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

No, HBD, this planned experiment has nothing to do with the diagrams you posted. It is about that road cut with the sloped lower left layer. And with regard to that, it IS about whether or not the strata themselves ever deposited on a slope (the STRATA, LAYERS, not whether sand forms slopes for pete's sake-- this is not to you but others on this thread). If it's possible then it's possible, I guess I'll find that out, and if it is then I'll have to give up my argument about that road cut.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As for the relation of the Geo Time Scale to the Geo Column I don't think that's on topic in this thread and don't know why it came up, and it just seems like one of those irrelevant academic points with no practical relation to anything being discussed. But it does relate to the other thread where the extent of various strata came up, and a practical point I'd make about that is that if all the strata really were formed in the Flood, then there's no more Geo Time Scale -- deny THAT relationship between them.

There is something seriously wrong with this discussion. Original horizontality refers ONLY to STRATA, not to alluvial fans or any other mere dumping of sediments. Sounds to me like your professor lost track of the context. It can happen, professors aren't God.Just google Steno's principles. The first entries make it clear Steno was talking about strata.

If I can get a good layer on the slope in my experiment, and I may go for multiple layers in separate runs, that will end my argument about that road cut, but it won't prove that strata DO form that way, only that it's possible. In another similar example it may be possible to show original horizontality so I'm not at all required to give up on that basic principle of the formation of strata.The road cut was to me an example of the pre-existence of the strata on top of the basement rock at the time of whatever upheaval caused the left side to sag. It secondarily became an argument for original horizontality in general, and that is a principle I'm not giving up even if I have to concede that the sagged layer could possibly have been deposited in that sloped position,.

I haven't been dishonest about anything and as far as the discussion of the difference between the geo column or strata or whatever you prefer it be called and the geo time scale that is ALWAYS seen appended to it on diagrams, it continues to be an academic point without relevance to the argument I've been making, and all anybody has done IS to give general academic definitional statements about it that don't show anything I've actually said to be wrong.I have the very large slabs of rock in mind that span huge areas of geography, and most of them do have separate areas of local composition while nevertheless being basically the same rock slab. Since so much territory was covered by a miles-deep stack of these slabs of rock in the past it raises questions about how to visualize the supposed landscapes and surface topography that one wouid expect of a long time period on the planet when flora and fauna thrived, which usually IS represented by a particular rock layer with its particular fossils on all those diagrams.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm at vacation rental house with fam. have had tools for experiment set up since first day and explained it all to them but not which side I'm on. J made a clay slope but want to photograph angle of repose first because the clay sticks hard to the container. --if it isn't one thing it's another. Clay is very hard to work but i think i have a creditable slope now. no it's not slippery, if anything a bit sticky which may be a good thing. I did pour some hills of Coragyps' sand to check angle but alas another glitch. the sand is way too fine and i get very low angles with it. even the colored sand we got at the crafts store to make the layers is fine and also forms a very low angle. Not sure if I could get them to make another trip to find coarser sand. They are out a lot or otherwise preoccupied so getting photos is being delayed.

This experiment turns out to be a major headache. What could go wrong, right? Well, everything. Maybe someone else will want to do it.The container Coragyps sent is too narrow for any kind of sieve I could find so I resorted to trying to spread the sand evenly with hand motion from a narrow funnel. It got too thick at the ends so I guess that method doesn't prove anything about whether an even layer would form from a more even deposition method.I cheated and made the layer look more even (which is cheating on my opposition's side) so I could try another layer in another color. Bright orange made clumps instead of depositing evenly and a lot of it floated on top of the water. Weird. No additives are listed on the package so I assume it's just dyed sand but something interfered with even deposition.Did get a couple of pictures just to document the disaster. Did photograph the sand mound too and the angle dry is 30 degrees. Clay got stuck in the container so couldn't use that for measuring the sand angle wet. Tried a glass bowl. Couldn't really see the mound through it but since it must be the wrong kind of sand it doesn't really matter anyway. Included all these pictures anyway. I'll send them when I get home.Sorry.

