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

I'm just waiting for what was promised in the thread title. Is that too much to ask?JB

The only time it's funny is at my expense, not that I care about me but I do care about my argument not getting all mangled in your mischaracterizations, straw man nonsense and miswplaced ridicule. You hate my arguments and don't mind making a mess of them but I'm working hard to keep them clear. You really don't seem to understand half of what I write as it is, you don't need to try to make things worse. If you want to be funny how about ridiculing some of the people on your side for a change? There are some doozies there.

I'll say it again. NOBODY on your side has provided evidence. All you've provided is your allegiance to the silly idea that the strata represent time periods. That's just a statement of faith, it is not evidence and please stop claiming it is.

Let's test that statement as well and see if it could be true or just another of Faith's misrepresentations.Faith, does the Vishnu Schist exist and is there evidence of the Super Group on top of it?Does the Navajo Sandstone exist and is it on a layer higher than the Vishnu Schist and the Super Group?Is the portion of the Super Group that remains more than two miles thick?If those things actually exist will they not represent a period of time at least long enough to create the basic material then transport the material to where it is found?Since only a portion of the Super Group remains can we not say that it represents at least the period of time needed to create over two miles of rock and also the time needed to erode over two miles of material?Are those not descriptions of time periods?How is it a silly idea?

Faith, the only way that the strata represent time periods is that they were deposited at particular times and reflect the local conditions at those times.Aside from the fact that you assume that they were all deposited in a very short period of time there really isn't anything that you could reasonably disagree with there.The fact that you keep making this silly objection only shows how little you care about the truth.

You can make that claim all you want, but you aren't convincing anyone. I wonder how much you are convincing yourself.You have already claimed that only the bible represents evidence to you, so why do you even try to deal with science? I think it is in an attempt to bolster your beliefs--you have to keep fooling yourself that there is no evidence lest your beliefs begin to crumble.The are whole libraries full of evidence, representing 200 years and more of geology. You can no more hand-wave all of that away than you can walk to the moon.

Actually, this is untrue.When you asked for modern erosional flat surfaces, you were shown several. To this date, you have not acknowledged these images. Once you accept that strata are laid down according to superposition and in a sequence, that becomes a timeline. It records certain events and offers clues to the past. If you have no desire to learn about the past, that's fine with me, but let the rest of us learn things about the earth. So, if I see a gold vein cutting across a schist, that has no meaning to you? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.

What you are seeing is a graphic representation of the bankruptcy of the YEC position.Granted that some may make a better case, but the result is always the same and anger often is the ultimate product.ETA: But no, that is not too much to ask, but it may be too much to expect. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Unless you can demonstrate a mechanism showing how an undisturbed lower layer can be younger than an undisturbed upper layer, you're laughing at your own joke.Without this demonstration, strata ARE representative of increasingly older time periods as you go deeper. And yes, plenty of evidence is available for that assertion -- the simplest is called gravity. JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Oh don't be silly. I'm talking about time periods in millions of years as per Old Earthism.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

When I said no evidence I was talking about this part of the conversation not the earlier part, no evidence meaning the ridiculous claim that the strata represent eras of millions of years. That's all we've been talking about today and it's all I ever referred to when I said you had no evidence. Why can't you ever just respond to what has actually been said? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How could scientists have come to that conclusion without any evidence?

By ddrawing conclusions from the way things seem to them, things that can't be proved, such as the age of the angular conformity at Siccar Point. Hutton looked at it and decided the lower section had to have preceded the upper by millions of years cuz it just had to be that way according to him, cuz he couldn't imagine any other way, though there's no way to prove such things and it raelly doesn't make any sense that strata would be folded or tilted without something above to resist the movement, if you want MY argument. And that's Old Earthism in a nutshell.And the ToE has the same kind of evidence: first we decide that the strata were laid down millions of years apart because Hutton gave us permission to think that, then we decide the fossils represent things that lived in that imaginary time frame, just those and no others, and there you have it. No real evidence, just a lot of imagining and assuming.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not being silly at all. Once you agree that the lower layers are older, then you must provide demonstrable methods that show the layers can be places in a YE time frame. You are currently failing miserably at this and it's no wonder since you are a operating in the same 'arm chair' manner as George Mccready Price, who started all this "flood geology" crap a hundred years ago. Evidence spells work and he just couldn't be bothered by that when the bronze age text makes it so easy.The methods showing how long it takes for silt to settle, for evaporites to layer up, for limestone and chalk to form are demonstrable and well established. What do you have? Supposition and proof by absolute assertion.Evidence requires action. It requires digging. It requires endless samples including bore holes literally by the millions just since the 1950s. It requires testing and demonstrations. It requires applying immense heat and pressure under repeatable laboratory conditions. It requires an understanding of chemistry, acoustics, physics, etc.It's all been done on the OE side. It simply NEVER happens in any scale on the YE side. NEVER. You're completely unaware of what evidence actually is and so you're blindly continuing a long train of no evidence YEC tradition.JB

Hutton operated armchair style and so did Darwin really, even though they were out there in the field. Their theories were nevertheless made out of pure imagination which could never be tested.Does it take millions of years for silt to settle? Bore holes show the order of things, not their age. That's added by imagination. The things we can't explain we'll eventually explain, because unlike you we know God tells the truth and science is wandering in dark mental places. Pressie can't seem to understand that there is nothing about his Beaufort thing tghat proves the Old Earth. He adds thatfrom his own mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.