Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9079 total)
111 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1 (2 members, 109 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,332 Year: 6,444/6,534 Month: 637/650 Week: 175/232 Day: 8/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 1939 (752895)
03-14-2015 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
03-14-2015 9:31 AM


I don't see you saying anything new in this thread. These are the same arguments you've made in previous Grand Canyon discussions

Well I had hope for it as proof that the G.U. was not formed before the strata above it, which IS a new emphasis. Nobody is really addressing that factor though, some insisting on making a case for the strata to be laid down over a mound, though even Geology doesn't make that claim, they recognize the mound as an uplift that came later.

The idea was that SINCE the strata didn't follow the contour of the mound, if the G.U. was there first they would have to butt into it. Since they didn't butt into it that's evidence it wasn't there first.

What was there was the strata that was afterward broken and tilted into the G.U. That would have provided a horizontal surface for the deposition of the strata.

Otherwise, yes, all the usual stuff is coming up, can't be avoided.

ABE: But it's boring and I may have to give up on this thread.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 03-14-2015 9:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 03-14-2015 11:49 AM Faith has replied
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 03-14-2015 12:29 PM Faith has replied
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2015 12:45 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 1939 (752902)
03-14-2015 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
03-14-2015 11:49 AM


Re: the Great uncomformity proves the Earth is old
Unfortunately for you all the evidence shows that the Great Unconformity was laid down before the layers above it

Except the evidence I'm giving.

in addition demands that the earth is at least old enough to create all the layers of the Super Group and also then erode over two vertical miles of material and then lay down all of the layers currently above the Super Group.

But if it happened as I visualize it less time would be needed. The layers of the SuperGroup were laid down followed shortly by all the layers above it, up to the very top of the Grand Staircase, as those layers were originally over the Grand Canyon area too; after which tectonic force pushed the land up violently into the mounded uplift, breaking and tilting the SuperGroup, shearing off the upper parts against the underside of the Tapeats, its rubble becoming schist under the intense pressure and heat, the heat being generated partly by the release of magma beneath the area (its fingers are seen on the cross section) which also created the granite that is also beneath the canyon. The strata would have been laid down over a year or so, the tectonic upheaval would have occurred afterward, created the G.U. cracked the upper strata over the canyon area which opened up the canyon, all the upper strata down to the Kaibab being washed away in the receding Flood waters, also carving the Grand Staircase, where a magma dike was also released at this time. All of this timing is quite apparent on my earlier post linked at the beginning of the O.P. No reason to think in terms of millions of years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 03-14-2015 11:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 03-14-2015 12:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 54 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 1:41 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 45 of 1939 (752903)
03-14-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
03-14-2015 12:29 PM


I recalculated the rise of the mounded area. It's a rise of 160 feet in one mile. Pretty shallow but still I don't see how layers are going to follow its contour.

PaulK isn't the only one who tried to make that absurd case. Both Tanypteryx and Cat Sci did also.

As all diagrams clearly show, the top of the tilted G.U. was eroded fairly flat before more layers were deposited atop it.

I always find that idea as absurd as the idea that the strata would conform to the slope of a hill. Normal erosion doesn't reduce sharply tilted rock to a flat plain in my experience. But the relatively flat upper part of the G.U. is more reasonably explained on my scienario, as its upthrusting corners being sheared off in collision with the strata above under tectonic pressure from below, the same force that raised the entire stack and formed the uplift.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 03-14-2015 12:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2015 1:57 PM Faith has replied
 Message 58 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-14-2015 2:16 PM Faith has replied
 Message 62 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 4:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 03-15-2015 9:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 48 of 1939 (752906)
03-14-2015 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
03-14-2015 12:29 PM


It isn't new. Your claim has always been that the layers of the supergroup and all the layers above them were deposited at the same time by the flood.

Yes, but I didn't have the evidence of the order of things at the G.U. level, I didn't see how the layers would have butted up against it if deposited in the order usually accepted. It may seem a minor point but when I recognized it I knew it was new and actual evidence I hadn't had before, though, yes, I already had the whole scenario in mind.

Edited by Faith, : fix quote code


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 03-14-2015 12:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 03-15-2015 9:37 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 49 of 1939 (752907)
03-14-2015 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
03-14-2015 12:50 PM


Re: the Great uncomformity proves the Earth is old
In addition there is no evidence that any magma ever intruded into the Super Group or could possibly incorporate parts of the Super Group into the Vishnu Schist.

