Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities

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

I would suspect that the Noachian flood deposited sediments in the way we see the geologic column. How this happened, I don't know, probably a combination of many things. Perhaps magmn upwelling and subduction, tectonic movements, It's really hard to find a source that explains it coherently, usually it involves trying to answer the onslaught of uniformitarian dogma.

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

Because the uniformitarian assumption prevails doesn't make it correct. A global flood model is incomplete due to the magnitude and scale that a worldwide flood would consist. To demonstrate the flood now would be very hard, as not all the factors involved are fully understood. It definitely does not help the formation of ideas when evo's constantly ridicule the research in this field. I am looking extensively into this, and will for now hold off on any more speculations I can imagine as I am poorly versed in geology.

I would suspect that the Noachian flood deposited sediments in the way we see the geologic column.

So --- how can we distinguish magic flood rocks from normal non-magic rocks? Are you saying that we can't, or what is your meaning?

It's really hard to find a source that explains it coherently ...

Mmm ... I wonder why.

Lucid books on real geology are commonplace.

... usually it involves trying to answer the onslaught of uniformitarian dogma.

If by "the onslaught of uniformitarian dogma" you mean geology, then yes, you would have to answer that at some point. Faced with this impossible task, incoherence does indeed seem the safest refuge.

Because the uniformitarian assumption prevails doesn't make it correct.

No, it's its agreement with reality that does that.

It definitely does not help the formation of ideas when evo's constantly ridicule the research in this field.

You're blaming us for your failures? Our giggling is preventing you from concentrating on your "creation science"?

I think that there could be another more fundemental problem, like that you're wrong.

I can't believe this thread.

CTD writes: 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.

All YEC flood models have a substantial part of the sedimentary record resulting from the deluge. It's the only event in biblical history that could even conceivably produce the vast accumulations of sedimentary rock on the planet in the time frame allowed by biblical literalism. Some flood models have the pre-flood and post-flood boundaries at different places. For example some say that Precambrian sediments are pre-flood. Some say that Tertiary sediments are post-flood. But the facts of the geoligic column, a history written in God's own hand, won't allow anything this simple. Vast thicknesses of sediment occur in both Precambrian and Tertiary systems. If the pre-flood boundary is taken to be at the Precambrian/Paleozoic boundary, then all Precambrian sedimentation, which amount to thousands of feet in some basins, must have occurred by normal non-catastrophic means. The same problem exists for the vast thicknesses of Tertiary sediments. Having large parts of the geologic column not deposited by the flood creates as many problems as it solves. If a global flood is needed to explain much of the geologic column, what explains the rest? But the farther removed are the upper and lower boundaries of the flood, the more features the flood has to explain. Everything stratigraphically contained by the flood deposits must be accounted for by the flood. Things like unconformities, paleosols, vast accumulations (thousands of feet thick and millions of cubic feet) of flood basalts, vast accumulations of evaporites, vast accumulations of deep water limestone and chert, vast accumulations of lake varves, surfaces that have clearly been exposed to air (with mudcracks, footprints of air-breathers) etc. Any one of these can occur at the base of the flood, but there are countless examples of them stratigraphicly contained in the sedimentary record.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries before much geology was known, flood geology was understandably much more acceptible. But with the discovery of the geologic features mentioned above it became impossible to keep flood geology as a paradigm. Flood geology is absolutely falsified by these geologic features.

CTD writes: 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 read Walt Brown's book "In the Beginning". Two of the bald faced lies I remember were that there are no magnetic reversals on the sea floor, and there are no meteorites in the geologic record. We could probably do a whole thread on each of those claims. But for now, the statements are wrong, they are matters of fact and not opinion, and Walt Brown, with a PhD in mechanical engineering should know better. He has an elaborate theory for the flood. I think he calls on the flood to account for the fossiliferous deposits (post-Precambrian). He calls for liquefaction to account for faunal succession (the regular arrangement of fossils). Once again, as an engineer he should know this is impossible. Liquefaction only occurs in sand and some silt. Liars like Walt Brown and ministries like ICR and AIG that push 18th century geology are an embarrassment to Christianity.

Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.

Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.

Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.

---

Brent

Thanks for responding.

