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

Percy made up the "very active seas." All I said is that the sea water was steadily rising across the land, not "rushing," rising. Took five months, that's not "rushing."

Yes. we know ... you didn't drive over the speed limit on your one hour, 100 mile drive.He has explained the "If A, then B" to you clearly in several different ways and you STILL don't get it. I'm honestly no longer sure if it's willful or just a complete lack of ability to understand the basic laws of the universe. Either way, on your part it's all speculation and no evidence.JB

As usual I have no idea what you are talking about, which must be your plan since it can't be all that hard to say what you mean.(Hint: Sometimes I don't read parts of posts that don't relate to the topic I'm thinking about, due to having to deal with so many opponents and so many arguments, so you are probably wrong that I even read this speed example you are accusing me of not understanding. Don't assume things.)And what evidence is needed to know that forty days of heavy rain everywhere on the planet would turn hills into mudslides and the world into mud?But beyond that I've given plenty of evidence of many parts of the Flood scenario.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This would have been a good place to stop.Following that line with a series of descriptions of the "pre-Flood" world - using words like "probably" and "likelihood" - tends to reinforce the already stunningly obvious reality that pretty much everything you say is pulled directly out of your butt, with no justification other than rhetorical convenience, and with no regard to what you have said elsewhere.

Is it just my imagination or am I now getting the Accusation Brigade out against me, who don't bother to quote me or prove any of their accusations true?My view of the pre-Flood world is pretty standard, my view of the Flood events within the usual ballpark, all of it perfectly reasonable based on the Bible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, evidence needs to be interpreted. However, you have no interpretation for radiometric dates, for instance. No. If the Great Unconformity has such irregularity, it cannot be a shear plane. Nonsense. Solid bedrock will not turn into a mudslide with just the addition of water. Good, then perhaps you can provide evidence of trees in Cambrian strata. Then you should first provide evidence of a god. Then provide evidence that a god had some interaction with the earth. It is supported by evidence.

My interpretation is that they reflect some kind of systematic error which will eventually be discovered. It's a shear plane where it's a shear plane, and irregular where it's irregular, and examples of both on this thread give evidence that they were created after, and not before, the strata above were deposited. It's not one thing in all places, and none of them are "unconformities" anyway. Another of your fantasies apparently, like the forest fires and the lack of life before the Flood, since the mudslides would have been a stage on the way to exposed bedrock. Since there was no such thing as a Cambrian time period -- that's just a figment of the geological imagination -- what evidence of former life is found in those rocks lived alongside the life found in all the layered rocks from bottom to top, all at the same time in the pre-Flood world, all the strata being a record of that world. That's what God's word is for. Tons of evidence there, all given for the very purpose of proving His existence and His nature and His constant interactions with this world. It's all there, everything you ask for and much much more. All this clamor for "evidence evidence evidence" and when it's handed to you you throw it away. So you say. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Trilobites and crabs, Faith. Every three months I remind you that they have NEVER been found together. Dimetrodons and dinosaurs. Anomalocarids and ray-finned fish. Stegosaurs and mammoths. Tree ferns and maples.
The entire fossil record says you are Making Stuff Up.

Yes you do keep harping on this, but all you mean is they aren't found together in the same rocks, which is meaningless. Why should they be?

Be sure to let me know. Won't work. It's like putting two gears together and forcing them to slip. That's like saying that the dropstones were emplaced after all of the strata were in place.That was the purpose of that whole exercise.ABE: What you should actually do in your exercise is place the nut outside of the container and make it materialize within the layers of sediment, forcing the layers to deform around it. /ABE Okay, go ahead and run your garden hose on a sheet of granite and be sure to tell us when it turns to mud. According to whom? Please show us where tree fossils are found in the same age rock as the Cambrian trilobites. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke here. That's not evidence, any more than my word is evidence.Admit it, your god is simply saying what you want her to say. No, you can't even provide your god as a witness, much less prove that she exists. That is the evidence. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Actually, more to the point, they are not found in the same age rocks. If you say that they are, please provide evidence. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The rocks are all the same age.

To expand on a earlier comment ... What is the point here?What you will show is that strata form in a non-horizontal state and/or that it can be deformed while soft; neither of which you acknowledge as being possible at the unconformity surface.You will also show that deformation can be non-tectonic, that is: no necessary uplift of basement rocks to get deformed strata.AFAICS, you are only going to show things that you cannot explain with your scenario.

Along the lines of something I said earlier, here's a list of things that can be imagined but that haven't yet been supported with evidence:

1. Sufficient rain can sufficiently soak landscapes to turn them into suspended sediments in flood water.
   ​
2. There were no deserts before the flood and the Earth was lush with plants.
   ​
3. There were no high mountains pre-flood, just hilly country.
   ​
4. There were no extensive plains pre-flood.

So now you deny Superposition.Original Horizontality is an immutable law, but Superposition is irrelevant.ABE: Steno must be very upset with you... /ABEFaith, Cenozoic rocks with mammalian fauna are always younger than Cambrian rocks with trilobites. Always.If you don't think so, then please provide a correlation chart showing where trilobites are in the same age rocks as elephants. Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.