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

Here's your marked picture: You say: Nothing of the sort is in that picture. So I added my own marks to it, indicating how I see the direction of the gravel:

Reading back through recent posts I see everybody's very involved in these dropstones, and thinking something about them is "obscure" to me, etc. I haven't really been paying a lot of attention to it although I discussed how a few should be interpreted. I've been thinking more about edge's gravelly hill and how it has nothing to do with strata and what the definition of strata is and so on. So if I'm missing the point of the dropstone discussion somebody needs to clue me in. Thanks.

Steno's principle isn't about the surface the sediments deposit ON, it's about the surface FORMED BY the sediments as deposited. On that page I posted he says they were all deposited in fluid state, which IS how they look when you see them in a deep stack such as in the Grand Canyon. Anyway, the principle has to do with the layer itself, its own surface, not what it's deposited on. This is why I keep pointing out that if there is a very irregular surface for it to deposit on, such as that gneiss in the road cut picture way back there, or a nonhorizontal surface like HBD's diagram of a slope accumulating sediment, or the monadnocks or hills in HBD's other diagrams, or the surface of a rock that dropped into a stack of still-soft sediments, any new deposition of loose sediment, either dry or fluid, would not form a coherent layer over or around the irregular surface but would butt up against it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, he was addressing what strata ARE and have always been known to be until this weird idea came along that loose sediments can also be "strata," and I have no idea when that happened; for all I know this thread is its birthplace. Strata ARE those layers of ROCK one sees in the many pictures posted here, and most dramatically in the Grand Canyon. You missed the photo edge posted of the gravel on a hill? But this entire discussion is about this issue, whether layers could form BY DEPOSITION IN THEIR LOOSE STATE over an irregular surface such as the gneiss in the road cut photo or the monadnocks in HBD's diagrams and just about every other post for days now. How you can say you don't recall this is beyond me. It's just about ALL we've been talking about for pages and pages and pages... YOU KNOW NO SUCH THING, and I've been at pains to show this. NO strata DEPOSIT irregularly or nonhorizontally. DEPOSIT!!!!! Get the word "deposit." They get DEFORMED in many ways afterward, as Steno's principles are designed to recognize. I can't believe such a simple principle could become as unnecessarily complicated as it has. No, it's because Geology has lost its mind, period. Steno had more smarts than anybody here. There are NO exceptions to the principle of original horizontality in relation to the STRATA.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

LOOSE DEPOSITS WOULD FILL UP A DEPRESSION. How do you people manage to stay upright walking around this planet anyway?

I CAN'T STAND THIS. YOU ARE ALL VIOLATING THE SIMPLEST FACTS OF REALITY AND PRETENDING YOU ARE THE ONES WITH THE EXPERTISE. YOU'VE ALL LOST YOUR MINDS!

There is no way to "sort this out." You HAVE all lost your minds, you, edge, JonF, ThinAir, nutty as fruitcakes. Unbelievable. And maybe even Geology itself. OF COURSE sometimes "materials deposit in a non-horizontal way." They stick to slopes and so on and so forth. BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMATION OF STRATA. THEY DO NOT ACCUMULATE LAYERS THIS WAY. STRATA DO NOT FORM THIS WAY. EVER. And where did this absolute mind-rot come from that the degree of perfection of the horizontality has anything to do with this? If the sediments were originally in a fluid condition as even modern Geology says most were, though I think Steno was right and they all were, then THEY WERE AS ORIGINALLY HORIZONTAL AS IT'S POSSIBLE TO GET whether that means "perfect" or "a few degrees off." You don't even seem to understand how bizarre it is even to think in terms of "a couple of degrees off" in this context. Or anybody else here.When "science" goes wrong boy does it go wrong. Wake up HBD. Stop finding the fault in 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.

The idea that my definition of strata is unique to me is already so bonkers I might as well be addressing inmates in a maximum security asylum.The strata, THE Strata, the one-and-only Strata, that Steno was analyzing and that I always understood to be the One And Only Strata from EVERYTHING I've read in Geology, are the ROCKS we have been talking about forever here, ROCKS, not loose sediments, not gravel, but those parallel LAYERED ROCKS that are seen in most of the pictures we've been discussing here.GOOD GRIEF this discussion ought to get you ALL committed to the boobyhatch. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Take five aspirin and a nice long nap and please avoid posting such silliness again.

I do not know if your definition is complete. I gave you the definition. You really ARE "thin air."

I refuse to get trapped in your definitional game when I don't know what exceptions I'd want to include and when you are so bonkers you'd even ask such a question in such a tyrannical way as if you knew anything about it when it's clear you are more ignorant about this whole subject than the other bonkers people here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then they aren't The Strata.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

duplicateEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sigh.The Strata are in fact rock. There are no unconsolidated sediments, gravel or whatnot, now, that are in any sense even LIKE the strata, or could ever become strata. The Strata are rock, that usually cover thousands of square miles and in some cases cover whole continents and even cross the ocean to other continents.I just figured out what's going on. The actual Strata prove the Flood. The actual Strata have come to an end, are no longer being deposited. The OE theory that insists they are points to woefully inadequate examples of sedimentation today because that's all that's going on today.The Strata are ENORMOUS both in height and horizontal extent and were layered miles deep. NOTHING like that is happening now and will never happen again.I guess now you'll point to layering on the continental shelves as was done some time ago, relocating the Geological Timetable with its "progressive" fossilized flora and fauna to the seafloor after their journey of billions of years up the ladder of Time on the continents. Maybe you'll find a fossilized teacup somewhere near the Cliffs of Dover after they've eroded down to nothing? [Yes I know teacups don't fossilize. Sigh.]Absurdities are all you have to make your claim of ongoing deposition on the scale of The Strata. Steno wasn't so hampered. What he said is consistent with the reality of the Flood but you have to pretend a hill of gravel could be the next Era?So now I understand the madness. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.