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

You are a blityhering YDDYOT.

How do you know? My point exactly is that you CAN'T know currently. Have you leaned up against that wall and sighted down it to know it's perfectly in plane? Which way is it out of plane? It's IMPOSSIBLE for you to make your "I'm right" claim with the information you have.In fact, the faces upon which you drew your long yellow line and tilted orange lines weren't even blasted at the same time but are the result of two different drill/blast sequences. You have no way to know if they are perfectly parallel.JB

Sure, but its not a simple 1 deposition and 1 tectonic disturbance scenario. Plus you would need to do the sand deposition experiment to see how sediments look when they form on a sloping surface, otherwise you won't except what we see as having happened. You seem to have the impression that all rocks go through a stage where they are "clay-like." I don't think that is right. Clay has special properties because of the extremely small particle size. The particles are also electrostatically charged and when combined with charged ions have strong adhesive properties.Sandstone doesn't have these properties. Unlithified or "soft" sandstone is grains of sand compacted tightly together. They don't have the adhesive properties that clay does. It is the water molecules that bind the grains together until they are cemented. Use wet beach sand to mold a tower, it holds its shape (until it dries) but if you try to deform it, it crumbles - it does not bend like clay would. Sandstones require mineral "cements" to hold the grains together.Do the experiment with the sand and the fish tank, Faith. I thought about doing it for you - I have the materials or could get them readily, but I am afraid it would be a waste of time because you wouldn't believe my results. But if you want me to, I will - I will just have to take pictures, probably not take video footage (maybe I could??)HBD

It's a simple question Faith, and one you need to answer if your hypothesis is to be considered.A: If the lower material (orange) sagged as you propose
and
B: The upper material (yellow) remained in place as you propose... then where in the red circle is the gap/broken contact/cave (all your terms) that would be required?

This whole issue of "soft" rocks is bothering me too. I addressed it a little bit in Message 1593, but maybe you could address it in a bit more detail. Especially (I am curious as well) how sandstone would be expected to behave if it was only partially lithified - like say 10% of the grains were cemented or 20%, something like that. It wouldn't be hard like fully lithified rock, but it wouldn't be like clay either.And are there examples of rock that has only been partially lithified? I suspect not since it needs to be buried deeply for the process to happen and so is unlikely to be exposed before completion, but I suppose it could happen. I do realize there are poorly cemented sandstones, but I think that is different than partially lithified, right?HBD

Of course there's a perfectly reasonable explanation but you avoid even answering the simplest question relating to the explanation. This is highlighted by the excellent drawing and associated questions that Percy (and several others) have asked you but you refuse to answer.One more try:When material falls out of suspension in calm water at the left and right edges of the drawing and lands on the bottom surface of the pond/lake, what transports said material from the edges of the lake to the center of the lake? How does it get there? Who/what picks it up off the bottom and carries to the center of the lake (could be miles).Why do you avoid this question so?

I would say that in general, her lines are representative of what I see there as far as layering goes. You're right though that it is difficult to be completely sure without standing there (just like that little hump in the middle is probably not there based on the Google Map images).What her drawing does not capture is that the angle of the layers she represented with orange lines get progressively steeper. The layer above it is not as horizontal as the yellow line, but not as steeply angled as the orange lines. The contact between the grey stone and the tan stone is even more steeply angled.This is consistent with what we should expect if this was deposited on a slope - the slope being the tan unit.HBD

This is what the experiment (demonstration) is needed for!!! I hope she gets to it soon.HBD

A great deal of tolerance is being extended toward you by the other participants in this thread. In return you're exhibiting a great deal of reluctance about answering any inquiries about what you really mean, and lately you seem to be attempting the discussion board equivalent of "suicide by cop" by behaving so badly that eventually a moderator has to take action.See you tomorrow.

