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

Physics says that if the slope in the real world is slight enough sediment will not slide off it. The real world is not as steeply sloped as your diagrams. Once again, this is only true if the slope is steeper than the angle of repose.

You are just making it up.

I was pointing out that your blanket statements that sedimentary layers cannot follow a contour in underlying strata. I think that was the point PaulK and Cat Sci were making also. We were disputing Faith's rule #?It is clear from the evidence that the strata that makes up the GU was tilted long before the overlying sediments were deposited. Most of the material was eroded away over millions of years before being covered by more sediments.Faith, your whole problem is trying to twist your imaginary scenario into a one year flood and a few thousand years after that. That is an absurd notion that ignores all the details that have been pointed out to you.You say that millions of years for all the strata to erode, be deposited, erode some more, be deposited some more, over and over is absurd.But that is all you can say, IT IS ABSURD.Not if it took millions of years. Then it nakes perfect sense and explains all the evidence we see. Sedimentation takes lots of time, erosion takes lots of time, see level rising and falling takes lots of time. TIME, MILLIONS OF YEARS OF TIME, explain it all. You don't want that to be true because then it will make your magic book wrong, but the evidence is there, in the rocks.

I thought she was saying that sedomentation always forms flat level layers and will slide off any slope. This does not really apply to the layering that we see at the Grand Canyon. It is just a side issue, that I was disputing.I agree with everything you said.In past threads she has seemed to hold the position that the GU was formed by the layers of the GC Supergroup being rolled into a tilted position after all the other layers were deposited on top of it. That fails to explain where the rest of the material in the GC Supergroup disappear to.That she imagines that the GC Supergroup could rotate enough to form the GU with thousans of feet of rock above it boggles my mind. All without major disturbance being obvious in the overlying strata. All the things she claims to have happened would have consequences and leave evidence that we could study today.

Geology is the subject being discussed. Geology is a science. After a few years, the people studying each science start to develop definitions for as much of their terminology as possible. That way, all the people studying that science, young and old, will be able to understand each other. Whenever a new term is invented, the inventor describes what the new term means and refines the description until everyone agrees. Sometimes there is already a term with that meaning or another term stands for that meaning. One of the things that is expected of scientists in a field, is to point out discrepancies in the terminology so everyone understands everyone else.A major part of studying a science is learning the terminology that describes objects and processes. This is how you avoid miscommunication.Not studying GEOLOGY is what leads to miscommunications in GEOLOGY discussions.Not learning and using the terminology of GEOLOGY is what leads to miscommunications in GEOLOGY discussions. This is what leads to your miscommunications in every single science thread you participate in. That is not what you do though. You continuously try to us the terminology incorrectly, insist on different meanings, and introduce new terminology for things that already have defined terminology. What do you suggest? If you want people to understand you and listen to what you have to say, you have to study the subject.There are no high school or college course titled Faith's Biology, Faith's Genetics, Faith's Geology, etc.

empasis mineThis doesn't make any sense at all.It is like saying that you can get a haircut while wearing a stocking cap.

Short answer: yes....Long answer: yesSorry Dude.

Are the boundaries between the sedimentary layers considered to be unconformities?The change to deposition of a completly different rock type; sandstone to limestone to shale, etc. must represent gaps in deposition and changes in depositional environments, rather than continuous deposition.

I was hoping for a more detailed answer from someone who knows something about Geology.

Thanks for answering. Yeah, I wasn't thinking about your illustration specifically.I have been thinking about this through the whole discussion and comparing all the outcroppings and exposures I visited and photographed during road trips in the American Southwest the last 2 years. I think I drove my grandson crazy, stopping every few miles to shoot photos of cliffs.Some of the boundaries between layers are clearly unconformities because there is evidence of erosion on the lower layer and filled-in streams or sand dunes.The angled strata below the Great Unconformity makes its location and appearance pretty striking. I started thinking about some of the other places where I had seen quite distinct boundaries between layers on exposed cliff faces and wondering if a lot of them might be considered unconformities because there would have to be significant periods when there was no deposition.Before this discussion, I thought unconformities were where tilted strata meet horizontal strata. Now I realize that they are really gaps in deposition and that they represent time, sometimes a lot of time. I understand the concept of Walther's Law and how if sea level rises various depositional environments will move in relation to the change in shoreline.My understanding is that Walther's Law is about a specific depositional situation and does not account for all sedimentary layers everywhere.

She got pretty excited when she first heard about it. It became her magic method of explaining how her mythical flood deposited all the sedimentary layers in the world. She will go to extraordinary lengths to shoehorn her flood explanation into Geology and ignoring libraries full of evidence that demonstrate she is wrong.The cool part though, is that we all end up learning a bunch of neat stuff from people like edge, RAZD, Dr. A, Roxrkool and a bunch of others.

I am curious where in your scenario the Navajo Sandstone was deposited and turned to stone? This is the Navajo Sandstone exposed in Snow Canyon in southern Utah. That is my grandson standing on top.According to Wikipedia, "Navajo Sandstone frequently overlies and interfingers with the Kayenta Formation of the Glen Canyon Group. Together, these formations can result in immense vertical cliffs of up to 2,200 feet (670 m). Atop the cliffs, Navajo Sandstone often appears as massive rounded domes and bluffs that are generally white in color."It is made up of lithified sand dunes and crossbedding can plainly be seen. How the heck did this end up on top of the layers that you say were deposited by your flood in the Grand Canyon area. Why wasn't it washed away in the receding flood water that you say receded to somewhere.It seems to me that a comprehensive global theory would clearly explain all the details that we have pointed out that do not fit in your comprehensive global theory. It has to explain everything or what use is it?

In what way is it obviously originally a water-soaked formation? I must be missing the clues that it was water-soaked.How do sand dunes get formed by a flood? The evidence suggest that much of the Colorado Plateau region was covered by sand dunes to a great depth. We know these were sand dunes because of the cross bedding pattern.Can you show any place on the earth where sand dunes are forming under water? Your own diagrams show sedimentary layers that you claim were deposited by the flood above and below the Navaho.My question is how did the flood deposit dry sand dunes between the other sedimentary layers?

Sorry, I don't think you answered anything.I think the fact that the Navajo Sandstone is made up of sand dunes and that it is smack in the middle of your flood layers refutes the flood as the origin of those layers. You were the one who brought up ypur "comprehensive global theory and I was trying to get some clarification about how it explains the evidence.The topic of the tread seems to be unconformities. I would think that the top and bottom boundaries of the Navajo could be considered unconformities.

Sorry, I should have been clearer.I meant to say that your "Comprehensive Global Theory" (Message 559) does not account for a layer of wind-blown sand dunes embedded in the middle of your flood deposited sedimentary layers. The Navajo Sandstone is 2200 feet thick in places. That is a lot to try and sweep under the carpet.You wrongly described the Navajo as looking water-soaked, but in reality it looks like and is, wind-blown sand dunes. Your comprehensive flood theory will never be able to plausibly explain how it occurs in the middle of the stack.