Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 12:25 PM
97 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,588 Year: 3,625/19,786 Month: 620/1,087 Week: 210/212 Day: 25/27 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3992 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 91 of 202 (424579)
09-27-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by CTD
09-27-2007 12:34 AM


Hey CTD that is one impressive rock plug - thanks for sharing it, it is pretty cool.

CTD writes:

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

Rock is largely an incompressible and brittle material. Therefore for a solid igneous rock like this to protrude into established sediments there would be lots of fracturing and material displacement.

Nevertheless as pointed out below this would not form an Angular Unconformity as the rock is igneous and not sedimentary.

As far as repositioning the established sedimentary rock to form a feature that would *appear* to be an Angular Unconformity is really just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. This sounds a bit like the non-evidence based theory the NJ mentioned before (actually I think the source was a prior poster here Faith). Keep in mind this theory is being posited by people that are not looking at the evidence and the data. This theory is just trying to invent some creative impossible events to make some preconceived notion somehow work. Also you would never find a YEC with a modicum of Geology knowledge promoting such a concept.

Here are a few reasons of the top why this idea does not work and does not conform to the data…..

  • The upper and lower components of a most Angular Unconformities are of a completely different material and method of deposition. This is because the time between each separate deposition is often separated by millions to 100’s of millions of years and the surrounding conditions that resulted in the erosion/deposition had changed. If the above theory was largely correct we would find most Angular Unconformities of the same material and might even be able to identify common strata in both upper and lower components. Note there are some unconformities of the similar material. Such Unconformities are rare and my guess is if you dated the upper and lower layer they would not be widely different in age.

  • Many Unconformities have recognizable erosion horizons and rounded eroded rock of the lower component (and other country rock) are found mixed in a matrix in the first few feet of the upper components. Look at these hi-res images of the famous Siccar point and you can see what I am talking about…

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

  • There is not usually fracturing in the sedimentary layers of an unconformity, at least not anymore than you would usually expect otherwise. As noted above, underground displacement of strata would entail significant fracturing and disturbance.

  • If solid or semi-solid sedimentary rock was sliding over each other you would not find nicely beveled surfaces like the image below. And just where did that extra shaved off material go?


    Click to enlarge

  • Rock formations moving around by each other deep in the earth under enormous pressures would generate some intense frictional heating which would be noted in the nature of the rock at the contact.

    CT writes:

    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.

    Well NASA did publish that cool image but somehow I don’t think they are proposing it as some support for whacked-out theories anymore than they are planning to revert to an earth-centric cosmology.

    Let me just add that I think I would prefer a theory of Unconformity origin based on mischievous underground poltergeist rearranging strata just keep us busy than the one proposed :)

    Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 88 by CTD, posted 09-27-2007 12:34 AM CTD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 92 by CTD, posted 09-27-2007 8:34 PM iceage has not yet responded

      
  • CTD
    Member (Idle past 3947 days)
    Posts: 253
    Joined: 03-11-2007


    Message 92 of 202 (424643)
    09-27-2007 8:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 91 by iceage
    09-27-2007 2:17 PM


    Nevertheless as pointed out below this would not form an Angular Unconformity as the rock is igneous and not sedimentary.

    Thanks for clearing that up. I'm understanding we're just talking about sedimentary rocks atop other sedimentary rocks - other types would be classified as something else.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 91 by iceage, posted 09-27-2007 2:17 PM iceage has not yet responded

        
    edge
    Member
    Posts: 4469
    From: Colorado, USA
    Joined: 01-09-2002
    Member Rating: 4.1


    Message 93 of 202 (425135)
    09-30-2007 5:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 88 by CTD
    09-27-2007 12:34 AM


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

    This is an igneous rock and it depends on the depth of intrusion. I've seen things like this cutting through thin sedimentary sequences as vertical dikes in a volcanic field, but sills, parallel to bedding are also possible. Not a problem for geologists. But very interesting.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 88 by CTD, posted 09-27-2007 12:34 AM CTD 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 94 of 202 (796428)
    12-30-2016 12:16 AM


    Siccar Point angular unconformity video
    Maybe this has been posted in this topic before, but even if, I think it worthy of more exposure.

    Found via this topic at Evolution Fairytales.

