|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 6229 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 6229 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Hey CTD that is one impressive rock plug - thanks for sharing it, it is pretty cool.
CTD writes: If something like this were to happen underneath some horizontal rocks, what would the result look like? Rock is largely an incompressible and brittle material. Therefore for a solid igneous rock like this to protrude into established sediments there would be lots of fracturing and material displacement. Nevertheless as pointed out below this would not form an Angular Unconformity as the rock is igneous and not sedimentary. As far as repositioning the established sedimentary rock to form a feature that would *appear* to be an Angular Unconformity is really just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. This sounds a bit like the non-evidence based theory the NJ mentioned before (actually I think the source was a prior poster here Faith). Keep in mind this theory is being posited by people that are not looking at the evidence and the data. This theory is just trying to invent some creative impossible events to make some preconceived notion somehow work. Also you would never find a YEC with a modicum of Geology knowledge promoting such a concept. Here are a few reasons of the top why this idea does not work and does not conform to the data . ..
No such page | The University of Edinburgh
CT writes: And you guys need to get down to NASA & take care of whoever let this slip out, BTW. Someone's not with the gameplan. We're supposed to have to rely on AIG for this kind of thing. Well NASA did publish that cool image but somehow I don’t think they are proposing it as some support for whacked-out theories anymore than they are planning to revert to an earth-centric cosmology. Let me just add that I think I would prefer a theory of Unconformity origin based on mischievous underground poltergeist rearranging strata just keep us busy than the one proposed ![]() Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 6184 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
Nevertheless as pointed out below this would not form an Angular Unconformity as the rock is igneous and not sedimentary. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm understanding we're just talking about sedimentary rocks atop other sedimentary rocks - other types would be classified as something else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2021 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
If something like this were to happen underneath some horizontal rocks, what would the result look like? This is an igneous rock and it depends on the depth of intrusion. I've seen things like this cutting through thin sedimentary sequences as vertical dikes in a volcanic field, but sills, parallel to bedding are also possible. Not a problem for geologists. But very interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3978 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Maybe this has been posted in this topic before, but even if, I think it worthy of more exposure.
Found via this topic at Evolution Fairytales. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1759 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Poor gullible people, seeing an abyss of time based on sheer imagination.
The breccia embedded in the upper horizontal section is proof itself that it did not form millions of years after the lower vertical strata. There had to be some kind of friction to break it off and embed it. This fits my theory, not Hutton's: all the strata were in place horizontally, and still damp and malleable from the Flood, when tectonic force pushed the lower segment upright, abrading the vertical rocks at the point where the different kinds of rock met, that being the point of least resistance, so that the whole formation was divided between the two kinds of rock. The other evidence that he was wrong is how similar the weathering is for both sections. The multiple millions of years that supposedly mark each layer show NO difference in weathering whatever. The lower rocks should be completely disintegrated, or at the very least far more decrepit than the upper. Nope, there is no evidence there for the great age of the rocks that has become dogma based only on gullible human imagination. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23122 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
You're just repeating your Siccar Point fantasy without addressing any of the impossibilities that, after all the time you've spent discussing this, you know exist. Rock doesn't form by drying, buried rock layers cannot tilt without affecting the layers above, and rocks will react to weathering according to their composition and length of exposure, with lower rocks being exposed less long than upper rocks.
--Percy Edited by Percy, : Punctuation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1172 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
The breccia embedded in the upper horizontal section is proof itself that it did not form millions of years after the lower vertical strata. There had to be some kind of friction to break it off and embed it. I don't understand your logic here. Maybe you don't know what breccia is? I can't imagine that to be the case though... Anyway, a breccia is composed of angular clasts cemented in a matrix. For example, a sedimentary breccia would be fragments of sedimentary rock cemented together with additional sedimentary deposits. These materials can have completely different sources, ie. compositions. This would imply that first sediments need to be deposited, then lithified, then broken into clasts, then more sediment deposited between the clasts, and then the entire structure lithified.
all the strata were in place horizontally, and still damp and malleable from the Flood, when tectonic force pushed the lower segment upright, abrading the vertical rocks at the point where the different kinds of rock met, that being the point of least resistance, so that the whole formation was divided between the two kinds of rock. How do "damp and malleable" formations fracture into angular clasts? And how are they then cemented into a breccia? HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2021 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The breccia embedded in the upper horizontal section is proof itself that it did not form millions of years after the lower vertical strata. There had to be some kind of friction to break it off and embed it.
