Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 451 of 1939 (754244)
03-25-2015 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2015 12:47 AM


Re: Faith, Meet Faith
Faith, meet Faith.
But ...
but ...
It only has to be somewhat table-top flat...
Heh, heh, had to take a little sabbatical yesterday. Probably more of that on order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2015 12:47 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 452 of 1939 (754247)
03-25-2015 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by Faith
03-24-2015 12:32 PM


Young Earth dishonesty and conjobs
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.
White Cliffs of Dover | Answers in Genesis
And speaking of erosion, the pictures of the Dover cliffs show how it cuts into such a deposition.
You provided a link to the idiots shysters at Answers in Genesis that is a great example of how utterly silly their apologetics can get.
Here is one section from YOUR link:
quote:
With such a slow rate of accumulation, how did such monumental chalk beds form on an earth, which is, according to the Bible, a little over 6000 years old? For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources.
White Cliffs of Dover
With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a blooming production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major blooms in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood.
The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events.
Additional evidence for a global Flood in the White Cliffs of Dover includes the layering of the chalk in alternating thin, hard layers and thick, soft layers. In these hard layers, called hardgrounds, we find fossils of mollusk shells and other sea creatures, some as large as 3 feet (1 m) across (ammonites), which could not have been buried alive slowly! The same chalk formation in the Netherlands has yielded a very large Mosasaurus skull. Since sea life was not part of Noah’s cargo on the Ark, they had to endure the ravages of the Flood. Marine life would have been swept into the rapidly forming chalk and other sedimentary layers and quickly buried by successive deposits. That is why we find fossils of sea creatures in even the highest chalk layers, now far above the ocean.
That is not evidence at all or by any definition and only a carny conman attempt to palm a pea. It is utterly dishonest.
They simply make shit up, none of it supportable based on either of the Biblical Flood stories and just a great example of the basic dishonesty that forms the basis for "Biblical Christianity". They simply lie.
Note they say "One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events." and then in the very next paragraph give examples of such other events when they say "Additional evidence for a global Flood in the White Cliffs of Dover includes the layering of the chalk in alternating thin, hard layers and thick, soft layers. In these hard layers, called hardgrounds, we find fossils of mollusk shells and other sea creatures, some as large as 3 feet (1 m) across (ammonites), which could not have been buried alive slowly! The same chalk formation in the Netherlands has yielded a very large Mosasaurus skull. ".
Such nonsense may satisfy the willfully ignorant but certainly not any thinking person. And this is from the folk that imagine all kinds of shit that is not in either of the Biblical Flood myths like volcanoes and blooming chalk formations yet never touch the real evidence like just how that imagined flood could create the alternating layers or what the hell a "chalk bed is so that fishes get washed in or why no MODERN sea creatures or humans got washed in.
Sheesh
Edited by jar, : hit wrong key
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
Edited by jar, : should not call the folk at AIG idiots. It's clear they are not idiots but know the CCoI is really gullible

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 not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 453 of 1939 (754252)
03-25-2015 4:30 PM


Since we are discussing unconformities, here is another close-up example.
My only point here is that the fine-grained sand, just above the unconformity, has cross-bedding that suggests stream deposition with flows from right to left. It does not look like 'disrupted material' from the upper beds, but eroded fragments of the material below the unconformity mixed in with other transported material from another source.
Now, unless Faith wants other unconformities to be different from the Great Unconformity, how do you get these features?
--A rough (regularly stepped shape) unconformity surface that shows no weathering from a smooth surface
--An overlying sandstone derived from multiple sources
--Cross-bedding indicating stream deposition
This photo has some other interesting features. Ask if curious, AMA.

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by jar, posted 03-25-2015 4:38 PM edge has replied
 Message 456 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 5:21 PM edge has replied
 Message 509 by herebedragons, posted 03-26-2015 5:22 PM edge has replied
 Message 520 by Faith, posted 03-26-2015 10:03 PM edge has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 454 of 1939 (754253)
03-25-2015 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by edge
03-25-2015 4:30 PM


and different size material
And don't forget superfine material below fine material below coarse material.
Faith needs to present a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to explain that.
Edited by jar, : fin---> fine

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 4:30 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 5:04 PM jar has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 455 of 1939 (754254)
03-25-2015 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by jar
03-25-2015 4:38 PM


Re: and different size material
And don't forget superfine material below fine material below coarse material.
Faith needs to present a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to explain that.
Wha???
That would spoil all the fun of YEC science!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by jar, posted 03-25-2015 4:38 PM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 456 of 1939 (754255)
03-25-2015 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by edge
03-25-2015 4:30 PM