    Moose


    Replies to this message:
     Message 95 by Faith, posted 12-30-2016 3:01 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

        
    Faith
    Inactive Member


    Message 95 of 202 (796437)
    12-30-2016 3:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 94 by Minnemooseus
    12-30-2016 12:16 AM


    Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
    Poor gullible people, seeing an abyss of time based on sheer imagination.

    The breccia embedded in the upper horizontal section is proof itself that it did not form millions of years after the lower vertical strata. There had to be some kind of friction to break it off and embed it. This fits my theory, not Hutton's: all the strata were in place horizontally, and still damp and malleable from the Flood, when tectonic force pushed the lower segment upright, abrading the vertical rocks at the point where the different kinds of rock met, that being the point of least resistance, so that the whole formation was divided between the two kinds of rock.

    The other evidence that he was wrong is how similar the weathering is for both sections. The multiple millions of years that supposedly mark each layer show NO difference in weathering whatever. The lower rocks should be completely disintegrated, or at the very least far more decrepit than the upper. Nope, there is no evidence there for the great age of the rocks that has become dogma based only on gullible human imagination.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 94 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-30-2016 12:16 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 96 by Percy, posted 12-30-2016 7:41 AM Faith has responded
     Message 97 by herebedragons, posted 12-30-2016 11:57 AM Faith has responded
     Message 98 by edge, posted 12-30-2016 12:09 PM Faith has responded

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 18309
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 2.7


    Message 96 of 202 (796444)
    12-30-2016 7:41 AM
    Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
    12-30-2016 3:01 AM


    Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
    You're just repeating your Siccar Point fantasy without addressing any of the impossibilities that, after all the time you've spent discussing this, you know exist. Rock doesn't form by drying, buried rock layers cannot tilt without affecting the layers above, and rocks will react to weathering according to their composition and length of exposure, with lower rocks being exposed less long than upper rocks.

    --Percy

    Edited by Percy, : Punctuation.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 95 by Faith, posted 12-30-2016 3:01 AM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 100 by Faith, posted 12-31-2016 3:28 PM Percy has responded

        
    herebedragons
    Member
    Posts: 1493
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 11-22-2009


    Message 97 of 202 (796477)
    12-30-2016 11:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
    12-30-2016 3:01 AM


    Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
    The breccia embedded in the upper horizontal section is proof itself that it did not form millions of years after the lower vertical strata. There had to be some kind of friction to break it off and embed it.

    I don't understand your logic here. Maybe you don't know what breccia is? I can't imagine that to be the case though...

    Anyway, a breccia is composed of angular clasts cemented in a matrix. For example, a sedimentary breccia would be fragments of sedimentary rock cemented together with additional sedimentary deposits. These materials can have completely different sources, ie. compositions. This would imply that first sediments need to be deposited, then lithified, then broken into clasts, then more sediment deposited between the clasts, and then the entire structure lithified.

    all the strata were in place horizontally, and still damp and malleable from the Flood, when tectonic force pushed the lower segment upright, abrading the vertical rocks at the point where the different kinds of rock met, that being the point of least resistance, so that the whole formation was divided between the two kinds of rock.

    How do "damp and malleable" formations fracture into angular clasts? And how are they then cemented into a breccia?

    HBD


    Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

    "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

    Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 95 by Faith, posted 12-30-2016 3:01 AM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 99 by edge, posted 12-30-2016 12:11 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
     Message 101 by Faith, posted 12-31-2016 3:42 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

      
    edge
    Member
    Posts: 4469
    From: Colorado, USA
    Joined: 01-09-2002
    Member Rating: 4.1


    (1)
    Message 98 of 202 (796478)
    12-30-2016 12:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
    12-30-2016 3:01 AM


    Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
    The breccia embedded in the upper horizontal section is proof itself that it did not form millions of years after the lower vertical strata. There had to be some kind of friction to break it off and embed it.

    Then why are the breccias found in beds at all, and why are they all above the unconformity? Why are there not fragments of the upper beds found within the lower?

    This fits my theory, not Hutton's: all the strata were in place horizontally, and still damp and malleable from the Flood, when tectonic force pushed the lower segment upright, abrading the vertical rocks at the point where the different kinds of rock met, that being the point of least resistance, so that the whole formation was divided between the two kinds of rock.

    In that case, if the lower beds were so ductile, why are they not deformed at the contact? They should be bent in the direction of motion, should they not?

    The other evidence that he was wrong is how similar the weathering is for both sections. The multiple millions of years that supposedly mark each layer show NO difference in weathering whatever.

