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

Thank you for that. I've presented my scenario in these terms many times. Are you saying something different than I am? Not following you. What's wrong with the pattern I've suggested: erosion of all the (erodable) land mass, deposition back on the land in layers of different sediments, tectonic disturbance that uplifts land, pushes up mountains, breaks up and washes away the looser upper strata and cuts canyons and the stairs of the Grand Staircase and so on and so forth? Thank you, it is nice to get some approval for a change, even if taken away in the next breath. Oh well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Doubt the evidence is all that clear for this but that it's far more a conclusion based on theory or interpretation. I do have some evidence for my interpretation too, mostly from cross sections as presented before. Yes but mostly as an artifact or conclusion from the OE model, not so much the evidence itself. Well I'm committed to it, though of course different factors may change my idea of HOW it all worked. This is the one facet of the Flood scenario I've prayed the most about. Yes. It works as a stopgap admission/concession to allow them to develop other aspects of the scenario, but yes, either ALL the strata were laid down in the Flood or none of them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not sure where you are getting that in what I wrote above. Maybe I should break it down.

• ...erosion of all the (erodable) land mass...,
  ​
  I'm referring to what must have happened as first the heavy rain pummeled the land and saturated it, creating massive mudslides, and then the sea water rose to cover all the land in the first half of the Flood: it would have soaked all the soft sediments which would have been removed from any hard rock surfaces and carried down hill, most of which would then have been suspended in the rising sea water.
  ​
• ...deposition back on the land in layers of different sediments, ...
  ​
  If Walther's Law is the model here the sediments would have been redepositing in layers on the land as the sea level rose. Perhaps continuing to settle out at its height as well.
  ​
• ...tectonic disturbance that uplifts land, pushes up mountains, breaks up and washes away the looser upper strata and cuts canyons and the stairs of the Grand Staircase and so on and so forth....
  ​
  It is at this point that the massive erosion occurred that cut the G.C. and the G.S. etc etc etc, which I usually think of as ioccurring as the Flood water was receding, but the timing is open to adjustment I suppose: I see the Flood period as a period of massive catastrophe to the whole planet, drowning it in the Flood water from both rain and rising sea, but also triggering the movement of the tectonic plates, in association with volcanism, such as at the Atlantic ridge where Europe and Asia Africa were separated from the Americas and have been drifting apart ever since. That initial tectonic jolt occurred at different places all over the planet, separating all the continents from the original single land mass, so all the continents should have experienced its effects as their outer edges subducted oceanic plates, resulting in mountain building, uplifted land, twisted strata, broken strata that is then washed away in the receding Flood water, cutting canyons, and FORMING ANGULAR UNCONFORMITIES such as the G.U. and Siccar Point.

Even if you consider this scenario to be completely daft, don't I deserve some credit for such a comprehenisive global theory?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I should mention that my theory/scenario/model has been evolving as these discussions have been proceeding. The basic idea remains intact, but now I'm thinking that Walther's Law is a completely sufficient explanation for the deposition by settling-out of all the strata, whereas before I was pondering the possibility of different ways it might have happened at different stages.

However, that erosion occurred as a result of the Flood, so no, it has nothing to do with the unconformities, it simply broke up all the erodible land, eroding down to bedrock, and suspended it in the rising Flood waters.

Not minute details but the overall three-dimensional appearance of the whole picture.And I thought I conceded that it does look like it must have formed in the order of: first dolomite laid down, then broken and tilted, followed by deposition of sand and Ibex formation.It doesn't support my view but it also isn't enough to challenge it.Edited by Faith, : hyphenate "three-dimensional"Edited by Faith, : Comma added

I guess I should have specifically named "angular unconformities" which is what I thought we were talking about, as in the Great Unconformity. My statement about eroding all erodible sediments does not relate to that formation. But not angular unconformities such as the G.U. and Siccar Point. For those you need an earlier deposition of strata followed by a force to tilt them, not just bedrock.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Navajo Sandstone is a layer in the Grand Staircase formation to the north of the Grand Canyon, occurring at the Jurassic-Triassic level. The Grand Staircase is made up of strata that climb up from the Permian / Kaibab which forms the rim of the Grand Canyon. All those same higher layers were originally laid down over the Grand Canyon area, but in that area they were washed away, while in the Grand Staircase they remain but were eroded down to cliffs and plateaus, forming the staircase. Navajo sandstone occurs in many areas of the southwest but is one of the layers that washed away over the Grand Canyon area where the uppermost layer is the Kaibab limestone of the Permian.There is no reason why the Flood shouldn't explain such an obviously originally water-soaked formation.You can see it on this cross section of the Grand Staircase: Here's my old favorite cross section of the entire GC-GS area to show that the layers of the GS do not extend over the GC but show evidence of having been broken off and eroded away where the Kaibab Uplift begins to rise up over the GC area. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It would be nice if you would acknowledge that I did answer the question you asked in my previous post. I've never said I understand all the details about how the Flood did what it did, but the more I plug away at it the more answers come to the various questions. No reason the "dunes" challenge can't also be answered. Meanwhile, do please acknowledge that I accounted for the existence of rock you think my scenario did away with. Thanks.And all this is off topic in this thread.\Thanks again.