Cardenas lava.

However, I wasn't thinking of its intrusion into the Super Group, but the Super Group's being surrounded by schist and granite, both of which show the presence of volcanic influence. As I just said, you can see the indication of the magma fingers on the cross section.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 03-14-2015 12:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 03-14-2015 1:43 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 57 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 2:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 50 of 1939 (752908)
03-14-2015 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by kbertsche
03-14-2015 2:09 AM


Bible truth vs. Science
But as with most YECs, I think the root problem is more fundamental: YECs have been convinced that the Bible is the only reliable source of truth; nature is unreliable as a source of truth. This in spite of the fact that Paul said that nature is a reliable source of truth; he said that God's character is plain and clearly seen through nature alone (Rom 1:18-20).

You are glossing over the fact that science, not nature itself but the science that interprets it, contradicts the Bible with both the Old Earth and the theory of evolution. Not a problem with actual science, just with the pseudosciences of the prehistoric past.

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to find millions of years where the Bible's genealogies suggest only a few thousand, and the Theory of Evolution makes death exist before the Fall, as well as human beings before Adam and Eve, though of course they like to reinterpret them as hominids rather than true humans.

This is the work of shysters, not honest scientists.

And again, Paul referred to Nature as evidence of GOD AND HIS LAW, not of "truth" in general and not truth ABOUT Nature.

To say otherwise is to twist the truth.

But not to notice the blatant contradiction between the Bible and science's interpretations of Nature is self-delusion.

And thanks for leaving the honest Christians to take all the insults that you get to escape by siding with the world.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2015 2:09 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2015 1:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2015 6:14 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 51 of 1939 (752909)
03-14-2015 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
03-14-2015 12:45 PM


I really don't know what this is trying to say. So far as I can tell the surface was largely levelled by erosion between the tilting of the Great Unconformity, and the later strata deposited on top. I don't see how this is intended to address that scenario.

I do address it in Message 45.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2015 12:45 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 1939 (752938)
03-14-2015 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by kbertsche
03-14-2015 1:39 PM


Re: Bible truth vs. Science
As you well know, the development of modern science was based largely on the Christian (especially Protestant Reformed) convictions that nature follows divinely-prescribed laws and that God has revealed truth through two "books", the book of Scripture and the book of nature (thus nature does reveal truth).

This is sophistry. Science did develop from Christian principles, the principle that Nature follows the laws of a law-giving God. It certainly never meant that Science was on an equal footing with the Bible, it just meant that if Nature is lawful we have some hope of understanding it. There is certainly truth in Nature, but NOT NECESSARILY IN SCIENCE.

Science is completely man-originated.

And when Science actively contradicts the Bible, as the Theory of Evolution and Old Earthism do, there is nothing at all you should even try to say in its defense. It's false and it is misleading people, particularly gullible Christians. I agree that creationism has also misled people who haven't been prepared for what these Sciences actually do, but that doesn't justify the all-out attempt to convert them to the false Sciences.

I LIKE thinking about these things and I honestly think I've shown the falseness of a lot of the OE arguments.

The only position I think a Christian should take who gives in to the Old Earth stuff is Kurt Wise's, who concedes the evidence is there but leaves it to the future to see how it's wrong.

I don't even see the evidence for most of it, I think it's laughable.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2015 1:39 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 03-14-2015 7:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 72 by jar, posted 03-14-2015 7:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 80 by kbertsche, posted 03-15-2015 12:22 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 66 of 1939 (752940)
03-14-2015 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by NoNukes
03-14-2015 6:14 PM


Re: Bible truth vs. Science
There is nothing unChristlike about calling people out on their false theology and treachery against God's word, especially when they are joining in the effort with unbelievers to undermine the faith of other Christians.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2015 6:14 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2015 3:08 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 67 of 1939 (752943)
03-14-2015 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes
03-14-2015 6:10 PM


Thanks for your general approval, I appreciate it.

I personally believe both arguments are winners -- I particularly think the argument from the attrition of genetic diversity is a killer -- but proving it to anybody else is apparently never going to happen.

