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

The argument seems to rest in the claims that the mounding must have occurred after all the strata were laid down and that the mounding and the tilting of the Great Unconformity must gave been the same event. I don't think that either has been shown to be trueHowever, there is good evidence to the contrary.The tilted strata only survive where they have been lowered by faulting. Everywhere else they are gone.These faults do not propagate into the strata above them.It seems clear to me that these facts are best explained by the original tilting and the faults occurring long before the upper strata were laid down.

I will reply by pointing out the problems with your argumentFirst it is possible for sediment to drape over existing contours provided friction and adhesion are sufficient to keep it in place. The concept of "angle of repose" seems relevant.Second, I haven,t seen you give any reason why there cannot be two instances of uplift - or more.The faulting is quite obvious - you can even see that the two sections of tilted strata are not in the same level. Equally obviously the missing sections of those strata would have been higher.And certainly we should expect the faults to propagate upwards - and if they did not, then how did the rock above move down ? And where is the rest of the tilted strata?Until you can come up with a reasonable alternative, the position that the Great Unconformity strata were tilted long before the strata atop then were laid down seems quite secure.

quote:

---

Angle of repose applies only to sand, and as you can see from a straight on view of the canyon walls the sandstone is just as flat and horizontal as any of the other layers.

---

The same concept applies to other sediment. And really, looking at the strata side-on is irrelevant.

quote:

---

The adhesive idea is pretty far-fetched. You aren't going to get a dozen layers all following the contour of a mound as they were being laid down. The only explanation for their conforming to the mound is uplift that occurred after they were all in place.

---

No, adhesion is a real thing. But more importantly, why wouldn't they conform? If the deposition comes from above - as we'd expect, and is evenly spread - as we expect the it would naturally follow the contours. You need to show that there has to be something that would level it out, and you haven't.

quote:

---

There's just the one mounded formation. More than one instance of uplift is possible but wouldn't that just be saying that the mound occurred in stages?

---

Even if it did, I don't see that it matters. Looking at the strata it looks to me as if any mounding from the first uplift would have been largely flattened by the time the upper strata were deposited - a lot of erosion has happened. And that answers your other objection, too.

quote:

---

But again, it makes sense that only those blocks of layers were faulted as they were clearly separated from the upper and lower layers, tilted separately. They received more violence from the force beneath and that would have put stress on them.

---

Which doesn't make sense of it's all one event. Not to mention the question of what happened to the rest of the strata.

quote:

---

If my scenario is correct those upper sections would have been sheared off in the abrasion between the GU layers and those above, in the force that uplifted it all

---

Which is a very good reason for rejecting your scenario. Do you have grounds for thinking that it is even possible?

quote:

---

I've suggested that the Vishnu schist that surrounds the GU could account for much of the material that was eroded away but the argument has been made that it doesn't show evidence of the right kinds of rock. But if there was rock above that sheared off we wouldn't know what that rock was, would we?

---

We're talking about the missing parts of strata that we do have, so of course we know what sort of rock it is.

quote:

---

Only if there was a continuous contact between the two blocks of layers. But the GU was formed separately.

---

No. The question is why is there contact now. How did the rock above move down without faulting? Assuming a void before the fault hardly seems to help.

quote:

---

What "rock above" are you talking about? And what do you mean by "move down?"

---

The rock that is immediately above the tilted blocks now - which you say was in place when the faults occurred. And moving down is hardly a difficult concept. The tilted rocks moved down because of the fault. The rock above must therefore also have moved down to be in contact with the faulted rock.

quote:

---

Not if what I've shown above is true and you haven't shown it's not.

---

No, having a better argument is quite sufficient. The mere possibility that you might somehow be right doesn't help you. Your scenario has major problems and you haven't shown anything equally problematic with my views.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

It's considerably more sensible than some of the things that you are suggesting. Sediment is deposited, so of course it is going to come from above. Friction is real. Things don't automatically descend slopes. Drop a stone on a hillside and it will often just stay where it lands. You need to deal with these facts, instead of just calling reality nonsense.

quote:

---

Well I had hope for it as proof that the G.U. was not formed before the strata above it, which IS a new emphasis. Nobody is really addressing that factor though,

---

Pointing out strong evidence to the contrary is addressing it.

quote:

---

some insisting on making a case for the strata to be laid down over a mound, though even Geology doesn't make that claim, they recognize the mound as an uplift that came later.

