Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 1:16 AM
21 online now:
Coragyps, PaulK (2 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,628 Year: 3,665/19,786 Month: 660/1,087 Week: 29/221 Day: 0/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 2958 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 61 of 202 (421605)
09-13-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:40 PM


Re: They're everywhere
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.

But we've been over this. It's impossible for LOS not to apply. To suggest that there is any chance at all that a sediment is older than the surface on which it is deposited is like saying the sun didn't rise today. Original horizontality is indeed an assumption that is made in the interpretation of angular unconformities. In the upper picture I posted it is assumed that that the inclined sediments were not originally deposited with such a steep inclination. That's a reasonable assumption. It is consistant with the way modern sediments are observed to be deposited. To assume otherwise, that the sediments were originally deposited at their present inclination, betrays an unwillingness to accept the obvious and proper interpretation of angualar unconformities: that flood geology is absolutely impossible.

BTW to suggest that honest responsible geologists, some who happen to be Christians, twist the obvious and interpret angular unconformities the way young earthers suggest, is beyond unconscionable. Christians should not be involved in this kind of intelectual dishonesty.

Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.

Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.


Brent
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:40 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Ihategod, posted 09-16-2007 3:07 AM bdfoster has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4109 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 62 of 202 (422144)
09-16-2007 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by bdfoster
09-13-2007 11:23 AM


Re: They're everywhere
To assume otherwise, that the sediments were originally deposited at their present inclination, betrays an unwillingness to accept the obvious and proper interpretation of angualar unconformities: that flood geology is absolutely impossible.

Yes, it is so obvious. :rolleyes: How do angular unconformities occur? Has anyone ever seen an angular unconformity result? Why is it unreasonable and hence impossible to interpret angular unconformities as a result of flood geology?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by bdfoster, posted 09-13-2007 11:23 AM bdfoster has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Nuggin, posted 09-16-2007 4:17 AM Ihategod has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 63 of 202 (422151)
09-16-2007 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Ihategod
09-16-2007 3:07 AM


Re: They're everywhere
Why is it unreasonable and hence impossible to interpret angular unconformities as a result of flood geology?

Are you being sarcastic?

Take a bucket of water, drop in a few handfuls of sand, then a few hand fulls of gravel.

Does the sand and the gravel stand up never to each other in long flat boards or do they lay on the bottom of the bucket?

Now try it 10,000,000 more times. See if you get your desired results even 1x. (hint: you won't).

This sort of experiment is (theoritcally) not beyond the capabilities of YECs. Why they haven't bothered to experiment in this way is still beyond the rest of us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Ihategod, posted 09-16-2007 3:07 AM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Ihategod, posted 09-17-2007 7:51 PM Nuggin has responded

    
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4109 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 64 of 202 (422578)
09-17-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Nuggin
09-16-2007 4:17 AM


Re: They're everywhere

Does the sand and the gravel stand up never to each other in long flat boards or do they lay on the bottom of the bucket?

The wording used is hard to interpret. "stand up never to each other"? What is that? I imagine that putting sand and gravel into a bucket of water would only serve to show the viscosity of water and perhaps displacement. That experiment would be inconsistent with deciding whether or not angular unconformities could have formed during a world wide flood.

Unconformities could be created from fast flowing underwater avalanches. Also, they could have been formed while in plasticity.
** http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i1/icon.asp

I also have not read anything stating that tectonic movement couldn't have played a part post-flood.

No need to invoke millions of years of sedimentation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Nuggin, posted 09-16-2007 4:17 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 09-17-2007 10:00 PM Ihategod has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 65 of 202 (422654)
09-17-2007 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Ihategod
09-17-2007 7:51 PM


Re: They're everywhere
"stand up *next* to each other" I was typing fast and didn't see the mistake.

Here's a tip for you though.

Any time you link "answersingenesis" it's tantamount to giving up on these threads. Every point they've made there has been shown to not only be false but deliberately deceiving.

It's one thing to spout your own uneducated garbage, but when you spout someone else's you're really being a mule.

