a hard solid would create shearing, any gravel abraded off the interface would be crushed against the intruding layer, and it wouldn't cause layers to pinch out because solid material cannot simply disappear. You can prove this to yourself by examining the tilted layers of uplifted mountain ranges. Their layers were pushed upward and tilted whole, not pinched out.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.Edited by Admin, : Forgot to mention gravel in the final paragraph, added it.

The point is that it doesn't matter. One way or another, you are talking about soft-sediment deformation, but you have no mechanism, and you have not shown the rocks to be soft in the Cenozoic age. Furthermore, you have shown no evidence to say when or how the rocks were deformed.You have nothing but a little box in which to shoehorn the facts. And it's not working.