>>Do you agree this proves that the greywacke must have been solid rock when the horizontal red sandstone layers were deposited ?>>
Yes, probably. Do you agree that there must have been substantial horizontal movement by the sandstone layer above it?
Finally got a straight answer, thanks. So that shows that the red sands could not have been deposited rapidly after uplift and folding of the lower strata as you have been asserting. Not sure I understand your question though. If you mean when the sand was originally deposited then yes, it was moved about by water/wind.
Your idea surely could NOT have caused the transported quartzite rock found in the GC.
What’s that got to do with Siccar Point ? Anyhow, I already answered this to you before on the out of place fossils thread. The block may have been eroded from an island of Precambrian rock that protruded up through sea floor sediment during the Cambrian. Different scenario.
Me: >>Also, do you deny that a rapid deposition can produce layering?
W>>No. You're not going to bring up Mt St. Helens are you ?>>
Yep...so that disproves the point you tried to make. Distinct sorting and layering can be done without it implying long time between the layers. AND this can be done underwater. If you were shown areas around Mt. St. Helens (without knowing their context) you would tell us how LOOOOOONG it had to take to make them.
It’s such a desperate ploy to bring up Mt St Helen’s to extrapolate to every different type of sedimentary rock around the world. Do you think geologists can’t tell if a formation is volcanic in origin ? Are you saying that Siccar is volcanic ? The greywacke is a turbidite rock, deposited by turbidity currents. That part is laid quickly but the interbedded mudstone (composed of fine particles) was not.
>>>How would these beautifully preserved ripples remain intact if they were uplifted vertically while still soft ? <
Two words: cementing agents. They would be no longer soft or AS soft as they were when the ripple marks were made. Something firm enough to record ripple marks still COULD be folded.
You can’t just pull cementing agents out of your rescue bag (like you did for preserved dinosaur footprints halfway through the flood in the OOPF thread). The sediment would still be full of water. That water needs to be squeezed out before it starts compressing to rock, a process that takes a lot of time. Surely you can’t seriously believe those ripples could survive being tilted to a near vertical position only hours after formation ? Because it would be hours under HPT wouldn’t it ? And doesn’t HPT say that cementing agents only came out of solution years after the flood as the oceans cooled ?
Of course you believe such yourself, because you think solid, hardened rock gets folded, right? Do I need to show that to you? (I have pictures of folded rock which can NOT occur at the surface...like you must believe happened.) Can YOU can explain them?...how did they get hard enough to not be obliterated when more stuff from the "landslide" fell onto them? Was it some LOOOONG time period to get them hard and then conveniently there was ANOTHER landslide of stuff to preserve them? It was NOT just a soft filtering down of stuff falling from above either (which sounds pretty "ad hoc" to me!)...it was violent horizontal movement, right?
I’ve told you before that solid rock gets folded deep underground where pressure and heat allows plastic deformation so please discard your surface strawman.
I don’t see why a sudden burial by turbidite would necessarily obliterate ripples, especially if already buried under mud (which would have been the case since the fossil ripples occur on the upper surface of the greywacke, the softer mudstone having been eroded away). Remember these ripples aren’t everywhere, it’s hardly a stretch to imagine favoured locations for preservation. Also remember that only the harder greywacke (turbidite) layer was formed by sudden horizontal directional flow. The interbedded mud must (because of the laws of physics) have been deposited under benign conditions.
BTW, I would defy you to locate a single place on the planet where ripple marks are found deep on the floor of any ocean...even IF it is near some supposed landslide!
I’ve already shown you a link that proves this (post #5)
The concept of waves or flows of sediments washing into land areas and then water receding out (for a short time) explains not only ripple marks, but also animal tracks. Your idea surely does NOT.
It’s mindboggling how you could seriously believe your model explains these things better. The alternating greywacke layers are many hundreds of metres in depth. How many times did your ad hoc cycles of water transgression and receding take place to create these layers (this is even before the red sandstone is laid with its associated non marine fossil fauna) ? How on earth could land animals survive all this to wander about making tracks during the flood period ? Why do trace fossils of burrowing animals occur throughout the sequence and other marine fossils such as graptolites also occur throughout with not a single terrestrial lifeform ?