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

Simple denial.

Why? What makes it ridiculous?

I am beginning to believe that she thinks all evidence is Faith-centric (in more ways than one). What everyone else 'sees' is wrong, but what she 'sees' is iron-clad proof.

They do?You have some evidence for this? Something to support your point?

Ummm, that's not evidence. Actually, I'm calling for it. What is the evidence for your abrasion at the Great Unconformity? Fewer steps is not evidence. I'm asking for evidence. Why would older rocks be less resistant to erosion?

That notion crossed my mind as I shut down earlier. It kind of rang a bell when I remembered some YECs talking about dinosaur fossils being found at the ground surface .... so, how could they be old?We still haven't made progress on that one.

The evidence has been provided to you in hundreds of posts prior to that exercise. For instance:---The unconformities cross cutting layering in the GC metamorphic rocks,---The faults cutting Supergroup rocks but not Tapeats,---Eroded fragments of older rock found in the sequence above the unconforities,---The presence of straight and flat unconformities in modern settings,---The lack of shearing textures at the unconformities.Those things are evidence. All you have given us is 'looks like'...

So what are the other 'aging forces' for rocks?Why should there be any difference in weathering of the two ages of rocks? Is this a straw-man argument, or are you just that unaware of geological processes? Faith, rocks do not age as people age... Are you talking about lithification making rocks weaker?And what 'erosion between layers' are you talking about? Do you mean unconformities?

There is a bit of contention here that we have not addressed that I know of. In Faith's video, the speaker says that there is no evidence of weathering beneath the Great Unconformity; and yet, the reference that HBD(?) provided earlier specifically said that weathering affected those rocks (in places) to a depth of 20 feet or more, IIRC. I'm quite certain that the latter is correct.

I'm glad you brought this up.Contrary to almost everything Faith (and other YECs, as well) says, older rocks are generally different in appearance and more resistant to weathering; and can be recognized as such by trained individuals. Even geologists often aren't thinking about weathering as they look at rock formations such as Uluru (Uluru - Wikipedia) with its tan to brick red coloration. But if you break the rock to look at an unweathered surface, the actual color of the material is a rather boring gray. However, I don't recommend going up there and cracking open the rocks to test this.

"God's own revelation" is exactly what we are looking at, Faith.What you are talking about is "your own misbegotten interpretation of that revelation".

Wrong about what? I can handle being wrong.

But it isn't possible. Not without evidence.In fact, we have countervailing evidence. Evidence is evidence, Faith. You can complain all you want, but nothing changes the weight of actual evidence.

Good point. In fact, it's not just 'current' rates since, from all that we can glean from history, the plates have been at their current speeds for at least 2000 years.

Hmmmm, sounds pretty speculative to me. So why do you pit yourself against so many other Christians?Please keep up the good work, Faith. you are single handedly dismantling Christianity with your personal dogma.