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

As opposed to 'nit picking', it's fundamental to geological processes. When you tell us that sediment can only be laid down horizontal and yet we can repeatedly test the sedimentary process with a few simple tools and demonstrate you are wrong, it leads us to question your position. We can look at lakes and ponds world over where the sediment comes right up to the edge, rather than all settling to the lowest point. As a scuba diver, I can assure you that I've seen sediment drape over countless objects in a manner extremely consistent with the ways that Percy has tried to explain to you. As Capt. Stormfield points out, we can watch snow drape objects and follow contours repeatedly, and contrary to your assertions, snow falling through the air and contacting a surface behaves quite like sediment falling out of suspension in water - why?, because objects passing through air and water follow the same rather simple rules. You've avoided my simple questions in this regard like the plague, so I hardly see how you can honestly claim you've been trying to answer as well as you can. That's just nonsense in light of the retorts you have given those questions. Even your own answers are not consistent. One minute you are claiming that we are imputing some precision to you that you are not claiming, and then next you say "horizontal is horizontal". You can't have it both ways Faith. Either "horizontal" is perfection, or horizontal has variations based on the situation. You only see it as madness because if forces you to learn and to not make blanket statements. Once again, as opposed to "meaningless", angle of repose is of critical importance to geological processes. The angle of repose of a material in a given situation is repeatably testable and thus predictable and DIRECTLY related to the assertions you are making. The fact that it does strike you as meaningless means you need education before making any more assertions. As I've mentioned before, the "horizontality" that you describe is a function of scale. When looking for a far distance, it's easy to claim "just look at it ... it's HORIZONTAL". Problem is, zoom in and put your hands on it and suddenly it isn't perfectly horizontal any more. You're playing a fuzzy game until you want to play the in focus game. That's not the way science works. Oh, C'mon Faith. The term "fluid" as it's applied to sediment applies to a shovel full or a cubic yard or an acre foot. Fluidity is as property of the material and that property holds no matter the volume. The more viscous the sediment sludge, the less fluid it is. Every shovel of sediment in that picture has measurable fluid properties. There are even standardized ways of measuring these properties and frankly either learn about them so you can include them in your assertions or assume we will deem you willfully ignorant and treat you as such. That's not a rude statement, but a fair statement. Ok, I'll explain in greater detail: In the context of the sediment discussion, by "a high energy environment", I mean agitated water. Conversely, a "low energy environment" would be still water. In a still, deep, lake bottom environment, unless it's angle of repose is exceeded, sediment that is deposited at the high end of the lake has no means to move to the low end of the lake. Your assertion that all sediments will fill in at the low end is just bunk. There is simply no process by which it can pick itself up and move (thus the 'legs' comment).Better? So for the last umpteen pages, you have been directly making claims about things that you have "NO idea" about and "NO interest" in. See the problem?JB

Faith, I still think that perhaps you are confusing the term "fluid" as used in the world of materials with the term "liquid". Several of us have provided links to show that these two are NOT the same, but your argument still seem to make it sound as though you haven't sorted this out. Solids, gasses and liquids can all have fluid properties and you have been provided with examples in all three categories.Particles suspended in liquid will indeed follow along with the behavior of the liquid. But once the energy becomes insufficient to maintain the suspension of the particles (in other words, gravity or other forces overcomes the agitation of the water and force the separation of the particle from the water), the particles settle and join other particles on the bottom.While the particles that have joined one another at the bottom as a group have certain fluid properties, they resists gravity's attempt to spread them out horizontally far more strenuously than does a thin liquid like water.In addition to the angle of repose which is testable and repeatable (and thus reliably predictable), materials specialists have developed other methods of measuring the fluid properties of sands, gravels, grouts, mortars and concretes (with the common gooey sediments being closest to grouts). One such is a "slump" test. You load a 'slump cone' (generally 12" tall) with the aggregate you are testing (wet or dry as required), strike off the top level and lift the cone up. The amount the material settles is called "slump". Some tests on more plastic materials might ask for measuring the slump at time intervals (say 15 seconds and again at 60 seconds) whereas materials like gravel will slump immediately and then no more no matter how long you wait. Some tests may ask you to tap or shake the material base which introduces energy into the test slug and may increase the slump. When you watch this slumping process, you are watching the fluid properties of the material in action.From a practical standpoint as it relates to your "draping" assertions on this thread, the greater the slump of the sediment, the less draping will occur. The more stiff, sticky and viscous the sediment, the lower the slump and the more draping that will occur.It's all testable and repeatable and done to death Faith. Standard physics apply. You can protest all you want that it has nothing to do with your assertions, but fact is it has EVERYTHING to do with your assertions and it's not that hard to follow as to why.JB

No Faith, you have scientific proof all backwards and wrong. Testing and demonstrations of the "mere theory" is EXACTLY how we determine whether the theory is any good or not.Every time you are shown a picture of a sediment that was deposited in a less than perfectly horizontal manner you claim that it couldn't have happened. You say it couldn't have happened because you say it's impossible to have happened. Thus every picture you are shown you deny - more pictures are not the answer.The answer is in the multitude of real world demonstrations of the theory that have been brought to y our attention. For example (as previously mentioned), just go to almost any lake or pond in a vegetated area (thus there will be organic silt deposited). Recognize that this lake is deeper in the middle than at the edge. Take off your shoes and step into the shin deep water at the edge. Feel the silt squeeze between you toes. DONE!!!!!Wade out as far as you wish. Put on a mask and dive deeper. The bottom of the lake is tilted *significantly* and yet the sediment layer is DRAPED across the bottom of the lake. Get out of your armchair and see how things actually work in the real world. Then and only then will you be qualified to make such judgement.JB

What you have in mind isn't of much value if it doesn't align with reality of how things behave. There's no such thing as "liquid" sediment, so you can just take that out of your mind.Liquid can suspend and carry sediment, but will never be the sediment because by definition sediment is what falls out of suspension and lays on the bottom. Once it falls out of suspension, it's no longer part of the liquid and will never behave in the manner you are imagining.JB

Did I miss something? Have you now decided that sediments CAN drape objects like the drop stones you were shown? If you changed that position I'm happy to revise my statement.EDIT: You see Faith, this is one of the issues of communicating with you -- the lack of consistency. For upteen pages you've been saying just how impossible it is for sediment to lay down in a non-horizontal manner and just how stark raving crazy we are to think otherwise and then you object when I state your position as such.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : 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

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.

Faith, snow has "draped" over these cars. It did not happen by a smooth, 'horizontal' layer of snow falling and the the cars rising up through said layer. Instead, the conforming layer was deposited one particle at a time within the material's angle of repose How do we know? ... Because when blocks are forced up (or down) through smooth layers, faults are visible and the layers are torn and fractured just as those in the picture below. JB

Yeah, that's what I meant.

OMG Faith. You do realize that the cut in that picture was jack hammered into swiss cheese and then dynamited into oblivion?

Nope, you got to it and blew straight through it with this: Turns out layers don't deposit with slots in them right where highways need to go either ... so they blast the layers into submission creating your precious overhangs, etc.Get out of your armchair and find a clue please.JB

The evidence for the blasting results is in the picture. You can see the drill holes in typical road cut blasting distribution. Live anywhere with hard rock near the surface and you can see examples mile after mile. Once again, the arm chair is not your friend.JB