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

In the interest of my education (and also in the interest of supporting assertions with evidence), could you please direct me to the resources where this "most basic law of geology" is found prohibiting layers from depositing in any manner other than horizontal.It should be super easy for you to find since it is after all "the most basic law of Geology".ThanksJB

Exactly -- just in the last bit I have found (as I knew I would) reference after reference and picture after picture of situations (mud flows, flaser beds, etc) that form nonhorizontal deposits in higher energy environments.What's crazy it that when it suit her, Faith responds that "the most basic law of Geology" says that deposits must be horizontal. Next she tries to insert Walther's law all over the (inappropriate) place which of course when it IS invoked properly, isn't leaving purely horizontal deposits.But hey, I'll be waiting for her references for this "most basic law of Geology".JB

Agreed. The devil is in the details.JB

Or a snowstorm. JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Perhaps you have a larger version of the picture available than I do, because I can't seem to find the 45 degree cracks you refer to, but for sure the vertical striations regularly occurring across the face are cut drilling artifacts.JB

Thanks for providing a link to the resource that proves your assertion false. This is a pretty common YEC tactic and fun to watch.From your link:

quote:

---

As one of Steno's Laws, the Principle of Original Horizontality served well in the nascent days of geological science. However, it is now known that not all sedimentary layers are deposited purely horizontally.

---

Nicely done.JB

Wait, that can't be true! According to faith that defies the law of gravity and the most basic law of geology.I'm seeing evidence that Faith lacks understanding of the law of gravity along with the laws of geology. But yeah, that's funny that it comes from her own link.JB

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

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.

Like everyone else that has chimed in here, I find it impossible to follow the positions and definitions Faith uses regarding this issue of horizontality. I think your question is nicely worded. She wants to somehow hide behind the word "horizontal" as if it has a hard and fast literal meaning in geology and yet everyone (including her) knows that nothing in geology is going to be literally horizontal. Thus there must be some more broad meaning used.Faith harumps that it's some sort of affront to Steno that geology has added to its knowledge in the last 3+ centuries since he made his first (and quite limited) observations. Well, tough noogies - that's how science works, it continues to add knowledge to the whole. We now have Einstein's general and special relativity with no one hating on Galilean relativity. Steno wasn't a god who is not to be questioned.I'm still trying to figure out how the very law of gravity got so impacted in a few short posts.In Message 988, Faith clearly states that for layers to be deposited non-horizontally, gravity would have to be defied. While in Message 1052, she claims that it's no longer a 'breaking the law' issue, but a definitional one (both are nonsense of course). Hard to follow and looking forward to answers.JB

That's like saying "The principles relevant to paint application aren't about the the shape of the car the paint is ON, it's about the surface FORMED by the paint as it's applied."Unless you apply enough layers of paint (25ft thick?) to eventually totally disguise the shape of the car, the paint is going to take the form of the car. As more and more layers are applied, sure -- it will look less and less like the car, but the initial layers will indeed look much like the original form.THAT is the question that is being asked of you - if the deep and still bottom of the lake bed were to slope from East to West by .05 degrees, would the sediment form an even layer across the lake bed or would it somehow all magically be displaced to the West (lowest end) of the lake? How about .005 degrees? How about 5 degrees.Surely you must be able to imagine some minute angle that is close enough to horizontal where the deeply placed sediment just stays were it falls. Conversely you must be able to imagine an angle that is steep enough that WOULD cause the sediment to slip to the deep and and not adhere to the lake bed surface.What are the limits of these two angles that you are imagining?JB

You appear to be avoiding answering the easy question:

quote:

---

THAT is the question that is being asked of you - if the deep and still bottom of the lake bed were to slope from East to West by .05 degrees, would the sediment form an even layer across the lake bed or would it somehow all magically be displaced to the West (lowest end) of the lake? How about .005 degrees? How about 5 degrees.

​

Surely you must be able to imagine some minute angle that is close enough to horizontal where the deeply placed sediment just stays where it falls. Conversely you must be able to imagine an angle that is steep enough that WOULD cause the sediment to slip to the deep and and not adhere to the lake bed surface.

​

What are the limits of these two angles that you are imagining?

---

JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

It's a simple question Faith -- even marbles and ball bearings have an angle of repose based on the surface upon which they are placed. Even those round items won't roll to the low point if the angle is slight enough.You appear to be living in a hypothetical frictionless world where everything always goes to the lowest spot under ALL conditions. Well, the world isn't friction free.Surely you can answer such a simple question rather than bob and weave so.

quote:

---

THAT is the question that is being asked of you - if the deep and still bottom of the lake bed were to slope from East to West by .05 degrees, would the sediment form an even layer across the lake bed or would it somehow all magically be displaced to the West (lowest end) of the lake? How about .005 degrees? How about 5 degrees.

​

Surely you must be able to imagine some minute angle that is close enough to horizontal where the deeply placed sediment just stays were it falls. Conversely you must be able to imagine an angle that is steep enough that WOULD cause the sediment to slip to the deep and and not adhere to the lake bed surface.

​

What are the limits of these two angles that you are imagining?

---

Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Well, since you have your own unique definition of the word "strata" (along with many other words), I have to change the wording of the question:Is a layer of sediment which is made up of particles previously suspended in water, then settled out of the water and then subjected to lithification and thus turned to sedimentary rock "strata" by your unique definition?JB

Avoiding a simple question again aren't we.I'll ask again. JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.