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

Apologies if I have this wrong, but has Faith really conceded that the surface of the Great Unconformity was formed by erosion? This is similar to one of my earlier responses to you where I wasn't sure what Faith was saying, and so I'm not sure what you thought she was saying, and for that reason am not sure what your response means. Could you clarify a bit?

I just questioned Edge about what he thought you believed about erosion being a contributor. Could you clarify what you mean? When you say that some of the contact lines display evidence of erosion, does that include the Great Unconformity or other angular unconformities?

I referred to images plural, you quoted nothing from me, you include no image, so please understand why I have no idea which picture you're talking about. When I said you were focusing on minute details of images I was referring to images from the Grand Canyon, Siccar Point and Mosaic Canyon, among others: Does this refer to the same image you referenced above? Again, I don't know which one you mean.

You said, "All this is off topic." Does "all this" refer only to what you said in your post? If so, then by "'dunes' challenge" do you mean Tanypertyx's angular unconformity of dunes?Of does "all this" include all the points that Tanypteryx raised?Concerned that others might not be sure how to interpret the ambiguity, it was necessary to clarify that "all this" does not include other examples of angular unconformities beyond the Great Unconformity.There *is* a moderator paying careful attention to this thread. Please let him do his job.

Since you didn't know which images I was referring to, let me make the point again.I'm talking about the pattern of discussion that has emerged when specific images of unconformities have been presented like these: What happens is that you raise questions about details of the images having nothing to do with angular unconformities. To be very clear what I mean, here are a couple annotated images showing how discussion has been diverted onto such details: What I was trying to say was that if your focus on these minute details is important to supporting your position about the formation of angular unconformities then that is fine and you should get on with it. But if they're not really relevant to that, and you indicated in your Message 550 that they're not ("I'm not sure I'm implying anything...etc..."), then you should try to bring your focus onto those parts of the images that support your view.

I thank you for your helpfulness, but decisions about what is on topic are the moderator's responsibility. This is the image Tanyperyx presented of the Navajo Sandstone. It looks like a surface angular unconformity: Here's an image of the Navajo Sandstone in Arizona where the angular unconformities, both buried and surface, are more obvious: So when you said, "All this is off topic," I was only trying to make it clear to thread participants that discussion of all angular unconformities is definitely on topic.

There's still no indication that my point has gotten across, so I shall repeat it again. Whether you're making points about Mosaic Canyon (as you say you are now), or about Siccar point (as you have in the past), or about the Great Unconformity (as you also have in the past, and which is the subject of this thread), what happens is that you raise questions about details having nothing to do with angular unconformities. If these questions are relevant to your point then that's fine. If not, and the indications I have are that they are not (again, see Message 550), then please keep the focus of your discussion on those parts of the image that are relevant to how you believe angular unconformities are created.

Since Faith hasn't replied yet and since I do think I understand what she means, let me relate my understanding of what Faith's saying in my own words. Fatih's corrections should be helpful in understanding her viewpoint:

1. Before the flood there were no sedimentary layers anywhere, not on land or sea bottom. There was limestone and clay and shale and slate and sandstone and so forth, but evidently not organized into sedimentary layers.
   ​
2. The flood scoured all this material off the land down to bedrock (Faith's definition of "bedrock" isn't clear to me). This is the only erosion Faith is talking about, as far as I know. The eroded material became suspended in the active flood waters.
   ​
3. As the flood waters quieted the previously eroded material began falling out of suspension to form all the sedimentary layers of the geological record, including the Grand Canyon Supergroup. Because material falling out of suspension doesn't explain the sorting of material into the homogenous sedimentary layers, more recently Faith has been placing greater emphasis on Walther's Law as being responsible for the sedimentary layers.
   ​
4. Tectonic forces caused uplift of the Grand Canyon region, and they also tilted the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup and broke it into blocked sections.
   ​
5. Receding flood waters eroded the sedimentary layers to form structures like the Grand Canyon.

