Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9079 total)
111 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (3 members, 108 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
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 114 of 1939 (753012)
03-15-2015 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
03-15-2015 6:13 PM


Re: what is an unconformity
There are many kinds of unconformities and this article may help you with understanding.

The Great Unconformity though is a specific example, one where a whole section of the Super Group is simply missing.

In this specific case the rock layers that make up the Tonto Group sit directly on the Vishnu Schist, the Super Group (over two vertical miles of rocks) is gone. The issue faced was "How to explain what is seen?"

The only explanation so far has been that the whole two plus miles of rock got eroded away?

That lead to asking "How long did it take to first created the various layers of rocks that make up the over two miles of the Super Group and how long would it take to erode all of that away? Then how long would it take to create all the other layers that are above the Great Unconformity? Can that be explained by any known process, procedure, model, method, mechanism that could do all that in just 6000 years?"

So far over the last couple hundred years no one has been able to present any known process, procedure, model, method, mechanism that could do all that in just 6000 years.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 6:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 9:39 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 118 of 1939 (753020)
03-15-2015 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
03-15-2015 9:39 PM


Re: what is an unconformity
Faith writes:

jar, I don't know where you are getting the "two vertical miles" of missing sediments.

That is the size of the Super Group that should be filling the Great Unconformity but are missing.

As pointed out in Message 4, here is an illustration that helps explain what is meant by "Great Unconformity".

It is not the rocks that are still there but rather the over one billion years of rock that are not there.

At the location of the Great Unconformity all of the Super Group is missing; 6800 feet of Unkar Group rocks, 370 feet of the Nankoweap Formation, 5200 feet of the Chuar Group and 200 feet of the Sixty Mile Formation.

Over two vertical miles of rocks had been eroded away before the Tapets Sandstone of the Tonto Group was laid down.

This means that the Earth must be at least old enough to have laid down the Super Group rocks and then eroded away the Super Group rocks at the location of the Great Unconformity and also lay down all the rock that are above the Great Unconformity; not just millions but billions of years.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 9:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 122 of 1939 (753025)
03-15-2015 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
03-15-2015 9:57 PM


Re: why it is called "Great"
Faith writes:

Nothing you've said gets across anything about the missing two miles of rock. Don't know what you mean. That diagram you posted was already posted by Asgara and I've seen it many times already anyway.

Yes, many of us have posted that illustration for you.

Notice that it also shows places where the Super Group is below the Tapeats Sandstone.

It is not the rocks that are still there but rather the over one billion years of rock that are not there.

At the location of the Great Unconformity all of the Super Group is missing; 6800 feet of Unkar Group rocks, 370 feet of the Nankoweap Formation, 5200 feet of the Chuar Group and 200 feet of the Sixty Mile Formation.

Over two vertical miles of rocks had been eroded away before the Tapeats Sandstone of the Tonto Group was laid down.

This means that the Earth must be at least old enough to have laid down the Super Group rocks and then eroded away the Super Group rocks at the location of the Great Unconformity and also lay down all the rock that are above the Great Unconformity; not just millions but billions of years.

If you look again at the illustration you will see that at the location called the Great Unconformity all of the Super Group is missing.

So far the only explanation is that it was uplifted and eroded away before the area once again subsided to become marine transgression that produced the Tapeats Sandstone.

If you can present a model, method, mechanism, process, procedure that could account for what is seen in reality other than the conventional one, then it too could be examined.

We can know that the Super Group rocks were once there because we can determine the ages of both the Vishnu Schist and the Tapeats Sandstone and those formations are separated by at least a billion years. We can also see areas where the rocks of the Super Group remain and have not been eroded away.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 9:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 149 of 1939 (753127)
03-17-2015 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
03-17-2015 2:02 AM


Death was the norm from the beginning and there ws no Biblical Fall
Faith writes:

I didn't say he wasn't a creationist, what I said was that he shares KB's belief that it was natural for animals to die before the Fall, which makes him a different kind of creationist than the kind ThinAir was describing.

Death was the norm for humans and animals from the beginning and there was no Biblical Fall unless the God found in Genesis 2&3 was a real fool. If death was not the norm then there was no reason for the existence of the Tree of Life.

Hide off topic response.

Edited by jar, : hide stuff


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 03-17-2015 2:02 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 153 of 1939 (753133)
03-17-2015 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
03-16-2015 11:31 PM


Those who have eyes yet cannot see...
Faith writes:

And I still haven't seen the basis for the idea of two miles of missing rock -- assertions galore notwithstanding -- so I have no idea whether it lies or not.

You have been shown the basis for the idea of two miles of missing rock and have even acknowledged that you were already familiar with the evidence but what the hey, here it is yet again.

From Message 4:

quote:
an illustration that helps explain what is meant by "Great Unconformity".

It is not the rocks that are still there but rather the over one billion years of rock that are not there.


Notice that the Tapeats Sandstone immediately overlies the Super Group except where it is immediately above the Vishnu Schist.

At that point all of the Super Group rocks (over two miles of rocks) are missing.

Read the numbers on the far right.

The Sixty Mile Formation is 200 feet thick.

The Chuar Group is 5200 feet thick.

The NanKoweap Formation is 370 feet thick.

The Unkar group is 6800 feet thick.

200 + 5200 + 370 + 6800 = 12700 feet.

