Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 9:38 PM
153 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,461 Year: 3,498/19,786 Month: 493/1,087 Week: 83/212 Day: 13/31 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1985 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 16 of 202 (350670)
09-20-2006 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by iceage
09-19-2006 10:53 PM


Bump for Geologists
Reading all this I have a question for some real geologists out there. Maybe we could get the attention of rox or IRH or someone.

Are there any examples out there of strata where an unconformity exists such that it is a disconformity at one location and a nonconformity at another?

Where this might happen is where erosion had exposed an intrusion alongside the intruded upon layers. Subsequent deposition would have had to bury this unconformity. This would mean that the layers would have to be laid down, be intruded upon, the intrusion cool off, the intrusion erode, and THEN the unconformity be preserved by further burial.

This scenario would be TOTALLY devastating of a young earth, doubly so if the unconformity was angular.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by iceage, posted 09-19-2006 10:53 PM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by petrophysics1, posted 09-22-2006 10:24 PM Jazzns has responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 202 (351495)
09-22-2006 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jazzns
09-20-2006 12:14 PM


Re: Bump for Geologists
The Pennsylvanian Fountain formation lies on precambrian igneous and metamorphic rock west of Denver, a nonconformity. Excellent place to look at that contact is in Red Rocks Park. Further to the east the Pennsylvanian is deposited on top of Mississippian rocks and there is a disconformity, with the Missippian showing a weathered upper surface and a paleosoil. These rocks are in the subsurface so you can't directly look at them. I know this from dipmeter and formation microimaging data and I also cored it when I worked for Phillips Petroleun in the 80s.

Here is a link to a angular unconformity to nonconformity in California.

http://www.marin.cc.ca.us/~jim/ring/ptreyes/pr_ang.html

Some angular unconformity pictures

shortened link

Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jazzns, posted 09-20-2006 12:14 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Jazzns, posted 09-23-2006 12:48 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1985 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 18 of 202 (351519)
09-23-2006 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by petrophysics1
09-22-2006 10:24 PM


Re: Bump for Geologists - Any Response From a YEC?
So pretty much there you go. One more totally impossible thing to happen during a global flood. VERY impossible for a flood to make.

Thanks so much for the info. Somehow I think this is not going to get many replies from the YEC community here. In the face of facts that singularly and utterly refute their mythology, the response is usually crickets.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by petrophysics1, posted 09-22-2006 10:24 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4104 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 19 of 202 (418224)
08-27-2007 12:49 AM


compelled to reply
I would like to point out that no one really answered the question, instead jumped on the bash-creationism-bandwagon. Really objective fella's. :confused: I've been slammed every time I remotely suppose something I feel is relative yet is deemed off topic for evolutionists. This is indeed evidence of bias.

First question: How do you know that erosion shaped the rocks?
Second question: Could it have been a relatively short intermediate period between lower formation and upper layer?
Third question: I viewed as many pictures as I could find yet, the only real speculative angular unconformity I saw was a drawing on wikipedia. Why isn't there better evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconformity

If this is the best evidence, I'd find a new theory.


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by iceage, posted 08-27-2007 2:14 AM Ihategod has responded
 Message 21 by The Matt, posted 08-27-2007 9:22 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3989 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 20 of 202 (418240)
08-27-2007 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 12:49 AM


Re: compelled to reply
Vashgun writes:

I would like to point out that no one really answered the question, instead jumped on the bash-creationism-bandwagon.

Well that is because no young earth creationist cared or dared to respond. And not without reason!

The reason that Angular Unconformities are a powerful evidence of old earth is that their interpretation does not require relying on others for the observation - they can be observed first hand. This is not the case with tree ring counting, radiometric dating techniques, star and galaxy distances, magnetic reversals, etc.

First question: How do you know that erosion shaped the rocks?

I suppose you are referring to why does the underlying layer appear to be cut at an angle to the sediment layer. I cannot not even suggest an alternative explanation in either view point - young or old earth. That is what could possible lay down sediment layers like....

////////////

Vashgun writes:

Second question: Could it have been a relatively short intermediate period between lower formation and upper layer?

Now that is a possibility.

However, we do know that often the lower layer of Angular Unconformity are considerably more metamorphised than the upper layer. Metamorphic rock is rock that has experienced high heat, high pressure and time as the result of being deeply buried. This implies that the lower layer and upper layer lithified under very different conditions and over different lengths of time.

Note that if one were to find an unconformity where the upper layer is more metamorphised then the bottom layer this would present a very serious problem (falsification).

The Great Unconformity at the bottom of the geological column of the Grand Canyon and Siccar Point are examples where the bottom layer are much more metamophised then the upper layer.

For reference here is a drawing of the Unconformity of the Grand Canyon....

And here is an actually image of the Grand Canyon Unconformity...

Vashgun writes:

Third question: I viewed as many pictures as I could find yet, the only real speculative angular unconformity I saw was a drawing on wikipedia. Why isn't there better evidence?

Angular unconformities are *not* speculative!!!! I visited your link to the wiki and found three images of real angular unconformities.

Angular Unconformities are are quite common. The one at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is very visible - you can put your hand across the contact.

Siccar point is another famous angular unconformity. Visit the linked reference below for hi-res images.

http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/undergraduate/field/siccarpoint/images.html

here are many more here...

http://images.google.com/images?q=angular+unconformity

Here is another in Yellowstone National Park (taken by yours truly).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 12:49 AM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 9:28 AM iceage has not yet responded

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 3616 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 21 of 202 (418266)
08-27-2007 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 12:49 AM


Re: compelled to reply
quote:
Could it have been a relatively short intermediate period between lower formation and upper layer?

