Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 8:08 PM
26 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3708
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 31 of 202 (418397)
08-27-2007 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 11:22 PM


Relative Dating Lab page
Looks like a pretty good summary of basic geology. I'm going to put that link into another topic. Will link to that topic here, when I track it down.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 11:22 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

    
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 32 of 202 (418398)
08-27-2007 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
08-27-2007 11:29 PM


Re: Great Unconformity.
My first reaction is to say no, but that's just for the sake of arguing. So I'll say yes to traverse further down this rabbit trail in the hopes of learning something.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:29 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:54 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 33 of 202 (418403)
08-27-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Coragyps
08-27-2007 2:39 PM


Link(s) would be nice
No. See comments on metamorphism above.

I'm probably guilty of having done such myself, but...

whenever you're referring to something elsewhere, including a link is a very useful thing.

Could you edit one in at your message?

Please, no replies to this moderator message.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


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

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


Message 34 of 202 (418406)
08-27-2007 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 11:33 PM


Re: Great Unconformity.
Jar asked:

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?

to which Vashgun replied:

quote:
My first reaction is to say no, but that's just for the sake of arguing. So I'll say yes to traverse further down this rabbit trail in the hopes of learning something.

Well either answer would do, all I am looking for is the model YOU present to explain the reality that is seen.

Right now all we are doing is searching for YOUR model.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 11:33 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3995 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 35 of 202 (418407)
08-28-2007 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 11:10 PM


Learn more
Vash writes:

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

Vash we are all born with inflated egos - comes with being human.

If you are really interested take up a study course of your own and be skeptical of everyone and every source. After a while you began to detect when someone is trying to deceive via logical fallacies, filtering data and appealing to emotion arguement. You also pick up on just plain ignorance. Try not become invested in any particular mindset always willing to change and adjust to new data and ideas.

When I started looking into the old vs young earth I was probably biased towards young earth because of my background. The data just started stacking up that it soon became undeniable - angular unconformities, extremely complex surface geology where each formation represented long time periods, formations on top of formations on top of formations, large eroded basins, colossal deposits of sand and microfossils, incised river meanders, fossilized agatized wood, extensive ice age and glacier remnants, etc.

These evidences coupled with the realization that the scale of the universe is way beyond our normal everyday human comprehension it seems to fit that the universe and earth are also extremely old beyond our comprehension (not to mention the physical fact of the time required for light to travel the distances involved). Deep space corresponds with deep time.

Now look I am off topic on my own thread.


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 38 by Ihategod, posted 08-29-2007 11:30 PM iceage has responded

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 3622 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 36 of 202 (418437)
08-28-2007 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 11:22 PM


Re: .....
Yes that looks like a good overview. You might also want to have a look at this thread that I'm running. Feel free to ask any questions if something is unclear.

As for angular unconformities and whether they can form on a young earth timescale; we need the following to occur in order to get one:

-Sediment is deposited.
-Sediment turns to rock.
-Sediment is tilted and/or folded, sometimes so that bands are near vertical.
-Sediment is uplifted or sea level falls and erosion takes place.
-More sediment is deposited on top of the erosional surface.
-This new sediment turns to rock.
-In the case of the unconformities we see on the surface, erosion must take place again to expose it for us to see.

The time that it takes for each of these things to happen can vary significantly. You'd be hard pressed to produce one minor unconformity within a few thousand years, never mind the large number of ones we see from varying ages. They are particularly inconsistent with Noah's flood as the ones I mentioned in my last post show clear signs of exposure above the sea for long periods- soil formation and limestone solution take time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 11:22 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

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


Message 37 of 202 (418477)
08-28-2007 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Coragyps
08-27-2007 2:39 PM


my apologies....
Links to unconformities in the subsurface:

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/allen/images/10.htm
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/allen/images/20.htm
Big pdf here.
Figure 4 in this pdf.


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

    
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 38 of 202 (418718)
08-29-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by iceage
08-28-2007 12:04 AM


Re: Learn more
I desire to tear your post apart and nit pick you. I will refrain.

You didn't provide any links. Luckily others were kind enough.

I have looked over the unconformities and have come to a conclusion.

