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

Oh no, you mean I missed the Creationist Victory Dance?

And this behavior has no explanation at all and on top of that, somehow, magically, if we take the current rates of movement and the measurements of the ages of the rocks formed during that movement we come up with just the distances traveled. Which has the marvelously simple explanation of them moving at that measured current rate for the time measured.Yet, another astonishing coincidence that you can't explain.

Not to mention the rapid magnetic reversals that must have happened every 25 years or so. Since there are over 184 full magnetic reversals found in the Atlantic sea floor alone then if the spreading happened in just 4500 years certainly someone might have noticed that all the compasses stopped working about 25 times in the 600+ years that it has been used in Western European seafaring.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Weird.The point of calculating the speed was to find out if it really was "supersonic" and therefore impossible for the plates to move that fast without generating enough heat to boil the oceans as so many suggested. The fastest was the initial speed of 10 feet a day on either side of the Atlantic Ridge separating Europe from N. America, fast for continents to travel I guess but not "supersonic."I also thought some about how much heat it would take to boil the oceans, a couple posts earlier.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, I'd been pondering that from another angle, though, that if the horizontal strata were laid on top of the already- folded strata all those troughs should have been filled up with the loose upper sediment beneath the horizontal layer. Not finding clear illustrations of either situation. Don't see troughs in the G.U., or at Siccar Point for that matter. Don't know what you mean "no stress on the book." It's heavy enough to provide plenty of resistance to the folded cloth, which makes it a good representative of the weight of those Phanerozoic rocks, don't you think?

Maybe you missed this message in another topic: Message 598.There is a magma hot-spot under the Pacific tectonic plate. It created Hawaii. It also created a line of islands and sea-mounts. Those islands and sea-mounts have been radio-dated. Those dates correspond directly with when that magma hot-spot would have been present under that particular spot of the Pacific plate at that particular time if the earth were indeed old and if the Pacific plate had been moving at about its current rate.Now, what are the odds of all that data being unrelated? Vanishingly small.

... is where you want to sweep the coincidence which was the point of my post which you ignored.

Your "coincidence" was meaningless, nonsensical.

I call "bullshit!" Message 598Given your incredible ignorance, I'm certain that you have absolutely no grasp of the mathematics of probability.Let's toss an evenly-weighted coin (actual coins are not evenly weighted and so will predominantly come up tails, since the heads side is slightly heavier). 50% probability of it coming up heads. One toss, the probability of it coming up heads is 0.5 (AKA 50%, to you math illiterates). For two independent tosses the probability of both turning up heads is 0.5 0.5, which is 0.25. So what is the probability of ten heads in a row? 0.5¹⁰, which is 0.0009765625, AKA "1024 to 1". A hundred heads in a row? 0.5¹⁰⁰, which is 7.888610^-31, AKA "1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 to 1". A thousand heads in a row? 0.5¹⁰⁰⁰, which is 9.332610^-302, AKA "1.0710^-301 to 1".The probability of a scientific reading being accurate is far greater than 50%, more in the range above 95%. For literally thousands of such readings to provide the same results leads us to only one possible conclusion: for them all to be wrong is so incredibly improbable as to be deemed impossible.Do the math, Faith.

As I was reading the past day's posts I became concerned about all the off-topic discussion , but it seems like discussion has returned to the topic now. Please post a thread proposal over at Proposed New Topics for other topics.

