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

OK, to try to simplify: What I have in mind is that IN THE FLUID STATE when depositing, as the Strata appear to have been deposited --- whether that means "liquid" as in water-borne, which I usually assume it means, or "fluid" in some other sense --- anyway, in the FLUID state, or as "loose sediments" which is another term I've used, for the state of being unconsolidated grains...in THAT state I expect them ALWAYS to deposit horizontally on any surface, any incline, and NOT 'drape" over objects AT ALL. They should deposit horizontally AROUND objects, they should deposit deeper in depressions and more shallowly where the base surface is higher and always produce a horizontal surface of their own.I really don't think there is any experiment we could do to try to get loose sediments to drape IN LAYERS, which is what you all think the MacKee diagrams show. But some kind of proof is needed. Otherwise I interpret those draped layers to be already-formed-but-soft layers that are forced into a draped position by intruding rock. You'd have to SHOW me otherwise, not tell me, not rely only on a diagram that I interpret differently. So far I've seen nothing that suggests to me that unconsolidated sediments could drape over objects.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'd like to suggest you use more standard terminology. Keeping this simple, sediments are solid grains of material weathered off rock. Sediments have no liquid state, no fluid state. Sediments are solids. But sediments, especially when they're tiny grains, can be suspended in water (and in air and ice, but I'm keeping this simple), and of course the more active the water the larger the grains of sediment can be while remaining in suspension. As water becomes less active sediments will fall out of suspension, the largest grains first, and of course in still water all the sediments will eventually fall out of suspension. Sedimentary material that falls out of suspension accumulates on the bottom.A loose layer of sediments on the bottom is given the term unconsolidated. The term "unconsolidated" does not apply to sedimentary material that is in suspension. Sediments will remain where they fall unless the slope of the surface is too steep given friction, shape, adherence, etc. No, sediments will not "always produce a horizontal surface of their own." Here's an illustration of an experiment you could carry out in your sedimentation tank. Arrange the sand to slope as shown in (a), with the steeper slope on the left being as steep as can be maintained with sand under water, and the less steep slope on the right. Now sprinkle sand evenly on the surface of the water, preferably a different colored sand. If you don't have different colored sand then trace the original sand height on the glass of the tank with a marker: What you imagine should happen is shown in (b), a flat horizontal layer of sand on the bottom.What will actually happen is shown in (c). The sand slides down the steep slope to the lowest point, making the sand deeper there, but the sand on the less steep slope stays precisely where it falls. Proof shouldn't be hard to come by because you have the means in your possession - Coragyps sent them to you. Sediments falling out of suspension onto some surface will stay put unless the slope of the surface is too steep given friction, shape, adherence, etc. Perform some experiments and you'll see this yourself.

1. I have enough sand for an angle of repose experiment, not sure about anything else.2. Your experiment wouldn't tell me what I want to know: which is whether a number of layers can deposit one on top of another, being recognizable AS layers, but draping over an object and each other, as illustrated in the MacKee drawings, not a slight incline. This is the experiment I said might not be possible.3. According to your view of it, the Stratigraphic Column could never have formed at all.4. I doubt your scenario but it's not the one I want to test anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No Faith, you have scientific proof all backwards and wrong. Testing and demonstrations of the "mere theory" is EXACTLY how we determine whether the theory is any good or not.Every time you are shown a picture of a sediment that was deposited in a less than perfectly horizontal manner you claim that it couldn't have happened. You say it couldn't have happened because you say it's impossible to have happened. Thus every picture you are shown you deny - more pictures are not the answer.The answer is in the multitude of real world demonstrations of the theory that have been brought to y our attention. For example (as previously mentioned), just go to almost any lake or pond in a vegetated area (thus there will be organic silt deposited). Recognize that this lake is deeper in the middle than at the edge. Take off your shoes and step into the shin deep water at the edge. Feel the silt squeeze between you toes. DONE!!!!!Wade out as far as you wish. Put on a mask and dive deeper. The bottom of the lake is tilted *significantly* and yet the sediment layer is DRAPED across the bottom of the lake. Get out of your armchair and see how things actually work in the real world. Then and only then will you be qualified to make such judgement.JB

Of course you missed my point. You've all been giving me theory, diagrams, assertions etc. Where's the evidence? That's YOUR job.And I reinterpret some evidence you give, that's my job. That's not denial of the evidence, that's denial of your bogus interpretation.The Tapeats illustration needs some photos. The illustration is open to my interpretation as well as yours. I'm not sure photos would resolve it but it might.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is an outright lie.

What you have in mind isn't of much value if it doesn't align with reality of how things behave. There's no such thing as "liquid" sediment, so you can just take that out of your mind.Liquid can suspend and carry sediment, but will never be the sediment because by definition sediment is what falls out of suspension and lays on the bottom. Once it falls out of suspension, it's no longer part of the liquid and will never behave in the manner you are imagining.JB

Did I miss something? Have you now decided that sediments CAN drape objects like the drop stones you were shown? If you changed that position I'm happy to revise my statement.EDIT: You see Faith, this is one of the issues of communicating with you -- the lack of consistency. For upteen pages you've been saying just how impossible it is for sediment to lay down in a non-horizontal manner and just how stark raving crazy we are to think otherwise and then you object when I state your position as such.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Let's get off this pedantic insistence on precision with terms like "fluid." It's nothing but browbeating and oneupmanship.Steno himself used the term to refer to the condition of the "matter" as I quote in Message 1094. "Matter." MATTER was fluid.And I'd suggest to you that you ought to be ashamed of yourself coming into this forum to use me, the only creationist here and the butt of every kind of anticreationist slur, to show off at my expense. That's low.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Double liar.

See Message 1374. When the moderator resorts to pedantic putdowns it's time to give up the position.ABE: What's with this prissy insistence on formal scientific terms? The term "state" doesn't have to have a scientific meaning, it is perfectly acceptable English for "condition." "In the fluid condition." This is open to the same kind of browbeating objection, however, if you have a mind for that.Meanwhile the whole point of my post attempting to simplify has been mangled beyond recognition.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

With reference to Percy's most recent diagram, I have a question for Faith. In the diagram, what happens to sediment that falls in the area of the far right arrow?

Somehow got a double post...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I suppose that if I point out that it is the matter resting ON TOP of the deposited sediment that is fluid, you'll accuse me of pedantry, too? The fact is that the quote does not say that the sediment is liquid, nor even imply it. Any suggestion to the contrary is obviously false and to point that out is not pedantry.

I was simply defining terms. There was nothing pedantic about it, and it certainly wasn't a putdown.The tone of your recent messages tells me that you're passing through one of your "find fault with everyone and everything" phases. I don't think it is a good idea for you to be posting right now and so have suspended you for a very short period, one hour.My moderator ruling is that it is important to agree upon terminology, and so I will try to encourage that as much as possible.To everyone else: Please help keep this thread on an even keel by approaching Faith's recent posts in as generous a frame of mind as possible.