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

Steno merely tells the truth about reality, it has nothing to do with him personally but you aren't interested in truth or reality because that would lead you to the Reality of the FLood, which you get to deny as long as you can invent ongoing deposition of sediments no matter how pitifully inadequate the possibilities are for that claim. Pathetic.

There's oodles of cross-bedding in the Coconino. Deposited at about 25-35 degrees and lithified. From Coconino Cross Bedding:

quote:

---

This image taken along the Bright Angel Trail in the Grand Canyon clearly shows cross bedding in the Coconino Sandstone layer exposed by the canyon. The tan colored Coconino sandstone is one of the most dominant features of the Grand Canyon. This erosion resistant layer forms a spectacular cliff of 300-500 feet ( 90 — 150 meters) not far below the Canyon’s rim. Dating to approximately 260 million years old, the Coconino is composed of nearly pure quartz sand. The cross bedded features indicate that the Coconino Sandstone is basically petrified sand dunes. Formed through aeolian (wind) deposition, sand dunes slowly migrate down wind. Sand grains are carried up the windward side of the dune then deposited near the peak. Angled layers are formed as the newly deposited sand avalanches down the leeward side of the dune. The strata of the Coconino Sandstone show some of the most distinct examples of cross bedding on the planet.

---

But even if we could play billiards on the Coconino, that would not give any significant support to your claim that all strata are deposited horizontally, that's one of the many millions of strata we see and the many millions more we don't see because they are completely buried. They have expanded on Steno's findings and made them more accurate. You have not provided any smidgen of an attempt to support your claim of "gone from sane to innsane." You just keep repeating it. Over and over and over and over again. And over again.To address our responses you need to demonstrate with evidence and logical analysis that all the examples of lithified strata we've presented did originally deposit horizontally. Your uninformed opinion alone does not suffice.Then you also have to establish with evidenced and logical analysis why Steno's original formulation is better than the many modern definitions of strata we've provided. "All strata are deposited horizontally" is not a fact in evidence and cannot be used to support your claim, that's circular reasoning, just another unsupported assertion.Got any evidence or analysis?Didn't think so.

Faith, if you somehow missed my Message 1165, please read it now. I've already read ahead to your Message 1171 ("But you aren't interested in truth or reality..."). Please focus on the topic, not on the people you're discussing with. Everyone is treating you with great restraint and respect. I'm not going to repeat this again. If you see some way in which strata of variable thickness could maintain horizontality then you need go beyond requests to, "Open your eyes," and provide an explanation.Edited by Admin, : Add missing period.

I get more and more confused regarding your fundamental position on strata the more you tell us about it. If "ALL the strata are highly variable in thickness", then how can multiple contiguous layers of strata only be horizontal?Those two positions are mutually exclusive. Do you not see the conflict? How do you reconcile such?JB

Well, part of it. Do you understand what I'm saying when I explain that Steno's principles are just that: principles? Do you understand that a principle is not necessarily an immutable law? Do you understand that a principle depends upon definitions? Your personal attacks are getting tiresome. Is this all you've got?

Message 1155Message 1157
Faith, you would do well to learn and remember that to science and engineering, the term "fluid" does not literally mean "liquid". The easy lookup dictionary definition demonstrates that clearly, while a more scientific definition is even more fluid

quote:

---

The distinction between solids and fluid is not entirely obvious. The distinction is made by evaluating the viscosity of the substance. Silly Putty can be considered to behave like a solid or a fluid, depending on the time period over which it is observed. It is best described as a viscoelastic fluid. There are many examples of substances proving difficult to classify. A particularly interesting one is pitch, as demonstrated in the pitch drop experiment currently running at the University of Queensland.

---

Finding a favorite meaning with terms like "horizontal" and "fluid" that suit a particular purpose doesn't help you like you think it helps you, it only backs you further onto rapidly receding footing. Under normal gravitational conditions, particulate solids such as sand, gravel, coal, grain, etc., all act as fluids once their angle of repose is breached and thus can no longer resist shear loads.JB

She is just quoting edge from a few messages above.

You're saying that the quote I attributed to Faith actually is from edge? I'm not convinced that's true, but I'll await your link to where edge wrote it and Faith quoted it from.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Asgara was replying to your Message 1174 where you quoted Faith saying, "ALL the strata are 'highly variable in thickness,'...". Asgara was only saying that the "highly variable in thickness" portion was just Faith quoting Edge's words.Maybe Asgara is implying that when Faith called it nitpicking that she meant that she doesn't really believe the layers are variable in thickness, but I don't really know. I hadn't considered that interpretation, given that measurements of the thickness of layers in different parts of the canyon isn't something that can be legitimately challenged.

Ok, got it. Thanks for the explanation.And your observation is correct -- either Faith accepts that the thickness of the Coconino varies dramatically which gives her conflicting positions, or she denies the Coconino varies and is in violation of reality.JB

From BerkeleyEdu:

I can't believe you answered my objection that you have no examples of layers forming on an inclined surface by pointing to the very diagram you claim deposited that way. That's Begging the Question Beyond Beyond.Then you ask how I think uplift produces crossbedding? And your title says you are awake?I don't know why you all make crossbedding an issue. Sandstone layers are still horizontal, crossbedded or not. Flat upper surface in the Coconino. They make very striking flat-topped block-like strata in such formations as the Tepui.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

...Steno reasoned ...

---

You notice is says "Steno reasoned" ... it doesn't say "Steno drilled millions of holes and studied thousands of cuts and traveled the world with the help of tens of thousands of helpers gathering data and confirming his reasoning.You can cherry pick from 300 year old science writings and you will show that 300 year old cherry picked science writings will often differ from the field observations that follow. You will show nothing more.JB

The "field observations" so far illustrated on this thread in answer to the observation of horizontality in The Strata, Capital T, Capital S, are all diagrams, one that shows a single layer on an incline that would never ever take the form of The Strata, Capital T, Capital S, or diagrams that are better interpreted in terms of original horizontality; or a photo of gravel on a hill. And all this pitiful stuff is presented against thousands of square miles of flat horizontal slabs of rock that may cross entire continents at a depth of miles. Oh and then everybody gets SO nitpickingly prissily precise about HOW horizontal horizontal is.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If someone wrote "vehicles such as cars" would you then conclude that all vehicles are cars?I quoted Steno using the word "fluid" in a general context, a liquid context, and a gaseous context. ThinAirDesigns provided a couple definitions clearly stating that a fluid can be a gas or a liquid. It's time for you to give this up and move on with discussion of the topic.