---

I've pointed out that it's possible, but not claimed it to be the case.So far as I can tell it's more likely that the present "mounding" is much more recent than the tilting of the Great Unconformity and I've yet to see a coherent argument to the contrary.

quote:

---

The idea was that SINCE the strata didn't follow the contour of the mound, if the G.U. was there first they would have to butt into it. Since they didn't butt into it that's evidence it wasn't there first.

---

I really don't know what this is trying to say. So far as I can tell the surface was largely levelled by erosion between the tilting of the Great Unconformity, and the later strata deposited on top. I don't see how this is intended to address that scenario.

Some food for thought:Genesis 1 was not written solely for people with knowledge of modern astronomy or cosmology.Genesis 1 was written by and originally for people with an ancient Middle Eastern geocentric cosmology.Genesis 1 is strongly consistent with ancient Middle Eastern cosmology.
It begins with the Primordial Ocean. It lacks any concept of the Earth as a planet, seeing it as a few areas of dry land, set in the Ocean. It lacks even the idea that the moon only reflects light from the sun.If Genesis 1 is intended to communicate accurate information about the physical universe or even how it was created it does rather a poor job of it.Why, then, should anyone assume that Genesis 1 was intended by God to convey information about the physical universe at all ?

quote:

---

Genesis 1 has very little interest in cosmology at all.

---

That's a very weird statement. And quite obviously untrue.

quote:

---

None of this is about cosmology, or any particular culture's point of view, it's about how God created everything.

---

And that is also obviously untrue. You've got the Primordial Ocean right there in Genesis 1:2 That IS cosmology, and it IS an important part of the view of the world held in the Ancient Middle East.

quote:

---

I'll let the Creator know your objections to His work. But again cosmology is not of any importance in Genesis 1.

---

I'm not objecting to anything that God has done. I'm pointing out that it seems pretty clear that God DIDN'T do what you claim.

quote:

---

Because it's God's Word and whatever it says about the physical universe is true.

---

That's what you say. It's not what the Bible says.

quote:

---

If it settles out from the water according to Walther's Law, why not?

---

Walther's law is about the sorts of sediments that arrive at locations under normal conditions. The way existing sediment settles out would be pure hydrodynamics.

quote:

---

The Theory of Evolution is pseudoscience, nothing but mental castle-building.

---

Do you really think that repeating this assertion is sufficient to dispel the evidence ? Because that is how you are trying to use it.

quote:

---

t's genetically impossible for one thing, as I've argued over and over here -- microevolution depletes genetic material so you can never get a creature evolving beyond its given genetic potentials

---

You've often made that assertion but failed to provide the argument needed to support it.

quote:

---

And again, turning blocks of rock of specific flavors into time periods is so ridiculous I don't know how you all live with yourselves.

---

Even you believe that the sediment that makes up sedimentary rocks was deposited and that for each rock there was a time period when that sediment was deposited. Even you believe that the magma that became igneous rock erupted and cooled and solidified and that for each such rock there was a time when that happened. And yet you suddenly call that belief "ridiculous" What's your alternative ?

Faith, the only way that the strata represent time periods is that they were deposited at particular times and reflect the local conditions at those times.Aside from the fact that you assume that they were all deposited in a very short period of time there really isn't anything that you could reasonably disagree with there.The fact that you keep making this silly objection only shows how little you care about the truth.

I suppose that if I point out that it is the matter resting ON TOP of the deposited sediment that is fluid, you'll accuse me of pedantry, too? The fact is that the quote does not say that the sediment is liquid, nor even imply it. Any suggestion to the contrary is obviously false and to point that out is not pedantry.

What on earth is the problem ?If one layer can drape over an object then it seems obvious that another layer can drape over it.

If you can't think of any problem - and changing the subject pretty clearly indicates that you can't - then obviously you don't have a real objection.However, I'm going to give you another chance.If you accept that one layer can drape over an object, then why can't another layer drape over that ?

Again, you're not giving any answer to the question.If a single layer can drape over an object why can't another layer drape over the top of that ?Even if the layers were deposited in a "fluid state" (which is your invention) that would apply equally to the first layer, and it would also apply to other situations where layers were deposited one on top of the other.I'm not missing the point - you aren't making one.

What isn't "draping" ? WHY isn't it "draping" ?If you can't give a sensible answer then just admit it. Sometimes "tell, don't show" is the right approach.