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

Maybe we will see if this is what she thinks.In that case, I would argue that bedding planes should become indistinct over the bend and there should be some kind of flow structure within the beds of sandstone. When the beds are forced aside like that, they typically vary in thickness rapidly and develop some kind of forced folds.As to the roughness of the outcrop at that location, I think we are at a disadvantage in not seeing the outcrop in person. There are several explanations including short blast-holes in that area allowing natural fractures to dictate the shape of the exposure.

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.

Let's put it this way:The evidence that you provide is not diagnostic of your explanation. It is also explained by mainstream interpretations. And, frankly, the mainstream interpretations are better because they respect other evidence such as the lack of shearing on the GU contact. I would still call that a lack of evidence because you have ignored evidence that you cannot explain. I'm sorry but sheer stubbornness does not impress me. You are wrong here. I have acknowledged that the sediments were soft when they took on the appearance of draping. The problem is that this is as far as you get. You have nothing going beyond that. Typically, the forces that produce a feature, will at least have the same symmetry in different locations or in different rocky types; especially considering that you recognize only one tectonic event recorded in the stratigraphic history of the planet. Which is irrelevant because erosion can occur quickly in a geological sense. Glaciers can plane off a continent in a geologically short period of time. So, you see how your evidence is not supportive of your theory. It is not effective evidence. Actually not. We have provided you with alternative explanations that honor the other aspects of the roadcut, such as the lack of shearing. My experience with laymen conducting experiments in sedimentation do not give me much confidence that you can do this. But we shall see. Your saying this to an idyot like me does not carry much weight.

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.

One problem you have here is that the 'disruption' you see is due to fracturing. If the rocks were deformed while soft, as you purport, then there should be no such fracturing.So, which way do you want it to be? It was indeed soft when the layers attained their geometry. And it was, indeed, an effect of gravity.The problem is that you have not shown that this happened after the entire rock sequence was deposited. And you have not shown that it was a tectonic event by 'intruding' the gneiss into the sandstone (in fact, you have just now denied this). Why would there be such a discrepancy in the softness of the rocks?And that's not even the point. The point is that you have not shown how the evidence supports your scenario over anyone else's. That is, you have not provided evidence. No one has said that.

(Deleted due to off-topic nature.) Edited by edge, : No reason given.

And these are folded planes... Edited by edge, : 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.

How did I "deny" this? Again you say something so bizarrely wrong I amaze myself that I continue to try to communicate with you at all. At least half of your posts are addressed to something in your own head. You live in some kind of alternative universe. I really don't think the problem is your professional training any more at all. I think if another geologist happened into EvC without any knowledge of the posting history he or she would find your communications as weird as I do. Talking to you is an ordeal.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'VE MADE A VERY GOOD CASE FOR THAT.

By saying this:"It dropped into the lower place in the gneiss, it merely followed gravity, ... "ABE: This seems to be in clear opposition to your statement that the sediments were intruded and owed their shape to the intrusion of the Archean rocks.ABE: Besides, what do you mean by "lower places in the gneiss", if they were not there before the sandstone was deposited?Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.