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

Well, exactly how close are they, and in what direction from each other? That's one of the frustrating things, not to know where things are in relation to each other.

To place unmetamorphosed sandstone against high-grade metamorphic gneisses with no overlap (no metamorphism in either the Tapeats or the GC Supergrou), you need a regional fault. Even the scale of the Grand Canyon wouldn't be enough, particularly considering that there is no evidence of shearing on the unconformity.

How interesting, and how very odd considering that the clear sequence of things does have the strata already there when the disturbance occurs. At the road cut anyway. Pending experiment of course. Hope I can also come up with an experiment to show what sandstone drapery on monadnocks really is.

Hi Faith,I have a few moderator rulings relating to a couple of your messages from Message 1607 forward. Rather than posting two messages I will summarize those rulings here.From Message 1607: The problems with your evidence have also been spelled out over and over again. Instead of repeating your original assertions you must address the concerns. Your reconstruction of what happened includes the fundamental assumption that original horizontality of sedimentary layers is required. I've requested several times that you provide your rationale for original horizontality, and you answered that you would perform an experiment in June. I then requested that you put contentions for which you lack evidence or rationale on the back burner, but you have ignored that request.So now I'm ruling that you can no longer assert that layers could only have sagged or tilted after being deposited until you provide evidence or rationale for original horizontality. One who behaves so arrogantly and dismissively has no right to complain about the responses such behaviors will inevitably draw.By repeating your initial assertions yet again rather than addressing the concerns raised about them many times I am ruling that it is you who are failing to address the point. You must cease this line of argument until you provide evidence or rationale for original horizontality, and explain how you can tell a rock face pre-existed blasting and being hit by heavy equipment. I am ruling comments like this as attempts to deflect discussion off-topic and contrary to the Forum Guidelines.From Message 1619: And serious concerns have been raised about your "very good case." I am ruling here that you must address the concerns, not simply assert that your case is "very good."Edited by Admin, : Improve clarity.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

Here's the image again. The jog upward in the red line is the portion above the letters "P" through "m" in "Precambrian": What you had said in your Message 1559 was this: So if the pinching out that you see "over the gneiss on the right" isn't that jog upward in the red line, where is it?

I think that I missed your evidence on this. Could you please repeat it for the record?You are saying that the gneiss and sandstone are a continuous sequence of sediments (?), and that the gneiss and sandstone were deformed at the same time, along with formation of the unconformity?

It's only slightly narrowed, not a lot. Same area as the red jog though, although I think it also looks slightly narrowed to the left of that jog as well.Here's a marked photo:

Yes, I've been saying this for a thousand posts now at least.I'm taking what I've said many times about the sagged layer on the left, the slight tilt of that left side overall, the rough rocks where that section starts to tilt, all that as the evidence I've referred to for the claim that the strata were already there when the gneiss deformed, and deformed along with it.

But none of these are evidence for your scenario. They are better explained by the mainstream view, especially considering other evidence which you seem to ignore (or in some cases, deny).

The "mainstream view" is that the sediment originally deposited on the pre-existing slope, and the same above that, on the slight tilt, right? I don't think that "better" explains it at all, I don't even believe it. But evidence will have to wait until I can do the experiments. And by the way, nobody on your side has produced evidence for your view, either, since diagrams aren't evidence.

As people have been saying, it's likely that the perspective is giving a false perception. Here's the Google Street View of the road cut from more straight on with the area you think was pinched circled in yellow: Now in this image it almost appears that there's a pinched area to the left of the circled area, but we know from the other image that that's not true.Notice also something else that isn't apparent in the other image image, that the layers that appeared to flatten out toward the right hand side of the image actually continue upward.As Edge keeps saying, you have to exercise some restraint in drawing conclusions from an image.

Well, there seem to be several viewpoints around here, but any one of them is better than yours for the reasons I have given. Well, that is part of the problem. You have a belief system, we have evidence, basic principles, experience and logic. And, perhaps, better eyesight. If you are saying that sediments cannot be deposited on a slope, you are wrong. It can and does happen, and it is very common. You have been given demonstrations and examples.And I'm not even saying that's what happened.I'm just saying that there is no evidence that the features we see are not related to sedimentation.

I think there is still some narrowing of the lower layers over the gneiss as seen from the frontal view: But the frontal view does make it clear that the sagged layers are on a much less steep slope than appears from the other angle.

Hi Faith,I'm just trying to clarify again. This is the Google Street View image of the road cut, this time without the yellow circle. I'm posting this to emphasize the point that the layers appear to tilt upward to the right across the entire image, that there's not really much if any bend at the point that you've been indicating. Please let me know if you need me to add some marks so you can get your bearings in the image relative to the other image of the road cut, but what this means is that it would be incorrect to argue that there is a tilting or sagging that occurs only on the left side of the image. The layers appear to have the same general tilted upward orientation from left to right across the entire image. If you actually go to Google Street View and follow the road cut a little further to where it ends you'll see that the upward tilt to the right continues all the way. Others can correct me if I have this wrong, but I don't believe the mainstream view is that the sediment was originally deposited on a pre-existing slope. All that's being said is that there's nothing in the image to indicate that the sediment was originally deposited horizontally. It certainly could have been horizontal, but it also could have been in some other orientation. And as Moose stated earlier, the layers have the appearance of dipping downward away from the rock face, so the tilt isn't exclusively left-to-right.So just to clarify once more, no one's saying the layers could not have been deposited horizontally. They're saying that there's no evidence that horizontal is the only possible original orientation.And I'd like to again repeat the caution that it is a good idea to act cautiously in drawing conclusions from an image, otherwise one might tend to overinterpret. Claims that there's a bend in the layers, or that the shape of the rock face is evidence of a disturbance, or that some parts of the rock face have the appearance of damp clay, must be considered suspect.

You're going to have to give it all again if you want me to know what you're talking about. I've only seen one viewpoint against mine, and that's the idea the layers deposited in the sloped and tilted position rather than deforming later. "Belief" was being used in the perfectly ordinary everyday sense of believing something true. I could make a snarky remark but I'm the only one who ever gets "moderated" for those, you never do. No I am not saying that, I'm saying you'll never get a normal even layer that way, such as those seen here and especially in long sequences such as are visible from a distance in the Grand Canyon. That is NOT how sloping layers are formed, they are laid down horizontally and then deformed. And again you haven't proved it.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed 1 quote box. It was the second one down, one of the quote box in quote box. Hope I got it right.