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

Thank you for the question.This deposit is a fine grained ash that was deposited at the base of a pyroclastic flow (a 'glowing avalanche') that would carry rocks of many sizes. I'm not sure of the mechanics, but they are documented. I think it has something to do with gases escaping the lava and forming a lubricating cushion for the larger fragments to flow on. They move very rapidly. Do not even try to outdrive them in your Landrover.At any rate this is not a sedimentary deposit.

Well, for one thing the whole thing is a flow. It was moving left or right, and may have even slumped further after it stopped flowing if it was hot enough.Again, this is one aspect of volcanoes that I have not really studied. But look at page 7 of this lecture to see how large blocks are entrained in a pyroclastic flow. It really does not conform to hydraulic principles and really has little to do with this discussion. The block obviously came from up above, but it's exact path could be anything.http://www.geo.umass.edu/.../volcanology/Pyroclastic%202.pdf

Actually the foreset beds are present. As I thought I mentioned, the topsets are eroded away, this often happens. The bottom set beds are usually not well developed and would be covered by scree in the picture.The point is that foreset beds are deposited in a non-horizontal fashion.

Well, I'm sure that Steno won't mind. But whatever he said, the term 'stratum' does not refer to only rock layers. We have provided you with definition of the term a few times now. Obviously. In fact, I predict that you won't accept things most of the time. Just so you understand that this is by your definition only. Again, by your definition, sure. For the rest of the world, a stratum is any layer of geological (sedimentary) material that has a definable appearance. But you said that the principles refer only to strata. In the case of cross-cutting features, that is not the case. I realize that this is a bit of a nit pick, but it does demonstrate that you do not have a good understanding of the principles. In the case of cross-cutting features, you seem to ignore them. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

It's hard to put things behind us when you have someone committed to denying the data and redefining terms to suite one's agenda.When we read that 'strata must be deposited horizontally', we go out and find examples of non-horizontal deposition. Then we get this argument that 'those layers are not strata', so we go and get definitions of the term 'stratum'. Now, we are getting the argument that Steno didn't reference loose sediments. And that original horizontality is an immutable law.We are continually running off in all directions to find evidence against wild assertions and come back to face ad hoc arguments that are unconstrained by any evidence at all.Frankly, I don't see any resolution other than fatigue. Edited by Admin, : Add missing space after "hoc".

In a broad sense yes, I could consider them to be strata. I should not have edited my post in such a hurry. However, in most discussion we consider strata to be sedimentary.The point here is that all sedimentary strata start out as loose sediments. They may be deposited horizontally or not, often conforming to the underlying surface on which they are deposited.Then, they may be deformed by settling or sagging around a hard point in the underlying material and may actually 'pinch out' against a high point. They may also be deformed by a disturbance such as a dropstone or a slump.After lithification, strata can be deformed by tectonic forces or impacts , etc.; and be folded, fractured or sheared.The distinction Faith is trying to make between loose sediment and rock in her definition of strata is specious. All sedimentary rock started out as soft, aggregates of material that became rock at some point in time. That is why we recognize soft-sediment deformation as a style of deformation.The point about the non-sedimentary formation of the erstwhile 'dropstone' in your example is that the whole formation was moving prior to, and possibly even after, deposition. Is that pretty clear to most people? I can try to explain better, but it really is outside of our discussion on sedimentary environments and unconformities. Don't feel bad, I thought it looked like a dropstone also and only found out by chasing the URL of the photograph to its original location.

Exactly correct. From these diagrams, one could not prove to Faith that the basement rocks were not uplifted in some way (though if that were the case, I'm sure McKee would have drawn in some faults or something).But in the case of dropstones, it should be pretty clear that the sediments were deformed during sedimentation and there were no tectonic forces involved. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Okay, here is the image I was referring to. It was called a dropstone at first and Faith had concocted some odd explanation of its passage through the upper layers to get to its present location by traveling diagonally through the layers rather than straight down.In a way, Faith was correct because it's not a dropstone.It is actually a fragment within a pyroclastic flow from an explosive volcanic eruption and all of the fine sandy layers are volcanic ash.Consequently this is not a sedimentary rock and the boulder is not a dropstone. As such, it really doesn't relate to our discussion because all of the material in this photograph was moving laterally (I'm not sure which direction) making the pathway of the boulder irrelevant to sedimentation.ABEHere is the original source. I think if you look at the third panorama shot, it labels some of the rock units involved. GigaPanning Kilbourne Hole - Mountain Beltway - AGU Blogosphere /ABEI believe that I gave a reference on such deposits that shows how these rock fragments can be entrained by an ash flow. Look on page 7 if these class notes.http://www.geo.umass.edu/.../volcanology/Pyroclastic%202.pdf Now, all this is not to say that dropstones do not exist, or that they do not refute Faith's notion that strata cannot fold while soft during sedimentation, or that they must be horizontal at deposition, etc., etc. We have plenty of evidence in other photographs and figures. Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

If there is one thing I have learned about YEC reasoning it is that revealed knowledge trumps learned knowledge. Without exception.The reality of the situation is that sedimentary deposits HAVE to accumulate as 'loose sediments' and they very commonly are not horizontal in geometry. But all of that doesn't matter to the YEC.

Then prove it.All I see here is an assertion. We have given you the definition that everyone else uses. Why are you so angry? Ah, I see. Another substance free, personal complaint. Which gets us exactly nowhere.

Evidently, Faith believes that only solid rock can be strata. This is kind of silly because the solid rocks that we are talking about started out as unconsolidated sediments. So, maybe we should just say, "Okay, the unconsolidated sediments were deposited in a non-horizontal way, so that they appear folded.The 'strata' question would just go away.However, Faith might have to admit that sedimentation occurred on a surface that was had been tilted and eroded first. Oh, well....I think we are seeing the effects of cognitive dissonance here and it's driving everyone crazy ... except for Faith. Everyone else is crazy.

Yes, now they are. They were, in fact, sediments... And they were, in fact, layers of 'loose sediment'. And it's all that's going on at any time. And the sediments were enormous in height and horizontal extent. And that is what is happening right now, just like back then. Is there a point here? Yes, well, it's happened before...

Well, that was predictable. Because the sediments are coming from one side. But the pattern has the wrong symmetry.And there are no faults. Evidence to support this statement? Why is that?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

How many do I need to look at?If the strata were deposited as you say (straight, level and continuous) and then the basement pushed upward to intrude them, why would there be a pattern in the bedding planes that looks different from one side of the uplift to the other?Why are there no faults shown in the diagrams? Why are the contacts not sheared and broken? And it would be nice if I was making a million a year playing football. So, that's it? That's your argument against the evidence?

The rock strata, yes. So, did you see the earth being created? So, there are no rocks forming to day? How do you know this? You live on land and think that is all that's going on in the earth? I'm not sure how you know this. How much sedimentation should there be going on? Have you ever seen the Mississppi River Delta?Or are you saying that all of the sedimentary rocks of the world did not originate by sedimentation? That would be weird, but not outside of the YEC realm of credulity. Just another assertion, Faith. Unsupported as usual.