Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
124 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, PaulK (4 members, 120 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,057 Year: 6,169/6,534 Month: 362/650 Week: 132/278 Day: 0/30 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: 2.2


Message 306 of 1939 (753854)
03-22-2015 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Faith
03-22-2015 7:19 PM


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

BURIED VALLEYS AND RIVERBEDS ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. You have obviously not grasped the point.

ALL THE INTERNET DISCUSSIONS OF THE SUPERGROUP DESCRIBE IT AS THE ROOT OF A MOUNTAIN RANGE.

Do you remember the composition of the layers of the Super Group?

Since they were not subject to metamorphism we can accept that as a fact.

We can also accept that they represent at least two miles of material.

So we can begin with facts.

We can then look at the composition of each layer and develop a knowledge of how they were created.

It's amazing what can be learned when you look at the earth and not some 2000 year old collection of stories.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 322 of 1939 (753879)
03-23-2015 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Admin
03-23-2015 8:32 AM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
Admin writes:

In this case what you're calling monadnocks have not been eroded because they're composed of harder material that perhaps goes all the way through or perhaps just caps the top.

I think it is important to point out that what he was calling monadnocks have not been eroded away yet because they're composed of harder material that perhaps goes all the way through or perhaps just caps the top.

They are in the process of being eroded away and the evidence to support that is all the rubble at the base of each monolith.

Geology is not speculation or what-ifs but rather conclusions based on verifiable evidence.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 8:32 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 346 of 1939 (753950)
03-23-2015 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Faith
03-23-2015 3:00 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
You do realize that the pictures you are posting simply support what I have been saying all along, that erosion moves material from high spots to low spots resulting in high places getting lower and low places filling in to produce a level surface don't you?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 3:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 3:20 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 350 of 1939 (753963)
03-23-2015 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Faith
03-23-2015 3:20 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Faith writes:

The processes that cut into the land aren't going to stop when a given trench has been filled with sediment.

Actually, all of the evidence sows that is exactly what happens. The process of course has been continuing for billions of years and yo have been show the results numerous times but here are a few examples.

There are whole buried river systems as you were taught in Message 191 of Origin of the Flood Layers.

There is the scree found at the bottom of monoliths as you were taught in Message 227 of this thread.

And the process moves material from high points to lower points which lowers the high and raises the low resulting in flatter surfaces.

Unless you can explain how erosion does not move material from high to low and how that would not lead to a flatter surface you once again have nothing.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 3:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 4:31 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 356 of 1939 (753979)
03-23-2015 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Faith
03-23-2015 4:31 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Faith writes:


"Flatter" is not as remarkably flat as the GU in the images I posted in 213 and 313. And again, get your surface as flat as you can, does the rain stop? Does the wind stop? If not they are going to continue to cut into the surface and unsettle its flatness.

Unless there is an elevation difference, no, the rain will not cut into a surface and unsettle its flatness.

That is a fact Faith.

As you have been told, the Great Unconformity is not remarkably flat.

Wind can move material that is already eroded but wind itself does very little eroding. When wind picks up other material it can sand blast surfaces, but as pointed out above, the material it carries must first have been eroded.

Finally, gravity works. Even when wind carries material and piles it up, gravity works to pull it down hill towards a flat, level surface.

None of this is speculation Faith but rather conclusions based on millions of observations over several centuries.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 4:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 4:45 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 360 of 1939 (753984)
03-23-2015 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Faith
03-23-2015 4:44 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Faith writes:

Far as I know images of how rock erodes aren't available.

Maybe these will help.

more pictures of rock eroding


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 4:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 10:00 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 364 of 1939 (753990)
03-23-2015 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by Faith
03-23-2015 4:45 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Faith writes:

You are never going to get such perfect flatness that there won't be some differences in elevation to get erosion started, even if only inches.

As I already said:

quote:
Actually, all of the evidence shows that is exactly what happens. The process of course has been continuing for billions of years and you have been shown the results numerous times but here are a few examples.

There are whole buried river systems as you were taught in Message 191 of Origin of the Flood Layers.

There is the scree found at the bottom of monoliths as you were taught in Message 227 of this thread.

And the process moves material from high points to lower points which lowers the high and raises the low resulting in flatter surfaces.

Unless you can explain how erosion does not move material from high to low and how that would not lead to a flatter surface you once again have nothing.


Yes, the process continues as long as there is an elevation difference.

That is clearly shown by the Great Unconformity. There, over two miles of material was eroded away, the land subsided and became a sea, coarse sand stone was eroded from elsewhere and deposited as the Tapeats Sandstone, additional layers were added over time and the whole area later raised to its current elevation.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 4:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 373 of 1939 (754027)
03-23-2015 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Faith
03-23-2015 10:00 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Actually all your pictures show surfaces that are as flat and smooth as the surface at the Great Unconformity.

It ain't that smooth.

But if you have been following along in this thread beginning at Message 4 you can get an estimate of just how long it took to get things as smooth as seen at the Great Unconformity and that took something over a billion years.

And that is your problem Faith, the evidence is there and all the evidence says that the process of erosion moves material from high spots to low spots and that to do so takes lots of time.

That is why Young Earth has been DeadOnArrival for over 200 years now.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 10:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 3:48 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 382 of 1939 (754054)
03-24-2015 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
03-24-2015 3:48 AM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Faith writes:

GU very level and straight.