Then why are the breccias found in beds at all, and why are they all above the unconformity? Why are there not fragments of the upper beds found within the lower?
This fits my theory, not Hutton's: all the strata were in place horizontally, and still damp and malleable from the Flood, when tectonic force pushed the lower segment upright, abrading the vertical rocks at the point where the different kinds of rock met, that being the point of least resistance, so that the whole formation was divided between the two kinds of rock.
In that case, if the lower beds were so ductile, why are they not deformed at the contact? They should be bent in the direction of motion, should they not?
The other evidence that he was wrong is how similar the weathering is for both sections. The multiple millions of years that supposedly mark each layer show NO difference in weathering whatever.
Actually, that is not necessary and in most places you are incorrect. Erosion at a rocky shoreline is quite rapid, easily exceeding the weathering process, so that just before the red beds were deposited the underlying rocks had only recently been eroded. And some rocks are simply more susceptible to weathering.
The lower rocks should be completely disintegrated, or at the very least far more decrepit than the upper.
Not really. We have a lot of fresh rocks exposed at the surface of the earth. Mount Rushmore is holding up quite well even though they have been around for a very long time.
Nope, there is no evidence there for the great age of the rocks that has become dogma based only on gullible human imagination.
But, in fact, some of the pictures we have shown you of the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon show weathering under the contact, and we have repeatedly referred you to paleosoils in the geological record. That they exists is not in dispute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2021 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
These materials can have completely different sources, ie. compositions. This would imply that first sediments need to be deposited, then lithified, then broken into clasts, then more sediment deposited between the clasts, and then the entire structure lithified.
Heh, heh, so much for the lower beds being ductile. Not very well thought out for YECs in this case. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1759 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You're just repeating your Siccar Point fantasy without addressing any of the impossibilities that, after all the time you've spent discussing this, you know exist. Rock doesn't form by drying, buried rock layers cannot tilt without affecting the layers above, and rocks will react to weathering according to their composition and length of exposure, with lower rocks being exposed less long than upper rocks. Addressing the impossibilities of the accepted view ought to go some way to making the point. Of course I'm repeating my theory, it's as good as or better than the establishment view which has plenty of holes in it. You've been called on your endless claim that rock doesn't form by drying, because sometimes it does. But what does that have to do with this point anyway? I've made the case many times for the tilting of lower layers affecting the upper by pushing them up and abrading the contact. The rocks were formed under water according to standard theory. That means during the Flood according to creationist thinking. They would have been stripped down to their skeletal form after the Flood receded, by the same tectonic force that tilted the lower layers, exposing them to the weathering we see at that location. It looks to me like a few thousand years of weathering of both top and bottom layers should suffice to explain what is observed there, both exposed for the same length of time. This interpretation holds together just fine. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1759 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Anyway, a breccia is composed of angular clasts cemented in a matrix. For example, a sedimentary breccia would be fragments of sedimentary rock cemented together with additional sedimentary deposits. These materials can have completely different sources, ie. compositions. This would imply that first sediments need to be deposited, then lithified, then broken into clasts, then more sediment deposited between the clasts, and then the entire structure lithified. From the pictures and comments on the rocks I gather that the breccia is made up of clasts of the lower sediment embedded in the upper. The matrix would be the upper sediment. There is no reason to assume the strata were as soft as you want to believe, just soft enough not to be brittle but solid enough to break into pieces will do it just fine. The cementing of course occurred over time after the tilting and breaking off of the pieces. That angular unconformaties are generally made up of different kinds of rock split between the two supports my argument very nicely. That there should be evidence of breakage of the tilted part as it was forced upward and along the lower surface of the upper strata also fits nicely, pieces of the lower getting stuck in the upper. the upper would have been scraped, not broken, so the pieces would be from the lower section pushed into the upper damp rock. Originally, of course, after the whole stack had been deposited by the Flood, there would have been quite a depth of layers above those that still remain, adding enormous weight to the whole that countered the tectonic pressure from below, allowing for shearing of the tilting (actually folding) lower layers.
