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

A bit of rubble perhaps. Just not a nice tight contact.

So would I and it did: but in this case it propagated only to the slight tilting of the layers immediately above the sag. That does show propagation, however. Apparently the stack was stable enough not to be more disturbed above that point.I'm sure I got the term "plastic" from a geology site. It means what I'm saying it means. Why can't you just leave well enough alone and cut the obsessional and obfuscating pedantry?And yeah, it's a road cut IN the Stratigraphic Column. More nitpicking pedantry.

Fine. No rubble, just a hole.

Google Images of the
Stratigraphic Column as I understand it. Perhaps you are the one who is confused. Which is the usual case though you like to blame it on me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Perhaps you need your eyes examined.

The gap is in the depression below. The immediate strata just tilted, presumably stretching some since the stack was not dry.
'
Do you have a way of explaining the tilt otherwise that's reasonable?

I drew the lines correctly in perspective. There is something wrong with you. In more ways than one. The lines parallel the actual contacts on the rock face, you blithering yddyott. You need me to extend them so you can see their actual relation to the horizontal you blithering blithering doltish moron?. Yes, suspend me, Percy. I get sick of being harassed by blithering Yddyots. He talks sophomoric baby talk and thinks I'm on his level, the blithyering dolt.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are a blityhering YDDYOT.

You really should stop accusing me of having no evidence after I've spelled out my evidence over and over again. All you mean is you don't accept my evidence but it IS evidence. The sagging of the layer, the even thickness of the layer, the disturbed rock where the sag starts, the tilted contacts in the immediate layers above, THAT IS evidence whether you like it or not.You may think your interpretation of the evidence trumps mine, but that's not a failure on my part to produce evidence and your constant refrain is offensive and wrong. It's called arguing my evidence, and I'm sure YOU enjoy your totally irrelevant snide remark instead of addressing the point. You could only get away with this at a Bias Mill like EvC. You SHOULD be impressed that a lone creationist arguing with such a pack of wolves sticks it out at all. It would be nice if you'd just acknowledge that the points I've made are reasonable even if you disagree with them or think the irregularities prove them wrong. But nobody will give a creationist any credit at all. Dozens of you all pat each other on the back even for the most ridiculous arguments against me.As for the different ways the GU appears in different places, why should tectonic force always produce the same result in every location? And I've already said that. My point above was that the extreme flatness in one place all by itself is against the explanation of millions of years of erosion.But there's also the road cut where the evidence of the sandstone layers already being in place when the layers sagged on the left proves exactly the same point in a different way.And I do have in mind setting up some experiments to see just how neatly sand or anything else deposits on an incline, since that is your only real argument both about the road cut and about the draped sandstone in McKee's drawings. But I won't be able to do them until some family members are visiting at the end of June. I think they will be interested in helping me set it up as well as photographing the results so I can post them here. They aren't Christians or creationists so the experiments should be completely free of bias. Your snide personal comments are offensive and inappropriate. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Percy at least recognizes that I regard the darker rougher area of rock as the point where the stack bent and the rock to the left was affected, so that the darker rock is "a record of this disturbance," but I didn't say anything about material being "pushed to the side away from the point of bending" and I can't picture that. It dropped into the lower place in the gneiss, it merely followed gravity, sagging in the case of the lowest layer and tilting a little in the case of the immediate layers above, into the lower area beneath it. Wouldn't that depend on how soft they were and how much they deformed? Only the lowest layer deformed to a great degree, the layers above merely tilted very slightly. If blasting caused the sagged look of the layer on the bottom left it should have broken and not draped itself so neatly over the incline in the gneiss.

I've read through all the posts from the one I answered above and with very few exceptions find nothing I want to address. Most of it is irrelevant, ridiculously irrelevant in the case of ThinAir's misreading of the planes in the picture, and I believe I've answered most of the other arguments already.The only one who made a salient point that I can see is HBD in Message 1593 about how wet sand behaves. That can't be addressed by the experiments I hope to do at the end of June but at least the argument that deposition on a slope can produce an actual layer, like all those in the Stratigraphic Column and everywhere we see nice flat layers, can be addressed that way.

Response to your orange dotted line as supposed evidence that the "bedding plane" actually follows the tilt to the left: The very term "plane" belies this idea that a layer would deposit nonhorizontally, it's even built into your language.This whole argument that sediments deposit in identifiable layers on slopes is nuts, but I'll try to test it as I've said when the time comes. Hundreds and thousands of miles and miles of nice straight horizontal layers one on top of the other to a depth of three or more miles at least makes it clear that if by some fluke you could get even a single layer from deposition on a slope it would be an extreme rarity. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

deleted.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think there was a discrepancy in the softness. The lower layer had farther to fall.

The folds in your diagram occurred after the layers were in place, originally deposited on a plane, i.e., horizontally, which is of course also the case with the tilt in the road cut picture, only there you are claiming they deposited that way. You do need to get your ducks in a row about this: did it deposit on the tilt or get tilted after it was deposited?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.