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

Never mind: Off TopicEdited by edge, : No reason given.

I should have added that discussion of off-topic subtopics can be resumed in appropriate other threads, such as Origin of the Flood Layers.

All you did with that post was give me more to boggle at. I don't know where to begin to respond to you so I'm not responding.

When Edge asks, "Where did the stone come from?" he's asking for the explanation of how, if dropstones fell through all the layers above, that those layers that the dropstone passed through are completely intact.Where Edge mentions mechanisms that produce the appearance of dropstones in the geological record, he's saying that you haven't made clear why you don't accept them.Concerning Edge's reference to your claim that unconformities are shear planes, he's saying you still haven't addressed any of the many problems people have raised with this idea.I didn't understand Edge's comment about the gneiss and the sediments.About Edge's interpretation that you said the whole world turned to mud, I did try to help out with this one, pointing out to Edge that I didn't believe that's what you meant. On the flip side, sometimes you can be so careless in your expression and care so little about plausibility that it can create a great deal of uncertainty about what you really mean. Sure, how could Edge believe anyone would say something so stupid as that the whole world turned to mud, but when one considers the array of highly questionable things you've said, who knows for sure what you meant. But now that you've made it clear what you meant, Edge should drop it.Edited by Admin, : Clarify last para.

I didn't include any upper layers so who says they are intact and why does it matter?Is this one better? {If I did it again I would extend the "drag fold" layers that wrap down beneath the stones deeper.}I'm interested in one thing with this experiment: whether the layers close over the stone after it's reached its resting point, or further deposition is needed to create that curved "drape" over the stones in the pictures, which is what is claimed. Despite your clarification of edge's meaning I don't see his question as relevant or even making any sense. Another boggler for me. What mechanisms don't I accept and why does it matter? But I disagree. I don't think any of the objections answered my challenge because none of the pictures produced were level and straight enough. I also explained more than once that I recognized there were different situations at different sites, I pictured the straight and level ones and he then introduced the one with the layers sagging into the gneiss, which is of course NOT an example of a straight and level surface and I thought I said so many times, but no matter how many times I said it he still insisted I was claiming they were all shear planes. Similarly I also said over and over that the layers were obviously soft -- formed into recognizable layers but still soft enough to sag -- and he still claimed I denied the layers were soft when they were deformed. This is extremely tedious. Well, that's two of us. He thinks the gneiss should be soft too? If it IS gneiss isn't it already hard? I mean gneiss is metamorphic rock. So he's picturing a planet-sized ball of mud? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not thinking of such minuscule tolerances though I'm accused of insisting on an impossible perfection. Overall I would expect all deposited sediments to arrive at a horizontal surface no matter what the shape of the foundation it deposits on. Depends on how fluid the sediment is how close to true horizontal it gets, also how much territory it covers, the more square feet/meters/miles etc the closer to horizontal; but I'd assume it would form a VISIBLY horizontal surface in any case, NOT draping over pre-existing rocks as shown in the McKee drawings HBD posted in Message 970where I consider the draped Tapeats sandstone layers to be evidence that the Tapeats was already there when the rocks it's draped over pushed up into them, which would in turn be evidence for a younger earth than the usual interpretation that they were deposited unconformably on top of pre-existing ancient eroded rocks.

I'm dragging on getting out to pick up pebbles for the experiment. The metal nuts I have are very small, I'd like something at least a half to three quarters of an inch in diameter.But meanwhile I suspect there are all kinds of examples that prove my point about horizontally deposited (DEPOSITED is the key word) sediments as opposed to the idea depositions (DEPOSITIONS) can drape over pre-existing rocks, I'm just going to have to look some more.Two instances occurred to me, however:1. The simple fact that rocks lie all over beaches everywhere without sand draping over them.Google Images, Rocks on Beach: Most rocks on beaches are perfectly clean of sand, but there are a few the sand has stuck to, coating them all over, but without a sign anywhere of sand draping over the rocks. 2. Then there's this picture of the Great Unconformity that's been posted here recently: If the Tapeats was in the habit of draping its layers over the underlying rocks, shouldn't we ask why it appears so level, straight and horizontal in this picture instead of draping over the Shinumo quartzite in the upper right, and over the metamorphic rocks in the lower left?

