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

Faith has explicitly declared that her intrepretation of the Bible is infallible.

I'm not going to bother to find the several places you have claimed to be infallible. Your opinion of your interpretation is obvious in every post.But I did ask, twice, in the last GC thread, if your interpretation was infallible and you responded in the affirmative.Will you now declare that your interpretation of the Bible could be wrong? That when you claim to be promulgating God's word it's just the opinion of a fallible human?

I asked you explicitly if your interpretation of the Bible was infallible and you sid yes. More than once. Can't find those right now but I do see that someone else noticed: It's obvious that you think your interpretation of the Bible cannot be wrong, and you continually state that what you write is God's words. to me that means infallible.As I wrote before and you ignored, will you now declare that your interpretation of the Bible could be wrong? That when you claim to be promulgating God's word it's just the opinion of a fallible human? If you can't declare that you think your interpretation is infallible.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Faith makes up her own definitions and insists that geologists have it wrong. It takes forever to figure out what she's trying to say for that and other reasons.

Ironic. Your insistence that a stratum is defined as sedimentary rock deposited horizontally. And edge's post just above this shows that others interpret your words as I do. Any confusion in communication is at your end.

Gee, I don't see any mention of "horizontal" in there. Those two statements of yours contradict each other. The definition of stratum does not include "horizontal". I see several strata in that picture which are not horizontal.Many strata are deposited horizontally. It's not an absolute requirement, as we know from centuries of study after Steno. "I'm saying the definition of strata is that it deposits horizontally" is incorrect and is your personal definition and you are insisted the geologists have it wrong. Exactly as I said.

Their definition of a stratum is not a lie. Yours is. Of course it's your fault, but you still won't acknowledge it.

Yup, that's what Steno came up with. And they still are mostly true, but not in all cases. As geologists have learned in the centuries since Steno.But strata are not defined as horizontal today, because we know better.Stratum Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster:

quote:

---

stratum: noun stratum \'stra-t?m, 'stra-\
a sheetlike mass of sedimentary rock or earth of one kind lying between beds of other kinds

---

Stratum Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com:

quote:

---

Geology. a single bed of sedimentary rock, generally consisting of one kind of matter representing continuous deposition.

---

Just a moment...:

quote:

---

(usually plural) any of the distinct layers into which sedimentary rocks are divided

---

Stratum - Wikipedia:

quote:

---

a layer of sedimentary rock or soil with internally consistent characteristics that distinguish it from other layers.

---

and there's lots more. So your "I'm saying the definition of strata is that it deposits horizontally" is false. It's your own private and erroneous definition, and you are insisting that the geologists who use their definition are wrong.(Not even going into the fact that "horizontal" is poorly defined and never strictly seen in the field).

But he was not defining strata. He was addressing the most common way in which strata are deposited. OK, that's cool. No gravel strata, at least for the purpose of argument. But...I don't recall anyone presenting "loose or unconsolidated gravel" as a stratum, I do, however, recall many examples of solid rock strata that obviously were deposited with big bumps in 'em. We know there are other (atypical) non-horizontal ways in which strata are deposited and do not follow the principle of horizontality and we've produced many examples.That's probably why no modern definition of stratum requires horizontality. Steno was not a prophet producing unchangeable commandments graven in stone. (Fundmentalists see so much as graven in stone). He did produce guidelines which fit most but not all situations. The modern definitions are not any kind of insult or travesty; they are more accurate modifications to Steno's versions. Remember your reference at Principle of original horizontality?

quote:

---

"As one of Steno's Laws, the Principle of Original Horizontality served well in the nascent days of geological science. However, it is now known that not all sedimentary layers are deposited purely horizontally.

---

Please stop flogging the loose gravel strawman, drop your personal and incorrect definiton of srtatum, and address the solid rock strata examples.

OK, you are correct there. I.e. it isn't about whether strata are loose today, but how they could have formed non-horizontally before they lithified, and your harping on loose layers (strata or not) today is an attempt to evade the real issue.Most sandstones were not deposited horizontally, and many examples of other lithified sediments that obviously did not deposit horizontally. Repeating your claims doesn't make them true.You have your own personal definition of stratum and keep insisting that the geologists are wrong. "Horizontality" is not part of the definition of stratum, as you would have it.Per the geologists definitions, some strata are deposited non-horizontally.Steno's laws cover almost all, but definitely not all situations we see in the rocks. As has been demonstrated over and over. Steno's laws are not the final word, today's definitions are what real geologists work with. Those definitions differ from Steno.

And you complained about my relatively mild criticism.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

There's oodles of cross-bedding in the Coconino. Deposited at about 25-35 degrees and lithified. From Coconino Cross Bedding:

quote:

---

This image taken along the Bright Angel Trail in the Grand Canyon clearly shows cross bedding in the Coconino Sandstone layer exposed by the canyon. The tan colored Coconino sandstone is one of the most dominant features of the Grand Canyon. This erosion resistant layer forms a spectacular cliff of 300-500 feet ( 90 — 150 meters) not far below the Canyon’s rim. Dating to approximately 260 million years old, the Coconino is composed of nearly pure quartz sand. The cross bedded features indicate that the Coconino Sandstone is basically petrified sand dunes. Formed through aeolian (wind) deposition, sand dunes slowly migrate down wind. Sand grains are carried up the windward side of the dune then deposited near the peak. Angled layers are formed as the newly deposited sand avalanches down the leeward side of the dune. The strata of the Coconino Sandstone show some of the most distinct examples of cross bedding on the planet.

---

But even if we could play billiards on the Coconino, that would not give any significant support to your claim that all strata are deposited horizontally, that's one of the many millions of strata we see and the many millions more we don't see because they are completely buried. They have expanded on Steno's findings and made them more accurate. You have not provided any smidgen of an attempt to support your claim of "gone from sane to innsane." You just keep repeating it. Over and over and over and over again. And over again.To address our responses you need to demonstrate with evidence and logical analysis that all the examples of lithified strata we've presented did originally deposit horizontally. Your uninformed opinion alone does not suffice.Then you also have to establish with evidenced and logical analysis why Steno's original formulation is better than the many modern definitions of strata we've provided. "All strata are deposited horizontally" is not a fact in evidence and cannot be used to support your claim, that's circular reasoning, just another unsupported assertion.Got any evidence or analysis?Didn't think so.

I'm surprised that nobody's pointed out that mudslides consist of previously eroded material. There's no creation of sedimentary material in a mudslide.

Those are overhangs, not separations. The layers are resting directly on each other, whether or not you they are neatly or messily stacked

Sedimentary environments can't be sloped? Tell all the ponds and lakes and oceans they're doing it wrong.Oops, I forgot that you don't define a sedimentary environment as a place where sedimentation is taking place but rather as something else altogether.