How do "damp and malleable" formations fracture into angular clasts? And how are they then cemented into a breccia? See above. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1759 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Then why are the breccias found in beds at all, Cuz of the layering that would have contained them I would suppose
and why are they all above the unconformity? Why are there not fragments of the upper beds found within the lower? Because it was the lower strata that folded and got broken as a result of being forced upward and along the lower surface of the upper. The upper didn't break, but were rather lifted by the folding lower layers which would have scraped the sediment of the bottommost layer at the unconformity.
This fits my theory, not Hutton's: all the strata were in place horizontally, and still damp and malleable from the Flood, when tectonic force pushed the lower segment upright, abrading the vertical rocks at the point where the different kinds of rock met, that being the point of least resistance, so that the whole formation was divided between the two kinds of rock.
In that case, if the lower beds were so ductile, why are they not deformed at the contact? They should be bent in the direction of motion, should they not? I should say the lower were folded rather than tilted, but their upper surfaces would have broken off in that case too. Some pictures from that same area some distance from Siccar Point itself do show a bending of the lower layers where you can still see the fold itself, but in any case there's no need to assume a very high degree of ductility, and also, the tectonic pressure should have had the effect of hardening the rock at the same time it folded it.
The other evidence that he was wrong is how similar the weathering is for both sections. The multiple millions of years that supposedly mark each layer show NO difference in weathering whatever. Actually, that is not necessary and in most places you are incorrect. Erosion at a rocky shoreline is quite rapid, easily exceeding the weathering process, so that just before the red beds were deposited the underlying rocks had only recently been eroded. And some rocks are simply more susceptible to weathering. The observable evidence at Siccar Point is that there is no visible difference between the degree of weathering of upper and lower sections.
The lower rocks should be completely disintegrated, or at the very least far more decrepit than the upper. Not really. We have a lot of fresh rocks exposed at the surface of the earth. Mount Rushmore is holding up quite well even though they have been around for a very long time. Which to my mind is evidence for a young earth there as well as at Siccar Point, because in the enormous time spans described by standard theory the lower section of Siccar and Mt. Rushmore too, shouldn't be holding up well at all.
Nope, there is no evidence there for the great age of the rocks that has become dogma based only on gullible human imagination. But, in fact, some of the pictures we have shown you of the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon show weathering under the contact, and we have repeatedly referred you to paleosoils in the geological record. That they exists is not in dispute. Creationists have shown that what you call evidence of weathering is chemically different from what you get with weathering. Abraded sediment perhaps but not weathered rock. And I'm sorry but I don't see the relevance of paleosols.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: |
Faith msg 101 writes: just soft enough not to be brittle but solid enough to break into pieces will do it just fine. So, somewhere on the hardness and tensile strength scales, then? Any idea what the readings would be?
the tectonic pressure should have had the effect of hardening the rock at the same time it folded it. Are there some references in physics, chemistry, and geology that would explain your reasoning here?
because in the enormous time spans described by standard theory the lower section of Siccar and Mt. Rushmore too, shouldn't be holding up well at all. Why wouldn't they have held up exactly as they have? Can you show any tests that have been done and reported in the scientific literature that shows there is something odd about the lower sections of Siccar and Mt. Rushmore? There must be some evidence that you are interpreting to reach these conclusions.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23122 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Faith writes: Addressing the impossibilities of the accepted view ought to go some way to making the point. There are two problems with this response. One is that the accepted view of Siccar Point contains no impossibilities because, as was said so long ago, in geology the present is the key to the past. The accepted view of Siccar Point employs nothing more than processes we can observe taking place in the present. We know they're possible because we can see them happening. The second problem is that in a thread titled Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities you're supposed to be presenting your young Earth explanations for angular unconformities. And anyway, as has been explained to you many times, ignorant rejections are not positive evidence.
