Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities

Well I think it's too much for me, also. I just don't see these things as a problem for YEC flood models. Unless one assumes that all geology has to be accounted for by a single flood...Now if they had land, oceans, and mountains before the flood; why wouldn't there be places where new and different rock formations were created during and after the flood? Or why would the new formations not be located atop the old?In general there shouldn't be any problems, but I suppose there could be individual cases which might be somewhat puzzling. Can't say I'd be willing to accept any of the assumptions that such-and-such 'takes a long time' to form, as it's been demonstrated that most, if not all of these things need to form quickly. And if I'm right, and there really is no 'problem' at all, that's probably why it's hard to find creationists trying to tackle the non-issue.But just for example, what's wrong with an unconformity being at the grand canyon if prior to the flood there were rocks of one type, and then more were deposited on top of them? I really don't see a problem with this, and it seems to be the favorite. I believe the model I'm thinking of for the newer formations is Walter Brown's. I'm poor with names, but if I got it right, maybe someone's familiar with it.I'll readily admit we need more flood geology projects. The world has not been properly investigated yet. Myself, I'd like to see what can be found out about the pre-flood world. My hopes aren't high, as far as resources go; but there are some sharp minds involved.

Thanks for responding.One of the main features of Walter Browns model is a subsequent flood in the Grand Canyon area which would take place when trapped waters burst free. I have personally played with water and mud dams, and the shapes of the formations match up very well with my results.I know others are looking at "secondary flooding" as well. I think many, if not all of the features in question could probably be accounted for with little problem.If a discussion were restricted to a single location, I might be more inclined to participate. As it is, as soon as one is accounted for more and more will be brought in. It's how the game is played around here.For any creationist taking up the challenge, don't get suckered in to any phony flood model where there was no earth prior to the flood (flood must account for lowest rocks), or where no other local floods have ever taken place. The flood is not a simple event as evolutionist straw man models must always make it out to be. And there may have been considerable tectonic activity both during and after the flood.I'm not aware of the meteorite issue, but I know about the pole reversal thing. There's no need to call anyone a liar for not believing in them. The evidence is slim, and subject to interpretation. And there's no reasonable mechanism which would cause such an event.If anyone earnestly wants to discuss an angular unconformity which they think 'disproves' the history of the flood, they're welcome to email me: dstew8 at excite dot com. I may be slow to respond, but I'll try to help. I'm no expert, but I haven't yet found an issue in evolutionism which requires an expert to debunk.

See, this here might be fun to look into. But we have terms like "age" involved, and someone's always going to pop in and argue that the flood starts 90 million years ago, or such - just to muck things up."(both in the canyon and elsewhere)" And already here come the back-ups, as the degree of confidence in one set is low. The impression I got earlier was that any unconformity was sufficient to sink any and all flood models.That might sound hostile, but I don't intend it to be so. I'm just saying I think the case has been overstated considerably if the plan going in is to have plenty of backups. Why not just see if the worst-case example is enough? If it could be accomodated, how could easier examples be a problem?That's like me saying "I'll accept evolution as a reasonable theory as soon as you demonstrate it's reasonable (genetically, morphologically, and with proper fossils all at the proper depth and date) for each and every single species, one-at-a-time." A person could sure kill a lot of time that way, but nothing will be accomplished.

I'm not familiar with your posting habits. You seem civil enough.But I'm not inclined to get very involved just now. Earlier in the thread, the whole line was "creationists are scared to death of unconformities because they disprove the flood." Now it's more like "We think we have enough unconformities available that we hope we can find one a creationist can't explain."I'm no expert, so the odds may be in your favor that you could find one that would be too much for me. Especially working over the internet where we can't just take a finger and point to something in a picture.I seem to recall reading that these things actually make a good case for the flood, but I don't have access to my books now. I may be back later when I have more to contribute.It'd be hard for me to stay on-topic anyhow with the Grand Canyon involved. It's all I could think about for at least a couple of hours after my last visit.

Now if something like this here: APOD: 2006 May 9 - Rock Slab Growing at Mt St Helens Volcano If something like this were to happen underneath some horizontal rocks, what would the result look like?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.

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.