    Actually, that is not necessary and in most places you are incorrect. Erosion at a rocky shoreline is quite rapid, easily exceeding the weathering process, so that just before the red beds were deposited the underlying rocks had only recently been eroded. And some rocks are simply more susceptible to weathering.

    The lower rocks should be completely disintegrated, or at the very least far more decrepit than the upper.

    Not really. We have a lot of fresh rocks exposed at the surface of the earth. Mount Rushmore is holding up quite well even though they have been around for a very long time.

    Nope, there is no evidence there for the great age of the rocks that has become dogma based only on gullible human imagination.

    But, in fact, some of the pictures we have shown you of the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon show weathering under the contact, and we have repeatedly referred you to paleosoils in the geological record. That they exists is not in dispute.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 95 by Faith, posted 12-30-2016 3:01 AM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 102 by Faith, posted 12-31-2016 4:23 PM edge has responded

      
    edge
    Member
    Posts: 4469
    From: Colorado, USA
    Joined: 01-09-2002
    Member Rating: 4.1


    Message 99 of 202 (796479)
    12-30-2016 12:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 97 by herebedragons
    12-30-2016 11:57 AM


    Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
    These materials can have completely different sources, ie. compositions. This would imply that first sediments need to be deposited, then lithified, then broken into clasts, then more sediment deposited between the clasts, and then the entire structure lithified.

    Heh, heh, so much for the lower beds being ductile.

    Not very well thought out for YECs in this case.

    Edited by edge, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 97 by herebedragons, posted 12-30-2016 11:57 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

      
    Faith
    Inactive Member


    Message 100 of 202 (796582)
    12-31-2016 3:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
    12-30-2016 7:41 AM


    Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
    You're just repeating your Siccar Point fantasy without addressing any of the impossibilities that, after all the time you've spent discussing this, you know exist. Rock doesn't form by drying, buried rock layers cannot tilt without affecting the layers above, and rocks will react to weathering according to their composition and length of exposure, with lower rocks being exposed less long than upper rocks.

    Addressing the impossibilities of the accepted view ought to go some way to making the point. Of course I'm repeating my theory, it's as good as or better than the establishment view which has plenty of holes in it.

    You've been called on your endless claim that rock doesn't form by drying, because sometimes it does. But what does that have to do with this point anyway?

    I've made the case many times for the tilting of lower layers affecting the upper by pushing them up and abrading the contact.

    The rocks were formed under water according to standard theory. That means during the Flood according to creationist thinking. They would have been stripped down to their skeletal form after the Flood receded, by the same tectonic force that tilted the lower layers, exposing them to the weathering we see at that location. It looks to me like a few thousand years of weathering of both top and bottom layers should suffice to explain what is observed there, both exposed for the same length of time. This interpretation holds together just fine.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 96 by Percy, posted 12-30-2016 7:41 AM Percy has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by Percy, posted 12-31-2016 8:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

      
    Faith
    Inactive Member


    Message 101 of 202 (796583)
    12-31-2016 3:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 97 by herebedragons
    12-30-2016 11:57 AM


    Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
    Anyway, a breccia is composed of angular clasts cemented in a matrix. For example, a sedimentary breccia would be fragments of sedimentary rock cemented together with additional sedimentary deposits. These materials can have completely different sources, ie. compositions. This would imply that first sediments need to be deposited, then lithified, then broken into clasts, then more sediment deposited between the clasts, and then the entire structure lithified.

    From the pictures and comments on the rocks I gather that the breccia is made up of clasts of the lower sediment embedded in the upper. The matrix would be the upper sediment.

    There is no reason to assume the strata were as soft as you want to believe, just soft enough not to be brittle but solid enough to break into pieces will do it just fine. The cementing of course occurred over time after the tilting and breaking off of the pieces.

    That angular unconformaties are generally made up of different kinds of rock split between the two supports my argument very nicely. That there should be evidence of breakage of the tilted part as it was forced upward and along the lower surface of the upper strata also fits nicely, pieces of the lower getting stuck in the upper. the upper would have been scraped, not broken, so the pieces would be from the lower section pushed into the upper damp rock. Originally, of course, after the whole stack had been deposited by the Flood, there would have been quite a depth of layers above those that still remain, adding enormous weight to the whole that countered the tectonic pressure from below, allowing for shearing of the tilting (actually folding) lower layers.