This image is very helpful because the dropstone on the left makes clear the point that I think Edge has been trying to make. Here's an image of just that dropstone: In this image the dropstone has fallen with sufficient speed to become embedded many layers beneath the surface. The dropstone's path through the layers is indicated by the disruption to the layers it has passed through.But here are a couple images showing dropstones with absolutley no disruption to the upper layers: Edge believes, and I think everyone in this thread believes, that you're claiming that dropstones fall through many layers to their eventual position without disrupting any of the layers above, except those layers closest to them. This seems impossible to everyone, so some clarification from you is needed. If this isn't your position then that is a great relief, but in that case you need to make clear what your position is. And if this is indeed your position then you need to explain how you believe it possible for a dropstone to pass through all the above sedimentary layers while leaving no record of its passage.Dropstones were introduced into this discussion to provide evidence that during sedimentation icebergs floated overhead and dropped stones onto lake and sea bottoms which further sedimentation then buried. The unanswered problems I can recall at the moment with your idea of the Grand Unconformity as shear surface:

• Where is the evidence of shearing?
  ​
• How did tectonic forces manage to stop tilting layers right at the bottom of the Tapeats without ever affecting it in any location?
  ​
• Where are the missing cubic miles of material?

There may be other issues, and if so if someone could produce a more complete list it would be appreciated. Edge will have to clarify. Touch.

I think this will come as a great surprise to everyone. You were pretty strong in your insistence that Steno required strict horizontality with no deviation, and in your insistence that Steno had it exactly right 350 years ago and that geology had gotten horizontality all screwed up since.But you continue in a way that adds some uncertainty to your meaning: Well, yes, gravity causes all loose material to tend toward the lowest point, and if the surface is perfectly smooth and all loose material is round and smooth like ball bearings then all loose material will go directly to the lowest point. But in the real world surfaces are not perfectly smooth and loose material does not resemble ball bearings. Any actual sediment falling on a tilted surface will only roll or slide toward the lowest point according to the requirements of shape and friction.So if you sprinkle sand evenly across the water's surface of a tank containing sand with a 1% slope then the additional sand should form a layer with a 1% slope.And if the slope of the sand is 2%, then the additional sand should form a 2% slope.And if the original slope is 3% then you should get a 3% slope.And so forth, up to a certain limit depending upon conditions.Now, if you disagree then it would be very helpful if you could explain why, because sand is very gritty and is going to stay pretty close to where it falls and not roll down to the lowest point, not unless the slope is more steep, somewhere above the maximum possible angle of repose. Well, yes, but for the most part sediment isn't very "fluid". Fill your tank with water, then gradually add sand at the water's surface, but only at a single point at the exact center of your tank. You'll get a pile of sand at the bottom of your tank with a decidedly unhorizontal surface. It would probably be very helpful if you could make clear why you think this is true. If the sedimentation rate is the same everywhere across the region, why should the area of the region matter as concerns horizontality?I won't respond to the rest of your post because I think that might draw me out of the role of "moderator as facilitator" and make me more of a participant.

And yet every single time we've asked you (and we've asked you a LOT) to imagine what sort of tolerance there was to your 'horizontal" (even when we ask you about FIVE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE DEGREE out of perfect horizontal) you responded with descriptions of just how crazy we where and how you could not believe how out of touch with reality we are. Yep -- over and over and over she did this. Well, until YOU define what YOU call "horizontal", we can't even imagine what you mean by that statement. That is why we have attempted to get such a definition from you for pages and pages and all we get is retorts and obfuscation. Of course it does, that's what we've been trying to tell you - and we've been trying to tell that when it comes to soils, the measurement of just how "fluid" a sediment is is called the "angle of repose".Here are a few samples of sediment shoveled from the bottom of a lake showing several different consistencies, NONE of which are in any hurry to become horizontal (whatever your definition is). In a high energy environment, these would disperse into the water and spread out. In a low energy environment, they will not be growing legs and moving themselves to the low end of a lake whether that is a hundred yards or miles away. It's simple physics Faith.So now that you've acknowledged that by "horizontal', you don't mean perfectly flat, let's return the question in Message 1122 and see if we can't make some progress. Can we get an answer now?JB

