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

Thanks for the correction --- stupid English language HBD

I know the definition of stratum and it does NOT include your picture of whatever that is sliding down a hill over a lot of scree.First of all it's a LAYER among other layers, which the Wikipedia definition you posted affirms: It's what Stratigraphy studies. ROCKS. LAYERED ROCKS. I've redefined nothing. YOU and HBD are the ones redefining it with your ridiculous photo of loose material sliding down an incline and HBD's insistence that loose sediment can form strata on inclines.LOOK AT THE PICTURES ON THAT WIKIPEDIA PAGE: HORIZONTALLY DEPOSITED ROCK, ROCK, ROCK, ROCK, ROCK, AND MORE ROCK. And here's my favorite: I like this one because it's CHALK, as in Cliffs of Dover chalk. Obviously deposited as STRATA which is denied in the case of Dover.You guys have your heads as twisted as folded rock trying to prove your Old Earth flimflam with redefinitions of classic facts, and then accusing ME of the redefining. What a bunch of cheats.

Oh, silly me. Of course, THEIR lie about strata is MY fault. Of course, should have known.

Hopefully, this clarifies things: This shows a stratum of coarse grained gravel deposited as a 'foreset bed' at a non-horizontal angle.This is a schematic showing how they form. You will notice that the 'topset beds' are actually eroded away in the presented photograph. Note the very flat surface...This photo is from a gravel quarry.

And that is what we see. Actually, not all of the material is rock and, in fact, much of it is not layered... Actually, you have been shown to be redefining 'stratum'.Unsuccessfully, of course. "Classic facts" such as? Think before posting, you have been wrong on this before.

OF COURSE THEY CAN'T. WHAT ABSOLUTE HEAD-TWISTING STUPIDITY. If Geology says they can then Geology is misusing language, but I've never seen such absolute chicanery anywhere but this thread and other forms of it on other threads here. I've proved my point reasonably and logically time after time, using appropriate evidence, and the only way you and HBD can defeat my argument is by violating language and even laws of nature itself.It takes something that has a form already to be deformed. You can deform ductile rock, ductile strata, you can deform damp modeling clay, you cannot deform a pile of scree or sand or dry powdery clay etc. This is common sense. Oh wait for it, I sense another denial of reality brewing in response. In your dreams, you madmen. None of your examples showed anything so straight and level as those contact. NO! On the contrary, YOU have been shown that STRATA cannot be formed from loose sediment deposited on an incline -- STRATA STRATA STRATA . FORMED-BUT-SOFT ROCK. The sagging illustrated in your New York road cut was of AN ALREADY-FORMED LAYER OF FORMED-BUT-SOFT ROCK, NOT LOOSE SEDIMENT. Not if you actually make the effort to FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT instead of letting your brain harden around one particular impression.The pictures I showed back in Message 213 and Message 313 demonstrate that the contact there is too level to have been formed at the surface, and all the examples offered to rebut that did not disprove but rather proved that.Then you provided what I've been calling the best evidence yet since Message 967 in the picture of the New York road cut which has collapsed on the left, which is obviously a DIFFERENT KIND OF EVIDENCE for the same claim that these "angular unconformities" are not unconformities at all but phenomena that occurred while all the strata or other rock were already in place. There are many DIFFERENT kinds of evidence FOR THIS SAME ORDER OF EVENTS. ALL of it supports YEC, NONE of it supports OE, without violating logic, language and nature itself.I've said this so many times already I have to think you either aren't reading what I write or you have a bottomless hole somewhere in your head that words just disappear into. There is nothing complicated about this IF YOU JUST FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT. You have no ability to recognize evidence because I've provided plenty. Shearing is only one way I've said tectonic disturbance formed an "unconformity" between upper and lower rocks, showing that the upper rocks were already there when the disturbance occurred. That is the case where the "unconformity" is extremely level and the strata above have pretty much remained horizontal. Another way is by roughing up the lower rock as in the NY example so that the upper strata is also disturbed, and disturbed in such a way that PROVES it was already there when the disturbance occurred. BECAUSE DEPOSITING SEDIMENTS WOULD NOT HOLD A SHAPE AS THE LAYERS THERE DO BUT WOULD FILL IN THE GAPS IN THE LOWER ROCK. THAT IS EVIDENCE which you apparently have some kind of personal inability to recognize. Perhaps nothing more than ossified Old Earthism rather than deviousness though it's hard not to suspect the latter. THE EVIDENCE IS THE SAME I'VE BEEN GIVING FOR ALL THESE EXAMPLES: the way the obviously already-formed strata deformed around it. Why can't you read? Why can't you follow what I'm saying? How far they fall shouldn't be a concern. THAT this one DID fall is clear in the photo, evidenced by it's clear path downward from some position behind the strata above it, and again this is evidence that the strata were already in place judging by the way the dropped rock deformed them.

