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

It may not be in the case described in your quote, it may be the result of sedimentary processes themselves as is claimed. The important point for me at the moment is just that drape occurs to FORMED BUT SOFT ROCKS, not newly deposited sediments. Actually I've consistently had in mind FORMED LAYERS THAT ARE SOFT ENOUGH TO DEFORM AROUND OBJECTS, neither sediments nor rocks. Soft enough to deform, hard enough to maintain their shape as layers. The underlying rocks, however, are all apparently lithified, metamorphosed etc. and, I'm arguing, probably tectonically pushed upward. And in many places provided an extraordinarily level platform for the purpose.l.....OR the GU formed after the Tapeats was already there.

I must have said "FORMED AS RECOGNIABLE LAYERS BUT SOFT ENOUGH TO DEFORM" at least 9422 times by now. One time I don't say the whole phrase and you forget that? 1. I don't understand your remark about its being a sedimentary environment if they were deposited on a slope. Of course I don't think they were, I'm arguing they were already there when the underlying rocks pushed up into them, already there in a FORMED BUT SOFT ENOUGH CONDITION TO DEFORM or drape around the intruding rock.2. If faults are a necessity and you don't see any faults I guess I'm stuck with just the impression of the draped sediments as my evidence for the intrusion of the underlying rocks into the Tapeats, and you reject that, so perhaps the argument is at an end for now.3. bI don't know what you mean by asking why layers above the formed layers weren't formed. I assume they all were formed into layers, which is clearly illustrated in the drawings, don't know how I gave a different impression.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I say in my previous post to you, if faults are the evidence you need then perhaps the argument is over for now, since my main evidence is the draping of the sandstone layers, and since you reject that as evidence that's that for now. Perhaps some other evidence will show up.**Back later**Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Speaking of cheesy ad hoccism... How you know this is beyond me but I don't feel like fighting it.It really doesn't make any difference to my point because clearly these are disturbed contacts and represent the overall disturbance to the rock we've been talking about. Layers don't deposit with overhangs, that's evidence of displacement after deposition just as separation would be. Evidence for this disturbance is the nice tight contacts between layers above these. Obviously these lower layers collapsed while formed but soft just as I've argued, whether the deformation produced overhangs or separation at the contacts.Strata don't just messily deposit, don't make sloppy contacts. Here's the original again. Note the very tight neat contacts between layers above the ones we are discussing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, there are the drag folds themselves for evidence.... I would suppose so, and since they appear to be a bit of a distance from the hill and embedded in the sandstone it seems very likely they were sheared off that hill during the intrusion. You know what's odd about that? The fact that there is no lava spill indicated at the "unconformity," i.e. the surface of the hill, such as occurred at the top of the Grand Staircase over the Claron, and in other parts of the Grand Canyon. Here it is illustrated as abruptly cut off.I'd guess it was all part of the same tectonic event that created the GU everywhere, and that there WAS shearing involved in the push of the underlying rock up into the Tapeats, which displaced the upper part of the dike. In this case I suppose it should be found somewhere in the Tapeats. Just a guess but it IS odd how it's just cut off like that.I guess you'd say it was eroded away over millions of years before the Tapeats deposited? I don't discount anything on such a diagram and I wondered what those lines indicate. So they indicate VERTICAL STRATA? Into which water has seeped, deforming the layers on the sides? How about water from the already-deposited but formed and still soft and damp sandstone it intruded up into perchance? I'd suggest perhaps it means an assymetrical entry of the intruding rock myself, causing asymmetrical drag. Seems like you've made a decent case for your view. I still like mine of course and continue to view the draping sandstone as my best evidence, but I also like that embedded gravel for evidence too.

