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 8:42 PM
138 online now:
14174dm, DrJones*, xongsmith (3 members, 135 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4104 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 46 of 202 (418896)
08-31-2007 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
08-30-2007 11:57 PM


Re: Learn more
Again,

A massive amount of water from above and below, coupled with countless assumable circumstances make it EXTREMELY difficult to postulate a hypothesis on the how. This doesn't in the least make it impossible, just not dogmatic. You demand something that would be absurd at best for me to reason through. I know, you can't know either. :p


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 08-30-2007 11:57 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 08-31-2007 12:22 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

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


Message 47 of 202 (418897)
08-31-2007 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Ihategod
08-31-2007 12:05 AM


Re: Learn more
The offer still stands.

If there is a Flood Model it should be able to explain what is seen.

As a very devout Christian I invite you to step through and show how the Flood Model can explain reality.

That is after all, the topic of this thread.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Ihategod, posted 08-31-2007 12:05 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

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


Message 48 of 202 (418898)
08-31-2007 12:43 AM


Attn. Vashgun et all - Temporary topic closure coming
Vashgun is the only creationist to have ever posted in this topic. As s/he is not buying the most basic of geologic principles, the Law of Superposition, it is pointless to be dabating anything else geologic with him/her.

Going to close this topic down. Maybe it can be reopened at a later and more useful time.

Vashgun - I strongly suggest your confine your geology postings to the above cited topic. If things work out there, then you can go into other geology topics.

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


Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-06-2007 1:03 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

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


Message 49 of 202 (420067)
09-06-2007 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Adminnemooseus
08-31-2007 12:43 AM


Re: Attn. Vashgun et all - Temporary topic closure coming
Topic reopened.

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 48 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-31-2007 12:43 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by bdfoster, posted 09-07-2007 12:51 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

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


Message 50 of 202 (420324)
09-07-2007 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Adminnemooseus
09-06-2007 1:03 AM


They're everywhere
Here's a couple of angular unconformities. Not really spectacular "text book" examples. But it just goes to show they're everywhere. Not just one or two flukes.

In the first one, from northern California, the lower steeply inclined unit is Cretaceous Great Valley sequence. It's hard to see the bedding in the upper unit but it is flat. The unit is the Pliocene Tehama Formation. There's A couple of notable features: first, a fault in the lower right of the picture with drag folds that indicate the direction of movement. The hanging wall (upper block) has moved up. The fault doesn't appear to extend into the Tehama although there may have been an erosional scarp. Also, at the base of the flat lying Tehama is a "basal conglomerate" that includes eroded material from the lower unit. It clearly indicates the lower unit was solid rock before the upper unit was deposited.

In the second one, from southern California, I'm not sure what the units are. The lower one is probably a marine sandstone, part of the Tertiary section that is common in this area. the upper unit is probably a very old stream terrace (old for a stream terrace, probably Pleistocene) deposit associated with a river that is about 200 feet downslope, or perhaps not associated with any modern drainage. The thing to note about this one is that the upper unit is composed mostly of sandstone boulders derived from the lower unit, and granitic boulders from the local mountains. Most stream terraces are adjacent to the stream they are associated with. So I think this unit may have been deposited by an ancestral river that is no longer reflected in the modern landscape. It is a mysterious enigmatic unit, and it may have formed in a "catastrophic" flood. But one thing is certain: it formed much later than the sandstones that it covers. And whatever flood formed it was not global. The extent of this unit is confined to this particular valley. Whatever flood, or more likely floods, that formed it didn't even cover the local drainage divides.


Brent
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-06-2007 1:03 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 11:21 AM bdfoster has responded

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


Message 51 of 202 (420742)
09-09-2007 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by bdfoster
09-07-2007 12:51 PM


Re: They're everywhere
I am going to ask the obvious again. Since these are surfaced rock, what stops me from assuming that the entire layer isn't the same? On the bottom picture the unconformity looks like it could have occured when the road was established. Wouldn't unconformities suggest rapid deposition due to the nature of how it is laid down? And doesn't this deposition go against the basic principles of Geology?