One of the main features of Walter Browns model is a subsequent flood in the Grand Canyon area which would take place when trapped waters burst free. I have personally played with water and mud dams, and the shapes of the formations match up very well with my results.

I know others are looking at "secondary flooding" as well. I think many, if not all of the features in question could probably be accounted for with little problem.

If a discussion were restricted to a single location, I might be more inclined to participate. As it is, as soon as one is accounted for more and more will be brought in. It's how the game is played around here.

For any creationist taking up the challenge, don't get suckered in to any phony flood model where there was no earth prior to the flood (flood must account for lowest rocks), or where no other local floods have ever taken place. The flood is not a simple event as evolutionist straw man models must always make it out to be. And there may have been considerable tectonic activity both during and after the flood.

I'm not aware of the meteorite issue, but I know about the pole reversal thing. There's no need to call anyone a liar for not believing in them. The evidence is slim, and subject to interpretation. And there's no reasonable mechanism which would cause such an event.

If anyone earnestly wants to discuss an angular unconformity which they think 'disproves' the history of the flood, they're welcome to email me: dstew8 at excite dot com. I may be slow to respond, but I'll try to help. I'm no expert, but I haven't yet found an issue in evolutionism which requires an expert to debunk.

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.

See, this here might be fun to look into. But we have terms like "age" involved, and someone's always going to pop in and argue that the flood starts 90 million years ago, or such - just to muck things up.

"(both in the canyon and elsewhere)" And already here come the back-ups, as the degree of confidence in one set is low. The impression I got earlier was that any unconformity was sufficient to sink any and all flood models.

That might sound hostile, but I don't intend it to be so. I'm just saying I think the case has been overstated considerably if the plan going in is to have plenty of backups. Why not just see if the worst-case example is enough? If it could be accomodated, how could easier examples be a problem?

That's like me saying "I'll accept evolution as a reasonable theory as soon as you demonstrate it's reasonable (genetically, morphologically, and with proper fossils all at the proper depth and date) for each and every single species, one-at-a-time." A person could sure kill a lot of time that way, but nothing will be accomplished.

See, this here might be fun to look into. But we have terms like "age" involved, and someone's always going to pop in and argue that the flood starts 90 million years ago, or such - just to muck things up.

Forget the numbers for now. We can work with purely relative ages if you like (A is younger than B, which is younger than C etc).

"(both in the canyon and elsewhere)" And already here come the back-ups, as the degree of confidence in one set is low. The impression I got earlier was that any unconformity was sufficient to sink any and all flood models.

You are dodging the issue. Your scenario in post 73 may be a possibility for explaining one unconformity, but the fact is there are many of them left unexplained by this, largely in sediments creationists believe are flood deposited. My confidence in a single example is not relevant here.

This discussion would be easier if you were to state where you think the boundaries of the flood sediment are. You mentioned the unconformity in the grand canyon as a possible lower boundary. Do you stick to this? What about the upper one?

CTD writes: One of the main features of Walter Browns model is a subsequent flood in the Grand Canyon area which would take place when trapped waters burst free. I have personally played with water and mud dams, and the shapes of the formations match up very well with my results.

This type of flooding is documented in the geologic record. It caused the features now seen in the Channeled Scablands area of eastern Washington. Not exactly the incised meanders and differential erosion seen in the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon could not have been eroded in soft sediment as this model requires. The Grand Canyon has vertical cliffs in sandstone and gentle slopes in the shales, like most natural landscapes. But this is the opposite of what is seen in unconsloidated sediment. Anyone familiar with construction sites will know you can't dig a trench in wet sand. Wet sand won't hold a face for 5 minutes much less 5,000 years. Wet clay OTH has cohesion, and will hold a vertical face.

CTD writes: I'm not aware of the meteorite issue, but I know about the pole reversal thing. There's no need to call anyone a liar for not believing in them. The evidence is slim, and subject to interpretation. And there's no reasonable mechanism which would cause such an event.