This is definitely possible in a world wide flood. First, I would like to point out that the position on angular unconformities comes from a priori knowledge and application of Steno's Principles. If I may say so this theory is super sketchy. I am unsure where he got the basis for the ideas of superposition, horizontality, continuity. So thus is the first question: What is the foundations of this principle ?

Second it's assumed that tectonic forces must have been the catalyst to forming unconformities. I don't understand why it couldn't have happened with enormous amounts of fluctuating liquid. The more water over a certain area the more "lighter" particles will drift up. With massive waves of varying oscilating degrees I don't see how this couldn't account for unconformities and different groups of layers on top of each other.

Thirdly, it seems as if while reading the rebuttals to the flood, which are extraordinary in volume, there is an assumption of conformity to the prescribed yec theories. As if by proposing a new theory it must therefore must have no unconformities or paradoxes. It isn't to say this shouldn't be held up to inquisition, rather not treated as a law of the universe whilst the theory is in infancy.

Fourthly, there would have been an enormous amount of environmental change when the flood happened. As supposing a catalyst, such as a huge ice-meteorite to cause the north american ice age and tilt of earth's axis, it's possible that what could have transpired would be at best marginal in assumption to determining the process by which our world now rests.

Furthermore, I have yet to witness a damning argument against the flood. I read this was the best evidence, yet I see surface unconformities that if I looked upon them while trekking the wilds would assume it was relatively recent erosion. I am not doubting the existince of any unconformities in the rock strata, it is that the evidence has been purely circumstantial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by iceage, posted 08-28-2007 12:04 AM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-29-2007 11:38 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 42 by iceage, posted 08-30-2007 2:12 AM Ihategod has responded

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


Message 39 of 202 (418722)
08-29-2007 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Ihategod
08-29-2007 11:30 PM


Re: Learn more
Once more I make an offer.

Would you be interested in walking through some real life examples and explaining how the "Flood model" might explain them?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Ihategod, posted 08-29-2007 11:30 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Ihategod, posted 08-29-2007 11:49 PM jar has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 40 of 202 (418725)
08-29-2007 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
08-29-2007 11:38 PM


Re: Learn more
Your example of the Vishnu Schist could have happened 400 years ago. How do I know it didn't? Like I eluded to in my previous post, it would be preposterous to try to claim a certain model for anything that happened in the past, unless you use something like uniformitarianism. Which isn't to say that it shouldn't be attempted* -edited- Give me a clear example of a direct questionable subject, and i'll make to my best ability a subjective hypothesis. Instead you give me loaded mysteries that I haven't the slightest care to unravel.

Edited by Vashgun, : oops


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-29-2007 11:38 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 08-29-2007 11:51 PM Ihategod has responded

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


Message 41 of 202 (418726)
08-29-2007 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Ihategod
08-29-2007 11:49 PM


Re: Learn more
So you are afraid or unwilling to walk through some real life examples and show us how the Flood Model could explain what is seen.

That is as expected.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Ihategod, posted 08-29-2007 11:49 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 11:52 PM jar has responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3995 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 42 of 202 (418746)
08-30-2007 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Ihategod
08-29-2007 11:30 PM


Angular Unformities are Not Circumstantial
Vashgun writes:

First, I would like to point out that the position on angular unconformities comes from a priori knowledge and application of Steno's Principles. If I may say so this theory is super sketchy.

The principle that lower layers are older than upper layers is super sketchy !?

Other than the fact that it is relatively intuitive and common sense this "theory" has been proven to beyond a show of a doubt via radiometric dating, magnetic reversal markings and known events such as volcanic ash layers. Heck my desk serves as a great model - if I want to retrieve a document from say June I know I have to reach down about 1/4 of the way down.

Vashgun writes:

What is the foundations of this principle ?

Time, observation, simple reasoning.

Vashgun writes:

I don't understand why it couldn't have happened with enormous amounts of fluctuating liquid.

Fluctuating liquid in what way?

Vashgun writes:

The more water over a certain area the more "lighter" particles will drift up.

What? Why would more water over a certain area influence "lighter" particles to drift up? Water depth does not influence the density of a particle. Some non-standard physics at work here.

Vashgun writes:

With massive waves of varying oscilating degrees I don't see how this couldn't account for unconformities and different groups of layers on top of each other.