It's not impossible. Some unconformities probably do represent relatively short time gaps (though short geologically and short in the context of YEC are pretty different).
Some unconformities give us obvious signs that the area was emergent (not underwater) for quite long periods of time, such as fossil soils or palaeosols. Karstic landforms (those formed by solution of limestone exposed to the weather)can also be identified in some unconformities, as seen here.

We may be able to work out the difference in ages between the youngest rock of the lower sequence and the oldest rock of the upper one to give us an idea of how much time is missing. The rocks themselves may be dateable with radiometric methods or fossils. Unconformities are not global, so somewhere we may be able to find a sequence not broken by an unconformity, and if we can then the rocks that are missing at the unconformity but present there may give us some clues about how long they took to form, and by proxy what sort of gap the unconformity represents.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 12:49 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by bdfoster, posted 08-27-2007 4:03 PM The Matt has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4104 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 22 of 202 (418267)
08-27-2007 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by iceage
08-27-2007 2:14 AM


Re: compelled to reply
Thanks for the reply,

I was perhaps vague in my last question. Why is it that the angular unconformities all seem to be relatively in conjuction with the surface. Isn't it possible that these could have happened in less than 4000 years? I haven't seen one, where I am compelled to admit that it couldn't have happened in this time frame nor does any of your links provide this. Perhaps I need more elaboration in this area.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iceage, posted 08-27-2007 2:14 AM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:08 AM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Coragyps, posted 08-27-2007 2:39 PM Ihategod has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 23 of 202 (418297)
08-27-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 9:28 AM


Re: compelled to reply
How does your model explain the Great Unconformity between the Vishnu Schist and the Tapeats Limestone?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 9:28 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 24 of 202 (418324)
08-27-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 9:28 AM


Why is it that the angular unconformities all seem to be relatively in conjuction with the surface?

Just maybe because stuff near the surface is visible, and buried stuff isn't?

Seismic studies show lots of unconformities in the subsurface, sometimes stacked on top of others. The oil fields around beautiful Velma, Oklahoma are a fine example. The SACROC unit 6500 feet beneath my desk is another.

Isn't it possible that these could have happened in less than 4000 years?

No. See comments on metamorphism above.

And the SACROC makes oil out of a huge coral/sponge reef - they don't grow real fast. The surface of the reef is eroded and cut up by streams and rivers - those don't erode corals all that quick. The whoe mess is buried by over a mile of dolomites, shales, gypsum beds, red sandstones of desert origin, layers of salt, limestones, anf then dirt. That didn't happen fast, and it didn't happen in a Floode.

Edited by Coragyps, : fix tags


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 9:28 AM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 11:10 PM Coragyps has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-27-2007 11:44 PM Coragyps has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 08-28-2007 11:26 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 2953 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 25 of 202 (418341)
08-27-2007 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by The Matt
08-27-2007 9:22 AM


Re: compelled to reply
This is true. Uplift and deformation can happen surprisingly quickly in geologic terms, especially in tectonicly active areas like southern California. Of course happening in the flood year is laughable. The Saugus Formation in the northern L. A. basin is the Pleio-Pleistocene deposits of the ancient Santa Clara river. The deposits are not associated with the modern drainage but with an ancestral, much larger river. The youngest of these deposits are only about 500,000 years old, but they are deformed to very steep inclinations along the San Gabriel fault. I don't know if there is any formal unit that overlies the Saugus, but the Saugus itself overlies older units with angular unconformity. I can't find the specific reference I was looking for, but that's the basic story. The rates of uplift and deformation are crazy here in So. Cal. especially near the faults.


Brent
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by The Matt, posted 08-27-2007 9:22 AM The Matt has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4104 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 26 of 202 (418389)
08-27-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Coragyps
08-27-2007 2:39 PM


......
Seismic studies show lots of unconformities in the subsurface, sometimes stacked on top of others. The oil fields around beautiful Velma, Oklahoma are a fine example. The SACROC unit 6500 feet beneath my desk is another.

Seismic studies? Let me explain something that I assumed was obvious. I don't know much more about this topic than what wikipedia and this thread has posed. Instead of jumping all over me and telling me how classic it is for a creationist to be so stupid, perhaps you should stop stroking your over-inflated egos and help me understand this topic. Please.

Like..., providing links instead of hearsay.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Coragyps, posted 08-27-2007 2:39 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:15 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 35 by iceage, posted 08-28-2007 12:04 AM Ihategod has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 202 (418390)
08-27-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 11:10 PM


Re: ......
How does your model explain the Great Unconformity between the Vishnu Schist and the Tapeats Limestone?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 11:10 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 11:25 PM jar has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4104 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 28 of 202 (418391)
08-27-2007 11:22 PM


.....
Another question.

http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/historical_lab/relativedating.htm

Is this a good overview?


Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-27-2007 11:32 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 36 by The Matt, posted 08-28-2007 5:02 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4104 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 29 of 202 (418393)
08-27-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
08-27-2007 11:15 PM


Re: ......
Lets see,

a lot of water.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:15 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:29 PM Ihategod has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 202 (418396)
08-27-2007 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 11:25 PM


Great Unconformity.
Jar asked:

How does your model explain the Great Unconformity between the Vishnu Schist and the Tapeats Limestone?

to which Vashgun replied:

quote:
Lets see,

a lot of water.


Okay. So let me make sure I understand.

You are claiming that the material that is missing in the Great Unconformity was washed away?

Is that correct so far?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 11:25 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 11:33 PM jar has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019