Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities

The best evidence for a very old earth are angular unconformities. Angular unconformities require several distinct steps each requiring significant lengths of time.1. Deposition
2. Lithification (Lithification - Wikipedia)
3. Sometimes metamorphosis
4. Tilting
5. Erosion
6. Deposition
7. Lithification
8. Tilting again on occasions.Unconformity - Wikipedia
http://perlworks.com/..._unconformity/triassic_sandstone.jpg
http://perlworks.com/...conformity/syncline_unconformity.jpgThe nice thing about unconformities is that they are common and visible in road cuts everywhere. They do not require any assumptions about decay rates, the speed of light, absorption rates, etc.What are the young earth explanations for angular unconformities?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Troxelso writes: none exist to my knowledgeOld EarthQEDEdited by anglagard, : add smiley guy

Faith has this idea that they somehow happen underground. She's got no idea how it could be possible and no significant evidence, but that doesn't prevent her from asserting that she is correct

well, they don't neccessarily prove an old earth, just that geologic column was laid down sequentially -- ie: the law of superposition.but it is distinctly hard to swallow the yec line with knowledge that each stratum was laid down independently, sequentially. and when you know that strata do not exactly form quickly... you also end up with the conclusion that geologic column represents a timeline of a portion of the history of the earth, something yec's don't like.i've never seen a yec come up with a good explanation for angular unconformities, especially the ones that involve distortions of solid rock, but then again, i've never seen a yec come with a good explanation for anything. i have seen the "flood" thing tried, but that seems to be the magic yec answer for everything.

---

You can expand angular unconformities to ANY kind of cross cutting relationship and get a problem for both a flood model and a young earth.My favorite happens to be rock strain especially with fossils. If I was at home I could look up some pictures. I remember seeing some where a fossil as BENT with the curve of the rock that was horizontally compressed. It couldn't do that unless it was PART OF the rock. If it was still some squishy flood sediment then the fossil would not have taken the shape of the compression.Erosional disconformities in general are also particular difficult for a YECer. So far I have only seen Faith respond about them and it has only been to outright deny their existence.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Oh, I've not heard of such fossils.I think that the pic of the month should be a good picture of such a thing.

I had some good pictures bookmarked a long time ago. I'll have to relocate some of them.A casual search for +fossil +strain should turn up some examples although my memory seems to indicate that I had to try a number of pages before I got past all the into to geo lecture notes that didn't have any pictures. =)

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

brachipodsThe first needs something undistorted to compare it to. deformed trilobyteThat one is much clearer. worm borrowsSome discussion but without good pictures.

Doesn't a QED deserve a little more than someone's lack of knowledge about an alternative? This sounds like a 'science of the gaps' arguement. The literalists don't currently have a good explanation for this, so we must conclude that 'nature dunit'.Or am I just misreading your post and missing the ironic parody?

Those brachiopods are actually pretty darn good examples. You are right thought that someone may need to see an example of a non-strained brachiopod fossil before they could see it clearly.I am mad that I can't find the picture I am thinking of. I took geo in 03 and had the bookmark to the pick on my university account. I remember that it was really cool because it was a vertibrae fossil IIRC.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

AIG writes: It was half in jest.The half in jest is how I have seen some YECs declare victory wihout even addressing the evidence.The half not in jest is about how I have not seen any YEC remotely able to explain angular unconformities.Should have used one of these guys to avoid confusion. Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

The correct explanation, as will be readily evident to anyone not blinded by current evo-scientific indoctrination and in full accordance with the fully substantiated flood scenario, is given by the Topple theory (first advanced by Herr Prof. Heinrich von Topple, Ph.D., who earned his geography degree from the Ken Hovand Institute of Advanced Studies). The great flood pushed the horizontal sedementary layers up into a (near) vertical position and, in some cases, displaced these verticalized beds some distance, whence they toppled over other layers creating the discontinuities we see today. All observed occurances are full explained by this mechanism.

The Topple theory goes hand in hand with the Coins in the Fountain Law which states that MVxQ over 365 explains the deposition of big,big gold nuggets (1000 ounces plus) in various levels of sedimentary strata as the fountains of the deep were turned off. Dunno if it originated at KHIAS or not.(sigh)

I am somewhat disappointed that there is no resident Young Earth geologist here to provide a different "interpretive framework". So I had to do my own digging.I have found two articles that revisit the most famous unconformity of Siccar Point - from a young earth perspective.Revisiting Hutton's Unconformities
http://biblicalgeology.net/content/view/55/9/Both seem to indicate that since the contact point is flat (at least in one image provided) and does not show "differential weathering" that the lower rock strata were eroded in a high-energy environment - i.e. global flood.One thing I noted is that both articles used the same image.At this siteNo such page | The University of EdinburghI found images like thisNo such page | The University of EdinburghWhich shows a much more differential erosion contact zone. Notice in the upper right the sandstone extending down the outside of one of the fingers. The flatness of the contact I would guess would depend dramatically on if you were looking at the contact parallel or perpendicular to the flat vertical layers. I would surely be disappointed if the above YEC articles cherry picked their images.Also both articles provide no rational short-term flood model on how this formation formed other than noting that the features indicate high-energy processes. The second article even noted that lower material was metamorphosed. However, no acknowledgement that such a process would require long periods of time but a note that metamorphoses requires water, imply that this material was saturated, by the great flood I suppose.Also the author of the second article mentions that the lower layers are folded.

quote:

---

Not only were the lower rocks deposited quickly, but they were folded while they were still soft and contained abundant water. The beds do not indicate evidence of brittle fracture. So they must have been folded while still plastic

---

The author is a mechanical engineer but ignores the well-known process of solid-state creep and the plastic deformation of brittle materials at high pressures and temperatures. Creep requires and indicates long periods of time.Also mention in the article is the presence of breccia or fragments of the base material in the overlying sandstone. This breccia extends for several feet into the younger sandstone.No such page | The University of EdinburghWould it not be reasonable to expect that this breccia is the result of the upper ends of the differential eroded parts breaking off after the upper layer deposition began? In other words the “fingers” sticking through the newly layering deposited sand would break off from weathering and the fragments would lay deposited in a mixture of sand resulting in a flatter contact appearance.From my view angular unconformities such as Siccar point disprove a young earth as powerfully as a picture of planet earth from orbit disproves a flat earth.