Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

Faith writes: Just a guess of mine that seemed logical. But perhaps some time you could give some kind of account of the Great Unconformity as it is found in other places besides the GC? That would be very interesting.

In the Vanrhynsdorp Group in my country and the Nama Group in Namibia there's absolutely no geological unconformity found in the "rocks" between the Precambrian Namibian Era and the Cambrian period. Those sedimentary rocks straddle the boundary between the Precambrian and the Cambrian Period. No unconformity between Cambrian and Precambrian found there.

Blows magic global floods during that time out of the water.

Edge, maybe it's because Faith thinks that the Precambrian is a "layer" of rocks, the Cambrian is is a "layer" of rocks, etc.? One stacked up upon each other? That's what creationists tell them what the geological periods are? Maybe Faith has been taught that unconformities are "rock layers"? Hence, the "upper" of an unconformity. Crazy, I know. But that's what they believe.

Faith writes: But there would have been no volcanism before the Flood, so no metamorphic rock.

Are you under the impression that metamorphism is always associated with volcanic processes? That would be news to most metamorphic rocks.

Edited by Pressie, : Removed last paragraph after reading post by the mod

Maybe we should ask Faith what she means when she uses the word 'volcanic'. She has her own dictionary as I remember.

Faith writes: ... the development of the ice age in those northerly parts...

Hey, missing the Southern parts? You do know that a magical global fluddie would have an effect on the whole earth equally?

Let me give you some unasked for advise, Faith. To people living in the Southern Hemisphere the Southern Hemisphere is quite important.

Sure. There's no geological or archaeological evidence in South Africa for an ice-age 4 000 to 5 000 years ago. None.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Faith writes: All based on the bogus evidence of the false interpretation of the strata and their fossil contents

Really? That's not my experience. In my country it was basically based on boreholes originally.

The Barberton Sequence outcrops are , well, at Barberton. A little to the west the Barberton Sequence is overlain by Dwyka (unconformity between the two). Outcropping there. When you go a little bit more to the west, the Dwyka is overlayed by the Ecca group (gradual contact and outcropping around Witbank, Middelburg). As you go futher south it's all of the above, plus Beaufort, Molteno, Elliot Clarens, Drakensberg, Jozini, Lebombo, all in order from bottom to top.

But then, drilling west of Jo'burg from top to bottom, you get Ecca Group, Dwyka Group (Karoo Sequence), then an unconformity, then Transvaal Sequence, then an unconformity, then Wits Sequence, then an unconformity again, then Barberton.

If you drill in the Free State area, you get a lot of Karoo Sequence, then an unconformity, then Transvaal Sequence, then an unconformity, then Wits Sequence (all that gold!). No overthrusts or anything that can throw the sequence around. So, the logical consequence is that the Karoo is younger than the Transvaal which is younger than Wits which is younger than the Barberton.

In the Karoo Sequence, from top to bottom, we get the Lebombo Group, then the Drakensberg group, then the Clarens Formation, then the Elliot Formation, then the Molteno Formation, then the Beaufort Group, then the Ecca Group, then then the Dwyka Group.

All based on boreholes. No fossils involved.

The fossils we get are very interesting, though. In the Barberton, only unicellular organisms. In the Transvaal we get the Malmani Dolomites of the Chuniespoort Subgroup. All those fossil stromatolites.

In the dwyka and Ecca Group (Karoo Sequence), we get all that coal.

In the Beaufort Group, we get a range of fossils from reptiles in the lowest and oldest and lowest parts of the Group to mammal-like reptiles to reptile-like mammals to mammals near the top of the group.

So, Faith, you don't have an idea what you're talking about, do you?

Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentences

Impressions from creationist websites are supposed to be good enough for Faith. When is she going to learn that creationists always have to tell untruths about everything?

It was a rhetorical question.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Faith writes: But you interpret the age of the strata you get from the boreholes according to the Geo Time Scale of hundreds of millions of years,...

Nope. I just told you what's found in the various "rock layers" in parts of South Africa. And the relative ages of those "rock layers" to each other.

Faith writes: ...and extrapolate the dates of fossils that are normally associated with particular strata also from that scale, so what's the difference?

Nope. I just told you what's found in the various "rock layers" in parts of South Africa. And the relative ages of those "rock layers" to each other.

Faith writes: And then you say you DO get mammals, and they're "near the top" which is where I said they normally are. So what's your problem?

I don't have a problem. I just told you what fossils are found in various "layers" of rocks in South Africa and the relative ages of rocks to each other. The Beaufort is younger than the Ecca and the Dwyka and the Transvaal and the Wits and the Barberton. And that the lower parts of the Beaufort are older than the middle parts and older than the upper parts of the Beaufort. And the fossils we find in the lower parts and middle parts and upper parts of the Beaufort. All just from outcrops and boreholes...

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

edge, to me coprolites are always very interesting. Those guys just had a dump or two around their houses...

Faith writes: You WAY underestimate the destructive power of a worldwide Flood.

Magic can do anything. That's why creationism is not science.

You do know that the Beaufort Group contains fossils of reptiles in the oldest deposits; then various degrees of fossils of mammal-like reptiles a bit higher up, then degrees of fossils of reptile-like mammals a bit higher, then mammals at the top, don't you?

The theory of evolution can explain that sequence of fossils scientifically. Magic fluddies can't.

faith writes: You have a knack for stating the obvious.

Yes. That's why I discussed the obvious relative ages of the stratigraphy of parts of South Africa and also the obvious evolution of reptiles to mammals as found in the Beaufort Group.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

faith writes: The Theory of Evolution is pseudoscience, nothing but mental castle-building. It's genetically impossible for one thing, as I've argued over and over here -- microevolution depletes genetic material so you can never get a creature evolving beyond its given genetic potentials. And again, turning blocks of rock of specific flavors into time periods is so ridiculous I don't know how you all live with yourselves.

Obviously you're wrong; reality shows that you are talking nonsense. Again I can refer you to the Beaufort Group.

Faith writes: The idea that any of the worldwide strata formed in any way other than horizontally is so utterly brand new and utterly bizarre I'm sure I've been transported into the twilight zone.

What worldwide strata are you talking about, Faith? I haven't heard of any of those ever.

Fiath writes: Oh fine, nitpickers. So it is only worldwide in the northern hemisphere and not continuous even there. So what, they do pretty much wrap around the globe. You know, those layers on which the Geologic Time Scale was built.

The geological time scale was not built on strata or "layers" or anything like that.

It's not nitpicking. It's stating facts.