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

The surface in the picture in the post that you replied to is as level and straight as those of the G.U. in the pictures you posted.Why are you saying that that they are different? Is it because the slope, i.e. the increase in height over the increase in width, is different in the images?Is it possible that you are comparing different scales of height/distance, and that is causing you to misapprehend how "level" these surfaces are?

I want you to see something different. I want you to explain the photographe. I want an alternative to erossion as the origin of the unconformity surface.No luck so far.

Even though it doesn't look like that to anyone else... Yes, sometimes that happens So what?You have been given explanations, which you summarily ignored. You heave also been give examples of flat unconformities. So, what is your point?

I honestly don't know. So out of curiosity, from this spacestation image: Where do you put the end of what you have called the GU? Can you download that image and put a mark on it where the end is? (I realize that's a lot of work to ask of you, but I think it'll help clear up the communication)

A lot of things seem to be amazing to you... So, some unconformities are 'straight and level', while some are not. What's the problem? You have been given examples of both.Do you have a point? And that has been done... There is nothing humble about your opinions. On the other hand, you have not addressed the instances of flat and level erosional surfaces. Sure, you have cherry-picked selected cases and said that they are the rule and exceptions have been altered. What is clear is not what you think.

I have offered a different interpretation. The lines represent a modern unconformity. No. However, it doesn't matter, the material is still derived from the lower section. Pure nonsense. The bedding planes in view are intact. And yet the 'level' plane that you surmise is completely eradicated. You have not explained. But, you said that the unconformity surface has changed...Please explain...This does not answer my question if the unconformity surface has changed so dramatically since Hutton described the location, why is the uppermost bedding plane intact and unchanged? I can see a clear, long bedding plane in the photograph. I outlined it on a previous schematic. Do you deny this?Please answer this question. And?There are also many examples of irregular unconformity surfaces. You have been shown some of them. So, you are saying that, since some unconformity surfaces are planar and level, that they must have all been so at one time?Just,... wow ...Another example of YEC all-or-nothing -ness. You are clearly delusional. Yes, and there is no reason to believe that they have never been anything else.

I quoted amply for him to get the context.

.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

BECAUSE IT IS HORIZONTAL. As I said already.

But that plane is almost exactly parallel to the unconformity. Why would it weather differently from the unconformity? In fact, it should weather more severely since it is more exposed.Please explain.And, actually, I don't see anything that is horizontal. Why would that make a difference?Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Because the surface of the unconformity is vertical strata and that upper surface is horizontal. The vertical ends of the strata would be more vulnerable to severe weather, being easily broken when thinned down. That's why there are so many stumps of the upright lower strata. The upper strata are severely weathered nevertheless as I noted, but being horizontal the weather batters against it but doesn't break it as easily. There must be a simple principle of physics that explains this:The horizontal gives less resistance to the weather than the vertical?The vertical has more exposed surfaces?Would you be more or less stable standing up or lying down in a gale?No it isn't horizontal any more, it's on a slant, but it still presents more of a flat surface to the weather than the upright strata do.Would a picket fence do better in a gale or a flat deck?Is there a reason airplanes have horizontal flat wings or would they do OK if they were vertical?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Abrasion between upper and lower sections as already explained somewhere back there.ABE: Message 416 about 2/3 of the way down.ABE: And here I should add that I'm not answering parts of your posts because I don't get what you are saying.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hunh?The unconformity is horizontal... at least in my universe. But they are not exposed. They are covered by the upper strata... That was when they were exposed to weathering during Cambrian time. Stop the insanity. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Except that there should be evidence of abrasion. Why is there evidence of cross-bedding? You are not kidding...Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

But they ARE exposed, as Percy just got me to clarify.But hey, so much for civil discourse.