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

Yes. But don't leave out WHY: If the irregularity is pre-existing then we're talking about LOOSE SEDIMENTS depositing on top of it and filling in the spaces and irregularities, but STRATA THAT ARE ALREADY FORMED but still soft enough to bend can be deformed by an object that intrudes into them AFTER THEY ARE ALREADY THERE. They are there first, the intrusive object comes later, the already-shaped strata can be pushed aside, bent, drag-warped etc. Yes. And st least in the case of that picture of the drop-stone that ought to be indisputable. You can see the path it took through the strata. The straight and level contact was my first evidence on this thread that it isn't an erosional surface but occurred after all the strata were in place. Recently we've been discussing the different kind of evidence shown in the NY road cut and some of HBD's diagrams and his two latest pictures. In these examples the evidence for the YE order of deposition is the sagging of the layer into the depression in the gneiss. Twice now I've explained that this is a different kind of evidence for the YE order of deposition from the straight and flat evidence. They aren't straight and flat but they demonstrate the same order of events: strata first, followed by movement of lower rock. I don't know if shearing was involved in these last two instances. They provide a different sort of evidence for the YE order of events than the shearing example. It doesn't. I've explained this too, edge, I don't know if you aren't reading what I write, or somehow misread it or what. The carbonate mound must have been pushed up from beneath, and the path of the dropstone is clearly visible in the strata.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

HBD, I've had in mind for days trying to get back to many of your posts but it seems too much for some reason. A lot of it that you are addressing things that I just don't see as related to the subject. Maybe I can get to some of them anyway. Sorry, you didn't. I was thinking of that mound you illustrated for angle of repose. That is not a layer, it's something else. And how often does it happen anyway that the angle of repose isn't exceeded so you get something resembling an inclined layer instead of just some sediment stuck to a slope but most of it piling up at the bottom?I'm trying to keep the focus on strata. You are saying that strata can deposit on an incline. I'm saying the definition of strata is that it deposits horizontally. Not that sediments can't deposit on an incline but then they aren't strata.We'd have to go over the different parts of your diagrams where you think the strata deposited in the draped fashion and I think it started out horizontal and then sagged or draped from its original horizontality over and around an intrusive object. The prospect is so wearying I hope it can be avoided.Your illustrations demonstrate that sediments can stick to an incline. They don't demonstrate anything about normal strata formation. I don't remember calling you a liar though perhaps I did. What I remember is saying that too many Christians BELIEVE the liars. If I haven't yet even done Coragyp's angle of repose experiment I'm not too likely to get to this one either.Have you done this experiment yourself?Why set the rock on a bed of sand? Isn't it supposed to represent a pre-existing unconformity?Again I don't doubt that you can get some part of sediments to stick to an inclined surface. What I'm saying is that this is not how STRATA form.In your diagrams there are strata going every which way, draped, thinned, etc, but they all still clearly originated as strata. What we'd have to analyze to test your view is how many of them stay within the angle of repose. Very few I dare say. If they were loose sediments as in your experiment, then I'd expect some sediment to stick to some of the inclined surfaces, whether of the rock below or the previously deposited sediment, but they would not maintain much resemblance to strata. They'd pile up a lot in the lowest places instead.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, there's your problem.In the real world, just as "smooth" is a relative term based on scale, so is the term "horizontal". The surface of the earth is quite smooth from distant space and quote rough on a walkabout. The term "horizontal" is essentially meaningless if taken 100% literally in nature because nature doesn't do horizontal. Even the most perfect dry lake bed is curved because gravity lines are not parallel.What looks "horizontal" from a distance will be quite uneven up close. Even a granite slab polished to the best perfection available for the exact purposes of achieving horizontal will look like a rutted mess under a microscope.One of the dead giveaways when looking for man-made objects on earth, whether from space or at your feet is to look for relatively perfect straight lines -- other than light, nature doesn't do visible straight lines well.You're looking for a loophole to get you out of this mess -- your "Layers that aren't perfectly horizontal aren't strata" won't get you there.JB

Hi Faith,I'm just trying to help discussion along, not participate and definitely not trying to make anyone look bad. You had said that you could see no strata, and I was only letting Edge know I thought the strata in the image might not be as apparent to others as they are to him. I also thought the scree that fills the lower region of the image isn't necessarily easily recognized as scree, especially since the image is rather small: Concerning your image where you've circled a number of different areas that you describe as perhaps containing a "bit of scree" but whose appearance you think may have something to do with sunlight, I can't speak to the circled areas in the upper half of the image, but the circled areas in the lower half of the image all include a great deal of scree. There are also a couple other areas of scree in the lower half of the image that you didn't circle: Here's a closeup of one of the areas you circled, the one in the lower right. It should remove any ambiguity that it is scree:

Yes, thanks, that does remove the ambiguity. Sorry I misunderstood your point.

Faith makes up her own definitions and insists that geologists have it wrong. It takes forever to figure out what she's trying to say for that and other reasons.

Totally substanceless posts attacking a poster are supposed to be against the rules.This time I'm going to ask you for evidence from the last hundred or so posts on this thread to support your accusation.It is so frustrating to me to be misunderstood I'd really like to know if there's something I'm doing that you can identify that could give me a way to change it. But don't suggest a course in Geology. I've read an awful lot of Geology online over the last decade anyway. But if you can point to things I wrote that you consider to be incomprehensible I'd appreciate it.