Your picture doesn't look anything like the Siccar Point picture, what is it you want me to see there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 4:30 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 9:52 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 457 of 1939 (754260)
03-25-2015 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Admin
03-25-2015 9:01 AM


So it looks like we have an answer now. You're proposing that the unconformity boundary in the Hutton diagram became less straight over time because severe weather deformed it, thereby rebutting Edge's claim that the boundary was originally
Yes, that's what it looks like to me. But other evidence is the straightness of the upper strata too, showing no signs of having had to conform to irregularities in the lower section, as I already mentioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Admin, posted 03-25-2015 9:01 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by Admin, posted 03-25-2015 6:17 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 468 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 9:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 458 of 1939 (754263)
03-25-2015 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by Admin
03-25-2015 9:20 AM


You've given participants the impression that your position is that layers do not form unevenly, that they only become uneven later. But what you've just said, that you want evidence of a level flat boundary, puts this interpretation into question, so perhaps it would help if you reexplained your position. By calling what looks to be a contradiction to your attention I'm trying to avoid you finding yourself in the position where you believe no one is listening to what you're saying.
I started out this discussion with some pictures noting what look to me to be amazingly level (horizontal) straight (flat but nothing's perfect) contact lines at various locations of the Great Unconformity. (except the third picture does seem to be a rogue that got in there by mistake: I think it is an unconformity, however, but from some place in South America).
So I start with that impression from those pictures in Message 213 and Message 313. Some dispute that they are as straight and level as I claim but the lines are there to show it so the objections make no sense.
Anyway, the challenge was to show that erosion alone could produce such remarkably level and flat surfaces on top of distorted strata or lumpy hard rocks like schist. Many NEAR- level surfaces were shown, but none as level and flat as those in my pictures IMHO. Nobody's succeeded at that, and Dr. A's doesn't either, IMHO.
I wouldn't say that layers NEVER deposit unevenly, I'm only saying that's not the case in my pictures, and the ones of very uneven examples of the G.U. had to have been disturbed after deposition IMHO, could not have been deposited that way.
I hope this is clearer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by Admin, posted 03-25-2015 9:20 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by Admin, posted 03-25-2015 6:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 470 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 10:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 459 of 1939 (754267)
03-25-2015 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by Faith
03-25-2015 5:43 PM


Faith writes:
But other evidence is the straightness of the upper strata too, showing no signs of having had to conform to irregularities in the lower section, as I already mentioned.
Just to be sure you don't miss it, Edge recently commented on this in Message 447:
1.) Why are the bedding planes in the uppermost layers in the photograph not similarly roughened by the same process that has made the unconformity rougher (according to Faith). Demonstrably, they should have been exposed to more severe weathering than the unconformity itself. And yet, there they are just as straight as when Hutton first described them. Please explain.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 5:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 460 of 1939 (754271)
03-25-2015 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by edge
03-25-2015 11:59 AM


Faith writes:
in Message 436 I realized there are eroded stumps of the strata of the lower section that should be highlighted too so I marked them on another version of the photo:
The extra lines are irrelevant. They are drawn on the modern unconformity not the ancient one.
I thought that's what Percy wanted me to indicate: to explain the unevenness of the lower section as the result of erosion after the deposition of the above section. I'm sure you are still free to offer a different interpretation.
Yes, the lower strata are eroded and weathered with the detritus falling into low spots on the unconformity surface. That debris is considered part of the overlying sequence of rocks.
The only debris I see is in what I called the eroded zone above the lower section, which I outlined in blue; is that what you are referring to? In the lower section I yellow-lined evidence of recent erosion since exposure.
Now a couple of my questions that have been completely ignored.
1.) Why are the bedding planes in the uppermost layers in the photograph not similarly roughened by the same process that has made the unconformity rougher (according to Faith). Demonstrably, they should have been exposed to more severe weathering than the unconformity itself. And yet, there they are just as straight as when Hutton first described them. Please explain.
But I HAVE answered this. They ARE tremendously weathered, judging by their being mere splinters, mere "shadows of their former selves" as I put it. The upright strata below offer exposed upper ends to the weather, explaining their unevenness, and unevenness seen at many levels too, as I marked in yellow; but straight flat strata would remain straight, just be reduced to such skeletal remains as seen. This is how I've interpreted the difference more than once already.
2.) If the Great Unconformity was smooth and then made rough by some unrevealed process, what about other unconformities? Are they likewise always smooth when formed? If they are different, why so?
The amazing thing is that there are so many examples of remarkable levelness and straightness of the G.U. There must be others, with monadnocks for instance, where they were originally irregular, and YET EVEN THERE THE OVERALL IMPRESSION IS OF A REMARKABLE LEVELNESS AND STRAIGHTNESS MERELY INTERRUPTED HERE AND THERE BY SUCH IRREGULARITIES.
After seeing this photo Message 436, I'm beginning to agree that Faith still does not understand that the unconformity is a surface of no thickness that it extends as a 'sheet' into the layers of rock and is exposed more and more as erosion of the upper layers occurs.
I don't see anything I've said or shown on the picture that contradicts that description. The surface of the unconformity is now shown only in the uneven upper broken ends of the strata of the lower section.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 11:59 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-25-2015 6:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 471 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 10:20 PM Faith has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 461 of 1939 (754276)
03-25-2015 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by Faith
03-25-2015 5:53 PM


