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

I'm content with my understanding of the road cut example, as sufficient evidence that there was no erosional time gap between the gneiss and the Potsdam sandstone above, based on the sagging of the layers on the left. They weren't deposited that way, they clearly sagged when still soft. The placement of the explosives shows it was not affected by the road cutting but pre-existed it.I think the extremely flat surfaces of the GU in the pictures in Message 213 and 313 and other examples of the Tapeats as an amazingly flat shelf-like formation, is still good evidence despite the ONE picture edge found that is flat enough based on erosion.And if I am able to do some experiments on the deposition of sand when I have company here in June who can photograph the results, I may have some evidence against the OE erosional scenario in McKee's drawings and the dropstone examples too. We'll see. Meanwhile the road cut is definitive as far as I'm concerned. No point in pursuing other examples.

I'm sure you are. I presume you are also content with the fact that you really have no evidence to support this contention. I'm sure you enjoy your certainty. And I'm sure you are also comfortable with the fact that the Great Unconformity is also highly irregular in some places, and that you have no explanation for this dilemma. Of course. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I don't think anyone is confused about what you believe. I think it's safe to conclude that everyone already understood that you believed the layers on the left "sagged when still soft." What people are seeking from you is a description of what you're seeing in that Potsdam sandstone road cut that leads you to this conclusion. What do you see in these tilted layers that tells you they were originally horizontal and only later became tilted?

I guess if you can keep asking the same question that's been answered dozens of times already you can create the impression that it hasn't been answered. I'm not biting.

I think that everyone agrees on this. It's just kind of a red herring that Faith keeps tossing out. I would say that they were very soft, probably deposited that way or compacted during lithification.The real question is the mechanism and its timing. Faith has not provided any evidence for her scenario, but simply said that 'it looks like', based on some convoluted biblical interpretation.

I defy you to show I ever used a "convoluted biblical interpretation" in discussing the sagging layer.

Okay, an 'inaccurate biblical interpretation'. Your arguments, however, are convoluted.

I have never used ANY biblical interpretation.

Right. You don't interpret, you are infallible.

That's interesting. I wonder who wrote these sentences then. Message 641 "What you are calling reality cannot contradict the Bible or it is not reality, and both Old Earthism and evolution contradict the Bible." Message 938 "Of course I mean what if you're wrong, and that really it's the Bible that tells the truth about the world and that scientific evidence must be false where it contradicts it?" Message 952 "IF tectonic movement occurred, what I KNOW is that it had to occur within the Biblical time frame." Message 1276 "I start from the fact that a worldwide flood as described in the Bible couldn't possibly act like any local flood except in very brief temporary episodes at the very beginning." Message 1285 "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."And there are more...
Message 674
Message 798
Message 864
Message 872
Message 875
Message 1234
Message 1480

But the question hasn't been answered. You originally claimed that the appearance of a section of rock face indicated some kind of disruption, but then it was explained how blasts using vertical blasting holes create road cuts, and explained how the section you were looking at lacked blasting holes, so the rock must have been broken away by jackhammers and heavy equipment.After that you went away for a couple days. Now you're back, but you still have provided no explanation for what evidence you're seeing in the Potsdam sandstone road cut that tells you it could only have been deposited horizontally. Here's the image of the road cut again:

Since you've stated on at least several occasions that you know you are right because of the Bible, this denial is inexplicable short of a lack of honesty and integrity, or at least of memory.To everyone: The Bible is not the topic, so please just let drop any discussion of the Bible or what anyone said about it.

I didn't say I never referred to the Bible. What I said was that I haven't used it as an argument about the sagging layers, or any other specific issue that I recall. What would be the point with somebody like you who couldn't care less?

The blasting affected NOTHING that is relevant to my argument. the argument is completely about the lower left hand corner where the layer sags down into a depression in the gneiss. It is not broken as it would be if it happened recently, after lithification, it SAGS. It even LOOKS plastic, like damp clay. Despite all the argument about how it could have been originally deposited as loose sand on that incline, the idea is ridiculous. The layer IS separated at the contact lines both above and below, where the shadows are, although some try to pretend they are not separated. Compare them to the extremely tight contacts of the layers above, these are separated, by some kind of disturbance that occurred while the rock was still soft enough to deform.The layer is evenly thick too on that left side, too, which it would be if already formed as a horizontal layer. It bends from an identifiable point, right above the bush I misidentified as part of the dark rock above it, that rock being displaced and the rock to its left tilted downward, the layer in question sagging the farthest into the low place of the gneiss.ALL THIS IS EVIDENCE that the rock was SOFT but had already been formed AS A HORIZONTAL LAYER when the disturbance occurred that caused it to sag. The same disturbance either pushed up the gneiss on the right or dropped it on the left, which was the cause of the sag. The layer in question is evenly thick where it sags on the left but is "pinched out" over the gneiss on the right, which also means it had to have been soft at the time.In the teeth of the obvious somebody will insist it deposited that way, which is ridiculous. The whole area tilts to the left, including the rock above with its tight contact line. It's a denial of the obvious reality but that's all they've got. I hope I can do the sand experiments in June but it shouldn't be necessary, the rock is evidence enough.

What you said was, "I have never used ANY biblical interpretation."Please drop the Bible or anything about it or anything anyone said about it as a topic of discussion. You're earlier mentions of the Bible were off-topic, but unfortunately one can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, so the fact that you made those mentions is now part of thread history that can't be erased. When someone says you based your claims on the Bible I can't fault them for saying that because it is true, but please, no more mentions of the Bible from you, even to respond to someone else's mentions. I can tell you're cycling through one of your fragile periods since you're just being contrary with everyone about everything, so you may want to take a little time off.Please no responses to this message. What *would* be appreciated is a response to Message 1549.