Of course I'm repeating my theory,... You don't have a theory. You don't even have a hypothesis. You have a fairy tale.
...it's as good as or better than the establishment view which has plenty of holes in it. Your fantasy is impossible.
You've been called on your endless claim that rock doesn't form by drying,... Someone misunderstood at some point that the context was sedimentary rock, which does not form by drying. Very few types of rock form by drying, and certainly not sedimentary rock. It forms by being buried under great pressure. As pressure increases unconsolidated sediments become more and more consolidated. It isn't a drying process. I invite correction if I'm wrong about this.
But what does that have to do with this point anyway? You repeated your claim that the strata were "still damp and malleable from the Flood".
I've made the case many times for the tilting of lower layers affecting the upper by pushing them up and abrading the contact. What I recall is you abandoning discussion. You've never explained how layers could tilt while leaving overlying layers unaffected. For one thing it's impossible because it requires material from the tilted layers to simply disappear.
The rocks were formed under water according to standard theory. Rocks do not form under water according to standard theory. If they did then the deep sea bottom would be rock instead of calciferous ooze.
They would have been stripped down to their skeletal form after the Flood receded, by the same tectonic force that tilted the lower layers, exposing them to the weathering we see at that location. This defies rational interpretation. "Stripped down?" "Skeletal form?" "Tectonic forces that tilted the lower layers?" It's nonsense.
It looks to me like a few thousand years of weathering of both top and bottom layers should suffice to explain what is observed there, both exposed for the same length of time. This interpretation holds together just fine. What things look like to your very uninformed eye carries no weight. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1759 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So, somewhere on the hardness and tensile strength scales, then? Any idea what the readings would be? Corse not. But I could probably show you with a lump of clay.
the tectonic pressure should have had the effect of hardening the rock at the same time it folded it.
Are there some references in physics, chemistry, and geology that would explain your reasoning here? I'm sure there are though I rely on my intuitive genius about such things, and this is really quite recognizable by anyone I would think. Oh maybe not you, but you know, most anyone. Such intense pressure on damp porous shapable stuff would force out the water enough to harden it some. Kinda obvious dontcha think?
because in the enormous time spans described by standard theory the lower section of Siccar and Mt. Rushmore too, shouldn't be holding up well at all. Why wouldn't they have held up exactly as they have? Weathering, erosion, my dear Watson, weathering, erosion, earthquakes, regular dousing by sea water in the case of Siccar Point. Nature, ya know. Visible erosion of all kinds can occur within our own lifetimes. At the rate the hoodoos in Utah are being formed by erosion they must be about a few thousand years from the original sedimentary deposition. There would be nothing left of them at all in a million years, or even twenty thousand.
Can you show any tests that have been done and reported in the scientific literature that shows there is something odd about the lower sections of Siccar and Mt. Rushmore? There must be some evidence that you are interpreting to reach these conclusions. I rather doubt there are any because the scientific establishment doesn't bother with them either; it's all imaginative speculation. Nobody has referred to any such tests on behalf of the standard interpretation of Siccar Point. Hutton certainly didn't. He pondered and he declared, based purely on his imagination. Nobody has done any tests to measure the erosion factors affecting the upper and lower parts of the formation, which show no difference in degree whatever. Also, what is the explanation for the fact that I have observed myself that so many angular unconformities occur between two different kinds of rock? Why should that be? My theory explains that, the standard theory does not. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025