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

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.

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

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

Okay, I'm not going to debate a picture. There's too much going on from perspective, to blasting damage, to shadows, to geological history. Sometimes, I think we are talking about different parts of the picture, or even different pictures.The real issues are Faith's blunders of knowledge and interpretation of the constellation of geological data surrounding the Great Unconformity. If there is actual folding or deformation, I would expect it to propagate into the upper layers. No, it is a road cut in the local stratigraphy. Factually wrong. To a geologist, all rocks are plastic. So, how do you explain the vast difference in deformation and metamorphic grade of the gneiss versus the sandstone?

This is why I have decided not to debate a photograph, particularly with a person who has poor vision.I will, however, say that the only times I have seen such a phenomenon are where there has been erosion or dissolution of the underlying layer. If this happened as Faith says, particularly before lithification, something would be deposited in the space created.

If the rocks were plastic, you wouldn't have rubble.

Which is a characteristic of draping or soft sediment compaction... No, the whole section. This is not a forced fold. Because it shows that you are not precise in your language and that causes confusion. No, that's not what I wrote. YECs do not understand what the stratigraphic column is and it causes miscommunication. And if there is one thing we know about your threads, there is a lot of confusion.

Which is exactly what I said we do not see.

As I said. The Stratigraphic Column is a diagram, a representation.

Off topic, personal reference.Please focus.

Good point. If Faith is correct, and there is a gap caused by sagging where everyone else sees shadows, then there should be another shadow (er ... gap) where you are discussing.

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.

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.

Maybe we will see if this is what she thinks.In that case, I would argue that bedding planes should become indistinct over the bend and there should be some kind of flow structure within the beds of sandstone. When the beds are forced aside like that, they typically vary in thickness rapidly and develop some kind of forced folds.As to the roughness of the outcrop at that location, I think we are at a disadvantage in not seeing the outcrop in person. There are several explanations including short blast-holes in that area allowing natural fractures to dictate the shape of the exposure.