One mile = 5280 feet.

12700 / 5280 = 2.38 miles.

In the area where the Tapeats Sandstone immediately abuts the Vishnu Schist at least 2.38 miles of rock is missing.

Of course it could be considerably more missing rock but we can say with near certainty that at least two miles of rock was eroded away before the Tapeats Sandstone was laid down.

Edited by jar, : appali spallin in sub-title


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 03-16-2015 11:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 175 of 1939 (753278)
03-18-2015 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
03-18-2015 6:39 PM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Faith writes:

I'd say it's neither of those, but what I said already: describing the event from the physical perspective of earth, the way WE would see if it happened today as well. It's not a scientific or analytic statement, it's purely descriptive.

Since the incident did not happen it has to be simply fable, story telling.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 6:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 191 of 1939 (753467)
03-20-2015 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
03-20-2015 3:14 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Faith writes:

Yes, amen. But while that's true of the Bible's descriptions of the heavens, it's not true of its statements about the creation of life and the age of the earth, which limit science to those statements.

Why is it not true when it comes to its statements about the creation of life and the age of the earth?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 3:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 209 of 1939 (753649)
03-21-2015 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by edge
03-21-2015 11:34 AM


Re: From another topic
In other words, the Great Unconformity does not necessarily represent a billion years of erosion, only a billion years of missing record. This is one of the subtleties of unconformities that people often overlook.

Would it not be more accurate to say that "the Great Unconformity represents at least a billion years of missing record?"

We can say that the time period would be at least as long as shown by the remaining layers of the Super Group but what is left of the Super Group is very likely not all that was there.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 11:34 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 12:21 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 220 of 1939 (753677)
03-21-2015 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
03-21-2015 3:19 PM


Erosion does explain the flat contact line
Of course erosion explains flat surfaces. In fact erosion must produce flat surfaces.

Erosion and weathering move materials from the high points to the low points.

If you stop and think about the process at all you must see that the result will be a flatter surface than before the erosion or weathering.

Erosion most certainly can and does explain flat surfaces.

Sorry Faith but it really is that simple.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 3:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 225 of 1939 (753689)
03-21-2015 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
03-21-2015 5:22 PM


Erosion simply does explain the flat contact line
Faith writes:

IT SHOULDN"T BE FLAT ANYWHERE! NOT ANYWHERE! IT'S A LUMPY BUMPY POKY SPIKY IRREGULAR SURFACE. IT SHOULD NOT ERODE FLAT ANYWHERE, LET ALONE AS FLAT AS YOU CAN SEE IT IS IN THE PHOTOS I POSTED.

Shouted nonsense is still nonsense Faith.

If erosion/weathering moves material from high points and deposits it in the low places why would the suface not change from lumpy to smoother?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 5:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 231 of 1939 (753700)
03-21-2015 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
03-21-2015 6:17 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
Shouted nonsense is still nonsense Faith.

If erosion/weathering moves material from high points and deposits it in the low places why would the surface not change from lumpy to smoother?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 6:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 247 of 1939 (753741)
03-21-2015 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
03-21-2015 8:15 PM


Erosion simply CAN explain the flat contact line
Shouted nonsense is still nonsense Faith.

If erosion/weathering moves material from high points and deposits it in the low places why would the surface not change from lumpy to smoother?

After a while continuing to shout nonsense is just stupid.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 8:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 256 of 1939 (753779)
03-22-2015 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by herebedragons
03-22-2015 8:52 AM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
Faith has even been shown the evidence of whole river valley systems that were filled in and covered over to create flat plains (since I happen to live in one) yet just responds with denial.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 8:52 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:25 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 287 of 1939 (753829)
03-22-2015 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
03-22-2015 3:27 PM


why can't erosion do it????????????
Faith writes:

The lines I drew on the G.U. in Message 213 suggest to me a horizontal level straightness that erosion could never accomplish, but I've done all I can to argue this point so it's over.

I don't think anyone understands how you can make such an assertion. Why can't erosion/weathering create a horizontal surface? In fact how could erosion/weathering do anything except move material from high spots to low spots to level surfaces out?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 3:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 5:14 PM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 6:24 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 298 of 1939 (753844)
03-22-2015 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
03-22-2015 6:24 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
Faith writes:

Because erosion tends to CUT INTO horizontal surfaces, making fissures, trenches, riverbeds and so on. Also the strata are of different kinds of material. Some is hard and resistant to weathering, and it's all on an incline and water runs off inclines. And then eroded material would collect and make bumpiness. However, given millions of years of course ...

But you have been shown conclusive evidence of buried valleys and river beds.

Faith writes:

Again, the G.U. contact line is REMARKABLY straight and level in all those photos I posted. NOBODY said "perfect," the standard I'm using is right there in the pictures: THAT is straight and level.

That is only true if you ignore all the stuff that is not straight; in other words the actual evidence.

Faith writes:

A question though: if this Supergroup was the root of a mountain range a LOOOONG time ago, with that enormous weight over it for millions of years, why is it sedimentary rather than metamorphic rock:?

If you had paid attention to what folk have been telling you the Super Group was never the root of a mountain but rather the surface. That is why so much of it got worn away; in fact the Great Unconformity is direct evidence that it was at the surface and then eroded away before the Tapeats Sandstone was laid down..


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 6:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:19 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022