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

I don't see how that process would get you such level straight contacts as seen in the pictures I've posted. Even in your diagram the resultant platform is not level.

Siccar Point is not a useful example when we are talking about the surface of the lower formation without the upper having been deposited. For one thing it's been subjected to such severe weathering there's no way to be sure what it looked like originally.But I would expect that when it was first formed that surface would have been level, yes. And I figure that was the case because the upper strata, even in their ruined condition, show that THEY were straight. They aren't shaped to fit into dips in the lower strata.

GU very level and straight.ABE: Space bar not working, have to hit it hard to get it to space.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Siccar Point gets far more severe weathering than the Grand Canyon.Erosion after the unconformity is there is not what we're talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You can SEE how it was weathered. That coast of Scotland gets ferocious battering by the weather. That is not the original height or shape of the section outlined in yellow. Here's one of my posts on it at my blog. The drawing was by either a friend of Hutton's or of Lyell's, don't remember, but it's old, and it shows the unconformity as a straight line in spite of the weathering it had undergone by then as well.

The pictures I posted in 213 and 313 show it very level and straight. If it's level and straight in so many places, other places where it has been disturbed after its formation are irrelevant.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The GC doesn't get anywhere near as severe weather as Siccar Point, and much of the GU we see in the GC doesn't get much exposure to weather anyway, such as in the side canyons, but I'm sure it's true that there has been some deterioration of the original GU there too. I'd expect that the contact used to be even more flat than it is now. I'm saying the rock has been so battered by the weather at Siccar Point that it isn't clear that there was originally a straight contact between upper and lower sections, as illustrated by that drawing at my blog I just posted to jar. In your picture the sandstone is almost shredded by the weathering, reduced to splinters. The lower strata no longer have the straight upper surface that is shown in that drawing.Siccar Point is the barely skeletal remains of what must originally have been a much broader and deeper stack of strata, but most of it was destroyed, leaving this small pile of heavily weathered rocks. Perhaps not, if a simple obvious point escapes you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Except it isn't. Those in the GC are but Siccar Point isn't. Weather has been battering this small rock formation from all sides for thousands of years and there is no protection left.

Of course! It wouldn't have been DEPOSITED in that messy condition.

Again, as usual, there is some kind of huge disconnect in this discussion that makes no sense to me. I don't *want* any particular thing, I simply SEE the flatness and levelness and I think it's very clear how it has been lost in some cases by disturbances after it was all laid down, earthquake displacement perhaps, volcanic disturbance perhaps, and in the case of Siccar Point, both those (that light colored column is a magma dike) plus severe weathering. If anybody lives in Wonderland, it's you guys.

You know, it would probably help communication if you realized that I NEVER think in terms of millions of years. I ALWAYS have around 4500 years in mind for the age of all these formations.Just for the record, if I were thinking in terms of half a billion years I would expect the Grand Canyon long since to have dissolved into a pile of dust. And wouldn't that be in keeping with the idea that erosion over such an enormously long time supposedly explains how the surface of the Vishnu and the tilted Supergroup got level enough for all those strata to build on them as horizontally as they did even from the nice neat flat Tapeats? The "upper sequence" being the horizontal strata above the vertical? But it certainly IS that battered: those rocks are barely a shadow of their former selves, nothing left but splinters basically. And surely there was once a huge stack of strata above them too, just as in the GC, long since destroyed by tectonic and other forces. And do try to remember: I don't think of each bedding plane as having been exposed for any great period of time. Well they didn't have photography in those days and those who made such drawings, Lyell for one, did aim to draw what was actually there. A couple hundred years of weathering since then should be sufficient explanation for the greater deterioration we see in your picture. I'm sure much of your problem must be due to your habit of thinking in terms of millions of years. If you'd just recognize that I don't, it might help you see better what I'm saying. It's "ancient" yes, but only in thousands, not millions, of years. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your yellow line in this case may not really define the contact line but a deterioration of what is left of it. The upper section in the photo doesn't even look like it's resting on the lower section, it sort of looks like it's collapsed behind it.Why would Hutton's drawing show a straight contact line if it wasn't there?

But you're the one who claims I'm not making sense. I think you're wrong but I do see what you are saying.

I think so.

Not 6000 years, just a year or two. All sediments the result of the dissolution of the land mass in the early part of the Flood. Dover cliffs are clearly a deposit like all the rest, part of that formation even being exposed in the Middle East. White Cliffs of Dover | Answers in Genesis And speaking of erosion, the pictures of the Dover cliffs show how it cuts into such a deposition.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.