Suggesting that freshly depositing sediments could form draped layers is what I consider to be pretty screwy. Already-formed-but-still-soft layers could drape over objects, as I argue is the case with the gneiss road cut picture, although that's much more of a sag than a drape, but not liquid sediments being deposited. This seems like ordinary common sense to me which is why I get driven batty by all the objections to such ordinary observations, with the demand that I clarify down to minute distinctions between horizontal, 1% deviation from horizontal, and so on and so forth. PERFECT horizontality is not the point. If it's not liquid enough it may not lie PERFECTLY horizontal but it WILL lie horizontal and it WON'T "drape." Even a less liquid sediment should nevertheless spread out to a horizontal surface even if deposited on an incline. .OH GOOD GRIEF. We're talking about SAND suspended in water, calcareous ooze, suspended silt, suspended clay, muddy slurries. It would have to be fairly thick or lumpy stuff to maintain an incline it deposited on. Not that it's impossible but look at one of those very deep walls of the Grand Canyon: THAT's what I mean by horizontal and I don't care if there's a tilt of some percentage to a whole block of them and I don't care if individual layers thin out or thicken to new depths at some points, I don't mean anything more precisely horizontal than what you see there. And I know this will not suffice but it's the best I can do. I really do not understand all this nitpicking that goes on here. I'm sure you don't have the agenda of getting me to tear out all my hair, but you might as well have. So let's say you're right up to 3% -- or more "depending on conditions" and I even gave some conditions above, thickness, lumpiness etc., all I'm trying to say is that you will not get a freshly deposited LAYER -- and the Tapeats IS depicted as LAYERS on those diagrams HBD posted - identifiable layers, not just bunches of sediment -- to DRAPE as they do as shown on those same diagrams, over pre-existing objects. ALREADY-FORMED-BUT-STILL-SOFT-LAYERS could deform around an object, but then the object would have to be an intrusive, not already present when the layers originally deposited. If you don't find this commonsensical then at least see it as my expectation or hypothesis. There go the eyebrows. Forearm hair next.I'm trying to use the word in Steno's sense. Fluid enough to spread out and form the actual strata we actually see in the Stratigraphic Column. You may not get as smoothly horizontal a surface from a few square feet of sediment as from a few square meters or more.

I just read your first line and I'm not reading any more. I dislike your attitude.

From Faith's posts, I got the impression that the transition from the gneiss to sandstone was a continuous sedimentary sequence and that the metamorphism was somehow confined to the gneiss. I failed to see how this could happen. Surely, the most plausible explanation is that the metamorphism and the deposition of the Potsdam Sandstone were separated by a very long time period, partly characterized by an erosional event.

Hi Faith,I lack the time to spend any more effort on moderation today. I'm sorry you found my post frustrating, but I can't imagine expressing myself any more neutrally and mildly than I did, so it can only be the objective information and rationales I presented that you found frustrating. That you think it's nitpicking means there are important implications that you're missing.I'll try to answer your concerns tomorrow, but I'll comment now that I found much of what you wrote full of ambiguities. Every wiggle one way was counteracted by a different wiggle another way, and in the end I often felt I had no idea what your position was. But I'll give it a 2nd and 3rd read tomorrow to see if I can garner something more certain from it.I also just saw your reply to THD in Message 1347. You've given pretty much everyone in this thread the same impression about horizontality that THD and I described. You can't blame anyone for expressing frustration at this very obvious reversal in position, and using it as an excuse to not address his concerns is childish and makes it much more difficult for me to maintain a constructive discussion environment. If you don't feel up to replying to THD today then why not take the rest of the day off and come back to THD's post tomorrow?

Yes, with only that as your evidence that is a reasonable conclusion. But my point is that the evidence of the sagging layer on the left leads to the completely different conclusion that the layers were already there when the gneiss was tectonically disturbed. I don't know when or how the gneiss was formed either, except that the layers above were already in place when it was roughed up as we see it, with the hole on the left side and the deformed strata above that had to have occurred at the same time as the deformation of the gneiss. Therefore its roughed-up condition was not the result of erosion before the deposition of the strata on top of it.