Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

If I calculate the weight of the moon as if it were made of green cheese -- the calculation would be accurate, but it wouldn't mean the moon is made of green cheese.And if such calculations are off topic, stop presenting the calculations and no one will then need call you on them.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

That lack of that 'next step' is the HALLMARK of the YEC crowd. They say "it's all hypothetical and mine is a good as yours ..." except that science DOES take the next step and make predictions. If these predictions don't hold true, they have another go at it until they do hold true. Industry spends BILLIONS betting on the results of this process and here we are typing on computers. Then you failed miserably, because your calculation had NOTHING to do with what it would take to make the oceans boil. Since you haven't done those calculations, how can your answer be "No"? So now you are contradicting your immediately previous post. WTF?In your initial 'calculation' you only included speed. Then above you claim it was a calc about oceans boiling, then when called on that you go back to saying it was only about speed and not boiling.Following where you are going with this is difficult to say the least.JB

Well, that pretty well sums it up then. By your own admission, the BEST evidence that you can bring to the table to support your OP assertion is that to a completely uneducated eye, one rock doesn't *look* older than another. That's opinion, not evidence.Life is FULL of things that to the uneducated eye look different than how they actually are (heliocentricity to name one) and willfully ignoring all the concordance of evidence you want to spread the gospel of faith in Faith's eyeballs."I do not feel obligated to believe that the same god who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo.JB

The educated eye looks at more than just looks.JB

Another ignorant assertion based on nothing but Faith. Geology is a discipline honed through endless sweat and exploration. Geologist (mostly Christians) have dug, hammered, drilled, sampled, compared and tested more areas and layers of this earth than your blindness can comprehend.Companies make billion dollar bets regularly on the predictions of the well researched and documented OE model. If you make your money below ground, the YEC models are so useless that they will cost you your job (or fortune) if followed. Ask Glenn Morton and his Christian geologist friends how that works out. Read the history of the GRI (Geophysics Research Institute) and other YEC institutes and and how nearly every time they sent a bright young YEC fellow to get a Geology education, they lost them to the evidence.Predictions separate the wheat from the chaff. Evidence wins, Faith loses.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

I think your point / observation is valid. Depending on the method of exposure (fault, erosion, etc) the older rock in a cross section may have been exposed to the same amount of weathering, or more commonly less weathering than the younger rock above. Certainly as a river cuts its way down through undisturbed strata the older rock will have seen less weathering than the younger rock. Where the sea is battering and eating through an exposed cross section, it would surely follow that both layers would have seen essentially the exact same weathering as they become exposed at the same time. I'm sure there might be logical and easily explained exceptions, but at my knowledge level that would seem to be the rule.It seems from her (hard to follow) posts, that Faith thinks that the OE model would mean that the lower rock would have received millions/billions of years more weathering/battering and thus would have to "look" more weathered. As Percy points out, no weathering occurs until exposure.JB

Ok, you believe that your interpretation of "god's own revelation" from the (man tainted) bible to be the best there is of "god's own revelation". (This in spite of the fact that repeatedly, humans best interpretation of "god's own revelation" from the (man tainted) bible has turned out to be provably false while theological sticklers called what was ultimately determined to be truth the result of devil possession. I'm talking about things YOU now believe are true Faith)Edge (and Christians everywhere) believe that the best of "god's own revelation" is seen in his creation, that god is not a deceiver and that god expects us to use our senses, reason and intellect to review his creation.You ask: "What if you're wrong, edge?"So what method could we use to determine which one of you is right? I wonder if evidence and the testing of our understanding of that evidence with predictions would help us sort this out? HmmmmmEvidence wins, Faith loses.JB

Wrong about what - that evidence is the best way to learn about the world around us?When a better , more reliable, more repeatable method is discovered I will adopt it and be happy and grateful for it's discovery. That's what I'll do if I'm wrong.JB

You can say it as many times as you wish ... still won't make it true.Here is a perfect example of your conjecture and my evidence in response: Message 361Your conjecture: And the EVIDENCE which shows your conjecture to be nonsense:Due to people getting caught on the surface in summer thunderstorms, ruts abound by the end of the year. We rely on the wind and water of the winter to smooth out the surface for another year of high speed fun. What resets this surface from spiky and rough to smooth and flat? Erosion. Wind and rain do NOT continue to cut into a flat surface and unsettle it's flatness. Just the opposite is demonstrably true year after year.%%%%%%%%%%%%%So, against your conjecture, I demonstrated that the EXACT opposite is true and I gave you perfect evidence for that.You really need to just stop with the "there's no evidence" and just concede that when evidence goes against your own personal interpretation of your bronze age holy book, you go into full hands over our ears denial mode. JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

And yet billions upon billions of dollars are spent year after year following OE science all the way to the bank. That is the ULTIMATE evidence.Evidence wins, Faith loses.JB

The energy sector doesn't give three shits about destroying anyone's faith and the fact that you believe such merely emphasizes your thought process. They merely want to find the most energy for the least money. The do this through the predictions of the OE model.Evidence wins, Faith loses.JB

You really should get off a science forum with your bible crap. You have your own definition of science and by your own admission it's based on the bible.You don't get to define science - it's a mature technology.JB

You use the term "GU" (I assume that to be "Great Unconformity") here. I'm just learning about such, but does the term "GU" refer to specific instances of an uncomformity? I had thought in North America it referred to the one discovered by Powell.JB

You my friend are suffering from a severe lack of imagination. JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Those where actually El Mirage dry lake bed in California, but the exact same sequence happens on the salt flats year after year (or doesn't, according to Faith).The view of erosion is such a scale issue. Faith is making the mistake of zooming WAY in and looking at only a tiny portion of the erosion process. If one were to zoom into an extremely close view of those ruts in that lake bed during a rain, one would indeed see rivers cutting through the 'mountains' and depositing silt in the valleys. If one zooms out on earth to a satellite view, on can easily see the lake bed and the whole earth process are exactly the same.JB