Even if it is not always an angular unconformity, it is all the same formation, presumably formed under the same circumstances and at the same time wherever it appears, and I'm describing how I think it formed in relation to the Flood, which surely doesn't have anything in common with the Old Earth view of how it formed.As for the "erosional surface," I don't recall discussing it in those terms at all. I provided some pictures of very level contact lines Message 213 and Message 313, which to my mind contradict the idea of millions of years of erosion at the surface of the earth, which wouldn't produce such a level surface as shown in those pictures; but I don't deny that there is evidence of erosion at some of the contact lines, that hasn't specifically been addressed. And of course I have a different interpretation of how it came about. Not "they," I said it all eroded down to BEDROCK. I'm describing what must have happened in the first phase of the Flood, the erosion off all the land mass of all erodible sediments, leaving bedrock I would suppose, not a surface that later became one of the unconformities we are discussing. There would have been no strata whatever to become the base of the Great Unconformity, just bedrock, all the sediments washing down to meet the rising sea and becoming suspended in the water. I don't see how this scenario has anything in common with your millions of years scenario. I just explained this above. Perhaps I don't say it clearly enough here. For the angular unconformities you need strata, not bedrock, but I'm suggesting that in its early phase the Flood scoured the land down to bedrock. There was no strata at all at this point, and no deformation because they didn't exist to be deformed, and in this Flood scenario there was no tectonic activity to deform anything until the last phase of the Flood.1) Land scoured to bedrock first;
2) strata laid down in rising sea water second;
3) erosion and deformation of this stack of strata third, as tectonic and volcanic activity occur.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it's a comment I made about it looking water-soaked, followed by a cross section that demonstrates where the Navajo Sandstone falls in the strata, above the Grand Canyon area, since Tanypteryx wrongly thought I'd eliminated that formation altogether.

I don't know if I can respond to your request as you'd like. That picture throws me every time I look at it. In my opening post I thought I had a good argument in favor of my view of how angular unconformities form, the view of how they form hadn"t changed. I came to see that I hadn't worked through that particular argument, that's all.The basic idea is that after all the strata have been laid down to their maximum depth, lateral tectonic pressure pushes the lower strata into folds, which pushes upward as well as laterally against the stack above which remains horizontal. This would occur at whatever point there is both a textural difference between the rock layers and equal resistance between the tectonic force and the weight of the stack above. That is, the tectonic force can only move the lower strata to the point that the weight above resists the movement. That's what creates the two different sections, upper and lower. There may be visible erosion at the contact line but if the movement was smooth enough maybe not.The Great Unconformity is unusual in that the upper stack remained completely intact, at least up to the Kaibab/Permian. Siccar Point is a more typical angular unconformity I think, in that only the layers immediately above the contact remain. There are lots of such images online of folded or tilted rock with just a single layer perched across it. I'm figuring there would have been a deep stack of strata there that broke up and eroded away, in the Flood scenario I have in mind washed away in the receding water. In the Grand Canyon area this massive erosion only occurred to the very uppermost strata, leaving the whole stack into which the canyon was cut. Yes, but this one for me doesn't look like an angular unconformity at all. I can only assume that it is, I can't see it.

That wasn't a question about an angular unconformity.ABE: He's bringing in the idea of how supposedly dry "dunes" are explained in terms of the Flood. That is a completely other subject.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I understood it, edge was introducing the idea of an "erosional surface" which implies the interpretation I've been arguing against so I certainly never would have said anything to support the idea.But there is some vislble erosion at some angular unconformities, not the "erosional surface" that would alter the very level lines at the contacts in the pictures I posted, and erosion isn't visible in those pictures anyway. But erosion occurred for instance where the quartzite boulder appears embedded in the Tapeats, which was shown in the video of Paul Garner's presentation on the Grand Canyon, which I posted at least a couple years ago, and edge pointed out a similar situation at Siccar Point where fragments of the lower sandstone appear embedded in the upper.ABE: But edge now is confusing the erosion I've described as having to have occurred in the first stages of the Flood with the erosion he believes created the unconformities, and there is simply no relation between the two ideas.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've ONLY been referring to the angular unconformity in Mosaic Canyon for the last few days, the one on the far right of your post, had no idea you were referring to anything else. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.