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

Yes.

I think this is a clear statement of the discussion (and it is well-needed). I can see questions beginning to form.For starters, does Faith believe that the schist and gneiss of the basement rocks (Vishnu) are part of the same stratigraphic flood sequence as the overlying Paleozoic rocks? And what would be the evidence for that?

I've stated I'm no longer making claims for which I don't have evidence. I can give you my hypothesis but that's it: the basement rocks would have to have been part of the Flood strata deposition, abe: some transformed by heat and pressure plus igneous intrusions./abe In the Grand Canyon the Supergroup is made up of strata which confirms at least that much of my hypothesis. The schist and gneiss would have to have formed beneath the Paleozoic strata after all were in place, the transformative forces somehow not reaching into the strata above, and I can't prove it so that's that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, I'm trying to remove confusion and ambiguity. What qualities of the strata of the Supergroup are you referring to? And when you say that those qualities confirm "at least that much of my hypothesis," what part of your hypothesis are you referring to?Edited by Admin, : Clarification coming...Edited by Admin, : Clarification.

The fact that it is made up of strata.
The fact that the Flood would have laid down strata.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How is that different from depositional processes going on today?In other words, why must it be a biblical flood?

Your extreme brevity is making it very difficult to discern your meaning.Yes, it's a fact that the Grand Canyon Supergroup is made up of strata.Yes, it's a fact that floods can result in sedimentary deposits.But are you saying that it's a fact that the Flood deposited the layers of the supergroup? Something else? What?

As I said, I'm no longer claiming anything I can't prove. This is my hypothesis, period. My hypothesis is that the Flood laid down ALL the strata, and that would include the Supergroup.

Hi Faith,I'm just trying to achieve clarity and avoid ambiguity. This is in your own best interests because you have many times accused everyone of purposefully misunderstanding you. So please work with me here.When I read through your last few posts, they appear contradictory. On the one hand you say things like, "I'm no longer making claims for which I don't have evidence," and on the other you state things as fact, such as "The fact that it [Grand Canyon Supergroup] is made up of strata," which is indeed a fact, and "The fact that the Flood would have laid down strata," which is only a fact depending upon what you mean.So do you mean only that floods can leave sedimentary deposits? If so, then that's fine, but you need to say that.But if you mean something more, perhaps that it's a fact that the Flood deposited the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, then that's not a fact, and it contradicts your statement that you would no longer be making claims for which you have no evidence.So when you say, "The fact that the Flood would have laid down strata" immediately after stating that the Grand Canyon Supergroup is made up of strata, what do you mean?

There is no evidence for a global flood. That religious belief has long since been disproved.

OKay, good. Perhaps you'd entertain some suggestions as to why that cannot be so.For instance...If we trace Pennsylvanian aged rocks from the Grand Canyon to the east, we find that they become more and more coarsely clastic, meaning that more and larger rock fragments make up the units. Then suddenly, they disappear against a major fault with crystalline intrusive rocks on the other side which look very much like the material being eroded to form the sediments.Most of us would interpret that as a tectonic event occurring during that time period, with deeper basement rocks being uplifted and exposed to erosion whereby sediments are shed from the higher lands above sea level.In other words, this depicts a tectonic event on the edge of the Colorado Plateau rocks in the middle of your global flood. That would negate your proposal that there was only one tectonic event, only occurring after deposition of the entire section of sedimentary rocks.What say you?

I had trouble interpreting this one. Is this a good paraphrase, if not please correct:

Floods may lay down layers of sediment, and rivers and rising sea level also lay down layers of sediment, but I will reword this to remove the word "fact" and say that my hypothesis is that the Flood would have laid down ALL the strata in the Grand Canyon including the Supergroup. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'd be well advised to say nothing at all on this miserable thread, since I know I'll only be subjected to abuse of some sort or other and even I can only take so much. But I'm an idiot so I'll give the usual answer, which I've given before, maybe on this thread but I don't remember.This is the part I always disagree with: I don't know in this case but the usual example is of the rock of that particular time period being exposed at the surface. Is that the case here?I see no reason to think the tectonic event occurred "during that time period" at all. My hypothesis is that tectonic events occurred right after the Flood. In the case of the exposure of a lower layer my guess would be that the layers above were eroded away due to the tectonic movement, just as they were eroded away above the Kaibab in the Grand Canyon area. The existence of the fault adds to that idea too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm going to disallow this argument because it makes no sense to say that buried layers were eroded. This is a terribly confused paragraph. Please rephrase into something that makes sense. We will not be discussing nonsense, nor will we be spending pages and pages trying to make sense out of nonsense.