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

I know that this discussion is getting a bit technical and confusing, but honestly, I'm starting to see it as a red herring.Here is an extract from a Wikipedia article that describes what happens during compaction of a sediment. If we look at the ramifications of this, we can see that even if Faith were right and all sediments were essentially fluid, compaction effects would create (guess what...) draping of sediments (described as an 'anticlinal closure' in the quote). This sounds like some of the diagrams drawn by McKee in the Grand Canyon, and effects seen in some of the sagging bedding over irregular basement surfaces.The point here is that, however they form, inclined and 'draped' bedding happen. They cannot be rationalized away by wishful thinking, nor is it necessary that they be 'proven' by an experiment.I'm going to write something up on the 'fluid' topic later today. The thing is that sediments are, indeed, not fluids, ... but they can be fluidized.ABE: In keeping with Percy's post 1380 requesting a bit of generosity, what I'm saying is that Faith has a point. It just doesn't apply to the situations that we are discussing. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I'm pretty sure no one has tried to say that sediments (and sands and gravels, etc) are fluids, but that they have well known, well defined and demonstrable fluid properties. These properties allow sediments to be deformed as shown with the drop stones, etc. Which makes the point (whatever it is) irrelevant.JB

Evidence Faith, evidence. If I have misrepresented your position I will happily alter my statement. I simply can't see where I have. As I read your posts, I see endless assertions that sediments can only deposit horizontally.JB

Faith, answering the questions edge and Percy present with that excellent drawing would go a LONG way to clarifying your position.What *does* happen to the sediments dropped out of suspension at the far edges of the drawing? This is the core of the questions that we have ALL been asking you.JB

Faith, the area that I have been questioning you on has absolutely nothing to do with creation or anticreation - it has to do with simply, repeatable physics. You can wade into a pond and 5 seconds later feel the folly of your position squish between your toes. You can fill a tank with water and drop in layers of colored sand and see the folly of your position before your eyes. Me pointing that out is not showing off or low.JB

Well, honestly, I'm not sure what Faith is saying. On further thought, I agree. No need to elaborate.

You're trying to be clear, but you DO NOT MEAN to be exact?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Oh, that's funny Faith. I'm on a computer who knows how many miles from you? What am I supposed to do -- send you equipment and materials so you can produce the needed experiments in the comfort of your own home? -- OH WAIT!!! That's already been done apparently to no avail.We've done "OUR job". We've shown you numerous ways of finding out for yourself how sediments drape across uneven underwater terrain -- both experimentally placed (tank) and naturally placed (lakes, ponds). We're not going to get a warrant, handcuff you and drop you in a cow pond - you have to have some interest in the truth on your own or you just will remain frustrated and ignorant.All it takes is a curious mind rather than a decided one.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

I interpret this to mean that you haven't been given evidence. Is that right?If so, then why do you say this? We either provide you with evidence or we don't... Based on many discussions with YECs, I'm pretty certain that they have a different idea of what evidence is. But photographs are evidence. Websites are evidence. Quotes from experts are evidence. Tables of numbers are evidence. Schematic diagrams from observers are evidence. Opinions of professionals are evidence. Logical deduction is evidence.Biblical quotes are not evidence. Preconceived notions are not evidence. Hearsay from uneducated YECs is not evidence. Quote mines are not evidence. Wishful thinking is not evidence. Dreams are not evidence. Unsupported assertions are not evidence.Now, you can debate the quality of evidence, but casual dismissal and simple denial are not acceptable forms of debate. Faith, you have been given a large number of photographs. Almost every one of them you have just glibly dismissed until recently.How many photos do you need? Frankly, sometimes I think you disagree with some of our posts even when it isn't necessary. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Message 1366

Hi Faith, This is really unconstructive, so I'm going to suspend you for an hour again.There was already a reply to that message. You dismissed it in two separate messages, in one saying, among other things, that the experiment described wasn't about something you wanted to test, and in the other accusing me of "pedantic putdowns".

For some reason you are all concerned about my description of sediments depositing horizontally but I keep trying to say that’s not what interests me. I don’t care if I’m right or wrong about that. MY interest is in the specific claim that layers can drape over each other and an object AS SHOWN IN THOSE DIAGRAMS BY MACKEE where the Tapeats sandstone is illustrated as draping in that way. More than the diagrams are needed to clarify whether it’s possible for them to be deposited that way or it’s something that occurs as a deformation of originally horizontally deposited layers. A photo maybe, if there is one. It is this, and only this, that I’m saying has not been evidenced. Diagrams, descriptions, etc., but nothing to make it possible to really SEE what’s going on.Just so you know that from my point of view this is what I’ve been trying to focus on:From Message 1366 From Message 1368 In Message 1370 Even back farther I'm trying to get this in focus, such as in Message 1341 and Message 1363 and probably in other posts around that time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What on earth is the problem ?If one layer can drape over an object then it seems obvious that another layer can drape over it.

But the point is that if you accept that sediments can be deposited on a slope then there is no reason to deny that they can drape over a topographic high point like a boulder, a monadnock or a dropstone. But we have shown that it happens. We have even simplified the whole process by referring to dropstones where there are no outside forces of currents or faults or folding, just gravity.Once you start introducing currents, compaction, faults, heat, etc., anything can happen, whether you've got 'loose sediments', mud, or hard rock. It's all pretty much irrelevant. Basically you are saying that unconformities are tectonic, the sedimentary sequence from lower section to upper section are continuous and that sedimentary/erosional features above the unconformity are not possible. I have just been through scores of websites showing draped bedding. Are they all wrong? And why would the be wrong?Why do I not show them? Because I have already predicted your responses. There are hundreds of ways to make ad hoc claims about any one picture and I'm not going to play that game any more. The way you have controlled the narrative here, there will never be a photo that will satisfy you. There is no doubt that sediments can be deposited in an inclined orientation and that the slope can be controlled by pre-existing topography. Unfortunately, there are a number of ways that it can happen, and many of those ways are in the soft sediment state.The point is that we see it in the rocks. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Are you saying that you would have to trust heathen geologists in order to take their word for it? I guarantee you that, if McKee saw a monadnock uplifted by a fault, he would have depicted it.Let's cut to the chase here and have you provide evidence for your following positions (assuming I understand them):1. the Great Unconformity is tectonic in a significant way,
2. that tectonism occurred in the latest part of geological time
3. the sequences of rocks below and above the unconformity are
a continuous depositional sequence unbroken by erosion
4. The sedimentary structures above the unconformity are due to
some kind of tectonism and not related to sedimentationAs yet I have seen nothing in the way of evidence for any of these conjectures. And don't give us the old 'it looks like', or 'it's obvious', or 'anything else is silly' arguments.

Okay, one reference showing the reasoning behind sag folds (actually, I guess we should call them 'apparent folds').Now, can we scale this down to a dropstone? After all, the stone will not have the same compactability as the enclosing sediments... Here is the associated diagram: If someone wants elaboration, perhaps tomorrow. It's been a tiring day. The channel cut and fill deposit (third diagram) is very common in coal mines. I'll look for a picture.