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

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.

Message 1366

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.

Showing that sediments may deposit on an incline does NOT show that they "drape." Too bad there isn't a photo of those areas of the Tapeats that McKee illustrated.

You've seen draped bedding and you won't post the pictures because I might interpret them differently than you do. Wow.

Which is the only condition I've been saying could produce "draped" layers over objects, whereas sediments in their original "fluid" form would not do this.This picture edge posted way back there which I marked for Message 967 shows that condition of the layers on the left that have sagged into the depression in the gneiss on the left. This is really not draping either, it's just a still-soft but clearly formed LAYER that sagged from its softness into that low spot. I think it's really the closest thing to draping that could occur, however.Here I've circled the layer (or layers) I'm talking about: I suppose it could be interpreted as the gneiss being pushed up into the layer on the right rather than its sagging into the low spot on the left, but in either case the layer I've circled is clearly a formed layer, not in any sense original loose sediment. It's formed but still soft/plastic at the time of its deformation, not exactly draping but in my opinion closer to it than you'd get with originally deposited sediment.DRAPING implies clinging to another object as shown in the McKee drawings where the Tapeats sandstone drapes first over the rock and then over other layers of sandstone, ALL OF THEM HAVING THE RECOGNIZABLE FORM OF LAYERS. For this reason I interpret them as having already BEEN layers, already in that "plastic" condition, formed but not hardened, when the rock intruded from beneath, as I do not believe sediments in their original "fluid" condition would deposit in such a clearly LAYERED way that drapes over underlying objects. Showing that sediments may deposit on an incline does NOT account for what McKee has shown in the drawings. My own expectation is that they are more like the sagging layers in the photo above, and not quite as "draped" as the drawings indicate -- that is, I wouldn't expect that they cling closely to the underlying object, but sagged and stretched over it due to their plasticity. This is why it would be nice to have photos of that same area, since a drawing would leave out the necessary detail.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that FRESHLY DEPOSITED SEDIMENTS IN THEIR "FLUID" CONDITION can't do that, but that FORMED LAYERS THAT ARE STILL PLASTIC could.

So this is the post you claim I "ignored?"So I'll comment on it now: The examples of sag or drape that are described in the quote are consistent with what I've been saying about this occurring with soft but formed layers but not with sediments depositing in the "fluid" or "loose" condition.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

NO. That is not "draping."

These illustrate draping. Drag folds too.

From Google Images a photo (below) that I think pictures the area of two of the diagrams by McKee, (b) and (e), which I found by searching on the location references at the bottom of the page. But it's one of those touristy pictures that is more interested in the sunset than the formation so you only get a hint of the Tapeats layers. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm just going to respond to two points in your post right now:Yes you missed the lines over the dropstone on the right side of my diagram, which I put there at the same time I redrew the stone on the left. You are right, they shouldn't be there.As for your question about this image: The fact that it's a FORMED LAYER that had to have sagged AFTER ITS FORMATION. As I've said five billion times already.But be careful about that idea I "conceded" what you say. All I said was that I don't care and it doesn't interest me whether sediments can deposit on a slope or not, I don't regard that as "draping" or anywhere near the basis for a stack of draped layers.

The plastic strata in the McKee diagrams was deformed into draping by being pushed up by the underlying rock. Implying rebound. Yes, that's true. I'll have to think about it.

OK. I'll get to that at the bottom of the post. It's frustrating to keep being dragged back to that basic argument while the issues that concern me get ignored. I still believe Steno was right but trying to prove it would take a lot of extra time and I don't feel like arguing it with people who are determined to deny it.HOWEVER, perhaps I really don't have a choice. But here's another attempt to answer your question from a slightly different angle: Here's another image to help explain: In this case I've marked some indicators of the deformation of the rocks. The arrows point to the contacts between the layers, showing that the layers are separated from each other, not laid neatly one on top of the other as you see in fresh deposition; and I circled places where the rocks broke at the edge, or "hinge" if you will, of the area to the left that sags away from the central area. The larger circled area shows the general disturbance that occurred in the stack at that point, and the smaller circled area shows where the layer itself was broken. These are clear indicators that the layer was already formed when the disturbance occurred that caused the left side to sag. Formed enough to break but soft enough to sag.If the layers had been deposited into that low place after the disturbance had occurred there would be no gaps between them or breaks in the sandstone at all. So there's some evidence that doesn't rely on the horizontality argument.Again I don't want to keep making an issue of that because of all the resistance and the difficulty of proving it. Partly I know they were originally horizontal BECAUSE of the Principle of Horizontality which so many here deny, absurdly I'd say but oh well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.