I would like to point out that no one really answered the question, instead jumped on the bash-creationism-bandwagon. Really objective fella's. :confused: I've been slammed every time I remotely suppose something I feel is relative yet is deemed off topic for evolutionists. This is indeed evidence of bias.
First question: How do you know that erosion shaped the rocks? Second question: Could it have been a relatively short intermediate period between lower formation and upper layer? Third question: I viewed as many pictures as I could find yet, the only real speculative angular unconformity I saw was a drawing on wikipedia. Why isn't there better evidence?
I was perhaps vague in my last question. Why is it that the angular unconformities all seem to be relatively in conjuction with the surface. Isn't it possible that these could have happened in less than 4000 years? I haven't seen one, where I am compelled to admit that it couldn't have happened in this time frame nor does any of your links provide this. Perhaps I need more elaboration in this area.
Seismic studies show lots of unconformities in the subsurface, sometimes stacked on top of others. The oil fields around beautiful Velma, Oklahoma are a fine example. The SACROC unit 6500 feet beneath my desk is another.
Seismic studies? Let me explain something that I assumed was obvious. I don't know much more about this topic than what wikipedia and this thread has posed. Instead of jumping all over me and telling me how classic it is for a creationist to be so stupid, perhaps you should stop stroking your over-inflated egos and help me understand this topic. Please.
I desire to tear your post apart and nit pick you. I will refrain.
You didn't provide any links. Luckily others were kind enough.
I have looked over the unconformities and have come to a conclusion.
This is definitely possible in a world wide flood. First, I would like to point out that the position on angular unconformities comes from a priori knowledge and application of Steno's Principles. If I may say so this theory is super sketchy. I am unsure where he got the basis for the ideas of superposition, horizontality, continuity. So thus is the first question: What is the foundations of this principle ?
Second it's assumed that tectonic forces must have been the catalyst to forming unconformities. I don't understand why it couldn't have happened with enormous amounts of fluctuating liquid. The more water over a certain area the more "lighter" particles will drift up. With massive waves of varying oscilating degrees I don't see how this couldn't account for unconformities and different groups of layers on top of each other.
Thirdly, it seems as if while reading the rebuttals to the flood, which are extraordinary in volume, there is an assumption of conformity to the prescribed yec theories. As if by proposing a new theory it must therefore must have no unconformities or paradoxes. It isn't to say this shouldn't be held up to inquisition, rather not treated as a law of the universe whilst the theory is in infancy.
Fourthly, there would have been an enormous amount of environmental change when the flood happened. As supposing a catalyst, such as a huge ice-meteorite to cause the north american ice age and tilt of earth's axis, it's possible that what could have transpired would be at best marginal in assumption to determining the process by which our world now rests.
Furthermore, I have yet to witness a damning argument against the flood. I read this was the best evidence, yet I see surface unconformities that if I looked upon them while trekking the wilds would assume it was relatively recent erosion. I am not doubting the existince of any unconformities in the rock strata, it is that the evidence has been purely circumstantial.
Your example of the Vishnu Schist could have happened 400 years ago. How do I know it didn't? Like I eluded to in my previous post, it would be preposterous to try to claim a certain model for anything that happened in the past, unless you use something like uniformitarianism. Which isn't to say that it shouldn't be attempted* -edited- Give me a clear example of a direct questionable subject, and i'll make to my best ability a subjective hypothesis. Instead you give me loaded mysteries that I haven't the slightest care to unravel.
So you are afraid or unwilling to walk through some real life examples and show us how the Flood Model could explain what is seen.
That is as expected.
I am responding so you do not think what you asserted to be true and use it in another argument as claims of granduer against a creationist.
Even if I did provide some examples, none would be able to demonstrate what you desire.., an understanding of the flood. It would be like me asking you for a detailed description of life after the body dies.
You assume I think like you. I do not. I am much clearer in my reasoning and not weighed down by just-so stories. How is it that the layers can even be dated by this type of logic? Since life was created around the same time as the rock, the only dating should be a universal or singular date as all the rocks came into being at the same time. Just because they are layered doesn't mean that the law of superpostion applies, which is my point.
A massive amount of water from above and below, coupled with countless assumable circumstances make it EXTREMELY difficult to postulate a hypothesis on the how. This doesn't in the least make it impossible, just not dogmatic. You demand something that would be absurd at best for me to reason through. I know, you can't know either. :p
I am going to ask the obvious again. Since these are surfaced rock, what stops me from assuming that the entire layer isn't the same? On the bottom picture the unconformity looks like it could have occured when the road was established. Wouldn't unconformities suggest rapid deposition due to the nature of how it is laid down? And doesn't this deposition go against the basic principles of Geology?
Also, what geology mechanism is used to explain these unconformities?
Edited by Highestevolvedwhiteguy, : No reason given.
It may be that Vashgun is saying, angular conformities were formed in the deluge. They have horizontal sediment overlyling tilted sediment. Therefore superposition and original horizontality must be false. If they were true it would violate his logical premise, that angular conformities were formed in the deluge.
Im not saying throw the los and lot out, it just looks like those principles don't apply to unconformities. The only thing that violates my logical premise, is your saying there is a dichotomy between the laws and what my eyeballs are seeing.
To assume otherwise, that the sediments were originally deposited at their present inclination, betrays an unwillingness to accept the obvious and proper interpretation of angualar unconformities: that flood geology is absolutely impossible.
Yes, it is so obvious. :rolleyes: How do angular unconformities occur? Has anyone ever seen an angular unconformity result? Why is it unreasonable and hence impossible to interpret angular unconformities as a result of flood geology?