Magnetic pole reversals are one of the most solidly established phenomena of historical geology. They were known to occur on land long before they were discovered on the sea floor. Remnant magnetism in rocks has been known since the time of the Curries. Pole reversals were found to occur in vertical sequences of rock. The initial discovery of reversals on the sea floor resulted from aerial magnetometer surveys. These surveys measured the total magnetic field of an area. Because the remnant magnetism in rocks is very small, and it has to pass through the ocean and the atmosphere to reach the plane's instrument, the remnant magnetism is swamped by the earth's magnetic field. So the areas of reversal corresponded to areas where the measured magnetic field was slightly less than average. These were interpretted to be reversals. Walt'Brown mentions that the reversals were inferred from aerial surveys. Most people probably don't know this, and it shows he has researched it. But he doesn't mention that the reversals have been confirmed by thousands of oriented drill cores from the Ocean Drilling Project and the Deep Sea Drilling Projects. The fact of pole reversals is well established. The cause of the reversals is a completely different issue. But the fact that rocks of different age have different geomagnetic orientation is indisputable. Entire fields of study have sprung up around paleomagnetism and magnetic stratigraphy.

Brown's meteorite thing was that in a billions of year old geologic column you would expect countless meteorite impacts. But there are no known meteorites from the geologic record, therefore it must be relatively young. Well first of all meteorites are one of the rarest commodities on the planet. There are only about 25,000 authenticated meteorites that have ever been found. The British Museum of Natural History catalogues them. It is incredibly rare to find a meteorite if no one saw it fall. They look much like any other rock. Even finding a meteorite on the surface of the earth is a rare thing, and Walt Brown wants us to find them in a random vertical slice through the geologic column?!?! And yet they have been found in spite of what Brown says. Numerous large impact structures are known in the geologic record. Chicxulub is just one. They are all studied extensively by research teams that live for finding out everything there is to know about impacts. Scores of hapless grad students spend hours examining cores and looking for little pieces of meteorite, and then publish the results.

Don't get me wrong I would never call someone a liar for being misled by Brown's book. But there's no excuse for people like Brown.

Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.

Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.

---

Brent

You are dodging the issue. Your scenario in post 73 may be a possibility for explaining one unconformity, but the fact is there are many of them left unexplained by this, largely in sediments creationists believe are flood deposited. My confidence in a single example is not relevant here. This discussion would be easier if you were to state where you think the boundaries of the flood sediment are. You mentioned the unconformity in the grand canyon as a possible lower boundary. Do you stick to this? What about the upper one?

I'm not familiar with your posting habits. You seem civil enough.

But I'm not inclined to get very involved just now. Earlier in the thread, the whole line was "creationists are scared to death of unconformities because they disprove the flood." Now it's more like "We think we have enough unconformities available that we hope we can find one a creationist can't explain."

I'm no expert, so the odds may be in your favor that you could find one that would be too much for me. Especially working over the internet where we can't just take a finger and point to something in a picture.

I seem to recall reading that these things actually make a good case for the flood, but I don't have access to my books now. I may be back later when I have more to contribute.

It'd be hard for me to stay on-topic anyhow with the Grand Canyon involved. It's all I could think about for at least a couple of hours after my last visit.

But I'm not inclined to get very involved just now. Earlier in the thread, the whole line was "creationists are scared to death of unconformities because they disprove the flood." Now it's more like "We think we have enough unconformities available that we hope we can find one a creationist can't explain."

Yes, I'm not sure any of us had come across your remarkable ad hoc argument before.

I notice that you have not answered my question, which I repeat. How can we tell the difference between naturally deposited sediment and magic flood sediment?

Earlier in the thread, the whole line was "creationists are scared to death of unconformities because they disprove the flood." Now it's more like "We think we have enough unconformities available that we hope we can find one a creationist can't explain."

I'm not sure you've quite grasped my point.

I seem to recall reading that these things actually make a good case for the flood, but I don't have access to my books now. I may be back later when I have more to contribute.

I'd be interested to hear this case if you can find it.

CTD writes: Earlier in the thread, the whole line was "creationists are scared to death of unconformities because they disprove the flood." Now it's more like "We think we have enough unconformities available that we hope we can find one a creationist can't explain."

I am sorry that you have the sense that some feel that a YEC model can explain *any* known Angular Unconformity.

If one considers the time required for lithification (ie dewatering, compaction, cementation) you could not find a single unconformity that would fit within the Young Earth model. Consider that you have two separate geological formations that are lithified at separate times. Each Lithification event by itself excludes a young earth consideration. This is ignoring the time periods required for erosion, deposition, uplift, etc.

