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

With all due respect, I hope, what you are calling knowledge looks more like a denial of reality on this particular subject, as I keep saying. Steno certainly didn't have it all right, but he did have original horizontality right. IMHO.

That post is so bizarre, edge, that I don't know if I can answer it at all. I have to take a break and while I'm gone I appeal to any clear-headed person who might actually exist at EvC, to answer you. I'm not holding my breath, things may well be worse when I return.

I've expected eventually to do the angle of repose experiment, and I'd be happy to do this one too, but if I haven't done Coragyps' and I skip meals because putting them together is too hard, I can't promise if or when I'll get to it. Has nothing to do with the sand. Don't really have a place where I can set something like this up and leave it either. It would also be nice to be able to photograph the result but I don't have a camera. Sorry.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This flies in the face of the actual factual EVIDENCE, as I said, which is that The Strata, otherwise known as The Stratigraphic Column or the Geologic Column, do cover continents and supposedly took billions of years to do so, but now -- just on a whim? -- changed their location to "a different place" and we're supposed to consider this "normal?" After a billion years of continent-spanning deposition? Not to mention that, as I said, the examples of continuing deposition are minuscule compared to the extensive slabs of rock that make up The Stratigraphic Column. The gravel reference was to your photo of the gravel you marked to indicate strata.ABE: I'd also point out that there are too many obstacles on the continents now for continent-spanning slabs to occur any more. Evidence that mountain building and other tectonic effects waited a billion years or so before producing today's bumpy surface.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's time for me to leave this futile discussion. I absolutely reject your system as fantasy and you have the same attitude to mine. I just happened to read a bit in the Britannica on the Triassic period, full of pure imaginative nonsense they treat as fact, about imaginary climate, imaginary animal life -- limited to what happens to be found in a slab of rock with fossilized dead things in it, that was most certainly deposited in the Flood. But this fantastic nonsense is the "science" you insist be respected and that you insult Creationists for rejecting. You're impatient because I refuse to accept any of that, and I'm tired of your dismissive impatience.Yes, deposition of sandstone does require being underwater. Flood required for all of it, ALL the strata all over the world. Flood ended, deposition ended. That's what the EVIDENCE shows.OK by you if a billion years of continual deposition just comes to a screeching halt, but to my mind that is outrageous denialIn the Grand Canyon there was no tectonic activity for the entire Phanerozoic Era.In my opinion I've made my case over and over and over. You'll never acknowledge any of it.I've had enough edge.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just hit me what's wrong with this experiment with the rock in the container: as edge says, the sediments are deposited in transgressing seas. They'd flow around rocks, not deposit from above. And that means they would deposit in a horizontal layer around the rock. And subsequent layers also. And if it rises up over the rock it will continue to deposit horizontally until the rock is thoroughly buried.Of course now there will be plenty of rocks and hills and mountains on the continents for any future transgressing seas to flow around since there is no longer the extensive flatness formed by the Stratigraphic Column for them to flow across, depositing nice flat rocks.That would also have been the case if the rocks or monadnocks were already present when the Tapeats deposited. It wouldn't deposit over the rocks, but around them. Horizontally. Not in those sagging draping forms.Funny how OE theory has all these worldwide floods that come and go, instead of the one Flood that did it all at once.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, not what I said.Rain breaks up land, starts mudslides. They meet with water starting to rise.RISING water begins deposition process.Receding water erodes. Depending on local situation could also deposit. Certainly deposits all the stuff it erodes.I figure there are also secondary risings and fallings due to tides and waves that may play a part.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Flood took five months to rise to its height. That's not thousands or millions of years but it's not "rushing" either. Behaved very much like a transgressing sea, which, really, is what it was.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I forget who suggested the rock experiment -- Thin Air? -- but it's supposed to have a flat bottom as I recall, and to be wider than it is high I think.

I HAVE thought about it, and you aren't doing a very good job of it. No, not all probably until it had risen some, maybe not all until it was at or near its height. Why does that matter. There is something wrong with what you are imagining and it's beyond me to figure it out. I don't suppose I or anybody can guess exactly what happened so why are you being such a stickler? Rain would have eroded the land, sediments would have been suspended in the sea water. How much depositing exactly when shouldn't be a huge problem. All your imaginings of problems are just your imaginings and you weren't there either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I DIDN"T SAY IT WAS STILL RAINING WHILE IT WAS DEPOSITING.YOU are making up the "conflicting" ideas.Boy when a "Christian" decides to disagree with the Bible you go all out don't you? Doesn't it ever occur to you you're on the wrong bandwagon?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

HBD you are badgering me. I've given a reasonable enough general idea of how it could have happened many times. You do get it wrong a LOT, make up stuff I didn't say to object to and so on. All I did this time was say the Flood would have acted like a transgressing sea, a perfectly reasonable idea, and you are badgering me about details. Stop it.

I don't recognize most of what is being imputed to me about my descriptions of the Flood and I don't want to get into another endless semantic argument right now.

It seems to have escaped some here that this thread is not about the Flood scenario, check out the OP. There is another thread that formed at the sam4e time for that purpose. The Flood scenario has nevertheless been discussed on this thread from time to time but more as a temporary off-topic excursion. Now for some reason some are making it THE topic and demanding that I respond.I'm still back on the dropstones myself, trying to come up with a simple experiment I could do to show whether the strata that bend over the stones in some of the posted illustrations were already there or deposited afterward. I'm thinking I'll use a liquid flour paste for the medium, maybe coloring layers to show how the stone displaces it, in a clear glass bowl. Curved bowl, not straight sides. Drop the stone against the glass so its track will be vislble. Maybe many stones. Then I have to go find some appropriate-sized pebbles. I've thought through the whole thing but expect it to take some trial and error to get the right consistency of the "layers" and the right weight of the pebble etc.For those who are still on the Flood mechanics, what about what I wrote on this back around Message 552 and 559? Those may be my most recent ideas about how it happened so I'd put them above other thoughts I've had on the subject. A lot of wild generalizations have been made here about how I'm supposedly contradicting myself, without quoting me.As I say in that block of posts in the 550s just referred to I'm continuing to develop the scenario. I haven't seen contradictions, just different possible ways it could have played out. But again, My mind is elsewhere right now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is a case where the outline obscures the relation of the different rocks to each other: The Tapeats forms a shelf overhanging the basement rocks in some pictures, can't tell if that's the case here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.