|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
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: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
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 Here is one section from YOUR link:
quote: 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 gullibleAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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---> fineAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
And don't forget superfine material below fine material below coarse material.
Wha???Faith needs to present a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to explain that. That would spoil all the fun of YEC science!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Your picture doesn't look anything like the Siccar Point picture, what is it you want me to see there?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Faith writes: empasis mine 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.
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Reading out of context of course.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith writes: Reading out of context of course. I've been encouraging people to repeat and clarify as often as necessary.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024