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

Just to clarify, you and HBD and Edge are discussing this diagram: You're asking HBD and Edge how the gravel from the Archean layers became suspended in layers of the Tapeats. If they haven't stated it explicitly already, it occurred by the same familiar processes that create many sedimentary layers. It was weathered and eroded from the higher elevations of the Archean and carried there by water and gravity. Your view of the Archean as an intrusion is hard to fathom. Intrusions are magma, so there would be no gravel. Intrusion of a solid but soft mass would also produce no gravel. Intrusion due to underlying tectonic forces of a hard solid would create shearing, any gravel abraded off the interface would be crushed against the intruding layer, and it wouldn't cause layers to pinch out because solid material cannot simply disappear. You can prove this to yourself by examining the tilted layers of uplifted mountain ranges. Their layers were pushed upward and tilted whole, not pinched out.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.Edited by Admin, : Forgot to mention gravel in the final paragraph, added it.

We need Google to drive all around the country with a high-res camera so they can create Google Road Cut. I see the offsets. Since it's visible in this image I'll comment on something I noticed earlier: the underlying gneiss in the bottom right-half of the image doesn't look like it was blasted at all. It sticks out about around 4 or 5 feet further than the rest of the rock face. Odd that they didn't just uniformly drill blasting holes to the same depth. I wonder if some sequence of charges failed to go off, and then they just left the relatively small amount of rock that wasn't blasted for the steam shovels, bulldozers and jackhammers to take care of.

That was me you're thinking of. You sent me an email asking, "Where are these supposed drill holes?" I responded with this image in which the blasting holes are very clear to help you find them in the image of the Potsdam Sandstone road cut: I said, "Here’s an image with much more obvious blasting holes so that you know what you’re looking for." You asked, I told, I included an image. I don't understand how there could be any confusion about what blasting holes look like. And have you never driven through road cuts?That someone can send you a picture containing blasting holes clear as day and you can say, "I still don’t think I know what the blast holes are supposed to look like," indicates that the challenge in making things clear to you is even more difficult and profound than we've come to understand. Can you tell us what additional information would help you gain a clear idea of what blasting holes look like?If it helps, as near as I understand it, the holes are drilled in parallel, then the holes are filled with some kind of explosive charge like dynamite or (more recently according to Wikipedia) ANFO, then the charges are set off.

If we're talking about blasting holes, then no, not "little horizontal lines." Vertical lines. Here's the image again: I'm not sure how clearly you can see, but the parallel vertical lines of the blasting holes are very obvious. Are you sure you can't see them? Only half the diameter of the holes is left. The other half was in the rock that was blasted away.Explaining again how the blasting of road cuts is done, vertical holes are drilled down from above in a row, then explosive charges are added to the holes, then the explosive is ignited, setting off a blast. What remains behind is a vertical rock face with half the diameter of the blasting holes left behind.

The thread should return to discussing the topic. Recent on-topic discussions were about the faulting that is normally associated with drape folds, and the evidence for the original horizontality (or lack thereof) of sedimentary layers.

Sorry for confusing the discussion. I meant to type drag folds, I thought I typed drag folds. Apologies.

I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to reach a better understanding on this point. You say that the layers in the concave bedding circled area look stretched to you: You're saying that you see some quality in the circled layers that makes them appear that they've been stretched, something that is missing from the other layers in this image that are not stretched. Can you describe what that is?Also, if the layers did drape and sag and stretch down from above into a depression, then it raises the question of where the layers came from. They didn't come from the layers immediately above, because those layers are intact. And they didn't come from the layers immediately adjacent left and right because those layers butt up against the concave beds and are not continuous with them. Could you describe what you see as the origin of those layers.Also, can you describe how the empty depression that the layers supposedly sagged and stretched down into was formed? Ideas arrived at without evidence are not theories. Revelation more accurately describes ideas derived from the Bible. You have some ideas based upon revelation, and now you're seeking evidence to support those ideas. You're well within your rights to say when you have no evidence for an idea, but not only is that lack fatal, something you seem charmingly and completely oblivious to, you also seem to forget that many different ideas of the world's origins have been derived from revelation. And the one quality all these ideas share is a lack of evidence.So as I said I think you're well within your rights to just state when you have no evidence, but that means its time to put the claim on the back burner until you do have evidence. Please don't press on with claims that are without evidence. Edge will have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is a definitional issue. By definition a drag fold is one that occurs as a result of movement along a fault line. When Edge says the fault may not be visible in a particular diagram or image he isn't saying that there is no fault, but only that it isn't visible. If there were no fault then it couldn't be a drag fold.So when you say that the concave bedding planes in diagrams like these are drag folds: Then if they're drag folds there have to be faults somewhere, otherwise they're not drag folds. So where are the faults? As Edge says, it's always possible that from a particular angle or crosscut that a fault might not be apparent, but it still has to be there somewhere. So if in your view the faults aren't visible in this diagram then it would be very helpful if you could describe where you think they are, because to everyone else it doesn't seem possible. If it helps, here again is that image of an actual drag fold:

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?

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.

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.

I did read what you wrote. I've read every word of all your messages. You derive your ideas out of a need to reconcile the Bible with the real world. You're on record as saying that science only interprets the natural world while the Bible tells us what really happened, and that where science and the Bible disagree that science is wrong, that it is false science. So if you want to cry "CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT" then this is the context you have set.Please, no replies to this message.

Hi Faith,I was asking what you see in this image that leads you to conclude that it could not have happened any other way but as you describe, and how you eliminate other possibilities such as having been deposited on a slope: As I'm only trying to clarify and not participate in the discussion, I'll only touch on those parts of your reply that mention evidence in some way, or assertions that are missing evidence: What evidence are you looking at that tells you it sagged? How did you eliminate the possibility that the layers were deposited upon a sloping landscape? How did you eliminate the possibility of tectonic forces? How did you eliminate isostatic depression and rebound? There seems no rock anywhere in the image that resembles damp clay, which looks like this, for example: What evidence are you looking at that tells you this separation is a quality of the layers that extends back into the rock face? How did you eliminate the possibility that it's a surface feature that is the result of blasting and erosion? If you're referring to where the red line jogs upward for a short bit in the right half of the image, earlier we presented Google Street View images of the road cut that led Edge and I to conclude that that jog is likely misdrawn, that there is likely no jog upward in the layers at that point. This brings us back to a point that was raised earlier but for which I do not think an answer was ever provided. It concerned this image: Sedimentation descends evenly from above in (a). In (b) is shown your interpretation of what would result. In (c) is shown geology's interpretation. Can you describe what mechanism you are imagining that would cause (b), where the sand would have had to flow like water in order to pool at the lowest point?Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

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.

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.