Faith writes:
Anyway, the challenge was to show that erosion alone could produce such remarkably level and flat surfaces on top of distorted strata or lumpy hard rocks like schist.
I want to clarify what other participants, especially Jar, have been pointing out about landscapes like the ones you showed in Message 345, like this one:
You've been calling attention to eroded ditches in images like this one to call attention to how erosion makes landscapes uneven. Others have been trying to call your attention to the incredibly flat plains stretching off into the distance in the backgrounds of your images. These flat plains were caused by the flip side of erosion, namely deposition. It perhaps hasn't been expressed clearly, but when people say these plains are the result of erosion they do not mean that they were created by wind and water eroding away the surface in an incredibly even manner. What they mean is that the material on the plain is eroded material carried and deposited there from more highly elevated regions. Hills and mountains are eroded and the material is carried away by wind and water to become deposited on the plains below. Plains become flat because they are areas of deposition of eroded material from elsewhere, not because their surfaces are eroded flat.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 5:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 6:45 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 502 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2015 1:34 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 462 of 1939 (754279)
03-25-2015 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 461 by Admin
03-25-2015 6:38 PM


Anyway, the challenge was to show that erosion alone could produce such remarkably level and flat surfaces on top of distorted strata or lumpy hard rocks like schist
You've been calling attention to eroded ditches in images like this one to call attention to how erosion makes landscapes uneven. Others have been trying to call your attention to the incredibly flat plains stretching off into the distance in the backgrounds of your images. These flat plains were caused by the flip side of erosion, namely deposition. It perhaps hasn't been expressed clearly, but when people say these plains are the result of erosion they do not mean that they were created by wind and water eroding away the surface in an incredibly even manner. What they mean is that the material on the plain is eroded material carried and deposited there from more highly elevated regions. Hills and mountains are eroded and the material is carried away by wind and water to become deposited on the plains below. Plains become flat because they are areas of deposition of eroded material from elsewhere, not because their surfaces are eroded flat.
OK, noted. But that doesn't change the fact that none of the pictures show a surface as level and straight as those of the G.U. in the pictures I posted.
So I still say what I said above: erosion alone [has not been shown to] produce such remarkably level and flat surfaces on top of distorted strata or lumpy hard rocks like schist.
ABE: Afterthought: Erosion deposited ON TOP of the land surface is now the argument? But what we see in the G.U. is the level surface of the rock that's there: the schist in some cases, the tilted strata in others. Where's this band of erosion?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Admin, posted 03-25-2015 6:38 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2015 9:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 463 of 1939 (754280)
03-25-2015 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
03-25-2015 6:21 PM


Faith writes:
I thought that's what Percy wanted me to indicate: to explain the unevenness of the lower section as the result of erosion after the deposition of the above section. I'm sure you are still free to offer a different interpretation.
empasis mine
This doesn't make any sense at all.
It is like saying that you can get a haircut while wearing a stocking cap.

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 460 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 6:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 7:10 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 464 of 1939 (754291)
03-25-2015 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by Tanypteryx
03-25-2015 6:46 PM


Reading out of context of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-25-2015 6:46 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Admin, posted 03-25-2015 8:52 PM Faith has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 465 of 1939 (754310)
03-25-2015 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by Faith
03-25-2015 7:10 PM


Faith writes:
Reading out of context of course.
I've been encouraging people to repeat and clarify as often as necessary.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 7:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 10:22 PM Admin has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024