Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities

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.

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.

Please clarify- which layer? On what do you base this? How so? especially since we haven't yet looked at what rocks are involved in many of these unconformities. No. Which ones are you thinking of and in what way are they violated?

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.

Again, please explain how they do not apply. I'm still not sure you understand 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.

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). 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?

I'm not sure you've quite grasped my point. I'd be interested to hear this case if you can find it.

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