Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities

Poor gullible people, seeing an abyss of time based on sheer imagination.The breccia embedded in the upper horizontal section is proof itself that it did not form millions of years after the lower vertical strata. There had to be some kind of friction to break it off and embed it. This fits my theory, not Hutton's: all the strata were in place horizontally, and still damp and malleable from the Flood, when tectonic force pushed the lower segment upright, abrading the vertical rocks at the point where the different kinds of rock met, that being the point of least resistance, so that the whole formation was divided between the two kinds of rock.The other evidence that he was wrong is how similar the weathering is for both sections. The multiple millions of years that supposedly mark each layer show NO difference in weathering whatever. The lower rocks should be completely disintegrated, or at the very least far more decrepit than the upper. Nope, there is no evidence there for the great age of the rocks that has become dogma based only on gullible human imagination.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Addressing the impossibilities of the accepted view ought to go some way to making the point. Of course I'm repeating my theory, it's as good as or better than the establishment view which has plenty of holes in it.You've been called on your endless claim that rock doesn't form by drying, because sometimes it does. But what does that have to do with this point anyway?I've made the case many times for the tilting of lower layers affecting the upper by pushing them up and abrading the contact.The rocks were formed under water according to standard theory. That means during the Flood according to creationist thinking. They would have been stripped down to their skeletal form after the Flood receded, by the same tectonic force that tilted the lower layers, exposing them to the weathering we see at that location. It looks to me like a few thousand years of weathering of both top and bottom layers should suffice to explain what is observed there, both exposed for the same length of time. This interpretation holds together just fine.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

From the pictures and comments on the rocks I gather that the breccia is made up of clasts of the lower sediment embedded in the upper. The matrix would be the upper sediment.There is no reason to assume the strata were as soft as you want to believe, just soft enough not to be brittle but solid enough to break into pieces will do it just fine. The cementing of course occurred over time after the tilting and breaking off of the pieces.That angular unconformaties are generally made up of different kinds of rock split between the two supports my argument very nicely. That there should be evidence of breakage of the tilted part as it was forced upward and along the lower surface of the upper strata also fits nicely, pieces of the lower getting stuck in the upper. the upper would have been scraped, not broken, so the pieces would be from the lower section pushed into the upper damp rock. Originally, of course, after the whole stack had been deposited by the Flood, there would have been quite a depth of layers above those that still remain, adding enormous weight to the whole that countered the tectonic pressure from below, allowing for shearing of the tilting (actually folding) lower layers. See above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Cuz of the layering that would have contained them I would suppose Because it was the lower strata that folded and got broken as a result of being forced upward and along the lower surface of the upper. The upper didn't break, but were rather lifted by the folding lower layers which would have scraped the sediment of the bottommost layer at the unconformity. I should say the lower were folded rather than tilted, but their upper surfaces would have broken off in that case too. Some pictures from that same area some distance from Siccar Point itself do show a bending of the lower layers where you can still see the fold itself, but in any case there's no need to assume a very high degree of ductility, and also, the tectonic pressure should have had the effect of hardening the rock at the same time it folded it. The observable evidence at Siccar Point is that there is no visible difference between the degree of weathering of upper and lower sections. Which to my mind is evidence for a young earth there as well as at Siccar Point, because in the enormous time spans described by standard theory the lower section of Siccar and Mt. Rushmore too, shouldn't be holding up well at all. Creationists have shown that what you call evidence of weathering is chemically different from what you get with weathering. Abraded sediment perhaps but not weathered rock. And I'm sorry but I don't see the relevance of paleosols.