    How do "damp and malleable" formations fracture into angular clasts? And how are they then cemented into a breccia?

    See above.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 97 by herebedragons, posted 12-30-2016 11:57 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

      
    Faith
    Inactive Member


    Message 102 of 202 (796585)
    12-31-2016 4:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 98 by edge
    12-30-2016 12:09 PM


    Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
    Then why are the breccias found in beds at all,

    Cuz of the layering that would have contained them I would suppose

    and why are they all above the unconformity? Why are there not fragments of the upper beds found within the lower?

    Because it was the lower strata that folded and got broken as a result of being forced upward and along the lower surface of the upper. The upper didn't break, but were rather lifted by the folding lower layers which would have scraped the sediment of the bottommost layer at the unconformity.

    This fits my theory, not Hutton's: all the strata were in place horizontally, and still damp and malleable from the Flood, when tectonic force pushed the lower segment upright, abrading the vertical rocks at the point where the different kinds of rock met, that being the point of least resistance, so that the whole formation was divided between the two kinds of rock.

    In that case, if the lower beds were so ductile, why are they not deformed at the contact? They should be bent in the direction of motion, should they not?

    I should say the lower were folded rather than tilted, but their upper surfaces would have broken off in that case too. Some pictures from that same area some distance from Siccar Point itself do show a bending of the lower layers where you can still see the fold itself, but in any case there's no need to assume a very high degree of ductility, and also, the tectonic pressure should have had the effect of hardening the rock at the same time it folded it.

    The other evidence that he was wrong is how similar the weathering is for both sections. The multiple millions of years that supposedly mark each layer show NO difference in weathering whatever.

    Actually, that is not necessary and in most places you are incorrect. Erosion at a rocky shoreline is quite rapid, easily exceeding the weathering process, so that just before the red beds were deposited the underlying rocks had only recently been eroded. And some rocks are simply more susceptible to weathering.

    The observable evidence at Siccar Point is that there is no visible difference between the degree of weathering of upper and lower sections.

    The lower rocks should be completely disintegrated, or at the very least far more decrepit than the upper.

    Not really. We have a lot of fresh rocks exposed at the surface of the earth. Mount Rushmore is holding up quite well even though they have been around for a very long time.

    Which to my mind is evidence for a young earth there as well as at Siccar Point, because in the enormous time spans described by standard theory the lower section of Siccar and Mt. Rushmore too, shouldn't be holding up well at all.

    Nope, there is no evidence there for the great age of the rocks that has become dogma based only on gullible human imagination.

    But, in fact, some of the pictures we have shown you of the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon show weathering under the contact, and we have repeatedly referred you to paleosoils in the geological record. That they exists is not in dispute.

    Creationists have shown that what you call evidence of weathering is chemically different from what you get with weathering. Abraded sediment perhaps but not weathered rock. And I'm sorry but I don't see the relevance of paleosols.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by edge, posted 12-30-2016 12:09 PM edge has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 103 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-31-2016 6:42 PM Faith has responded
     Message 106 by edge, posted 12-31-2016 9:28 PM Faith has responded

      
    Tanypteryx
    Member
    Posts: 1996
    From: Oregon, USA
    Joined: 08-27-2006
    Member Rating: 4.6


    Message 103 of 202 (796586)
    12-31-2016 6:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
    12-31-2016 4:23 PM


    Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
    Faith msg 101 writes:

    just soft enough not to be brittle but solid enough to break into pieces will do it just fine.

    So, somewhere on the hardness and tensile strength scales, then? Any idea what the readings would be?

    the tectonic pressure should have had the effect of hardening the rock at the same time it folded it.

    Are there some references in physics, chemistry, and geology that would explain your reasoning here?

    because in the enormous time spans described by standard theory the lower section of Siccar and Mt. Rushmore too, shouldn't be holding up well at all.

    Why wouldn't they have held up exactly as they have? Can you show any tests that have been done and reported in the scientific literature that shows there is something odd about the lower sections of Siccar and Mt. Rushmore?

    There must be some evidence that you are interpreting to reach these conclusions.


    What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

    One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

    If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 102 by Faith, posted 12-31-2016 4:23 PM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 105 by Faith, posted 12-31-2016 8:58 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

        
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 18309
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 2.7


    (1)
    Message 104 of 202 (796588)
    12-31-2016 8:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
    12-31-2016 3:28 PM


    Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
    Faith writes:

    Addressing the impossibilities of the accepted view ought to go some way to making the point.

