quote: No, I still think my explanation is way better than Hutton's.
I guess you like it because you need it to be true to preserve your faith in your idols.
It's not as if there were any chance of it being true. Look at all the evidence against it. The tons of missing material. The eroded material from the lower strata, but none from the upper. The sudden transition from deep folds, to none at all. All of it makes sense with Hutton's model but not with yours.
quote: It doesn't take any knowledge other than the ability to recognize how forces would affect layers.
I'll afraid that's just a false speculation on your part. If you had that knowledge you wouldn't agree at all.
quote: There's so MUCH missing material at Siccar Point, in the foreground of every picture of the rocks, as well as all the layers that were once above it, very probably to a great depth, as they are in the Grand Canyon for instance, that it's silly to focus on missing material at the contact. All of it got washed away from wherever it was pushed to.
That doesn't make a lot of sense - given your scenario. How could it be pushed any distance, and how could it get washed away? It's all locked up underground.
quote: This is a strange illusion. At Siccar Point and at the Great Unconformity you see large clasts embedded IN the material laid down horizontally above the contact line, that famous quartzite boulder in the GC for instance, but also see the You Tube video of Siccar Point where this phenomenon is mentioned. These clasts are considered to be evidence of the erosion itself, but their being embedded in the upper sediment is also evidence that both were eroded.
No, it isn't - not in the absence if eroded material from the upper. It makes much more sense that the material you refer to was eroded out of the lower sediments and redeposited with the newer sediment.
quote: Don't know what you are referring to here. Deep folds where? You simply mean the fact that the lower is folded and the upper not at all? But this is exactly what would happen if the force were sufficient to buckle the lower beneath a different kind of sediment with a different enough texture to provide a slippage contact between them. No buckling at all should occur above that point.
Please explain how different textures could have that effect.
quote: Beg to differ. And I'd also add the weathering factor in the case of Siccar Point. The rocks there are quite severely eroded simply from the severe weather at that location, surely you agree. But there isn't ANY difference between the degree of weathering between any of the vertical layers or between them and the upper horizontal layers, yet supposedly millions of years elapsed between them. There should be such differences between the vertical layers because they were supposedly laid down over millions of years too, as well as between that block of layers and the upper block, where it should even be more obvious. But it isn't.
First, I don't agree - and I wouldn't guess based on photographs either. Second as I keep having to point out (although it should be obvious) the weathering of a surface depends on the time that that surface is exposed to the weather. The differing dates of deposition simply don't give us this information. So even if you,re right your argument relies on an obvious misunderstanding.
quote: At Siccar Point it's all exposed and the layers break off, they aren't continuous. At the GC I figure the rubble is somewhere under the strata outside the frame of the usual diagram. The strata of which the Great Unconformity was made must continue to exist somewhere too.
That's just assumptions without explanations.
quote: No, the upper material WAS eroded but it maintained its finegrained character so that all you see is that material with the chunks of the lower material embedded in it.
Please produce evidence that th is the case. It certainly doesn't make any sense in the case of the boulder.
quote: And in both cases, the GC and Siccar Point, the chunks are suspended above the contact line, which is NOT what you'd expect if they preexisted the deposition of the upper strata. And I can't even picture how that would happen if they were supposedly redeposited as you claim either. They'd already be there on the usual scenario, how do they get redeposited?
By my understanding that IS the case at Siccar Point. And you seem to have forgotten that the situation at the Grand Canyon is rather less simple than you suppose. There are portions of the "lower" strata still sticking up into the "higher" strata. Have fun explaining how that is possible in your scenario.
quote: Try Lyell's experiment with folded cloth, using folded flannel, terrycloth, cotton sheet, satin, velvet. Flannel will not slide relative to flannel but buckle together, and probably not relative to terrycloth either, though it's possible the terrycloth would buckle beneath the flannel, if I had some flannel I'd check, but flannel will slide relative to satin for sure, and you'd have to test the others but there should be similar effects between the
Which combinations produce the result you claim, why, and how do you know that this applies to rock?
quote: The lower strata were presumably built up slowly over millions of years, tilted and eroded and submerged while the upper strata were deposited, if I'm remembering the sequence Hutton had in mind correctly. That means the lower were supposedly exposed a long long time before being submerged and if the weather was the same all that time there should be a difference in the effect from one layer to another.
You seem to have forgotten to work out how long the upper strata were exposed. It' sided that you seem to think that you can do a comparison by only looking at one side. And as I remember the pictures showed a vertical cross-section, much of which may well not have been exposed in the period of erosion between the formations.
quote: I see no differences among the vertical strata myself. And the vertical strata appear to be weathered in the same degree as the upper as well, and in that case since they were already supposedly severely weathered befpre being submerged they should continue to be far more weathered looking than the upper strata no matter how long they were exposed.
My evaluation is different, and as I have already pointed out this makes the mistake of assuming that there is no period when the upper strata were exposed to weathering while the lower were not. You need evidence, not assumptions. Hard facts, not subjective evaluations of photographs.
So I guess that on the rest you haven't done the research and don't intend to. Not even your "experiment". And you certainly haven't considered the forces involved, which your "explanation" supposedly relies on.