Prayer very welcome, thanks.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2015 6:10 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 68 of 1939 (752945)
03-14-2015 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by edge
03-14-2015 1:41 PM


Re: the Great uncomformity proves the Earth is old
Face it, the Great Unconformity is older than the entire Paleozoic section.

The faults that preserve fragmenst of the GC Supergroup are older than the Great Unconformity.

The GC Supergroup is older than the the faults that preserve it.

The Vishnu rocks are older than the GC Supergroup.

This is all based on irrefutable principles and field evidence.

If I can't follow it you are conveying nothing by these assertions. Perhaps you proved it somewhere else but I really have no idea what you are talking about, how the relation of the faults to the Supergroup proves it to be older than the strata. Please clarify. And perhaps you could also review the evidence for the age of the Vishnu?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 1:41 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 8:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 69 of 1939 (752946)
03-14-2015 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tangle
03-14-2015 1:57 PM


A rise of 160 feet in one mile is 1 inch in 10 yards. You couldn't see that rise with the naked eye. Why do you imagine that sediment following that essentially level 'contour' is absurd?

Three layers fifty feet thick would butt up against the rise in one mile.

As OE Geology itself says, most of the layers were wet when laid down. Remember that they don't thin out but keep their thickness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2015 1:57 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 1939 (752947)
03-14-2015 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tanypteryx
03-14-2015 2:16 PM


I still can't believe that anyone would argue that wet sediments would follow the contour of a rise and keep their thickness and show no thinning.

It is clear from the evidence that the strata that makes up the GU was tilted long before the overlying sediments were deposited.

I haven't found the evidence convincing. Especially the idea that the uptilted Supergroup was eroded flat over millions of years.

Most of the material was eroded away over millions of years before being covered by more sediments.

This is all made up. The ends of layers of very hard rock aren't going to erode like that. Of course millions of years makes anything possible, doesn't it?

Faith, your whole problem is trying to twist your imaginary scenario into a one year flood and a few thousand years after that. That is an absurd notion that ignores all the details that have been pointed out to you.

Well, I'm not twisting anything, I simply actually SEE evidence against the Old Earth in lots of stuff produced by Geology. And yes, once I have the Big Picture I feel free to ignore the details that are all made up on a false theory.

You say that millions of years for all the strata to erode, be deposited, erode some more, be deposited some more, over and over is absurd.

What's absurd is the idea that enormously long time periods are demarcated by very particular sediments and that the fossil contents of these particular sedimentary rocks define the entire range of life forms that populated that enormously long period on earth.

I could get back into my genetic argument for a bit, to argue that it takes very little time to get dramatic microevolution, hundreds of years being enough to create dramatic new "species" and a lot less in many cases. It would be an amazing feat of LACK of genetic microevolution if creatures maintained the same form for millions of years, even hundreds. In the Creation described in the Bible, there would be no death so there would be no threat involved in such genetic changes over time, and original forms would be preserved along with the evolved forms, but in the world of evolution every creature would die out within much less than half a million years simply from loss of genetic diversity, yet here we've got this theory of time periods in which very particular forms supposedly populated the earth, they and only they, for multiple millions of years. And then we get another entirely different sediment -- a bizarre phenomenon in itself, as if a particular kind of rock stands for a time period. Why isn't this OBVIOUSLY absurd to anyone? Emperor's New Clothes phenomenon. So this particular rock has a brand new assortment of fossils and the weird idea just goes on and on against all reason and reality.

But that is all you can say, IT IS ABSURD.

Yeah. Frustrating. But I can say why it's absurd, as above.

Not if it took millions of years. Then it nakes perfect sense and explains all the evidence we see.

Pure magic those millions of years.

Sedimentation takes lots of time, erosion takes lots of time, see level rising and falling takes lots of time. TIME, MILLIONS OF YEARS OF TIME, explain it all.

Except if the Flood did occur, sedimentation would take a lot less time, sea level rising and falling would take a lot less time, erosion would occur afterward but if it occurred through the rushing waters of the receding Flood as I believe much of it did, not a lot of time is needed for that either.

You don't want that to be true because then it will make your magic book wrong, but the evidence is there, in the rocks.

Actually, I simply came to SEE how all that is absurd, and SEE how the Flood could have done it, SEE that all that "evidence in the rocks" is really an amazing bit of self-deception. I wouldn't have bothered trying to argue such things if I wasn't convinced by them.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-14-2015 2:16 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 73 of 1939 (752950)
03-14-2015 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by edge
03-14-2015 2:23 PM


Besides, we also have the interesting fact that the Great Unconformity is smack dab right beneath the highest part of the mound, and in very close proximity to the canyon.