Hello Percy,Thanks for posting those pictures. I might as well just write a new description although I don't have anything against your posting what I wrote you.I tried everything I could think of to copy them myself. Just now I managed to copy the second one into Paint so I could draw a line to indicate the original surface of the gray clay slope. but I couldn't get the margins right. Yesterday I couldn't get it to go into the Pictures folder from there, which is necessary for posting it to Photobucket. If it isn't one thing it's another.For reference, I had smoothed out the lightcolored sand to make it even so the clay surface pretty much parallels the upper surface of that sand layer.The angle of repose picture should be straightforward. On first runs the sand seemed to be flattening out to a strangely low angle but when it came to doing the experiment it worked fine and the angle is within the expected range, which is what I expected as did everybody else. Couldn't see the mound I made in water in a glass bowl so that one was a dud.The nondrying clay we got for the base of the slope was almost too stiff to work into a shape but finally managed it. I'm remembering oilbased clay from years ago that was softer. Can't count on anything being the same any more. Did finally get a slope that matched the one in the roadcut picture but it kept sagging in the middle. I was out of gray clay* so I made the "rock" to support it out of the white clay, which can be seen in the picture.I couldn't find a sieve that would work with the narrow opening at the top of the container so I resorted to distributing the sand from the bottle Coragyps had sent that has a narrow nozzle, like a ketchup or mustard bottle. Started with the lightcolored sand and did as even a motion from one end to the other back and forth as I could manage. I think I did a good job of even motion but the sand deposited more thickly at both the top and bottom of the slope, where it flattens out. That would confirm my own theory but I figured I couldn't make a good case for it on the basis of my method of distribution. Maybe it IS a good case but someone else would have to get the same results to confirm it for sure. I guess I couldn't accept a confirmation of my own expectations, could only accept everybody else's claim that it should distribute evenly over the slope. Weird but true.Also, the light sand fell down between the gray clay and the wall of the container to a small extent too, obscuring the surface of the clay slope, further distorting the result, which is why I wanted to draw a line to indicate the original slope.So I considered it failed, whether it was or not, and smoothed out the lightcolored sand to distribute it evenly over the slope as a base for another try with the orange sand.Same method, distributing it from the nozzle end to end. But oddly it clumped up as you see in the picture. Some floated on the surface, the rest made clumps on the sloped light sand. Nothing on the package indicates any reason it should clump. Just sand dyed orange.Again, however, it did deposit more thickly at the top and bottom and more thinly on the slope itself, which can be seen in the picture. And again I can't be sure if this proves my own "theory" or is just an accidental result of the method of distribution.Never got to the blue sand, same type as the orange. Two failed layers seemed enough to call the experiment a flop.And here I thought this would be just an easy fun little experiment.Grandsons had a good time playing with clay and sand, at least, even if the experiment didn't exactly capture their interest.======
*Number One Grandson had made a cave with a rattlesnake in it as a gift to me out of the leftover gray clay so I couldn't complain about running out. Complete with fangs in opened mouth ready to strike. What is it with boys and snakes and wild beasts and alligators or cars and trucks, which is the sort of thing he loves to draw or mold with clay. Does testosterone explain it all? Or is that a factor at age seven? As he himself said with a slightly scornful tone, "And guuurrrrlz make unicorns and princesses and castles." He was surprised, by the way, to hear that Nevada has lots of rattlesnakes so he wasn't inspired by the location. He thought they all lived "in the Sonoran desert." Then he spent hours looking at a map of Nevada and invented a game about all the different towns he found.====================
HERE's another copy of the picture, a bit larger to show more detail, but not as large as it can get: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I may have put it differently at different times but most of the time I said what I mean: sand won't deposit EVENLY on a slope to form a layer like the strata we know and love. If it deposits more thickly on the top and bottom approach to a slope it doesn't make a layer like the strata. Where the strata are twisted and deformed the layers remain even too, they don't vary in thickness.The question was whether that sagged layer in the road cut had sagged while damp, after the whole stack had been deposited, or got deposited that way. There is no thickening at top or bottom of that layer. If that is what normally happens with deposition on a slope YOUR theory has been disproved, not mine.abe: [Msg=1752] says This quote doesn't say sand won't stick at all on a slope and I never meant to say that. But sand sticking to a slope has to be even at all points or it isn't a layer like the layers we've been talking about.And remember I "cheated" and evened it out so what you see proves nothing anyway.ABE: I don't want to have another semantic flap here. I reported what I got and what I thought about it. If anything I thought it confirmed my theory but I didn't claim it because I didn't know if my method was consistent enough to draw any conclusions. Apparently you had different expectations, the mere sticking of sand on the slope part. I consider the experiment failed. If somebody else wants to do it some other way, fine with me. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Mostly to Admin:Some time ago you said there are posts on this thread you want me to answer, and I did intend to go back and do that, but so much has happened since then I wouldn't know where to start. So please show me whatever you want me to address and I'll try to do that before I'm swamped with a million other things.

I'm afraid you've misread the image, edge. That's not mud, that's rather stiff dark gray nondrying clay that nothing could sink into. Although I did my best to get a tight fit between the clay and the sides of the container there was apparently enough space for the very fine sand to filter down between the clay and the container wall. I mention that in my description. It was one of the effects that spoiled the experiment.

It can't make a stratum if at any point the layer deposits more thickly than at another point. I didn't anticipate that so you simply ignore it and confine your definition to the part about the distribution on the slope alone. The whole point was DO STRATA EVER FORM THAT WAY?Note in this diagram of the Kaibab Monocline that the thicknesses of the strata vary slightly along the length of a layer but do not accumulate more thickly on the horizontal parts. Isn't this what should be expected of layers depositing on a slope? Of course this block of strata didn't deposit on the slope but was deformed all together AS a block by the lifting of the Kaibab plateau. They climb from the Tapeats to the Kaibab or from the pre-Cambrian to the Permian, and one would think that at least the "earlier" layers would have been lithified beyond the ability to deform even if the upper were still soft enough to deform. But that's another subject.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Lovely. Just rule in favor of your side of the argument. Lovely. No problem, I don't expect fairness here. I used to but I got smart. Sand on a slope does not prove strata can form that way and they don't, but that's all right, it serves you all to think they can.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But probably not in the geological column as we know it from the Precambrian to the Quaternary.

I believe I indicated that it doesn't relate to the present discussion. It's a glorious bonus perhaps. to be treasured for its special revelatory value.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.