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

Well, they used to know these things before the ToE made its absurd claims that erase the boundaries between Species, based on nothing but faith in the ToE and not on any actual evidence. The boundaries remain, only Science is blind to them. How about a shred of evidence that there is no genetic barrier between Species? First produce that. You can't, it's purely an artifact of the theory of evolution.As I've argued many times, microevolution involves the reduction of genetic diversity along the evolving line which ultimately reaches a point beyond which evolution is impossible. Evidence for this is in the problems of conservation found in the wild and in domestic breeding, though ridiculously denied by the ToE. All the ToE has in answer is pure theory, mental conjurings, faith in the theory. More than you do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And yet this is how the Bible describes kinds: (Gen 1:11-25 It is clearly describing "kinds" as those having the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.Hmmm ... I wonder what the definition of "species" is in modern biology? So, let's hear more about your wild assertion that biology has got it all wrong and how the biblical "kind" is different than our "species"? Only this time why don't you include some evidence because right now you're just spouting things that even the bible doesn't agree with.JB

What's your problem? There would have been representatives of each Kind or Species on the ark while multiple millions of their cousins off the ark died. That would be an acceptable definition of a Kind. Problems occur, however, when you get a new breed or race that can't interbreed with the mother population and decide on that basis that it's a new Species, which in evolutionistic terms implies that it can produce more and more variations which is how the ToE assumes all the different Species arose. But in actual fact such a new race or breed has LESS genetic ability to evolve further and actually represents the outer boundary of a Species' ability to evolve. Its genetic reduction is in many cases most likely the reason for the loss of its ability to continue to interbreed with the mother population. I've argued this to death on other threads, better not to continue it here. "Biology" didn't get things wrong, the Theory of Evolution did.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Wow. This thread has REALLY become a mess in the last couple days. Just a quick read through and I see at least a dozen topics that could be spun off into new threads. I would love to discuss this whole issue of "species" and "races" etc. But I think this thread is supposed to be about how the Great Unconformity (and unconformities in general) formed, and as far as I know, that issue has not been resolved.Do unconformities form by erosion or by tectonic forces sliding the blocks underneath? Have we come to a consensus yet? I don't think we have.I would like to ask for you to do a simple project. Draw a step by step process for how you envision tectonic forces acting on a block and how it would cause it to rotate under a larger stack and create an unconformity like we see at the GU. Use a process similar to what I did for erosion in Message 540 or Percy did in Message 88. (I drew mine on paper and then scanned it into my computer. if you don't have a scanner, I guess you could use paint, but I think it is awkward)This will not only illustrate to us exactly what you have in mind, but also will give you the opportunity to fully think through your idea. If I were to draw what I think the situation is, it will probably not be what you had in mind, so better for you to do it yourself.Keep in mind a couple parameters. 1) the sediment is not fully lithified, but in a semi-hardened state. 2) You need to account for the movement of materials (if "rock" is being sheared off, where does it go?) 3) don't skip steps, show the intermediate stepsThis should go a long way to concluding this discussion about unconformities. All the latest discussion is doing is muddying the waters (no pun intended) - there is just no way to discuss all these different topics at one time.HBD

Too many species/kinds to fit on the ark and it's your problem, not mine. How can YOU believe they got it wrong when their definition is the same one as in the Bible? You're making no sense whatsoever.However, I will respect herebedragons wishes and let you have the last word as this tangent you sent us on is truly off topic.JB

I wish I could give you an illustration but my printer has been dysfunctional for over a year and I don't think I ever used the scanner on it anyway. Paint is indeed awkward. Oddly enough I used to be able to draw fairly easily on it with the old roller mouse; the nonroller mouse is useless.However, here's the main blog post I did on the subject a few years ago. Figure 58. "Lyell's illustration of lateral pressure forming folds in strata, using folded cloth and books" is probably the center of the argument, about two thirds of the way through the post. Lyell of course wasn't thinking along my lines, but Hutton's.Where did the rock go? here's a thought: Wherever an unconformity is actually visible some enormous quantity of rock has disappeared just to allow us to see the formation. Where did THAT go?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The time estimate for the Siberian Trap creation is on the order of a million years and about 250 million years ago.And of course those time estimates are based on real evidence not just some book written by the ignorant.But first you might want to learn how to read. No where did I even intimate that anything happened over a period of months except a final cooling phase; just the opposite, I pointed out that cooling time is not even significant. Rather the issue is how long would it take a lava flow to cover an area the size of Western Europe when expanding at a rate of 3-5 mph? Then how long to repeat that same process not just once but thousands of times?Now you might choose to deny the evidence of dating but that only says that you want to reamin ignorant, which is fine.Reality and Truth have shown that Young Earth or either of the Biblical Floods are simply DeadOnArrival, nonsense, false, absurd, ridiculous, worthy only of a chuckle.