Also, what geology mechanism is used to explain these unconformities?

Edited by Highestevolvedwhiteguy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by bdfoster, posted 09-07-2007 12:51 PM bdfoster has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by The Matt, posted 09-10-2007 5:10 AM Ihategod has responded
 Message 53 by bdfoster, posted 09-10-2007 12:26 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

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


Message 52 of 202 (420898)
09-10-2007 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ihategod
09-09-2007 11:21 AM


Re: They're everywhere
Since these are surfaced rock, what stops me from assuming that the entire layer isn't the same?

Please clarify- which layer?

On the bottom picture the unconformity looks like it could have occured when the road was established.

On what do you base this?

Wouldn't unconformities suggest rapid deposition due to the nature of how it is laid down?

How so? especially since we haven't yet looked at what rocks are involved in many of these unconformities.

And doesn't this deposition go against the basic principles of Geology?

No. Which ones are you thinking of and in what way are they violated?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 11:21 AM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Ihategod, posted 09-11-2007 12:58 AM The Matt has responded

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


Message 53 of 202 (420956)
09-10-2007 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ihategod
09-09-2007 11:21 AM


Re: They're everywhere
I'm not sure what the significance of being near the surface is. An erosion surface is the main feature of all unconformities. Erosion surfaces form at the earth's surface so I'm not sure why this would be a problem. Nevertheless, in the first photo the upper unit, the Tehama Formation, thickens eastward from this location to about 2000 feet in the middle of the Sacramento Valley. The unconformity, with Great Valley sequence overlain by either the Tehama or other formations, is traceable in the subsurface in oil and gas wells throughout the valley. Numerous unconformities, most of them not angular occur above this major angular unconformity in the subsurface of the Great Valley. Subsurface erosion surfaces can even be mapped, showing typical surface features like weathering and stream channels. An ancient impact crater has been found in the subsurface of the Great Valley.

In the lower picture, yes the upper unit is quite young. I called it a very old terrace because it is elevated a couple hundred feet above the modern drainage. Young modern terraces are right next to the modern channels. This is one of the youngest deposits in the area. But it is in the road cut so it must pre-date the road. And a close look at the deposit indicates it was not formed in a single event. Some of the deposit consists of unsorted material ranging in size from boulders to sand. Some boulders not well rounded and are in a sandy matrix with no preferred orientation.This suggests deposition by debris flow. But other parts have gravel that is well rounded and sorted, suggestimg normal channel deposition. There are even sandy lenses that look like sand bars. The upper material does indeed appear to have been depositged rapidly, but clearly not in one event. Rapid deposition like this does not go against the basic principles of geology, it is in perfect accord with them. There is no problem finding modern analogs for this type of deposit.

The geologic mechanisms used to explain these unconformities are totally incompatible with flood geology. In the early days of geology, unconformities like these could not be explained by the geologic mechanisms of 18th century catastrophism. It was recognized that after deposition, the deformed sediments had to have been tilted, uplifted and eroded prior to the deposition of the upper sediment. The overlying units often contain eroded and weathered pieces of the underlying units, as well as material derived from rocks that did not esist when the upper rocks were deposited. In the Sierra Nevada granitic rock intrudes older deformed meta-sedimentary rock. Both are truncated by an erosion surface and overlain by younger Tertiary sediment. The Tertiary sediment contains material from the tilted meta-sediment and the granitics that intrude them. What flood geology mechanism could explain this? Remember it has to explain the presence of lithified, weathered pieces of underlying rocks and pieces igneous rock that has intruded (and therefore must be younger) the underlying rock. You've got one year to do it! Noah's flood year. Mainstream geology has all the time in the world.

Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.


Brent
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 11:21 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

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


Message 54 of 202 (421105)
09-11-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by The Matt
09-10-2007 5:10 AM


Re: They're everywhere
Please clarify- which layer?

pick one.