I have no idea what you're talking about just as I have no idea what Nosy Ned was talking about. You are both talking gibberish.Probability has nothing to do with this. I described the simple arithmetic I used to find out how fast the continents would be moving apart given 4500 years since they started after the Flood. There's nothing wrong with it.Can we get back to the topic now?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your picture misrepresents the situation of the boulder embedded in the Tapeats. It's situated ABOVE the contact with the basement rocks, IN the sandstone, which suggests that the sand was NOT deposited on top of it, but it was carried IN the sand to that point, a "matrix of sand" as Paul Garner describes it in the video I posted in Message 825.From that video it appears clear enough that there is plenty of erosion at that part of the G.U., but not the kind of erosion weathering would produce, according to Garner, rather a physical or mechanical erosion. He and his group interpret this to mean a "catastrophic debris flow" that occurred at the G.U., but it works as support for my abrasion theory too.ABE: For reference here's the video again:The case for physical erosion of the G.U. as opposed to chemical weathering starts at 1:01:40, and he shows the quartzite boulder embedded in the Tapeats at 1:06:
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, we are not talking gibberish. You are thinking gibberish, so of course you cannot understand simple facts.That message I linked to, which I'm sure you kept yourself completely ignorant of, describes the movement of the Pacific plate over a magma hot-spot which has produced a long string of islands and sea-mounts, including Hawaii, and is currently positioned just off the eastern shore of Kona. We know how fast that plate is moving. Those islands and sea-mounts have been radio-dated. The resultant ages agree very closely with when they would have been positioned over that hot-spot had the Pacific plate been moving at about its current speed.That is an example of consillience, the way in which many independent pieces of evidence all yield the same results. Consilience has been discussed on this forum many times. For every test, there is a possibility of false results, so every test has a confidence interval, a probability (p) that the results are true, and hence a probability (q = 1-p) that the results are wrong. To determine the probability that two tests are both wrong, you multiply their q probabilities (ie, Q = q₁ * q₂). If you have 100 such independent tests, you multiply all 100 together. The probability that hundreds and thousands of independent tests that all yield the same results could all be wrong is so vanishingly small as to be less than virtually impossible.Do the math, Faith!

Not if they were eroded to a relatively flat surface. Perhaps they do not exist. Could it be that the folds are planed off by erosion? You don't understand the diagram. the folded layers were subject to stress by moving the two end books (the ones standing upright) closer together. It's pretty obvious that the overlying book was not compressed.The point of the flat-lying book is to simulate a confining pressure. It has no real representation of rock. No. Not in this case.What you are talking about, in the geomechanical sense, is a 'beam'. What a beam does is absorb and transit stress elsewhere. It literally keeps the softer rocks around it from deforming. Not the other way around.If this model represented only compression (i.e., one event) the end books should overlap the flat lying one and that flat books should absorb all of the stress of compression until it fails. At that point, we would find folding, shearing and faults in both the beam and the softer rocks around it.The Lyell diagram is simply a way of showing how flexural slip (like a deck of cards) folds are created.ABE: Yes, I've watched this before. It sounds good to the uneducated, but basicaly, Garner is pulling the wool (he is in Scotland, after all....) over your eyes. If he paid for a Geology degree, he should get his money back.For one, he makes the same mistake that all creationists seem to fall prey to. He says things like, 'this unconformity represents 500 million years of missing time'. That is completely false. It is 500 million years of missing rock record. It was not eroded for 500 million year as he suggests. It could have been eroded in just a few million.Then he goes on to discuss catastrophic deposition of some parts of the Tapeats Sandstone (in the form of debris flows), implying that mainstream geologists don't believe this can and has happened. He evidently does not understand uniformitarianism.And again, he implies that geologists do not believe that the Tapeats could be deformed in a soft sediment manner. This is false. I see soft-sediment deformation all of the time. Its just that not all deformation occurs in the soft state. And he is kind of vague on you you would determined this, I might add.At the end he seems to equate this soft-sediment deformation with uplift of the Kaibab Plateau. This is nonsense. There is absolutely no reason that one could not have soft-sediment deformation on the flanks of the Shinumo islands in the Tapeats sea and then much later have the entire region uplifted in the Cretaceous-Tertiary timeframe.So, you are being deceived. The only question I have is does Garner really know what he is doing to you.By the way, his entire presentation supports the idea of the GC being a major erosional surface. Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

You are way out of line. I gave a simple calculation for how fast the continents would be separating if the movement began 4500 years ago and the calculation is accurate. You are raising another subject. Go start a thread if you want to discuss it.