I wouldn't say that it bothers me, I just don't see the relevance. I have no problem with the sediments being soft upon deposition or during later deformation. As I have said, the issue is, 'where is the evidence for deformation?'Lithification is just another one of those processes that YECs can't seem to understand. Uncemented sand is free-running in the presence of water. From there it becomes more and more solid, being crumbled to sand grains by rubbing with fingers to being so solid that fractures cut through the grains themselves (quartzite). In the field these various states can show up as increasing ages of the rocks. In other words, the Shinumo should be harder than the Tapeats, which would be harder than the Coconino, which would be harder than the Navajo, and on and into the modern sediments in the Colorado River. There are other factors such as the composition of the cement and thermal history, etc. And it shows up as how the rock breaks. In engineering geology it's just basic 'hardness' and there are scales/tests to determine relative hardness. Sure. There was a recent picture of a laminated sandstone from Mars for instance. Just looking at the picture, I can tell you exactly how it would feel in my hand. That's just because I've seen so many of these things. This Martian sedimentary rock is probably a very soft as the wind is presently re-eroding it to sand. Cementation is part of the process of lithification. It occurs along with pressure and heat. And time...Because lithification is a process, I do not draw a distinct line at which point a sediment becomes a rock. I have no problem with Faith saying that the rock was soft when it came to its present geometry. I just disagree on when it happened and how. Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Hi Edge,You said a couple things that might be misinterpreted. This might be interpreted to mean that (b) is what happens in this illustration of sedimentation: I think you're referring to the geometry of the layers, but this might be interpreted to mean that when the geometry of the Grand Canyon came to be, you have no problem with statements that the rock was still soft.

Before I start, let me present the image again: Before you can conclude that the downward slope of the layers on the left could only have been due to tilting or sagging after deposition, as you do here: You first have to demonstrate the truth of the proposition that layers can only deposit horizontally, as you claim here: About what you call "example after example" of horizontal deposition followed by deformation, you have to show that this is not just you seeing what you want to see, which you do time and again. For example, Sunday you claimed that some of the rock in the above image had the appearance of damp clay, an observation no one shares with you, in the same way that no one shares your observations of horizontal deposition. Everyone else understands that sediments will remain where they fall unless the slope is too steep. The slope in that image is not at all steep. How did you eliminate the possibility that any appearance that the gneiss has is due to blasting and excavation? You'll have to be more clear about what you see as a disturbance in the layers above. The patch of darker rock that you once circled has no blast holes in it, so the appearance of rock face there must have been the result of heavy excavation equipment. What leads you to believe that isostatic depression and rebound would have been uniform everywhere? Wouldn't it have been a function of the overburden of ice that depends upon the topography, for example, glaciers being deepest and heaviest in valleys?And no one's trying to snow you. We're trying to understand the rationale behind your claims. The diagram wasn't presented as proof. It was presented as a visualization aid for you, along with a request for you to describe what you see happening that could result in (b). One guess is that you think sediments falling on the sloped surface would somehow flow down to the lowest point like water, but we can't really know for sure what you think until you tell us. Until you provide a reasonable explanation everyone is going to continue to believe that (b) is impossible: Also, I believe you have the means in your possession to demonstrate the truth or falsity of your claims regarding the horizontality of deposition.

I see. It should be "when disturbed or in excess of the angle of repose". Just the 'sagged' layers.

I don't really want to get into an argument about what pictures show, but I thought, since things are slow, I'd show what I see in the New York roadcut picture.What I am looking at are bedding planes. Those are the nearly horizontal lines cutting across the outcrop.In this picture I'm seeing excactly what HBD is seeing: steeper inclinations of the bedding as we go down the left side of the picture. But one thing that strikes me is that the bedding planes are continuous over the allegedly disturbed area we have been discussing. In particular, look at the orange line about half way up the image. It is perfectly continuous all the way across the outcrop with very little deflection. To me, this along with the upward disappearance of the bending, indicates that there is no fault that has forced the gneiss upward into the sedimentary package as Faith has proposed.My other lines, might be subject to interpretation along with the red original line, but the orange highlighted bedding plane is compelling.

I think Faith's position is that the bending disappears gradually in the higher layers because, being soft, the material pushed to the side away from the point of bending. The rougher appearance of darker rock in the center of the image is a record of this disturbance.