Deciding what is and isn't on topic is the moderator's responsibility. Please let this moderator do his job.The message you're replying to was about the timespans represented by missing eroded material of the geologic record, including material eroded away at angular unconformities. This seems very relevant to the topic.Concerns about topic are better brought to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "angular unconformity." I'm not sure.I felt that the Navajo Sandstone was on topic because it represents erosion of tilted layers, though in this case the tilting is due to cross-bedding and the material being eroded was not, in some cases, lithified. The principles are the same.

Some clarification from Faith of her position on the basement rocks might be helpful. My understanding of Faith's position is that she considers the Vishnu Schist to be the basement rocks underlying the Grand Canyon sedimentary layers, including those of the Grand Canyon Supergroup.But since some significant portions of the Vishnu Schist are metamorphic sedimentary rock, and since Faith's position is that no sedimentary rock existed prior to the flood, they too, must have formed as a result of the flood. This would seem to imply that Faith's basement rocks must lie beneath the Vishnu Schist, but Faith would have to confirm whether she thinks that's true.

There's no need for anything beyond pointing out the weaknesses and errors in the arguments from the other side.Though both sides seem to be trying hard to make their views clear, in the recent exchanges I often got the feeling that the views being rebutted were not necessarily the ones that had been expressed. I was short of time today, but if I have time tomorrow I'll try to note where a little additional clarification would be helpful.

Hi Everyone,The post volume is overwhelming my ability to moderate or even keep up with this thread. I was able to read up through page 46 today (my settings are 15 messages/page), or up through around 1 PM yesterday Eastern Time US. I'll just make a few suggestions:

• Comments about the intelligence, discernment or lack thereof of other participants should be avoided.
  ​
• Please stay on topic: how the Great Unconformity formed.
  ​
• Please don't restart discussions from scratch by making assertions that give no hint of awareness that the issue has been discussed before and that pretend ignorance of the counterarguments.
  ​
• In this last point I'll get specific. I think the volcanic argument would have been helped by quantitative evidence of how much material is sent into the atmosphere by a major volcanic event, how many such major events would have to have occurred in the last 6000 years, and how much total material in the atmosphere that would have represented.
  ​
  I think the Siberian Traps argument would have been helped with quantitative evidence of how long it takes molten lava to cool. Just by way of example, if Hover Dam, a tiny object on a geologic scale, had not been constructed with cooling pipes lain before concrete was poured, it would have taken around 700 years for the concrete to cool (concrete heats as it hardens, even to above 100°C (the boiling point of water) if the mass of concrete is great enough, such as in a dam). Lava's temperature is above 700°C, so how long would it take for miles of lava to cool from 700°C?
  ​
  I'm only using these as examples of the kinds of arguments that would be helped by more evidence. They're actually off-topic.

As I was reading the past day's posts I became concerned about all the off-topic discussion , but it seems like discussion has returned to the topic now. Please post a thread proposal over at Proposed New Topics for other topics.

Here are brief excerpts from messages posted by various people over the last day or so that should serve as examples of what moderation would like to see less of: I haven't been strictly enforcing the guidelines because it seems like the violations have been slight and occasional with the vast majority of discussion focusing on the topic, or at least on topics related to the topic. I've admired the way participants have been giving careful attention to many of the issues raised.When frustrations grow people on both sides of the discussion should realize that they may be underestimating the magnitude of the task before them. Talking scientists into ignoring the evidence and its implications is just as difficult as talking creationists into ignoring their religious beliefs.The stakes are far higher for creationists. Their religious beliefs cannot be wrong because eternal salvation is at stake. A scientist giving up a theory suffers little, but a believer giving up a religious belief suffers a great deal, and this is why each disproved creationist idea doesn't win the debate but only provokes introduction of a new creationist idea.Discussion has drifted a bit far off the original topic and should begin focusing a little more on how the Great Unconformity formed.