CTD writes: I seem to recall reading that these things actually make a good case for the flood, but I don't have access to my books now.

A flood cannot account for an unconformity. Every YEC explanation I have come across involves hand waving, an impossible sequence of events and a complete detachment from known physics even when considering the scale of a global world wide flood. This is the reason you will find very little discussion in YEC literature. It is a very large elephant in the YEC living room.

Minnemooseus writes: (I)f 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.

However a high grade metamorphic formation may have vestigial components that reveal the original sedimentary features and bedding plane.

Minnemooseus writes: 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.

i have never had the joy of hiking down to the bottom of the Grand Canyon but have explored the north rim area.

A number of authors refer to the bottom unconformity as an Angular Unconformity and some the "Greatest Angular Unconformity". I can only assume this is due to markers or vestigial bedding planes. I found this wonderful paper from 1933 demonstrating some remaining sedimentary structures in the Vishnu.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/19/9/806.pdf

Further this link even provides some details of the Vishnu Group and even gives the general sedimentary beds angle and refers to the contact as an Angular Unconformity.

http://www.thebestlinks.com/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area.html

Reference link writes: Vishnu Group About 2000 million years ago in Precambrian time, thousands of feet of ash, mud, sand, and silt were laid down in a shallow forarc basin behind an orogenic belt of mountains and volcanoes in an island arc. No fossils have been found in these strata. 1700 to 1600 million years ago the process of plate tectonics compressed and heated these marine sediments into the metamorphic rock now exposed at the bottom of the canyon in the Inner Gorge. Geologists call this dark-colored, garnet-studded layer the Vishnu Schist. This combined with the other schists of this period, the Brahma and the Rama, make up the Vishnu Group (see 1a in Figure 1). This layer was later intruded by blobs of magma rising from a subduction zone offshore. These plutons slowly cooled to form the Zoroaster Granite (seen as light-colored bands in the darker Vishnu Schist; see 1b in Figure 1). Some of this rock eventually was metamorphosed into gneiss. 100 million years later in Paleozoic time, an orogeny (mountain-building event) uplifted the region and created the 5-6 mile (8-9.5 km) high Mazatzal Mountains and tilted the beds 15°. For 200 million years erosion stripped much of the exposed sediments and the mountains away and thus left an angular unconformity in the area's geologic sequence. The roots were all that remained of the Mazatzal Mountains as the sea reinvaded the area. Today the Vishnu Schist and the Zoroaster Granite are exposed in the Inner Gorge of the canyon.

And another reference Pillar Of Gold by George H. Billingsley of the U.S. Geological Survey refer to the contact between the lower Vishnu and the upper GC Supergroup as the "Greatest Angular Unconformity" (see lower left corner)

Click to enlarge

One more reference Geology of National Parks By Ann G. Harris, Esther Tuttle, Sherwood D. Tuttle also refer to this contact as Angular Unconformity.

However definitions aside the Vishnu group had to be buried considerably deeper than it is today in order for it to be metamophosed as it is. Also I believe that the Vishnu Group extends several miles below the current exposed layers.

These various steps of deposition, deep burial, metamorphic conversion, fracturing, intrusion, uplifting and tilting, folding, erosion, and subsequent deposition and lithification of the various GC Super Group layers can only inspire complete and utter awe in the deep unimaginable time required for the occurrence of these events.

Combine that with yet another unconformity just about the Super Group and I just can't see how anyone can accept that this mass of formations and features could be explained by a mythic year. I also cannot understand why people want to take away the Grandeur of Creation and God by placing these events within time periods that puny humans can understand.

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Now if something like this here:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060509.html

If something like this were to happen underneath some horizontal rocks, what would the result look like?

And you guys need to get down to NASA & take care of whoever let this slip out, BTW. Someone's not with the gameplan. We're supposed to have to rely on AIG for this kind of thing.

quote:

---

Now if something like this here:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060509.html

If something like this were to happen underneath some horizontal rocks, what would the result look like?

---

Wherever it happened it would be igneous rock, not sedimentary.

If it happened underneath horizontal rock it would be constrained by the presence of that rock - so it wouldn't happen like that.

If something like this were to happen underneath some horizontal rocks, what would the result look like?

One or more faults... Why do you ask?