Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities

What was it you imagined was eroded away when people described the surface of an angular unconformity as forming due to erosion of the higher portions of the tilted layers?This understanding of angular conformities has been around forever and is what everyone has been saying. This is from a 1985 geology textbook in a paragraph describing angular unconformities:

quote:

---

At least four major events are involved in the development of an angular unconformity: (1) an initial period of sedimentation during which the older strata were deposited in a near-horizontal position, (2) a subsequent period of deformation during which the first sedimentrary sequence was folded, (3) development of an erosional surface on the folded sequence of rock, and (4) a period of renewed sedimentation and the development of a younger sequence of sedimentary rocks on the old erosional surface.

---

Nothing new about it. It's what Hutton surmised when he first saw Siccar Point. Regarding my drawing where I completed the layers of the angular unconformity that had been eroded away: You included an extremely similar diagram from James Lyle on your blog page titled Angular Unconformities, Part 3: Lyell on how the rocks were tilted: You had obviously read about geology's very long understanding that the upper portions of tilted layers erode away to form angular unconformities back in 2011 when you wrote that blog page.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Assuming continuity of the layers, which is a necessary assumption, a whole lot of the lower sequence has been somehow removed. I'm wondering where, in Faith's scenario, that material went and how it got there.

I'm not sure what is meant by "lower sequence", so Faith might not know what is meant, either.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Well, there is one sequence of rocks above the unconformity and another below. I called them 'upper' and 'lower'. The could be called something else if that makes things clearer. I'm open to suggestions.ETA: in this case, a sequence would be a continuous layering of rocks through time. Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The uppermost portion of the tilted strata. Not a separate layering of strata.
Duh.ABE: This post was not meant for edge but for Percy, so I have rewritten it to the right person in Message 163Edited by Faith, : 63]

I still want to know how you explain the FACT that the rocks ARE folded despite the absence of this sort of evidence of folding you are talking about.I also don't think you've answered the question about how rocks get folded or tilted without tectonic pressure.

All I was saying is that in the images we have been looking at, you cannot see a fold axis. I'm certain that they exists and are visible on a larger scale.However, as we have seen, this does not help you in the least. I never said otherwise. I said that we do not see the tectonic structures that would be expected for a shear zone between the two packages of rocks. I was very careful in my wording on this.

For rocks to fold I'd still guess there has to be some kind of resistance to the force that is folding them. It doesn't have to be overhead, but in this picture you've posted that is still a big possibility. What are the ages of those rocks in that picture? If they are, say, low in the Paleozoic, then there would have been a deep stack of layers above them just as at Siccar Point. But I'd also surmise the possibility of some resistance between the upper folded block and the flat layers beneath it, giving sliding movement punctuated by jerky stops, based on the fact that the folds are not nice and smooth as they are at Siccar Point, but irregular, suggesting jerky movement.

All I'm saying is that we do not know what was above the actual, original sedimentary rocks that we see at Siccar, based on the images that we have seen.I also said that a regional investigation would tell us if there were such rocks. Your word, not mine.

I haven't "seen" any of your claims so far. It's all a big cheat. As always, there comes a point when discussions with you devolve into you making unverifiable claims in order to win the argument. This gets old.

I was talking to Percy, not you. I meant to be anyway, since what I quoted is his constant refrain. Now I see it was from you. Sorry.He's the one making the dogmatic claim that there were horizontal strata that eroded away, which is the idea I'm saying has never entered into this discussion before.This is what he said in Message 151 that I thought I was answering: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Calling them the lower sequence is fine, but in that case I don't know what you meant by "a whole lot of the lower sequence has been somehow removed." If the lower sequence is the portion below the unconformity, none of it has been removed. I still have a feeling there may still be a terminology issue in play, either that or I'm missing something.--Percy

The uppermost portion of the tilted strata. Not a separate layering of strata. Duh.

Certainly.What I'm saying is that the portions of the fold that were above the current location of the unconformity (the red lines) are gone.They had to go someplace, no?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

No, Faith, I never said anything like that, and until just now you never said that was your understanding of what I said. You might at least try keeping to a consistent story.Summarizing the big problems with your fantasy scenario, cubic miles of strata cannot disappear without a trace (meaning no remains of rubble or signs of shearing), disturbances to buried strata cannot fail to disturb overlying strata, rocks weather to form the appearance of age according to their composition and length of exposure and not how long ago they formed, and sedimentary rocks do not form by drying.--Percy