The question you should be asking is why the AIG crowd are knowingly misleading you. We know they are wrong, they know they are wrong, the only person who doesn't know they are wrong is you. Feel like the butt of the joke?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Ihategod, posted 09-17-2007 7:51 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Ihategod, posted 09-18-2007 12:32 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 68 by AdminNem, posted 09-18-2007 1:36 AM Nuggin has responded

    
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4109 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 66 of 202 (422699)
09-18-2007 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Nuggin
09-17-2007 10:00 PM


Re: They're everywhere
Here's a tip for you.

Don't spit lies without the sauce to make them saucy. You dig?

It's one thing to spout your own uneducated garbage, but when you spout someone else's you're really being a mule.

Where in the fuck is the Admin? This is blatant abusive ad hominem. If you can get away with this I should be able to get away with a big:

(Inappropriate content hidden)

The question you should be asking is why the AIG crowd are knowingly misleading you. We know they are wrong, they know they are wrong, the only person who doesn't know they are wrong is you. Feel like the butt of the joke?

Well then is this how you deal with a differing view of your precious evidence. You need to supply some rebuttals to my claim before you assert your authority.

Edited by AdminPD, : Inappropriate language and image hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 09-17-2007 10:00 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Admin, posted 09-18-2007 1:08 AM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 70 by Nuggin, posted 09-18-2007 2:06 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 67 of 202 (422707)
09-18-2007 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Ihategod
09-18-2007 12:32 AM


Re: They're everywhere
content removed

Edited by Admin, : AdminNem's administrative action was better.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Ihategod, posted 09-18-2007 12:32 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

    
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 202 (422712)
09-18-2007 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Nuggin
09-17-2007 10:00 PM


Warning

Nuggin, I had initially suspended you for goading. After reviewing your exchange with highestevolvedwhiteguy, I determined that a suspension was too harsh, as the punishment did not fit the crime.

However, you are now being warned to keep the conversation civil. I am also suggesting that you NOT respond to message 66, 1. because it will inflame the situation, and 2. because he wouldn't be able to respond to you anyhow, because he is suspended.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 09-17-2007 10:00 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Nuggin, posted 09-18-2007 2:03 AM AdminNem has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 69 of 202 (422718)
09-18-2007 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by AdminNem
09-18-2007 1:36 AM


Re: Warning - For what?
Excuse me, but WHAT?

Look, we've addressed "AIG links" literally THOUSANDS of times on the threads. The story is always the same:

Creationist shows up. Creationist links AIG, (always AIG) and claims it disproves reality. One of us then has to go through the labor of showing once again that the link in question is a bunch of lies. This is the absolute essence of PRATT.

It's one thing for a Creationist to show up here spouting stuff they learned in "school" or stuff they "figured out on their own". Ignorance is not a crime, it's just indicative of insufficient education.

However the people at AIG aren't just ignorant. They KNOW that what they are saying is lies. They know because they've been shown in excruciating detail exactly why each and every one of their posts is fraudulent. Not once, not twice, but thousands and thousands of times.

They are quite simply liars.

And anyone continue to spout the AIG's uneducated garbage is just spreading around the crap.

Debate is not simply linking a website and saying QED. If that's acceptable, then I suggest we close down the boards entirely and just post two links in their place - AIG and a refutation, since that's all we'd be doing here anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by AdminNem, posted 09-18-2007 1:36 AM AdminNem has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Admin, posted 09-18-2007 9:11 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 70 of 202 (422720)
09-18-2007 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Ihategod
09-18-2007 12:32 AM


You have not made a claim
You need to supply some rebuttals to my claim before you assert your authority.

Linking AIG is not making a claim. It's linking someone else's claim. And in this case, you are linking a claim which has already been addressed thousands of times.

For more information, pick any thread on this board dealing with evolution and read it. Eventually you will find someone linking AIG and someone explaining once again why everything there is a bald faced lie.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Ihategod, posted 09-18-2007 12:32 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 71 of 202 (422764)
09-18-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Nuggin
09-18-2007 2:03 AM


Re: Warning - For what?
Well, HEWG probably advanced what he viewed as an effective argument when he said, "Unconformities could be created from fast flowing underwater avalanches. Also, they could have been formed while in plasticity." The AIG webpage he cited fails to make the point, indeed fails to even make sense, it seems to be a grab bag of detailed geological observations making no coherent point while nonetheless purporting to have one.

