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

Hi Faith,Welcome back. I'm sorry you were suspended. I'm reading through the posts from the last 24 hours and will comment as I go. In the science threads it would be best if prayer weren't treated as if it were a demonstrated method of gaining scientific knowledge. In the science threads it would be best to only express great confidence about something when the scientific evidence strongly supports it.From Message 865: In case no one caught this, .07 is seven one-hundredths of a cubic mile, not seven tenths.

If HBD misread your description then I did too. Just a quick look back through the thread revealed this in Message 829: I was also surprised to see you say that you accept the rates HBD is using.I think what you may actually have been trying to say is that you accept the current measured rates, but I don't think anyone thought you were questioning them. HBD is saying, in essence, that the current rates (which have been accurately measured and are not assumptions) projected back in time yield a picture that is consistent with all other evidence, and that your view that past rates were much greater is not. I think people can be forgiven for not having a clear idea of the precise limits of what you claim to "KNOW" (your capitalization, not mine). As I suggested in my previous message, in the science forums it might be best to only claim knowledge of things that have strong scientific support.

In Faith's view there is no evidence that would help decide between her scenario and yours.

I think we can be forgiven if we're all, including HBD, not precisely sure who you consider legitimately Christian. Your history is to deny Christian status to those who disagree with you.Nor would most Christians grant that Christians all know the minds of other Christians. Certainly it is not unknown amongst devout evangelical Christians to hear the question, "What did you mean when you said..."Also HBD is not the only participant. At a minimum there was at least one other person (namely me) who read your words and found the claims inappropriate and spectacularly overblown for a science discussion.So as I suggested twice previously, in the science forums it might be best to only claim knowledge deriving from scientific methods and evidence.

Since whichever way the Grand Unconformity happened would have left evidence behind, I'm trying to encourage the discussion to focus on that evidence. I'm avoiding becoming involved in the discussion, but I'm going to attempt a clarification of what I think people are trying to say to you on this point.The appearance of age that you think you're seeing in the rocks at Siccar Point is actually just the effects of weathering. That appearance is a result of how long the rock has been exposed, the nature of the rock itself, and the type of weathering (wind, rain, sea spray, freeze/thaw cycles would be applicable at Siccar Point). This appearance has nothing to do with the age of the rock itself.But buried rock shows no effects of weathering. Buried undisturbed rock does not show any effects of the passage of time - it will just sit unchanged for millions and millions of years.I'm aware that the effects of weathering can extend some distance from an exposed surface, particularly a horizontal surface, but I'm going to have to throw myself on the mercy of the geologists for information about the nature and extent of those effects.Concerning the appearance of age of the rocks at Siccar Point, you can't use that appearance as an indication of actual age. The lower layers are a very hard sandstone, the upper layers a softer sandstone. The softer sandstone is more vulnerable to erosion, and so where exposed it quickly comes to have an appearance that you interpret as ancient. But if you were to take a core of that sandstone you would find that where not exposed it has no appearance of age at all.

I don't have any problem with the occasional diversion onto other topics, but if there's genuine interest in discussing other aspects, such as faith versus evidence, then someone should propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics. I do want to put in a plug for the topic of this thread, which is the evidence showing how the Great Unconformity formed.

I had trouble seeing the strata, too. Also, in the past Faith has mistaken scree for something else.Lines identify but also obscure boundaries, so arrows might serve better.I am, as always, responding as I read forward. No need to do anything if it isn't relevant to the current discussion.

Hi Faith,I'm just trying to help discussion along, not participate and definitely not trying to make anyone look bad. You had said that you could see no strata, and I was only letting Edge know I thought the strata in the image might not be as apparent to others as they are to him. I also thought the scree that fills the lower region of the image isn't necessarily easily recognized as scree, especially since the image is rather small: Concerning your image where you've circled a number of different areas that you describe as perhaps containing a "bit of scree" but whose appearance you think may have something to do with sunlight, I can't speak to the circled areas in the upper half of the image, but the circled areas in the lower half of the image all include a great deal of scree. There are also a couple other areas of scree in the lower half of the image that you didn't circle: Here's a closeup of one of the areas you circled, the one in the lower right. It should remove any ambiguity that it is scree:

To help move the discussion forward I'm going to attempt to explain the point Edge is making. Edge has in mind a scenario where recently deposited layers are still at the surface (likely a submerged surface) when an object like a rock falls on them. The layers, still unlithified and completely loose in that you could easily dig them up with a trowel, will become deformed in a manner like this image Edge presented earlier: The gray rock in the center of the image fell onto already deposited soft sediments and deformed them. Only the layers that are deformed downward were present when the rock fell on them. Sedimentation then continued upon, over and around the rock.The rock could not have been pushed up or down through the layers into this position after they were already there because in that case the layers would be deformed all upward or all downward, including all the layers that the rock would have had to pass through. That the layers are deformed downward for the lower half of the rock and upward for the upward half of the rock conclusively shows what had to have happened.Edited by Admin, : Clarify the explanation by removing ambiguity and adding detail.