It's also smack-dab right under most of the continental crust of the entire planet.

Yes, and it can be easy to lose sight of its amazing size, but nevertheless in the canyon area, being right beneath that uplift, and right next to the canyon, suggests the effect I keep describing.

But its huge extent also suggests that there should be other places where similar tectonic effects are in evidence.

I've argued before that the canyon had to have been the result of strain in the upper strata, ...

Which seems to hardly exist. What strain are you talking about?

I'm talking about the stack of strata that used to exist above the Kaibab in the GC area, that no longer exists. It was as high as the Grand Staircase, and I suggest that it was strained by that mounded uplift (the Kaibab Uplift) when it occurred, since the highest strata would have stretched more over such a rounded uplift than the lower, and that it cracked, which was the beginning of the breakup of all that upper strata that then was washed away in the receding waters of the Flood, AND was the opening of what became the Grand Canyon. I think it's a very neat hypothesis myself.

... which were more than two miles deep at that point, caused by the force of the uplift that also broke and tilted the strata that became the Great Unconformity.

So, this 'Force' acted across the crust of the earth from Scotland to the Grand Canyon? Please explain this force.

The two miles of strata I'm referring to I just described above, the strata that were originally above the Kaibab over much of the Southwest area and into which the canyon was cut and out of which the Grand Staircase was carved. The "force" was the tectonic movement that caused the uplift and also the release of magma that is seen on the cross section under the GC and also at the far end of the Grand Staircase. I'd have to suppose that the same or other tectonic forces created the GU as far as it extends.

Sure is suggestive that all the events are related. And I still think that view has to be correct, however hard it is to prove it.

In an overly simplistic mind, I suppose; but how do you get all of those cross-cutting features and inclusions of older rocks in younger rocks?

Since you haven't yet explained them I don't know. I'll let you know after you've clarified.

But of course maybe not hay? Maybe the strata had no problem spreading themselves along the contour of the mound, wet or not, ...

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. Why could the sediments not have been deposited then warped by the Kaibab Uplift?

I'm being sarcastic about other posters' arguments. I agree that the sediments were deposited and then warped by the Kaibab Uplift.

... and maybe the Great Unconformity was the root of a mountain chain that managed to erode down absolutely flat, :eyeroll: ...

How do you know it was flat and what would be the problem with a flat surface?

Seems to be what everybody is saying, how the GU eroded flat and that created the surface for the strata to buld on. The problem I see is that I don't see how such an upthrust piece of hardened strata could erode away to flatness.

... which is what I thought the strata supposedly built on, but that would mean the mound wasn't there yet. OR, the mound WAS there, which is it?

If by 'mound' you mean the Kaibab Uplift, of course it came later. It warps the youngest rocks present in the system.

You are missing my sarcasm directed at others here. Perhaps you need to notice more carefully the name at the upper right side of a post to whom it is addressed. In any case I agree with you that the uplift came later. I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind when you say "it warps the youngest rocks..."

I had forgotten or didn't know that particular uplift was the Kaibab Uplift. Now I know.

Nothing caused it though. But then eventually there was some kind of uplift etc etc etc.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

It's just a continuation of the sarcasm which you may be failing to appreciate because you tend not to notice the context of my comments and who they are directed to.

Do you understand that the Great Unconformity is an irregular surface? Not a solid entity?

Uh yeah, that's the point of my argument that it wouldn't have eroded flat.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 2:23 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 8:48 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 75 of 1939 (752952)
03-14-2015 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by kbertsche
03-14-2015 1:39 PM


Re: Bible truth vs. Science
I avoid the insults that you receive on the issues of the timing and mechanism of God's creation. I prefer to take a stand (and receive insults) on the primary issues of the Christian faith, especially the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Once you have allowed the veracity of God's word to be brought into question, you have eroded the very foundation you need to make any claims at all for the primary issues of the Christian faith. If the Bible can't be believed in Genesis why should it be believed anywhere else? And as a matter of sad fact, the gospel NEEDS Genesis to make sense, why we need a Savior, how God promised to send us a Savior.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2015 1:39 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 8:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022