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

Looking at the diagram on the left:In the earlier layers of the Tapeats formation, the sediment piled up a little on the sides of the archaean outcrop. When they got sufficiently close to the top, a layer draped over the outcrop and later layers draped over that. Really, no relevant differences there.

quote:

---

Into the air? They just hover there at a distance from the main rock until the sand starts depositing and providing bedding planes for them to lie on?

---

Obviously not. They lie on the surface of the sand that has already been deposited. Or maybe partially embedded in it. Like pebbles on a beach.That's no problem at all.

quote:

---

The problem is that they (the gravel from the hill which are drawn at some distance from the hill) are being talked about as if they were there before the sand was deposited which would put them in mid-air.

---

I think that's just one of your weird misreadings. Certainly, the post that you were immediately replying to said nothing of the sort. And let us not forget that you were claiming that gravel as evidence for your view before then. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I'm sure that you didn't get the idea out the gravel having to hang in mid-air from the diagrams either.And the fact that the location of the gravel is hard to account for given your view, and relatively easy given the conventional view makes the gravel evidence against your position. No matter how "happy" you are to claim otherwise.

Faith, you badly misunderstand both diagrams.The first shows how local formations relate to the geological timescale. The second is an idealisation which does not even attempt to show the complexities of the actual situation.The geological timescale is not built on world-wide strata. It was built by painstaking work correlating the local strata of different localities, primarily through geometric relationships. Applying the original version , developed in Europe, to the rocks of the Americas took considerable work - it was not a simple matter of matching strata found each side of the Atlantic.

Matched as being about the same age, as determined by various methods. That's all.

OK. You accept that your idea of worldwide strata was an ignorant mistake?You understand that the actual strata found in reality and their relationships are much, much more complicated than that?That "the" geological column (as opposed to local geological columns) is an idealised and generalised view synthesised and simplified from a huge mass of data and it took a whole lot of work to put it all together?