Hold your horses, I'm coming to that eventually.Hint: Those layers on the left were SOFT when they sagged into that position. The road cut was made in lithified rock.ABE: Unfortunately I need a break and I suppose there will be another ton of stuff to answer when I get back.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Context, context. You asked for evidence of shearing after saying that drag folds would indicate shearing, so I answered that the drag folds themselves would be the evidence of shearing you asked for. Drag folds, drag folds, my dear Watson. In fact if you look closely at that illustration you'll see that the gravel appears to be embedded along the lines of contact between layers of the Tapeats where they form the drag folds. Sort of like they were caught there. Interesting anyway. But of course I would assume it is younger than the surface of the Archaean hill whether it spilled over or not. Do what? A guess, a guess, consistent with my basic theory that the lower rocks intruded into the upper while the upper were still soft. Slightly tilted to the left of straight up would be my guess. Just a guess. Evidence would of course be the direction of the drag folds themselves but you would know the direction indicated in this case where I can only guess. Gravel that came off the Archaean hill and is now in the Tapeats sandstone, as can be seen on the illustration, which I will reproduce here: Drag folds, as per your own information cited above. The same drag folds of the sandstone layers along the contact lines at which the gravel seems to be emplaced.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I notice you don't offer any evidence for your contention, apparently just another of your rude remarks to no purpose. The evidence looks to me to show what I've said and since you've offered none for your interpretation I think we can ignore it.The idea that a layer would be displaced into overhangs or separated from others, either one, by a blast, is absurd. That layer was SOFT when it was deformed, the rock was cut when lithified. A blast would have shattered the layer, not formed overhangs. Sheesh.And my "precious" overhangs are JonF's who was contradicting me. It does help to read in context. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK. Well, that's pretty much all I've been talking about. That's a non sequitur. My claim is that the sands were deposited before the irregular surface occurred, intruded etc. When the intrusion occurred, which I'm postulating was the result of tectonic activity, the Tapeats sandstone was already bclearly formed into layers, as shown in the drawings, but soft enough to deform and drape over the intruding rock. You seem to think you've given evidence for this but I have no idea what the evidence is that you think you've given. Or even, again, what the point is of insisting on the label as you do. You should be happy, then, that I call them strata and not rocks until they lithified. Drag folds, plus evidence from other locations, such as the road cut where it's clear the layers on the left were soft enough to sag into the low place on the left AT THE TIME of the disturbance that deformed the gneiss and some of the sandstone above it. Road cut order of events is clear evidence that the metamorphosed rock was deformed ALONG WITH the layers above it.

But I'm still not getting your point. I'm not talking about sediments being deposited, only about formed layers that are still soft enough to deform. Draped sediments, drag folds, timing of events at other locations of the GU. That makes sense but perhaps the faults are buried out of sight.{This is a side issue but I found myself wondering about that high relief, especially in the picture I posted which I think is at the same location as two of McKee's illustrations (I can find it again and reproduce it here), where the Archaean rock soars quite high above the position of the photographer, with the Tapeats above it. That is at Mile 262 of the Colorado River according to McKee's own legend, and I found that the elevation of the river at that point is about 500 feet.. Just thinking how that's a lot of basement rock exposed to such a height. Again,just a side issue, just a pondering, no interpretation at the moment but perhaps someone else will have a thought about it.} Sorry, you totally lost me here.

Nope. The actual evidence I've been discussing does not support that idea. The separation or overhang as JonF says it really is, without offering evidence or reasoning, occurred to SOFT rock that sagged due to its softness, and any blasting or cutting would have been done in lithified rock and shattered it, not separated it. Oh yes there is. The irregular surface shows the same disturbance that roughed up the gneiss and caused the layers to sag on the left WHILE THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY SOFT. That area marks the spot where the left side began its sag. NOTHING to do with the road cut that I can see, and since you merely assert it and give no reasoning to support it, your interpretation is worthless., Funny it's right where the layer sagged due to softness then. Again you are merely asserting and failing to answer the clear evidence I've given for a disturbance that occurred to the sandstone when it was still soft. It's you who lack the evidence for your interpretation. Mine is quite clear. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's my eyes, macular degeneration, not the monitor. I simply included the bush with the disturbed rocks above it because it's also dark, but the rocks above it are the target, part of the disturbance at the point where the bend to the left occurs. If you can't see how the layers to the left sagged while soft, and the gaping contact lines couldn't have been caused by blasting, there's no further hope for this discussion. It's me against a passel of biased untrustworthy opponents.

This is all apparently a matter of vision of one sort or another. Not to be able to see the evidence that the layers sagged while soft rather than being deposited in that condition just puts you, and HBD, so beyond reason I might as well save my eyes and get out of this madhouse. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Funny, I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you -- though I WOULD enjoy throwing you a great distance -- with any of your wouldacoulda speculations about anything whatever.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it's your memory that's bad. I have never mentioned drag folds in relation to the road cut layers,. There are none there. They are very prominent in the McKee drawings, however, and that is what I was talking about.But what's the point. When communication has gone this far off the rails it's over.