This is so vague that it is impossible to comment.

Vashgun writes:

Thirdly, it seems as if while reading the rebuttals to the flood, which are extraordinary in volume, there is an assumption of conformity to the prescribed yec theories. As if by proposing a new theory it must therefore must have no unconformities or paradoxes. It isn't to say this shouldn't be held up to inquisition, rather not treated as a law of the universe whilst the theory is in infancy.

No Comprende! Sorry but I can't figure out what you are trying to convey.

Vashgun writes:

Fourthly, there would have been an enormous amount of environmental change when the flood happened. As supposing a catalyst, such as a huge ice-meteorite to cause the north american ice age and tilt of earth's axis, it's possible that what could have transpired would be at best marginal in assumption to determining the process by which our world now rests.

Wow so much wrong in such a short paragraph....

There are no signs of impact of an ice-meteorite, ice floats which would present a significant problem for a simultaneous ice age, ice-meteorite, flood theory (creative but not supported by *any* evidence), the ice age was certainly NOT constrained to North America! or the even the northern hemisphere and *several* ice ages have occurred in the past.

Vashgun writes:

Furthermore, I have yet to witness a damning argument against the flood.

There are many. Spend some time looking and you will find an overwhelming amount of evidence.

Vashgun writes:

I read this was the best evidence, yet I see surface unconformities that if I looked upon them while trekking the wilds would assume it was relatively recent erosion.

What is a "surface unconformities". Angular Unconformities occur through out the geological column. Links were provided. You just can't get a nice picture of buried unconformities.

The Great Unconformity at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is 10,000 ft from the rim of the canyon - it is only on the "surface" because a river carved a deep canyon.

And your comment "relatively recent erosion" demonstrates that you are missing the arguement. Angular unconformities involve *two* separate deposition and lithification events with an erosional episode in between (not to mention a tilting event). As stated often the lower layer is metamorphosed. This implies deep burying, which further implies uplift to bring this formation back to the surface for erosion to act.

Further Angular Unconformities are not the "best evidence" against the flood. Angular Unconformities are just one of several evidences (others include river meanders, chalk deposits, lava layers) that are readily available and do not require reliance upon other peoples observations like do radiometric dating, dendrochronology, varves with seasonal markings, batholith cooling rates, magnetic reversals, deeply buried sediment basins, buried river canyons, etc. on and on.

Vashgun writes:

I am not doubting the existince of any unconformities in the rock strata, it is that the evidence has been purely circumstantial.

Just what exactly is circumstantial? The evidence is readily available and observable - the implications are clear - the explanations are simple. Are you being honest with yourself?

There are absolutely no rational flood explanations at all.

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Edited by iceage, : Added sub-title


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Ihategod, posted 08-29-2007 11:30 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 11:56 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 43 of 202 (418893)
08-30-2007 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
08-29-2007 11:51 PM


Re: Learn more
So you are afraid or unwilling to walk through some real life examples and show us how the Flood Model could explain what is seen.

That is as expected.

I am responding so you do not think what you asserted to be true and use it in another argument as claims of granduer against a creationist.

Even if I did provide some examples, none would be able to demonstrate what you desire.., an understanding of the flood. It would be like me asking you for a detailed description of life after the body dies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 08-29-2007 11:51 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 08-30-2007 11:57 PM Ihategod has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 44 of 202 (418894)
08-30-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by iceage
08-30-2007 2:12 AM


Re: Angular Unformities are Not Circumstantial
No reason to break this apart.

You assume I think like you. I do not. I am much clearer in my reasoning and not weighed down by just-so stories. How is it that the layers can even be dated by this type of logic? Since life was created around the same time as the rock, the only dating should be a universal or singular date as all the rocks came into being at the same time. Just because they are layered doesn't mean that the law of superpostion applies, which is my point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by iceage, posted 08-30-2007 2:12 AM iceage has not yet responded

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


Message 45 of 202 (418895)
08-30-2007 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 11:52 PM


Re: Learn more
Actually, if there is some Flood Model, you should be able to use it to explain what is seen. Again, I am willing to step through what is really there and let you show how the Flood Model can explain it.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 11:52 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Ihategod, posted 08-31-2007 12:05 AM jar has responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
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