The majority old earthers really need to be called on their ridiculous arguments by someone who has some clout around here, which obviously isn't me --- or anybody else who disagrees with them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What? There aren't enough fractures for you? But why should it have "detached" from the layers surrounding it if it pushed up INTO them. That is, it was never ATTACHED to them, so why would it detach?And you don't see how it distorted the layers surrounding it? Really? The hole full of debris on the left? The broken strata that were pushed up over it? The "drag folds" on both sides showing how its upward movement thrust them upward, even breaking them apart? I wish you were joking because you have such a misinterpretation of this picture I realize there is NO point in continuing to try to discuss these things with you. Really. And you can't see on the dropstone picture that its path merely originated out of sight behind the strata? Then you chide me for supposedly being inconsistent in dealing with what you regard as principles on an equal footing, and I'm afraid I have no patience left right now for trying to unravel the errors in such a misbegotten opinion, especially when I know it will only be defended by all the other confused people here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

To help move the discussion forward I'm going to attempt to explain the point Edge is making. Edge has in mind a scenario where recently deposited layers are still at the surface (likely a submerged surface) when an object like a rock falls on them. The layers, still unlithified and completely loose in that you could easily dig them up with a trowel, will become deformed in a manner like this image Edge presented earlier: The gray rock in the center of the image fell onto already deposited soft sediments and deformed them. Only the layers that are deformed downward were present when the rock fell on them. Sedimentation then continued upon, over and around the rock.The rock could not have been pushed up or down through the layers into this position after they were already there because in that case the layers would be deformed all upward or all downward, including all the layers that the rock would have had to pass through. That the layers are deformed downward for the lower half of the rock and upward for the upward half of the rock conclusively shows what had to have happened.Edited by Admin, : Clarify the explanation by removing ambiguity and adding detail.

Gee, I don't see any mention of "horizontal" in there. Those two statements of yours contradict each other. The definition of stratum does not include "horizontal". I see several strata in that picture which are not horizontal.Many strata are deposited horizontally. It's not an absolute requirement, as we know from centuries of study after Steno. "I'm saying the definition of strata is that it deposits horizontally" is incorrect and is your personal definition and you are insisted the geologists have it wrong. Exactly as I said.

Their definition of a stratum is not a lie. Yours is. Of course it's your fault, but you still won't acknowledge it.

I wasn't going to respond to this, but now I see that JonF has responded, so I will comment.I would like very much to address the concerns you occasionally raise, such as here from your Message 1057: Whether JonF is correct or not, he should be addressing his criticisms to your arguments. He should not be directing them at you personally. But you, too, make personal comments about yourself, as here in Message 1029: The question was about your evidence and had nothing to do with you personally, but you answered with claims about your own logic and grasp of reality. How can I request that people shouldn't make comments about you personally when you're doing it yourself?When someone makes an appeal, such as you did in Message 1057 that I alluded to earlier, my inclination is to take a proactive approach, but I can't do that when within the last page or two I gave the supposedly aggrieved party a free pass when they did something similar.Edited by Admin, : Fix incorrect message reference.

The area in the red circle is not detached. There is no indication that it moved upward. If it moved upward, the entire column would move along with the layers that were supporting it, but it sure doesn't look like the bottom where it is attached moved upward. I don't see how you think that it looks like it lifted up. It was formed on the layer it is sitting on, which is not deformed.Also notice that the layers that are bent are not all bent to the same degree. The ones at the base are bent more than the ones that drape over the structure. No. You can see behind the strata? It looks to me like it fell from above - where things usually fall from. The area the red arrow is pointing to looks like "splash" to me. It appears this rock hit the surface with considerable force, not just rolled along until it sunk in. Objects drop straight down not from an angle.HBD

Why not? (rant ignored) (irrelevant comment) Do you understand what deformation is?Why doesn't a layer of gravel have a form? Deformation is any change in shape, orientation or size of a geological entity by imposed stress. (irrelevant comment) (unsupported denial ignored) (unsupported denial) According to whom? Another unsupported denial... According to whom? (unsupported denial) (irrelevant personal complaint) (irrelevant personal complaint) But you have provided no evidence of shearing. So, still no evidence of shearing. Please describe the 'roughing up'? So if they did not hold a shape, they would readily deform, would the not? These are not evidence. They are wishful thinking. (irrelevant personal complaint) It would affect the presence of a trail that would be evidence. How can it be clear in the photo is its 'from some position behind the strata above it'? That would mean it's not in the photo...Faith, I suggest you dispense with the personal comments, shouting, and complaining and just make your point.

Then please explain this statement from your previous post: I'm not 'clear' on how a 'clear path' can be 'out of sight'. Edited by edge, : No reason given.