So, once again we see a demonstration of YECists redefining a word to meet their agenda. A stratum does not have to be a book-like layer to be called such.

Ironic. Your insistence that a stratum is defined as sedimentary rock deposited horizontally. And edge's post just above this shows that others interpret your words as I do. Any confusion in communication is at your end.

So, 'loose sediments' cannot be deformed? But we have shown that to not be the case. But we can see sagging of loose sediments as well and we know that they can be deposited in a non-horizontal fashion. You have been shown this. But you said that the Great Unconformity is a sheared contact. How do you do that with monadnocks in the way? And then when did the unconformity become an erosional contact?Your scenario is way too complex... Well, it would be good to know. That might provide some evidence, which you clearly lack. Again, evidence would be good. 'Must have' is not evidence. How far do dropstones fall? There are quite a few in the NeoProterozoic...

But an assertion that you make up your own definitions isn't substanceless -- it's demonstrable based on the evidence of just the last pages of this thread. Here's a suggestion -- internal consistency.Just upthread a bit Message 988, you claimed that layers depositing nonhorizontally would defy the law of gravity. Within just a few posts Message 1052 you changed your tune to say that sediments actually CAN deposit on an incline, but that when they do they just aren't called strata. So what happened to the law of gravity between those few posts? Was it fundamentally altered?You slip these changes in personal position/definition in quietly and without a single "Ok, I learned something -- turns out the law of gravity need not be broken for sediment to drape other objects within it's angle of repose and the principle of original horizontality doesn't mean that literally, to the micron, sediments deposit only horizontally." No, you make these changes seemingly arbitrarily and thus we have no freaking clue from one moment to the next what your actual position or definition your working from.You asked.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Here is a dropstone from Namibia. Which direction did it come from and how far did it sink into the sediments? Why are the strata wrapped across the top? I think the kinetics here are pretty clear. The stone dropped into recently deposited sediments, sinking into the loose sediments by several centimeters, deforming the underlying layers pretty severely.ABE: So, the whole point here is, why cannot irregular erosional surfaces have similar effects on the sediments above an unconformity?Then the overlying layers were deposited on top draping across the dropstone which still extended above the original sedimentary surface. These overlying sediments are not nearly as deformed.ABE: This picture is like a cross-section. By the way, this would be a classic question for a Geology 101 quiz: which way is up?Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Biology is my area of "expertise." I am currently a masters student in plant pathology and will most likely go on to get my PhD (my PI has already told me that funding would be available). I haven't even taken a geology course, but would love to... my PI doesn't seem to want to pay for me to take one, something about not applying to my field of study I told my wife that when I finish my pathology degree I was going to go on and get my PhD in geology . She said "OH NO YOUR NOT!!!!" Wives Anyway, my goal for posting here is not to prove Faith wrong, but to learn and to practice developing arguments. Geology is fascinating, but yes, I am learning as I go. However, I rarely post anything off-the-cuff, but I do quite a bit of research and try to be reasonably confident about points I am making. The "Michigan Basin" was a poor example that I chose because I was in a hurry. I should have know better because I am actually somewhat familiar with the area.My point to all this is that I would welcome any corrections that you or anyone more knowledgeable about geology than myself could offer. My goal is to learn, not just to prove YEC wrong. However, I think "bogusity" is a bit harsh.HBD

If the carbonate mound pushed up there should be fractures where it detached from the layers surrounding it or at least it should have distorted them. Do you see that? I think these types of formations are formed by carbonate saturated water dripping from above and building up the mounded deposit over time - like stalagmites (I saw a picture of one of these types of formations in the GC, but I can't find it right now).ABE: edge pointed out this formation is a stromatolite (see Message 1065) probably formed underwater Yes, it is clear where it dropped into into the sediment that already existed, but there is no "path" through the sedimant above it. What I find really odd is your response to the 5 basic geological principles that are used to determine relative order of geological events. Your response to these principles is inconsistent.1) Principle of Uniformitarianism - completely reject
2) Principle of Superposition - this one is OK
3) Principle of Original Horizontality - this one is uncompromisable
4) Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships - You can waver on this one depending on the situation
5) Principle of Fossil Succession - completely rejectThe thing is that these principles are all on equal footing with respect to knowing what happened in the "unwitnessed past." They are simply principles that guide us in unraveling the order in which geological events happened. By what standard do you accept or reject these principles.I can't even remember what got us started down this "draping" rabbit hole, but the point is that yes, in general sediment is deposited horizontally. However, there are situations where deposits are not horizontal, like edge said once, things are usually more complicated.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.Edited by herebedragons, : spelling correction

Your example is from Namibia, also. This one is thought to be a stromatolite growing on the ocean floor. It is basically a small coral reef that is/was harder than the enclosing sediments. As the sediments deformed (compressed) around the mound they formed drape folds. Look up 'carbonate mounds'. They are a diverse set of geological features. I know very little about them. Not even for a meter; and, according to Faith as near as I can tell, the have to fall through several kilometers of sediment. Of course I'm sure she doesn't consider them to be 'drop stones' anyway. (editorial comment to keep in mind for your thesis: 'principles'...) It had to to with showing that the unconformities are erosional surfaces and how the sediments can drape the Shinumo 'monadnocks' (well, 'hills' that form islands). Faith says that if they are sedimentary they would be flat and level, not warped, which is clearly false. Edited by edge, : No reason given.