This is off topic and I'm agreeing with HBD that we need to get back on track. All I will say here is that there is not one word in your post that justifies millions of years. In fact you don't give time estimates at all which is why I asked. And none of the facts you described require more than years, hundreds at most.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Based on the Columbia River Basalts, there are some eruptions into lakes and streams, but that's about it. The eruptions are dominantly subaerial. Not sure what you mean by 'frozen over'. In this case, my guess is minimal. From my experience that part of the world didn't really get that much ice. Well, the data say millions. If I may interject here...The point is not how long it takes the lava to cool. Lave cools rapidly compared to plutonic rocks anyway. We can see this in the fine-grained texture of volcanic rocks. In a geological sense, any lava flow is almost instantaneous.The real point here is whether all of the volcanism on earth occurred within the last 4ky. Plutonism is more appropriate and it is clear that plutons can take very long times to cool. To this day, there are hot springs signifying high heat flows (cooling) in the Idaho Batholith where the last plutons are dated at about Eocene, IIRC. That's about 40 million years ago.But still, that's not my point. If you look at the Volcanic Explosivity Index, a few things can be noted.Volcanic explosivity index - WikipediaWhat we call 'supervolcanoes' occur in the geological record and are defined as ejecting more than a thousand cubic kilometers of ejecta (I love that word...). One of these, Toba, is thought to have coincided with a bottleneck in the human population of the time; and there are three more of these provided as examples in the table. Tambora, the largest observed volcanic eruption in history is an order of magnitude smaller; and Pinatubo, one of the largest modern eruptions, is another magnitude smaller.As mentioned earlier, Laki, in Iceland may have indirectly caused the deaths of 6 million people globally, due mostly to famine.And we haven't even touched the Large Igneous Provinces such as the ones Jar is referring to, and I believe there were about 16 of those on the planet.And neither have we touched on the gases released by all of these eruptions. That's another subject.I'm sorry, but I'm having a problem with all of this happening in 4ky. However, when you look at all of the geochronological data, it makes a lot more sense to accept old ages for all of this volcanic activity. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't be here discussing this. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

That would be in an open system, that is the material has a place to go (ie. to a basin). Folding under the strata would be a closed system, the materials should be trapped in the system. If you have an idea as to how they could get out, that would definitely help.from your blog (bold mine)

quote:

---

Then tectonic or volcanic forces tilted or folded a block of the LOWER strata, which were sheared off at the top under the weight of higher strata that remained horizontal though they may have been raised by the force.

---

This "sheared off" material is what I am talking about.

quote:

---

I really think we could put QED to this here.

---

Hardly, Faith.HBD

The suggestion is that the shearing action is what OPENED the system, shoving out the rubble wherever it opened.

The shearing was caused by the tectonic force which shook things up a bit.But I still think the best explanation is that the sheared off rubble accumulated under the Tapeats where the magma from below turned it into schist.

So, you've got shearing. Please show us an example of a sheared texture at the Great Unconformity.Then tell us why we don't see it anywhere in the overlying rocks.By the way, the amount of deformation during the Kaibab uplift is nowhere near as intense as the folds you show in your blog. The problem you have is that the rubble appears in the Tapeats as well. This means that the Tapeats came after whatever event caused the rubble, either tectonic or sedimentary.

Sheared off rubble accumulated under the Tapeats and turned to schist leaving a flat and level contact - the kind of contact you find impossible for erosion to accomplish? That's the BEST explanation????But there are more problems than that... but they are hard to explain, I'll have to draw a picture which will take me a couple days to have time to get to. But essentially, the volume of sheared off material would take up more volume than can be accounted for with schist at the contact plane.Why would the Super group not also be metamorphosed? It is below the plane of the GU...Wouldn't there be evidence of heating at the contact surface? In other words, why doesn't the Tapeats show evidence of heating? The material less than 1 inch below it was hot enough to metamorphose, why wouldn't that show up in the Tapeats?HBD

Well, it's a thought.Barely...We don't just dispose of an enormous quantity of rock and not attempt to explain it. However, erosion has been known to do that. A good question for you. Edited by edge, : No reason given.