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

The truth is that you do not want to follow the Forum Guidelines:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

I'm granting your wish and suspending you for 24 hours.Edited by Admin, : Add detail to final para.

Here is what one source says: Check it out sometime during your vacation. Despite what you think, tectonic breccias are readily discernible from conglomerates.

I'm not sure exactly how a year long flood could be described as an "semiarid or arid paleoclimate." Is it possible to determine if alluvial-fan sediments were produced by a flood or during a semiarid or arid period?

I'm sure it's possible, though I'm not sure how. Possibly related to caliche deposits or the presence of certain plant fossils.

The problem we are seeing here is anything that might cast doubt on a biblical interpretation must be denied, no matter what the evidence shows.Faith will put biblical interpretation or belief over real world evidence, no matter what the evidence or relative merits of the interpretation. She has told us this many times.Those of us who do science are not used to that kind of argument. Not surprising, as it is the exact opposite of science.We tend to follow the evidence where it leads, while Faith and other creationists deny, obfuscate, misinterpret, or otherwise ignore the evidence when it contradicts belief--anything to make it go away.The problem (for them) is that the evidence does not go away. Denying, obfuscating, misinterpreting, or otherwise ignoring the evidence has been getting harder for over 200 years, and probably since The Enlightenment (also known as the Age of Reason), which showed that we no longer have to kowtow to the shamans amongst us.To tie this back to the OP subject of the "great flood"--that was one of the first lines of evidence that showed that the shamans amongst us were completely wrong, and had been wrong for thousands of years. The evidence shows that the flood of the bible simply never happened.But, true to form, creationists continue to deny, obfuscate, misinterpret, or otherwise ignore the evidence when it contradicts their beliefs.What can you do with folks who don't rely on evidence?That's perhaps a good question for a new thread.

Edge,
It might be noted that there are alluvial fans all over the arid and semi-arid SW US. There are mountains in the Eastern US from Georgia to New Hampshire. I've been all through them and there are no alluvial fans. To much rainfall and therefore vegetation to get the kind of rapid sediment influx you need to make an alluvial fan.Thing that struck me about your Cutler X-section is it is very similar to the X-section from west of Denver to Eastern Colorado. The Fountain Formation is also alluvial fans coming off the eastern flank of the Ancestral Rockies. You probably know this as Garden of the Gods, Red Rocks Park and the Boulder Flatirons.At Red Rocks Park the Fountain is 1500 feet of massive sandstone and conglomerate, but just 5 or 6 miles to the north where I70 crosses it it is only a few hundred feet of red-brown mudstone with thin SS stringers. At I70 it is and interfan area which little deposition. So much for formations being flat and of uniform thickness.The Fountain can be traced for well over 150 miles and it changes like that along its entire exposure.My Stratigraphic Atlas of North and Central America by Shell Oil has an excellent X-section of this and I'll try to get it scanned and posted.
I have a guest from Australia showing up shortly so maybe later tonight or tomorrow.BTW since Faith's ideas about the GU are mechanically impossible I found it amazing anyone would waste their time on it. You are dealing with someone who doesn't know how to solve a simple vector problem in high school physics and probably can't do 9 grade algebra.

Everyone go and look at the X-section of the Cutler which Edge posted.Now imagine what an X-section perpendicular to it would look like if it was right along the mountain front in the fan deposits. It would look like the sand and conglomerate for the fans were thick and nearly continuous and the same thickness.A picture or a X-section are a 2D representation of a 3D object this can lead to all kinds of problems including you're thinking you know what the rocks are doing when what's actually happening is completely different.The solution to this is to make fence diagrams which are a whole series of intersecting X-sections. This allows you to see what is actually happening in 3D. Google "fence diagram images" to see exactly what I'm talking about.P.S. Faith's arguments remind me of the movie "The Wrath of Khan" where Spock tells Kirk that Khan shows a preponderance of 2D thinking. Kirk moves vertically....checkmate!
Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.

How very odd. Edge posts a two-dimensional cross section, challenges me to explain it in terms of the Flood. A way to reimagine it in terms of the Flood instead of his time scale does occur to me, I try to illustrate it, and now I'm told I'm at fault for thinking in 2D. I was actually amazed I could come up with anything at all, but I guess I'm the only one patting me on the back for that. Nothing but scorn from everybody else.

When someone throws a brand new geological situation at me and asks me to explain it in terms of the Flood, the best I can do is perhaps think it out in terms of the Flood hypothesis. Asking for evidence for something I've been acquainted with for all of a few hours is rather beyond beyond. The request is really only a way of saying Take your creationism elsewhere, it doesn't belong here.And you know what, that's correct, arguing creationism here is an exercise in masochism.

Wrong Faith. The solution to your seemingly intractable problem is that you just take all the time you need. If a few hours is not enough time, then take more time.But asking for evidence is never beyond the scope here.

Well, I wouldn't say that not seeing things in 3D the only fault. For instance, there's the lack of evidence for intrusion of the conglomeratic fan deposits, along with no mechanism for intruding them into the sediments which happen to be what we'd expect for adjacent depositional environments.Just another one of those weird coincidences, I guess. I'm not. I'm pretty sure that a grade school child could come up with something similar. Well, usually we don't pat people on the back for coming up with outlandish interpretations that have no evidential support.I suppose we could start. Anyone in favor?

When I was a creationist, I used to come into forums an be confronted with questions that were over my head, because I wasn't familiar enough with the subject matter. Initially, I was treated as you are here, but it subsided. Do you know why? Because I ignored the insults, AND did not insult in return. I ignored the arrogance, AND left my own hubris at home. I answered questions directly, and admitted when my stance was faulty. I took the time to read articles on BOTH sides of the fence.Eventually, most of the people with whom I spoke came to respect me and my approach, even if they didn't agree with my position.FWIW.

Yeah, but look what happened to you.

Oh, I highly doubt that what happened to me will happen to her. However, it is within her power to make her time here more enjoyable.

Edge first described the Cutler fan formations in his Message 1886 five days ago, but anyway, nowhere in the Forum Guidelines does it say it's okay to argue without evidence if you've had insufficient time to research the subject, and nowhere is any time limit mentioned. Take all the time you need, but don't argue without evidence.Reintroducing the point Edge was making, you had said that your hypothesis was that the Flood had deposited all strata, including the supergroup. Edge replied by pointing out that the vertical stack of alluvial fans in the Cutler formation consisted of material derived from an adjacent uplift and major fault, and he asked how a single flood could possibly have done that.You responded with a couple different claims. One was difficult to understand but clearly involved erosion of deeply buried strata taking place somehow followed by deposition amidst deeply buried strata, all of which seems impossible, and since you had no evidence that any such thing could ever happen I disallowed it. Your other claim was that the Cutler strata had been misidentified as alluvial fans, but you had no evidence for that position, either, so I disallowed this also. You can resume discussion of this subtopic once you've gathered your evidence.In the meantime I suggest resuming discussion of the main topic, namely how the Great Unconformity was formed. Your position is that the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup were tilted only after all the layers were deposited on top of it. This seems impossible, and you have as yet offered no evidence that any such thing has happened or could happen.If you have further moderation concerns, please take them to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.