Correcting creationist misunderstandings and misinterpretations is an endless task. The same arguments must be made afresh in each thread. On the other hand, the sheer volume of nonsense coming from HEWG makes it difficult to tell if/when he's actually trying to make a serious point. I think the difficulties members face in trying to engage constructively with HEWG are understood, and hopefully members will try to bear with moderators as we attempt to be balanced when dealing with him.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Nuggin, posted 09-18-2007 2:03 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3708
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 72 of 202 (422978)
09-19-2007 2:33 AM


Iceage, from the "Grand Canyon Paradox" topic
From www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=210&m=13#13 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=210&m=13#13">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=210&m=13#13:

Iceage writes:

What is always ignored is the simple fact that the bottom layer is often metamorphosed. The A/U at the bottom of Grand Canyon is high grade metamorphic rock - requiring high temperature/pressure/time. The temperature of that massive formation would have to be several hundred degrees!.

I took exception to the above statement (in the Admin mode) but I considered further discussion of it there to bee off-topic.

What is always ignored is the simple fact that the bottom layer is often metamorphosed.

The lower rock of an angular unconformity may or may not be metamorphosed. But if it were to be high grade metamorphosed it would no longer be a bedded sediment. By definition, an unconformity with the lower rocks being high grade metamorphics or intrusives would be a nonconformity.

The A/U at the bottom of Grand Canyon is high grade metamorphic rock

There are two unconformities at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. The lowest one indeed is over high grade metamorphics, and is a nonconformity. The higher (the Great Unconformity) is an angular unconformity. The lower ("angular") rocks of that are at most low grade metamorphics, and I suspect, are unmetamorphosed.

See here for a cross-section.

Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by iceage, posted 09-26-2007 2:23 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
CTD
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 73 of 202 (423762)
09-24-2007 8:40 AM


Well I think it's too much for me, also. I just don't see these things as a problem for YEC flood models. Unless one assumes that all geology has to be accounted for by a single flood...

Now if they had land, oceans, and mountains before the flood; why wouldn't there be places where new and different rock formations were created during and after the flood? Or why would the new formations not be located atop the old?

In general there shouldn't be any problems, but I suppose there could be individual cases which might be somewhat puzzling. Can't say I'd be willing to accept any of the assumptions that such-and-such 'takes a long time' to form, as it's been demonstrated that most, if not all of these things need to form quickly. And if I'm right, and there really is no 'problem' at all, that's probably why it's hard to find creationists trying to tackle the non-issue.

But just for example, what's wrong with an unconformity being at the grand canyon if prior to the flood there were rocks of one type, and then more were deposited on top of them? I really don't see a problem with this, and it seems to be the favorite. I believe the model I'm thinking of for the newer formations is Walter Brown's. I'm poor with names, but if I got it right, maybe someone's familiar with it.

I'll readily admit we need more flood geology projects. The world has not been properly investigated yet. Myself, I'd like to see what can be found out about the pre-flood world. My hopes aren't high, as far as resources go; but there are some sharp minds involved.


Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2007 8:55 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 75 by The Matt, posted 09-24-2007 9:39 AM CTD has responded
 Message 78 by bdfoster, posted 09-24-2007 4:59 PM CTD has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 74 of 202 (423765)
09-24-2007 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by CTD
09-24-2007 8:40 AM


Okay, so could we have some sort of method of distinguishing between sediments deposited by natural means and sediments deposited by a magic flood?

Or are they completely indistinguishable?

Can't say I'd be willing to accept any of the assumptions that such-and-such 'takes a long time' to form, as it's been demonstrated that most, if not all of these things need to form quickly.

I fear that this demonstration has taken place only in the magical creationist fairyland in your head.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 8:40 AM CTD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Ihategod, posted 09-24-2007 12:45 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 3621 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 75 of 202 (423770)
09-24-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by CTD
09-24-2007 8:40 AM


But just for example, what's wrong with an unconformity being at the grand canyon if prior to the flood there were rocks of one type, and then more were deposited on top of them?

The thing is that there isn't just a single unconformity of one age that we can conveniently call the base of the flood sediments. There are tonnes of them in different locations and of different ages. If we were to call the one at the base of the grand canyon the beginning of the flood, there would then have to be explanations for how every single unconformity (both in the canyon and elsewhere) in younger strata could have formed during the flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 8:40 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by CTD, posted 09-25-2007 2:05 AM The Matt has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019