You keep claiming that yet that is not what the evidence shows.

Here is yet another look at the Great Unconformity where it is clearly not very level or straight and here is a whole page showing several views of the Great Unconformity and that it is simply not very level or very straight.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 3:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 9:28 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 385 of 1939 (754058)
03-24-2015 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
03-24-2015 9:28 AM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Faith writes:

The pictures I posted in 213 and 313 show it very level and straight. If it's level and straight in so many places, other places where it has been disturbed after its formation are irrelevant.

No Faith, sorry but pictures are relevant despite what you want.

The evidence is that when the Tapeats Sandstone (as well as other layers) was laid down it followed the existing surface contours.

That is what the evidence shows.

That is how we know that the Super Group was exposed and eroded before the Tapeats Sandstone was deposited.

That's how we know that the whole stack was not laid down in one process or was soft and malleable and then "dried out".

None of this is speculation Faith but rather conclusions based on reality and the actual physical evidence.

Here is a link to Message 213 and Message 313 and what they actually show is that overlying layers follow the contour of the base layer.

All of the evidence shows that almost all of the material that should fill the Great Unconformity did erode away before the Tapeats Sandstone (and other layers) was laid down.

There is a gap of over one billion years of deposition and erosion missing.

Young Earth is DOA and simply ridiculous.

AbE: More images.

anudder image; note again the Tapeats follows the contours.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin and add more pictures.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 9:28 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by herebedragons, posted 03-24-2015 10:21 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 408 of 1939 (754097)
03-24-2015 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Faith
03-24-2015 11:16 AM


why you always fail
Faith writes:

I'm sure much of your problem must be due to your habit of thinking in terms of millions of years. If you'd just recognize that I don't, it might help you see better what I'm saying. It's "ancient" yes, but only in thousands, not millions, of years.

And that is why you always fail to make your point. When you begin with a false preface, one that has been proven to be false by tens of thousands of facts over more than two centuries and from every body of science and every new discovery and every new technology, it is hard to ever get anything right.

Even if your premise that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it were true (which it is not) you could till not explain what is seen in reality.

You cannot explain how the mudstone or shale that became the Vishnu Schist was created and then a far coarser layer of sand was created and deposited on top of the Vishnu Schist and how the missing parts of the Super Group were created and then removed or how each of the other layers were created and squeeze all that into only a few thousand or even tens of thousands or even millions of years.

And that is simply this one small example.

You cannot explain how the chalk bed that became the White Cliffs of Dover could be created in only 6000 years.

You cannot explain how the alternating fine/coarse layers of the Green River Varves could be created in only 6000 years.

And as has been pointed out the list of things impossible to explain being created in only 6000 years is near endless.

Today, belief in a Young Earth is not just wrong, not just silly but down right delusional at best.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 11:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 12:32 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 411 of 1939 (754103)
03-24-2015 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by Faith
03-24-2015 12:32 PM


Re: No failure, just up against OE incredulity
Faith writes:

Not 6000 years, just a year or two. All sediments the result of the dissolution of the land mass in the early part of the Flood. Dover cliffs are clearly a deposit like all the rest, part of that formation even being exposed in the Middle East.

So present the model, mechanism, method, process, procedure that can explain what is seen.

It really is that simple Faith.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 12:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 12:48 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 418 of 1939 (754113)
03-24-2015 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by Faith
03-24-2015 12:48 PM


Re: No failure, just up against OE incredulity
Faith writes:

Done so already.

Great, then provide a link please.

As to the conventional model I began explaining it to you in Message 4, Message 122, Message 153, Message 220, Message 225, Message 322 as well as by many other posters and in many other threads like Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. and Salt of the Earth (on salt domes and beds) and How to make sand. and explained that none of it is speculation but rather supported by all of the evidence.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 12:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 2:08 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 422 of 1939 (754118)
03-24-2015 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by Faith
03-24-2015 2:08 PM


Re: No failure, just up against OE incredulity
Faith writes:

Most of that is off topic.

In Message 412 did you not post "And what is your model anyway? Just a bunch of suppositions looks like to me. "

When I respond to a direct question with links and evidence can it be off topic?

Now, since I responded perhaps you can provide the links to support your claim also from that same message that you have already presented the model, mechanism, method, process, procedure that can explain what is seen.

And as Percy has requested we repeat pertinent information:

quote:
As to the conventional model I began explaining it to you in Message 4, Message 122, Message 153, Message 220, Message 225, Message 322 as well as by many other posters and in many other threads like Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. and Salt of the Earth (on salt domes and beds) and How to make sand. and explained that none of it is speculation but rather supported by all of the evidence.

The links I provide contain the full description of how to make schist or sandstone or granite or shale or limestone.

That was what you requested.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 2:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 426 of 1939 (754122)
03-24-2015 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by herebedragons
03-24-2015 10:21 AM


weathering the ages
Something I was thinking about...

there is no evidence that land plants had colonized the land even as late as the Cambrian. Of course, that could be an artifact of the erosion that wiped that surface clean, but if that is true, then none of the surface of the GU would have been secured by plant roots and would have suffered extreme erosion, at a far greater rate than we observe today.

HBD

Lately I've come across several articles along those lines. Here is a letter that was published in Nature a couple years ago that speculates that the Great Unconformity points to one possible trigger mechanism for the Cambrian Explosion.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by herebedragons, posted 03-24-2015 10:21 AM herebedragons 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