Corse not. But I could probably show you with a lump of clay. I'm sure there are though I rely on my intuitive genius about such things, and this is really quite recognizable by anyone I would think. Oh maybe not you, but you know, most anyone. Such intense pressure on damp porous shapable stuff would force out the water enough to harden it some. Kinda obvious dontcha think? Weathering, erosion, my dear Watson, weathering, erosion, earthquakes, regular dousing by sea water in the case of Siccar Point. Nature, ya know. Visible erosion of all kinds can occur within our own lifetimes. At the rate the hoodoos in Utah are being formed by erosion they must be about a few thousand years from the original sedimentary deposition. There would be nothing left of them at all in a million years, or even twenty thousand. I rather doubt there are any because the scientific establishment doesn't bother with them either; it's all imaginative speculation.Nobody has referred to any such tests on behalf of the standard interpretation of Siccar Point. Hutton certainly didn't. He pondered and he declared, based purely on his imagination. Nobody has done any tests to measure the erosion factors affecting the upper and lower parts of the formation, which show no difference in degree whatever. Also, what is the explanation for the fact that I have observed myself that so many angular unconformities occur between two different kinds of rock? Why should that be? My theory explains that, the standard theory does not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm glad you said "ostensibly" because erosion on an exposed surface isn't the only possible explanation. I'd point out for starters how the channels in the granite are capped by similarly eroded sandstone, on their undersides in this case. If the granite had eroded before the sand was deposited, first the sand would have filled in the depressions, and second, the underside of the sandstone shouldn't be eroded at that same location. Most erosion between strata can be explained as occurring there after they were all in place, from water runoff between layers at the contacts. That must have happened here too, even cutting into the granite. Whatever cut the granite also cut the sandstone, and at the same time, showing both were already there at the time.Also the granite is surprisingly flat --abe: though tilted? --at the unconformity despite the lumps and depressions. I know you all claim that surface erosion creates flatness. It's never been demonstrated though it's been illustrated from imagination. Abrasion could do it I'd guess. Or maybe it's even possible that the magma welled up after the strata were in place, melting other rocks until it got to this level. Guessing of course, but it's a guess based on the observations above that suggest erosion after deposition of all layers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course. The clasts would have been broken off the underlying layers during the movement between the sections caused by the tectonic pressure. The lower upright layers would have slid along underneath the upper horizontal layers, and the broken pieces would have become embedded in those layers, along their horizontal length. This was certainly how the giant boulder of why-can't-I-renenber-its-name,* that translucent hard rock that was one of the layers of the uptilted Supergroup strata beneath the Grand Canyon, the boulder that broke off and got embedded in the Tapeats sandstone above the Great Unconformity, as a result of the tectdonic movement that tilted the Supergroup, according to my creationist explanation, of the movement between the upper and lower sections, a movement that slid something like a quarter of a mile, since that is the distance of the boulder from its source layer. Same process as at Siccar Point, pieces of the lower strata getting embedded in the upper horizontal sand layers.I'll have to come back to this.===================================
* Quartzite! Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not getting this. Isn't the matrix the red sandstone itself? The rock pieces are the greywacke sandstone of the lower section embedded in the red sandstone. You'd have to show me this, I don't get your point. In other words it is so eroded it's hard to tell what its original form was; it might even have been planar but after thousands of years of battering by wind and sea water from all sides and even through the upper section as these erosive processes broke it down, it's become irregular and the upper section has sort of settled into it in an irregular way. But it could have broken off irregularly and its pieces been embedded in the upper section in the same way anyway. That's rather a pedantic point. It's possible for the action I'm describing to have occurred as described and left a more irregular contact. Pieces would still have broken off and been embedded in the upper section which settled into the lower. Besides, if the upper had been deposited long after the lower was eroded, shouldn't we see the red sandstone filling all the spaces in the lower instead of sitting on it as a horizontal formation? I don't get your card analogy, but there had to be quite a bit of material from the lower section that was either sheared or broken away, so I'm not sure drag folds would be left from all that. Even if the shearing process took off quite a depth of material? Even after thousands of years of erosion? If you say so, I'll chalk that one up on your side of the argument for now. I can barely make it out but I think I get the gist. Rather relevant I'd say. That imaginary sort of "shoreline" that geologists are always finding by small clues I suppose? Possibly a water line formed during the receding Flood. In which case there wouldn't be a clear difference, as you are saying, just as there wouldn't if it was caused by the Flood, which of course it was. But doesn't that fly in the face of the standard theory that assigns millions of years to layers of rock? How would it happen that these particular sections aren't to be assigned such hugely different ages? Uh huh, how pat, how convenient. It's got all the earmarks of Flood formation but those earmarks can be rationalized somehow to fit the enormous age spans of standard theory -- by simply defining these rocks as deposited closely in time, eliminating all the other layers that would have had at some point to have been part of the formation. Where did those ancient layers go by the way?Also, what makes the lower rocks "highly resistant?" In the film the Hutton party calls them "schistus" but they aren't schist, they are greywacke, which is a sandstone mixed with a small proportion of clay, making them somewhat harder or more resistant than the upper red sandstone but not as resistant as schist would be. And really, by standard theory they WOULD have been deposited much earlier than the upper. The Hutton group pictures them under water, not at a shoreline, and the upper sand being deposited much later. That would fit the usual scenario of the standard theory. Really? As I recall it was in the video of the lecture on the Grand Canyon by Paul Garner of the British creationist society. I'll ahve to track it down. Sigh. That Likely Story again.

