Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 2:41 PM
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,789 Year: 11,825/19,786 Month: 1,606/2,641 Week: 115/708 Day: 49/66 Hour: 3/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 19 of 202 (418224)
08-27-2007 12:49 AM


compelled to reply
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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconformity

If this is the best evidence, I'd find a new theory.


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by iceage, posted 08-27-2007 2:14 AM Ihategod has responded
 Message 21 by The Matt, posted 08-27-2007 9:22 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 22 of 202 (418267)
08-27-2007 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by iceage
08-27-2007 2:14 AM


Re: compelled to reply
Thanks for the reply,

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iceage, posted 08-27-2007 2:14 AM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:08 AM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Coragyps, posted 08-27-2007 2:39 PM Ihategod has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 26 of 202 (418389)
08-27-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Coragyps
08-27-2007 2:39 PM


......
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.

Like..., providing links instead of hearsay.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Coragyps, posted 08-27-2007 2:39 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:15 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 35 by iceage, posted 08-28-2007 12:04 AM Ihategod has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 28 of 202 (418391)
08-27-2007 11:22 PM


.....
Another question.

http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/historical_lab/relativedating.htm

Is this a good overview?


Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-27-2007 11:32 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 36 by The Matt, posted 08-28-2007 5:02 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 29 of 202 (418393)
08-27-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
08-27-2007 11:15 PM


Re: ......
Lets see,

a lot of water.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:15 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:29 PM Ihategod has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 32 of 202 (418398)
08-27-2007 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
08-27-2007 11:29 PM


Re: Great Unconformity.
My first reaction is to say no, but that's just for the sake of arguing. So I'll say yes to traverse further down this rabbit trail in the hopes of learning something.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:29 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:54 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 38 of 202 (418718)
08-29-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by iceage
08-28-2007 12:04 AM


Re: Learn more
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by iceage, posted 08-28-2007 12:04 AM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-29-2007 11:38 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 42 by iceage, posted 08-30-2007 2:12 AM Ihategod has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 40 of 202 (418725)
08-29-2007 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
08-29-2007 11:38 PM


Re: Learn more
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.

Edited by Vashgun, : oops


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-29-2007 11:38 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 08-29-2007 11:51 PM Ihategod has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 43 of 202 (418893)
08-30-2007 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
08-29-2007 11:51 PM


Re: Learn more
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 08-29-2007 11:51 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 08-30-2007 11:57 PM Ihategod has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 44 of 202 (418894)
08-30-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by iceage
08-30-2007 2:12 AM


Re: Angular Unformities are Not Circumstantial
No reason to break this apart.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by iceage, posted 08-30-2007 2:12 AM iceage has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 46 of 202 (418896)
08-31-2007 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
08-30-2007 11:57 PM


Re: Learn more
Again,

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 08-30-2007 11:57 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 08-31-2007 12:22 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 51 of 202 (420742)
09-09-2007 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by bdfoster
09-07-2007 12:51 PM


Re: They're everywhere
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by bdfoster, posted 09-07-2007 12:51 PM bdfoster has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by The Matt, posted 09-10-2007 5:10 AM Ihategod has responded
 Message 53 by bdfoster, posted 09-10-2007 12:26 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 54 of 202 (421105)
09-11-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by The Matt
09-10-2007 5:10 AM


Re: They're everywhere
Please clarify- which layer?

pick one.

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

On what do you base this?

The fact...THAT THERE IS A ROAD THERE! sheesh.

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.

How, because it goes against the LoS, original horizion, original lateral.

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

LoS, original horizion, original lateral.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by The Matt, posted 09-10-2007 5:10 AM The Matt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by The Matt, posted 09-11-2007 3:26 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 58 of 202 (421447)
09-12-2007 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by bdfoster
09-11-2007 12:40 PM


Re: They're everywhere
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by bdfoster, posted 09-11-2007 12:40 PM bdfoster has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by The Matt, posted 09-12-2007 9:19 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2007 9:39 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 61 by bdfoster, posted 09-13-2007 11:23 AM Ihategod has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 62 of 202 (422144)
09-16-2007 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by bdfoster
09-13-2007 11:23 AM


Re: They're everywhere
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by bdfoster, posted 09-13-2007 11:23 AM bdfoster has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Nuggin, posted 09-16-2007 4:17 AM Ihategod has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019