I wasn't going to respond to this, but now I see that JonF has responded, so I will comment.I would like very much to address the concerns you occasionally raise, such as here from your Message 1057: Whether JonF is correct or not, he should be addressing his criticisms to your arguments. He should not be directing them at you personally. But you, too, make personal comments about yourself, as here in Message 1029: The question was about your evidence and had nothing to do with you personally, but you answered with claims about your own logic and grasp of reality. How can I request that people shouldn't make comments about you personally when you're doing it yourself?When someone makes an appeal, such as you did in Message 1057 that I alluded to earlier, my inclination is to take a proactive approach, but I can't do that when within the last page or two I gave the supposedly aggrieved party a free pass when they did something similar.Edited by Admin, : Fix incorrect message reference.

It took me a while to arrive at what I think you really meant. Am I correct in thinking that you're describing a hypothetical here? Would it be a correct rephrasing to say, "Had the sediments that in the image are draped over the rock already been in place when the rock fell then they, too, would have been deformed downward. But they're not deformed downward, so therefore they were deposited upon and around the rock after it fell."

I don't think it's really obscure to Faith, but more that she has a different scenario so firmly in mind that she doesn't see the one you're attempting to describe. It does feel to me that it should be possible to supply sufficient additional clarity to get your point across. It might help to explain what "disrupt" means in this context. What should "disrupted" layers look like? Several times I've been expecting that you might confirm my own expectation that the layers above the rock could not possibly have been deflected upward as the rock passed downward through them, but you haven't done that, instead preferring to describe them only as "disrupted." Is my own understanding at fault?Also, I expected that the layers where the rock passed through the layers above that they would no longer exist in the distinct form that we see in various images. A little ways above the rock the layers appear completely undisturbed, but like a nail fired too fast through layers of plywood or a bullet passing through a book, it seems like there should be a very distinct record of its passage. When Faith said that the layers above and below the rock appeared equally soft, I think she meant that in the sense that during the flood the layers were incompletely lithified and still soft, to the point where objects like rocks could pass easily through them. I think some more detail concerning the implications of the differences in deformation of the layers above the rock versus the layers below might be helpful.It might help if Faith were willing to comment on the case where a rock has fallen from a melting glacier, impacting on the sedimentary layers of the sea bottom. How would she tell the difference between these two scenarios:

• The rock becomes buried about halfway along its diameter upon impact, and then was gradually covered over by additional sedimentation over the following centuries;
  ​
• The rock passes through the sedimentary layers of the sea bottom coming to a stop some meters down, instantly completely buried.

Hi Faith,I'd like to help the discussion get past the issue of horizontality to focus more immediately on the topic, so I think it might make sense now to spend a little time on horizontality so that we may soon put it behind us.I'm not taking sides in this discussion. When I don't understand something I'll say so, but that doesn't mean I think it's is wrong. So let me ask about what I don't understand concerning your position on horizontality: How horizontal does a surface have to be before it can no longer be considered horizontal and collect sediments?Obviously the answer can't be that a surface must be 100% horizontal before it will collect sediments. If a surface is 99.99% horizontal it will collect sediments just as well as one that is 100% horizontal. Where is the transition from horizontal enough to collect sediments to not horizontal enough? How far off from horizontal can a surface be and still collect sediments? Will a surface that is 99% horizontal still collect sediments? 98% horizontal? 97%? 95%? 90%? 80%?

I know I'm confused. I wasn't sure which example from HBD you were referring to. Since dropstones are being used as evidence of how sedimentary layers form this might be something important, but as I'm not sure what you're saying I'm not sure if it really is important.

Hi Faith,I'm going to say something regarding Steno, but I first want to repeat again that I'm trying to avoid becoming involved in the discussion. I'm only trying to bring some clarity to some simple side points so that discussion on the main topic can continue.Regarding Steno, what he means by the word "fluid" is non-solid. Water, air, dust, blowing sand, etc., are all non-solids that he envisioned overlying any sedimentary layer undergoing deposition. Sure. But what you appear to be saying, at least in my interpretation and that of others here, is that strata are always deposited horizontally, regardless of the angle of the surface being deposited upon. For example, you appear to be saying that if a surface is 99% horizontal then any strata deposited upon it will be 100% horizontal. Isn't that what you're actually saying? And if it is then just let us know, because I think it should be possible for us to make it very clear to you why this is incorrect. Snow is a form of sedimentation that many people are very familiar with. Anyone who lives in an A-frame house in snow country, particular if the roof has a steep pitch, knows that the snow is deeper in the front and back next to the house. Why? Because some of the snow falling on the roof finds its way to the roof's edge and falls to the ground. As measured by it's horizontal cross section, an A-frame roof will accumulate less snow then the same area of an open field. That snow that didn't come to rest on the roof comes to rest next to the house in front and back.The same is true of any rock that has fallen from a glacier and become partially embedded in the sea floor. Sediments falling on the part of rock sticking out of the sea floor will to some degree depending upon the shape of the rock fall beside it along its edge. This means that the part of the sea floor around the perimeter of the rock is receiving more sediments than the rest of the sea floor. Since more sediments are being deposited close to the edges of the rock than are being deposited further away, the layers do not butt up against the rock. They tilt upward.