On the bottom picture the unconformity looks like it could have occured when the road was established.

On what do you base this?

The fact...THAT THERE IS A ROAD THERE! sheesh.

Wouldn't unconformities suggest rapid deposition due to the nature of how it is laid down?

How so? especially since we haven't yet looked at what rocks are involved in many of these unconformities.

How, because it goes against the LoS, original horizion, original lateral.

No. Which ones are you thinking of and in what way are they violated?

LoS, original horizion, original lateral.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by The Matt, posted 09-10-2007 5:10 AM The Matt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by The Matt, posted 09-11-2007 3:26 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

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


Message 55 of 202 (421126)
09-11-2007 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Ihategod
09-11-2007 12:58 AM


Re: They're everywhere
I'm now fairly sure that you haven't understood any of the basic principles in the slightest.

Explain how you think each of these are violated.

Edited by The Matt, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Ihategod, posted 09-11-2007 12:58 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by bdfoster, posted 09-11-2007 12:40 PM The Matt has not yet responded

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


Message 56 of 202 (421185)
09-11-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by The Matt
09-11-2007 3:26 AM


Re: They're everywhere
I'm now fairly sure that you haven't understood any of the basic principles in the slightest.
Explain how you think each of these are violated.

It may be that Vashgun is saying, angular conformities were formed in the deluge. They have horizontal sediment overlyling tilted sediment. Therefore superposition and original horizontality must be false. If they were true it would violate his logical premise, that angular conformities were formed in the deluge.


Brent
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by The Matt, posted 09-11-2007 3:26 AM The Matt has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 09-11-2007 12:48 PM bdfoster has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:40 PM bdfoster has responded

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


Message 57 of 202 (421188)
09-11-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by bdfoster
09-11-2007 12:40 PM


Re: They're everywhere
He may also be assuming that just because the ones that have been shown are all relatively near the surface that all are near the surface.

I would suggest trying to find out what HE thinks an unconformity is and what the model is for creating an unconformity.

Then step on to an angular unconformity.

Then move on to show that there can be a whole series of unconformities in a geological column.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by bdfoster, posted 09-11-2007 12:40 PM bdfoster has not yet responded

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


Message 58 of 202 (421447)
09-12-2007 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by bdfoster
09-11-2007 12:40 PM


Re: They're everywhere
It may be that Vashgun is saying, angular conformities were formed in the deluge. They have horizontal sediment overlyling tilted sediment. Therefore superposition and original horizontality must be false. If they were true it would violate his logical premise, that angular conformities were formed in the deluge.

Im not saying throw the los and lot out, it just looks like those principles don't apply to unconformities. The only thing that violates my logical premise, is your saying there is a dichotomy between the laws and what my eyeballs are seeing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by bdfoster, posted 09-11-2007 12:40 PM bdfoster has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by The Matt, posted 09-12-2007 9:19 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2007 9:39 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 61 by bdfoster, posted 09-13-2007 11:23 AM Ihategod has responded

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


Message 59 of 202 (421487)
09-12-2007 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:40 PM


Re: They're everywhere
Again, please explain how they do not apply. I'm still not sure you understand them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:40 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 52 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 60 of 202 (421489)
09-12-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:40 PM


Re: They're everywhere
it just looks like those principles don't apply to unconformities.

the reason the law of superposition is a law instead of a hypothesis is because of angular unconformities. they are what prove it beyond any shadow of doubt.

in order for an angular unconformity to exist, that layer and all below it need to be solidified before they are turned on their sides. the layers on top then must be formed after this occurence, with time for weathering in between.

because angular unconformities are local and happen at many different levels, it tells us that the geologic column must have been laid down sequentially. we can talk about time later, but this is not the sort of event we see in a flood plain. floods always make very disturbed-looking, semi-homogenous single layers. they do not separate, sediment, turn over, sediment some more, and repeat. they make one layer.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:40 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
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