    There are two problems with this response. One is that the accepted view of Siccar Point contains no impossibilities because, as was said so long ago, in geology the present is the key to the past. The accepted view of Siccar Point employs nothing more than processes we can observe taking place in the present. We know they're possible because we can see them happening.

    The second problem is that in a thread titled Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities you're supposed to be presenting your young Earth explanations for angular unconformities. And anyway, as has been explained to you many times, ignorant rejections are not positive evidence.

    Of course I'm repeating my theory,...

    You don't have a theory. You don't even have a hypothesis. You have a fairy tale.

    ...it's as good as or better than the establishment view which has plenty of holes in it.

    Your fantasy is impossible.

    You've been called on your endless claim that rock doesn't form by drying,...

    Someone misunderstood at some point that the context was sedimentary rock, which does not form by drying. Very few types of rock form by drying, and certainly not sedimentary rock. It forms by being buried under great pressure. As pressure increases unconsolidated sediments become more and more consolidated. It isn't a drying process. I invite correction if I'm wrong about this.

    But what does that have to do with this point anyway?

    You repeated your claim that the strata were "still damp and malleable from the Flood".

    I've made the case many times for the tilting of lower layers affecting the upper by pushing them up and abrading the contact.

    What I recall is you abandoning discussion. You've never explained how layers could tilt while leaving overlying layers unaffected. For one thing it's impossible because it requires material from the tilted layers to simply disappear.

    The rocks were formed under water according to standard theory.

    Rocks do not form under water according to standard theory. If they did then the deep sea bottom would be rock instead of calciferous ooze.

    They would have been stripped down to their skeletal form after the Flood receded, by the same tectonic force that tilted the lower layers, exposing them to the weathering we see at that location.

    This defies rational interpretation. "Stripped down?" "Skeletal form?" "Tectonic forces that tilted the lower layers?" It's nonsense.

    It looks to me like a few thousand years of weathering of both top and bottom layers should suffice to explain what is observed there, both exposed for the same length of time. This interpretation holds together just fine.

    What things look like to your very uninformed eye carries no weight.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by Faith, posted 12-31-2016 3:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

        
    Faith
    Inactive Member


    Message 105 of 202 (796590)
    12-31-2016 8:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 103 by Tanypteryx
    12-31-2016 6:42 PM


    Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
    So, somewhere on the hardness and tensile strength scales, then? Any idea what the readings would be?

    Corse not. But I could probably show you with a lump of clay.

    the tectonic pressure should have had the effect of hardening the rock at the same time it folded it.

    Are there some references in physics, chemistry, and geology that would explain your reasoning here?

    I'm sure there are though I rely on my intuitive genius about such things, and this is really quite recognizable by anyone I would think. Oh maybe not you, but you know, most anyone. Such intense pressure on damp porous shapable stuff would force out the water enough to harden it some. Kinda obvious dontcha think?

    because in the enormous time spans described by standard theory the lower section of Siccar and Mt. Rushmore too, shouldn't be holding up well at all.

    Why wouldn't they have held up exactly as they have?

    Weathering, erosion, my dear Watson, weathering, erosion, earthquakes, regular dousing by sea water in the case of Siccar Point. Nature, ya know. Visible erosion of all kinds can occur within our own lifetimes. At the rate the hoodoos in Utah are being formed by erosion they must be about a few thousand years from the original sedimentary deposition. There would be nothing left of them at all in a million years, or even twenty thousand.

    Can you show any tests that have been done and reported in the scientific literature that shows there is something odd about the lower sections of Siccar and Mt. Rushmore?

    There must be some evidence that you are interpreting to reach these conclusions.

    I rather doubt there are any because the scientific establishment doesn't bother with them either; it's all imaginative speculation.

    Nobody has referred to any such tests on behalf of the standard interpretation of Siccar Point. Hutton certainly didn't. He pondered and he declared, based purely on his imagination. Nobody has done any tests to measure the erosion factors affecting the upper and lower parts of the formation, which show no difference in degree whatever. Also, what is the explanation for the fact that I have observed myself that so many angular unconformities occur between two different kinds of rock? Why should that be? My theory explains that, the standard theory does not.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-31-2016 6:42 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

      
    Prev1
    ...
    56
    7
    89
    ...
    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