Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
78 online now:
dwise1, jar, Tanypteryx (3 members, 75 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,162 Year: 4,274/6,534 Month: 488/900 Week: 12/182 Day: 12/28 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities
The Matt
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 21 of 202 (418266)
08-27-2007 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 12:49 AM


Re: compelled to reply
quote:
Could it have been a relatively short intermediate period between lower formation and upper layer?

It's not impossible. Some unconformities probably do represent relatively short time gaps (though short geologically and short in the context of YEC are pretty different).
Some unconformities give us obvious signs that the area was emergent (not underwater) for quite long periods of time, such as fossil soils or palaeosols. Karstic landforms (those formed by solution of limestone exposed to the weather)can also be identified in some unconformities, as seen here.

We may be able to work out the difference in ages between the youngest rock of the lower sequence and the oldest rock of the upper one to give us an idea of how much time is missing. The rocks themselves may be dateable with radiometric methods or fossils. Unconformities are not global, so somewhere we may be able to find a sequence not broken by an unconformity, and if we can then the rocks that are missing at the unconformity but present there may give us some clues about how long they took to form, and by proxy what sort of gap the unconformity represents.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 12:49 AM Ihategod has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by bdfoster, posted 08-27-2007 4:03 PM The Matt has taken no action

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 36 of 202 (418437)
08-28-2007 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 11:22 PM


Re: .....
Yes that looks like a good overview. You might also want to have a look at this thread that I'm running. Feel free to ask any questions if something is unclear.

As for angular unconformities and whether they can form on a young earth timescale; we need the following to occur in order to get one:

-Sediment is deposited.
-Sediment turns to rock.
-Sediment is tilted and/or folded, sometimes so that bands are near vertical.
-Sediment is uplifted or sea level falls and erosion takes place.
-More sediment is deposited on top of the erosional surface.
-This new sediment turns to rock.
-In the case of the unconformities we see on the surface, erosion must take place again to expose it for us to see.

The time that it takes for each of these things to happen can vary significantly. You'd be hard pressed to produce one minor unconformity within a few thousand years, never mind the large number of ones we see from varying ages. They are particularly inconsistent with Noah's flood as the ones I mentioned in my last post show clear signs of exposure above the sea for long periods- soil formation and limestone solution take time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 11:22 PM Ihategod has taken no action

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 52 of 202 (420898)
09-10-2007 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ihategod
09-09-2007 11:21 AM


Re: They're everywhere
Since these are surfaced rock, what stops me from assuming that the entire layer isn't the same?

Please clarify- which layer?

On the bottom picture the unconformity looks like it could have occured when the road was established.

On what do you base this?

Wouldn't unconformities suggest rapid deposition due to the nature of how it is laid down?

How so? especially since we haven't yet looked at what rocks are involved in many of these unconformities.

And doesn't this deposition go against the basic principles of Geology?

No. Which ones are you thinking of and in what way are they violated?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 11:21 AM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Ihategod, posted 09-11-2007 12:58 AM The Matt has replied

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 55 of 202 (421126)
09-11-2007 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Ihategod
09-11-2007 12:58 AM


Re: They're everywhere
I'm now fairly sure that you haven't understood any of the basic principles in the slightest.

Explain how you think each of these are violated.

Edited by The Matt, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Ihategod, posted 09-11-2007 12:58 AM Ihategod has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by bdfoster, posted 09-11-2007 12:40 PM The Matt has taken no action

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 59 of 202 (421487)
09-12-2007 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:40 PM


Re: They're everywhere
Again, please explain how they do not apply. I'm still not sure you understand them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:40 PM Ihategod has taken no action

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 75 of 202 (423770)
09-24-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by CTD
09-24-2007 8:40 AM


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?

The thing is that there isn't just a single unconformity of one age that we can conveniently call the base of the flood sediments. There are tonnes of them in different locations and of different ages. If we were to call the one at the base of the grand canyon the beginning of the flood, there would then have to be explanations for how every single unconformity (both in the canyon and elsewhere) in younger strata could have formed during the flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 8:40 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by CTD, posted 09-25-2007 2:05 AM The Matt has replied

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 81 of 202 (424012)
09-25-2007 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by CTD
09-25-2007 2:05 AM


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.

Forget the numbers for now. We can work with purely relative ages if you like (A is younger than B, which is younger than C etc).

"(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.

You are dodging the issue. Your scenario in post 73 may be a possibility for explaining one unconformity, but the fact is there are many of them left unexplained by this, largely in sediments creationists believe are flood deposited. My confidence in a single example is not relevant here.

This discussion would be easier if you were to state where you think the boundaries of the flood sediment are. You mentioned the unconformity in the grand canyon as a possible lower boundary. Do you stick to this? What about the upper one?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by CTD, posted 09-25-2007 2:05 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by CTD, posted 09-25-2007 3:31 PM The Matt has replied

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 85 of 202 (424105)
09-25-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by CTD
09-25-2007 3:31 PM


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 not sure you've quite grasped my point.


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.

I'd be interested to hear this case if you can find it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by CTD, posted 09-25-2007 3:31 PM CTD has taken no action

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 90 of 202 (424467)
09-27-2007 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by CTD
09-27-2007 12:34 AM


If something like this were to happen underneath some horizontal rocks, what would the result look like?

One or more faults... Why do you ask?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by CTD, posted 09-27-2007 12:34 AM CTD has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022