OK, you've shown that there's red sandstone in the crevices. Now I have a different take on it. It would have been the scraping of the lower section, irregular as it is now, against the underside of the upper section, that caused the sand to fill those spaces. For one thing it looks like it came off a horizontal layer that was already there, rather than being deposited as loose sediment into the crevices originally, which would de-emphasize the layered effect, which it didn'tEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Another point: if you want to argue that the layering in the crevices proves deposition occurred after the lower irregular section had been there for a while, I'd point out that some time ago, a couple years by now maybe, HBD proved that sand depositing on an irregular surface would drape over the protuberances and not settle in the crevices in layers as I had supposed.However, the layers don't fit my scenario either since they would have been disturbed by the scraping of the "picket" shapes illustrated in your drawing.That suggests that neither explanation works.However, the drawing is just a drawing, and nothing in the photos corroborates its presentation of layers in the crevices anyway.

At this point I just want to ask, What on earth do you mean by a "tectonic structure" and why can't there be both sedimentary and tectonic features at Siccar Point? This is utter gobbledygook, as well as a brand-new subject never mentioned before.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm aware of all those features, I see them mostly as the result of extreme erosion, the photos however do NOT show layering, infilling yes but not layering. There is no reason to consider Siccar Point different from the examples discussed there. Why would I want to? That isn't what I had in mind. I assume slip still, the tectonic force would be strong enough to cause the same movement I've been describing even in this case, but now the effect of the rough upper edges has to be taken into account, and what that would do is dig into the sand layers above, cause sand to fall into the crevices etc. There is no evidence of layering in the crevices in the photos. They do not demonstrate layering. And if what you mean by "tectonic structure" is drag folds, I'm taking back my tentative concession, which I intended as politeness more than agreeing with your point. I don't agree with it. The way the friction would have worked the part that would have folded would have been filed down. The sand was scraped into the crevices, AS I SAID, and just as in all my arguments about how this happened, yes the upper section would maintain its horizontal orientation just as it would if the broken off lower surface was flatter and smoother -- {abe: WHICH I BELIEVE WAS THE CASE AT SICCAR POINT AS IN EVERY OTHER ANGULAR UNCONFORMITY AT THE TIME OF THE TECTONIC MOVEMENT. What is seen now is the result of thousands of years of erosion breaking down the upper ends of the broken lower section along with the upper layers. There is no reason for Siccar to be any different from other similar formations at that point/abe) And as usual, there would have been an enormous weight of strata above, as I've pointed out many times over the course of this discussion from thread to thread, and that resistance to the tectonic movement would maintain the horizontality of the upper section. When the discussion devolves into irrationality in this way as it so often does with you, I have little interest in continuing it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

WHAT ABOUT THE UPRIGHT STRATA FOR PETE'S SAKE?Good grief.And once again, what I am frustrated with is your game-playing sabotage of communication.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, you are making absolutely no sense.Please explain how you think the lower section at Siccar Point got into its upright position. How did the layers get broken off as they did, and where did the excess material go?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This makes no sense to me. First of all I did not say there is a LACK of weathering below the unconformity, I said the opposite, I said both upper and lower sections look equally weathered to me, which is to argue that the usual old-earth interpretation doesn't work. You answered that they were deposited close enough together to eliminate that problem, on the basis of some "shoreline" theory, for which you gave no evidence.I did argue that the apparent lack of difference in weathering is an argument for my tectonic formation/shearing theory because the layers both above and below the unconformity would have already been in place at that time.